Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words—"the message be taken into consideration at 5.20 pm today or the first available opportunity thereafter."

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, you had not actually put the question, so therefore he could not move the amendment.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Yes, but we do not actually know what is before the House until the Speaker states what is before the House, so he will have to do that all again.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was, prior to the adjournment debate, that the original motion on the message of the Senate be agreed to.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words—“the message be taken into consideration at 5.20 pm today or the first available opportunity thereafter.”

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite clearly this is a stunt by the Labor Party about the royal commission into financial services and transactions.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It takes a tactless stunt to try and force a tactless—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business now has the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As members would be aware, the principles regarding a casting vote by the Speaker are outlined in House of Representatives Practicespecifically on page 183—and they include that the Speaker should vote to allow further discussion where this is possible. I therefore cast my vote with the noes, and that is against closure of the debate.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, can I take a point of order? I know I am not in my seat.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you cannot. No, the member for Kennedy answered his own question. The Treasurer has the call.

Mr Katter interjecting—

You cannot take a point of order out of your seat. You answered your own question.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing here this afternoon is a stunt from an opposition to promote their stunt which is the royal commission—a royal commission for which they have no terms of reference, a royal commission that is motivated just by one thing, and that is for the Leader of the Opposition to recklessly and cruelly manipulate and use the genuine pain and the genuine concerns of people in Australia—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs is warned.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

of people in Australia to promote his own political self-interest. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to do here this afternoon. He is using a stunt to promote his stunt, because what we know on this side of the House is that when there are serious issues to be dealt with, particularly in the banking and financial system, you deal with them. You address them. You take action. That is what you do, and what we know is, as they came into this place today at question time and they raised genuine concerns by constituents— (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is incredibly important that we clearly understand that there is the capacity for the oversight and the proper delivery of an outcome with the facilities that are currently at our disposal, and we in the government are prepared to put more to it if it is required. But the idea that we would start a royal commission for a royal commission's purpose, which has no power to prosecute, which has not the same powers as what we see—

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we see here is that in our capacity to make sure that we look after—

Mr Pasin interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As will the member for Barker.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

such people as the farmers, that we stand behind such things as a regional investment corporation, a regional investment corporation to properly facilitate looking after farmers.

I take the interjection from the member for Hunter because we are the people that got the concessional loans out, going out at this time at 2.66 per cent. We have seen well in excess of $450 million—I think it is close to $480 million—being lent out now in concessional loans. We are the people that are making sure that we deliver packages to people in regional areas to look after them. We are the same side of politics that is looking after people with the farm household allowance, making sure we keep dignity for people on the farm, on the land. We are making sure that this is delivered.

I note with fascination that we get an interjection from—

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left will take their seats or leave the chamber.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the Labor Party, the same Labor Party that did nothing when milk prices went down to 27c a litre in Victoria. All the Labor Party can do is come up with stunts. They are not a government, they are not an opposition; they are a circus, a circus that believes in stunts, stunts that stand in proxy for even a vague semblance of what a government might be.

I am happy to stay here for as long as it takes to make sure that people clearly understand that those on the other side, those in the opposition, are not worthy of the Treasury benches. They have not come up with one idea, in the hundred ideas they had in the last election, for a positive agenda—not one for the people on the land. In fact, the closest they got was to increase the regulation around tree clearing to put a further caveat on people who live on the land. All they want to deliver to people on the land is nothing, or further regulation to make their life more difficult.

Mr Speaker, it is an interesting day when we are talking about probity, when we are talking about how things could be done better. This is the same week we have heard of Senator Sam Dastyari receiving more than $1,600 from an organisation which has close ties to the Chinese government, and those opposite just brush it off; they do not worry about it. But they do not have the ticker to stand up and make a statement and do something about it.

You would think that that Leader of the Opposition would have the capacity when asked of him to show real leadership, to make a statement, to show the Australian people the sort of person he would be, or he wants to be. He does not have the ticker to stand up to Sam Dastyari. It is obvious that the faceless men have more power than the Leader of the Opposition.

If people want to stay late tonight and hear something then the Australian people should hear this: Sam Dastyari received more than $1,600 from an organisation closely associated with the Chinese government and then had the temerity to make statements about the key arguments around our nation's defence policy, which the Labor Party agree with but he that wishes to change.

Why would he wish to change it? Would it have anything to do with his association that was backed up by a payment of $1,600? In fact, not only that. He said he would donate it to a charity. Even that charity had the decency to see that that money was tainted and handed it back. That charity has more ticker than the Leader of the Opposition, who intends to do nothing about this. He now has to show some ticker. He now has to do something about this. He now has to show his mettle. Has this man any mettle? That is the question that everybody is asking here tonight.

They are not going to be asking about your charade; they are going to be asking about your ticker. Do you have anything? Is there anything inside there? Is there anything inside that shows you have the steel to deal with Senator Sam Dastyari, or is he more powerful than you? Is that the reality? Is he more powerful than you? Are you actually scared of him? Does he actually run it? Is the Labor Party still run by Sussex Street and you are merely the puppet, sitting there just waiting?

