Tues 5-Dec-2023 | This was voted down by Labor, Liberal-Nationals, the Greens & the Lambie Network.
What have these parties got to hide that they DO NOT WANT an agency that decides billions of dollars in government projects to divulge conflicts of interest?
In the wake of the 2022 Lismore, Northern Rivers and South-East Queensland floods constituents raised their concerns with Senator Roberts that they believed cloud seeding, weather manipulation, geo-engineering or spraying was involved.
It is important to note that while huge amounts of damage was done and families are still in the heart-breaking process of recovering from these floods, the flood levels were not unprecedented as media outlets and climate catastrophists falsely claimed.
Larger floods have happened before and it is likely they will happen again. We know that development of new housing estates on floodplains, higher density housing and urban sprawl means the same floods can cause more damage because there are simply more houses to damage in flood areas.
Senator Roberts is aware this is no consolation to the people who have lost everything in the floods, and has been critical of the government response to helping those affected. However, it is important to keep this in mind in the context of some claims that these floods could have only been the result of weather manipulation because they were so “unprecedented”.
In response to the concerns of constituents around cloud seeding, Senator Roberts set up a dedicated page on his website for people to submit evidence with the intention of raising solid evidence in Parliament.
Evidence submitted to the page https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/evidence-on-cloud-seeding-required-to-be-investigated/ so far has not met the criteria outlined on that page for the Senator to be able to raise it in Parliament.
The most common deficiencies include:
We have also asked the responsible government body, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) about whether any operations have occurred in the last five years, their answer was no. We would need good evidence that this is untrue to be able to contradict them. A Freedom of Information request has also been lodged and returned no documents
Our team has expended a significant amount of time and resources trawling through the troves of information that many constituents have sent us and have learnt many new things. We thank you for the information passed on and the many important conversations we have had, even if we haven’t been able to find the smoking gun we need for Parliament.
Senator Roberts admits he does not know everything, and remains open to the possibility that cloud seeding operations could occur, but without any evidence that meets the criteria it is impossible for him to raise it in Parliament and claim it is happening.
If you believe you have evidence that fits the criteria and doesn’t have any of the problems outlined above, you are encouraged to submit it to the web page if we have overlooked it. Senator Roberts will continue to monitor any emerging evidence but will not be able to pursue this issue in Parliament given the quality of evidence he has currently been provided.
We hope this information is of assistance and please contact us if there is any other assistance we can offer.
Next week the Senate will vote on my motion to refer two matters that came out of the recent referendum to the Joint Standing Committee on Election Matters.
The first is about the misappropriation of the purple colour used by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). It confuses people and should be available to the AEC only. Even the AEC Commissioner is asking for protection on the purple they use.
Secondly, we need to clarify the words that should appear on a referendum ballot paper includes the full text of the amendment. This is in keeping with the wording of the Constitution.
Please share this video among your family and friends, call or email your Senators, and let’s get these loopholes tightened up for the sake of future confidence in our elections.
Senator Malcolm Roberts declared Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to China redundant while critical Australian manufacturing is offshored and essential commodities are shipped to the communist regime. He said:
“The net zero Transition is a national security risk to Australia and China knows it. China has a monopoly over almost every element of the wind, solar and battery supply chain.”
“China hasn’t had to apologise at all for its campaign of economic coercion against Australia to secure this meeting with Albanese. They will do it again if we try to stand for our interests.”
“China continued to be our number one trading customer throughout the diplomatic freeze, proving they need our high-quality coal and iron ore more than we need them.”
“We ship coal and iron ore to China, they use it to make cheap electricity and steel, then our net-zero chasing government pays to buy solar panels and steel wind turbines back off them.”
“The Labor government’s continued kowtowing to China on critical industries and dropping our sure-to-win WTO complaint over wine and barley will not work.”
“China will only ever respond to strength. If the previous years have taught us anything, it is that we should be doing everything we can do get out of Communist China Party supply chains and bring manufacturing back to Australia.”
The union bosses claim that Labor’s latest Industrial Relations legislation will “close the loophole” of casual workers being paid less than permanents, especially in the mining sector.
You can’t step on site without a union enterprise bargaining agreement, so how are casual workers getting ripped off when they’re working under union negotiated agreements?
