Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (14:01): I thank Senator Dastyari for that question. The answer to the final part of that question is no. Of course, in accordance with the improvements to our financial advice laws that we implemented from 1 July 2014, we are keeping all of the important consumer protections that matter. We are keeping the requirement for advisers to act in the best interest of their clients and we are keeping the ban on conflicted remuneration. ASIC has been pointing out very clearly why it is so important that ASIC conducts that sort of work. There is no doubt that historically we have had issues in this space in Australia that needed to be addressed. But guess what? Not even the strictest, most stringent, toughest regulatory arrangements are going to help in lifting professional, ethical and educational standards. We need the industry itself to provide leadership in relation to this. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, on my left! Senator Cormann, I have just paused the clock. We will not proceed until we have silence on my left. Senator Cormann, you have the call. Senator CORMANN: Good financial advisers provide an important service to Australians saving for their retirement or managing financial risks through life and help people with their financial health and wellbeing. They are dealing with other people's money, which is why there ought to be an appropriately robust regulatory framework in place which is not only robust but also efficient and which does not impose unnecessary costs that push up the cost of advice and puts access to high-quality advice beyond reach for too many people across Australia. What we are about is ensuring that we continue to work with the industry around lifting professional, educational and ethical standards and making sure that the consumer protection requirements that matter are actually enshrined in our regulations and in our legislation. Not every bit of red tape is good for consumers. Where red tape pushes up the cost of advice without actually leading to proportionate improvements in consumer protections, it is actually bad for consumers.