Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately?

Leave not granted.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to return to some of the questions that are immediately before the House in schedule 1 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, which seeks to overturn the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission, recommendation 1.1, in which the royal commissioner, Commissioner Hayne, made it very clear that the responsible lending laws—those provisions within the national consumer credit protection legislation that the bill now before us proposes to amend—should be left alone. He did this for a very good reason, and I want to return to some of the history that led to the royal commission and to these provisions which are before the House at the moment.

I want to particularly focus on the circumstances facing bank customers in rural and regional communities, because in speeches given at the second reading stage I heard the member for Mayo, the member for Corangamite and the member for Indi give very moving addresses which went to examples from their own communities—examples from consumers and from consumer groups. Members in the House may not be moved by examples that have been given by the member for Mayo, the member for Indi and the member for Corangamite, but I was. Perhaps, however, members would be moved by the story of a gentleman who dedicated the latter part of his life to having a royal commission established and to having these laws improved and protected. I'm talking about a farmer, originally from South Australia, by the name of Williams. This farmer walked into a Commonwealth Bank branch in Inverell looking for a loan of $200,000. When he walked out of that bank he ended up with a loan, denominated in Swiss francs, of $675,000. Of course, given the fact that the loan was denominated in Swiss francs, very quickly, when the Australian dollar was dramatically devalued against the Swiss franc, a loan of $675,000 blew out to $1.5 million. The farmer lost his farm and his marriage, and he ended up living for a considerable period of time in a caravan.

The gentleman that I'm talking about is well known to all members on that side of the House because he used to sit in their party room. His name was Senator John 'Wacka' Williams. He was absolutely passionate about his experience and the experience of farmers like him not being repeated. So he campaigned for a royal commission. The royal commission found that these laws were absolutely critical to ensuring that inappropriate loan products were not sold to unsuspecting farmers. You see, the loan that was sold to Mr Williams—Senator Williams as he was—was done prior to the introduction of these provisions within the national consumer credit act. Had these provisions been included, that loan probably couldn't have been sold to him, and, if it was, not only would he have been entitled to personal compensation but the bank would have been liable to huge fines for breaches of this provision.

So I guess the questions that I have for the minister are: has he consulted with members of the National Party, and do members of the National Party give the minister full support for these changes to the national consumer credit laws? Does the National Party support rolling back the consumer protections that have been so important to protecting the livelihoods of the rural families that they pretend to represent? Does the National Party back the Liberal Party, or does the National Party keep the spirit of John 'Wacka' Williams alive? It's an important question, because I'm sure that there are members and constituents in rural communities all throughout the country who are looking very closely at their National Party representative. The minister responsible is not a member of the National Party—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Evans, on a point of order?

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance. The honourable member is speaking as if this is the consideration in detail debate, rather than to the suspension. Questions like that can be put to the responsible minister in the next stage of the debate.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Could you please be relevant, member for Whitlam.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason that standing orders should not be suspended is that these matters need to be addressed in full. The government has sought to ram this legislation through the parliament without due consideration. The Senate report was far from conclusive on this. We had three separate reports. If you read in detail the evidence that is included and adduced in the majority report from the Senate committee, you'll read that all the evidence goes one way and the recommendations go the other. So this matter should not be rammed through the parliament without due consideration. For these reasons, the government's motion should be rejected. We should not be rushing headlong into passing this bill that is before the House.

There are other reasons why we shouldn't be doing this. Anybody who's been reading the papers over the last few weeks, anybody who's been following the news over the last few weeks, would be aware that we are in the middle of a housing price boom. Housing prices are going through the roof. There are a lot of consumers out there who are very anxious, if not heartbroken. They turn up to an auction week after week after week, and they are unable to even meet the opening price, let alone the closing price. When we see that we are at the beginning of a housing price bubble, this is the very last moment and a disastrous time for us to be looking at loosening the lending standards and rushing a bill such as this through parliament. There is no good time to be removing the responsible lending laws. There is no good time to be rejecting the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission. But this is the absolute worst time to be doing that. For this reason, the government's motion should be rejected.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) 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

The question now is that the motion moved by the assistant minister, the contingent motion, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schedule 1 of this bill that we are considering rolls back the very first recommendation of the Hayne royal commission. Recommendation 1.1 of the Hayne royal commission was to leave the national consumer credit protection standards in place.

I think the House needs to know where the National Party stands on this, because in the second reading stage we heard some very powerful speeches from members representing rural and regional Australia. We saw members talking about stories from consumers and consumer organisations about the harms and potential harms associated with relaxing consumer credit laws. We know that members of the National Party have been historically very outspoken on this issue. We know that former senator John 'Wacka' Williams dedicated a large part of his time in the parliament campaigning against improper lending practices, campaigning in favour of a royal commission into the banking and finance system, and campaigning to ensure that the responsible lending laws stayed in place. We know that members of the National Party threatened to cross the floor when this government had voted 27 times to oppose the implementation of a royal commission. We know that several members from Queensland who are in the chamber right now threatened to cross the floor because of the subject matter that is before the House right now.

So the question that the minister needs to answer is: is this National Party policy or is this Liberal Party policy? Is the National Party 100 per cent behind the matter that is before the House today? Is every single National Party member going to vote in favour of this Liberal Party proposition or are members of the National Party going to keep the spirit of John 'Wacka' Williams alive?

He's the man who lost his family farm, the man who lost his marriage and the man who lived in a caravan for several years because these laws did not exist, and the man who has called on every one of his National Party colleagues to do the right thing and oppose these laws. So the question for the minister and the question for all of the National Party people is: are they going to vote with their conscience, or are they going to vote for the Liberal Party?

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

An opposition member: What?

An opposition member: Did the debate just finish?

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

I rise on a point of order. I appreciate this would normally be put immediately, but, just to assist the House: if this motion is put and not withdrawn, we will have two divisions. If this motion is withdrawn, we will have one and we will have it immediately, on the third reading. It's up to the government. I'm just inviting: if you wish to withdraw that, we will go immediately to the third reading because there are no other speakers. If you want two divisions—

An opposition member: We're offering to speed it up for you guys!

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting there are no further speakers, I withdraw.

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

The question is that this bill be now read a third time.