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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the performance of the Assistant Treasurer.

Before I address the answer given by Senator Gallagher in response to my question on the performance of the Assistant Treasurer, I think it's very, very important to recognise this very, very important and momentous occasion. The government has surrendered on its commitment to transparency and scrutiny. What we just heard in the final question asked by Senator Birmingham was the revelation that many of us caught a glimpse of this morning that the government has decided that it will not put itself to the normal test of scrutiny that other governments have put themselves to for two to three decades. What we're talking about here is the decision of the government to take out of the parliamentary program four days of budget estimates. That is almost 60 hours of scrutiny that the opposition and other non-government senators can put the government through. It is the first time in almost 30 years that the government has consciously decided to remove itself from scrutiny.

This is perhaps the most remarkable revelation in the six-month history of the government so far. Of course, there is a 'get out of jail' clause for the government, and that is that it's a draft program—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Urquhart, on a point of order?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that Senator Smith rose to take note of the question that he asked Senator Gallagher. He's now floating off into the question that Senator Birmingham asked Senator Wong, so I would ask you to draw him back to whatever he's going to talk about.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, I do have to draw you back to your original motion, which was in relation to the answer given by Senator Gallagher.

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

Senator Urquhart is 100 per cent correct, but it was such an important revelation that I thought I should indulge—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Important to you, Senator Smith, but not necessarily important to the Deputy President.

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

Of course, the other significant matter in question time today was a question that I asked on an issue that was actually canvassed yesterday in the Senate by coalition senators, and that issue is the appalling performance thus far of the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Stephen Jones. Normally in government if you made one mistake, that would be serious enough for a reprimand from the Prime Minister or a reprimand from the Treasurer. But, no, the Assistant Treasurer has made not one, not two but three mistakes. All we got from Senator Gallagher, who represents both the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer in the Senate, was a statement reflecting on her personal relationship with Mr Jones. I don't doubt that there's a long history there. But the critical point we were examining in question time today is whether or not the Assistant Treasurer has the character, has the integrity, has the professional skill to be responsible for—to have management and oversight over—the financial services portfolio. I think it's clear—the revelation that Senator McKim gave to this chamber last week makes it very, very clear—that the Assistant Treasurer does not have the character or the integrity to manage what is a very significant portfolio.

It's worth reminding the chamber that a newspaper report in the Sydney Morning Herald noted, when talking about the Financial Accountability Regime Bill, that Mr Jones had said that there had been no sign-off on anything. There had been 'no deal', Mr Jones is quoted as saying in the Sydney Morning Herald. But last week Senator McKim, again, in the chamber, made it very clear. He said; 'There is absolutely no doubt that Minister Jones and I had an agreement, and any claim that there was no agreement is false.' That is a significant revelation in this place by Senator McKim about his dealings, his negotiations, with Stephen Jones.

That is an unacceptable way in which the Assistant Treasurer has dealt with some very important legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the greatest bulk of bills that are passed through the Senate since we came back after the election have been Treasury and financial bills. Careful management, careful negotiations of these bills is central to the wellbeing of Australians and their families. And we have Senator McKim calling out the fact that the Assistant Treasurer cannot be trusted with his word on important matters.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, this is a really disappointing decline into a pretty horrific personal attack on a member of the government who I think is doing a tremendous job. The idea that we have, in this chamber, an attack on the basis of accountability, on the basis of transparency and indeed, Senator Smith, on the basis of acting in good faith is I think pretty appalling. Our Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, has been fighting day and night for the same things we are all fighting for on this side of the chamber, the same things that keep us up at night: how to deal with a cost-of-living crisis in Australia. He has been fighting to do things like deliver cheaper child care, deliver cheaper medicines, deliver real action, increase wages, including through our secure-jobs bill. That is what our government is focused on. That is the work that keeps us up at night, and I know that is the work that our Assistant Treasurer is working on day in, day out.

This attack comes from a government that had a history over nine years of dodging transparency, of dodging accountability, with a prime minister whose most famous legacy quote is, 'I don't hold a hose, mate'. That's the government Senator Smith served in. That is their record on accountability and transparency. So, it is pretty outrageous to come in here and not only smear and attack a member of the other place but do so on the basis of accountability, on the basis of transparency, on the basis of acting in good faith. I mean, I don't know how you keep a straight face through that one, honestly—and you can't. How do you keep a straight face through that one? You can't.

The government is not focused on these ridiculous smears. We're focused on getting on with the job, of action on cost of living, of cheaper child care. On 1 January we will see child care get cheaper in this country, to make sure more mums and dads can get back to work. We're focused on cheaper medicines. These are real measures that will take the cost-of-living burden off Australian families. This is what people in our communities are talking about. These are the kinds of measures that Australians want to see. Most importantly, they want to see action on their wages. The previous government designed economic architecture to have wages deliberately low, and people want to see a shift away from that. They want to see us move away from that and fair enough and that is what we are doing as a government; that is what we are getting on with. So to come in here and make some kind of artificial argument about transparency and accountability, I think, it's pretty hard to do that and keep a straight face.

