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

Pursuant to contingent notice, and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to alter the hours of meeting and routine of business for today to provide for the consideration of a disallowance motion.

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

Is this not a classic example of the Australian Labor Party having failed in its question time tactics? Here we are as a government, with the Minister for Defence having beaten a hasty retreat from Sydney to ensure that he is here to be able to answer any questions that the opposition might have in relation to the defence needs of our nation, not to be asked a single question by those opposite because they are seeking, yet again, to abuse the standing orders of this place by ensuring that question time will be subverted in a manner which will deny Family First Senator Bob Day the question that I understand he may have had for today.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

And Senator Carr interjects with 'good'. I am glad that is now on the Hansard. Thank you, Senator Carr—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

and Senator Sterle. The Labor Party speak, Senator Day. Make no mistake about where they stand in relation to your position in this place.

What the Labor Party are seeking to do is to force through the disallowance of a regulation because they are scared that the numbers will not stick in the event that the senators who have changed their minds might change them back again to where they were, not once but twice over a four-month period in this place—senators who had supported the regulations on the basis that they were sound, on the basis that they got the right balance, on the basis that they looked after a sector which employs the most Australians and looks after a huge number of Australian investors, getting the balance right after five years of uncertainty presided over by the Australian Labor Party and Greens government. For five years there was uncertainty, and Senator Cormann, to his great credit, as Minister for Finance, was able to bring that uncertainty to a conclusion and come to a result which provided balance—a balance that was being sought by the financial planners of this country and by the investors of this country.

On this regulation that is being sought to be disallowed by the Australian Labor Party today, I ask: why the urgency? Where is the urgency? This matter could be dealt with next week in the normal course of events. So why the urgency? It is very obvious. Labor and the Greens are concerned, no doubt, that the two senators who wisely supported the amendments previously may no longer be of the view that these regulations should be disallowed. I say to those two crossbenchers in particular that the regulations that you are seeking to disallow have in them very detailed requirements and regulations that the Labor Party actually agrees with and I think everybody in this chamber agrees with. Why is that? It is because Senator Cormann did such a marvellous job at crafting those regulations to ensure that these things were to the benefit of the Australian people.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

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

Order on my left!

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

Senators Conroy and Carr always think that decibels somehow obviate the need for intellectual robustness in these debates. But they do not; I can assure you.

Senator Cormann was able to bring the five years of absolute uncertainty to a conclusion which included in the regulations matters on which everybody in this place, I understand, was agreed. By disallowing this regulation, you will be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is what you will be doing. Honourable senators should be alert to that proposition and to that possibility. That is why we say: if you were to be mature and considered legislators, you would say, 'Can we come to a conclusion in relation to these matters and have discussions with the Minister for Finance to ascertain whether or not to put things'— (Time expired)

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

Thank you, Mr President—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the leader, but I should have raised the point of order. I would ask you to reject the motion on the basis that the effect of this motion has already been dealt with by the Senate in a motion earlier today. That was my amendment to get rid of question time, which the Labor Party voted against. Now they are getting rid of question time by this motion.

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

There is no point of order, Senator Macdonald. A separate point of order, Senator Fifield?

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

This is more of a clarification than a point of order, Mr President. I do not believe that the motion which Senator Moore is seeking to move, if standing orders are suspended, has been circulated. So it is very difficult for the chamber actually to consider whether standing orders should be suspended if the chamber has not had the benefit of the motion that Senator Moore is seeking to suspend standing orders to enable the moving of.

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

Order! The motion that we are currently dealing with is a suspension of standing orders. Senator Moore, on a point of clarification: could you advise the chamber if the motion has been circulated?

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

It is being circulated, Mr President.

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

The debate can continue on the basis that it is being circulated. Senator Dastyari.

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

This is a matter of urgency that needs to be dealt with by the Australian Senate. Today we have heard victims and we have heard from different groups. We have in the building today the Council on the Ageing, National Seniors, Choice and different victims' groups. I am urging senators to use the opportunity that is available to them today as part of this debate as it unfolds to make sure they meet with and speak to some of these groups, and that they come to the same understanding that a lot of us in this chamber have about just how important this is.

