Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to extend—no, what I am going to do is move for a suspension of standing orders so as to allow Senator Lambie from the 'Lambie United Party' and Senator Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party to explain their about-face in supporting the previous suspension of standing orders—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bernardi, if I could interrupt you there, there would be an ordinary right under a contingency motion for you to do that, but we are now under the suspension of standing orders by a resolution of the Senate. I will not entertain a further suspension of standing orders of this nature.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it possible then, Mr President—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking a point of clarification?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am. Is it possible then for me to seek leave that would allow Senator Lambie and Senator Muir—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can seek leave, Senator Bernardi, to undertake anything. It is whether leave will be granted that is the issue. Are you seeking leave?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave that five minutes be allowed for Senator Lambie and a further five minutes for Senator Muir to explain their positions because they were denied the ability to do so due to the lapse of time under the previous debate.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This does not help. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Again, I will not entertain a suspension of standing orders of that nature.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business today may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business till determined.

We have now heard considerable debate about the substantive motion. People have talked about why they disagreed with the substantive motion.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President, I did not quite catch which motion Senator Moore was moving.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, if I can clarify: Senator Moore has moved a motion that the Senate gives precedence to a future motion that Senator Moore wishes to move in relation to the order of business today. The suspension of standing orders has allowed that to take place.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As clarification for the chamber, this allows the possibility for senators to have a discussion on this particular motion. Rather than having more points of order from the other side, we are now in a debate on this particular motion. In terms of the process, I have always said that, when we are having debates on procedural motions, they should be as tight as possible to allow the procedure to be decided and then move on to the core issue. We have moved this motion today to ensure that we have debate in this chamber around the FoFA regulations. That is our intent and that is why we have moved the suspension of standing orders and why we wish to move our hours motion.

In that process it seems to me that what we should be doing is looking specifically at now voting on that decision to see what the will of the Senate is. We are asking for no more than what the standing orders allow: that senators have the ability to move in this chamber to determine what should happen in this chamber. Then there is a vote and the Senate can determine what will occur. We believe it is entirely appropriate to allow for the will of the Senate to determine what will be debated in the Senate.

This is not overtaking the right of the government to set a pattern. In fact, we see that all the time. The reds are produced every day. Most times the reds are produced and immediately changed. But, nonetheless, in terms of what happens what we are doing today is by no means taking away from the right of the government to put forward their pattern of debate. The reason we have come today with an urgency to consider the FoFA regulations is that we believe they are urgent. We believe that the evidence before the Senate—particularly before the recent Senate inquiry—is so urgent. The content of the evidence that was heard is harrowing, it is distressing and we have a right in this place to consider the FoFA regulations, which we believe will respond in some way to allow there to be effective scrutiny in this process.

There will be every opportunity in the future for the appropriate legislation to come forward—which we believe should have come forward earlier so that we would be debating the core legislation—but nonetheless what happened is that the government brought forward a series of regulations that were supposed to be there to offer protection. We do not believe they do. We believe that it is important that we have the opportunity in the Senate to test whether the Senate believes that those regulations are the way we wish to proceed.

Should this motion succeed, there will be ample opportunity for the Senate to put forward all the arguments about why the regulations should stay or be overruled. From the government's side and from this side of the chamber, that will be the real chance in our time—in the Senate's time—to discuss the core aspects of the regulations and to put forward the arguments on which the Senate can then vote and make the Senate's decision.

In terms of the process, I will not be making a long speech at this stage even though the standing orders say that I can. I will urge the Senate to consider moving and agreeing with the proposal that we have circulated and which gives this Senate the opportunity to consider the FoFA regulations and to make a decision on them.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not about proper process. This is about putting a gun to the head of the Senate and a gun to the head of a very important industry for Australia and for Australians. The Labor Party in government introduced changes to our financial advice laws which went well beyond what was recommended by the bipartisan committee chaired by Bernie Ripoll. Where it went beyond what was recommended by that committee, it was at the behest of the industry fund movement in pursuit of their base commercial interests. Of course, the cost of implementation of those changes was conservatively estimated at $750 million up-front and $375 million in additional costs ongoing to implement the additional compliance burden that Labor imposed through its legislation.

Labor in government had this process called a regulatory impact statement, where there ought to be a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that any additional regulatory burden is proportionate in terms of the cost it imposes and the additional benefit it delivers to consumers. Of course, the previous government gave themselves an exemption from that process. The previous government never assessed the cost benefit of that particular legislative change, because they knew it would fail. They knew they went beyond what was reasonable. They knew they went beyond what was sensible. They knew that they were imposing costs on families across Australia saving for their retirement and managing financial risks through life. They were imposing costs on them that were not appropriate. Every time you impose an additional bit of red tape it does come at a cost. Our objective as policymakers ought to be that we get the balance right, with appropriate levels of consumer protection, by making sure that access to high-quality advice remains affordable for all Australians. We need to ensure that we have a robust but efficient regulatory system in place.

Senator Dastyari talked about victims of bad financial advice. He talked about some instances in the past where people were hurt by bad financial advice. That is terrible. Whenever something bad happens, it is very important for us as policymakers to take a step back, consider what happened and why and consider how the policy framework can be improved, but we need to ensure that whatever change we impose makes things better and not just more complex and more costly, or reduces competition, which of course is important for consumers in the final analysis.

The changes that Labor made to our financial advice laws went too far. To the extent they went too far, they imposed additional costs that were not necessary, they lessened competition and they never went through a proper process to assess their impact. We went to the last election very openly and transparently putting out there for all to see what our policy would be to improve those financial advice laws. We said very openly and transparently we would keep the good bits and get rid of the bad bits. That is something that we have supported all the way through. The good bit was that, as a result of the Ripoll inquiry, this parliament introduced a statutory requirement for financial advisers to act in the best interests of their client. That statutory requirement remains. It remains after our changes. We also supported—and this remains in place—a ban on conflicted remuneration for financial advisers, because we agree that it is not appropriate that remuneration arrangements should conflict with the advice that is given.

However, what we did say is that we did not think it was appropriate to force people across Australia saving for their retirement to re-sign contracts with their advisers on a regular basis. That is not something that was recommended by the Ripoll inquiry. Out of 400-plus submissions to the Ripoll inquiry there was only one submission that recommended this change. Guess who recommended that change out of more than 400 submissions? It was the Industry Super Fund Association—the Industry Super Network, as it was then. It was the only submission out of more than 400 that recommended that particular change. The Ripoll inquiry did not pick it up. But guess who picked it up? The then minister, Bill Shorten. Why did he pick it up? Because wherever he had the opportunity he was acting at the behest of the best interests of the union movement. He was advancing the commercial interests of the union movement. The Labor Party over the last four months has been working flat out to help protect the vested commercial interests of the union movement. That is what this is all about.

We are talking here about a time management motion of sorts. We are talking about a change to the order of business today which has the effect of conclusively dealing with this disallowance today. The first we heard of this was at seven o'clock last night. This is actually a very significant industry for Australia. This is an industry which is one of the largest employers across Australia. This is an industry which is very important nationally. Of course, here we are, within 24 hours—without any notice whatsoever, without any sort of debate—changing the law of the land. Whatever you think of the substance of the changes, there is actually no need to deal with this today, because under the ordinary processes of the Senate this disallowance motion can be resolved by 27 November—that is, Thursday next week. So there is actually time to deal with this in an orderly and methodical fashion.

