Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

We need a royal commission into the big banks, and the best way to make this happen is to vote for this bill, because we will either then get a royal commission, when the government realises that there is support both in the Senate and in this House for a royal commission into the big banks, or we will get the next best thing, which is a parliamentary commission of inquiry that will have the power to do what a royal commission can.

This bill is very similar in its terms to that moved by my colleague the member for Kennedy and seconded by the member for Denison. There is a broad-based support for this approach in this chamber. There is a broad-based support for this in the Senate. That is why this bill that the Greens have drafted was co-sponsored and moved by a broad cross-section of the Senate. Too many people have lost too much money. There have been homes that have been lost, there have been farms that have been lost, and there have been lives that have been wrecked. At its core, the problem is that within the banks there is a conflict in their business model. Part of their business model takes people's money and invests it, but the other part of their business model is about making as much money as they possibly can. Those two often come into conflict.

This parliament has tried its best to inquire into what is going on in the big banks and whether we can fix it. There have been Senate inquiries. The House economics committee has looked into this. Each time, what we find is that the CEOs of the banks front up to parliament and wring their hands and say, 'We're sorry that we've done the wrong thing.' But we find out that back at the ranch—when they leave parliament and go back to running their businesses—nothing, fundamentally, changes. We found out that no-one lost their job, even though people were fleeced and lost enormous amounts of money and lives were ruined. There were no substantive changes to the people who were running this, suggesting that the slap on the wrist that they were getting when they appeared in front of the parliament was not reflected when they turned up back at the banks.

We are also finding that this parliament itself, through its committees, does not have the power to find out what is going on behind closed doors—to ask for the documents and to get in and do the investigations that are required in a way that a royal commission or a parliamentary commission of inquiry would. The Senate has tried its best. The House of Representatives economics committee was always a sideshow to cover up for the growing clamour for the royal commission. That has tried its best. And what is clear is that these parliamentary committees are not enough. That is why the Greens have been pushing, for some time, for a properly constituted parliamentary commission. That is also why, I suspect, the member for Kennedy has moved, together with others, for the parliament to now say, 'If we are not going to have a royal commission, let's do the next best thing.'

We now have an opportunity, and I to say to members in this place—not only to my colleagues on the cross bench but to members on the government back bench—this is a bill that just passed through the Senate with many people from many different political persuasions throwing their weight behind it, because it is what the Australian people want. This is probably your best chance of making it happen, because if a loud and clear message is sent from this place that there is support not only in the Senate but in this chamber as well, then the government will have to act. If the government will not act, then the parliament will do the job for it. So for all those members who have spoken up before and have said to their constituents, 'We hear your legitimate concerns about what is happening to your farms, about what is happening to your businesses and about what is happening to your livelihoods,' now is the chance to do something about it. This is going to be one of the most significant votes that happens over this coming fortnight. This is a real opportunity to stand up and make sure a clear signal is sent.

The arguments as to why we need this bill have been well and truly canvassed in the Senate by my Greens colleagues, including Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, as well as by all of the other members of the crossbench and the opposition who spoke in favour of it there. I do not intend to repeat all of them here and now, other than to ask: why would the Prime Minister have tasked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics with inquiring into the banks unless he knew there was a problem? Why would the Prime Minister have said, 'We're going to create a tribunal,' unless the government knew there was a problem? Why is it that, time and time again, when you go the Australian people and ask, 'Do you think the big banks, which are getting a big prop-up from the government and getting support because they are treated as too big to fail, are treating you fairly,' the answer is always no? When you ask, 'Do you think it is right that the big banks at their core are able to make money off you and to sell you financial products that might be in their interests but might not be in your interests,' everyone, to a person, says, 'Yes, there is a problem.'

We have sat and watched the banks make world-leading, record profits. Just before this we were debating a bill to impose a levy on the big four banks. Why would we be putting a levy on the big four banks? It is because everyone, from the IMF to the Greens and everyone in between, has said that in this country we have a situation where the big four banks enjoy a very, very cosy relationship with the government. We have an unstated four-pillars policy in this country. As a result, the big four banks are able to go offshore and borrow as much as they like, knowing that they will get it at cheaper rates than their smaller colleagues simply because the lenders know the government is going to stand behind them. And the government have acknowledged that, in part, because they have brought in a bill for a bank levy.