That is what the Australian people want to hear about tonight, and we are happy to talk about it. We are going to make sure that if we have to stay here till midnight this will be the question that we will be asking people: why is it that the Labor Party at their first opportunity, after so much rhetoric over members of the government and with issues when we had to stand people down, had nothing, nothing to show for it. It was amazing. It was the sound of silence. Every time we mentioned Senator Sam Dastyari from New South Wales, there was silence on the Labor Party side, absolute silence; the Captain Thunderbolt of politics.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't you want a debate?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister does not have the call. The member for Grayndler on the point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker. Given the provocation—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, what is the point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the clear lack of relevance, I move:

That the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer you to the standing orders, particularly standing order 78. There is a paragraph at the bottom of items (a) to (m) that states:

Should any of these questions be negatived, no similar proposal shall be received if the Speaker is of the opinion that it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House …

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler on the point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I of course understand that standing order. Between the deliberation in which you determined, quite rightly, to cast your vote in the negative—quite clearly, if there were a debate of the substance of the motion that was before the chair, but what we are seeing here is clearly just a filibuster.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will be relevant to the motion.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The issue is that what people want is a form of making sure that they get justice. They want to get justice, because it is only right and proper. That is why we have organisations such as ICAC, that is why we have organisations such as ASIC and that is why we have the prudential oversight not only to investigate but also to prosecute, if it is required to prosecute. This is incredibly important, because people want to make sure they have a clear and unambiguous attachment to the form of probity.

The question of probity is something that is absolutely fundamental to the parliamentary process. Probity is never better seen not only in how people act but also in how they are deemed to act. Where there are any questions that call a judgement against that probity, and when that probity is judged, it relies on those who have a leadership position to stand up and show the Australian people that they have their best interests at heart and not their certain affirmed loyalties or their requirement of loyalties to their factional mates. What we have seen is that same question, that same desire by people on the land, by people dealing with the banking sector, to say, 'I want to be treated justly.' That justice, which flows down from the top, has to be seen by a parliamentary system to be without question.

We have a senior frontbencher from the opposition, from the Labor Party, who quite clearly—and he admits to it himself—is brought into question, so much so that he tried to refund the payment made to him, so much so that the charity that he tried to refund it to handed the money back. This obviously calls into question that there is not the capacity held by the Leader of the Labor Party to do the right thing.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I caution members interjecting.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, if the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, wants to be taken seriously by the Australian people, he had his test this week. His test this week was to determine whether he had the ticker to stand up to Senator Sam Dastyari, and he never did. If the people in the banking sector—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Prime Minister will be relevant to the question.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people who are dealing with issues such as those with the banking sector have a right to be heard, and that is why we have the capacity, through organisations such ASIC, not only to determine where things go wrong and not only to determine where justice lies but also to follow that determination with the capacity to prosecute. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I move:

That the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will hear the Leader of the House on the point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the standing orders and Practice are that if a member wants to speak then, the motion having been negatived moved by the opposition earlier—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

If I could just speak without interruption.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to hear the Leader of the House in silence.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, the motion that the question be put was defeated. That was negatived. As a consequence, that cannot be moved again in the debate. A similar motion cannot be accepted if it would inhibit debate and stop people having the opportunity to make contributions. There are ministers and members who would clearly like to make a contribution to this debate and, as a consequence, I do not believe—at your discretion—that motion by the member for Grayndler can be accepted at this time. If at some time down the track you thought there were many more speakers speaking than necessary, that would be a different matter. We have had only two speakers on the motion.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously having ruled on that principle does not mean that a speaker would therefore allow the debate to continue until every single person in the House had spoken. The closure was moved on the Treasurer and then it was moved on the very next speaker. I need to allow a reasonable level of debate. I do not at this point think that two speakers is a reasonable level of debate given the number of divisions that we have had on the issue and given that I outlined the principle just some time ago. That is obviously a judgement I need to make. I just asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. I heard the member for Grayndler in good faith when the Assistant Treasurer was at the dispatch box. It is very clear, as I am explaining this, how I am ruling, and I am not going to let the Leader of the Opposition, despite his seniority, jump in ahead of the Assistant Treasurer.

Mr Burke interjecting—

All right then. On that point, if he is seeking the call on the motion, that is a different matter.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will never, never, never give up seeking justice for the victims of banks and financial services. We will never, never, never give up seeking a banking royal commission. How pathetic is this government? In our time in government they opposed every reform we made to financial services. The only other issue on which they fought as hard was action on climate change. And then the Prime Minister has the sheer hide of coming in and saying he is the only person who will do anything on banking. You can see the fingernail marks in the concrete as they are dragged kicking and screaming to action on reform of banking.

Every time there was a vote in the previous parliament, 2010 to 2013—every time; not once, not twice but on 21 separate occasions—these cowards and defenders for malfeasance in the financial services sector voted against labour reforms, and since then we have seen more and more scandals. And today I had the privilege and was humbled to meet victims of financial crimes and financial malfeasance. And this government has the cheek to patronise the victims. What they said is, 'There are other means.' Don't they understand that the victims we have been seeing have tried to do everything? They have been to the Financial Ombudsman. They have been to the lawyers and they have dealt with the liquidators. They have been let down to from pillar to post. Labor has arrived at the position recognising that every other measure has proven inadequate. There is a pathology in our banking and financial services system, which is sick. It does not mean that we do not want to see banks do well, but I cannot accept the proposition that the only way our banks can be successful is by leaving a trail of misery. The cost of thousands of people losing their financial services and accounts and poor treatment by banks is measured not just in the change down the back of the couch at a Liberal Party function; it is real: divorces, anxiety and depression. The most common victims are people in their 50s and 60s, people on the land, people in small business, people who have paid the school fees, people who have worked hard and have wanted to put some money aside for their retirement. They get no justice and they get ripped off.

