Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

I rise, too, to make a contribution on this morning's private senator's bill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018. The purpose of this bill, as described, is to establish a joint parliamentary committee to investigate establishing an Australia Fund.

I want to say from the outset that Labor has some concerns about the mechanism that's being used today to establish this parliamentary committee. Under normal circumstances, such a committee would be established by motion. That's certainly the normal method for establishing a committee. I was hopeful, in listening to the senator's contributions this morning, to come to some better understanding about why this mechanism was sought, but I note that it was a rather short contribution and I certainly didn't get any clarification about why this was the mechanism. So I just put that on the record: we have concerns about legislating to establish a committee when the mechanism is already well established for this to be done by motion.

But, that being said, there's no doubt that, should such a committee be established, it would look into issues that are of great interest to Labor. According to the explanatory memorandum, the fund, as described by Senator Burston, would be designed to assist in the support and reconstruction of Australian rural and manufacturing industries in a time of crisis. It would assist in situations of natural disaster, such as drought, flood and bushfire, or in cases of a world financial crisis or unfair market intervention or manipulation.

It is envisaged, according to the explanatory memorandum, that:

… the Australia Fund would have the ability, on the basis of an assessment of the industry and/or businesses, to provide emergency and ongoing drought/flood/bushfire relief, loan money to businesses, act as a guarantor for loans, capitalise or waive interest, purchase existing bank loans, and assume control of relevant property of the business for a specified time.

Through you, Acting Deputy President, that's a rather extraordinary range of capacities that Senator Burston is attempting to enable this fund to undertake, and I have some concern that we have had very little detail about the way in which some of the things that are proposed and documented in the explanatory memorandum would, practically, operate.

The fund, according to the EM, would be designed to enable businesses to continue to operate, in order to earn revenue, employ workers and pay taxes, rather than to be prematurely wound up, and to support communities affected by natural disasters. Well, of course, the Labor Party is always interested in jobs and keeping people in jobs, but, again, I think that—with the issues of companies being wound up and concerns that have been raised over the course of this government's tenure of five years so far—there are many issues around insolvency that are live and are worthy of government's consideration, and certainly have been advised to be pursued, that are currently not being considered at all.

The bill articulates a determination to provide funds for industry and/or companies restructuring, and the acquisition of new technologies to make businesses more economically viable and internationally competitive. Again, those are enormous goals.

As part of its investigation into the need for the fund, it's intended that the committee would undertake hearings in all capital cities and major rural centres, and, specifically, examine the impact on rural Australia of ongoing drought and world market price fluctuations for primary industry produce. I will make some further comments around this, but, at this point, can I absolutely indicate that—as Labor has been pointing out, day after day, when we've gathered in this place, and in our practical action, where we have the capacity to control the agenda, of getting our committees out and into regional and rural Australia—there is a big problem out there. There is a massive problem.

I note Senator Siewert here in the chamber as well, preparing for the next private senator's bill that's to advance in this place this morning. Senator Siewert and I have been out in regional and remote communities inquiring into mental health services and access to mental health services. The standard that is accepted in the bush—the risk that is there—which is impacting on people and their businesses because they simply are not getting access to basic health services, is of critical concern. It speaks to a government that are completely out of touch with regional and remote Australia. Despite their formal partnership with the National Party, who claim to be the party of the bush, we have seen this government cut services, cut support to small business, cut away at the very fabric of the communities that the National Party's supposed to be standing up for, and the National Party have not been here to defend them. I think that is why we saw some very significant swings to Independents in the Victorian election—because of the government's abrogation of its responsibility to go out into the bush and then come back into this place and represent them. They should stop pretending that they support the bush and stand up and do something about it. I'm not surprised that one of the elements that Senator Burston has embedded in his bill is a trip out to the bush, to basically go and have a look and see what's going on, because the current representatives in the National Party are not standing up for their constituency. That is absolutely the case.

The committee's terms of reference would also include reviewing existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws with the aim of introducing legislation designed to assist companies to trade through difficult times rather than be closed down. The existing taxation laws relating to bankruptcy would also be reviewed. If there's sufficient time after I've finished my prepared material, I will go to the issue of insolvency and bankruptcy and the recommendations that were made a very long time ago by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which Senator Ketter was a part. We raised significant concerns early in the years of this parliament and made very significant recommendations aimed at looking at what's going on in that space. But the government, just like they resisted the banking royal commission for 600 days, have failed to undertake adequate scrutiny of what's going on in insolvency. Certainly we heard an awful lot around the impaired loans inquiry—and a lot of bank loan concerns that were raised by many from rural areas were from your constituency of Western Australia, Acting Deputy President Sterle. There's a lot of work that the government could have been doing on this the whole time, but over five years we've seen them in disarray and not doing what has to be done for the benefit of small businesses and small regional communities across this country. At the completion of the inquiry, the committee proposes to table before parliament a detailed report into its finding and recommendations. It's indicated, in the EM, that the bill will have no financial impact.