What we saw during the global financial crisis was not the government saying—and it was the previous government at that stage—'Now is the chance to inquire into the practices of the big four banks, now is potentially a chance to crack down on them, now is potentially a chance to ask them to give a fair return to the Australian people.' No, during the GFC the big four banks were backed to the hilt. They were encouraged and, in fact, allowed to swallow up some of their smaller colleagues, and they came out of the GFC with a greater market share than when they went into it, thanks to government help.

So, not only have the people of Australia been paying record amounts in fees and been slugged with high mortgages as housing prices continue to grow and you have to borrow more and more, and not only is household debt increasing, but governments of both persuasions over the last decade have helped the big four banks consolidate.

It is time now that this parliament stood up in the interests of not the big banks but the public. Now is the opportunity for this parliament to say, ' Let's have a look into the banks. Let's have a look at whether or not there is a problem with the wealth creation arms of the banks existing in the same portion as their deposit arms. Let's look at whether or not that drives an inherent conflict that means many people get fleeced and are going to continue to get fleeced until it is fixed. Let's have a look at whether or not the implicit support and the explicit support that I just referred to that has been given to the big four banks that have allowed them to make world-leading, record profits has given the public good bang for its buck.'

What the IMF has said about that is that it is a drain on the public purse, it is also allowing the big four banks to obtain a competitive advantage over their smaller rivals and it is encouraging risky behaviour. When the big four banks know that they have the public and the government to fall back on whenever times get tough, then they are being encouraged to engage in risky behaviour. That is why in other places, when you look around the world, some of the responses to the GFC, to report after report of people getting fleeced and to these wealth management arms that grow within these banks—to the point where they even, potentially, contributed to the global financial crisis itself—were pretty radical.

For example, they have said, 'Maybe we have to split the investment and wealth creation arms away from the deposit-taking arms.' You have no choice now in modern Australian society other than to have a bank account. It provides these banks with a steady stream of people's money. Other countries, when they have inquired into it, have said that perhaps there is a good case for splitting the wealth creation arms from the deposit-taking arms. It is a move towards saying that banks ought to be treated a bit like an essential service. Given that you have no choice other than to have your money deposited in a bank account, whether it is a salary, welfare or any other form of payment if you are an independent contractor, perhaps all of that should be segmented and separated from the wealth creation arms.

In places like the UK they have gone further down that road than we have here. The IMF has also said that there are other ways you could deal with the fact that the big four banks are running rampant and are systemically important but, in effect, are taking the public for mugs. One of them might be to ask them to pay a contribution towards the implicit subsidy they receive, acknowledging that they are too big to fail. Maybe at the end of a royal commission, the royal commission would say, 'Yes, we have a four pillars policy in this country; let's call a spade a spade; but let's make sure that those big four banks pay an appropriate return to the public purse.' Not the comparatively small bank levy that the government has proposed, which is worth supporting but is much smaller than what the IMF has recommended. If we did what the IMF has recommended, you would find there would be an extra $2 billion to $3 billion a year coming into government revenue. We would not need to say to universities that they have to be cut by $2.8 billion just to make the budget balance. We would not have to say to people that they have to pay more to go to the doctor just to try and balance the budget. It would be much, much fairer way of balancing the budget. That is something that might come out of a royal commission.

What might also come out of a royal commission is an examination of whether it is right that bank staff get rewarded, not so much by an hourly rate for their work, but are tied so much to incentive payments and these so-called balanced scorecards that ultimately boil down to how many products they have sold. Maybe a royal commission would say that that is not actually good for the customer. What happens time after time is that you go to a bank or you call them up on the phone, and how long is it before someone says to you, 'Have you thought about your insurance?' It is not 'Is there anything else I can help you with today?'—it is 'What about your superannuation? Can I talk to you about that? Can I talk to about switching over your income that might be sitting in some other deposit account earning money—can I get you over into something else?' What we hear from the admissions that have been made to the House Economics Committee and elsewhere is that this is systemic. It is not just the senior staff, who manage to get away without a slap on the wrist. Their CEO fronts up and apologises, then goes back the ranch and the executives in charge continue to be allowed to run the show. It is not just them. This impacts at a branch level. Every one of us knows it. Every time we have tried to have a teller or someone on the end of the phone upsell us, not only is it annoying, but we know that the staff themselves are suffering because they get hauled in front of these regular meetings and performance views where they suffer if they have not met their targets.