I also believe that it is a matter of urgency that needs to be dealt with today. This simple argument that it is going to create some kind of chaos and some kind of a problem within the sector if it is implemented, or if the regulations get rejected today, is completely and utterly false. I quote no-one other than the former assistant minister who was responsible for this portfolio, Senator Sinodinos—my good friend from New South Wales, who we hope will be back as a minister soon—who said:

And so what I think ASIC have done is what they have done before: try to provide some certainty to people about the impact of this changing legislative terrain around them and I think in that sense it is reasonable to do.

What was he referring to? He was referring to what ASIC is able to do, which is called a 'facilitative approach'. He was referring to a press statement on Friday 20 December which demonstrated unequivocally that ASIC has the power—either if asked to do so by the government, or of their own accord—to create a facilitative approach to make sure that when regulations get changed, when new laws are proposed and when there is a parliamentary debate that there is a level of certainty out there within the sector and within business.

I just want to reject this argument against urgency that some have raised, that somehow this is going to create chaos in this sector and that is why we cannot deal with it today. That is thoroughly untrue. ASIC is unequivocally clear on this; the former minister is unequivocally clear on this. Let me be clear: the minister has the opportunity to write to ASIC today to get them to produce what is called a 'facilitative approach' and allow them to have an implementation grace period. It has been done by the previous government and it has been done by this government in the past. It will allow a proper approach and implementation.

This is a matter of urgency. This is a matter that needs to be dealt with today. While we are sitting here speaking there are thousands of families and people who are the victims of financial crime and who for too long have had their voices silenced; for too long they have not been able to be heard on these issues. Frankly, I hope we will have an opportunity—and this is the reason I believe this is urgent—to get to the substantive debate at some point today and tell some of the stories from some of the victims. These are some of the people who have been ripped off, who have been conned and who have been cheated, and who rely on those of us in a place like this who have the opportunity that we have available to us to make sure that we provide them with some level of protection and some level of standard of care. Frankly, these regulations go too far and it is an urgent matter for the Senate to deal with these matters today.

I urge the senators and the Senate to take this matter seriously. I urge the Senate to realise that there are so many victims, there are so many stories and there are so many families out there. I urge the Senate to realise that, yes, while we can all play games and try to spend as much time as we want just talking about procedure there is an important substantive issue here that should be dealt with and which has a right to be dealt with. I accept that there are people in this chamber who will have a different view to mine on the substantive points. I respect the fact that good people can come to a different point of view. But I believe this matter should be dealt with as a matter of urgency today so that we can have this debate and so that people can actually stand up and speak about their different views. That is why I will support this urgency motion today. I will support this suspension of standing orders to allow us to be able to have this debate so that we can hear the many different voices and the many different views on what I believe it is a very important issue. (Time expired)

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

Senator Dastyari said, 'Well, we can all play games.' Well, let him speak for himself because on this side of the chamber we are not playing games. We are seeking to defend robust policy development and certainty for an important sector of the Australian economy. This coalition made clear two years ago what its position was in relation to FoFA. All we have sought to do since we came into government, through the efforts of Minister Cormann four months ago, was to seek to give effect to our election commitment.

The opposition has been doing nothing but playing games all day. This morning, in abrogation of the accepted protocols in this place, the opposition sought to take away government business time. Three hours of government business time was taken up by the debate put forward by those opposite to seek to bring on the FoFA disallowance. It is the accepted principle in this place that government business time should be there for the government to determine those things that are transacted. The opposition sought to deny us that opportunity. But I did say this morning—and I think the words bear repeating—that what we are witnessing here is nothing more than Senator Dastyari's vanity project.

This pursuit of this disallowance motion is his big attempt to demonstrate to his peers and to this chamber that he is more than just a backroom boy from New South Wales. This is his attempt to try to demonstrate to his colleagues and to this chamber that he is a serious policy guy. But he is nothing of the sort. He is a wrecker. He is seeking to cause grief and concern to an important sector of the Australian economy. I know he dresses it up as though he is just chasing the big banks, chasing the big financial institutions. Mr President, let me tell you who he is, in fact, seeking to cause damage and harm to: it is the thousands upon thousands of small business operators. Many of them are sole operators who are in the financial services advice business. That is who Senator Dastyari is really targeting. I think it is important for the chamber to recognise that.