We have to remember that this is an issue that has come before the Senate twice before over the last 12 months. The Senate has voted twice in support of those improvements to our financial advice laws. The Senate has voted twice over the last 12 months in support of these laws, so small business financial advisers across Australia and their clients had the reasonable expectation that this was the law of the land and that it would stand and that the $190 million a year in savings, which reduce the cost of accessing financial advice for clients across Australia—that those changes would stand. To come into this chamber with an ambush today and say we now have to conclusively deal with this today so that the effect is that these changes that have been the law of the land for the last four months have been abolished is quite reckless and quite irresponsible, particularly because the opportunity is there to press the pause button and to have another conversation between now and next Thursday to see what else can be agreed.

I would have thought that that is a sensible way to go. I would just invite the Labor Party to reflect on this, because the Labor Party rushed some of these legislative changes through when they were in government. They have acknowledged since then that some of this stuff was actually not all that well drafted. There were some serious technical issues which were addressed in the regulations that came into effect on 1 July this year, in particular in relation to grandfathering arrangements. The changes that we have made in our regulations address that. Of course, the Labor Party in the past he said that, yes, that needed to be addressed. So the government has made improvements to the FoFA grandfathering provisions to address unintended consequences and to facilitate competition in the financial advice industry by enabling advisers to move licensees with their clients whilst continuing to receive grandfathered remuneration. The Labor Party said that that was something that needed to be done.

If the course of action that has been set in train by various crossbenchers, the Labor Party and the Greens today goes to its conclusion, as it currently looks like today, then all of these changes, all of these fixes of issues, disappear. And without any notice whatsoever. We have to be very clear on those consequences.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down and let's talk about it.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would be sensible and I think it would be responsible—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down and let's talk about it—actually have a debate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we are talking about it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, this is—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be sensible not to proceed with this, what is effectively a time management motion, because it is a motion which seeks to deal with this issue conclusively today. What I am saying is that that is very reckless and very irresponsible. Senator Xenophon will not mind me saying that he has indicated to me that he has consistently been opposed to this particular change.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I do not think that Senator Xenophon can hear my contribution, Mr Acting Deputy President, because there is a bit of noise in the aisles. I think Senator Xenophon will not mind me saying that he has indicated to me that he has been consistently opposed to the improvements we have made to our financial advice laws.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Cormann has fundamentally misrepresented what I have said. He has said I have been opposed—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that the minister is verballing me by saying that I have been consistently opposed to 'improvements' in financial advice laws. I never said the word 'improvement', so I have been verballed. I would be grateful if he would withdraw that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, resume your seat. That is a debating point; it is not a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly did not intend to verbal Senator Xenophon. I readily concede that the characterisation of our changes as improvements is my characterisation and that Senator Xenophon has consistently indicated to me that he was not supportive of those changes. But, be that as it may, from a process point of view, the Senate has voted on these changes—what we would say are improvements—twice now over the last 12 months. There is a reasonable expectation out in the marketplace across the financial services industry and across those saving for their retirement that this is the law of the land. Senator Xenophon then indicates to me, 'Well, after this is voted down we can then have a conversation how we can put together a better package.' The problem is that this puts the industry in a terrible position, because it makes them essentially noncompliant with the law as of whenever this passes.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's get on with it!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what I am suggesting we should not do. We should not get on with it today because, remember, the Labor changes, which we have effectively amended and improved as a result of our regulations, imposed $750 million in additional costs up front on the financial services industry, which ultimately have to be carried by people across Australia saving for their retirement. It imposed $375 million in ongoing additional compliance costs, which ultimately have to be carried by people across Australia saving for their retirement and managing their investments. Of course, if we now pass this regulation today, that is the law that comes back into effect, and all these institutions across Australia will have to scramble, in some chaos and facing unnecessary uncertainty while we are trying to work something out over the next week or so, to comply with a law that we are already saying we want to amend.

It would be much more sensible, given that this particular disallowance motion does not have to be dealt with until 27 November and will remain on the Notice Paper until 27 November, to have those conversations now—that is what I would say to Senator Xenophon—than to impose chaos and uncertainty on an important industry, to force them into a position to comply with a law which should not be the law of the land, which forces them, essentially, to incur expenses which they should not have to incur, given that the Senate is—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have got some expenses—people lose their homes!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the big deceit.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about priorities?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection. This goes to the heart of the deceit that the Labor Party are perpetuating on the Australian people. They are suggesting that, because somebody loses some money, imposing additional red tape will necessarily help prevent that.

Honourable senators interjecting —

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is actually not true. That is actually not true! The Storm Financial collapse—and I know that Senator Macdonald took a very close interest in this—would not have been prevented by the imposition by Mr Shorten of a requirement to keep re-signing contracts. The clients of Storm Financial, for better or for worse, had signed all the paperwork you needed to sign. They kept re-signing paperwork all of the time. The fee arrangements were very transparent. That was not the problem. The problem was that they were being badly advised. They were not given advice that was appropriate to their circumstances. Of course, these are all things that have been addressed and will continue to be addressed as a result of the sensible recommendations that came out of the Ripoll inquiry.

The debate we are having here is really a debate at the margins, but it is a debate at the margins about something that is imposing significant additional costs on people across Australia saving for their retirements. I would say to the Senate that, if there is now a majority in the Senate that is inclined to revisit the previous two votes, there is a more sensible way to go about it than the way that is now being proposed today. It is not sensible to ram this through today without any proper notice to an important industry across Australia. This is not the sensible way to go. If the Labor Party were interested in doing things in a responsible way and in the public interest, rather than trying to ram something through while they think they might be able to hold a coalition of votes together, then they would allow this to be dealt with in a more orderly and methodical fashion between now and next Thursday.

I very strongly urge the Senate to very carefully consider what we are doing here. We are putting very important institutions, very important businesses, very important consumers—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And donors to the Liberal Party.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has got nothing to do with donors to the Liberal Party, Senator Cameron. This has got nothing to do—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know what it is about.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you very clearly that our only motivation here is the public interest. Let me tell you something that has always been true and that will always be true. The people that like red tape are the bigger businesses because they actually can deal with it. The big banks do not mind red tape. The big banks have got the capacity to deal with it and to work around it. It is the smaller businesses that struggle with additional red tape. It creates a barrier to entry; it creates increases in concentration; it creates a lessening of competition—all things that are against the public interest.

The public interest is to ensure that we have a financial services system which is as efficient, as transparent and as competitive as possible, which has high corporate governance standards, which has high professional standards and where people across Australia can have access to high-quality advice that they can trust but which is also affordable. If we continue to add more and more burdens that only add marginal additional consumer protection benefit, then we are forcing people to pay more for their advice then they should have to. We are forcing them to accept lower retirement savings and lower retirement income ultimately than they should be able to achieve if we had a more sensible arrangement.

I am disappointed that it has come to this point because the government did negotiate an agreement with the Palmer United Party and the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party. We did agree to a whole range of changes as part of that process, changes that we have given effect to in amendments to the substantive legislation which has already been circulated and which indeed has already been assessed for a second time now by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Indeed, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee has conducted two inquiries into this legislation. Both of those inquiries have recommended its passage.

I would say specifically in relation to Senator Muir that, as part of the negotiations with the Palmer United Party and the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, Senator Muir said that for him to support our improvements he needed the government to progress implementation of a public register of financial advisers to provide more transparent information about the credentials and the status of financial advisers in the industry—who they work for, what their qualifications are, what their relevant past history is and so on. The government has delivered on all those commitments 100 per cent. We have delivered 100 per cent on every part of the agreement that we have committed to.

