Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of Australia's four major banks: First report of the 48th Parliament, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Australia's major banks are central parts of our national economy.

They support Australian businesses to invest, innovate and grow, while also helping millions of Australians pursue their personal ambitions—whether that's buying a first home, keeping their finances secure or planning for long-term financial stability.

Because of that role, the decisions made by our largest banks matter.

When they get it right, households and the broader economy benefit.

But when decisions go wrong, the consequences can be serious, and they are often felt by customers and communities first.

That is why the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics has maintained its program of annual public hearings with the major banks in this new term of parliament.

These hearings ensure that we continue to fix a strong public spotlight on bank conduct, culture and governance.

In the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, these hearings are one of the few remaining public forums that provide transparency and accountability for the decisions made by the nation's largest financial institutions.

A critical recommendation embedded in the heart of the final report of the royal commission was recommendation 5.6.

This recommendation requires all financial services entities to frequently assess their culture and governance, identify problems, address them, and determine whether changes made have been effective.

Commissioner Hayne made it clear that to ignore the recommendation would be 'foolish and ignorant because those who will not learn from history will repeat it.'

He continued:

Above all, it demands recognition that the primary responsibility for misconduct in the financial services industry lies with the entities concerned and with those who manage and control them: their boards and senior management.

Crucially, he also made clear that this responsibility is not a one-off exercise—and our committee takes this point very seriously.

Banks must apply, reapply and keep reapplying the lessons of the royal commission over time.

That principle of continuous reflection and improvement underpins the committee's work today.

Nearly a decade on from the royal commission, the evidence examined in this review shows why sustained scrutiny of the banking sector remains essential.

For example, the ANZ was recently subjected to the largest-ever fine, levied against a single entity by ASIC.

This follows misconduct linked to a major government bond deal and separate failings affecting tens of thousands of retail customers.

Nearly a decade later, considering the behaviour referenced above, we're reminded of Commissioner Hayne's words: 'foolish, and ignorant'.

ANZ's $250 million fine follows repeated regulatory interventions against the bank over the past decade.

These actions point to deep-seated governance and cultural issues.

While senior management assured the committee that improvements are being made, the committee will monitor this closely to ensure promises match experience, and we will seek further reporting from regulators to ensure those commitments translate into real change.

Evidence from the Commonwealth Bank raised different, but equally troubling, concerns.

In particular, the bank's treatment of low-income and concession customers highlighted the gap that can exist between technical compliance and community expectations of a 'fair go'.

Around 2.2 million low-income customers were wrongly placed in high-fee accounts and charged approximately $280 million in excessive fees by CommBank.

While remediation has begun, the bank has imposed tight eligibility rules and complex refund processes that make it unnecessarily harder for affected customers to recover what they are owed.

During the hearing, there was a suggestion that returning this money might be something shareholders object to.

Frankly, that should never be a consideration in circumstances where customers have been charged fees that should not have been paid.

The bank has profited from what's akin to an ill-gotten gain.

If the situation were reversed, there is absolutely little doubt that the bank would recover the money quickly.

The CBA is urged in the strongest terms to resolve this promptly—and fairly.

These examples reinforce a fundamental point: banks must be able to demonstrate that customer interests are genuinely embedded in decision-making at every single level.

Through the Review of Australia's four major banks, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics examines not only bank conduct and governance but also the insights banks can offer into the financial wellbeing of households, the pressures facing businesses and the performance and resilience of the Australian economy more broadly.

The report reflects evidence received during the committee's hearings with the major banks held on 18 and 19 November 2025.

It considers how banks are responding to economic pressures, regulatory expectations and technological change, while remaining focused on customer outcomes and systemic stability.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the contributions to this review by committee members and the entire secretariat.

I also want to thank the deputy chair for the collaborative, thoughtful approach he employs in complex examinations such as this.

These combined efforts have been instrumental in ensuring that the committee is able to discharge its accountability role effectively and in the public interest.

See this speech in context