We have also seen something a little unusual today. Usually an opposition are chomping at the bit to get every possible question they can in question time. But, no, not even on the day that Malcolm Turnbull has made a significant announcement in relation to funding of the ABC and SBS can they bring themselves to form enough questions to pursue those particular issues. Senator Dastyari's vanity project takes precedence over all these things. That is really what the suspension of standing orders seeks to do. It is to let Senator Dastyari's vanity take precedence over all other Senate business. Well, we on this side of the chamber actually do not think that is a reasonable proposition. We do not think that Senator Dastyari has, indeed, made a case as to why standing orders should be suspended. It is actually a very significant decision for the Senate chamber to take to suspend standing orders. We do not think that that case has been made.

We actually think that question time is an important accountability mechanism, which is why in these additional three Senate sitting days that were put in place this week, as we knew that we were here for the three speeches by heads of government in the other place, we thought it important that we actually did some work while we were here. The Australian Labor Party, of course, opposed the three extra sitting days, because we know that they work to rule. They do not want to work any extra hours beyond the usual. But we thought that it was important, with the three extra sitting days, to make sure there was a question time because we think that when the Senate sits there should be a question time. We are a government and we should be held accountable. This is one of the great accountability mechanisms of the Westminster system.

I say to those opposite: abandon this suspension motion and do your job. Ask us questions, hold us accountable. I say to the crossbench senators: you should vote against this suspension motion because you and those opposite have a duty to keep us accountable. That is what you are elected to do. That is what being on that side of the chamber means your job is. Ask us questions, hold us accountable, stop playing games and stop causing grief and uncertainty to an important sector of the Australian economy.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this suspension.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order on my right. Senator Siewert, you have the call.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Normally we would not support suspending question time, because we have been in this place staunchly defending question time repeatedly.

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order on my right. Just a moment, Senator Siewert. Order! Senator Siewert, you have the call.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, this government have done it in the past when they have called extra sitting days on Fridays and have consistently refused to have question time despite us, every single time, asking for question time. Given the filibustering that went on this morning, including the farcical situation of Senator Bernardi getting up, supposedly congratulating Senator Moore and saying that he was going to lose senator statement time, yet I notice that he did not appear on the senator statement list. That is clearly a misuse of the Senate. These are important issues. We are holding the government accountable on their farcical and poor financial laws, so we will be supporting this suspension.

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

Let there be no doubt, this has nothing to do with advancing the interests of consumers. This has everything to do with the Labor Party advancing the commercial interests of the union movement. Under the period of the previous government, the then Minister Shorten did special deals to seek to advance the commercial interests of the union dominated industry funds.

I will explain why, because I had some journalists seize upon comments that I made this morning and ask me to substantiate how it is that I can assert that the then Minister Shorten did this. I will give you just one example. Minister Shorten, at the behest of industry super, has forced clients of small business financial advisers to re-sign contracts with them on a regular basis. Guess who is exempted from that requirement? Industry super funds. Industry super funds providing general or personal advice do not have to get their clients to re-sign contracts.

There is another example. Under FOFA a change that we support is to improve transparency of fee arrangements. We said that we should do it prospectively rather than retrospectively because, given the system changes required to impose the change retrospectively, it is a massive expense which ultimately has to be borne by people across Australia saving for their retirement. The Labor Party ignored it without doing a proper regulatory impact assessment and imposed that cost, completely ignoring the impact that that particular change, retrospectively imposed, would have on retirement savings of people across Australia. But guess who is exempted from disclosing the fees they charge their clients? Guess who is exempted from that particular requirement? Industry super funds. There is an explicit exemption for industry super funds.

Industry super funds can charge a fee across their membership irrespective of whether or not advice is accessed. It is collectively imposed across the membership as a whole. It is not disclosed and is going to be paid by the client irrespective of whether or not they access that advice. Of course there is no requirement for industry funds to re-sign contracts with their clients on a regular basis. That is the hypocrisy that we are dealing with here. The industry super network has worked flat out and has egged on the Labor Party. The Labor Party has coordinated a campaign to ensure that the commercial interests of industry super at the expense of small business financial advisers are pressed ahead.

People talk about victims of financial advisers. Guess what—the requirement to force clients to re-sign contracts with their adviser on a regular basis does not protect anyone from becoming such a victim. The requirement to impose additional fee disclosures retrospectively does not protect anyone from bad financial advice. What protects people from bad financial advice is the requirement to act in the best interests of the client. That requirement and the ban on conflicted remuneration are things that we support and that continue to be in place today. To make this change today in this way would be reckless, unnecessarily disruptive and irresponsible, and it would reflect very badly on the Labor Party on a number of levels but in particular in terms of the process that the Labor Party has chosen to follow.

