Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Bragg:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones to appropriately consult with regard to the inclusion of civil penalties in the Financial Accountability Regime legislation, and his subsequent backflip under instruction from the Treasurer and Prime Minister, thereby creating significant uncertainty in the financial sector and again demonstrating that this Minister is incapable of measured policy development and administration.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing o rders having risen in their places—

I understand informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on this very important matter of public importance, which is in relation to the competency of the Assistant Treasurer. I note the last contribution from Senator McKim. We also heard from Senator McKim on Friday, who set out some of the issues that members of this place have been having in their engagement with the Assistant Treasurer. It appears as if a deal with Mr Jones is not worth the paper it's written on. In relation to this minister's maladministration of this portfolio, there are a litany of examples which I seek to catalogue today for the Senate's consideration.

The matter before us is the FAR package of bills, which is about ensuring that financial executives are held to account under Australian law and that there are appropriate penalties where there are problems over which they preside. This bill has been totally botched by Mr Jones. This bill also contains the compensation scheme of last resort, which I would say is a very interesting idea indeed—that the Commonwealth should compensate where there has been a problem in the market which may have been caused by a market operator or may have been caused by a regulator not doing its job. The point is that Mr Jones, in opposition, campaigned for much higher compensation caps in relation to this bill, but when he introduced the bill himself as a minister he reverted back to the position that the coalition had in government. Mr Jones is again showing that he is unable to keep a position for a period of time.

When you reflect upon his tenure as the Minister for Financial Services and the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Jones's first priority was to strip transparency from superannuation payments to unions, banks and insurance companies. Mr Jones has chosen to remove transparency in a compulsory savings scheme, which is a remarkable turn of events. That someone would come into a new portfolio and, as their first act, remove the ability of a person, a worker, to see where their own money is being sent is a remarkable beginning.

Mr Jones has had another defeat today, with the government deciding it would remove from its own legislation the faith based carve-out which Mr Jones proposed in opposition. This policy was his main policy on superannuation. This is his key policy that he took to the election. A carve out from the superannuation performance test for religious based funds has been dropped today by Mr Jones after the Senate gave Mr Jones some advice. I note the contributions of Senator Smith and Senator McKim during the committee process. The Senate told Mr Jones that it was not going to be able to support this strange idea that someone in a religious based fund, of which there are only a few, should be prepared to accept a poorer return than a person in a non-religious based fund. It's a very interesting precedent indeed for someone who has spent most of their career arguing the virtues of compulsory super. If I was a great supporter of the compulsory superannuation scheme, I would not open it up to these sorts of precedents, because once you open the door to one idea that is not about the best financial performance of the fund then you open the floodgates to every crazy idea. And I can assure the Senate that there are many crazy ideas in relation to the expenditure of superannuation funds.

Today, we look at the Australian Financial Review and there is an article referring to Mr Jones which is called 'Stephen Jones is out of his depth.' It says here:

Across an otherwise competent frontbench, the Albanese government's Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones stands out like dog's balls.

In the six months since he took charge of the ministry, the Member for Whitlam has chewed up the furniture, rubbed his bum on the carpet and cocked his leg over his parliamentary colleagues, the financial sector and the voters of Australia.

That is in the Financial Review today. I think it's a pretty fair assessment actually of Mr Jones' tenure—having removed the transparency requirements for super, having failed to protect consumers in the superannuation sector, having failed to deliver any cryptocurrency reforms and now having lost his key policy—the religious carve out for the super funds. There are only two funds, none of which have MySuper funds. That is a remarkable tenure. He is maybe the worst assistant treasurer ever.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Goodness gracious me. Here we are. It's obviously term four and everybody is tired and has got the sillies. This is the greatest effort inside baseball that you could imagine. This is the week where the government is going to introduce sensible reforms in industrial relations that are going to make the country a better place. They are going to be good for our workplaces. This is the week that the government's going to introduce what the last government couldn't do, couldn't bring itself to do, reforms to introduce a national integrity commission, National Anti-Corruption Commission.

This is the week where the modern Liberal Party—which had decided to tie its fortunes to the bunch of rat bags, nutters and conspiracy theorists who are enlarging themselves in the Liberal Party's base in Victoria—decide to tie themselves to some people who you wouldn't want to have a beer with. You would avoid them at parties. It's the extremist takeover of the Victorian Liberal Party. They've seen the culmination and the impact of that strategy. What was the outcome? The re-election of the Andrews government, fewer Liberals, a few more Nationals and they've preferenced straight home and elected a few more Greens in a few inner-city seats. What utter genius.

