I'm very pleased to rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill. There are a number of things in it but I want to focus on just a couple of them. The first one I will address is the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which was introduced in 2017. What we have found is that it needs to be improved because the way it's operating now can be really clunky and can have some really unintended consequences for people who are using this as a way of saving for a deposit within their superannuation, putting in additional funds specifically with the idea of it being able to be used for their first home. Of course, people can put funds into this through either salary sacrifice or personal voluntary super contributions, but what we have found since we've come to government is that the legislation underpinning the First Home Super Saver Scheme is inflexible and can occasionally result in a very poor user experience. Some people have made an error in their application, finding that their savings are locked in superannuation until retirement, which is not what they had intended, but because of the inflexibility of the scheme. We don't want that to happen. We want to fix that problem that exists.

Schedule 4 of the Treasury laws amendment bill that we're speaking to here provides greater flexibility for first home buyers using the scheme to amend or revoke their applications to correct errors and ensure their savings are released. These changes will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke applications and will allow individuals to undo any errors that they have unintentionally made. This is the sort of thing that we do when we come to government—we look at how things are working and we take the time to address the issues that are making things less user-friendly than they need to be. So I'm very pleased to support schedule 4 of the bill.

Of the other three schedules, I want to focus on schedule 2, which relates to financial advice. Across this
parliament, we're all at different stages of our financial journeys. Many of us have kids at a different stage and older parents at a different stage again. I don't think any of us would doubt how important financial advice is at all the different stages of life. As demographics change, we're certainly going to see needs in different areas, but there is a real challenge. Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Corporations Act so that we can deliver on our election commitment to better recognise the experience of existing financial advisers, who have been at risk of being forced to leave the advice space. At a time when we know people need to reach out, it is important that experienced, reputable people are able to continue to provide financial advice. The bill will also address some of the limitations in the current framework for new entrants.

I think it's worthwhile thinking about the problem we face and how we got to where we are, which goes back to prior to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services
Industry. People probably don't have it at the top of their mind that, ahead of the Hayne royal commission, the Rudd government outlawed commissions and introduced legislation requiring advisers to place client interests above their own. Of course, after winning government, the coalition tried to undo those changes, although they eventually listened to our calls for a banking royal commission, and out of that we heard some quite extraordinary things.

One of the things we heard in April 2018 was from the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission. They revealed that 90 per cent of financial advisers who provided advice to selfmanaged super funds failed to comply with the 'best interests of the client' test. ASIC did some  investigation and research, and that was the conclusion they came to. That is an extraordinarily high number, and it was one of the things that the royal commission focused on as it shifted to looking at the financial advice industry. It heard quite a long list of things that were not working the way we would expect them to be working—things like inappropriate advice; misconduct, including falsifying documents; and multiple cases of consumers paying ongoing fees yet failing to receive regular advice reviews. There had been quite a big blowout in the number of financial advisers—from around 18,000 in late 2009 to around 25,000 at that point in 2018, an increase of 41 percent—and yet just 8,700 of those financial advisers had completed a degree at a bachelor level or above.

These were the sorts of things that we heard during the royal commission, and that led to a bunch of
recommendations being made. One of those recommendations related to the need for people providing advice to have a strong academic basis and high professional standards. I note one of the comments made by Peter Kell, the deputy chair of ASIC at the time. He questioned whether you could even call the financial advice sector a profession, because he didn't feel that sufficient people had reached a sufficient standard.

And that's what lead to the recommendation about the need for high levels of education for people before they could call themselves financial advisers. Of course, there are many financial advisers who are working, who, because of the experience that they have, are providing highly ethical, very well-informed financial advice. The last thing we want to see is those people not able to deliver a service that their clients are very, very happy with.

Since 2019, we have had about 10,000 financial advisers leave the industry. That includes experienced advisers with no history of misconduct. What that has done is reduce the access to quality financial advice. We recognise that experienced advisers make a valuable contribution to the financial advice space. I have spoken to many in my electorate, in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, who are senior, qualified people, based on the experience that they've had, but they don't necessarily have a piece of paper from an institution to demonstrate that. What they do have is a strong client base who really regard their expertise in the high regard. We believe that those sorts of financial advisers play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year and sharing their knowledge and experience more broadly. So we have taken the position, as we took to the election, that there is a whole group of people who should be allowed to keep practising. The current requirements do not properly balance that desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced, skilled workforce.

I am very pleased that, with this schedule 4 in this piece of legislation, those advisers will be able to continue
to work. The amendments allow experienced advisers, with at least 10 years of experience and a clean record, who have passed the exam, to remain in the industry without needing to complete additional education. The amendments will also facilitate entry into the industry for new entrants.

The bill ensures that consumers continue to have access to quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry. They do ensure that there's a pool of advisers to mentor, supervise, and upskill those newer entrants. What's really important to us is the assurance that consumers have that they will receive quality advice. The assurance is that those experienced advisers, who are affected by the amendments, must have a clean record and must pass the financial adviser exam. Together, the amendments that are contained in schedule 2 ensure that consumers have access to good-quality financial advice from experienced advisers.

We're really conscious that timely passage of the legislation will give experienced advisers certainty as to their future in the industry. I do recognise that they have been waiting to see how our commitment, which we took to the election, would be implemented. I thank them for hanging in there. We know some have left. We know some have chosen not to wait and have brought forward retirements. But, to those who have stayed, we do value, very much, the advice that you give. More than ever, we know that people really, really need to be able to access that advice.

If the legislation does not pass, or if there is some delay in the passage—and we really hope there's not—these advisers will need to complete up to eight tertiary level units before 1 January 2026 in order to keep providing financial advice. That's why it was important for this legislation to be brought before the parliament this sitting period—so that we can deliver on that commitment.

I want to finish by encouraging people to seek advice. I'm very fortunate to have lots of young people around me who are moving through into their 30s and thinking about homes and what they might be able to do. They often admit to me that they don't necessarily have a skills base for making those decisions. I think we need to be able to reassure young people that there are quality advisers they can speak with.

I should also point out that there's also the improvements to the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which might also provide an avenue—and I really urge them to get advice so they know what is the most appropriate thing for them to do. It's the same with the older people in my community. Just because you've stopped working doesn't mean that you need to stop thinking about what the financial situation you're in is. I know that I get great feedback from people who head to Centrelink and speak to the Centrelink financial guidance people there to be able to look at their situation. Whichever way you do it, my real call to action to people is to seek that advice. It's not the sort of thing that any of us really love doing, but it can really make a difference, and we hope and we know that these changes we're making will actually improve the systems that we have in place and allow really experienced advisers to keep on giving that advice.