Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The first thing I'd like to say is that when I didn't support a banking royal commission I got it wrong. There is no doubt about that. I believed that the structure we had was able to deal with some of the issues that were brought up, so I freely admit that. I also must admit that the Labor Party claiming responsibility for something that was actually started by Senator John 'Wacka' Williams, Llew O'Brien and Barry O'Sullivan is too cute by half. If you want to celebrate being second coming to the cause of the banking royal commission, go right ahead but don't run us a yarn that you were first.

The reason I have better knowledge than most of the banks is I have worked for one for five years and I'm an accountant. I remember one substantial client of the banks whose interest rates were at 40 per cent. I thought this was completely outrageous.

There is a reason why we have to have some sense of temperance in this. We have to make the appropriate changes but we can't ride roughshod over every broker. I think brokers have played a substantial role in spreading the customer base away from the four major banks and into minor banks. If we lose sight of that, we are actually going to reduce competition. I believe that might have been one of the reasons where, after the banking royal commission was brought down, the more observant realised that the price of the major banks should go up, because they could see a reduction in competition. That's certainly something we didn't want and we certainly did see a rise in share prices of the major banks after the royal commission came down.

Another issue that I find perplexing about the latest position is that they talk about the egregious and overarching position of the major banks. Sure, you are entitled to that opinion but in the next breath you vote against limited divestiture powers for the major power companies. Why do you do that? Why do you believe market strength in one area is an evil thing and then market strength in another area is apparently a moral good? Why do you vote against limited divesture powers in trying to look after people in that other crucial part of their life which is power prices? Might I suggest that there is an unnatural link, a close association between big unions and big business, because that's where the majority of union fees come from.

When we take decisive action to properly put the sword of Damocles to affect behaviour, the Labor Party votes against it. Without a shadow of a doubt, being completely honest, if you want something that really surpasses all others in getting people's attention when the government speaks to them about changing their behaviour, then it's a divestiture power, as we see with the Clayton act and the Sherman Act in the United States of America, with the Enterprise Act in the UK and with the consumer act in Canada—all general divestiture powers. But somehow we believe that the Australian economy is so substantially different to everywhere else in the Western world that we don't need them. So, even when we vote for a minor one, you vote against it.

The member for Hotham on Patricia Karvelas's drive program said that the Labor Party's position is in-principle support. What does that mean? In principle, I don't believe I should break into a house. In principle, I don't believe that you should steal someone's lunch. There are a lot of things in principle, but you still haven't arrived at a decisive position. You are hiding yourself in these weasel words. People are going to call you out for it. They will call you out, because it shows that you are trying to ride on both sides of the fence and that can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience.

If you believe, in principle, that people shouldn't be ripped off, then how can you be so decisive about coming into their superannuation and taking their franking credits? I can tell you, that is biting out there; people do not like it. And if you in principle believe in all the recommendations of the banking royal commission, then why don't you in fact believe them? And might I say, you should temper your views, because if you go into this without further thought, you'll hurt others. Whilst you're at it, if you in principle believe in all the recommendations of the banking royal commission, then why don't you in fact remember that taking away negative gearing will reduce that other vital component of what people want: equity in their house?

See this speech in context