In this week, where we're going to see the former Prime Minister being censured, what is Senator Bragg in here talking about? Some arcane issue to do with the negotiation of financial sector reform. What is the real backdrop to this? What's really going on? The previous government, and the previous government before that, resisted. They fought the idea of having the Hayne royal commission tooth and nail. They didn't want it. They didn't want it to happen, to protect the interests of people who had done unscrupulous things in the financial services sector. Senator Bragg's friends have done unscrupulous things. It's their interests that he's in here trying to protect.

Remember that they fought so hard to stop there being a proper inquiry into all of those matters. Then finally, they were forced—dragged, kicking and screaming—into having a royal commission. It was headed by former Justice Hayne, who did a very solid piece of work, a very careful piece of work. And don't forget the photos. There is a lot of bring 'back Josh stuff' going now on in Victoria: 'Bring back Josh!' We had an incremental few degrees—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're avoiding the topic! You are, Tim!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't you worry about that, I'm coming back to the topic. On all the 'bring back Josh' stuff: if something goes really badly, try it again. I urge the Victorian Liberal Party to do that, that would be good. But we can never forget the photos of Justice Hayne and the former Treasurer; I have never seen a more unhappy couple. There was one who actually believed in proper financial regulation and one who was actually doing everything that he could to avoid it.

And then we saw the sorry months and years that followed that announcement. No reform—nothing happened. Now we have a government that is introducing reforms in a steady, careful and methodical way. Reform is difficult, but I find this MPI resolution really interesting. It's got two sentences in it. Within those two sentences, it attacks the government for not consulting and then condemns the government for consulting. This is an incoherent, out-of-place and misconceived MPI. I expect we'll see many more of them in 2023.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I placed the facts of this matter on the record in this chamber last week and I don't intend to labour them. But, without any shadow of a doubt, the Assistant Treasurer and I did have an agreement to include in the financial accountability regime civil penalties for people who breach their accountability obligations.

But what we saw last week was not just Labor refusing to honour an agreement, it was one of those moments when Australians got a bit of a peek through the curtains at who actually runs this place. Last week was as transparent an exercise of power by the big business community in this country as you would ever want to see. Within 24 hours of the agreement going public to put million-dollar fines on dodgy bankers who ripped off their customers, the Labor Party folded in a screaming heap under the weight of lobbying by the big banks. I remind people that these are the very banks who donated well north of $400,000 in the last 12 months that we have donations data for in this country. Money talks, and it talks very loudly indeed in this place.

The other thing was the way the banks steamrolled the Labor Party. They weren't even slightly shy or ashamed about it. They were naked in their exercise of power; in fact, they wanted everyone in this place to see that they made the government renege on the agreement. The banks wanted everyone in the duopoly here, Labor and the LNP, who might be thinking about pushing for something that curbs bankers' power or who might be wanting to tilt the scales in favour of the customers and against the big bankers, to know that in fact it is the big bankers who are in charge of this place. And, my word, they've got the Labor Party on a short leash. We saw that last week.

They don't really need the Liberal Party on a leash because they have been bred to be loyal to the big banks, which is why Senator Bragg's motion is, quite frankly, a little bit of rubbish. The inclusion of civil penalties for individuals who breach their accountability obligations was consulted on by the former government and was the subject of consideration by the Senate Economics Committee into both the previous government's and this government's bill, so the idea that it's come out of nowhere is absolute tosh. The policy is straightforward, the public benefit is abundantly clear to the public, and we now know the only people who don't want million dollar fines are the dodgy bankers who rip off their customers—the dodgy bankers that have both the major parties in this place right where they want them.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say Senator McKim is more forgiving of the Assistant Treasurer than I would be in his place. I was quite staggered—I was surprised—when I heard the circumstances of the deal that was reneged on. I first heard the term 'renege' when I used to play cards with my grandparents. If you played the wrong card—you were meant to play a club or whatever and you played a heart—you reneged. That is the first time I heard the term. That's what's happened in this case.

I want to quote from the Sydney Morning Herald article of 24 November 2022 written by Rachel Clun. I can try to understand how the Assistant Treasurer met with Senator McKim and maybe did a deal he shouldn't have done. I could understand if he actually approached Senator McKim and said to him: 'I'm sorry about that. I overstepped the mark. I didn't really understand the consequences of what I was doing. The Treasurer's come down on me like a tonne of bricks. I've got to retreat.' I can understand if he did that; I can understand him making a mistake. We're all human. But what really distressed me, as someone who, over the last 3½ years, has gotten to know Senator McKim as a man of his word, is the Assistant Treasurer went to the press, as follows:

Jones said there had been no final agreement on the Greens' amendments, and there was clearly plenty of stakeholder concern about civil penalties.

"We've asked them what it would take to get their support for that and other bills," he said. "There'd been no sign-off on anything."

He actually went to the media and, in my view, cast imputations on Senator McKim. I don't know how many people were in the room, but there was Senator McKim and the Assistant Treasurer—they can't both be right. The same article quotes Senator McKim:

"There was 100 per cent, categorically a deal. We looked each other in the eye and shook hands," he said.

