Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It's difficult to know where to start when you have such an unhinged, breathless, desperate attempt to distract from the fact that those opposite have been running a protection racket on the rorts and rip-offs in the banking system for some years. Those opposite, time and time again, have been given opportunity after opportunity to say something about the rorts and rip-offs that made this banking royal commission necessary in the first place. There's been not a word from those opposite about cases such as that of a young man with Down syndrome who was forced into purchasing life insurance he could never benefit from, or about charging dead people for financial advice, or about shoving clients into high-risk, low-quality products. There's been not a word about case after case after case which we heard about before the royal commission and during the royal commission and which made the royal commission itself necessary. I think that speaks volumes about those opposite and the fact that they will always side with the big banks and the big financial institutions against the interests of ordinary working people. That's why we had the protection racket for so many years, and I'll come to that in a moment.

This legislation before the House, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020, is about the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. It contains three schedules, which implement four different recommendations made by Commissioner Hayne in relation to aspects of financial advice. Labor will be supporting the passage of the legislation, but I'm also proud to move the second reading amendment circulated under my colleague the member for Whitlam's name and to speak in favour of that amendment. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government has:

(1) taken far longer than promised to implement the recommendations of the Hayne Royal Commission;

(2) failed to establish a compensation scheme of last resort, as recommended by the Hayne Royal Commission; and

(3) actively rejected the very first recommendation of the Hayne Royal Commission, by proposing to repeal the responsible lending obligations in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 for the vast majority of credit contracts."

This legislation goes to the core of the delays that we have seen in the implementation of the Hayne royal commission recommendations. What is says and what it shows is just how little those opposite's heart is really in the implementation of this. The last time this parliament sat we saw the two-year anniversary of the handing over of the Hayne royal commission recommendations and still only something like one-third of the 76 recommendations have been fully implemented by those opposite. That does speak volumes about a government long on announcements but short on delivery. It was two years on that day since that awkward photo-op where the Treasurer was sitting, all grins, begging Commissioner Hayne to smile or shake his hand. There was a look of disdain on the commissioner's face as he handed over this royal commission report. It says everything about the government: they put all the planning in the photo-op. You don't have to scratch the surface of the Treasurer too much before you'll interest him in a photo-op. Here he is with Commissioner Hayne in this awkward hostage situation of the handing over of the report. In the two years since that moment only a third of the recommendations of the royal commission have actually been fully implemented.

This has a history—and I'm pleased the member for McMahon is at the table as well, because it was almost five years ago in April, after listening to and consulting with the victims of misconduct in the financial system, that I, the member for McMahon, the member for Isaacs and the member for Maribyrnong stood up in Melbourne and said: 'Enough is enough. What's necessary here is a royal commission to get to the bottom of these rorts and rip-offs so that we can get justice for the victims of what's gone on here.'

From that moment forward, for two full years, those opposite ran a protection racket against that banking royal commission. Twenty-six times the Prime Minister voted against having a royal commission into the banks. Despite the overwhelming evidence of banking misconduct, despite all of the stories day after day of rorts and rip-offs in the banking system, those opposite ran a protection racket. You know what changed their mind? The member for Whitlam and the member for McMahon will remember this. It wasn't that there'd been a particularly impactful story or case that had come to light; it was because they got a permission slip from the banks. They got a letter from the banks saying, 'Okay, look, you know what, it's probably okay if you agree to a royal commission.' Armed with that little permission slip, they announced a banking royal commission.

Throughout that period, from that moment until the 2019 election, they went all around the country and said: 'We're really serious about this. We will implement quickly the recommendations of the banking royal commission.' They cried crocodile tears for the victims. All over Australia, in every electorate of Australia, they pretended to care about implementing the royal commission recommendations. As soon as they were through that election, we got excuse after excuse for delay, and that's what we're seeing here. It's been more than two years now since the recommendations were handed over and only a third of the recommendations have been put in place, and that shows that, if the people of this country want a federal government, a national government, on their side when it comes to looking after their interests in the financial system of this country, then only Labor will provide that kind of government. What those opposite have shown for the last five years or more—for much longer than that, but in this case for the last five years or so—is that they have absolutely no interest in protecting the welfare of the Australian people in the banking system. Instead, they've spent the bulk of the last five years running that protection racket for the big banks. They will always side with the big banks against the interests of ordinary working people in this country.

Every Australian has an interest in us having a robust, competitive and profitable financial system that works well. It's such an important part of our economy. We want to have a well-functioning financial system. We want the banks to be profitable on the basis of providing good services, not cutting corners. It's really key, as we emerge from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost a century, that we get the financial system working right, but we won't do and we won't give the Australian people the confidence that they need to have in their banks unless and until we implement these recommendations properly so that people can have confidence that the political world, the government here in Canberra, has listened to what's happened, taken the recommendations seriously and implemented them afterwards.

In the absence of that, people will conclude with some justification not just that the government are not on their side when it comes to rorts and rip-offs in the banking system but also that those opposite never intended to take it seriously and, until they do take it seriously, there will be a cloud hanging over the financial system. We don't want that. We as a country want to move forward with confidence. We want finance to flow freely in our economy and in our communities. We want all of that to happen. But, for that to happen, those opposite need to drop the habit of a lifetime and actually care about the welfare of ordinary Australians, ordinary working families, the people of Middle Australia in the banking system, who have been treated in some instances very shabbily in the recent past. Those opposite need to represent their interests and not just the interests of the banks.

See this speech in context