Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We certainly do oppose this amendment that's been proposed by the opposition. There are three schedules here. We're talking about changes to testamentary trusts, for which I think there's general agreement. There's a second schedule here—where we're talking about extensions of time for the profession to meet their obligations under continuing professional development—and then a third minor schedule.

But what the opposition is trying to do, of course, is to remove what is currently an exemption under conflicted remuneration. They are interests in an MIS that are proposed to be quoted on a prescribed financial market or a listed investment company. What we believe on this side of the chamber is that that needs to be reviewed. It's completely appropriate that we go out and ask industry for their views in this. This public consultation is absolutely vital to actually understand the mood and the temperature of the market. Deciding to ignore or to overrule these important steps is to, basically, assume—as an opposition—that that's going to be the will of the sector. We need to be listening to experts wherever we can.

This four-week consultation is not a long period. It's targeted, it's going to be well delivered and it looks at the merits of the current stamping-fee exemption, which does exist. This isn't the only element of financial practice where there is potential conflicted interest, but it needs to be explored fully within the sector. It allows us to make—as a government—an informed decision on whether to retain, to remove or to simply modify the current arrangements. It's not a long period of time, and that's why we oppose these amendments put forward by the opposition today.

Back to the financial sector themselves—this has been a long and protracted battle for both sides of parliament. There are no points in just cheap shots at each other. Fundamentally, the process started well before the Ripoll review. It's one that's been rolled out through a large profession. They recognise the need for these changes to be made. They've asked for more time—for very good reason. In many cases, these FASEA exams weren't even ready in time. They weren't available to regional areas. So it's important that that is provided and there's adequate time. The FASEA exam having the additional year—to 1 January 2022—is reasonable, and I think the overall requirements for the other specific, specialist areas through to 2026 is a significant period of time now for the profession to adapt and join. We want to see that that happens.

There's some concern from the sector that they've been pilloried and criticised unfairly, and I think that's not an unreasonable perception in many cases. The profession has been let down by not always complete and adequate representation by their bodies. They haven't worked together to make sure that the views of the sector were put forward early, so now we're mounting a rearguard move to give the financial-planning sector a chance to express their say. These extra two years absolutely do that.

If you can get a PhD between now and 2026, you can meet your professional-development obligations over that time, no matter how busy your professional requirements are. I speak as a medical practitioner who went through exactly the same process with the instigation of AHPRA nearly 10 years ago. Every medical practitioner had to go through this step. It can be painful and difficult, and medical specialists have tailored requirements. One of the great concerns from the financial-planning sector is that no matter who you are, you have to do all of the modules, even if you're not actually working in those specific areas. Over time I do wonder whether there'll be additional specialisation within the sector, but that time is not yet. There are simply not enough of the sector that have demonstrated these fundamental seven levels of training, and that needs to occur. There's general agreement that that has to happen, but, over time, I think there is a place for more specialisation. Most registration boards around the world can demonstrate that, and I hope that FASEA heads in that direction.

In conclusion, there have been great concerns particularly for people in mid-career and particularly for those who made substantial investments to buy practices in terms of the impact that this legislation would have. It's the greater good; it has to occur. But those people can say, 'The coalition was listening.' In the last federal election, I committed every Sunday to meeting with financial planners one by one. For many weeks they were extremely concerned about something other than a coalition victory. So they can say that this legislation is in the right hands of the right party and being delivered at the right time.

See this speech in context