"If the minister is saying there was no agreement he is not fit to be a minister. This is a disgraceful move to renege—

there's that word 'renege'—

on our agreement."

Only one of them can be right. We're here in this chamber; we all know Senator McKim. I take Senator McKim at his word, absolutely. And I query: why didn't the Assistant Treasurer come out and just honestly say he overstepped the mark, he made a mistake? Why didn't he do that? Why did he come out and say there was no final agreement when Senator McKim is so certain that there was an agreement? Why do that? Why cast aspersions on one of our fellow senators? It was totally unnecessary, and, to me, that is the most concerning thing about this whole matter.

A senator from this place—and I don't care which party—actually approached a member of the executive and raised legitimate concerns. I was Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee in the last parliament, so I was part of the reporting process for this legislation. The level of civil penalties that senior executives in our banking industry should rightly face in the course of material misconduct is a very legitimate concern. Some of the things that came out of the Hayne royal commission are absolutely horrifying. It horrified me as an ex-company secretary and general counsel of a publicly listed company. What concerns me is that every senator in this place who approaches a member of the executive to have a discussion about proposed amendments to a piece of legislation should have faith that the member of the executive will stay true to their bargain, that they'll deliver on the deal. That's the way this place needs to work. It can't work otherwise, if you can't trust the members of the executive to stay true to their word when you engage with them on a matter such as this. That is the thing which most disturbs me: that a member of this place, a senator in this place, who cares passionately about this matter, went in and had a discussion with the Assistant Treasurer, in good faith thought they had a deal, and then the Assistant Treasurer tipped a bucket on him in the Sydney Morning Herald, in the public media. Absolutely astounding. I think all senators should be concerned about this.

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

It seems Stephen Jones is to the Labor Party as Josh Frydenberg was to the Liberals: the bank's man in the government. Whether it's defending the right of the banks to bail in the cash in your account; whether it's turning a blind eye to banks closing their rural bank branches, which has increased this year under Minister Jones; whether it's allowing the King's currency to be shunned so the banks can force everyone onto electronic banking, with every transaction helping bank profits and every sale providing a data- and profit-rich environment for the banks; or whether, as it is today, it's letting banking executives off the hook for egregious behaviour, that should be criminal. These hideous, inhuman banking crimes were brought to light during the Senate's Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers in 2017, an inquiry that Senator Pauline Hanson got and that I chaired. Four years later, not one of those victims has been compensated nor a banker prosecuted. Minister Chalmers is protecting the banks over the best interests of the people.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

WALSH () (): I'd really like to thank Senator Bragg for the opportunity to talk about failures of measured policy development and administration in this place, as per the terms of his motion. When it comes to failures of policy development and administration, there is no better example than those opposite, starting with the very legislation that is the subject of this motion: the Financial Accountability Regime legislation.

This is actually the former government's legislation. It's legislation that they promised and that they failed to deliver. They failed to get it through their parliament. This is legislation that is based on reforms recommended by the Hayne royal commission. It's legislation that sat gathering dust under the previous government from 2019.

It's legislation that does some incredibly important things for consumers of financial services, including establishing an accountability regime for financial sector companies and establishing a compensation scheme of last resort for victims of financial misconduct. It also implements the reforms recommended by the long-outstanding 2016 Review of the small amount credit contract laws, the SACCs review, which said it was urgent to protect vulnerable people from being trapped in unsustainable debt spirals as a result of payday loans and consumer leases that were not operating effectively in this country.

This is a series of really important legislative reforms to protect consumers, which has been sitting there for years, ignored by the previous government. Those opposite basically had to wait for us to get into government to get the work done, just like they had to wait for us to get the work done on another important royal commission, the aged-care royal commission, and its recommendations for more nurses and more care time, which we legislated; just like they waited for us to implement the findings of the Respect@Work report; and just like they waited for us to take real action on climate change and legislate net zero targets.

Really, if you want to talk about measured policy development and administration as per the terms of this motion, then look at the Albanese Labor government and what we've delivered in the last six months, doing what the previous government failed to do for almost a decade. They waited for us to introduce a strong and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, another policy that they promised and yet failed to deliver.

Let's look at the previous government's record on policy development and consultation. We all remember the appropriate consultation undertaken during the sports rorts scheme and the commuter car park scheme. We remember the appropriate consultation for the Building Better Regions Fund. All of those had absolutely nothing to do with measured policy and everything to do with rorting public funds for political gain. If we want to talk about measured administration, let's talk about a Prime Minister who secretly appointed himself to five ministries without the knowledge of the ministers themselves. How did that contribute to measured policy development and administration under the previous government? How on earth did a motion on measured policy administration get through the opposition's processes and make its way to the floor of this chamber? The list of examples goes on and on and on.