What we have heard from bank manager after bank manager, and from staff and their unions, is that although it might supposedly be a balanced scorecard, what counts at the end of the day is how much you have sold. It is that conflict of interest that goes right the way from the teller and the person who answers the phone right up to the CEO, that encourages them to make money at the expense of everyday Australians. It is that conflict at its core that needs to be probed by a royal commission. What we have done so far is examine them the best we can, but it is flogging them with a wet lettuce, because they know that they get to go back afterwards and continue making money in exactly the same way.

One of the most worrying things I have seen in recent times is that when you plot household income against household debt you see debt is going through the roof in this country. Households are being put under increasing pressure. With house prices going up you have to write bigger and bigger mortgages and people are getting under increasing pressure and are finding it harder to make ends meet.

You would think it is time for government to step in and ask how we right this wrong, but what we have is a system where the big four banks make money out of it. The big four banks make money out of households and individuals in this country going into record levels of debt. The CEOs' bonuses are based on how big a mortgage book they can write, so we are putting people under further and further pressure and creating this bubble that is about to burst. The system collapse at some point and we need a the royal commission to get to the bottom of it and work out how we can fix this so that we do not have an economy that is based purely on speculation and we do not have banks lending not to productive businesses but just to property, because that is the cheapest way of making a buck. It is saying that it does not matter if people lose their homes or their livelihoods. That is why we need a royal commission and, if not that, a parliamentary commission of inquiry. Now is the chance for people to vote for it.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion. There is a very great quote from Henry Bournes Higgins, the father of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in Australia. He said—and it was often quoted by Kevin Rudd in this place—that a contact made by one person is not a contract. If you look at every single contract, such as when you buy a house, the contract actually says that they can do anything they like and you have no rights at all. That is not a contract at all—Henry Bournes Higgins was dead right. A contract made by one person, by definition, is not a contract. Every time we take a loan, whether it is for a house, a business venture, a factory or a farm, the bank can do what it likes. If they decide that your industry—whether it is manufacturing of farming—is in trouble they can therefore depreciate the value of your asset and when you go below a certain level on their computer they foreclose—unilaterally, at their discretion.

To me, clearly there should be a common contract that gives rights to the people who are borrowing the money and does not leave all of the rights with the banks. This would be a proper banking system for this country. If you think that there are no problems, well, look no further than the housing industry. In Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, which have almost a quarter of Australia's population, the average price of a house is $900,000. The average after-tax income of an Australian is $50,000, so even if there were two people working and living together their combined income would be $100,000 and they would have $90,000 to meet on the house repayments. Clearly, as the honourable member moving this resolution said, something is going to break very shortly, and people close to the banking industry know that there is impending doom out there.

We have people that are supposed to oversight the prudential banking and financial arrangements in this country. I do not know about other members of parliament, but I have never in 43 years as a member of parliament submitted a single complaint concerning a bank to ASIC, the ACCC, the banking ombudsman or all these other people and received satisfaction. The other grave deficiency in the system was realised right at the start in 1903 or 1904 by the founder of the Commonwealth Bank. We had a people's bank. When a market collapse, a drought, a disease outbreak or something occurs—and this is particular true of farming industries—the banks hit the panic button and immediately apply a 2½ per cent endangered area overrider, a 2½ per cent endangered industry overrider and a 2½ per cent endangered person overrider, so instead of paying six per cent, as was agreed upon, you were suddenly paying 12 or 15 per cent. In all of Australian history since 1903 we had a government bank that in that situation accepted there is a roller-coaster and carried the industry through the down cycle.

I speak with authority, because I was the minister that had primary responsibility for the state bank in Queensland. It was decided by the great Sir Leo Hielscher, whose name everybody knows, the Treasurer, William Gunn, and myself, as minister with primary responsibility for the bank, that we would bail out the sugar industry. We had a look at the sugar industry in southern Brazil, and our cost structures were lower, so we knew that in the end we would always win. If the worst came to worst and we had to foreclose, it is valuable land, so we were not going to take losses. We went in and rescued it. The head of the state bank had told me that 30 per cent of the sugar industry, a mainstay of the Queensland economy, had to go. We were under attack from beet sugar from Europe. He knew all about it. Anyway, two weeks later, let us just say he resigned. There may have been some compulsion. The money went out, approximately $800 million, and we, the government, made $250 million profit out of that. If that had been the banks, they would have taken a loss of $100 million, the farmers would have taken a loss of over $1,000 million, and Queensland would have lost something like 15 per cent of its economy, as well as about 20,000 jobs. That is the necessity for a properly operating bank that is not interested in short-term profits but in the long-term interests of the Australian nation and people.