On that basis the Palmer United Party, including Senator Lambie, and also Senator Muir, on behalf of the Motoring Enthusiasts Party, agreed to vote against any disallowance and to support our FoFA legislation as amended to give effect to the additional measures in the letter to Mr Palmer as representing the Palmer United Party and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party in that negotiation.

It is very disappointing for the government in those circumstances. We understand that now good public policy is getting caught up in internal party infighting.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good public policy?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're ripping people off!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good public policy is, sadly, now getting caught up in political infighting inside the Palmer United Party. That is disappointing. It is disappointing for people across Australia, who deserve better—people across Australia who are saving for their retirements, managing financial risks through life and deserve access to a robust but efficient regulatory system which is competitively neutral and which will provide access to high-quality advice in a way that is also affordable.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question now be put.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question now be put.

The question now is that the motion to grant precedence be agreed to.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That on Wednesday, 19 November 2014:

(1) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;

(2) Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 set down for 27 November 2014, relating to the disallowance of the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining Future of Financial Advice) Regulations 2014 shall be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined;

(3) the routine of business shall be as follows:

(a) the item listed in paragraph (2), followed by Government Business only,

(b) At 2 pm, questions

(c) Motions to take note of answers

(d) the item listed in paragraph (2)

(e) Notices of motions

(f) Formal motions— Discovery of formal business

(g) Consideration of documents under the provisions of the temporary orders

(h) Government business only;

(4) The adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.20 pm unless consideration of the item listed in paragraph (2) has not concluded, in which case the adjournment shall be proposed following the determination of that item.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the motion, but I want to indicate right now that I will later on move an amendment to the motion: to delete subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph (3); because—although I do not believe it—if those from the other side who spoke about how urgent this is and how it should not be dealt with today are serious, then one would think it should take precedence over question time, motions to take answers and perhaps the other matters as well. But I am not going to deal with them. I am going to move that amendment just to test how genuine the Labor Party and the Greens are on the particular urgency of this motion. I cannot help but be persuaded by, and therefore repeat, the issues raised by Senator Cormann in a previous debate—and that is, as I understand it, that this matter has been dealt with by the Senate on two occasions.

There were some refinements required. Senator Cormann had an arrangement with senators, including Senator Muir and Senator Lambie. I think the arrangement was actually even in writing. They had a written agreement that, if Senator Cormann made certain refinements, they would support the position and the approach taken by Senator Cormann. That of course brings in to question just what the written commitment of Senator Lambie and Senator Muir might be. I hope Senator Lambie will take part in this debate. I hope Senator Muir will take part in the debate too, and I hope he might indicate why his written agreement, his written commitment, is no longer valid. From what I have seen in the media, there does not seem to be any reason at all except a bit of an internal miff.

What the Palmer United Party does is of no consequence to me except, I might add, when they waste the time of this Senate inquiring into another sovereign government in Australia and set up a committee that is so outrageously undemocratic that I cannot believe it. I still pinch myself to think that the Labor Party could have ever voted for this, because the Labor Party should know better than anyone that what goes around comes around.

Labor has set a horrible precedent with the Palmer United Party on that Queensland inquiry, not so much the inquiry but the committee. There are 33 government senators and the government got one vote on that committee. There are 25 Labor senators and Labor got two votes. There are three PUP senators and they got the same as the government, which got only one vote. I have digressed. I should get back to the motion before the chair. We do want to see just how genuine the Labor Party is on the urgency of this.

As Senator Cormann explained—and should have convinced any reasonably open senator: if there is a need to relook at this, and I do not think there is, you do not do it on a midnight phone call the night before saying that the previous written commitment I gave you is now no longer valid. This is a huge industry in Australia, as Senator Cormann has pointed out. It is one of the biggest employers in Australia, as Senator Cormann has pointed out. If this substantive motion is passed, we are going to be leaving the whole industry and all of the clients and all of the people who rely on the advice and the activities in that industry in limbo.

Even if it were obvious that some change had to be made then you do not do it on the floor of the chamber in a hurry without the opportunity for everyone to get good, complete and accurate advice on what should be done; how the arrangement should be recorded; and what motions or indeed legislation or regulation need to be properly drafted to take into account these new things. You do not do that by this gunshot approach to legislation. It seems inappropriate that we should be diverting a day of other urgent government business to dealing with this issue, which, important as it is, cannot be dealt with sensibly in the manner in which it is being proposed.

I refer to the motion before the chair which says in paragraph 1 'the hours of the meeting should be from 09.30 to adjournment' and sets out the disallowance of the substantive issue here. It then deals with the routine of business. This is where the Labor Party, the Greens and some of the crossbenchers are taking the management of this chamber out of the hands of the government. Even in the darkest days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, in a time when the opposition often could have thwarted the business of the government, one of the rules we lived by was that Labor were the government and Labor should set the agenda. If the opposition needed to do business, there was a day set aside by the standing orders and by tradition for the opposition to do that. But we always accepted that the government, even though it was not in a majority—as is the case now and was in the Gillard years—should at least set the agenda. The parties could then exercise their right to vote on that agenda as they would.

So what this motion before the chair does is take away from the government its ability to get its legislative program before the Senate. Again, I steal from Senator Cormann's comments or was it Senator Fifield, who said that in a couple of weeks times we will have all of these pious speeches by the Labor Party saying the government cannot manage the program and we are rushing things through. I remember the sort of rhetoric that they will be on about, yet here is the government trying to manage a program.

There are a number of bills to be considered today: the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013, the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 and the very important Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. These were the bills that were to be determined. As well as that, in the normal course of the Senate and by decision of the Senate, many senators will also be dealing with other Senate committee work. How can we be doing other Senate committee work when we should be in the chamber discussing this very important issue of the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014?

I do not know what is going to happen now to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which was going to meet at the request of the Labor Party. As chairman of that committee, I was quite happy to do that. I believe this chamber and this parliament only works if people understand the seriousness of what they do. You have to have a little bit of give and take. On an inquiry into a bill where we had the department appearing but ran out of time—because, quite frankly, there are so many inquiries, particularly for my committee, that we are struggling to find days where we can get a quorum to meet—the Labor Party wanted to have an hour or so extra with the department. I was very happy to facilitate that; I did not have to. I remind people that we do have a majority on that committee and we could have said 'No, that's finished'. I always try to assist the Labor Party in their proper requirements and their proper obligations. They have an obligation to inquire into legislation. They wanted this extra time, and I agreed to it. We set it down for some time later today, but, at the rate this is going, I am not going to be there as chairman, and I guess there will not be a quorum because we will be in here debating this motion and, if it is passed, the substantive issue before the chair.

