Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address this place on the recent review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 2015—the second report—by the Standing Committee on Economics. Before addressing the substance of that report, I would also like to join other honourable members in acknowledging Mrs Henderson in relation to her presence in this place. I pay my great respects to both her efforts and the efforts of her predecessors.

Before addressing this place in relation to the substance of the report produced by the ACCC and, more importantly, by the Standing Committee on Economics, it is also appropriate to thank those committee members who do all of that hard work, quite often unheralded, behind the scenes. It may go unnoticed by some. It certainly does not go unnoticed by all.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:56 to 18 : 05

As they say in the classics, once more with feeling. Before I was interrupted I was acknowledging the very hard work undertaken by the economics committee in relation to its review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's annual report. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the ACCC for the time they gave for the hearing and for the substantial preparation they did to provide such cogent and helpful information. Last but most certainly not least, the unsung heroes of this report are the committee secretariat, who did great work.

Before I go on to make some comments about the substance of the report I would like to touch on a couple of the comments made by the honourable member for Brisbane. Those on this side of the place might recall some substance of his comments as he was purportedly speaking to the review of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission annual report. However, any causal connection between his commentary and the substance of that report was woefully lacking. In relation to those remarks, I hark back to another great popular culture song of our time and say that I still have not found what I am looking for.

The honourable member for Brisbane, however, did have a number of very telling things to say about what I must say was a very rosy and flattering assessment of the state of our banking industry. I will touch upon some of his comments before going to the substance of this report because, ironically, some of the remarks from the member for Brisbane are relevant apropos the report undertaken by the ACCC as far as the conduct of the big four banks is concerned. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of making some notes while the honourable member for Brisbane was on his feet. I understand that in the past we have had GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch—

Honourable members interjecting—

What might be good for the goose is certainly good for the gander because I undertook a fabulous 'scandal watch' word count in relation to the member for Brisbane. What did I come up with? It was like malfeasance bingo. These are the words he uttered. He mentioned not once, not twice but three times the completely unsatisfactory delay by the big four banks in so far as mums and dads in the community go. So there was acknowledgement of the delay.

What was the other 'scandal watch' word? 'Misconduct'. The member for Brisbane was talking about how wonderful it was that the CEOs of the big four banks were able to commit such time in their jobs to sit down and review their evidence insofar as banking misconduct in their banks was concerned. The member for Brisbane was saying how wonderful it was in that it allowed those CEOs time to speak to middle management about the sorts of delays and misconduct that were occurring in those banks.

He then talked about the need for the wonderful disinfectant. The member for Brisbane said that the best disinfectant was transparency, inferring of course that there is a need for greater transparency in relation to the conduct of our big four banks. So then 'transparency' was the buzzword in the member for Brisbane's speech. And then it was 'scandals'—again, not one mention, but two mentions of scandals—in relation to the conduct of the big four banks. So let us go back through them again: we had conduct, we had delay, we had scandals and we had the need for transparency being the best disinfectant money could buy, so to speak. Put all that on one side, and what conclusion does that logically lead one to? If one accepts all of those things to be true, one would think a process to try to ensure that this culture was avoided in the future would be a thorough, forensic examination under oath with wide terms of reference in relation to systemic cultural issues of an incredibly tightly held, but fundamentally important aspect of the commercial banking sector in this country—and if not in this country, then all over the globe.

How do we address these deficiencies that the member for Brisbane was only too ready to acknowledge were there? We address them with a royal commission. If we are really serious about getting to the bottom of these issues and this conduct that the member for Brisbane said was there, in his capacity as a committee member, then let us do the job properly. Here is what one should not do in relation to acknowledged conduct that I have already described. Do you give corporations a reward for that sort of conduct? How about if we just give them some more money? Wouldn't that be a great idea? It is extraordinary to think that what we have here, proposed by the other side of this place, is that, in exchange for acknowledgement of that conduct, we are going to put into place a multibillion dollar tax cut over the course of 10 years, costing $50 billion, of which $7 billion goes to the big four banks.

The member for Brisbane did talk about the need to shine a bit of a light on this. In doing so, he said a tribunal might be a good idea. When he talks about a tribunal, I am reminded of that process of poaching. You might not know this, but sometimes the way to catch a trout in a stream—when you want to get that fish from the stream to the riverbank—is to very slowly approach the riverbank, put your hand in the water underneath the trout and tickle the trout's belly. You tickle the trout's belly until it falls asleep, until it is lulled into this false sense of security. Then, when it is just so dreamy and content, it is flicked out onto the riverbank. The problem with that is that it just does not happen that way. The trout never lands on the riverbank; the trout just keeps on swimming. This is what is going to be achieved in the conduct of a tribunal. For the big four in the banking sector, those trouts will just keep on swimming—you mark my words. If you are very serious about catching these fish, you will use a hook and a line, which is what a royal commission is.

They are the issues that the report that I am here to discuss, which is the ACCC report, actually tackles. They acknowledge that this sector is not nearly as robust as it needs to be in relation to ensuring that the conduct of the big four banks is properly regulated. As a matter of fact, Mr Sims remarked, at paragraph 2.4 of the report, the substance of which I have been addressing:

There seems a lack of very robust competition in banking. The Australian banks are very profitable and there is nothing wrong with that. We like our Australian companies to be as profitable as possible …

But he goes on to say:

We are not seeing as much robust competition as we would like.

In the substance of the report, Mr Sims also remarked upon the lack of access to justice in relation to mums and dads, who are vulnerable and very much at the mercy of the decisions that these companies make at their discretion. Mr Sims said:

… ‘access to justice’ is complicated and gets tangled up with questions of legal aid and also issues about how it might be made easier …

There are two words to make it easier: 'royal commission'.

See this speech in context