Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to know when the best time is to take on the excessive profits of the big four banks. We have just heard from Senator Dastyari that it is something we might consider in the future. So I put to the Labor Party: where are you going to raise the revenue if you are not going to take it from the poor and the sick, as in the unemployed? The Greens have no intention of taking any money from them. So, if we do not agree with taking money from those people, where are we going to raise the revenue?

It is time we actually had a serious debate about revenue. I have reached the conclusion that in Australia we are not living in a democracy anymore; we are living in a plutocracy. We are actually experiencing government by the wealthy and the wealthy corporations. The word 'plutocracy' comes from the Greeks, and it is about wealth and power. And the wealth and power in this country are being exerted by the corporate sector, by the big banks, by the big polluters, and they are exercising their power to maximise their wealth and profits and greed at the expense of the community and at the expense of the commons. That is, the wellbeing of people and the environment are going west to maximise the profits of the big end of town. And if there is an area where the big end of town is profiting in the most extreme manner, it is the banks. The big four banks' annual profits are to hit a record of $30 billion. This is the most excessive bank profit anywhere in the world, and it is the big four in Australia that are making this money—$30 billion. Yet the government is saying, with the Labor Party now supporting them, that we should not take the money from the big banks so that we do not take it from the poor and the sick with the Medicare copayment, leaving the unemployed with no support, taking it from pensions, taking it from people who cannot afford it. No, we should keep on allowing the big banks to maximise their profits!

I want to go back to the global financial crisis, because that was the time that the Rudd government was in power, and the coalition opposed the stimulus package—the coalition opposed it. Part of the supports at the time was to support the four big banks, to guarantee them. They were too big to fail, and we needed to guarantee them, and that is what happened. But that guarantee is now key to them having this collective $30 billion by the end of the financial year, and it involves taxpayers taking on significant amounts of risk by underwriting potential losses in the event that these banks fail. As a result of this, the guarantee has reduced the risk profile of the four big banks. They can now borrow and have their credit much more cheaply than their competitors do, which helps to inflate their profits to the current level.

Not only is this producing these massive profits but it is unfair to all the other institutions in the banking sector. All the other smaller banks do not get this benefit—Bendigo Bank, Adelaide Bank. All of the small banks and other financial institutions and credit unions do not get this same benefit. A benefit provided by the Australian taxpayer has allowed the big four banks in Australia to maximise their profits. It is uncompetitive with the smaller banks in the banking community. The big four banks are amassing these mega profits and returns their shareholders and the government is saying, 'We need to raise revenue and therefore we are not going to go after the big banks to get it. Instead, we are going to go after the co-payment for the sick, we are going to go after the elderly, we are going to stop the unemployed being supported and we are going to after students and charge them more for their loans and we are going to go after families with family benefits. We are going to do all that so that we let the big end of town continue to maximise their profits.'

We heard from Senator Canavan that this was some sort of Greens costing. Well, no. Contrary to the coalition's view, the Greens actually worked to get the Parliamentary Budget Office established so that opposition parties of all persuasions and independents had a reliable source of costings. Senator Dastyari might like to know that it has been released publicly. The Parliamentary Budget Office has costed what this levy would produce for the Australian community. This money could be put into government funds so that you did not have to go after the sick and unemployed. In fact, you would get $16.8 billion over the forward estimates.

That is not me saying it. That is the Parliamentary Budget Office looking at the Greens' proposal to put a levy on the big four banks. Not only would it return $16.8 billion, but it would bring about a much more competitive banking environment, because it would bring the big banks more into line with the smaller financial institutions and other banks in Australia. There is the argument that, 'The big four will just pass on that cost to their customers.' Well, if they do, then the other banks will be more competitive with them. It creates a better, competitive banking environment. I want to put very firmly on the record that the Treasurer has been out there saying, 'But the Greens have not put any alternatives on the table.' Yes, we have. We have said the big banks. It is the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, and it is the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, who do not like the alternative. Just because they do not like it does not mean it is not a valid alternative.