The answer is that some union bosses are getting kickbacks from labour hire companies in exchange for passing through dodgy agreements that allow casuals to be exploited.
The Fair Work Commission is meant to stop this, but they’re either asleep at the wheel or deliberately not doing their job.
1 November 2023
Presenter
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment, known as the, “Closing Loopholes Bill,” held its hearings in Rockhampton this week. Announced by the federal government in September, the Closing Loopholes Bill aims to criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole, and close the labour hire loophole.
It’s all about that thing that we’ve been talking about for yonks, and that is, if you’re doing the same job as someone else, you should get the same pay. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts is in Rockhampton for the hearings, and he’s been raising the issue of the exploitation of the permanent casual workers in CQ miners for years. Frazer Pearce asked him if the proposed legislation would provide a better outcome for miners.
Malcolm Roberts
Look, my position on this Fair Work Act for a start, the current act as it stands, without Labor’s latest draft amendments, is 1,200 pages long, and they’re wanting to add another 800 pages. It already makes the workers vulnerable because there’s no way any single worker or small business can understand it; and it helps the IR club. All regulations in that help the major groups like the major banks, the big pharma, and the Industrial Relations Club.
That’s the lawyers, the Union bosses, the Industry Associations for multinational companies. It hurts the workers. I’ve seen that firsthand in Hunter, the Hunter Valley, and in Central Queensland. The second point I’d make is that we wouldn’t be having this inquiry if it wasn’t for the fact that the cross bench has moved it to extend the opportunity, to extend the reporting date from October through to next February. We would not be here listening to the views of industry unions and individual workers, if it wasn’t for the fact that we got an extension till next February.
The Labor Party voted against that extension. They don’t want to listen to people. We voted in favour of it. It’s a very important bill. It’s a huge bill. Big ramifications for workers as well as all players in the industry. The third point I’d make is that current employment in the coal industry at least, is that illegal employment of casual, supposedly casual, in coal is only possible, only possible, with a mining and energy union endorsed enterprise agreement.
We’ve seen that. I can go into detail if you need, but this is probably not the time. But the Mining Union in the Hunter Valley in particular, and to some extent in Central Queensland, has been passing enterprise agreements that do not protect the basic rights of workers. They don’t meet the award criteria as a basic minimum. They don’t meet the National Employment standards as a basic minimum.
They have been selling out workers in the coal industry and what we need for a solution is just a simple enforcement of the Fair Work Act. Now, early on in the proceedings and dealing with these issues, I proposed the, “Same work, same pay” bill. It’s very simple bill. But what I’ve since realised in doing more work, listening to miners, is that all that’s needed is to enforce the current Fair Work Act.
Frazer Pearce
What’s the level of, do you think of exploitation against these workers? Are you saying it’s widespread or it’s just isolated?
Malcolm Roberts
Yes, it’s widespread and it varies in severity. They’re paying well below the award and as I said, the award is the basic minimum. They have not done , they’ve not done the boot test, which is the, “better off overall test”. And that’s how these dodgy agreements have got through that are shafting coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They have left out basic leave entitlements.
They don’t pay casual loading. Casuals are not legally allowed to be employed in the coal industry other than in a dodgy agreement, which is unlawful in itself; because they bypass the normal processes. People are missing out on leave entitlement. People are, as a result of being hired casual, short term, are threatened with dismissal at any time, people are afraid to raise safety incidents.
There’s a culture of fear there. There’s a culture of fear at many mines from people standing up and and afraid of standing up. There’s also been a lack of reporting of injuries. New South Wales in particular, we suspect also Queensland. There’s a, basically there’s a loss in some cases of workers insurance, workers’ compensation, accident pay. These are fundamental rights.
Frazer Pearce
Is this going to be a strong platform for you in the next election? Was it a vote winner for you in the last one?
Malcolm Roberts
We don’t do things to get votes. We do things because they’re right.
Presenter
That’s One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts having a chat with ABC Capricornia Frazer Pearce, talking about the closing loopholes bill. The hearing’s being held in Rockhampton at the moment. It’s a couple of minutes to eight.