Then there are these pale apologies over here. They say there is nothing we can do about the banks. They say that a banking royal commission will change nothing. Well, nothing else has worked. We have seen this government retreat in an untidy fashion. On 10 April the Prime Minister said: 'Nothing to do here. It is all working okay.' On 20 April he then said, 'Maybe we need to look at giving the regulator some more powers.' Then after the election they dream up the idea of a neutered parliamentary committee, controlled by the party for big banks, and then they propose to have a tribunal. Talk to the victims. The Financial Ombudsman Service can compensate only up to $500,000. They never give awards. The victims of banking and financial scandals are browbeaten into settlements of $10,000 and $20,000, and the people here know that.

This is the party who represent the seedy end of financial planning. They will not go to the centre of the issue, which is the big banks. There is a business model in this country which puts profits ahead of people. We will never give up on this royal commission. The Senate has voted this way. We may succeed tonight or we may not, but I give the government fair notice, on behalf of people who want justice, that we do not regard this royal commission as anything other than the last resort, long overdue, for justice for a generation of people, a generation of our fellow Australians who have been mistreated and let down by the system. This Commonwealth of ours is a Commonwealth for the people, not a Commonwealth for the banks, and we will never give up.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government does recognise that there has been malfeasance and bad behaviour in the financial services sector. We know that the sector has not always lived up to the expectations of the Australian people. That is why it is this side of the House that is delivering the most significant package of reforms that this parliament has seen, and that is why it is this side of the House that held a root and branch review of the financial system—the Murray financial system inquiry.

Now, did those opposite join us in wanting to hold this root and branch review of the financial system? Did they support us in these endeavours? No, they did not. In fact, they opposed it. On coming into government they opposed our measures. In fact, when the member for McMahon was the Treasurer, he said:

The financial system is strong, well-regulated and well managed and I have not seen a case for a full-blown inquiry.

This is despite the fact that there were so many financial planning scandals during that time. In fact, during the time that the member for McMahon was the Assistant Treasurer, and also the Minister for Financial Services—for more than 1,000 days, when he had the power to propose inquiries, to actually do something in this space—the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, stood here at the dispatch box with such confected outrage and said that he would have done something if only he had been given the chance. Well, he had that chance when he was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, for nearly three years—more than 1,000 days. He too could have done something at a time when there were financial scandals.

And let me go through them: at the time of their government, there was Opes Prime, there was Storm Financial, there was Trio Capital, there was Great Southern group, there were the scandals within CBA financial planning, there was MF Global and Macquarie Equity Limited, there was Banksia. Yet those opposite did not call for a royal commission at that time. In fact, they said that the whole system was incredibly well regulated and that there was nothing to see. Well, in fact on this side we know that action does need to be taken. We know that the complaints handling for those people who have consumer complaints is simply not good enough. People do need access to justice in a really timely manner. They need to know that their complaints can be heard and that they can access appropriate compensation. We have seen the Financial Ombudsman Service apply only to a certain number of people, and we are looking to expand that—and not only to expand it but to see whether there should be a one-stop shop for the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and also the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal so that not one consumer falls through the cracks, so that every single one of those people who has a legitimate complaint can be heard and can access appropriate compensation.

That is why this side of the House has instituted the Ramsay review, so that we can get the governance structure right so that it will not be years from now that people can access justice but will be in the very near future that they will be able to access justice through a one-stop shop. And when we think about consumer complaints, I think it is worth noting that the highest number of consumer complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service occurred at a time that the Leader of the Opposition was in fact the Minister for Financial Services—more than 36,000 complaints at that time. It has, in fact, gone down since then and it is due to the very hard work of putting in place the appropriate changes in regulation and strengthening our regulator that we have seen that number go down.

We have invested very heavily in our regulator. We know that the regulator needed additional capability and additional resources. That is why we have provided them with significant funding not only to chase down those people who have done the wrong thing but also to be far more proactive in detecting problems before they occur and to stop consumer harm before it actually happens. That is why we have also provided ASIC with $9.2 million in funding to accelerate the implementation of a product intervention power for ASIC, so that they can intervene before the harm is done. That is why we have given them more than $61 million to enhance their data analytics and surveillance capabilities and improve their information management systems. That is why we have given them more than $57 million for more surveillance and enforcement activities, particularly in the areas of financial advice, responsible lending, life insurance and breach reporting.

We know that it is very important that we have a tough cop on the beat. On this side of the House, we are not frightened of a tough cop on the beat like those opposite, who are opposing us having a tough cop on the beat with the ABCC. We believe it is important and that is why we have given ASIC appropriate powers.

What would happen if a royal commission actually went ahead? If it went ahead, there would be no legislation that deals with the misalignment of incentives in the life insurance sector, there would be no legislation that lifts the education and professional standards of financial advisers, there would be no changes to current framework for dispute resolution, there would be no one-stop shop for the consumers to get access to justice easily and to access compensation, and there would be no process by which the banks would be held to account by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics for the decisions that they make—decisions that affect all Australian consumers.

We believe it is also important that we take action now to ensure that those people who have suffered harm are properly heard. That is why the Minister for Small Business and I took action in making sure that the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman could provide a forensic review of the most egregious cases that were presented before the parliamentary joint committee and to make sure that they could go through, in very minute detail, where the problems have occurred and, if so, what they were, to prevent harm going forward. This is a very, very important review.

The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman is an ombudsman with very significant powers; powers to compel documents from the banks, powers to compel the banks to come before the ombudsman to provide direct information on these very, very specific cases. It is incredibly important that those people who have been harmed by bad behaviour can access justice in a timely manner.