I say to my Labor friends: 'Don't come to me complaining that the committee is not going to meet at midday today.' I wanted to do that and my colleagues on the committee were happy to go along with that, because we understood the Labor Party needed to inquire into that particular piece of legislation. I am sorry, but I, the government generally across the board, other committee chairs and the leadership in this place bend over backwards to try and allow the opposition to do what they have to do. We do that, I might say, even with the Greens political party and certainly the crossbenchers, because that is the only way this chamber will work: if you have a bit of give and a bit of take. Instead of going to that committee meeting at midday, I will probably still be in here debating this, as I guess my colleagues will be, and then we cannot meet because there will not be a quorum. At the rate we are going, we will all still be here at five o'clock tonight—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Poor Senator O'Sullivan is stressed by the pressures! I am being cynical. At five o'clock tonight we are supposed to be having a meeting of the farcical Palmer initiated inquiry into the sovereign government of Queensland. At the rate we are going, we will still be here debating this motion when we should be at that committee. I might say that the chairmanship of that committee is such that, I suspect, those niceties will go completely over the head of the chairman. Pausing here, I dislike very much having to take this approach to that committee and its chairman, but as I have said to the chairman, 'You got yourself into this.' It is the most undemocratic committee I have ever experienced in my long time in this parliament. It was a committee set up by Mr Palmer and supported by the Labor Party. I would expect that the Greens would support it. They will do anything capricious, anything they think might in some way hurt the government. I understand the Greens, but I simply cannot understand why the Labor Party supported that.

I remember when that motion first came up, the Labor Party sensibly opposed it. I understand Mr Shorten was opposed to it. I know for certain that the Queensland Labor Party leader, Annastacia Palaszczuk, is not interested in it at all. She well remembers that the Labor Party ran a campaign before the last Queensland election which suggested that Mr—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I know that the debates in this place are wide ranging, but I have noticed that Senator Lambie has been called up on her submissions to this chamber on a number of occasions recently. This is really diverting from the issue before the chair and I think Senator Macdonald should be brought back to the issue.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I remind Senator Macdonald of the matter before the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For once, Senator Cameron is right. I did get a little carried away as I usually do when I think about the farcical committee that the Labor Party has helped the Palmer party set up. With Mr Palmer as one of Australia's would-be biggest mining magnates in coal, I cannot believe that the Greens seem to be lockstep with him on this inquiry as well as on the Victorian state election preference deal. Here are the Greens, anti-coalmining—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Cameron. Do not rise on a point of order. I will move on. The influence that Senator Cameron has: he only has to stand. I wish he had had the same influence with my namesake, Ian Macdonald, in New South Wales, whom I know from reading history that Senator Cameron strongly supported many times.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back to the topic, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back to the topic. The point I am making is that this chamber only works if there is give and take—if people understand where everyone is going but allow things to move. If this motion is passed, the committee on the Clive Palmer inquiry into the Newman government, which was scheduled to meet at five o'clock tonight, may not be able to proceed. That would be a shame, although I am not quite sure what the purpose of that meeting is tonight. It is supposedly setting a witness list for two days hence, and of course nobody knows who the proposed witnesses are, because to disclose that would be a disclosure of the private business of the committee. So it is not the secretariat. The senator would have told the prospective witnesses that they were going to be called on Friday, so they are not going to know about it, and I do not understand how they are going to get there to give evidence with less than a day's notice. I only mention that to say: unless you do the give and take across the board and do not set up stupid arrangements, like the Clive Palmer inquiry into Queensland or the motion before us now, this chamber simply will not work.

I notice paragraph (4) of this particular motion says that the Senate will sit until it is dealt with. We have heard it is a very, very important piece of government legislation or regulation. It is something that, if it is going to be changed holus-bolus or even substantially, it needs a lot of discussion. I imagine that the discussion today will continue into the early hours of the morning and perhaps even into tomorrow.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said 'good'?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dastyari.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Dastyari!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjection.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does mean that the replacement estimates day, which was on tomorrow, is not going to happen. If this motion to vary business is passed, we will still be dealing with the disallowance motion on the corporations amendment regulations tomorrow, so we will not be having estimates hearings. Clearly, the Labor Party have been influenced by one or two of their members to give this priority over the estimates process and the estimates hearings scheduled for tomorrow. They will not happen if we are still debating this motion tomorrow, and I suspect we will be because it is a very, very important issue and we have to get the understanding of senators who have changed their minds about their written undertakings, such as Senator Muir and Senator Lambie. So I suspect this will go on a long time. As for what is going to happen with the estimates committees, who knows? But, see, we try to accommodate the Labor Party, we do the right thing, we try to make this place work and then we are confronted with the sort of stupidity that is before us now.

Mr President, I move my amendment to the motion:

That paragraphs (3)(b) and (3)(c) of the motion be omitted.

I want to put the Labor Party to the test: how serious are you about dealing with this disallowance motion? If you are really serious about it, you will forgo question time and motions to take note of answers and you will get on with what I know will be a very lengthy debate because you cannot change this sort of legislative approach on the chamber floor over the period of time—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on my left!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

See, this is how the debate is going to go—shouted down by members of the opposition, trying to intimidate. You are not at a union meeting now— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this motion because it will disrupt a very important function of the Senate. On Wednesdays, we have an opportunity to give senators' statements, as they are now known. There is an hour and a quarter in which we are able to make explanations of circumstances that have taken place or to represent things on behalf of our constituents. Today in that senators' statements debate—and it is for a slightly selfish reason—I wanted to thank a member of the Labor Party, which I will be unable to do if this motion to vary business is passed.

The reason for my thanking a member of the Labor Party relates to my belief that I was subject to a grave injustice last week, when some things that I questioned during a Senate committee inquiry were grossly misrepresented and, I would say, in a defamatory manner—and which were not supported by any of the Hansards available—suggesting that somehow I condone domestic violence. It was a grotesque slur. Of course, it was allowed to ride by those in the Greens party, who knew it was not true. It was also fuelled by people like Tim Watts MP. Now, I did not even know there was an MP called Tim Watts. But, apparently, he is on Twitter, using vile and disgusting language, making all sorts of allegations and accusations. I looked him up and I saw some bloke who has more product in his hair than Vidal Sassoon. He was making all of these sorts of allegations without even having been there. It was disgusting. It was grotesque. This is a bloke who is seeking to make some sort of name for himself via Twitter, by appealing to the twitterati, or whatever they call themselves.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order: it is similar to the point of order that I raised during Senator Macdonald's recent contribution. In putting this point of order, I indicate that Senator Bernardi was in the chair when he made Senator Lambie sit down when she spoke on these issues, and I think it is—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not need that in your point of order—but thank you, Senator Cameron. You have raised a point of order. Senator Bernardi, you started this contribution by indicating that your contribution on a matter later today would be affected if this motion were passed, and that was in order and was relevant, but you have now delved into the substantive nature of another debate. So, Senator Bernardi, I draw you back to the matter before the chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just highlighting how grave injustices can be done when we truncate or alter important items of business that are on the agenda. The point that I made before was that altering the order of business today would deny me the opportunity to extend a gracious thankyou to Senator Claire Moore of the Labor Party—indeed, the mover of this motion. Senator Moore, you are in some ways denying yourself rightful—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore is denying herself rightful praise that she well deserves for standing up to the progressive juggernaut that sought to decapitate a Conservative senator—because Senator Moore, to her great credit, said to The Sydney Morning Herald that what was represented in the News Corp papers and what had been perpetuated by people like Senator Waters and this unknown MP, Tim Watts, was a load of baloney, it was not what Bernardi had said or represented and there was no way he was condoning that.

If this motion to vary business is passed, I will be denied my right and, I think, my moral obligation to say on the public record a gracious and sincere thankyou to Senator Claire Moore for her defence of me, someone who is not politically aligned with her on virtually anything, I would say, and Senator Moore may concur with that. It says to me that there are decent people in this place who are prepared to honour righteousness, truth and justice, rather than just seek to claim a political scalp. I think that is manifestly unfair, and I think that Senator Moore probably did not recognise or understand just how fulsome my recognition of her graciousness was going to be.

