George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's my pleasure to speak on the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020 and associated bills. I concur with the member for New England: this might make for good bedtime reading—short bedtime reading! But, nonetheless, it is an important bit of law. What we are doing here is fixing an issue with the levies, the taxes, that we put on some of the big banks. In the current financial year, 2019-20, what we've found is that legislative barriers are preventing the largest banks from paying their fair share of the cost of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to actually regulate them. This has resulted in $3.1 million in levies being deferred. These levies will be paid by these institutions once this barrier is addressed, which is what this bill is intending to do. It's intending to address the legislative barrier and ensure that the government—the Morrison Liberal-National government—has adequate flexibility to set the level of levies required so that the big banks pay their fair share into the future. That is very, very important because one of the major costs that we need to recover from the banks—and I really hope that it is going to come from the banks' profits and not be passed on to customers, because I can tell you: customers are well and truly aware of these little things that the banks do to sting them, when the cost should be taken out of the banks' massive windfall profits, and customers will vote with their feet—is of the new regulations relating to supervising banks in the light of the banking royal commission.

I want to talk about the banking royal commission in detail today, actually, because it is important to know the history of how we got the banking royal commission. I want to give some thoughts on where I think that banking royal commission might have been a little bit deficient. But, in the main, it has been a good thing in terms of cleaning up the industry and it has certainly made a lot of the big banks and their executives sit up and take notice of what the public has been saying on these matters for quite some time.

I had held concerns about the banking industry and their misconduct for quite some time, long before it became fashionable to call for a banking royal commission. I'd raised the matter repeatedly in government. The member for New England, who was the leader of the Nationals, knows that all too well. I was raising these issues alongside others, particularly then senator John 'Wacka' Williams, who was on this matter well and truly before I or anyone in this place or the other place was. The member for Wide Bay, the member for Leichhardt, the member for Kennedy, former member of this place Ann Sudmalis and former senator Barry O'Sullivan were some of those from this side of the House or the other place who were well and truly agitated by some of the misconduct they'd seen from the big banks.

In late 2016, I realised that the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was not for turning. He'd come from the big banks, from the banking sector, and he was not going to upset his mates. So I resolved in late 2016 that if we got a meaningful motion—not a do-nothing motion, because there are plenty of motions that come before this House that just say, 'We support this,' or, 'We support that,' without actually having anything concrete to show for it—to the floor of parliament then I would vote for it, and the only meaningful motion that this parliament could actually vote on, on this matter, would be one for a bill for a law that established a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the banks.

A commission of inquiry, for those in the know, is simply another name for a royal commission. Royal commissions are established by the executive—by the government of the day, not the parliament—and the only one with the authority to set that up would be, obviously, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. I did some deep diving into this and saw that a parliamentary commission of inquiry was something that a parliament could bring into effect which has exactly the same powers as a royal commission. So I resolved in late 2016 that if we got to a position where there was a bill that could be brought before this place then I would be voting for it, regardless of the government's point of view on the matter.

In early 2017, I realised that the only way that that would happen was if I was part of the move to actually get such a bill. So I started working with the member for Kennedy on a draft bill that was later picked up and amended, and probably made stronger and better, by then senator Barry O'Sullivan. It is not just my recollection of history that would lead you to think that. There are many commentators, but I'll just go through a few who have shown that. This is important, because it is to get the facts straight. During the last election, and before that, I had missives from the Labor Party and the union movement coming into my electorate, claiming that I had opposed a royal commission into the banks. The facts are another matter altogether. Samantha Maiden, writing in The New Dailyan online journal that is certainly not favourable to me or to the coalition, said:

The government’s backflip on a royal commission was ultimately informed by the threat of backbenchers, including Nationals MP George Christensen, to cross the floor.

James Massola of the Sydney Morning Herald, no friend of mine or the government's, reported:

Nationals MP Llew O'Brien is set to join his Queensland Nationals colleague George Christensen and vote in the lower house for the banking commission of inquiry after the revolt was kick-started by Queensland senator Barry O'Sullivan.

Independent Australia, a left-wing online journal, said:

With his eye on the 2019 election, Turnbull told us in November 2017 that a royal commission was unnecessary and will harm the image and reputation of our major banks. 'There is not going to be a banking Royal Commission', he thundered.

See this speech in context