Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you heard me asking about consultation in my second reading debate contribution. There was a roundtable held by Treasury in 2018. They invited the big banks along. They invited the big players along. That's not in question; I'm not seeking an answer on that. I just want to understand why the government hasn't engaged some of the co-ops and mutuals in relation to this. What was the logic behind doing that—only sticking with the big banks?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apparently the proposal was in fact shared with COBA members. The issue of access to patient capital for small and medium enterprises was flagged in separate reports in 2018 from the Reserve Bank of Australia and also the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, who identified that there was a long-term patient equity capital market for SMEs absent in Australia.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify my understanding of your answer, I do understand that Treasury and, indeed, the Small Business Ombudsman had produced a report. I am just talking about direct contact. We all live busy lives and we don't all have time to keep a watch on what the Reserve Bank governor or the Small Business Ombudsman are putting up on their websites. There's that old scene from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where they said, 'Yes, of course, there was consultation. It was down the broken stairs in the locker room where the lights didn't work, in a safe with the doors shut and the combination lock twisted; of course, there was consultation'. I am really trying to get to the level of consultation that took place with those smaller banks.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The business growth fund is open to all ADIs and the Australian Business Securitisation Fund, which you would also be familiar with, is there to support lending by those smaller banks. More importantly, as I said in my last answer, the proposal was in fact provided to COBA members in February 2019—and perhaps they're still down the end of the corridor in the back of the safe—and the Bank of Queensland and Rabobank also participated in the BGF working group.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did any stockbroking organisations examine the proposal or were they consulted?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

I would like to ask a follow-on question. The Australian Shareholders Association have written to the committee and to senators saying that they're very concerned that the Business Growth Fund could lead to the disenfranchisement of retail investors by excluding them from investing in SMEs that otherwise would have been conducted by initial public offerings on the ASX. We heard evidence last Friday from a company specialising in offering IPOs. Why haven't you consulted with the stockbroking fraternity on this, given their clear concern that, due to the prudential advantages, which have been outlined in our second readers, from the taxpayer funding, the Business Growth Fund will have an unassailably low cost of capital that no other investor will be able to match?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Business Growth Fund is designed to fill a specific gap in Australia's equity finance market. As I said earlier, there were separate reports from the RBA and Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman that identified that specific gap in the long-term patient equity capital market. The gap is not directly addressed by venture capital and neither is it addressed by private equity. That patient capital can provide entrepreneurs with the finance that is needed to expand without relinquishing control of their businesses. Equivalent funds have been established in the UK and in Canada, and they have shown that there is in fact a need for this type of finance and that patient capital investment can be very profitable for investors while supporting new businesses. It is important to note that there are around 40,000 SMEs in the target market for the BGF and that, when fully matured, the BGF will invest in around 30 to 50 SMEs per year. So it will not compete with private equity or venture capital.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, there is growing concern from the Australian people that our industries and manufacturing businesses are being bought out by foreign investment. This bill states, as the Treasurer said in his speech on the floor of parliament on 5 December:

Established Australian businesses will be eligible for long-term equity capital investments between $5 million and $15 million.