I know that Senator Moore is not a person whose ego needs to be fuelled somehow, and so she probably would not have stopped moving this motion today simply to receive praise and acclaim, because she is not fuelled by that. But I do think it is important for the Australian people to have the opportunity to hear that there are chances and times when senators do the right thing in the face of hostilities from some of their natural supporters.

I would have loved to have elaborated a lot more today, Mr President—which I will be denied doing if this motion is successful—about this Mr Watts MP. He is a chap who—as I said, I do not know who he is; I had to google him to find out! I do not know how long he has even been in the parliament. I have seen some photos of him and I have seen some of the vile slurs that he has put out on Twitter. He is obviously incapable of writing any substantive article or of dealing with substantive issues. He has referred to a Hansard that he has never seen. He has not seen—

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is he one of yours, is he?

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not pretend to be a substitute for Senator Cameron, but I would like to echo his point of order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It is noted Senator Bernardi has been skilfully linking the matter of another debate to this debate, and whilst he continues to do that he is in order. However, I will remind the senator of the matter before the chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, and I appreciate any reminders that you would like to throw my way, Mr President. But I will conclude in 14 minutes and 23 seconds, Mr President. What we have is an opportunity for natural justice, through senators' statements, that will be denied, absolutely denied, if we are to remove them today. I would point out also, Mr President, that we have only two more sitting weeks after this and that we have been denied another day of debate tomorrow because of Senate estimates. We have only two more sitting weeks. There are some 76 senators in this chamber, all of whom may seek to offer accolades to Senator Moore—they may do; I am not sure about that. Perhaps some of her own team might not do that, but certainly on this occasion I would be. So there is no opportunity in senators' statements time for all 76 of us to make that contribution, unless it were less than a minute each. And let me tell you, Mr President: my acknowledgement and recognition of the contribution that Senator Moore has made to public life in the last week would go for much more than a minute or two.

It is more poignantly brought home to me because the day that this grievous offence was supposedly taking place, the day that Mr Tim Watts MP was attacking me and beating me up on Twitter for some alleged statements, was my birthday. Can you imagine what a terrible, terrible birthday gift that was, to wake up to these sorts of slurs and think, 'Gosh, I spent my birthday dealing with a very important subject and now I'm being attacked and harangued by the fools on Twitter and some of their supporters'? That is why the greatest gift I got for my birthday this year—apart from the one my wife gave me, of course—was the gift of honesty from Senator Moore. A more generous senator I do not think we could ask for, and so that is why it is unfair for Senator Moore to deny herself that moment in the spotlight, where someone can say thank you—thank you, thank you, thank you. And yet, by some quirk of fate, my surprise plan of thanks has been quashed by the person who was going to be on the receiving end of it. I would say to you, Mr President, that Senator Moore was blissfully unaware of what was coming in senators' statements today—blissfully unaware. She probably would not have been in the chamber because it would have made her blush, so gushing was my praise. But I would invite Senator Moore, in the 11 minutes and 37 seconds in which I conclude, to perhaps reconsider her motion and maybe withdraw it just so that justice can be done.

I made the point before that we still have a couple more sitting weeks, but there is only finite time in which to deal with senators' statements. But, as was so rightly pointed out by Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance—a person who, I think, has been doing an outstanding job on behalf of the government—there is plenty of opportunity for this to be debated and discussed, this disallowance motion of this FoFA deregulation, in the following week. The disallowance has to be dealt with by 27 November—I think that was the date that he said. If there is an opportunity for us to deal with the FoFA disallowance motion in the following week, that would also allow for further consultation for those who are perhaps uninformed about the consequences of what they are doing—the full implications of it—then I think we should heed that wise advice.

A secondary benefit of that, of course—a secondary benefit, but no less important to me—is that it would allow me to acknowledge publicly the support of a senator who saw a grave injustice being done, and that is Senator Claire Moore. I mean, she is a true champion of truth and honesty I hope. I would say to Senator Moore: she is not very successful at points of order on relevance in question time, but she is extraordinarily successful at cutting through the progressive baloney that attacks a conservative senator simply because he is who he is. I think that Senator Moore needs to be paid tribute to—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd want to frame this speech!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjections, Mr President—which are disorderly I would remind you—but I hear the interjection 'I want to frame this'. I may frame my original remarks that I hope to deliver to the Senate today in praise of Senator Moore to thank her for her incredible support last week. It acted like a rod of iron that supported the crushing weight of all the progressives piling on and seeking to destroy a person simply going about their business.

I am hearing some requests from some of my colleagues for a greater explanation of what transpired, and I would like to provide that detail. In particular, I quote from the Hansard, which has only recently been released. Doing that means I have to prioritise between further praise of Senator Moore and discussing how the process of the Senate is truly being undermined by this. Who are we to make a determination today that injustices can go uncorrected in the very small amount of time we have to do that; that personal explanations and representations on behalf of constituents can be made in only a very finite time? Between now and the end of the year we have three hours and 45 minutes for senators to make statements on Wednesdays, from 12.45 until question time at 2 pm. A full third of that will be cut. It will be removed. That disenfranchises perhaps a dozen, maybe more—maybe two dozen—senators from doing their work of representing their constituents, from standing up for truth and justice and the Australian way.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't even keep a straight face yourself!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am being heckled by the other side—this is a very emotional issue for me. All senators need to have the opportunity that I will be so cruelly denied if this motion is supported. I say this not just because it affects me personally, not just because I had something that I thought was very important—and I have mentioned that before: the praise of Senator Claire Moore for her stoic defence of truth and justice and enlightenment. This is not just about me. I know other senators who also had senators' statements to make today. They had statements about their constituents. I do not think any of them were going to be praising Senator Moore quite as solidly as I was going to be, but I know that some other senators did have various things to talk about, such as the tactics of the Labor Party. Those things are important to public life, as are FoFA reforms. There is a time and a place to have these debates but, as the minister said, the time and probably the place to really have this discussion and this debate is when people can plan for it and prepare for it, not when there is some sort of malicious hijacking of due process, not when there is some surprise attack or stealth manoeuvre; not when you have a gang of Independent senators who just pop up with Senator Dastyari pulling their strings. That is what I saw on the TV today. Senator Dastyari's time of pulling strings was done when he was moved on from Sussex Street—he was demoted to the Senate, in Labor Party terms.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was backing Craig Thomson.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Seselja. I do make the point that Senator Dastyari, who has been pursuing this FoFA disallowance motion for such a long time, was a very solid supporter of the former member Craig Thomson and it is reasonable for us to call into question the judgement exhibited both by the support of Craig Thomson, the former member who I understand has been convicted of a number of offences that he denied ever committing, and the judgement attached to this sort of hijacked stealth manoeuvre. This is not just some union cabal where you can turn up with your thugs and smash people's legs and things like that to get your way. That is not how it works here—it works on the courtesies; it works on the ethic of reciprocity; it works on convention. They are all the things that conservatives like myself value.