At Senate Estimates I have been pursuing the Chief of the Defence Force over allegations he was illegally awarded a Distinguished Service Cross.
This represents the hard work and tiring investigations of veterans and others over many years. They deserve justice and CDF Angus Campbell must hand back his DSC and resign.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/distinguished-service-medals-army-might-be-illegal/102999116
Australia voted yes to equality. Thank you for saying ‘No’.
You did it. Every State and Territory of Australia said NO to the racist Voice EXCEPT for Canberra.
Despite hundreds of millions of dollars for the Yes campaign to constitutionally enshrine a Voice to Parliament, the Australian people overwhelmingly spoke with one voice and said NO, except that is for the Capital. This just goes to show how out of step Canberra’s bureaucrat class are with the rest of Australia.
The government’s Yes campaign involved pushing councils, sporting bodies, schools, universities, unions and the corporate sector including the Big 4 banks and QANTAS into backing the Voice.
Australia saw through the spin and the pressure of the Yes campaign. The Voice was not a genuine offer. It wasn’t about helping Australia’s most vulnerable people. It was yet more foreign globalist interference and follows the UN’s resolution, “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” which Australia signed up to. The UN’s reaction to Australia’s resounding NO is to predictably condemn the vote as exposing “hidden racism” and a failure to recognise human rights of Indigenous Peoples. They fail to grasp that it is aboriginal people in Australian politics and on the ground in the bush who led the NO campaign. Is it ignorance or deliberate misinformation from the UN?
Aboriginal Australians voted against this divisive measure too. Only the Albanese government and woke white saviour lefties voted for it. Albanese is a puppet for the globalists and needs to go.
As Senator Pauline Hanson says, “Australia has dodged a bullet and the people who fired it must now be held accountable”. Despite this overwhelming indication at the ballot box, some state governments are ploughing ahead down the path to treaty. So hang on to your NO t-shirts for now.
The division in Australia isn’t racially driven, it’s politically driven. The Yes campaign didn’t fail on race, it failed because those pushing it, from government to big business, are the same lot that were pushing the COVID shots.
People power is exactly the medicine we needed after COVID.
As the voices grow louder to “Free Assange,” the Wikileaks founder’s family is in the United States to fight against his extradition. They’ve been asking lawmakers there for help, and all hopes are pinned on the meeting between PM Anthony Albanese and President Joe Biden. Australian government officials of all political parties have come to Assange’s defense.
I, along with over 60 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, signed a letter urging the U.S. to drop their pursuit. On 20 September, a cross-party delegation representing Australia went to the United States to support Julian’s right to come home to his family, including his two sons, who have been growing up without their father.
This has gone on far too long. The huge amount of support from around the world in defense of Julian Assange shows that the value of courageous journalism, truth and social justice is far greater than the US administration’s desire to retaliate in their embarrassment over the war crimes they committed, which Wikileaks revealed.
At this time online censorship and state control over information is on everyone’s mind. The Albanese government has proposed a bill designed to censor Australians online. What Julian Assange stands for is traditional journalism and free speech, which are cornerstones of our democracy. Assange is a political prisoner and deserves our gratitude for bringing the truth to light.
It’s time to bring Julian Assange home now!
Over-the-counter transactions at NAB have decreased 70% since 2015. The BIG Four banks have actively discouraged people from withdrawing cash over the counter in the past several years. By training customers in this way, the banks have been able to produce a ‘shock and awe’ figure of 99.95% reduction in cash transactions.
Sounds incredible, yet that’s exactly what it is. It isn’t so much a shift away from cash by the public – it’s a shift in behaviour by the banks.
The banks have no idea how many people are using cash. They don’t see cash transactions. They are actively discouraging the use of cash, then coming out with statements that people don’t want to use cash, which is just plain wrong.
According to many constituents, if a customer goes to a branch of the NAB to use the counter services, there is a high likelihood they will be shown how to use the ATM. The NAB says that’s because they need to know and be fully aware of the alternative options. In June, the NAB is pleased to report they saw 96% of customers making digital transactions. How many of those were walked outside to do that?
