Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

So we were told that an annual chat with the member for Banks would change behaviour. And now the latest solution is a tribunal, of which we have no detail and no information—we do not know how it will work with the Financial Services Ombudsman or other tribunals that already exist. We already have some of these tribunals in existence, and now a new tribunal, we are told, will fix it.

And then of course we have the latest solution by the Minister for Small Business, who was such a triumph in the census—such a triumph of public administration. He has now sent a referral for an inquiry to the Small Business Ombudsman, who is the former Chief Minister of the ACT. Now, forgive us for not being blown over and impressed with that little stunt—that that is somehow going to fix all the problems.

The Prime Minister does not want a royal commission into financial services. He has some experience in royal commissions into financial services and they have not gone too well in the past. So no wonder he does not want a royal commission into financial services on this occasion. And the government thinks it is clever to go through some of the scandals and some of the crises that occurred when Labor was in office, and when I and the now Leader of the Opposition had ministerial responsibility. Well, we are happy to talk about that because that is just why the Leader of the Opposition and I know that a royal commission is necessary.

The Leader of the Opposition and I have spent a long time meeting with victims. I spent time in office meeting with victims. I have met with the victims of Trio. I know the victims of Timbercorp. I know the victims of bad financial advice, and that is why I and this Leader of the Opposition put through the financial advice reforms that we did. And do you know who voted for them? Labor Party members. Do you know who voted against them? Liberal and National Party members, on every single occasion!

And do you know what else Liberal and National Party members did? They went to the 2013 election and said, 'Oh, no. We can live with these reforms now. That's okay.' And then they won the 2013 election, and then they tried to overturn them. In fact, it is worse: they actually succeeded in overturning them for a period of time. They had the numbers in this House and they managed to get the numbers in the other place, and they actually legislated to water down the Labor protections which we had put in while in office. They actually voted successfully to provide less protection to Australian consumers of financial advice.

That was one of their big priorities when it came to financial reform. That was their big agenda: to ignore the lack of mandate, to spend their resources, their political capital and their energy to water down protections on financial advice. But the Senate was awake. The Senate worked it out; cross benchers in the other place knew that they had been had. Then it was put again in the Senate and their repeal was overturned. I say to the government: Shame on you for trying to water down our protections! Shame on you for leaving victims of financial advice to the vagaries of dodgy advice!

We will talk about the things that happened when we were in office, and that is why we understand—because they are still happening. As good as the financial advice reforms are and as important as they are, we still see scandals. You know what? We know who perpetrated some of those scandals, and some of those people are still working in financial services today. Some of those people are still in the sector, and we know that a royal commission is what is necessary to deal with the culture, with the structure and with the things which bring about crisis after crisis and scandal after scandal. We know that an eminent Australian—or Australians—properly versed in the nature of Australia's financial services system is what is necessary to shine a light. We all know what royal commissions can do and what benefits they can bring. We have called royal commissions in the past, when we were in office, for the right reasons, and thank goodness we did. They had their naysayers. They had people who said they were not necessary. Not many people say they are not necessary now.

We know that the Liberal Party and the National Party have no in-principle objections to royal commissions. They are not slow in calling them when they think it suits their political interests. They do not mind spending taxpayers' money on royal commissions which are designed to further the political interests of those who sit opposite. But they are determined to avoid them when they promote not their political interests but the national interests—the interests of victims of financial scandals.

The Prime Minister lectures and he says, 'The victims of financial scandals do not want a royal commission.' How he would he know? He does not talk to them. How would he know? He does not meet with them. How would he know? He does not engage with the victims of financial scandals. You know what? It is true that some of them say, 'It will not help me.' It is true that some of the victims of financial scandals say, 'The damage is done for me.' But, having been through it, having lost life savings, having in many instances seen their family break up and, in some tragic instances, having lost members of their family, they do not want to see it happen to another Australian. They do not want to see it happen to another family. They know that something has to change. They know that the culture has to change, that the system has to change, and that tinkering will not do it. They know that a royal commission will. They know that a royal commission, properly constituted with the powers and authority necessary, will get to the bottom of what they went through.

How did we find out about the scandals that have occurred so far? Is it because of the banks, financial service providers and financial advisers have come out and said, 'Do you want to reveal to the Australian people we have got a little problem here?' No, it is not. It is because they have been exposed. They have been exposed, in many instances, by investigative journalists. I want, in the House, to pay due credit to one in particular. Australia owes a debt of gratitude to Adele Ferguson, who has pursued these issues with passion and tenacity. It is due to her and her investigative journalism that many of these scandals have come to light.

But Australia should not be relying on one journalist or even on more than one journalist. Australians should not be reliant on one media outlet to examine these issues. Australians are reliant on us, on everybody in this House, to do their job and on everybody in the other house to do their job. And they are reliant on us to make sure that the proper procedures are in place and resources are given. They know that a royal commission is the way to do that. With all due respect to Adele Ferguson—she is a very fine journalist—she can only do so much and the other investigative journalists can only do so much. These inquiries and scandals have not been brought to light by ASIC—with all due respect to ASIC and the work they do; they have been brought about by people outside the system of government. And that cannot be allowed to stand for one day more. This House has the opportunity tonight to send a message to the government.

See this speech in context