I know it is not just about politics. Courtesy, reciprocity and convention were the very things that saw Senator Claire Moore last week come out in support of someone who is perhaps her political opposite when she saw an injustice being done. That is what distinguishes a truly solid senator from the others. It says to me that Senator Moore is perhaps the person with the greatest character on the other side. I know Senator Moore is probably blushing now; I only wish the people of Australia could see how she is forced to stand there and listen to nice words being said about her. It is not the Labor way to say nice things about your colleagues, but Senator Moore has broken with that. She said, if not nice things, honest things and she put to bed and dispelled some falsehoods and some myths that were being peddled by some of her colleagues—who I did not even know were colleagues, such has been their impact on this place. I am talking about Tim Watts MP.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is he?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very good question, Senator Cormann. No-one knows who he is. If you see someone with a lot of product in their hair, walking around with long hair and gazing into mirrors adoringly, it is probably Tim Watts MP.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, you cannot adversely reflect on members of the other house. I remind you of that fact and also draw your attention to the matter before the chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I return to the point that there is a time and a place for everything. I believe there is a time for us to be having a discussion about the disallowance motion. In fact we have had a couple of discussions before—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twice.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had the discussion twice, and both times the Senate has rejected it. I wonder whether today's motion is just some sort of scheme. I wonder whether perhaps one of my colleagues leaked my little plan about what I wanted to do in senators' statements today—which was to praise Senator Claire Moore for her honesty—to Senator Moore in goodwill and said, 'Senator Moore, you are going to be getting praised by Bernardi today; you should be in the chamber for it. I won't say there are going to be chocolates—not in the chamber. But they may be delivered later on,' and because of the character of that lady and her desire to remain out of the spotlight she said, 'I will join Senator Dastyari in this stunt,' just to deflect attention from herself. But I would say that is inappropriate. That is why I am going to oppose this motion. I think it is unfair for us to deny the rightful accolades and acclaim that should flow the way of a particular senator. On this occasion, I wanted to say something, and I have been unable to say it. I regret that I will be unable to say it in the appropriate place. I am going to have to deny Senator Moore the praise that she deserves for denying the lefties, progressives, twitterati, poison pens, or whatever they want to call themselves, some sort of perversion of the truth.

That is my reason for opposing this. I stand with Senator Cormann. Let us deal with this next week. I stand with those who admire process and who respect the courtesies that are extended in this chamber. I will be voting against this because it would deny me the opportunity to praise Senator Moore. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move that the question now be put.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I was actually on my feet before Senator Urquhart, Mr President, which I think, in fact, you recognised. So I seek the call—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Back, the convention of this place is to alternate from side to side of the chamber. That convention will be maintained by me. Senator Urquhart rightly had the call. Senator Urquhart then moved that the question now be put, so I am putting that question.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I request that Senator Urquhart respect the probity of this place and allow me to speak. Through you, Mr President, I ask as a point of order that Senator Urquhart withdraw or defer her motion until such time as I have spoken.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I think your request has been noted. Senator Urquhart has moved the motion—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question before me, Senator Fifield, that the motion now be put. It is very unusual to seek leave as I am putting a question. Is the chamber willing for Senator Fifield to seek leave to make a short statement?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted, and I certainly will not entertain a suspension of standing orders. So the question before the chair now is that the question now be put. For clarification, the question is the amendment moved by Senator Macdonald, which we will not be voting on until this question is determined. The question is that the question now be put.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the common practice of this place, it is not unusual for a senator to seek leave to make a short statement once the question has actually been put but before the vote is taken, and I seek leave to do so.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a different matter, Senator Fifield. This is a procedural motion. I am not taking any more points of order. The question before the chair is that the motion now be put. I am going to put the motion and determine it now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Urquhart that the question now be put be agreed to.

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Macdonald be agreed to.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion before the chair:

That all words after 'shall be called' in paragraph (2) be replaced with 'on 27 November 2014 and have precedence over all other business until determined that day'.

The amendment I am moving to the motion is a very important amendment to ensure that we have an orderly and methodical process here in the Senate, that we do not have reckless impacts on a very important industry across Australia through our actions today. The actions in the Senate this morning have already caused a significant level of concern.

I will quote to the Senate the media statement that has just been released by the Financial Planning Association. The Financial Planning Association is a professional association for financial planners. It is an association that represents small-business financial planners. It is not an association that represents the big banks—in fact, it is quite removed from any interests relating to the interests of the big banks. The Financial Planning Association is an association, along with others, that has done outstanding work when it comes to lifting professional, ethical and educational standards across the financial advice industry. It is work that the government has been very pleased to be supporting. This is what the Financial Planning Association said this morning in its release, under the headline 'FPA condemns FoFA disallowance motion':

The Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) today condemned the disallowance motion of the amendments to the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) Regulations.

To be tabled in the Senate today by the Opposition and cross-bench Senators, the disallowance motion threatens to remove the Regulations put in place on 30 June this year which amended the FoFA reforms.

"This will have a catastrophic effect across the entirety of the financial services industry, one of the largest employers of people in Australia," said Mark Rantall, FPA CEO

"If passed, this disallowance motion will continue five years of uncertainty for financial planners and their clients which commenced when the FoFA process began under the Labor Government.

"The industry has been adhering to these Regulations for nearly five months. This disallowance motion has the potential to put the entire financial services industry immediately into breach of the law.

"The Coalition's amendments contained in the Regulation ensured the FoFA reforms remained intact in a sensible way that reduced red tape and maintained vital consumer protections.

"The original FoFA reforms created unnecessary red tape and compliance driven processes that did not achieve the then Minister's stated aim of improving the quality of advice for consumers."

The original FoFA requirements, such as opt-in and retrospective Fee Disclosure Statement (FDS), created back end red tape that did not improve client outcomes or services for clients. Clients agree to set Terms of Engagements with their financial planner, a contract that binds the planner to service agreements but allows the client to legally opt out of the arrangement at any time. Fees and services are properly disclosed upfront under the amended FoFA reforms.

The Financial Planning Association represents the interests of the public and Australia's professional community of financial planners. The FPA says of itself:

The FPA is unrivalled in its reach of the financial planning market, influence on government and regulators, standards set through a world-class Code of Professional Practice, unique position as the certification body in Australia for the global CFP® designation, and reputation for quality professional development.

And:

With a growing membership of more than 10,000 members and affiliates, of whom 7,500 are practising financial planners, the FPA is also home to Australia’s 5,500 CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® professionals.

The point here is that we have 10,000 members of the Financial Planning Association, for example, who are completely disregarded by what appears to be the rushed ambush that is being attempted here this morning. The truth is that, if the intent is to have a considered approach to this policy issue, it is not required.

The effect of my amendment is that this disallowance motion would be dealt with and would be dealt with conclusively on Thursday, 27 November, which is when it was listed in the first place. Disallowance motions, as those of us who have been in the Senate for a while would well understand, have 15 sitting days within which they have to be resolved. These 15 sitting days come to an end on 27 November; indeed, this particular motion was listed on the Notice Paper up until today, to be dealt with on 27 November.

In a sign of goodwill and good faith, in the way I have crafted the amendment, not only would this disallowance be dealt with on 27 November; it would be dealt with conclusively on 27 November. If my amendment got up, the effect of it would be that we would not be dealing with this today; we would be dealing with it next Thursday. That would give us the time to take a bit of a breather, take a bit of a step back and have some sensible conversations about some of the technical aspects, for example, that need to be tidied up.

