Labor MP Daniel Mulino and Mr Bragg faced off in a public debate hosted by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) on Wednesday.
Dr Mulino slammed comments from the Liberal senator, after Mr Bragg raised questions around whether stricter regulatory standards were needed for funds meeting the sole purpose test, particularly in the case of Industry Super Holdings and its ownership of media outlet the New Daily.
The Labor MP then proceeded to refer to legal reforms in the wealth industry that the Liberal Party had acted to block.
“We’re trying not to be too partisan, but I just think when we’re getting into these kinds of discussions, I have to raise the fact that it was the Liberal Party that fought tooth and nail against reforms like MySuper, which I think have been really important for the sector,” Dr Mulino said.
“If you look back at the Rudd/Gillard years, the carbon tax was almost matched by FOFA in terms of what they fought tooth and nail against. Fees for no service, commissions… it was way too late that the Liberal Party looked at these really fundamental issues. And then the royal commission of course, which was voted against 28 times.
“I just think when you look at the New Daily, in the big scheme of whether organisations are acting in the interests of their members… there’s an elephant in the room and it’s not the New Daily.”
Mr Bragg somewhat agreed with Dr Mulino, noting the party may have been swayed by the industry – but the Labor Party has also been influenced by external voices.
“You’re right in saying we did the wrong thing on FOFA and all that stuff. You’re right. I mean, I wasn’t there,” the senator said.
“I think historically, the finance sector has had too much influence over my party, the Liberal Party, and I can say that in all honesty. And I think the union movement has way too much influence over the Labor Party. And I think it’s unhealthy.”
He noted there are members of the opposition (excluding Dr Mulino), where it has been “hard to tell” if they are representing unions, industry super funds or their electorates.
Meanwhile, he commented “the job of the Liberal Party is not to represent any sector or any business”, rather, to stand for the middle class.
The Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms were introduced by the former Labor government in 2012 following the 2009 Ripoll report. The royal commission then took the changes to remuneration further by ending the payment of grandfathered commissions.
In 2018, Synchron chair Michael Harrison called out the Liberal Party’s decision to introduce the Life Insurance Framework (LIF), saying it had done “almost nothing” to support advisers.
The Liberal party is now aware of the damaging influence by the industry funds. Left their run a bit late though and are being ineffectual. Make no mistake this is about control of capital. You are now witnessing industry funds exercising their muscle at different levels. Also FPA and AFA do not understand the game.
Labor Party / ASIC / APRA / ATO are all completely corrupt via REGULATORY CAPTURE to INDUSTRY SUPER.
Wow pot calling kettle black hey Labor Party. Labor Party should be renamed THE INDUSTRY SUPER PARTY, would more accurately reflect the level of influence on Labor politics.
“the job of the Liberal Party is not to represent any sector or any business”, rather, to stand for the middle class. Crikey, Andrew, weren’t you at the FSC when LIF came in. In 2016 were you not at the FSC when CBA, NAB & Macquarie agreed to fund FASEA, just as their Boards were deciding to sell their insurance arms. Why didn’t the FSC understand that more ASIC compliance would make advisers unprofitable, and put immense new business strain on their insurer members?
BAH HUMBUG, Andrew. Each one of those Liberal “big government ” disasters have reduced the scope of YOUR middle class to access financial advice at a REASONABLE OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE. Give me strength! .
Now you have discovered a reformist zeal. What was that old line that said “there is nothing so righteous as the reformed ………
WT$? That might be true for banks, but for the rest of us its the complete opposite. IFA, get the headline right, the banks have both sides of politics by the short a curlies.
Thanks to LIF and FOFA the unsuspecting public are being led down the path of junk insurance products and into super funds that no longer offer advice. While many older nonaligned advisers are rather unfairly being squeezed out through the education bar becoming to high a hurdle for quite a number to negotiate. New entrants remain pitifully low.
Our nation has record levels of household debt and income earners who face some very tough economic times ahead,
Gotta say, if the idea of the reforms was to make financial advice inaccessible to as many members of the public as possible and to create a framework of poor quality products which are unlikely to support them in their hour of need… then so far the reforms have been a ripping success. [b]Honestly, words fail me.[/b][b][/b]
Wow misleading headline to a story! If anything he’s defending their overdue inquiry in to union super and cash kickbacks to Labor etc, with a side issue of past ties between Lib’s and the financial sector.
Historically??? Lol.