Minister, is it in the bill that they have to be Australian businesses—Australian owned businesses?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For businesses to be eligible to accept an investment from the BGF they have to be incorporated in Australia and operate in Australia.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they are operating in Australia, but we're looking at an input of $100 million from the Commonwealth government, $100 million from the big four banks and $20 million from each of the smaller banks. That's a total of $540 million. If we're going to put that money into businesses here in Australia, people would like to know that it's going to be propping up Australian owned businesses and companies in Australia. We're now selling a lot through foreign investment. A big concern is selling lines to the Chinese milk company. Look at the sale of the Van Diemen's Land Company. Under the foreign trade agreement, the Chinese agreed to inject $100 million into that investment. That never happened. They're now asking the government for a handout to the tune of $100 million. Would that company now be eligible under this bill for that loan, considering it is a Chinese owned dairy company that exports two plane loads of milk back to China every week?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention of the Commonwealth with this bill is that it will be for Australian-owned and majority-Australian-owned businesses. This will be fleshed out in the shareholder agreement, which will be finalised very soon. It's absolutely the Commonwealth's intention that this fund will support Australian-owned and majority-Australian-owned businesses. In addition, the bill specifically refers to its objective being to increase investment in small and medium Australian enterprises. That's specified in section 3 of the bill.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I direct my comments to the chamber—Senator Patrick, this amendment would fundamentally alter the proposal to make it strictly an underwriting fund with no ability to make direct equity investments. While Labor believes there may be merits to the fund underwriting investments, we do not believe that altering the bill via legislative amendment is the right approach in this instance. The Commonwealth is only a minority shareholder in the proposed fund, which means any substantive change would need to be renegotiated by the remaining shareholders, and the proposal has not been subjected to sufficient analysis or stakeholder consultation. Labor has sought, and been provided with, undertakings from the government that it supports the fund's potential to underwrite investments that are consistent with the investment mandate.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sterle, for that information. I just wonder if that clarification is in writing.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you understand that the clarification has been made, Senator Patrick, but it's not being tabled today.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify: is the clarification to the Labor Party in writing or is it verbal?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, we've got an agreement with the opposition. Obviously those sorts of discussions are private between the government and the opposition.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually this is a fund where we're spending $100 million of taxpayers' money. I presume you're suggesting here that the chamber not be allowed to see what that investment mandate is. If it exists, even in draft form, it would be proper for you to table it and make it available for people to see.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, we have agreed to publish the investment mandate, but it is not ready for publication yet.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this point, what exactly is not ready about it? We know that this fund will take some time to set up. We know the banks are considering it. There's work going on. It begs the question: why would you ask the Senate to vote on it when we are blind as to the mandate? Indeed, if there is a draft mandate that is in existence that you've provided to Labor, why would you simply not table that in draft form, understanding all the caveats around that, and provide it to the Senate?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are only one shareholder in this fund, and this bill simply enables the Commonwealth to invest in that fund.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, are you suggesting in some way that the banks wouldn't be open to tabling the document or that some permission would need to be sought from the banks?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because we are only one shareholder, obviously the details of the mandate need to be fleshed out with the other shareholders, with the banks that are involved, before it gets to a position where we can publish it. But, when it is ready, it will be published.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We note that you have, however, handed the mandate to the Labor Party. Did you seek permission from the shareholders to do that or was a decision made unilaterally?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, perhaps I haven't made that clear, Senator Patrick: we haven't handed the mandate to the Labor Party. What we have done with the Labor Party is agree to publish the mandate when it's ready.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions in relation to competitive neutrality. It is an issue that was raised at the economics committee. There clearly would be some concern in respect of the government breaching its own competitive neutrality policy. It's a longstanding policy. It's been around since 1996. What due diligence have you done in relation to that? When did you do that due diligence? What is the contingency the government has in circumstances where the complaints office finds that it is a breach of the policy?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 9 February this year, the Australian Government Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office advised the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that its preliminary view was that the BGF would be subject to competitive neutrality policy. That agency has not yet considered whether the design of the BGF is consistent with the policy. In a full assessment of any competitive neutrality complaint, the AGCNCO would hear from all parties and consider all the evidence in coming to a judgement.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That just clarifies that it does fall within the jurisdiction of the complaints office. The latter part of my question—and I appreciate that it was a long question—went to the government's contingency in respect of a complaint being made and the office making a finding that indeed the growth fund does breach the policy. In the future, it's clearly a possibility. Would that mean that the government would cease to engage in the fund? What's likely to happen? What would your response be to a negative finding?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that it's very hard to anticipate what that claim of breach of competitive neutrality would look like in advance. Of course, you would have to consider it at the time. More importantly, though, an amendment has been put forward by the opposition to review the Business Growth Fund within a period of three years, and I would imagine that that would be one of the major considerations that would come up during that review.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can I have clarification over your comments about Australian businesses. As you may have seen, I've circulated an amendment to this bill. One Nation's amendment is to, after 'enterprises', insert the words 'which are enterprises that are either Australian owned or majority Australian owned'.

As I said before, we are seeing a lot of these companies here in Australia—and I understand they employ a lot of Australian workers—that do not pay tax in Australia. I have a problem with this. A lot of these people come out here, buy up Australian businesses and don't pay their fair share of tax in Australia, which I have been on about since 1996. The government has done a little about addressing that. I think you addressed it and you pulled in an extra $125 million in taxes from foreign companies in Australia. Here we are, expecting the Australian taxpayers to put out $100 million to prop up businesses. One Nation is very supportive of small to medium-sized businesses, and that's why we supported your corporate tax cut—up to $50 million turnover. What I want is an assurance from the government that their moneys will not go to propping up foreign companies that, at the end of the day, do not pay their fair share of tax in this country. That is One Nation's amendment. I want a guarantee from you to the Australian people that these will be Australian owned or majority Australian owned companies that this money is going to. Is it written in the bill?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The objective of the bill is quite explicit in section 3. It says:

The object of this Act is to increase investment in small and medium Australian enterprises by the Commonwealth participating in, and investing in (together with other persons), the Australian Business Growth Fund in accordance with this Act.

That is quite explicit. However, I understand your concern. We are working out how to make that more explicit as part of the shareholder agreement, and I think that should be an adequate response.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm sorry. It is not. All you're saying is 'Australian enterprises'. You are not saying that these are majority Australian owned, and we know that is the case. Will the government have any concerns about supporting One Nation's amendment to put in after the word 'enterprises' the words 'which are enterprises that are either Australian owned or majority Australian owned'? Do you have a problem with One Nation's amendment?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't have a problem with the intent of One Nation's amendment, but we do think it is superfluous because it is already quite explicit in the bill and will continue to be explicit as part of the shareholder agreement.