This is a reform that has been supported by the Senate on two occasions—once in the middle of July and once in early October. Businesses and financial advice plans across Australia had a reasonable expectation that this change to the law would stand, because it had been supported by the parliament as a whole, including the Senate, on two occasions. To proceed in this way is reckless and it is irresponsible. The Senate should pause and give itself time to deal with this matter in an orderly and methodical fashion. There is no reason whatsoever—other than the reason that Senator Abetz has indicated, that the Labor Party is worried that they might lose their precarious majority between now and next week—why this should be rushed. In the ordinary course of events this issue would have to be dealt with conclusively by next Thursday anyway. That would be the proper way to deal with it. This is a significant industry and if the Senate goes down this path it will have a significant impact on people across Australia accessing banking and financial advice services. This is not the way to proceed and I urge the Senate to reject this approach and let the Senate deal with this matter in an orderly and methodical fashion by Thursday next week.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose this motion. Crossbenchers only get one question a fortnight. There are 25 on the opposition side and there is only one of me.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order on my left. Order! Pause the clock. Order on both sides. I call Senator Day.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Question time is very important to crossbenchers and I appeal to my crossbench colleagues: do not let them get away with this, because where is it going to lead? It would not matter which side it was—we know the major parties run the show and here we are, we get one question a fortnight and we might lose that. I was not even aware that question time could be suspended. The opposition was aware that I wanted to ask my one question for the fortnight about bracket creep and families paying too much tax. Is that too much to ask, to get our one question? We have been discussing this for quite some time—how many questions do we get and what are we going to ask? Is one a fortnight too much to ask? This is pretty poor form. Again, I appeal to my crossbench colleagues to vote against this motion. Please, let me have my question—my one question for the fortnight.

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

This is a total and utter abuse of process. Senator Macdonald suggested earlier in the day that we let question time go so this matter could be debated, and those on the other side all said no. I have to say to those who said on national television this morning that they would not allow a gag, this is a very disappointing situation—Senator Xenophon, on three occasions. I am interested to hear what Senator Whish-Wilson will have to say about this and what Senator Xenophon, Senator Lambie and Senator Muir will have to say about it. Only in the last few minutes have we learnt from Senator Cormann what the reality of this whole situation is. We all knew that these new conditions were going to be imposed on the big banks, yes, and on the small financial advisers, but did we know it was Mr Shorten's intention that the industry super funds be exempted from this? We did not. Nobody wants to avoid a full debate on this question. That is exactly what those opposite want. Each and every one of us wants to speak in full on this question. Those opposite should not think for a minute that they have some mortgage on the interests of small investors or others. They have not.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Cameron does do not have such a mortgage, and neither does anyone else in this place. This afternoon we are being told that we cannot defer this matter until Thursday of next week. Senator Wong is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and she should be standing up and saying, 'I agree that every member of the Senate should have the opportunity to debate the issue.' Those opposite are going to stop that this afternoon. Now we have heard why Senator Xenophon and his merry band want this rushed through today. There could have been an opportunity for everybody to have their say on it by next Thursday—something that Senator Cormann tried to move in this place but it was gagged, it was knocked down; something that Senator Macdonald today tried to bring before this chamber, that we would forgo question time, but, no, we were told we could not do that—but all of a sudden, right in the middle of it all, Saint Clair—I mean Senator—Moore, who I thought was the subject of great credit this morning from Senator Bernardi, arises half way through question time, denying Senator Day his opportunity to ask his question—

Opposition senators: Oh!

Don't 'Oh' about it—these are important principles and rights. When this motion comes to a vote, I urge those who have changed their position to reflect on their decision and to vote no. We have the right, and we should have the opportunity—all of us—to have our say on these matters. If the legislation is inconclusive, if it is not yet adequate, if it needs amendment, if it needs improvement, let us all have the opportunity both to hear the arguments and to contribute to that debate. But let us not have this hypocrisy where this person over here tries to claim the moral high ground—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I will argue any time you like, Senator Cameron, but I want that opportunity. I want the opportunity to argue it. I do not want to be gagged as we have been gagged again and again today. I am against the motion.