What did those opposite to during their time when they had the ability to take action? They did very little at all. As recently as 2015, they certainly did not support Senator Whish-Wilson when he stood up there in the Senate and proposed a royal commission. In fact, they opposed that and opposed that very directly. They opposed it because they do not really believe it is necessary and they are putting their political interest ahead of the national interest. A royal commission, in fact, is very dangerous because it would send signals to people overseas that they cannot trust our banking system here in Australia, that there are structural problems with the banking system. It would have significant repercussions for confidence. It would have significant repercussions for international investment and it would have very significant repercussions for our AAA credit rating.

Those opposite want to play populist politics with a very serious issue. Those on this side of the House are keen to address the significant issues that we know are relevant for individuals to be dealt with today, to be dealt with now, not three years from now. On that note, I would like to commend to the House the need to ensure that those opposite do not succeed in their plan.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have very great respect for the Deputy Prime Minister but I do not think that he did himself a great deal of good today. He would be well aware, or at least he should be well aware, of the pain and agony that agriculture—the dairy industry and the cattle industry—has gone through in Australia. It is said that we do not need an inquiry. I said previously in the week but I think I should say it again: rather than a parliament only two people that I know of have actually called for a royal commission, and they are Bill Gunn and me with the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland. We had a terrible problem with police corruption in Queensland. We had had inquiry after inquiry. This government is now saying, 'We'll have an inquiry into banking.' We had inquiry after inquiry in Queensland, and you say that the government should have done something about it. Well, you try doing something about police corruption when it sets in. I can tell you it is a lot of fun! Once you had a royal commission there was the spotlight of public opinion. We could not find out who was at the heart of that corruption but that royal commission did find out who was at the heart of it. We were able to remove that person, which we as a government could not do.

I share the government's fear about where a royal commission might go. As Menzies said, you never have an inquiry unless you know what the answer is going to be. So I share their fears, and they are quite realistic fears. You only have to look at what happened to us in Queensland. In our efforts to get at the police, we were torn apart. So the government is quite right in being worried about that. I ask every person on that side of the House who has said there should be no inquiry into banking whether they are serious. I felt so sorry for the member for Dawson. There would not be a person in his electorate who would agree with that proposition—not a single person in his electorate would agree with that proposition—and nor would most of the other electorates in Australia.

I represent the agricultural industry and particularly the cattle industry. This is what the banks did for us: we received $750 million. We thanked Treasurer Swan and Treasurer Hockey for that money but the banks organised it so that we could not get a reconstruction board because they would lose a lot of business to the reconstruction board. I speak with authority because I was effectively head of the reconstruction board in Queensland. Their antagonism towards us was enormous. They put another banking institution out there, and so we had no banking institution. Something like two-thirds of the dairy farmers in Australia have gone. There is a farmer doing away with himself every four days in this country and no-one seems to think that there is any problem. I would say that one in 10 of those problems comes from deficiencies in the banking system.

Let me just zero in on a case. This was a case that Treasurer Swan thought was so important that he ordered the head of ASIC to meet with me twice. This was a problem that Treasurer Hockey thought was so important that he ordered ASIC to meet with me once. There was a $200 million sugar mill owned by the farmers. It was sold out from under them for $2 million. Has anyone gone to jail? Was there any inquiry? Did ASIC do anything? In Innisfail, where this occurred, they refer to ASIC not as a watchdog but as a lapdog. Of course there are the figures—anyone can find out. The mill was valued the year before, and there was an offer for $56 million. The year after, the mill was sold by the company for $76 million—but they had bought it for $2 million!

The banks are going well. They have loaned money for housing to a point where the housing values in the Greater Sydney area are near enough to $1 million. The average income for an Australian is $75,000, and most Australians are well below that. Take out the tax and you are at about $56,000. If you are paying $970,000 for a house, there is your $56,000 gone. And then you tell me there is no necessity for an inquiry?

You are standing on the brink of a precipice, and every intelligent person in this country knows that you are standing on the brink of a precipice. Maybe you don't want the spotlight, because it might indicate that the precipice is there. I can assure everyone in this House that the government—I don't mean to be offensive to the ALP, but I would agree with people on the other side that I wouldn't be convinced that they would have done anything, because they were there for three years. I am not making a partisan plea. I am simply saying to you that I, like the rest of Australia, would not have faith in this place being able to address the problems of the banking industry. I would have faith in a royal commission because I have seen it at work and I have seen its enormous effectiveness in achieving the goals it was after.

Let me give you one other example. There was a now very famous case of a bloke called Charlie Phillott. The state member for Mount Isa—Robbie Katter, my son—called a big meeting. God bless the Deputy Prime Minister for going to that meeting. It was a last stand meeting at Winton. A bloke called David Pascoe wrote a letter about a bloke called Charlie Phillott. He wrote, 'A letter to my fellow Australians,' and he concentrated on Charlie Phillott. If you want to see everything that is good about this country, meet Charlie Phillott, because he represents everything that is good about this country. My staff sat in front of the screen, reading the letter, and they were all crying. My wife sat in front of the screen and burst out crying. She formed a body to send out food and help to some of these people.

The spotlight was turned on this issue. Phillott had walked off. He owned nothing. The farm had fallen to pieces. But when the spotlight of public attention was put on the bank, the chairman himself, God bless him—I think he is a good man—said, 'What's going on here?' Charlie Phillott had his $2 million station returned to him. The debt of $2 million was written off and $750,000 to put the station back in order. 60 Minutes ran two segments on it. That is the power of the spotlight. You give us no spotlight and we have got no power, right? If there is one thing I would agree strongly with the LNP about, it is that the ALP failed to do it. The LNP has failed to do it. Believe me, in Queensland we failed to weed out police corruption. Did the royal commission weed it out? Yes, it did.