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

It's a very interesting concept that has been raised by One Nation here. Minister, if you'd been here for the endless debates we had around the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and other international trade agreements, you'd know you'd be in breach of those agreements if you did that and no doubt would attract a state-to-state dispute or an investor-state dispute if you were to give any preferential treatment in the financing of Australian businesses over foreign interests—which, by the way, I voted against because I didn't support this raft of trade deals that actually tied our hands behind our backs in being able to look after Australian businesses. I'd perhaps ask that you go away and consider that, in terms of your response to Senator Hanson.

Minister, I raised in my speech in the second reading debate that there's no apparent market failure here. You talked about the Reserve Bank. My understanding, from having read that Reserve Bank report, is that they're talking about an overarching failure of finance to go to small business versus other sectors in the economy like real estate. Minister, did the Reserve Bank explicitly recommend a business growth fund to solve a market failure?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The RBA report didn't specifically recommend a business growth fund. The business growth fund is modelled on similar funds that are set up in the UK and in Canada. In both of those countries, the government played a critical role in getting those business growth funds off the ground. The RBA report specifically identified a gap in long-term patient equity market capital in Australia.

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

I just ask you if you could perhaps review the last comment you made there, about equity market capital. My understanding is that the Reserve Bank didn't actually specify what kind of financing they were talking about. They were talking about overarching finance, which of course could include equity but could include various other forms of debt.

Minister, you mentioned earlier 40,000 SMEs. Could you please just reiterate that that is your understanding of the number of SMEs in Australia? What definition are you using there for SMEs? Is it revenues between $3 million and $100 million?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear. There are in fact around 86,000 SMEs in Australia, but there are around 40,000 SMEs that fit the target market for the BGF, which includes things like three years revenue growth and a profitable business.

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

Thank you, Minister. I'm trying to get an idea. Even though the RBA didn't talk specifically about a market failure in this type of financing that we're looking at here, can you tell the Senate how many of those SMEs that you have identified in your target market—the 40,000 or so—have actually sought minority investment from the private sector, either last year or in the last three years?

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no amendment before the chair at the moment. Senator Whish-Wilson.

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

Yes, I was wondering about that myself, because I didn't hear Senator Patrick move his amendment. But can I just ask that question again to the minister, because I'm not sure if she heard my question. Of the 40,000 SMEs that you've identified, how many sought minority investment from the private sector last year—any kind of investment? I'm happy if you want to give me the data on equity investment or private equity investment, which is what this fund is going to essentially be. It would be very useful to know that fact, because that would, of course, help us identify a market failure.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no amendment before the chair.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister. Our office has unearthed a number of questions here. First of all, we support small business very strongly. It's the engine room for the Australian economy. We understand that this bill is modelled on a similar scheme in the United Kingdom. We are concerned, though, that there is feedback that some of the banks do not want this scheme and that there is a motion coming up at the next Commonwealth Bank board meeting to not participate. Are you aware of anything of that nature?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The banks have been particularly cooperative.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What happens, though, if a bank does not enter or if a bank withdraws after it's entered?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure that will be specified in the shareholder agreement.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there is no mention of administrative expenses in the proposal, so isn't that something that would be considered in the shareholder agreement?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

Minister, for those in the chamber here today who are here to witness the Senate doing its job, which is scrutinising government legislation and holding you to account, I note that you can't even provide some of the most basic information that we need to make a decision to pass this legislation today. You can't even, for example, tell us how many SMEs weren't able to access capital that's required to, for example, expand their businesses. You've said that there's a need for patient equity or patient investment in SMEs, yet we don't even know how many SMEs have been asking for that patient investment. I understand if you don't have the information. You can choose not to answer the question, or you can just stand up and say, 'Senator, we haven't assessed what the market failure that we're trying to address here actually is.' But I think you've got to be honest, and fundamentally honest, with the Senate about this. We are about to give $100 million of taxpayers' money at a time when your government is riddled with scandals from pork-barrelling—using public funds for your own personal and electoral benefit. You're about to take $100 million of taxpayers' funds and put it into a private equity fund that will have enormous power in this country. It is essentially going to be run by the big banks at a time when we have worked as a chamber over many years to breakdown the power of the banks and the concentration of the banks in Australia. Why give them a leg-up, by essentially giving them control of an enormously influential private equity fund in the area of small and medium enterprise financing?

You've admitted to the Senate today that you haven't even talked to some of the existing IPOs, the public equity financers, who have clearly raised concerns with us as a Senate about the fact that they're going to be crowded out. They will not be able to compete. They are providing capital to hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses already, and successfully providing capital. They have rung the loudest alarm bell you could possibly ring about your fund.

