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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, even the Customer Owned Banking Association has supported the idea that our current support for the big banks is an effective subsidy that has an estimated annual value of between $2.9 billion and $4.5 billion. Supporting the big banks in the way that the community and the taxpayers do is an effective subsidy valued from $2.9 billion to $4.5 billion.

There is a very strong case that, if you are going to get revenue for the budget in a reasonable way, you should put a levy on the big four for general revenue. Consistent with the International Monetary Fund's advice, that levy should be set at a portion of the advantage received by the big four banks. That is why we are proposing a 20-basis-point levy on their assets. We note that the UK has a banking levy, which is forecast to raise about $3 billion by the end of this financial year and was increased several times previously. The conservative government in the UK is very happy to have a bank levy for raising revenue, which is returning $3 billion, and the conservatives in the UK are more than happy to see that increase. Why is it that people in this parliament are not prepared to see a bank levy returning that kind of support to the budget?

There is no budget emergency in Australia. How can you say there is a budget emergency when you refuse to take a revenue stream that is staring you in the face? How can you suggest that you cannot find ways to raise money except by imposing a co-payment to go to the doctor, except by telling the unemployed that they can live on nothing and except by telling students they have to pay ridiculously high fees as a result of deregulation or increasing the rate of interest on their loans? This levy would bring competitive pressure to bear on the big four with regard to the other banks, and so I do not believe that they would be able to pass on the costs in the way that people critical of this levy are suggesting. It is squarely in line with Australian values and fundamentally about giving the banks and their customers a fair go across the board. The levy mirrors, as I said, similar levies in Europe. It raises substantial amounts of money. As far as I can see, there is no financial or moral argument that can be mounted against raising revenue from the big banks.

I am yet to hear from anyone in this Senate the reason that would not be so. This does not change any arrangements or oversight of the banks. It is not about undermining the regulatory environment. It is simply saying that a percentage of the support that we give to the big banks should be returned to the taxpayer by way of a levy and that that would provide very welcome revenue to government to deliver health, education and the support services that the community needs. The government says, 'No, we do not want a revenue stream that is staring us in the face. We would prefer to take this money out of the pockets of the community, the sick, the young, the elderly and the pensioners.'

Yesterday, we let them have another revenue stream from the mining tax. We could have fixed that to make billions. But no, the parliament decided not to fix the mining tax to get the billions from the Gina Rinehart's of this world. No, they can maximise their profits and push for abandoning the minimum wage so that they can just sit there in absolute greed. That is what it is.

Senator Ronaldson, I know that you do not like the idea of Gina Rinehart being described in that way, but I will say it because that is the truth of it. You are letting those people get off the hook while at the same time freezing the superannuation contribution out for seven years. Women, particularly those in their fifties, will be stuck on 9.5 superannuation guarantee percentage out for the next seven years. That means, into retirement, they will never get the benefit of the 12 per cent that they should have had from the superannuation contribution. This was delivered by the leader of the Palmer United Party who, himself, is a coal magnate. He got rid of the mining tax and the carbon price—another multibillion-dollar revenue stream.

All that the coalition—the Abbott government—has done is to say: no to a revenue stream from the big polluters, no to a revenue stream from the big miners and no to a revenue stream from the big banks. Instead, they can all maximise the profit, the wealth and the power that the government has to extract the money from the community. (Time expired)