Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection from Senator Nash, for whom I have the greatest respect. We have worked together very closely for six years, but she has decided to run off to have another life as minister. Congratulations, Senator Nash. Senator Cash is always exciting—there is no argument about that. I know that, when we were in government, Prime Minister Gillard used to worry about what came out of my mouth sometimes, but Senator Cash leaves me for dead. She is a beauty! I mean that sincerely.

I want to talk about Senator Cormann's contributions today and for the last couple of days. We are talking about finance and we are talking about appropriations. Last year when we went to the federal election the current government made it very clear that they wanted to make massive changes to Labor's FoFA legislation—Future of Financial Advice legislation. We had taken serious action because we had seen some shocking developments with major collapses of financial advisory corporations, namely Westpoint. A number of Western Australians were caught up in that. They and other Australians were blistered—that is the only word I can find to describe it—by devious people who should have been locked up much earlier than they were. There were losses of up to about $312 million through very shady deals. We also remember the collapse of Storm Financial almost five years ago—a disastrous part of our mostly proud history. That unfortunately was not a proud bit.

We believe the financial advisory industry has a role to play. There is no doubt about that. But, sadly, there are some very shady characters—I will go so far as to call them crooks—who should not be in the industry. Unfortunately, you have some in every industry. They saw their way to garnering huge rewards from pushing certain products that did not suit their clients' needs. They got rich; the other poor devils lost their money. Hence, we put in some tight legislation. It irks me to think that the current government is doing everything it can to overturn it. Why would you want to overturn the protection of people's savings? The only reason I can find—and I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is some sort of payback to mates, though I am not too sure. I did touch on this earlier today and I would like to touch on it again because I think it is essential for those who may be seeking financial advice or those who may be wondering what the heck is going on with the backflips on some regulations from the other side of the chamber. I am touching on it again because this time it will be without the constant interjections and chatter from those opposite who are sent in to make a lot of noise and put off speakers in the hope that the message does not get out. Mr Deputy President, you know that I do not act like that. I would much prefer to have an informed debate and be heard by both sides.

I must quote from a piece in today's AustralianFinancial Review written by that well-respected and highly regarded journalist Philip Coorey. It talks about the backflip from Senator Cormann on the FoFA regulations. It says:

It is too early to describe the FoFA freeze as a backdown but it could end up that way. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says he intends to legislate for the policy as promised before the election, just that it would be better to have all the interest groups in agreement first.

What we have seen is a massive backlash in large parts of the community from people seeking finance, from pensioners and from community groups who are absolutely furious that this would overturn the tight legislation that was put in to protect people from bad advice, or just crooked advice—if I could put it any other way I would, but I cannot think of another way. Going back to the article from Mr Coorey, it states that Minister Cormann:

… who designed the FoFA changes in opposition, is hardly signalling a rousing endorsement of stood-aside assistant treasurer Arthur Sinodinos.

It was Sinodinos's job to box the changes into shape, present them as regulations and legislation, consult the stakeholders and let fly.

By Cormann's own admission, the stakeholders are largely opposed to what the government is proposing.

He believes this to be more the product of misunderstanding and sloppy reporting than anything the government has done.

Every Western Australian listening should be very well aware of what our Minister for Finance, who is Western Australia based, actually means. In question time today in this chamber, he said—and, if I am wrong, he can challenge me anywhere he likes—that he was new to it and so he could not answers questions from, I think, Senator Dastyari and Senator Bishop in relation to why things changed, and he left it at that. Somebody is not telling the truth, because Mr Coorey clearly said that in opposition this was Minister Cormann's baby, that he developed it.

I refer now to another article in The Australian Financial Reviewin Chanticleer with the headline 'Cormann makes a clean break'. It states:

Sinodinos bungled the financial advice reforms by putting too much emphasis on cutting red tape and too little on what it would mean for consumers.

Where I am coming to with this is that we are still waiting for the National Commission of Audit report. I want to make that clear so there is no confusion.

I want to go to one more article that Western Australians must be well aware of. It is also from The Australian Financial Reviewand Sally Patten is the reporter. In the article, she says:

Commonwealth Bank of Australia revealed in September last year that it had stopped putting in place systems that would have enabled its advisers to sign fresh contracts with clients every two years, a measure Senator Cormann has been keen to drop.

The government may also come under pressure to either obtain industry consensus—

Well, we hope. Where I am leading to is that there was going to be a commission of audit where the belt would have to be tightened and a lot of promises might not be kept. It is my belief that something is not right here. Everyone wants to talk about us Western Australians this week, so why can't we have the report of the Commission of Audit? Why is it so secretive? It has been ready now for a couple of weeks, but it cannot be released. Some may think that because there is a Western Australia Senate election Saturday week on 5 April—and I have no proof because I have seen nothing—there might be some bad news in it not only for West Aussies but for every single Australian.

