Can you remember as far back as three years ago? Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg are hoping you can’t. And fortunately for them, the media’s memory is notoriously short.
The media mostly live in the now. What’s being promised in this election campaign? Not much as yet on what promises were made last time and what became of them.
A big issue in the years before the election in May 2019 was the many complaints about people’s mistreatment by the banks, much of it brought to light by this masthead’s Adele Ferguson. There was growing pressure for a royal commission.
But the banks denied there was a problem, and then-treasurer Morrison repeatedly dismissed the need for an inquiry. Finally, when some government backbenchers signalled their support for a motion to establish a commission, the banks begged the government to take over and ensure the inquiry had appropriate terms of reference.
Former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne was appointed to inquire into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry. For months, the public was shocked by the misbehaviour his hearings revealed.
People – even dead people – being charged for services they didn’t receive, signatures being forged, banks finding many ways to put their profits ahead of the fair treatment of their customers.
The government, too, professed its shock and utter disapproval of the banks’ behaviour. When the commission’s final report was submitted just a few months before the election was due, the government took three days to announce it was acting on all 76 recommendations and going further in “a number of important areas”.
“My message to the financial sector is that misconduct must end and the interest of consumers must now come first. From today the sector must change, and change forever,” Treasurer Frydenberg declared.
But the backdown began just five weeks later, even before the election. Frydenberg announced that “following consultation with the mortgage broking industry and smaller lenders, the Coalition government has decided to not prohibit trail commissions on new loans, but rather review their operation in three years’ time”.
As Professor Richard Holden of the University of NSW observed at the time, Frydenberg offered nothing in its place.
Back in 2009, in the aftermath of global financial crisis, the Rudd government imposed “responsible lending obligations” making it illegal to offer credit that was unsuitable for a consumer based on their needs and capacity to make payments.
These have always irked the banks, and soon after the Coalition came to power in 2013 it attempted to wind them back, but was blocked in the Senate. The Hayne commission said they were fine.
But in September 2020, under cover of the “coronacession”, Frydenberg announced plans to dismantle the obligations because they’d become “overly prescriptive, complex and unnecessarily onerous on consumers”.
Professor Kevin Davis, of the University of Melbourne, a respected expert in this field, has argued that these justifications don’t make much sense.
By January last year, Davis found that the government was yet to implement 44 of the 76 recommendations it had accepted, and had “turned its back on five key reforms – including curbing irresponsible lending practices”.
“Instead, it appears to be banking on market forces and voluntary codes of conduct to protect financially unsophisticated borrowers. This is the triumph of ideology and vested interests over logic and evidence,” Davis said.
The Hayne commission was highly critical of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, saying it was too accommodating towards the bodies it was regulating, being too ready to negotiate and not keen enough to litigate.
In August last year, Frydenberg significantly changed his “statement of expectations” of ASIC from the one issued in 2018. The new directions start by saying the government expects the body to “identify and pursue opportunities to contribute to the government’s goals, including supporting Australia’s economic recovery from the COVID pandemic”. Hmmm.
Hayne recommended setting up a “compensation scheme of last resort”, funded by the industry, to ensure that victims of financial misconduct actually receive compensation that had been awarded where the firm was unable to pay because it had collapsed.
Hayne also recommended a “financial accountability regime” to hold finance leaders accountable for misconduct that occurs on their watch.
The two measures were finally recommended for passage by the relevant Senate committee in mid-February. But neither was passed before parliament was prorogued for the election.
It’s remarkable what miraculously winning an election can do to your determination to make the bankers behave.