What I am saying is that we want the spotlight and the power of public opinion which was so enormously effective in the now famous case of Charlie Phillott. By the way, that letter got 3½ million hits. It was the highest ever recorded in Australian history for a letter on the internet. It pointed out the shortcomings of the banks. The spotlight is in itself a redress.

We have had an inquiry into Woolworths and Coles. You ought to read it. It said, 'They are going to take over Australia. They've got 60 per cent of the market. They're increasing at 2½ per cent a year. You'd better do something about it.' Did the government—successive governments—do anything about it? No. They now have nearly 90 per cent of the Australian food market. We had a dairy inquiry called by Mr Costello. I am not knocking him. I thank him for calling on the inquiry. It was another whitewash: 'There's nothing wrong with the dairy industry,'—nothing except that 7,000 of the 15,000 dairy farmers have gone broke, bankrupt, and walked off their properties worth absolutely nothing. There is nothing wrong apart from that. If you think you can achieve these objectives with all of the muscle power that we were able to bring on the cattle industry and secured $800 million in loans—do you know how many cattlemen got assistance from the government in Queensland? Four—one, two, three, four. The minister was advised that there were only 13 cattlemen at risk. Well, four stations had been foreclosed on in the Caulfield area. The famous Charlie Phillott said 12 had been foreclosed on in the Winton area. The Catholic priest in Longreach said one quarter of the stations there were being foreclosed on. And you say, 'What's banking got to do with this?'

If we had a reconstruction board, no-one would have been foreclosed on. And I speak with authority because in Queensland we did have a reconstruction authority. I happened to be the minister with primary, but not ultimate, responsibility. And we went in and we were told— (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, has declined to speak. His silence in the chamber is deafening.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, I am being a little presumptuous. But I can say—

Opposition members interjecting—

I am going to be really pleased to hear the member for McMahon because when he was Assistant Treasurer in 2013 he said: 'The financial system is strong, well regulated and well managed, and I have not seen a case for a full-blown inquiry.' But there was not just that. He also said: 'Our two market guardians are the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—APRA and ASIC. The standard they set is world's best practice.' He said that when he was Assistant Treasurer—in an op ed entitled 'Good place in an economic storm' published in Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald on 24 September 2008. So, when given the opportunity, the member for McMahon did not want a royal commission.

The big banks can, and will, be accountable. Australia's major banks are now going to be called to appear before parliament at least annually. They will be brought before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to report jointly to the Treasurer, the member for Cook, and the parliament on our banking and financial system in Australia. That is entirely right and appropriate. It is up to the banks to explain their actions to their customers in full so that customers can be fully informed when making their personal financial decisions. Of course, we live in a free market age. In financial markets, if people do not like what they are getting from the banks they can walk down the street to a customer owned banking association facility. They can go to a credit union.

The banks, in coming before the committee, will have an opportunity to explain how they are responding to funding issues to support Australian consumers and businesses. I am proud to be the Minister for Small Business. Small business is the engine room of the economy. It employs 4.7 million Australians. It accounts for $340 billion worth of economic good to this nation. The banks' appearance before the committee will ensure they can transparently account for their decision making and how they balance the needs of borrowers, savers, shareholders and the wider community. This is important. The banks will be required to explain to the parliamentary committee matters including international economic and financial market developments and how these are affecting our nation. They will be required to explain, if necessary, developments in prudential regulation, including capital requirements, and how these are affecting the policies of Australian banks. They will be required to explain the costs of funds, the impacts on margins and the basis for bank interest rate pricing decisions. All these are good. All these are necessary. They will be required to explain how individual banks and the banking industry as a whole are responding to issues previously raised in parliamentary inquiries through the necessary processes, through their package of reforms announced in April this year, and also bank perspectives on the performance of the Australian economy, including its strengths and potential risks.

The coalition government has already taken significant and proper steps to further strengthen our banking and financial system through the conduct of the Murray financial system inquiry and the ongoing implementation of the recommendations of that particular report. In addition, the government has acted to strengthen the resources and capability of ASIC—not just the investigator powers of a royal commission but also the ability to prosecute and otherwise act against those responsible for malfeasance in the banking and financial sector. And that is totally right and proper.

Just yesterday Minister O'Dwyer and I announced that the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, who is a very respected political and business figure, has been directed to take undertake an inquiry to assess whether the current laws address the concerns raised by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in its report. It was tabled on 4 May 2016 and was entitled, Impairment of customer loans.

The ombudsman will examine selected cases as identified by the parliamentary joint committee and, with the terms of reference provided, she will give advice to the government to help determine if further regulatory action is required. That is right, that is proper, that is necessary. We are taking action. We do not need a royal commission into the banks. The PJC raised serious concerns about how banks treated some of their small business lending customers and they made a number of recommendations to address the deficiencies they identified.

The government has a substantial financial sector agenda to improve consumer outcomes. However, the ombudsman will be able to identify, through a forensic analysis, if further reforms are needed. Ombudsman Carnell will do that. She will provide interim findings to the Ramsey review to inform the wider review of external dispute resolution schemes in the final financial services sector, and the final report is due to be provided to the government in 12 weeks.

The government has recently announced that the major banks and other financial firms are going to report annually. As I said previously, this is necessary and this approach will ensure that the banks and other major financial firms are more transparent in their decision making. They will be held account to the Australian people and by the Australian people.