We have just seen the government deliver a budget which not only fulfils our election commitments but contains key measures to address and tackle the cost of living in addition to what I've already spoken about—cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. We are progressively expanding paid parental leave to six months by 2026, another measure that will make a real difference to Australian families; building more affordable housing, including a new national housing accord to build more affordable and well-located homes for Australians; and, of course, getting wages moving again. I know Assistant Minister Jones, like every member of our government and every member of the Albanese Labor government cabinet, is working day in and day out to achieve these objectives. Because when we came to government we did so on a promise to the Australian people that we would take real action to address the cost-of-living crisis; that we would be, yes, a government which was more transparent, which was more accountable.

Let's not forget that in the other place this week we expect the former Prime Minister will be the subject of a motion regarding his decision to swear himself into multiple ministries. I note Senator Smith said that the Assistant Treasurer should be reprimanded by the Prime Minister and Treasurer—I mean, ridiculous, because if he was a member of the former government, it would be the same person. It is just outrageous that those opposite had a Prime Minister take these decisions, do these things. Those opposite all sat idly by and then they come in here months later on this accountability and transparency attack, which I just don't know how they do with a straight face. They don't believe in it. They don't believe the words they are saying.

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

It is a real pleasure to be able to make a contribution in relation to the government for vested interests and its latest foray into financial regulation. If you are a class action law firm or you are a union or you are a super fund, you are at the top of the list on the government for vested interests' priority list. If you are a punter, you go to the back of the queue, because this government is only interested in feathering the nests of vested interests. That is the log of claims that this minister, Mr Jones, has been working through since he assumed his role over six months ago.

We saw over the last few days Mr Swan, who is the President of the Labor Party but also the head of the CBUS super fund, say that he was going to commit $500 million of the members' money to a housing accord, which Senator Gallagher said in Senate estimates she didn't even know the detail of. So you have a housing accord policy with no detail, no assurance to the trustees about how their money would be protected and you have the person wearing two hats in Mr Swan falling over himself to promise the member's money. That is, of course, the best example that I can think of the howling conflicts which sit at the very heart of this government for vested interests.

But, of course, Senator Smith's contribution here is about Mr Jones. Mr Jones has already had a quadrella of failures in his attempt to regulate the financial markets. Last Friday we heard from Senator McKim, who had been done over by Mr Jones. He goes over to the other ministerial wing and does a deal which falls over pretty quickly and Mr Jones has, as a result of the deal falling over, killed his own financial regulation agenda, which is designed to improve the penalties which are applied to members of the financial sector who breach our laws. So that's fallen over and so has the compensation scheme of last resort, which Mr Jones promised at the last election. That is now on the never-never; we might not see that again. Then, of course, yesterday in this chamber, Mr Jones's key policy that he took to the election—the religious carve-out for super funds, which is a huge issue out there in the community and was the centrepiece of his policies—was excised by the government, was removed from the bill before the Senate.

We've also been able to canvass Mr Jones's failure to regulate the crypto sector. Back on 22 August, Mr Jones said in a Treasury media release that he was about to release public consultation on token mapping: 'It will be released soon.' That was on 22 August. Meanwhile we've had the FTX collapse, with 30,000 Australian consumers exposed to FTX. And what do you hear from Jones? Nothing from Mr Jones. He has failed to protect consumers there because there are probably no vested interests going into his office asking him to do things.

That takes me to the last point about Mr Jones's tremendous record here as the minister. His first act as minister was to remove transparency arrangements which would require the funds to show how much money they've sent off to a related party, be it a union or a bank or an insurance company or any related party. He has taken that away. That is his first priority; he comes into the job and says, 'I've got a great plan here; I'm going to take away the transparency that has been put in place because I don't want workers to see where their money is going.' That is his priority. That tells you all you need to know about this minister.

In terms of that particular regulation: I know Senator Lambie has a disallowance motion tomorrow, and the chamber will be able to make its own judgement on Mr Jones's judgement that the Australian people, workers and members of super funds should not be allowed to see when their funds are sending their money off to the CFMMEU, the Australian Workers Union and all the other unions which benefit greatly from superannuation funds.

It is a shocking tenure already for Mr Jones. He has fluffed the FAR bill, the religious carve-out is already dead and tomorrow he might in fact complete his trifecta and lose his super regs.

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

I thank Senator Dean Smith for his question to Senator Gallagher, to the minister, about our very important Financial Accountability Regime package. This, indeed, is a package of reforms that I am very proud to support, and it's a package of reforms the government remains committed to passing. And we make absolutely no apologies for being a government that is willing to consult with the sector about this package of reforms.

This is an incredibly important part of our financial architecture, and it's a part of our financial architecture that the previous government, the now opposition, completely walked away from. This package of reforms includes reforms to accountability for banks and financial services providers. It includes strong penalties. It includes a compensation scheme of last resort for victims of financial companies who refuse or can't pay determinations for compensation for victims of wrongdoing. Critically, it includes reforms to payday lending laws and consumer lease laws to get rid of predatory lending in our country, which just heaps debt onto vulnerable people. Again, we remain committed to passing this legislation.

