Mr LATHAM(5.05 p.m.) —I would like to express my disappointment that the government, quite unreasonably, is refusing to refer the Financial Laws Amendment Bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration. What is the point in having a standing committee if it is not going to deal with complex legislation where the House has not had sufficient time to deal with the issues? This Financial Laws Amendment Bill has five technical questions. Three of them concern the insurance sector, one concerns foreign banks and taxation arrangements and the fifth concerns financial conglomerates. It is very disappointing that the government rolls so many diverse matters into one piece of legislation and then expects the parliament to give proper scrutiny within a few moments without the sort of detail, public hearings and evidence that could be provided by the House committee.

The government talks about its respect for the parliament. If it had respect for this parliament, it would happily refer this particular matter to the House committee. This was something that the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister, Mr Miles, refused to do in the Main Committee. It is very unreasonable not to have a standing committee of the House look at legislation such as this. The second thing that I seek to do, by way of the amendment, is for the House to condemn the government for not instructing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to formally monitor bank fees and call on the government to ensure that a fair, basic banking product is provided by the banks to consumers.

This is an area where the government is asleep at the wheel. The government is asleep at the wheel in bringing effective regulation to the petrol industry in Australia and benefits for consumers. It is asleep at the wheel in making sure that the major banks provide a basic product to consumers.

In our break, the parliamentary recess, ANZ announced that its flexible access account customers will have a maximum of 10 free withdrawals a month, just four of which can take place at a branch. So many people in my electorate, and I am sure all members of this House have similar constituents, feel very unsafe about carrying large amounts of money in this period when law and order is such a concern. They do not carry hundreds of dollars in their wallets. People very often require more than four across-the-counter banking transactions per month. But now, under the ANZ regime permitted by this government, they are going to have pay on their fifth and every other withdrawal per month for accessing their own money.

It is a very bad standard when pensioners, low and middle income earners and the needy in Australia have to pay for accessing their own money in a bank—banks that are making record profits at this time. I believe that the ANZ, along with the other major banks, have been sniffing the breeze since March 1996. They were under pressure by the former government to have these basic banking products in place—to have across-the-counter banking without fees and charges. They have sniffed the breeze. They have the indication from the laissez-faire Treasurer (Mr Costello) that user pays for across-the-counter banking would be okay. So ANZ have moved.

Then we had a meeting of the National Australia Bank not long ago, where they announced record profits. The hide of them—they have shown a lack of social responsibility when they have record profits—to then foreshadow that they too would move to user charges on pensioners, the needy and the disabled, people who do not necessarily feel comfortable with new forms of electronic banking.

A survey which I believe was released last week showed that a large number of bank customers do not feel physically safe using ATMs. They want the security of in the branch banking—across-the-counter transactions. If people do not feel safe—women with small children and the elderly—at automatic teller machines, they should not be penalised financially because of that safety concern. So too with the disabled. The government is penalising people who are disabled—people who cannot necessarily use the ATMs—every time they go to the ANZ and draw on their accounts more than four times a month. This is cold-hearted and so unnecessary. The former government said to the banks, `Have the basic product in place. Respect the disabled, the needy, the elderly and the law and order concern and make sure that people around Australia can have fair access to their own money.'

The banks have done nothing in this area—this is what is even more damning—to try to educate their customers about how they can make effective use of electronic banking. It is no surprise that the elderly, in particular, not familiar with electronic banking and much more comfortable with across-the-counter transactions, are very concerned about the penalties they now face with the type of banking they grew up with and the sort of banking that they are most comfortable with in the 1990s and beyond.

The government really should be doing something about this. They should be doing what the former government had in place to monitor fees and report to the government instances such as the ANZ, where the customers are being penalised. If that does not work, they should move to formal price surveillance where the ACCC would actually be required to give approval for any changes in the fees and charges on these basic products. If that does not work, there should be legislation before the parliament to make the banks do it.

I believe that, morally, stomachs turn around Australia to hear the NAB and other banks announcing big profits and then saying, `We are going to slug you more; we are going to slug the public more,' when in a competitive market some of the big profits should be going back into more competitive products that attract more customers to their particular bank.

I believe in stakeholder capitalism. I believe in stakeholders being treated with social responsibilities. If you are a shareholder or a customer of a big corporation, you have rights that should be enshrined in the laws and regulations of the parliament. If those rights are not respected by the banks, the parliament and the government of the day need to act.

How heartless is this government, which said so much about looking after battlers, the elderly, the disabled and the needy, to restrict them to just four across-the-counter transactions per month and after that they have to pay to access their own money? Morally that is wrong. In terms of social responsibility by these big corporations, that is wrong. The government needs to act.

We all know—I suppose we have seen the donors list—just how close this government is to the big financial institutions in Collins Street, Melbourne. The member for Braddon deals in a smaller scale of finance, more at the parish level. I can assure him that Collins Street, Melbourne, has a grip on the Treasurer when it comes to these matters. The people who are losing out in Australia are those who can least afford it. That is a bad thing.

On this legislation, the government should recognise the need to act decisively. It should recognise the need for monitoring fees, if not formal surveillance or parliamentary legislation. Most importantly, we so typically got a sermon from the member for Braddon in the Main Committee about how reasonable the government was. I was being reasonable in the Main Committee by saying that the Labor Party had not necessarily been prepared for a debate in the Main Committee. I was willing to waive the debate and have it here and the Deputy Speaker said that I could not make a speech in the main chamber. Now that turns out to be incorrect advice. The government really mishandled this matter earlier today in the Main Committee. The fair thing was to have it in the House—a substantial debate about substantial issues.

The government got itself in trouble on a big tax bill last year. The hide of the government! The Treasurer is up there sitting in his office with his feet on the desk. They send in a parliamentary secretary who knows nothing about tax and provisions like this. They are treating this parliament with absolute contempt. The parliamentary secretary has no responsibility for any of these matters. He shoe-horned into the place. I suppose on financial laws, they have seen some of his recent windfalls at the expense of the local school in his electorate. Maybe they think he is an expert on financial laws. Maybe he will prove me correct in that assessment when he speaks in just a moment.

The fair thing to do is to recognise that there are complex provisions such as this. The tax thing that the parliamentary secretary had last year involved eight diverse matters. Four of them got through the Senate. The government was embarrassed on the last day of sitting when they came back. The fair thing to do is to break up the legislation into its discrete components. If you are not willing to do that, send these omnibus provisions off to the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration. How about having a bit of respect for the parliament?