Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We can hope that it is not as wishy-washy as that outline. It is not just a matter of risk-taking behaviour—which, by the way, this legislation encourages; it is also a matter of there simply being no warrant, on a planet which has a billion people starving, for people to be taking home $5 million, $10 million, $20 million, $30 million or $80 million. It is disgusting—and the Prime Minister said so, but where is the action? I have had three or four motions in here to do something about this, and they have been voted down by both of the big parties each time. I think we are hearing a lot of words but I do not think we are going to see real action to curb the ability of executives to have $20 million taken out of the Australian public’s domain—private or public—for the private gain of people who are in executive positions. I believe in the free enterprise system, but it is out of kilter. It has got itself into trouble. We are here because of this neoconservative viewpoint that small government is good government. We are here putting in place public guarantees for the private sector. It is legitimate that, at the same time, we put some regulation on the more excessive of the corporate executive salaries and bonuses that we have seen some executives taking out of the public largesse in the last 12 months.

We have had very little information and no statistical information at all—zero statistical information—presented to this committee about the impact of these guarantees. By the way, the minister just said that we are offering a guarantee here, with the implication that that is where it stops. You offer a guarantee because you expect that there is some chance that there will be a default. This legislation is a result of the threat of a potential default coming down the line. We are here to guarantee the banks and the financial institutions against a default coming down the line. The very fact that the government guarantee—which means the taxpayers’ guarantee—is being put in place will encourage more risky behaviour, but it will lower the cost of borrowing overseas.

I ask the minister: where is that saving going to manifest itself in lowered interest rates, in the removal of some of the extraordinary costs that the banks have put onto transactions by the Australian public or in some other way? Of course, again, we will get no definition on that matter. We will get a general statement that they will be able to borrow more cheaply. Will it be more commensurate with the gains that this legislation gives? What I am asking is: the public is being put at risk to give the banks the ability to borrow more cheaply, but where is the government guarantee that that gain will be passed on lock, stock and barrel to Australian businesses and borrowers? Of course, we are not going to get that. I wonder if the minister and Senator Coonan, for the opposition, would indicate whether they support the Greens move to ensure that the parliament deals with this matter again in 24 months time through the sunset clause amendment that I have put forward.

I would just ask if the government or the opposition might comment on this amendment, the sunset amendment, which would have this act cease to have effect on the second anniversary of its commencement.