If there is a majority in the Senate to overturn the regulations the government has put in place, with effect from 1 July, it ought to be done in a more sensible and orderly way. I happen to think that the improvements we have put forward are sensible improvements. But it might well be that the majority of senators in this chamber do not agree with the government. While I am not happy about that, I will have to accept it if that is the case. But to ram this through today without giving ourselves the space to assess all of the consequences and implications of such a move would be irresponsible.

Senator Xenophon, in particular, is one who is always a stickler for process. In relation to some other legislation, because there was an amendment to change a particular piece of legislation, he took the view—which is reflected, I believe, in some separate motions before the Senate today—that there ought to be a quick, additional Senate inquiry so that the Senate can be very clear, when voting, as to what the implications of a particular move are going to be.

I say to the Senate: be very careful about voting for a disallowance motion today which would have the effect of putting our financial institutions, our financial services providers, in a situation of breach of the law as of today, with all of the consequences that come with that which would force them to expend significant money in order to comply. Even though the Senate might not be supportive of our regulations, there appears to be an appetite for improving the previous legislative framework nevertheless. That means that the industry still has uncertainty and still has to spend money, which ultimately is a cost borne by consumers in order to comply with something that they do not know what it is going to be yet. I would urge the Senate to be sensible in relation to this and to think very carefully about what the implications would be.

Beyond the policy driven changes—and, I add, policy driven changes that we took to the last election, that we first announced in March 2012, that we announced as election commitments in the lead-up to the last election, that we have explained in great detail at various times since the last election, that we consulted on extensively for more than a year after we were elected to government and that had been considered by two Senate inquiries, which both recommended their passage—the regulations that took effect on 1 July also provided much needed certainty in a number of areas, including in relation to the application of the rules to existing customers, which is also known as grandfathering.

These changes actually had bipartisan support, because this is the third time we are dealing with this disallowance. If the Senate were to reflect on the second occasion we dealt with this, the Labor senator who moved the disallowance actually excluded a series of parts of the regulations from the scope of the second disallowance—in particular, the changes that fixed some problems with Labor's FoFA laws on grandfathering, because they had not been properly thought through.

There were unintended consequences. We fixed those unintended consequences. Those fixes—which the Senate has supported on two occasions—if this disallowance is dealt with today and is voted on today, will immediately disappear, creating chaos and uncertainty across a very important industry, a very important industry, I might add, for people across Australia saving for their retirement and managing financial risks through life.

The current motion before the chair of course does not include the elements that Senator Dastyari previously excluded from his disallowance motion; it goes well beyond that. The disallowance would take effect immediately, meaning that service providers would need to immediately change contractual arrangements and probably have to stop providing products and services to consumers while they assess their status for compliance with what would become the law.

You have to remember that Labor's laws never actually came into practical effect, because the date of the practical effect of the implementation of Labor's laws was 1 July 2014. If this disallowance motion is passed, with the short notice that has been given to everyone, those laws will come into effect as of today. That has serious implications. I say to the Senate: think very carefully about the implications of this; think what it would mean for employees in one sector of the economy, which is the largest employer of Australians—that is a very important point.

Beyond that, it is important to remind ourselves what we are actually talking about. We are talking about changes to our financial advice laws which removed, as of 1 July, the excesses of Labor's changes. We have kept the good parts of Labor's changes. We have kept the parts of Labor's changes that improved consumer protections in a sensible way but removed those parts which just pushed up the cost of advice for people across Australia saving for their retirement, without delivering additional consumer protection benefits.

Some people might say that every bit of red tape is good, but guess what? Not every bit of red tape is good. Some bits of red tape just add costs without making things better. If you are faced with a problem as a policymaker, you should always focus on only pursuing those changes that make things better. That is the point that I am making to the chamber here today. Why do we—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are looking a bit desperate now, Mathias.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong clearly is intent—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are filibustering so there can't be a vote on it.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong is quite intent on pressing ahead with a very reckless—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody knows you are filibustering.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a very reckless course of action which is going to have disastrous consequences across the financial services sector, if it is allowed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Filibuster—why don't you sit down and have a vote?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, is it appropriate that a senator in this chamber is arguing that I am not allowed to express my view as a senator?

Senator Wong interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The senator can continue his remarks.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. We are talking about very important changes to our financial advice laws, which help ensure that we have a robust but efficient financial services system here in Australia—a system where people can have access to high-quality advice they can trust but which also remains affordable.

Sadly, here in Australia, we are very good at red tape. We are the world champions in financial services red tape as a result of some of the changes that Mr Shorten, when minister for financial services, imposed. There is no precedent anywhere in the world, for example, for his requirement imposed on clients of financial advisers to re-sign contracts with their financial adviser on a regular basis. There is no precedent for that anywhere in the world. Mr Shorten as the minister for financial services made us the world champions in financial services red tape.

None of this comes for free. It comes at a cost. It comes at a cost to the economy. It comes at a cost to people saving for their retirement. And for what benefit? The only benefit is a commercial benefit for industry funds that have always waged a campaign against small business financial advisers because they cannot control them.

Small business financial advisers have always focused on the best interests of their clients. Their business model depends on acting in the best interests of their clients in order to keep their customers—do you know why? If a financial adviser does not provide good service to their client, the client will leave. The client will not continue to access services that are not providing quality. But of course, this is where the Labor Party just gets it wrong: the Labor Party thinks that government, through regulation, can eliminate any issue or any problem. You cannot eliminate issues in the economy just by regulation; you can put safeguards in place, but you should not be shutting down the economy.

What are the changes that we actually made? What are the changes that the Senate now wants to disallow today and that some senators are saying they want to deal with today—and that we are saying should only be dealt with next Thursday as a result of the amendment that I have moved, because the implications of this change have to be properly considered? In those regulations, we removed the requirement for an investor to keep re-signing contracts with their adviser on a regular basis. That is the so-called 'opt-in' requirement—which makes us the world champions in financial services red tape. We also said that we wanted to simplify and streamline the additional annual fee disclosure requirement. Instead of imposing that change retrospectively, as the Labor Party ended up doing—which, given all of the legacy systems that are involved here, imposes hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs on the industry, ultimately borne by consumers, in order to comply with that retrospective change—we said that that should only be a prospective change from 1 July 2013. We also said that we would absolutely keep in place the requirement to act in the best interests of the clients—absolutely intact. The change that we made was to improve certainty around the operation of the best interests duty test—the test that indicates whether or not a financial adviser has discharged that particular obligation. We also felt that it was important that we provide certainty around the provision and availability of scaled advice.

I might just put to the chamber that if you want to go to buy a tyre, you should not be forced to get comprehensive advice on all of the features of the car. If you want to go to buy a tyre, you should be able to agree that you are only going to get advice on the features of the tyre. Now if you want to get financial advice on a particular aspect of your life, you should not be forced to go through a full fact find and to go through a full screen of all of the issues. It is all designed by Labor and by industry funds just to push up the costs so that fewer and fewer people will access advice, and so that more and more people are channelled into industry funds. The Labor Party and industry funds do not want people to access advice, by and large; they want people to stay away from advice—and just to trust industry funds with their money. That is what is behind all this. That is why the Labor Party is fighting so hard to get this up. But this is not the right way to go.

