Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I understand that Senator Conroy, when he was dealing with this in the previous debate, indicated that the government would not be supporting the Greens amendments. That is still the case. As Senator Bob Brown has indicated, we have provided some amendments, which I will touch on in the context of his comments. The government amendments concerning executive pay we will deal with in due course, but in the context of Senator Brown’s outline of the arguments I will present argument in respect of the government’s alternative approach.

There are a couple of points I will make. I think I can deal a little later with some of Senator Brown’s more generalised critique of what the legislation before the parliament means. But some of it I will deal with now. Firstly, Senator Brown, I do not accept, and I strongly reject, the accusation you have made that the government, the Treasurer and I—I did have some responsibility for executive pay prior to becoming Assistant Treasurer—are transfixed with fear, in the thrall of, and twisting in response to, this issue. I strongly reject that. I do not accept it. Speaking for myself, I am not in the thrall of anyone—absolutely no-one. I learned that a long time ago in life. You call issues as you see them. You deal with them based on the evidence and the circumstances you are presented with. I am in no-one’s thrall, except possibly my children. So I totally reject your somewhat over-the-top descriptors and adjectives.

The second general point I want to make is that—and you have done this on previous occasions, Senator Brown, when we have been debating this issue—you refer to the bank guarantee in this country and the big four. It is in fact a bank guarantee that is provided to all APRA regulated institutions, which is not just the big four banks; it is all banks, including regional banks, credit unions and building societies. So it is not correct to paint the bank guarantee as a measure introduced purely for the big four banks. I have spoken about this on previous occasions. The reasons we have a bank guarantee have been well argued, and I will not take up the time of the chamber to reiterate those arguments.

Senator Brown, unfortunately, you continue to refer to the United States in the context of executive pay. I say ‘unfortunately’ because the circumstances in the US are very, very different. It is true that the Obama administration has put restrictions on executive pay with respect to some financial institutions, but they are the financial institutions that are receiving a public bailout. They are being extended hundreds of billions of dollars US in loans, quite directly, because of poor judgments made on their part—for a whole mixture of reasons. Again, we have discussed this on numerous occasions in the Senate. There is a difference. In the US, the Obama administration has not—and I emphasise this—imposed executive restraint on financial institutions, including banks, that have not been bailed out. So you are just wrong, Senator Brown. If you are a financial institution in the US and you have not been bailed out, the government has not imposed restrictions on executive pay. If you have been bailed out, it has imposed restrictions. Further, the Obama administration has made it clear that it will not be introducing caps on executive pay in the United States anywhere beyond those financial institutions that have been bailed out directly by the taxpayer. That is a clear distinction.

Secondly, Senator Brown, in a somewhat generalised description you said that there have been moves on executive pay in Germany. What moves in Germany?