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

I will not revisit the arguments of this morning—we have already canvassed those in depth—but I would like to make one point. There is such a thing as natural justice and it should occur in this chamber as well. I think that natural justice is being denied to people like Senator Day from Family First. He gets one question a fortnight. It is an opportunity for him to represent his concerns in this chamber and to get answers from ministers. That is being denied—denied by the Greens and denied by other crossbenchers. How would any of us feel if the boot were on the other foot? How would we feel if leave were denied just to produce some petty political result? Why are we doing this? Why is Senator Moore undoing all the good work?

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that Senator Moore's motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

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 for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

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

Yet again we have an example where the Australian Labor Party and others are wanting a proposition to be put to this place, and I hope everybody heard the words at the very end: 'be put without debate'.

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting—

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

Yes. And it is a matter of concern that things of this nature are simply being denied in this place in a manner that has now been described a number of times. We on this side, as a responsible government, will continue to describe it as it is. This is the Australian Labor Party in particular negotiating and doing the dirty work for the big industry superannuation funds that we know are controlled very much by the trade union movement. That is the sad reality. What they are trying to do is to put out of business the thousands—indeed tens of thousands—of independent financial advisers right around the country. Many of them are sole practitioners—a one-man or one-woman band in regional towns. I wonder what the financial advisers in regional Victoria, or indeed in my home state of Tasmania, would be thinking about the senators from their states who might be voting to support big industry, big union super funds, against individual financial practitioners. That is a matter of great concern. These advisers had to live with uncertainty for five years, courtesy of Labor and the Greens. This uncertainty has been removed from the financial landscape, courtesy of the regulations so ably crafted by Senator Mathias Cormann—very, very ably crafted—dealing with a lot of issues that a lot of the people on both sides of this chamber agree were necessary. It was agreed that those changes were necessary, yet they will throw all those changes out—all the good changes as well. Why? To assist the big trade union super funds against the individual practitioners—the men and women who run their own businesses, who are providing tailored services to the people within their communities, who understand their community, who understand the people, who have a personal relationship with their clients—unlike the really big funds.

Why is it that they are championing these industry super funds? We have started to see, courtesy of the royal commission, some of the things that these industry super funds get up to. Cbus, of course, is just one example—that is the one related to the CFMEU. That is the one related to the would-be Premier of Victoria in a fortnight's time, Mr Dan Andrews, who is unable or unwilling to condemn the leaking of names and private details from Cbus to the CFMEU. I wonder why that is! Because it is the CFMEU that is bankrolling the Labor Party's Victorian state election campaign. And that is why there is this urgency—make no mistake about it. That is the urgency of it—that this is undoubtedly, one would assume, a quid pro quo for the ongoing relationship that certain things have to be delivered. So who do you get to deliver it? None other than the backroom man from New South Wales, Senator Dastyari.

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

What is your relationship with financial advisers?

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

I am more than pleased that Senator Wong has interjected and asked me: 'What is your relationship with financial advisers?' Regrettably, I do not have much money to warrant the need for a financial adviser, other than my good wife, who does a fantastic job. But I know many, many financial advisers in my home state of Tasmania—individual men and women who run great practices but who struggle to compete against the big industry super funds that have laws in their favour, courtesy of the previous Labor-Green government and the manipulations undertaken by Mr Bill Shorten, who is now Leader of the Opposition. But he is somebody who had a lot of influence in the previous government in the manipulation of these matters in this area.

The Labor Party have now already forfeited question time. If they were genuinely concerned, why didn't they use question time to ask questions and ventilate the issues and see if there was a possibility of dealing with this matter with the government?

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

No!

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

Senator Conroy comes in right on cue to say, 'No,' because the Labor Party are not in the game of trying to negotiate to come to a sensible landing. Senator Cormann was able to come to a sensible landing, speaking with many people to achieve the regulations of which we speak today. If we get rid of them we revert to that which was before: uncertainty, chaos and a complete repudiation of the small business sector in this area of superannuation and financial advice. I make no apology that all of us on this side, if we have a choice between huge, big business or small business, will always seek to champion the cause of small business. We will champion the cause of the individual entrepreneur. We will support and champion the cause of the individual men and women and their partnerships that provide financial advisory services to hundreds of thousands of Australians right around this great nation. But what is happening today is an abuse of process—trying to ram something through this Senate to favour big industry super funds.