Mortgage applications are now being conducted remotely by 40% of customers. Pre COVID the figure was zero, yet post COVID the NAB has found that customers are very happy to take up the digital services for buying a house. The NAB report that a massive shift has occurred over the last few years. Social distancing and lockdowns furthered their digital goals.
The NAB’s reported 99.95% less cash payments is just for bank transactions within the bank itself. All real-world cash transactions are an unknown figure. Customers still need to go to the bank though to withdraw their money to use it in their daily lives. How hard is that becoming?
Ross McEwan, CEO of the NAB, says there are thousands of ATMs available to do this freely, and also acknowledges that Australia is a large country. The NAB says it looks at a range of factors when making decisions to close branches, including feedback from staff members and what is happening in the community where it has invested. How much of that is about listening to customers’ needs?
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Your submission includes this statement: ‘Banking transactions made over the counter at NAB branches have decreased by 70 per cent since 2015.’ Is that a 70 per cent reduction in actual transactions; and, if so, what are the figures for, firstly, total over-the-counter transactions in 2015 and, secondly, total over-the-counter transactions now?
Mr McEwan: I’ll ask Krissie Jones to address that question.
Ms Jones: I’ve got the data from 2017 in front of me. We understand that, in 2017, there were 35½ million over-the-counter transactions through our branch network. Certainly, there has been a large reduction over the period since then and, at the conclusion of this year, we expect that there will have been a 71 per cent reduction. We’ve seen a massive shift over the last few years with our customers starting to use digital services. In fact, in June, 96.5 per cent of interactions were digital ones.
Senator ROBERTS: According to reports made to my electoral office, if one of my constituents goes into the NAB to conduct an over-the-counter transaction, it is likely that the teller will march that customer out to the ATM in front of the bank and make them conduct their business there. Does your 70 per cent reduction figure compensate for increases in the use of ATMs in front of your bank?
Mr McEwan: First off, we should probably look at the circumstances in which a customer is shown how to use an ATM. It also depends on the branch structure that we have, as we’ve got a number of branches that are open for standardised hours, which will probably be three hours a day, and the staff member may have shown the customer how to use the services 24/7. But I’ll pass over to Krissie because, again, she runs the network and is very familiar with what staff are being asked to do, in training and developing customers and showing them odd services. Krissie, maybe you could talk to the senator on that one.
Ms Jones: Yes, sure. We want to make sure that our customers are aware of all of the options that are available to them. If they want to conduct their banking in a branch, then we would welcome them using the over-the-counter services. But we want to make sure that, for those examples of when a branch isn’t open, they know of the alternative options. Over the last few years, we’ve added in new functionality to be able to deposit a cheque on your phone from the convenience of your home. So we really want to make sure that customers are fully aware of all of those alternative options, whether it’s phone banking, digital banking options or Bank@Post. But, of course, if a customer wants to come in and talk to their local branch team member to do their transactions, we welcome that too.
Senator ROBERTS: This is a quote from your submission: ‘Only three per cent of our personal banking customers exclusively use our branch network to conduct their banking.’ Could you define ‘exclusively’, please. Does one ATM withdrawal or one call to report a stolen card constitute the loss of ‘exclusive’, as in ‘did not exclusively use over-the-counter services’?
Ms Jones: We do publish some of this information in our FAQ sheets as well, but our definition of ‘exclusive’is really about when a customer walks into the branch. So ‘exclusive’ would be a customer who comes in and only uses that branch for their transactions; it would not include things like the use of ATMs or other services, such as digital transactions.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if a customer used a bank for over-the-counter services every time, except for one call to inquire about a bank card, would that mean that they do not exclusively use over-the-counter services?
Ms Jones: It’s a rolling period and so it would be that, in that period, that wouldn’t be the case. But we look at it over different rolling periods.
Senator ROBERTS: You say here, ‘Only eight per cent of our business banking customers exclusively use our branch network to conduct their banking.’ That’s one in 12, which seems a lot to ignore, doesn’t it? Asking that same question again, does the same definition of ‘exclusive’ apply?
Ms Jones: Yes, it’s the same definition of ‘exclusive’. For both our personal customers and our business customers, I think we are seeing a really big shift in the way that they’re transacting. As I’ve said, in June, we actually saw digital transactions occurring with 96 per cent of our customers. So there really has been a very big change. Also, we are seeing more of our business customers starting to use alternatives as well.