We all know in here why this is happening, because this government made an election promise that they would put in place a business growth fund. The amendment we have before us today from Senator Patrick is a very sensible amendment. When I first heard about this—it's been very rushed; I didn't know anything about it—my immediate assumption was that the Reserve Bank said we need to do better to help small businesses, everybody agrees with that. My immediate assumption would be this would a lender of last resort facility for those SMEs and others who couldn't access finance. My second thought was they'd be very high risk. They'd be very high risk SMEs if everyone else had knocked them back. But there are valid reasons why some Australian businesses won't get finance in a tough environment. And, yes, it's true, APRA, ASIC and others have been a lot tougher, as they need to be for our systemic market risk. Why are we not considering, as a chamber, Senator Patrick's amendment that would at least make this fund provide finance, or be in a position to potentially provide finance, and funding as an underwriter to those SMEs that can't access finance? Where's the information on where that market failure is?

The numbers we've seeing here are that up to 30 per cent of SMEs—the best small and medium enterprises, the ones with the best balance sheets and the best investment propositions—are going to be cherrypicked by this bank-funded, massive private equity fund of enormous influence. The benefits of that are going to flow straight back to the big banks. It'll give them more money and more power and the SMEs that actually really need the funds aren't going to get anything. Those investors out there at the moment—be they the concerns of the Australian Shareholders' Association, be they stockbroking companies—those that provide private equity are going to get left with the SMEs that are the highest risk and potentially lowest return, while this massive private equity fund, that we're essentially giving to the banks through your initiative, is going to cream the profit off the top, to use the name for Senator Patrick's dissenting report. It doesn't make sense. Minister, you have a background in finance. I know you understand this stuff better than most people in this place so I know that you can answer these questions.

I wanted to clearly put it on record today that you can't tell us how many SMEs have even applied for funding. You can't tell us how many have been knocked back from funding, be it a debt funding stream, be it a private equity funding stream, be it an IPO stream through initial public offerings on the share market. We don't know what benefits the UK BGF have delivered for their economy—no information could be provided to us on that. We have never really got a response from your government and Treasury as to why banks only put aside 25c in the dollar. Why is the very sensible proposal to make the Business Growth Fund an underwriting fund not being considered, rather than this flawed current proposal? It's also not being considered by the Labor Party either. I'm very surprised about that after what we've been through. I don't think we would have seen the Labor Party supporting it and giving the big banks more power and more money in the last parliament.

I'm very troubled by the idea that Labor will support this proposal today. This is a proposal to give it to the big banks and many of them are reluctant. It has been reported in a number of media articles that at least three of the big banks are reluctantly participating. We've heard from the minister today that they're still working through the details with those big banks. They're not quite sure exactly what that participation is going to look like. Minister, have you had personal conversations with those banks about their doubts and will you be able to provide the chamber today some background as to why even some of the banks that we're giving more money to—and the Australian public are giving another leg up to—have concerns over this fund?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that 7½ minute question as a comment.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Library, of course, give you advice on all different topics. The more I read into and understand the advice that's here from the Parliamentary Library, it concerns me even more. Their advice here is:

It is not clear what rate of return the Government will seek on behalf of taxpayers for its $100 million investment. According to The Treasury, the ABGF is expected to make a commercial return for shareholders.

Is that the banks' shareholders? Is it the taxpayers' shareholders? I would like an explanation of who is regarded as the shareholders in this?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the Commonwealth as well as the banks that are involved in the Business Growth Fund. They're the shareholders.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Complementary to what Senator Hanson was asking: normally in the Commonwealth, where there is a shareholder, there is a shareholder minister. Can you advise which minister would be the shareholder?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the Treasurer.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have been very hard to hear as you're directing your comments, and I'm the closest. Could I bring you to the mic so I can hear as well, thank you.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't receive an answer to your previous question about consultation with stockbrokers. I'm wondering, was there any consultation with stockbrokers?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, yes, you did. I said no.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. I genuinely didn't hear what the answer was, so thank you for clarifying that. The UK business growth fund has 157 staff and costs about $62 million per annum to run. Can you please advise the chamber what the expectation is in terms of the number of staff for the Australian Business Growth Fund. Indeed, how much do you anticipate this will cost on an annual basis?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It depends on the shareholders, and that will be worked out as part of the mandate.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to talk on this issue: banks are reluctant to give businesses loans in the state of the economy, but here we have the banks wanting to give $400 million to put into this bill to give loans to businesses. What deal has been done with the government? What are they going to get in return for their money? It doesn't state here what the rate of return is, so I'd like to know why banks are getting involved in this with the government to prop up businesses in the country, when, if a business goes to them, they are reluctant to loan them the money.

Progress reported.