Labor is deeply concerned about many of the issues that the proposed Australia Fund committee would deal with but none more so than the issue of financial misconduct in the banking sector. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is undertaking very important work. Labor called for this royal commission—Labor pushed for this royal commission—for 600 days, and the Liberal-National Party fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening. As more and more financial scandals began to pile up, it became clear to Labor that this was not a case of just a few bad apples. The excuses from the big banks started wearing very thin, and the apologies started to become quite routine: 'Yes, I'm sorry; I'm sorry'. I don't know about you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I was taught that when you say you're sorry you are supposed to undertake a change of behaviour and not continue to repeat the old one. What we've seen, revealed during the course of this inquiry, is the absolute disregard for community standards around banking and the banks constantly returning to inappropriate behaviours and unethical action.

In April 2016, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer took the bold and courageous steps of announcing that Labor would call for a royal commission into the banks and financial services industry. It was clear to us that Australia needs better protections and that banks and financial firms needed to lift their game. Again I want to acknowledge the great work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which Senator Ketter was a very significant and valuable member, and its joint report. The joint report made serious recommendations that it was time for us to call a banking royal commission and described the egregious behaviours that were replete within the sector.

The decision to call that royal commission, though, was not easy, particularly from opposition. You'll recall, Mr Deputy President, that we were pilloried for it, we were derided by the government—including by the current Prime Minister, the member for Cook, who told us that a royal commission would be nothing more than 'a QC complaints desk', 'a populist whinge' and 'a reckless distraction'. Well, I'd say the Australian history book will show that the prime ministership of Mr Morrison is in fact a reckless distraction. This government and the Prime Minister consistently asserted that a royal commission would be a waste of time. They did everything they could to stop it from happening. They voted against a royal commission no fewer than 26 times in the parliament. They set up parliamentary inquiries to try and cut across a royal commission. They tried to show that a royal commission was unnecessary. They tried to convince the Australian people that we didn't need a full-blown royal commission. They thought that, by doing so, they could protect the banks from scrutiny.

But they were wrong. Labor's determination to stand up for the people who were being ripped off by banks was the driving force that continued to push until we got the call for a royal commission. The evidence that we built with the community and through the work of other parliamentary committees was simply too strong to be overlooked. Victims of financial services and the misconduct that they experienced came forward. They came through week after week. Media stories—and members of parliament standing up for them—told the Australian community about an industry that had lost its ethical and moral compass.

When this government finally saw the writing on the wall, when they finally caved in to the pressure from Labor and agreed to a royal commission at the very end of 2017—mindful that we called for it in April 2016, more than a year earlier—the now Prime Minister, the member for Cook, described the decision as 'regrettable'. The Prime Minister and the government thought it was 'regrettable' that the misconduct of financial firms would finally be exposed to the Australian people. They thought it 'regrettable' that victims had lost their homes, their livelihoods and even family members because of that very misconduct. They thought it 'regrettable' that such people would have the chance to tell their stories. They said it was 'regrettable' that the toxic, unethical culture that has infiltrated the financial services sector might finally be exposed.

The Prime Minister's comments that day betrayed him. They showed him for what he is. They showed the Australian people very clearly which side he and his government will always be on, and that is the side of the big banks. When the government have been hostile to a royal commission from the outset, it's no surprise that they severely curtailed the time for the royal commission to do its work. The royal commission has barely had the opportunity to scratch the surface of the misconduct that's occurred in the financial services industry. Commissioner Hayne and his team have done an admirable job—indeed, an extraordinary job given the circumstances that prevail, the circumstances constructed by this government. Commissioner Hayne was given a mere 14 months to inquire into all of these things—retail banking; home lending; consumer lending, including credit cards and personal loans; small business lending; farm lending; general insurance; life insurance; superannuation; and financial advice. Fourteen months was all this government would allow. After 600 days of resisting a royal commission, and after voting against it 26 times, that's the best they could do. They tried to make it as short as they possibly could. When we look at those facts, the commission has had just two weeks to spend on each of these complex subject areas, some of which touched the lives of millions of Australians and some of which relate to services used by nearly every member of the Australian community.

The royal commission received over 10,000 submissions from members of the public. Ten thousand Australians took the time to let the commission know about their experiences of bank and financial services provider misconduct. But, because of the restrictive time line imposed on the commission by this government, who thought the whole endeavour was 'regrettable', only 27 victims had the chance to tell their story in person—27 out of 10,000 Australians who made written submissions. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace and a shame on this government.

We've learnt through the hearings of the commission that this misconduct was so widespread that it affected hundreds of thousands of Australians, if not millions of Australians. Labor has called for the royal commission to be extended to allow more victims to have the opportunity to share their stories. The government has stubbornly refused to give the commission more time.

This is why the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for financial services, along with some of my Labor colleagues around the country, have run a series of bank victim round tables to hear from some of the tens of thousands of victims whose voices haven't been heard through the royal commission process. The stories we have heard through these round tables have been harrowing. People around the country are hurting. The consequences of the misconduct identified by the royal commission and indeed—