There was a most intriguing occurrence when the banking tax was announced—and we thank the government for the banking tax. The banks said, 'No problem; we'll just pass it on to the consumer.' There is a thing called collusion, and what they have actually admitted is that they collude on pricing. How can they say, 'We can just pass it on to the consumer'? This place is shot to pieces with free marketeers on both sides of the House. I must say my colleagues in the centre here do not subscribe to such stupidities, but if a free market is operating then the banks cannot just say, 'We're going to pass it on.' That can only occur if there is no free market operating. Clearly the statement by the bank means that what we have here is an oligopoly. We do not have a free market system. This is just another reason that we need to have a royal commission, or its equivalent, into the banks.

Without a banking system that can ride this roller-coaster one would be seeing sugar mills in Queensland closing. As we do not have a state bank, we did see a sugar mill closing every two years, taking 700 or 800 employees for each one that closed. Nine meatworks closed in a similar downturn in North Queensland, each one of them taking down 500 or 600 jobs with it. They have never reopened. Then there are dairy factories. I think there are three out of 50 dairy factories left in Queensland thanks to the free marketeers and their work. But, all the same, they would have been able to survive if there had been a properly operating government bank—and similarly for the wool industry.

There is another issue which very few people take up in this place. When the GFC hit, our prudential regulators said, 'We have magnificent prudential oversight. We have the best banking system in the world.' I think the history books will say that we can thank Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan for rescuing this nation from the GFC. But the banks were congratulating themselves. They did not have a problem because, unlike almost every other country on earth, Australia is the only country with non-recourse lending.

In America if the banks are going to foreclose they, as well as the borrower, take the loss. They call it 'jingle mail'. If you are in trouble and you cannot make your repayments, you toss the keys to the bank and say, 'It's yours now! Ta-ta! Bye-bye!' In Australia there is no 'Ta-ta! Bye-bye!' The debt follows you. You are a debt slave till the day you die. The bank keeps that debt alive and adds interest to it until the day that you are pushing up daisies—unless you choose bankruptcy.

The only reason that the banks, whose performance in Australia has, quite frankly, been utterly and abominably disgraceful, got out of trouble was that in Australia you take the full blame for the default. In every other country on earth—most certainly in the United States—that default loss is shared by the banks. There is no continuing debt. When they foreclose on the house the debt that you owe the bank is extinguished.

Storm Financial was to some degree a North Queensland phenomenon. The losses were Australia wide, of course, but the epicentre was in North Queensland. At the meeting, Mr Scattini, the lawyer from Slater and Gordon, representing the people who had the losses, said, 'It is in my opinion that the banks made advances to people who could never ever repay them, and the people never had pointed out to them the dangers of the investment.' The investments were made on the basis that housing prices would forever rise, and if housing prices did not forever rise then you all went bankrupt. You all went belly up.

Now who would know this? A bloke working as a fitter and turner in the minefields, doing fly-in mining out of Townsville? Would he know that? Or would the bank know that? Of course the bank would know that, and he wouldn't. So who is more culpable here—the bank or the borrower? Clearly the bank was. Yet, in the Storm Financial case, the banks took negligible pain whereas the people lost hundreds of millions of dollars. And the banks got clean away with it. As the proposer of this inquiry pointed out, they can act in the most irresponsible manner and get away with it. There is no punishment meted out to them.

One of the most important factors here is that both the opposition and the government have said that they will stand behind the majors. They have a government guarantee. Tell me any business in Australia that enjoys a government guarantee outside of the banks. So invest your money in banks, because you know you are never going to lose it—because the government is going to stand behind them. What have the banks given us by way of payment? I would submit that they have repaid us with the most irresponsible behaviour—to quote the bankers themselves when they went before the Senate inquiry, each of them said: 'Mea culpa. I am sorry for what I have done.' Each of them admitted that they had been acting improperly, but what did we do to punish them? Absolutely nothing! In fact, we have given them a government guarantee and rewarded them with the highest interest rates in the world as well.