I would like to put in Hansard the terms of reference of this very important inquiry which is going to be conducted by Ombudsman Carnell. The terms of reference are:

As I said, small business is the engine room of this economy. Further:

we know that, we appreciate that—

including market losses, when they have been treated fairly, and any impact on the availability and cost of credit to small business.

The government does not support a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector because a royal commission will not benefit consumers or the Australian economy; it will benefit lawyers—the Prime Minister make that point in question time today and question time yesterday.

Critically, a royal commission would just go over old ground and would delay well developed and important reforms, which will strengthen consumer protections and ensure that malpractice is detected and, where necessary, punished, and provide a one-stop shop for consumer complaints. In addition a royal commission would send a signal internationally—that is the last thing that we need—that the government believes that there are structural problems with our banking and financial sector. This would have a significant repercussion for confidence, for international investment and, of course, for our all-important AAA credit rating.

This motion is a further demonstration that the Leader of the Opposition is not fit to hold his current position. He had the opportunity he was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation from the 14 September 2010 to 1 July 2013 and he was the Minister for Workplace Relations from 2011 to 2013. In that time, he did not call for a royal commission into the banking sector. When he was in charge of workplace relations, about the most notable thing that he did was to talk up the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, a tribunal I might add—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hope you are running the census better than that!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am talking about the member for Maribyrnong. A tribunal I might add that was going to place Riverina truck-driving family businesses off the road and do the same thing right throughout the nation. It took a gallant effort by the Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, and this side of parliament to absolutely strike that out—as we should have, because family truck drivers keep this nation running, and to have them put off the road was a damn disgrace.

The government recognises that the financial services sector has not always lived up to the standards expected by the Australian community. We understand that, and that is why this government is implementing the most significant package of reforms to the financial sector in recent history. We didn't see too much from that side when they were in government. Six sorry years in government just racked up the debt and deficit. They never called for a royal commission—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will address the topic of the motion.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and shouldn't be calling for one now.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order under standing order 78. Earlier you made a ruling, which, when made, the House did not object to in any way, about whether or not there had been sufficient debate at that point in time. Every single speaker since that time—on government, opposition and crossbench—has given speeches about whether or not the motion from the Senate should be supported. That is not the motion before the parliament.

The motion before the parliament is whether or not we should deal with the Senate motion at the first available opportunity after 5.15 pm. Given that the debate of the House has moved entirely now to the substantive motion, rather than the motion that is before us, there is no doubt that the House is now ready to receive the motion that the question be put, and I therefore move that the question be put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Manager of Opposition Business well knows, as Speaker I have a practice when either the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business makes a point of order, as a courtesy, to hear from their counterpart. I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Therefore, I will withdraw the motion that I moved and just leave it at the point of order until you have ruled.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was about to address the point of order, but I see the Leader of the House wants to address the point of order and I give him that right. The Leader of the House on the point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I think it is quite clear that the members are talking to the substantive issues that face the Senate and the House of Representatives, which is not dealing with that matter now. The reason they are saying we should not deal with those matters now is because of the government's policy with respect to dealing with the banks versus the Labor Party's policy of a royal commission. Of course if you, Mr Speaker, directed the members of this side of the House to speak more to the procedural motion, I am sure they would be quite prepared to do so, but no-one has yet made that point.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House. The point the Manager of Opposition Business makes is that in his view—to be fair there are speakers on both sides, so it includes the Leader of the Opposition in that—we have strayed from a technical reading of the motion. That is his point. You can have that argument. As you know, I tend to try to be practical about these things, because I have sat in this House for a long period of time and seen the consequences when we it becomes highly technical.

The substantive point of the Manager of Opposition Business was that because the speakers so far in the debate have had a consistency that he pointed out that, therefore, means that future speakers will adopt exactly the same attitude. That is a very unfair thing to say of future speakers in the debate. I am not at the point yet where I feel that from my original ruling—we have had four speakers on one side and two on the opposition side. If the opposition side does not wish to speak that is their perfect right, but I am going to hear further speakers. Of course, it has been open right through the debate for the Manager of Opposition Business, if he has felt aggrieved by that, to have raised points of order and I would have considered those points of order. Indeed, he could have even raised a point of order on the Leader of the Opposition.

What I am saying is that I have heard him. I am going to hear some further speakers. I respect the fact that he has withdrawn his motion. The minister's time had concluded and I will now call the member for McMahon from the opposition.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a government which has spent a lot of time saying that there is no problem, they have sure spent a lot of energy trying to find a solution. A government which says, 'There's nothing to see here,' before an election has now found not one, not two, not three but four solutions to a problem they not long ago denied existed. The problem is that none of those solutions will work.

None of the solutions that the government have come up with will work and they know it, because they keep changing the answer. Originally we were told the answer was more resources for ASIC. If we could just give more resources to ASIC they could get on with the job. The problem of course was that they cut the resources before they put more in. So the best they could do is come up with a level of resourcing which they inherited, which is no greater—not a dollar greater—than it was when they came to office. They said that was the solution; that would fix the problems.

Then they realised that actually that was not going to cut the mustard. So then we had the next brainwave: an annual chat by the banks with the member for Banks. The Prime Minister said, 'I assure you: this will change behaviour. This will change the way the banks operate.' If they get called in once a year to sit, not with a Senate committee, not with a joint committee but with a government-dominated House committee to answer questions that would somehow change behaviour.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is entitled to move that motion, but not while someone is speaking.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we were told that an annual chat with the member for Banks would change behaviour. And now the latest solution is a tribunal, of which we have no detail and no information—we do not know how it will work with the Financial Services Ombudsman or other tribunals that already exist. We already have some of these tribunals in existence, and now a new tribunal, we are told, will fix it.

