Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this adjournment debate to make a contribution on a matter pertaining to one of the main players in the construction and architecture of the budget. It was very interesting to hear the Hon. Mathias Cormann, in an interview with David Speers, express the view:

With the benefit of hindsight we should have gone earlier for this inquiry. I am just explaining to you quite candidly that we were motivated absolutely by doing the right thing, by forming the view, which is a matter of public record that it was time for action rather than for more inquiries. As it turns out, this inquiry has come up with some significant revelations …

Since the royal commission into banking was inflicted upon this current government by some fair-minded and active people in the government's ranks, it's been very instructive to see how people have dealt with it. The Hon. Mathias Cormann has been portrayed as one of the grown-ups in charge—one of the sensible people, one of the committed people, one of the decent people in the ranks of the coalition. But I decided to go back and do a little bit of scrutiny of this particular issue. And when we go back and do some scrutiny of this issue we find that there was a Senate inquiry—because these issues are not new. The Hon. Bernie Ripoll and former senator Mark Bishop inquired into these issues and made particularly relevant statements on the Hansard. I think it would be pretty instructive to read some of them into the record. The Hon. Bernie Ripoll said:

When it comes to opt in, it is one of the few mechanisms that is available to us if you believe in standards, if you believe in changing culture and best interests. It is one of the few ways that you can actually help the sector. The majority of them actually contact their clients on a regular basis, not once every two years, but on a regular basis: once a month, once every three months, once every six months. We think it is quite reasonable to say at least once every two years make contact. At least do something for the clients, because—you know what?—it is not for free; you are actually charging people fees. If you are going to do that we say do it and do it properly.

He went on in the same contribution to say:

So who benefits? I just say: follow the money and have a look at who is involved and who benefits. The four major banks, and AMP, control 80 per cent of the finance advice business in Australia. Good luck to them. But they should not, at the same time, be in concert with the government trying to diminish the good protection measures for consumers.

Then take former senator Mark Bishop's contribution:

If the legislation foreshadowed by Senator Cormann is introduced, is passed and becomes law, who wins? We know who the winners are. They are the four banks I named and AMP, commission-based salespeople and retailers of financial products who persuade banks to recommend to customers the sale of their particular product …

So there we have it: this is not a new issue.

For Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann to actually say he's surprised at any of this defies credulity; it really does. It is a case of appearing in the open saying one thing and doing completely the opposite, because he actually recommended against the opt-in provisions. He worked tirelessly to delay the introduction of the opt-in provisions. We know the great tragedy of that is that a deceased customer was charged for financial advice for 10 years. Was that the outcome he was trying to seek? I could give him the benefit of the doubt and say no, but that's what happened. It is a matter of public record. He says he was surprised and that with hindsight he would have done something different, when all the time in the parliament he was working on behalf of the four big banks and the AMP and all those people who have now had their positions completely exposed—where almost the entire board of a major institution in Australia is going to be changed.

Let's be fair dinkum: in the parliament you can say one thing and do another, because our Minister for Finance has done it. And he pays no penalty for it, despite the fact that a number of very competent journalists—Ian Verrender from the ABC, Peter Martin from The Ageare consistently articulating the absolute incoherence of the government's position of saying they are looking after consumers when they're doing exactly the opposite, all to attack industry super funds. It's disgraceful!