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

Labor's friends.

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

Labor's friends, as Senator Cormann so rightly interjects. They are the ones that provide information to the trade union movement against, it would appear, the laws of the land, and when you ask the Labor Party: 'Do you condemn that behaviour?'—when Mr Dan Andrews, the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, was asked the question: 'Do you condemn this behaviour? Do you condemn Mr Setka of the CFMEU?—there was a stony silence.

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

You are on a roll.

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

Senator Conroy interjects and says, 'You are on a roll.' That indicates the immaturity of mind of the would-be Deputy Leader of the Government in the event that there were to be a change of government. I am sure the galleries and anybody that might be listening in would be horrified at that prospect. The man who ruined the NBN, the man who has no idea about the Defence needs of this country, the man who sought to ridicule men in uniform at Senate estimates, making the most hideous accusations against them using coward's castle, then makes those sorts of mindless interjections.

I just wish more Australians sometimes could watch the goings on in this parliament because they would never vote Labor again. But in a few days time the people of Victoria have a very stark choice, and this is part and parcel of that stark choice. Will they be electing a state government that is in lockstep with the CFMEU which is in lockstep with an industry super fund which has now come under such heavy scrutiny in a royal commission.

These are matters of great moment: the financial security of literally hundreds of thousands of Australians. Here we are talking about the security of thousands of professionals. Indeed, the financial services sector is now the biggest employer in this country and, without so much as a warning, the Australian Labor Party, in cahoots with a few others in this place, are now seeking to throw that sector into complete and utter uncertainty.

I have asked a number of times, rhetorically, as have my colleagues: what is the rush to get this through the Senate today? There is never an answer given. We know that this regulation can be considered in due course under the appropriate timeslot next week, right through next week, right up until close of business on Thursday. But, no, it has got to be done on a separate, special sitting day that the Senate voted for to deal with government business on the basis of the need for senators to come to Canberra to listen to those excellent speeches that we heard from the President of China and the Prime Minister of India.

Those extra days that were set aside to deal with government business have now been subverted, courtesy of the Australian Labor Party, to run this motion of disallowance, a motion of disallowance which will overturn a decision of the Senate that was voted on once in July of this year and another time in October of this year. They are regulations which stop the uncertainty under which, especially, the small business sector had to survive. They were relieved that the uncertainty had gone. Then, after the first victory, they had it come up again four months later. Once again, they were relieved that the Senate had the good sense to keep and endorse the regulations that Senator Cormann so ably crafted and put together.

Now here we are, with no notice, being asked to sweep away this regulation in circumstances where there is no rush, in circumstances where there is no hurry. So the question has to be asked: could it have anything to do with the fact that two senators, in a manner—and we still have not really heard an explanation as to why they have changed their mind—

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

They think your policy stinks.

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

And we get the silly interjection from Senator Conroy: 'Because your policy stinks.' It sounds as though he is in the schoolyard still. But if these senators actually believe our policy—to quote the intellectual, Conroy—'stinks', they thought it smelt okay in July of this year, they thought it smelt okay in October of this year and they actually, positively voted for these regulations. Are they saying they did not have the intellectual aptitude? Are they saying that they did not understand what they were voting for? What are they saying in relation to this matter?

I think the people of Australia are entitled to a full explanation and one would have thought that, if there is to be an ongoing relationship, and I am sure there will be a good ongoing relationship, if you want to do business, the way to do it would be to approach the government and say, 'You know those regulations I voted for? I have a bit of a concern about some aspects of those regulations.' That would have been the right way to go about it. That is the right way that a mature legislator would go about these matters, rather than running under the umbrella of the Australian Labor Party and being swept along in an exercise which is only designed to support the trade union movement super funds against the small businessmen and women out in the Australian community who provide exceptionally good financial advice to literally hundreds of thousands of people.

I have no doubt that the senators who sometimes come in here saying they have received wonderful emails on certain issues will, chances are, not tell us about the messages of concern they may have received about a potential vote on this issue. And because I am sure these two senators in particular are open-minded and are willing to listen, I simply say to them, 'What's the urgency to do this today? Why not open yourself up to the financial practitioners in your state, the small businessmen and women, and allow them to explain the consequences of your potential vote in this space?'

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

The big banks and the AMP! It's not small business.

