Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (14:48): I thank Senator Bishop for that question. With all due respect to Mr Kohler, he is wrong. That is not what we are doing. We are restoring some balance in the regulatory framework for financial services. The previous, Labor government was guided by one thing and one thing only—and that was how best to promote the vested interests of union dominated industry funds. The one thing that the Labor Party was focused on was how to leverage its position as the government of Australia using legislation to impose one business model across the whole of the financial services market—the union dominated industry fund model. We are committed to ensuring the financial services sector is as efficient, transparent and competitive as possible— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! I need silence on my left so I can hear the answer. Senator CORMANN: We on this side of the chamber are committed to ensuring we have the most efficient, competitive and transparent financial services system possible, with appropriately high corporate governance standards where people across Australia seeking access to financial advice can better— Senator Moore: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. That last phrase from Senator Cormann almost got there, but the particular question was about a ban on sales commissions and other conflicted remunerations. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Senator Cormann is addressing the question. Senator CORMANN: I know that the Labor Party do not want to listen to any of this, but it is a very important context for the question that was asked. The premise of the question is wrong. We are not reintroducing conflicted remunerations for personal advice. We are ensuring that there is an appropriate level playing field and a competitively neutral financial services regulatory framework when it comes to the provision of general advice. Guess what? The Labor Party gave a special deal to their friends in union dominated industry funds. They said, 'You can provide fund advice. You can charge a fee which is not disclosed or transparent to every member of that fund, irrespective of whether they access advice or not. You can keep going.' But they did not want anybody else to be able to— (Time expired) Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I have a point of clarification. The President referred to Senator Cormann as the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer. The Prime Minister in the House has referred to Senator Cormann as the Acting Assistant Treasurer. I seek some clarification as to whether Senator Cormann is answering in his representative capacity or, in fact, as Acting Assistant Treasurer. The PRESIDENT: If Senator Cormann is in an acting capacity and I have been wrong there then I correct the record.