I had a very lucrative insurance agency in my younger days; I worked very hard and built up a very big business. With the AMP Society, if you had three per cent defaults you lost the agency because it was your job to assess that the person signing the contract could keep up the repayments on the savings plan. It was your responsibility as the agent to see that they could afford it. There is no responsibility, as the proposer has said again and again, on Australian banks to act in a responsible manner. (Time expired)

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

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask that a separate question be put on the resumption of the debate.

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

Under the standing orders it is very clear that the debate must be adjourned, and so I will put that question first. The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Question agreed to.

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

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

I move as an amendment:

That the words 'the next sitting' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 7 August 2017, where it shall be the first item of Private Members Business, and if the second reading debate has concluded on 7 August 2017 the bill be called on immediately for its third reading as the first item of Private Members Business on 14 August 2017, and on each day it shall be permitted for the debate to conclude and the question to be put.

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

Standing order 41 makes very clear that the Selection Committee determines dates for matters, and the Selection Committee is formed and the standing orders give it that power. As I understand it, because the Selection Committee has not made a determination the Manager of Opposition Business by way of amendment is seeking that the House agree to a resolution for 7 August. I am prepared to allow that, but members need to be aware that that does not detract from the power of the Selection Committee, under the standing orders, to ultimately determine this matter and, indeed, every other matter of private members' business. I hope that is clear.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You asked me to give you the chance before I spoke on the amendment itself, so that is why I moved to one side. I want to make clear to the members of the House a few things about this amendment. In the first instance, this amendment does not commit anyone to the bill itself, but what it does commit the House to is giving the bill the opportunity to be considered and voted on. It also guarantees that this House will have told the Selection Committee exactly what it believes should happen. I do think it would be extraordinary—possibly the first time—if there were a resolution of the House for a bill to be brought on and then the Selection Committee made a different determination later. That would be an extraordinary outcome, but we do not deal with that today. What we deal with today is: what is the view of the House? Should we allow the opportunity for a bill on a banking commission to be considered by the House and voted on by the House?

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for that. Having listened to him, let me say I will call for a seconder in a second. I have heard what the Manager of Opposition Business has said. Obviously, as Speaker, I need to enforce the standing orders. The Manager of Opposition Business and all members are welcome to make whatever points they want—that is what the chamber is about—and to pass resolutions, but ultimately the House has passed a resolution in the form of the standing orders, and those standing orders apply. What the amendment says is that because the Selection Committee essentially has not determined a date—in fact, could not have determined a date and could not have met in the period since the message arrived here, in which we have had this debate—you are seeking that the House make a resolution. But I am just making very clear that, under standing order 41, it is very black and white that the Selection Committee determines timings, and it does so on all matters. If the House, in the future, does not want that system to operate then the standing orders need to be changed.

I will call for a seconder for the motion.

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

I second the motion, Mr Speaker. Very clearly, you have a responsibility to uphold the standing orders, as is consistent with the way in which you have indicated, quite correctly, the way that they are. Of course, I was either Leader of the House or Manager of Opposition Business during the time in which the Selection Committee played a different role in terms of private members' business. But certainly it is the case also, Mr Speaker—you will not be surprised—that we had a view that, whilst the Selection Committee was an opportunity for people in a smaller gathering to make sure that there was proper representation of different views and an opportunity for different private members' motions and bills to come forward, at the same time we never envisaged the possibility that somehow this Selection Committee—which, to be frank, most of the members of this House probably did not know existed, let alone who is on it and how it functions—would override the power of this House to determine what happens in the proceedings of this House.

We have had the other place determine a clear view on this legislation that is before the parliament, and I would hate to see a circumstance whereby the other place was able to make decisions but somehow we were not able to have a debate.

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

Mr Speaker—

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

I can't have both of you at once.

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

I apologise. There was a variance of the dates. Because the amendment has not been stated to the House yet, I want to withdraw it in the form it was given. I now move:

That the words 'the next sitting' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 14 August 2017, where it shall be the first item of Private Members Business, and if the second reading debate has concluded on 14 August 2017 the bill be called on immediately for its third reading as the first item of Private Members Business on 4 September 2017, and on each day it shall be permitted for the debate to conclude and the question to be put.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion.

