Senate debates

Monday, 4 July 2011

Committees

Economics References Committee; Consideration

5:28 pm

Photo of Nick XenophonNick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am disappointed but not surprised. I can indicate that I have introduced a bill which I hope will be dealt with by committee, particularly in relation to the next amendment, and I hope that there will be a modification of the position of my collea­gues on both sides at some stage in the future. I indicate that Senator Ronaldson of course is quite correct: it is not identical but it would have, I believe, a similar effect in relation to the market distortion that has occurred as a result of the blanket ban on exit fees. If the ban were applied only to the big four, that is something that they could easily absorb, but the disproportionate impact on the smaller players in the market is one that is of concern. We have seen the contractions since the GFC, in part because of the way that the guarantee was structured. That was something that was raised in the banking inquiry of the Senate Economics References Committee, very ably chaired by Senator Bushby, and I supported the coalition in their concerns about that blanket ban on exit fees.

This is a slight modification, but I think it will have the same effect in terms of those small operators in the marketplace. I under­stand that this amendment will go down. I will not be seeking to divide on it. I think we need to carefully monitor the effect of the blanket ban on exit fees, including whether consumers get slugged with other fees—so in the end consumers are not any better off; they are simply affected some other way. That is something that I believe my next amendment will substantially remedy.

Question negatived.

Comments

No comments