Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens have for a long, long time called in this parliament for a royal commission into the banking and financial services industry. We have had Senate report after Senate report and expose after expose of people who have lost their house and/or their life savings all because a bank sold them something that worked in the bank's interest but not necessarily in their interest. What we have also seen very clearly throughout all of those inquiries is that parliamentarians of all stripes and with the best intentions will do their hardest to get to the bottom of what is going on in our banking system. But when a banker fronts up to an inquiry and wrings their hands and says, 'We made a mistake,' and walks away and then comes back again a few months later and we find that no-one has lost their job as a result of it, that the practices might still be continuing, it becomes crystal clear that what we need is someone who can commit to and conduct that inquiry but do it with the powers that they need so that they can find out what is going on behind closed doors, so that this parliament and the people get more than some serial hand-wringing from bank executives, and we actually get a change in culture.

Quite some time ago, the Greens in parliament moved a motion for a royal commission; but, sadly, we didn't have many friends at that stage. Labor didn't vote with us, the Liberals didn't vote with us, but we did have some support on the crossbench. It's testament to the fact that, when there are people in parliament who will stand up for what is right, a good idea can ultimately win. Over time, the opposition have changed their position and come around to the idea of having a royal commission—and that's good. We're a vote or so away in the House of Representatives from calling on the government to have a royal commission. But what has become crystal clear is that, as long as the Turnbull government are in place, they will do the banks' bidding and form a protective shield against the banks. So there's something we can do in this parliament before the next election, where there may well be a change of government, and that is use the powers of the parliament. If the government is unwilling to step up and use the executive to call a royal commission, then parliament can step in and do it.

That's why we need a commission of inquiry. That's what a commission of inquiry is: it's parliament saying the people and the public interest should trump what the executive wants to do, because the executive is only acting as a delegate of the power of the people, and it's also saying that parliament should trump the interests of corporations and some of the biggest corporations in this country. That is why commissions of inquiry can exist. It's because it's the ability of parliament to then say, 'This issue is so important that it is time we established a full and wide-ranging inquiry.' It's why commissions of inquiry exist, why they have been used in the past and why they should be used now—too many people have lost too much.

At the heart of the Australian banking industry is a conflict. On the one hand, every one of us can't get by now without a bank account. We're funnelling money regularly through banks and financial institutions. They have a guaranteed income stream from us. The big four banks, as we saw during the global financial crisis, have the implicit backing of the government behind them. They know that if they ever get into trouble—because we have a too-big-to-fail, four-pillars policy in this country—they will get public support. But on the other hand, they have a business model that is based on fleecing people. It's not based on looking after and curating people's deposits with the maximum of care, as the other arm of the banks' business model is to sell us all products that are about increasing the banks' profits.

We've heard too many tales of people who have been hurt, ending up with products that they don't need, simply because the banks' primary obligation is to their shareholders. If the big banks in this country want public support and government support standing behind them, there should be a quid pro quo. They should open their doors and open their books, and a commission of inquiry is the best way to make that happen.

See this speech in context