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

What we have just seen from the opposition, of course, is that they are an absolute shambles. They moved a motion, which they thought was the cleverest ploy they had ever seen in this parliament—a very clever ploy, apparently, by this undergraduate debating level Manager of Opposition Business—which had the wrong date. It suggested that the House debate this matter on 7 August, a date on which we are not sitting.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs has already been warned today.

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

Was that your idea, member for Isaacs? It would have been the member for Isaacs' idea—Rumpole's idea—to put 7 August in.

But I digress, Mr Speaker. What we have here is a clear political stunt on behalf of the Labor Party, and what a sad day when the Labor Party are reduced to political stunts in support of One Nation, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team in the Senate. That is what they have been reduced to—lining up with the Greens, One Nation and the NXT. They will not preference One Nation, apparently, but they are quite happy to adopt their bills and support them in this place.

So what we have is a shambles on the opposition side, where they have their motion wrong. They are trying to get around the question of acquiring 76 votes to suspend the standing orders in order to take a measure in this House. I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, and I seek your clarification at the end of my remarks: how is it, under the Selection Committee requirements, under standing order 41, that a motion that effectively suspends standing order 41 and tries to take out of the hands of the Selection Committee the power on private members' business, which is specifically provided for in the standing orders, does not require an absolute majority to be carried, as opposed to a simple majority? An absolute majority is required to suspend the standing orders, and what the Manager of Opposition Business has tried to do is get around the requirement of the standing orders that when there is a motion to suspend the standing orders—to set aside a particular standing order, in this case standing order 41—76 votes are required. As the Leader of the House, I would put it to you that it is a very dangerous precedent to allow an amendment to a motion which, in its effect, seeks to change the application of the standing orders. It is a very serious precedent to allow that to be a simple majority. I would put it to you that it should be a 76-vote majority required, therefore an absolute majority.

Even if that were not the case, members of the government side should not vote for this motion, because it is a political stunt. I can understand groups like the NXT, the Greens, the Katter party and One Nation engaging in these kinds of political stunts, but there is a process. The member for Kennedy has his own private member's bill to deal with the banks, which is going through the normal processes, and the government has allowed that to happen. Therefore, the normal processes of the parliament should be respected. When the parliament starts to undermine the standing orders and the processes of this place, it is a very long road to chaos in this place indeed. How long would a piece of string look on that basis? If we allowed the normal processes of this place, which have been in place for 117 years—for 117 years clerks and speakers have been interpreting the law of the parliament—

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

The Leader of the House will just resume his seat for a second. 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

No, not on a point of order. I move:

That the question be now put.

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

I would say to the Manager of Opposition Business before I do that—and the standing orders compel me to—that I would like the opportunity, as I had with him, given the territory that we are in and the nature of this, to at least be able to respond to the Leader of the House. I think that is only fair. The Leader of the House, as you did, wanted to get clarification about the approach. I gave that to you, and I would like to give the Leader of the House that clarification now, if the Leader of the House would like. To the Leader of the House: I think it is only fair that I give clarification, given the points that you have raised, and I will be as clear as I possibly can without repeating everything I said earlier.

The Leader of the House made the point that this amendment seeks to get around the standing orders. That was a very serious concern for me in considering this matter, but, ultimately, it does not get around the standing orders. The Selection Committee is solidified in the standing orders as the body that determines when matters of private members' business come on. This amendment is possible because the Selection Committee has not made a determination. But let me be very blunt about it so there is no confusion: the Selection Committee is not bound by this resolution. The Selection Committee loses no power under the standing orders as a result of this. The Selection Committee may decide to agree or to disagree. It makes its own decisions. In no way is the Selection Committee weakened, because this House has decided that it is the Selection Committee that determines these matters. This matter is not a matter that is seeking to amend those standing orders. That would require the absolute majority. So I make it clear to all members that this House has voted for these standing orders. The House is entitled to pass resolutions calling on the Selection Committee to do certain things, but what it cannot do is enforce those on the Selection Committee—it really cannot. The only way it can do that—and it has the power to—is to change standing order 41. The Leader of the House has been—

Mr Katter interjecting—

No, the member for Kennedy will resume his seat. We are not going into question time on the matter. I am required to put the question. The question is that the motion be put.