The amendment that I have put forward is eminently sensible. If the Senate is genuinely interested in having a conversation on how our approach can be improved or amended, or if there is a view that the regulatory changes ought to be disallowed, it should not happen today in the way that is envisaged in the motion that was moved by Senator Moore. The Senate should seriously consider supporting my amendment, which would have the effect of dealing with this disallowance motion on 27 November, and dealing with it conclusively on that day, so that there is a proper opportunity to assess all of the implications and all of the consequences of a possible disallowance, and to take corrective action, if and as required in the context of what is proposed. I would have thought that a responsible Senate would take that sort of recommendation on board. What is the rush? Why is it—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have had so much notice of this. How long has this been on the Notice Paper? Why are you so slow?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been on the Notice Paper since 10 July, Senator, and it was voted it down. And then it was put on the Notice Paper again on 17 July—and it was voted down. And then for technical reasons, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances put it on the Notice Paper in order to scrutinise various aspects of it. We provided a satisfactory response, and the regulations and ordinances committee decided to remove the disallowance. And Senator Dastyari, using a procedure of the Senate, moved to give himself a third crack at the same disallowance. This has actually been voted on twice before. The Senate has supported our improvements twice before. There was a reasonable expectation across the Australian community that the law which has been the law for nearly five months now was going to be the law that stands. To change that without any notice like this, in the fashion that is proposed, and without the amendment that I have moved to the motion, would be highly irresponsible. It would be highly reckless. I strongly urge the Senate to support the amendment that I have moved to Senator Moore's motion.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be now put.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "7.20 pm" in paragraph (4) of the motion moved by Senator Moore be deleted.

The reason that I am moving this amendment on behalf of the coalition is to ensure that this matter is properly considered by the Senate. Let us make no mistake: this has been an issue of some controversy within the community and within this place. On two separate occasions the Senate has voted to keep these regulations in place. Now, as a result of some realignments occurring up the other end of the chamber, there seems to be a stomach to change these regulations.

We as a government accept that that might be the view of the chamber, but surely decent process demands and requires of legislators that there be some consideration given to the impact of those changes. I would recommend to the Senate, and in particular the crossbenchers, the excellent speech given by my colleague Senator Cormann earlier today, in which he set out that there were things in the regulations certain people are seeking to disallow that the Labor Party actually agrees with. This is a classic case of a rush of blood to the head by some legislators willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to hell with the consequences. That is the irresponsible attitude that certain people are taking.

The question is: does this disallowance have to be moved and dealt with today? The answer is an unequivocal no. There is no imperative, there is no reason, there is no requirement as to why this regulation needs to be disallowed today. The 15 days will continue to run. If certain senators were willing to take a breath of air and stop the rush of blood to the head and say, 'Can we actually discuss these matters and come to a more sensible landing?', surely that would be within the best interests of all Australians. There are so many Australians who will be impacted by this attempt to get rid of this regulation. Let us be under no misapprehension, the Financial Planning Association of Australia has said today in a press release that the move that is being sought to be undertaken in the Senate today will:

… have a catastrophic effect across the entirety of the financial services industry, one of the largest employers of people in Australia.

It is 'one of the largest employers of people in Australia', which is indicative of the fact that the services sector is a growing sector and a vitally important sector employing a lot of people. Not only does it employ a lot of people it ensures the good conduct of the administration of people's investments. So we are talking about not only the people who are employed but all the people who have invested money with those people that are employed. You would think common decency and common sense would require that this industry, this sector, would be given more than 24 hours notice of a disallowance of this regulation in this place.

We are still to hear why certain senators who have so vehemently supported this regulation on two separate occasions have now decided, apparently overnight, to seek to change their vote and vote down this regulation. This course of action goes against every single tradition of this Senate. I thought this Senate always prided itself on not being reckless in relation to legislation and regulations. This is the place where these matters are duly considered, and not stunts pulled first thing of a morning by the Manager of Opposition Business abusing the numbers in this place to try to ensure that the government's program is derailed. On a day that is devoted to government business, where tradition has it that government does determine the order of business, the Labor Party and certain crossbenchers have abused their numbers simply to change that. Why? Why could this not have been done next week when we meet again within the time limit for the disallowance of regulations? Nobody in this debate has given that explanation to the Senate, to the financial planners, or to all of those hundreds of thousands of Australians who have money invested with the financial planners.

So, why the hurry? Why the urgency? Why the need for this? I think we know why. Certain crossbenchers have been seduced to change their vote, and those who have been able to get that change of mind are absolutely scared that if these people were allowed for 24 or 48 hours to reconsider their view they may well come to the same landing as they did before when they actually supported these regulations, on two separate occasions.

This matter has been debated twice in four months in this place, and on each occasion these regulations have been upheld. Now what Senator Whish-Wilson and others in this place want to do is turn that around without any notice in circumstances where the industry and the investors have relied on these regulations for, I understand, the past five months, as my colleague Senator Cormann has just confirmed to me.

Any industry needs certainty. I am glad the Senate agrees with that. The financial services sector, the financial planning sector, the biggest employer in Australia, also requires certainty. There was debate and there was uncertainty for many years under the previous Labor government. The Senate finally, in a very mature and considered manner, decided to come to a landing on regulations very ably crafted by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. The Senate voted for them not once but twice in the last four months. As a result, people in the industry and investors had every right to rely on a certainty that the uncertainty of the previous five years had been washed away—a new government, a new landing and a new certainty that would be of benefit to everybody.

Now we have this unseemly haste to try to disallow this regulation, with no reason given and no rationale given as to the urgency. Why can't it wait until next week? Whilst I would normally not entertain interjections, the lack of interjections shows very clearly that nobody in this place can put forward an argument as to why there is an urgency. It has not been ventilated, as one would have hoped, during the previous debate.

The amendment I seek to move is to delete the words: 'unless consideration of the item listed in paragraph (2) has not concluded, in which case the adjournment shall be proposed following the determination of that item.' By deleting those words, paragraph (4) of the motion would read:

The adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.20 pm.

That would allow for the orderly conduct of the Senate to continue for due consideration to be given to this matter.

Why is it that any legislator would not want due consideration to be given? Why is it that any legislator would be saying to their constituency, 'Look, there is no rush with this. There is time next week to consider this. Why the rush?' I think we know why the rush is on. It is because certain people are scared they will not be able to hold senators who had previously quite rationally, coolly and calmly voted for these regulation—not once but twice—from coming to a similar landing again once confronted with the consequences of their proposed action.

Make no mistake; these regulations have within them many matters on which I think there is unanimity around the chamber that these things should be changed as they are in this particular regulation. If you throw out the regulation you go back to the five years of uncertainty that this country suffered courtesy of the previous Labor government's regulations.

I can understand that the Labor Party and the Greens have learnt nothing from the election defeat. They still want a carbon tax. They still want a mining tax. They still would not turn back the boats. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the last election. Another lesson they clearly have not learnt from the last election is that people want certainty in this space. For five years the people of Australia had to put up with uncertainty—an unseemly uncertainty, an inappropriate uncertainty—that damaged their industry, their employment prospects and their investments.

What we are saying is: let's have a discussion. If there is a mindedness to change the regulation, that might be able to be done, rather than ambushing the government by just disallowing the regulation on such short notice. Say to the government: 'These are the aspects that concern us. Is there an ability to have a mature discussion about this?' Instead, we have this ludicrous proposition that we will now pursue this matter to a conclusion in this place today, where a lot of the good things in the regulatory framework—and there is no dispute about the good things in the regulatory framework—will be thrown out as well. It is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the sort of thing I might say you might expect in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate, which has prided itself ever since its inception as being the place where legislation and regulations are duly considered.

Debate interrupted.