Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

I second the amendment. This government will go for anything to avoid scrutiny around the royal commission and the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission. What's more important to the average Australian: an inquiry into corporate litigation funders, or looking at why this government is dragging its heels and not delivering on the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission? These are recommendations that affect and have the potential to affect the livelihoods of millions of Australians. Anything to avoid scrutiny regarding the royal commission.

We all know that this government has form when it comes to the Australian public getting a peek into what's actually going on in financial services in this country, being provided a bit of sunlight into what's been going on in the corporate world in this country and some solutions and recommendations. It was this Prime Minister and this government that voted 26 times against the establishment of a royal commission into banking and financial services in this country, because they didn't want the Australian public to know exactly what happened in this industry. Millions of Australians were ripped off in the banking and financial services sector over the course of the last decade, yet this government voted on 26 occasions to deny a royal commission into what was really going on in that industry. It happened only when the banks actually rolled over and wrote to the then Treasurer, as he was—the now Prime Minister—and said: 'You know what? It's okay; we'll have a royal commission.' They saw that the public outcry about what was going on in banking and financial services was too much, that it was doing damage to their business model, and they agreed to a royal commission into banking and financial services. It was only when they rolled over, when the banks gave the Prime Minister—the Treasurer, as he was then—the tick of approval to move into an inquiry that they actually got on with it. It wasn't anything to do with looking at what was actually happening in the industry. It wasn't anything to do with dealing with some of the problems and actually looking at what the problems were for the average Australian mortgage holder or the average Australian bank customer or someone who has shares in a particular financial institution. No: it was because the banks gave the government the green light to launch the royal commission.

In the words of the royal commissioner, some of the most shocking greed and unconscionable conduct in financial services in this country was uncovered through that inquiry; 76 fulsome recommendations were made about what needs to happen to restore confidence in banking and financial services in this country. What's been the government's response to date? Well, only six of those recommendations have been fully implemented—a shocking record. Almost 18 months after the inquiry findings were handed down, and with the urgency attached to those recommendations in many respects—urgency recommended by the commissioner—the recommendations haven't been dealt with. Only six of them have been fully implemented.

The royal commission uncovered some shocking behaviour. We all remember what went on in the Commonwealth Bank in the wealth management scandal that was uncovered by the Commonwealth Bank. The regulators missed that. It took whistleblowers actually walking into the offices of ASIC and demanding that they conduct an inquiry into what was going on in the Commonwealth Bank before anyone acted. No-one on that side took up the issue on behalf of the people who were being ripped off by the Commonwealth Bank at the time. It took whistleblowers to actually walk into ASIC and to get the media involved before anyone actually saw what was going on in banking and financial services in this country. Then we followed it up with CommInsure. We saw what was going on in the insurance industry, particularly around life insurance, and some of the outdated definitions that were being used in this country.

Of course, it went beyond the Commonwealth Bank. The regulators decided that it was time to look beyond the Commonwealth Bank and see what was actually going on in some other banking and financial services areas of the economy. This uncovered the fact that this wasn't peculiar or unique to the Commonwealth Bank. It was happening across all financial services in this country. We saw the fees-for-no-service scandal and all the other big four banks and many other financial institutions dragged into the financial services mess in this country at the time. That was what was going on, and that was being ignored by this government when they voted 26 times to deny a royal commission.

Many of these recommendations contain comments from the royal commissioner about their urgency—the fact that they should be implemented and legislated as quickly as possible. Yet this government is still dragging its feet, with only six of those recommendations being implemented. Some of them relate to really important legislative changes that will provide important support and protection for consumers in Australia. They relate to things like best-interest duty for mortgage brokers to make sure that our mortgage industry and people who are seeking to buy homes are protected in this country. Then there are unfair contract terms in financial services and insurance contracts throughout the country. We've seen some of that recently in this pandemic. It's vitally important that protections for consumers, around unfair contract terms in insurance contracts, are implemented as quickly as possible.

We've seen over the course of this pandemic that some insurers have tried it on, if you like, in terms of reducing coverage for people relating to the pandemic. One of those areas was trade credit insurance. A particular insurer was looking to cancel or reduce trade credit insurance policies related to the pandemic. It was only after the opposition asked questions and highlighted this in the media that they backed down and changed their policy on that. If you had in operation an unfair contracts term regime in the insurance industry, some of those events may not occur.

The royal commissioner saw that the sale of add-on insurance was a key issue in people being ripped off around insurance contracts throughout the country. There was urgency associated with that. That still hasn't been implemented. The changes to funeral insurance that were recommended still haven't been implemented. And the list goes on.

Many of these important recommendations of the banking royal commission still have not been implemented by the government. They're dragging their heels on it, yet they come into this parliament wanting to refer this to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It's really a ruse for an issue that's not a big issue and has actually ensured that many Australians have access to justice when they otherwise wouldn't have access to justice because they can't afford the cost of litigation in taking their case against large corporations in this country. The shadow Attorney-General has pointed out some cases where that's very important.

What's more important to Australians: looking at corporate litigation funding or why this government is dragging its heels on dealing with the recommendations of the banking royal commission? I know what most people in my electorate think. They want action on those banking royal commission recommendations. They want to know why, after 18 months, only six of the 76 recommendations of the banking royal commission have been implemented by this government. They want to know why, after those very strong words in that report from the banking royal commissioner, they still don't have adequate protection from fraud and misconduct in banking and financial services in this country.

We all know why. Because the government's heart is not in it. Their heart has never been in it when it comes to the banking royal commission. They voted against it 26 times and they voted against ensuring scrutiny of banking services in this country. Now they're dragging their feet on delivering those recommendations and ensuring that Australian consumers get the protections that they deserve. That is why members of this parliament should support the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam.

See this speech in context