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

Senator Cameron says, 'It's not small business.' Oh, what ignorance Senator Cameron displays, sometimes not on a daily basis; he brings it to us on an hourly or minute-by-minute basis and he has just excelled himself again. The simple fact is that there are huge numbers of men and women, financial practitioners, dotted right around this country—especially in rural and regional communities—who are providing a fantastic service and who will find it even more difficult to compete against these monsters of funds run by the trade union movement.

I do say that the senators who are thinking of changing their minds should come to the government and express exactly the detail of their concern because it is agreed in this chamber that a vast, or a substantial, part of these regulations are in fact good regulations and should remain, but they will all be swept away by a disallowance motion being carried today. So why not come to the government and say, 'We are genuinely casting an independent mind over these matters. We are seeking to make certain changes, to keep the good regulations but change those with which we have some difficulty'?

We can come to agreement. It has been shown in the past we can and I have no doubt, with Senator Cormann's skills, we will be able to do so again in the future. I would invite those senators who I am sure are genuine and sincere in their concerns about the regulations to consider the consequences. If you do defer this issue until next week, nothing is lost but everything is to be gained by allowing you to have the benefit of Senator Cormann's interaction and, more importantly, the men and women from your electorate who practice in this area, who are good, honest, decent Australians earning an honest living assisting people with their financial issues. So I say to honourable senators, please be exceptionally careful in voting for this part motion. I will now move an amendment to the machinery motion before the chair:

That we omit 'determined without amendment or debate'.

In moving that amendment, I believe it is appropriate to highlight the importance of such an amendment because it will enable us to consider any amendments and it will allow us to further debate this issue. When people run away from a debate on a vexed issue such as this, it usually means that they do not have the arguments, or they do not have the reasons or they are very concerned that the numbers might not hold over a particular weekend. That may well be the reason, because if these senators are able to get back to their electorates to hear the views of their community, to hear the views of the small businessmen and women in their community, they may well change their minds and realise that, when they voted for these regulations, not once but twice, they actually did the right thing for their constituents, especially the small businessmen and women who both of them, I understand, seek to champion. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

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

I move:

That the motion be put.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Conroy, that the question now be put, be agreed to.

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

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

Senator Ronaldson.

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

Excuse me, Mr President—

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

Senator Ronaldson, is this a point of order?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not, Mr President.

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

The call will go on seniority.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm on my feet and you called me. I move an amendment—

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

Senator Ronaldson, you both rose to your feet at the same time. I thought you may have been raising a point of order. You are not; you clarified that. The call is going to Senator Wong.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I was clearly on my feet first. That is why you called me, Mr President. You saw me rise to my feet and you called me. What the Leader of the Opposition did, quite frankly, is an issue for her. I rose to my feet, you called me and I started to move the motion.

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

There is no point of order, Senator Ronaldson, and the reason is that you both rose to your feet at the same time. I know that your experience in this chamber is that the senior person who would have got the call on that occasion is Senator Wong. That has been a matter of convention and practice for a long time. Senator Ronaldson, I thought—in deference to you—that you were raising a point of order. I did not realise you wanted to do anything other than that. So the call is going to Senator Wong.

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

Mr President, on a point of order: I am just seeking guidance here. I believe that Senator Wong participated in the debate and as such is not able—

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

That is a valid point of clarification, Senator Cormann, but that is not the case. I am giving the call to Senator Wong.

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 moved by Senator Moore, that has not been amended, be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order or clarification. Some people may have left between the last vote and this vote, so I wonder whether it should be a four-minute division.

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

Senator Fifield, if there is no intervening debate, a one-minute division can be called. What I am happy to do—and I am sure the Senate would concur with me—is: if we feel there has been an injustice in relation to the division I am happy for that to be put again.

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, we are ringing them for only one minute. But if we feel as though an injustice has been caused by a one-minute division I am sure the Senate would concur with recommitting the vote.

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

Mr President, I do feel an injustice—

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

I am sorry, Senator Macdonald. Let's wait and see what the division result is. If anyone left the chamber I would be very surprised.

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

Just so we are all absolutely clear, the motion now that has been moved by Senator Moore is that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. It is the precedence question that is before the chair.

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

I move the motion circulated in the chamber:

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),

(b) Notices of motions;

(4) The adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after it has considered the items listed in paragraph (3).

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

The question is that the motion in relation to the routine of business today be agreed to.