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

I remind the House of the principles that apply to the practice of the Speaker exercising a casting vote, of which there are three. In this case, it is the first one that is applicable. That is, that the Speaker should vote to allow further discussion where this is possible. So I gave my vote to the noes to allow continued debate. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Every time the nation and its representatives seek to have a vote to introduce a banking royal commission, the member for Dawson goes missing—every time. Today we saw the vaguely comical scenes of poor old member for Dawson bracketed by the Treasurer and bracketed by the Leader of the National Party in a witness protection program that would do the FBI proud. But the problem is that the member for Dawson talks a big game up in Mackay. He talks a big game up in South Townsville, but he plays very poorly down here. Stand up, member for Dawson, and do the right thing by all of the people who have been ripped off by the banks. We know you want to.

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

I have a point of order. If the opposition leader got his date right—not a non-sitting date—I might vote—

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

The member for Dawson will resume his seat.

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

The member for Dawson—a lion in Mackay and a mouse in Canberra. We know, deep down, that the member for Dawson knows that having a banking royal commission is the right thing. I think the member for Dawson knows what he should do, but, for whatever reason, just as we get to the opportunity to vote for that royal commission, there is a new excuse every time.

We know that the member for Dawson actually wants a banking royal commission and, to be fair to him, I suspect there are plenty more in the ranks of the government who do. But when your Prime Minister is an investment banker, who is from the banks, of the banks and for the banks, you will never in Australia get a royal commission while this country is run by the banks. Too many people have been ripped off too often. If there had been just one or two—or three, four, five or six—financial scandals then maybe you would say other measures worked. And, heaven knows, governments of all persuasions have looked at all the options. But there is a pathology in the banking system—

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, I think we are being very generous. The Leader of the Opposition is not actually speaking to the motion—or, now, the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business because he made such a mess of it the first time and tried to get us to have a debate on a day we when we are not sitting. The Leader of the Opposition is not actually talking to the amendment; he is actually talking to the substance of the bill.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

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

The member for Jagajaga will not interject.

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

The point of order is that he needs to speak to the substantive motion before the House, which is the amendment—because the Manager of Opposition Business made a mess of it the first time—to the original motion that we debate this on 7 August.

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

The Leader of the House makes a fair point. This is an amendment that seeks to have the House make a resolution and we are in different territory from a general suspension. So all speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, need to address the substance of the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

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

I thank your gentle hand on the tiller of this parliament, Mr Speaker! We must bring this amendment to a vote because this country needs a banking royal commission. No more excuses. Look at the protection racket that this government are running for the big banks. We have had old Foghorn Leghorn, the Treasurer, saying he is tough on banks. If he were really tough on banks, he would do the one thing the banks do not really want—give them a royal commission.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

We've got Chavez over there saying he will put a tax on them. Well, you may well put a tax on them in this budget, but you are going to hand a lot back to them with the corporate tax cut. A Claytons banking tax cut is when you give them a tax levy in one year and hand it all back to them in corporate tax cuts over the next decade. The second best friend the banks have ever had is the Treasurer of Australia, but the best friend the banks have ever had is the Prime Minister. You have to ask yourself—and this is why we need to bring this on for a vote: why does the government fight so hard to protect the banks from a royal commission? What do they know that they do not want uncovered? Why is it that they will not have a royal commission into the banks?

I get to meet, sadly, with the victims of financial malfeasance. We, including members on the other side, get to meet all the time with them—farmers, small businesses, individuals and retirees. The banks will not correct their culture until they have a royal commission. On every issue, the banks will not correct their culture until they have a royal commission.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

While the Treasurer yells and bellows, we will never give up on having a banking royal commission. And maybe one day the member for Dawson might just do the right thing in Canberra rather than talking about it in Mackay and South Townsville.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the House through what has just happened because we only have a short period of time and we have been joined by many members who were not here during this debate. I just want to remind the House that the member for Watson started this amendment debate today by suggesting that we debate this issue. This issue is so important to the Leader of the Opposition that the member for Watson tried to bring on a debate on a non-sitting day! So the contention of the opposition was that we would all come here to Canberra and have a debate—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know! Where would we have that debate, member for Watson? At Aussies? In the gym? Where would the meeting of the House take place? This is another reason why we have a selection committee—a wise committee of eminent members of this House who decide when we discuss important matters because they know when the House is actually sitting. They know the dates that are appointed for the sitting of the House. If we try to pass motions like this on the run—and I have to confess: I still do not know what the amendment says.

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

The assistant minister will resume his seat.