When it comes to financial architecture in this country that protects consumers, it is quite extraordinary that the opposition would come in here and try to claim any moral high ground whatsoever when it comes to this issue. This is an opposition that voted, I think it was 26 times, against the Hayne royal commission into the banking sector. These reforms that we are continuing to consult on actually come out of that royal commission. They also come out of the small amount credit contracts review, which highlighted the absolutely tragic consequences of predatory lending. But, of course, those opposite chose not to pass this package of reforms. They chose not to try to protect consumers. They chose not to fully implement the Hayne Royal Commission recommendations or the SAC recommendations. Instead, they've come in here and attempted to heap criticism on us for introducing this incredibly important legislation and for consulting widely on it.

What we are doing is getting on with reforms that protect consumers in this country. What we are doing is getting on with implementing the Hayne Royal Commission recommendations in full. What we are doing is getting on with being a government that is restoring integrity to our political system and to our government.

I do want to note the comments of Senator Dean Smith in his take-note speech. He directly called into doubt the integrity of the minister with his words. That was a completely unwarranted attack. I think it was an attack that was, quite frankly, beneath the standards of Senator Smith, who I work with on the Senate economics committee. I've generally found him to be a very collegiate and reasonable person as we do our work, work like considering this particular package of reforms. So I do have to say that I'm incredibly disappointed with the approach of Senator Smith in this chamber today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with introducing a package of reforms that go to the heart of protecting consumers in our country from financial wrongdoing, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with consulting widely on those reforms and taking feedback as feedback arises. There is nothing wrong with talking to the crossbenchers about the reforms and making sure that they're fit for a purpose and they do the job. Minister Jones is getting on with doing the job, delivering the financial architecture that our country needs, and he will continue to do that work.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian businesses make billions of dollars worth of investment decisions everyday. To do this they need certainty, to do this they need consistency and to do this they need reliability in the economy and in the hands that steer it. That's why Senator Dean Smith's questions today are so important for the Australian economy. Today in a question by Senator Smith we heard the challenge that the Assistant Treasurer's actions have caused all this. I don't think it was assessing his merits or his integrity. It was just the potential damage that inconsistency can cause to the economy.

I note that the Assistant Treasurer is the member for Whitlam. I note that in just three days some of those opposite will be celebrating 50 years since Mr Whitlam took office. Well, in '72 it was potentially time, and in '22 the minister's time is potentially up. We've had the three strikes. We've had problems in all the areas we spoke about earlier, and business needs better. The economy needs better. Australian households need better.

I noted that in the response by Minister Gallagher she said that the Assistant Treasurer was an outstanding person. There is no question of that. We are not questioning his personality. We are not testing his character. He may be the Keanu Reeves of this parliament for all I know. I haven't met him. He may pet dogs and work at a pound and look after cats. No one is questioning his personality, merely his competency and his ability to see things through.

I'll get back to the point: business needs confidence in the economy so that when the government shakes a hand, when a government nods a head, when a government says yes, they get a deal that sticks. When we go into a business case, when we've sat in a boardroom—and I have sat there trying to diversify a business to make it more resilient to look to the future—when we're looking at billions of dollars worth of investment we look at millions of dollars of consultants and millions of dollars of man-hours. We look at tens of people looking to make this investment. Now what have we got? We've got uncertainty. We have an Assistant Treasurer who can change his mind on regulation and can say stuff that you may rely on that is incorrect. We have interest rates going up. We have the cost of living going through the roof. The economy is not stable at the moment, and inconsistency in messaging from the government have hurt it.

We heard from Senator Bragg some of the areas where there's been a flip-flop or a change. We heard about cryptocurrency and getting involved in regulation around that. There was an article today about a couple losing $50,000 in superannuation for a lack of regulation in the cryptocurrency space. That lack of certainty is going to hurt them personally. It's going to hit budgets all across Australia when they do that. We heard about the super disclosure laws being wound back. People deserve to know. Every time they do this, they think a union does that and the Labor Party does that. People need consistency. They need to know that is not the case. We talked about bank penalties being wound back. What is that about? It's like an episode of Rake. Was the shadow minister scared the banks were going to close his bank accounts and he would have to go to 'Parliamentary Friends of Breakfast' to get a meal around here? We flipped back on the bank episode here. All these things are not good. They are not consistent and they do not give confidence to the economy.

That is before we even get to mums and dads—their consistency, their certainty. They went into an election hearing $275 worth of savings, and that has evaporated. They are doing their budgets, and we have had eight or nine interest rate rises since this government was elected. The cash rate is now more than eight times higher than when this government was elected. There is no consistency. There is no steady hand. We deserve better. The Australian people deserve better. The Assistant Treasurer just needs to get it right. If he doesn't go, he needs to get it right, because the people deserve that.

Question agreed to.