And then of course we have the latest solution by the Minister for Small Business, who was such a triumph in the census—such a triumph of public administration. He has now sent a referral for an inquiry to the Small Business Ombudsman, who is the former Chief Minister of the ACT. Now, forgive us for not being blown over and impressed with that little stunt—that that is somehow going to fix all the problems.

The Prime Minister does not want a royal commission into financial services. He has some experience in royal commissions into financial services and they have not gone too well in the past. So no wonder he does not want a royal commission into financial services on this occasion. And the government thinks it is clever to go through some of the scandals and some of the crises that occurred when Labor was in office, and when I and the now Leader of the Opposition had ministerial responsibility. Well, we are happy to talk about that because that is just why the Leader of the Opposition and I know that a royal commission is necessary.

The Leader of the Opposition and I have spent a long time meeting with victims. I spent time in office meeting with victims. I have met with the victims of Trio. I know the victims of Timbercorp. I know the victims of bad financial advice, and that is why I and this Leader of the Opposition put through the financial advice reforms that we did. And do you know who voted for them? Labor Party members. Do you know who voted against them? Liberal and National Party members, on every single occasion!

And do you know what else Liberal and National Party members did? They went to the 2013 election and said, 'Oh, no. We can live with these reforms now. That's okay.' And then they won the 2013 election, and then they tried to overturn them. In fact, it is worse: they actually succeeded in overturning them for a period of time. They had the numbers in this House and they managed to get the numbers in the other place, and they actually legislated to water down the Labor protections which we had put in while in office. They actually voted successfully to provide less protection to Australian consumers of financial advice.

That was one of their big priorities when it came to financial reform. That was their big agenda: to ignore the lack of mandate, to spend their resources, their political capital and their energy to water down protections on financial advice. But the Senate was awake. The Senate worked it out; cross benchers in the other place knew that they had been had. Then it was put again in the Senate and their repeal was overturned. I say to the government: Shame on you for trying to water down our protections! Shame on you for leaving victims of financial advice to the vagaries of dodgy advice!

We will talk about the things that happened when we were in office, and that is why we understand—because they are still happening. As good as the financial advice reforms are and as important as they are, we still see scandals. You know what? We know who perpetrated some of those scandals, and some of those people are still working in financial services today. Some of those people are still in the sector, and we know that a royal commission is what is necessary to deal with the culture, with the structure and with the things which bring about crisis after crisis and scandal after scandal. We know that an eminent Australian—or Australians—properly versed in the nature of Australia's financial services system is what is necessary to shine a light. We all know what royal commissions can do and what benefits they can bring. We have called royal commissions in the past, when we were in office, for the right reasons, and thank goodness we did. They had their naysayers. They had people who said they were not necessary. Not many people say they are not necessary now.

We know that the Liberal Party and the National Party have no in-principle objections to royal commissions. They are not slow in calling them when they think it suits their political interests. They do not mind spending taxpayers' money on royal commissions which are designed to further the political interests of those who sit opposite. But they are determined to avoid them when they promote not their political interests but the national interests—the interests of victims of financial scandals.

The Prime Minister lectures and he says, 'The victims of financial scandals do not want a royal commission.' How he would he know? He does not talk to them. How would he know? He does not meet with them. How would he know? He does not engage with the victims of financial scandals. You know what? It is true that some of them say, 'It will not help me.' It is true that some of the victims of financial scandals say, 'The damage is done for me.' But, having been through it, having lost life savings, having in many instances seen their family break up and, in some tragic instances, having lost members of their family, they do not want to see it happen to another Australian. They do not want to see it happen to another family. They know that something has to change. They know that the culture has to change, that the system has to change, and that tinkering will not do it. They know that a royal commission will. They know that a royal commission, properly constituted with the powers and authority necessary, will get to the bottom of what they went through.

How did we find out about the scandals that have occurred so far? Is it because of the banks, financial service providers and financial advisers have come out and said, 'Do you want to reveal to the Australian people we have got a little problem here?' No, it is not. It is because they have been exposed. They have been exposed, in many instances, by investigative journalists. I want, in the House, to pay due credit to one in particular. Australia owes a debt of gratitude to Adele Ferguson, who has pursued these issues with passion and tenacity. It is due to her and her investigative journalism that many of these scandals have come to light.

But Australia should not be relying on one journalist or even on more than one journalist. Australians should not be reliant on one media outlet to examine these issues. Australians are reliant on us, on everybody in this House, to do their job and on everybody in the other house to do their job. And they are reliant on us to make sure that the proper procedures are in place and resources are given. They know that a royal commission is the way to do that. With all due respect to Adele Ferguson—she is a very fine journalist—she can only do so much and the other investigative journalists can only do so much. These inquiries and scandals have not been brought to light by ASIC—with all due respect to ASIC and the work they do; they have been brought about by people outside the system of government. And that cannot be allowed to stand for one day more. This House has the opportunity tonight to send a message to the government.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Understanding standing order 78(a), I move that the member for McMahon's time be extended by an additional 15 minutes.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That motion is not in order. You can move an extension of time but, if you look to page three of the standing orders, you will see that it cannot exceed half the original speaking times.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I move:

That the member for McMahon's time be extended by the maximum allowed under the standing orders.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which is five minutes. The Manager of Opposition Business has moved that the member for McMahon's time be extended by five minutes. All those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no.

