Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to Prime Minister Turnbull's comments last week on the banking royal commission that:

You can make a very good case for saying it was started perhaps a year later than it should have been, or 18 months later than it should have been.

Why did the government delay in holding the banks to account for 18 months?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear that Senator Keneally and the Labor Party are stuck in the past. They are very much stuck in the past. The very sensible comments made by former Prime Minister Turnbull the other day are 100 per cent consistent with the comments he made as Prime Minister in relation to the banking royal commission after the inquiry got underway, entirely consistent with the comments that our now Prime Minister made as the then Treasurer in relation to the royal commission after it was underway and entirely consistent with the comments that I made some months ago in relation to the calling of the banking royal commission.

Let me make a number of observations. Firstly, it was the Liberal-National government that called the royal commission, it was the Liberal-National government that determined the terms of reference, it was the Liberal-National government that chose Commissioner Hayne—who did an outstanding job, as is widely recognised—to conduct this royal commission and it is the Liberal-National coalition which is now taking action in relation to the 76 recommendations that were made by Commissioner Hayne. What have we had from the Labor Party? All we've had from the Labor Party are weasel words. Following the Shorten precedent, the shadow Treasurer said, 'We will back all of the recommendations sight unseen.' Even before the report was delivered he said, 'We'll be supporting them, whatever they are.' But guess what happened after the report was released? Instead of saying, 'We'll support all the recommendations,' Labor said, 'We support all the recommendations in principle.' We still don't know what Labor's position is.

What the Australian people can be absolutely confident about is that this government will continue to take action protecting consumers and making sure that we can continue to have a strong, stable and competitive financial system to underpin our future economic success. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did Mr Morrison and Senator Cormann leave their 'trainee Treasurer' alone to announce the government's response to the banking royal commission last Monday? Were they hiding because they were part of the economic team responsible for the government voting 26 times against a royal commission into the disgraceful behaviour of Australia's banks?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order on my right and left!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an incredibly juvenile framing of a question in relation to a very serious matter, and it just shows that the Labor Party is not fit for office. You are stuck in your university politics days, Senator Keneally, unless it was a question that was put to you by the tactics committee and you're just reading it out. What I would say to you is that the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, has done an outstanding job on behalf of the Liberal-National government in leading the government's response to the recommendations in relation to the royal commission into the banks.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where's your response?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck is 100 per cent right: all we're getting from the Labor Party is smoke and mirrors. We haven't had a firm response on what the Labor Party will actually do for the whole period since the report— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know there's a bit of pent-up frustration, but can we keep our behaviour in check—all senators! Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg have refused to say sorry to the Australian people for getting it wrong on the need for a banking royal commission. Why won't Mr Morrison apologise to the Australian people for failing to act on the rigging, the rorts and the rip-offs by the big banks?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have canvassed that question on a number of occasions now. The government have acknowledged—the Prime Minister has acknowledged, both in his current position and in his former position as Treasurer, and I have acknowledged and others have acknowledged—that, with the benefit of hindsight, we should have called the banking royal commission earlier.

But what I would also say is that our intentions and our motivations were entirely pure. Our motivation or intention was to take action in relation to the issues that were well understood, which was also a point that former Prime Minister Turnbull made in his contribution the other day. We had the financial systems inquiry, also referred to as the Murray inquiry; we had various Senate committee inquiries into ASIC, into the banks. I mean, there was a plethora of recommendations on how the system could and should be improved, and the government's genuine—and I would argue at the time, legitimate—motivation was to get cracking, to take decisions to improve the regulatory framework to better protect consumers. (Time expired)