The legacy of the previous government is a record of policy failure, of missed opportunities and neglect, of confusion and chaos and not much—what was Senator Bragg's term?—measured policy development and administration to be seen. In the 20 seconds I have remaining it's impossible for me to get through what the Albanese Labor government has actually achieved in just six months: aged-care royal commission reforms to deliver more nurses and more care time, legislating net zero, delivering 10 days paid family domestic violence leave, setting up Jobs and Skills Australia, repealing the nasty and harmful cashless debit card, making medicines cheaper for millions of Australians, getting wages moving for Australians. These are the measured policy responses— (Time expired)

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the urgent need for the government to re-list the finance sector reform bills for debate this week. The reforms in these bills are urgent and overdue. The bills would immediately empower ASIC to go after predatory lenders that are avoiding the law. To give an example, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network is reporting that lender Cigno is targeting First Nations people and charging around 900 per cent interest on the loans they issue. This is disgusting and clearly exploitative. We have the means to stop this. If the bill passes this week, we could go after Cigno and other predatory lenders and put an end to the sector exploiting the most vulnerable in our community. I urge the government to re-list the bills for consideration by the Senate.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What can I say? This motion today is just money for jam. It really just proves what we have been saying for a long time, and that is that the Labor Party is the party for the big end of town. I will slightly disagree with the wording of my good friend and colleague Senator Bragg, whose motion says, 'The failure of Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones to appropriately consult.' I'd actually disagree with that because, as it turns out, he got all the consulting he needed. He got a phone call from former Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh, who of course is now the head of the Australian Banking Association. If you want a good example of just how close the big end of town and the banks are to the Labor Party, look no further than the head of the Australian Banking Association: former Queensland Premier Anna Bligh.

What was Anna Bligh famous for up in Queensland? We call her the minister for privatisation. She sold all the assets that belonged to the Queensland people. She sold the Queensland forestry plantations, which are freehold, for five times earnings. She sold the Port of Brisbane for six times earnings—a 99-year lease for six times earnings. She gave our assets away to her mates in the big end of town and to her mates in the superannuation funds, and she has got her pay back. She's got her 30 pieces of silver.

Who is the master puppet pulling the strings behind former Queensland Premier Anna Bligh? No lesser person than the current minister for agriculture, Senator Murray Watt, who was the chief of staff for all this. We know that the Labor Party is in thick with the big end of town. We hear Senator Watt talking all the time about how he engages with industry groups in agriculture. Let me tell you: as a sixth-generation farmer, we don't engage with industry groups. We're too busy out in the paddock working to be hanging out with the big end of town and the blowhards. No, this is not a party that cares about the workers.

The history of the Labor Party and getting into bed with the big banks goes back. A great example is how they sold the CBA. Senator Ayres was talking earlier about how there was all this bad behaviour in the big banks. I'll tell you why there's bad behaviour in the big banks. It's because you privatised CBA without any regulation. At the same time, you introduced superannuation where, basically, the workers have their money taken from them and given to financial planners, many of whom started working for the big banks. Remember the nineties when CBA bought Colonial Mutual, the National Bank bought National Mutual, Westpac did a joint venture with Bankers Trust and ANZ did a deal with ING. It's the big banks again.

I often say that the industry super funds are good mates with Labor, but it's also the private sector that is very good mates with Labor. As I've always said—and I have to sometimes remind my colleagues on this side of the chamber—Robert Menzies himself said in the Forgotten People speech that the rich and powerful can look after themselves. He made it very clear that we're about people that want to get out of bed every day and put their nose to the grindstone.

The Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, doesn't know if he's Arthur or Martha, because he thought he was going to get in there and save the world. He's suddenly realised that the lobbyists—and I spoke about this last week and the Courier Mail reported it—should disclose who pays them. It's not just political parties, because I'll tell you who's pulling the strings in the world, and it's not us. I've often thought about engaging a lobbyist myself to get something done around here because as an elected member, an elected representative of the people, I'm not getting much done.

A phone call from Anna Bligh, and Stephen Jones, the member for Whitlam, suddenly pulls the fees for the big end of town. That is just so typical of the Labor Party of today. They tell me that the seismographs are going off in Bathurst, where Ben Chifley is rolling in his grave. King O'Malley is also rolling in his grave. He is the great man who actually started the Commonwealth Bank way back when, and it was also part of the Reserve Bank, and they actually had a business bank and they funded this stuff.

I think the Labor Party need to take a really good look at themselves because this is not a party that stands up for the working class anymore. They are a party for the big end of town. We know that and we aren't surprised, because the first thing Stephen Jones did was remove the disclosure requirements for super funds. This guy, he's the minister for—as the Australian Financial Reviewthe dog's proverbial— (Time expired)