Question agreed to.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the support. I will thank the House more if we actually do the right thing by Australian financial consumers and say to this Prime Minister, 'Do the right thing and call a royal commission.' Only the executive can call a royal commission. Only the executive can determine the terms of reference. Only the executive can advise a Governor-General. That is why it is called a royal commission: because it has to have to assent of the Governor-General. But I tell you what: this House can express its will. This House can say to the elected government of the day, 'This is what we want you to do.' And if this Prime Minister and this Treasurer and this executive ignore the will of this House then they will be showing more than their incompetence. They will be showing more than their lack of willingness to embrace the best interests of Australia's financial consumers. Above all, they will be showing their arrogance through their willingness to ignore the wish of the other place and this place and their willingness and their determination to use all the powers of the executive to ignore the wishes of elected members of the House of Representatives.

Members tonight have an opportunity to look into their conscience, and I say this in all seriousness to people of goodwill on the other side of the House, those who have called and argued for a royal commission in the past; those who have tweeted about a royal commission in the past; and those who have been part of inquiries of this House and the other place that have made the case eloquently and powerfully for a royal commission: now is the time for delivery. Now is the time when you can actually do it. Now is the time when elected members of this House can stand up for this House's rights, for this House's responsibilities and obligations and all of our responsibilities to our constituents.

We all represent Australians who have been the victims of financial scandals. But, even more importantly than that, we represent people who might be the victims of future financial scandals. We represent people who may be subject to this sort of behaviour in the future, and we can stop it happening. We cannot stop the scandals of the past, but we can put in place the laws to stop them happening in the future. How will we feel if we do not? How will those members who have called for a royal commission in the past feel if they do not? When there is another scandal and we have ignored our opportunity tonight to call a royal commission, how will we feel? I know how members on this side of the House will feel. We will feel that we have done the right thing, but we will be angry, as many millions of Australians will be angry, that this opportunity was lost.

We do not detain the House lightly tonight. We do not detain the House because this is something that we want to do for fun. We detain the House tonight because this is a matter of vital national importance. We detain the House tonight because the Australian people are watching and waiting for real action. We detain the House tonight because the time for talk is over and the time for action is now. We detain the House tonight because this House can send a signal to this arrogant Prime Minister that the time has come to put the Australian people first. The time has come to put victims of financial scandals first. The time has come to put possible future victims of financial scandals first by avoiding those scandals, by having a proper and thoroughly constituted and well-resourced royal commission run by eminent Australians, run by people who understand the importance of a well-regulated financial services system. This can be done tonight.

I say to the Prime Minister: sometimes you just have to know when you have lost. Sometimes you just have to know when it is time to recognise reality. Sometimes you just have to know when it is time to say, 'Okay; I might have got this one wrong.' I know it is not in your nature, Prime Minister. I know it is not something that comes naturally to the Prime Minister, but I have to say that I think the Australian people would react well to a Prime Minister who said, 'I've got this one wrong. I've heard the message. I want to work with the Labor Party and the crossbenchers, and I will deliver a royal commission. It might not have been my idea or something that I thought was great, but I have been convinced in the national interest.' This is one where the Prime Minister can actually put the national interest in front of his political interest. This is one where he does not need to listen to the right wing in his cabinet. He can listen to millions of Australians and can say: 'I get it. I hear the message. I will deliver a royal commission, because the Australian people deserve it. I will deliver a royal commission, because the Australian people deserve nothing less—and I will deliver a royal commission, because it is the right thing to do.'

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler on a point of order during a division?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker. The question that is before the House now that you have asked to be put is 'that the debate be adjourned.'

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has not been determined, and we would ask that it be determined separately, is whether that be adjourned to the next sitting, or whether it can be adjourned to a later hour this day. That question is not before the House, and, therefore, that is an issue that we would ask needs to be resolved in addition to this. We point this out so that it is very clear to the House what it is voting on.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House moved 'that the debate be adjourned.' I can put the question that is before the chair, which I have done.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a criticism of you, Mr Speaker; it is of someone else—to be clear.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

The question now is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has moved that the motion be put.

Mr Burke interjecting—

The Leader of the House was on his feet.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were both on our feet.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were not at the dispatch box.

Mr Burke interjecting—

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I am being as patient as I can with both sides. You were not at the dispatch box. The Leader of the House was at the dispatch box. You cannot take a point of order until you are at the dispatch box, otherwise people could take them from the fourth row out of their chair. The question is that the question be put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(In division)I just reiterate to the tellers that this is a successive division, a one-minute division, and members need to report to the tellers if they are changing their vote or have entered the chamber.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, point of order: as you have stated—and the tellers are not actually following your instructions—there is no reason for them to do a full vote. It is a successive division and, as no-one has reported to them, they can report the result to you immediately.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want them to have to start again?

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Grayndler will cease interjecting. I have made the point to the tellers that it is a successive division and they do not need to do a full count. That is the point of a successive, one-minute division.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

Excuse me, Leader of the Opposition. I am not giving the tellers a hard time; I am explaining.

The question now is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you just stated the question to the House on what we are voting on. Was that the first time you stated the question?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stated it, and then the closure was moved. We have had the closure—that is done. Now we go back to the question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you say it?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stated it and you were trying to take a point of order out of your seat when the Leader of the House came to the dispatch box and moved the closure.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I am not out of my seat I am not allowed to take a point of order—I can't do it sitting down!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not going to have a discussion—you have made your point of order. Lock the doors. The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler, on a point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The subsequent debate [inaudible] one-minute ring before, so shouldn't it be four minutes?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have ruled a one-minute division. There wasn't subsequent debate. The question is that the motion be put.