Let's talk about what the big banks have given us back for the fact that we, the community, have guaranteed the four big banks in Australia. What have they done back? Let's start with the Commonwealth Bank. There was the shocking scandal where they ripped off the community with the commissions. What about ANZ? Well, a class action was taken against them because of their excessive late fees. This is why I say we have got a plutocracy in Australia: Senator Sinodinos worked for the National Australia Bank as the managing director for government; education; carbon solutions—which must be a five-minute job because he apparently does not believe in climate change— institutional banking and business banking Australia. He came from the National Australia Bank and into the Senate and what did we get? The FOFA so-called reforms. It was big banks trying to get commissions back on the agenda. That is what they wanted; they wanted their commissions back. They did not like the fact that the reforms that were put in place were not allowing them to maximise their profits. In the light of the disgraceful scandal from the Commonwealth Bank, it is appalling that the banks had that on the agenda. But it came back into this parliament and, what's more, the coalition have delivered that for them. How is that not just a revolving door between the Liberal Party and the big banks getting it back into the parliament and getting their commissions back?

Except this time they are not called commissions, they are incentives! It is just like bribes. We do not have those in Australia; no, we do not have bribes! We call them 'facilitation fees'. A facilitation fee is legal, but a bribe is not. The commission would be a bad thing, but an incentive would be a different thing altogether! The community is not stupid and the community is not fooled by this. The community sits back, gets the bill on the table and looks at their son or daughter who is trying to get to university, who has to face greater fees if the deregulation of university fees goes ahead—which we will not be supporting. They are looking at their son or daughter who have gone through university and are facing bigger costs in servicing their debt. They talk to their kids because the banks have charged them excessive fees if they have been late with their credit card payments. Here we have all that happening and at the other end of town we have this massive celebration.

Let me talk about ANZ on another matter for a minute. They tell us all they have special guidelines about respecting people in communities. There is ANZ's approach to human rights guidelines—guidelines to which ANZ professes to adhere. What a joke! They are also signatory to a global ethical banking code. But we discovered that when they went to Cambodia—there is a massive expanding market for Australian banks in Cambodia—and helped to finance Phnom Penh Sugar. As a result of an investigation, it was discovered that this company employed child labour and was involved in military-backed land grabs, forced evictions and food shortages for local families. What's more, the company was owned by a minister in the corrupt Hun Sen government in Cambodia.

When a light was shone on this, ANZ got out of it, but ANZ is refusing to pay any compensation to the people whose land was grabbed and whose houses were bulldozed. I am afraid that when we come to ethical banking codes and when we come to respecting people and communities, it does not stretch to the activities of the companies which they get involved with in Cambodia. That is just one example.

I just want to continue in relation to where we need to take this. On the issue of a fund, Senator Whish-Wilson when he spoke about this said that the Reserve Bank actually backs the idea of a levy and it is the Reserve Bank's proposition that it would go into a fund. It is not the Greens' proposition that it would go into a separate fund; it is the Greens' proposition that it would be a revenue stream for the government so that we raise money from corporations that can afford to pay since they make super profits—and no-one doubts that the four big banks in Australia are making super profits. They themselves announce record profits relative to banks anywhere else in the world year after year. We know they are making super profits. Why would we not take some of them and put them into health, education, community services and the sorts of things that support people who are doing it tough because they happen to be unemployed or happen to be sick?

The parliament has a responsibility to propose where the money should come from, and the Greens are very happy to do that. Senator Canavan has to recognise that what we are proposing is fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and is a proposition for revenue raising. I put to this Senate that the only reason that Labor and the coalition will not support this is that they prefer to see the big end of town happy than to take money from them and provide necessary services.

That comes back to my point that we in Australia are no longer a democracy. Increasingly, there is a revolving door between big corporations and politics—people leave politics, get a position in business, go back into the administration of their political party, mega donations are made and then the parliament delivers for those corporations. You only have to look at ICAC in New South Wales to see this has happened, with both Liberal and Labor politicians taking kickbacks for approvals. These are appalling scenarios. I turn my attention to Mark Vaile, a former leader of the National Party and chair of Whitehaven, which failed to make proper offsets for the environment, but was not taken to court for it. The Commonwealth decided not to proceed with a court action on that, and so Whitehaven is going ahead with its Maules Creek mine. Mr Vaile just sold $440,000 worth of shares, and it is estimated that the remaining shares in his portfolio in Whitehaven coal are worth $5 million. This is a former National Party head. What does that say about life in rural and regional Australia that the National Party is supposed to stand for? I say that it is time—