Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Before I get to another question to Senator Cormann, I have to respond to Senator O'Neill. I've been hearing about grizzly bears and teddy bears in this place for two days now from the Labor Party. They wanted a regime that's going to be like a grizzly bear—a bear that's got teeth and claws and rips into the banks and makes sure we get some solid action here—and here they're knocking back a simple amendment that, yes, would significantly increase potential pecuniary fines on the banks for bad behaviour. That's why we've done it. I would have thought that was pretty straightforward and exactly what you were seeking, having listened to all your second reading speeches. So I am disappointed that Labor will not support this.

I do take on board your views about total assets, but that is actually quite clearly defined. In any banking analyst's report, you'll get a definition of how the assets or net assets are calculated for the bank. So I don't personally think that's an issue, but, if the Labor Party had a problem with that, they could have talked to us about it and we could have clarified that or included it in the amendment. The amendments have been circulated for some days now, so I do see it as probably a bit of an excuse to just not support a good Greens amendment.

Minister, you mentioned that there's a gradation in the fines or pecuniary penalties for different sized banks and that the top-tier banks' penalties are set at a maximum of $210 million. Is the minister aware that the size of those tier-1 banks is very variable? For example, the market capitalisation of the Commonwealth Bank is about $140 billion as we speak, whereas National Australia Bank is half that at just over $70 billion. How is it fair that the Commonwealth Bank, which is a much larger bank, gets to pay the same penalty as a bank half its size?