Kerryn Phelps (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. The mortgage-broking model originated as a disrupter to the market power of the major banks, which were gouging clients. With the government's proposed changes to the mortgage-broking industry resulting from the Hayne royal commission into banking, how can the government ensure that the oligopoly of the big banks does not benefit financially whilst average families and small business once again are forced to pay the price of limited competition?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth. She said she was a Liberal; now she's talking like a Liberal, because the reality is that only this side of the House supports mortgage brokers. Those opposite don't.

The reality is: there are 16,000 mortgage brokers. They employ around 27,000 people. The coalition is standing with mortgage brokers against those opposite, who want to disrupt their business model. The reality is: if the mortgage brokers lose their business, the only beneficiaries will be the big banks. We've been waiting and waiting, for over two weeks, for the Labor Party to provide an answer to the royal commission. We've been waiting over two weeks—over two weeks. The member for Hotham said that she would provide a response within a week. We're still waiting—and from the member for McMahon. The reality is that the Liberal and National parties will stand with the mortgage brokers, 75 per cent of whom are small businesses and sole traders writing more than half of the mortgage loans. We will not abolish mortgage brokers like those opposite, who, if they implement every single one of the Hayne recommendations, as they've promised to, will see the big banks benefit at the expense of the small businesses, namely the mortgage brokers.