I now turn to another aspect that has given me much grief over the last few months. I have shared it with as many people as I can, but I would like to share it again now because I have not yet had the opportunity here. On Sunday, 17 February last year, the Hon. Tony Abbott as opposition leader visited Western Australia. I am told he had a Liberal Party campaign rally in Perth—so he was there to gee up the troops. I will read from a media release from the ABC; there is no stunt here. He told the crowd that 'he hopes to model his government on Premier Colin Barnett'. When I put that to some Western Australians in this place, no-one denied it. In fact, one of the good senators from Western Australia shook his head in agreement, so I am not making anything up. The article says of the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister Mr Abbott:

He says he has learned a lot from Mr Barnett, describing his government as a model he hopes to repeat in Canberra.

The party faithful thought, 'You beauty!' Bear in mind that February last year was one month before the Western Australia state election. So just under a month later, we went to a Western Australian state election where Mr Barnett was returned with a majority of more seats than he had in the previous government. He had received a glowing endorsement from a lot of Western Australians—not me, of course—that they wanted him as their Premier. This would have excited Mr Abbott because he wanted to model himself on Mr Barnett's government.

What happened between 14 March and a month later? Mr Barnett went to the election telling all Western Australians to tighten their belts, that it was time for fiscal responsibility, that there was not a lot of money to throw around and that they wanted to contain pay rises through the public sector. I think the figure was a modest three per cent or something like that.

But—lo and behold!—about three or four weeks after the election, this wonderful article came out in Perth and talked about Mr Barnett's adviser Dixie Marshall's pay rise. You can see the nervousness that I want to share with every Western Australian, because there is a Senate election coming. I am not scared to talk about it. If Mr Abbott wants to model himself on Mr Barnett—uh, oh! Nothing was said about this, but a pay rise of $84,534—I am not making this up; I do wear glasses, but this is very clear—brings Ms Marshall's pay packet to $245,000 a year. This is why we have to be very careful. We are being told by Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott that we have got to tighten the belt, and we are also being denied access to the audit. What have they got to hide?

Government senators interjecting—

I notice the chirping starting. You will all have your turn, because I want to know if you know something I do not. But West Aussies need to be very nervous if Mr Abbott models himself on Mr Barnett and wants a repeat of his government in Canberra. I am getting a horrible feeling here. How can you get an $84,000 pay rise to take your pay up to $245,000 when you are the Premier's media adviser?

There was also another pay rise that snuck through that there was no mention about before the election. It was to a Ms Cant. I do not know Ms Cant, but it says in this article that she is a long-time ally and director of government strategy. She got a pay rise of $52,963. This is absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. If you had the intestinal fortitude to go to the election and say that you were going to deliver these pay rises, maybe then I would be wrong and would not be talking about it.

But—do you know what?—I have absolute faith in the political system in Western Australia. It has just brought me back to the pack, because I have been a little bit unfair. You see, the Liberal members of the government over there in WA—and I am reading from the PerthNow article—were really annoyed. It says here that it caused 'furore amongst Liberal MPs' that wage rises like that could be awarded to two political advisers. There was no mention about it before the election. Western Australians are being told to tighten their belts. You know why there was furore? Because they said they believed they too should receive the big pay rises and then got cranky because their pays are set by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. I have got faith; I am back on. No worries.

You can see why we have the Prime Minister wanting to model himself on Mr Barnett. There are more reasons for fear. Let me tell you of another really dangerous situation that will occur if Mr Abbott reflects Mr Barnett. He has already started to reflect Mr Barnett. It will be cuts to education. My, my, my! In that great state of Western Australia there was no mention of the cuts that were coming to education. I have to share this with you. It may bore some over there. I see Senator Bernardi is yawning. It may bore him because he is not up for election and so he is sitting there feeling very cocky. But it does not bore me that $183 million has been taken out of Western Australian state schools. I know I am on a high horse here, because this is something that I am absolutely passionate about. I am actually honoured to be the patron of the Darling Range Sports College in Forrestfield in Mr Wyatt's federal electorate of Hasluck. It may sound very flash, but its previous name was Forrestfield Senior High School. It is a really good, knockabout, low socioeconomic public school, and it is not awash with the cash that you find at private schools. It had its funding cut by no less than $379,268.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

That is absolutely frightening. It has an Aboriginal population of about eight per cent too. It is not cashed up like maybe the school you went to was, Senator Bernardi.

But while we are talking about good knockabout public schools, I want to talk about my old school, Thornlie Senior High School, also in the same electorate. Their funding has been cut by $435,000. I have examples of primary schools in the same electorate—primary schools, for crying out loud! Here is one. Forest Crescent Primary School in Thornlie has had $230,885 cut from their funding.