Senator ROBERTS: This is another quote from your submission: ‘Over 40 per cent of home lending appointments are held via videoconference.’ That means that 60 per cent are not using videoconference; is that
correct?
Ms Jones: Yes. We offer a range of ways in which our customers can take out a home loan with us. They can go onto our website to find an appointment that is the most convenient for them. That can be in their local branch or over the phone; it can be with a banker coming to their home or their workplace; or it can occur by video. What we are seeing, even just in the last week, is more than 60 per cent happening over the phone or via video. But a large proportion of customers still want to come into a branch to undertake that conversation with the banker.
Mr McEwan: Just to give you a feel for the rapid change in those numbers, I can say that, pre-COVID, that was zero; we did not have that facility available. Today, as Krissie has said, these stats were put at 40 and, in the last week, that has gone even higher. So customers are very happy to take up those services, and it doesn’t matter whether they are regional or city-bound customers.
Senator ROBERTS: I quote again: ‘99.95 per cent of all payments made by or received by NAB customers were made digitally in 2022.’ Does that include when a person ‘beeps’ to pay for a coffee, petrol and the minutiae of everyday life?
Mr McEwan: Yes, it does.
Senator ROBERTS: If I withdraw cash from an ATM and spend that cash in a farmers market—in fact, I am noticing an increasing number of small retailers asking for cash payments—how would you know that I’ve paid with cash or not?
Mr McEwan: By way of a retail transaction?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr McEwan: If a person paid cash, we would not know.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Mr McEwan: What are you asking for help on with that one? When people have paid with cash at a market or out in society, we have never known what those numbers were.
Senator ROBERTS: So what is the statistical basis for the 99.95 per cent figure, when you have no idea of what your customers are using cash for?
Mr McEwan: No. That 99.95 per cent figure of the transactions that come through our bank are done digitally; that is, the ones that we’re aware of. The definition of that stat hasn’t changed, as we’ve never known
what was going on with a trader or a person at a market who is taking cash for goods. Those stats have never appeared in our stats.
Senator ROBERTS: I made this same point with Westpac, I think it was: so we don’t really know what people are using cash for, but people want to use cash outside of the banking transaction.
Mr McEwan: That’s correct. Yes, you’re absolutely right: I do not know what you use your cash for and you don’t know what I use my cash for. But the point that we’re making is that 99.95 per cent of those interactions with the bank are now done digitally, and that doesn’t preclude customers doing what they like with their cash.
Senator ROBERTS: So 99.95 per cent of payments with NAB might be digital. With customers exchanging money with other customers, we don’t know what it is.
Mr McEwan: No, that’s right. Again, that’s not a service that I provide. Your paying cash to somebody else is not a service that I am involved in; it’s a service that they do themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: No. But for me to pay someone else cash, I need to come to NAB to get the cash.
Mr McEwan: Yes, or you could go to 4,000 ATMs around the country that I pay for you to use and they’re free to you, or you could get the money out at a branch or at 3,400 Australia Post outlets; they will give you the cash.
Senator ROBERTS: Cash is still important. So, on the face of it, your regional banking hubs are a good idea. I assume that these centres are there to handle face-to-face transactions with people from areas where a branch has been closed. You mentioned Emerald in Queensland, where I used to live some years ago. Can I ask: what is the catchment of that Emerald bank, please? How far away are the areas that it is designed to service?
Mr McEwan: We’ll have to look at that. Krissie, do you know the Emerald catchment at all?
Ms Jones: I do, but I want to make sure that we’ve got the facts right, so perhaps I could come back to you on that. We do have surrounding branches to Emerald. As well as our branch in Emerald there are Bank@Post facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: It looks to me as though the next branch, heading west from Emerald, is Longreach, which is four hours away. Is that a good indication of how far apart these regional branches are?
Mr McEwan: The regional branches will be quite different; some may well be at a shorter distance than that and others will be a longer distance apart. As you know, Australia is a huge country. But the point there is that there is a very large number of regional Australia Post offices that people can get to as well, which will service those needs.
Ms Slade: Krissie, you might want to talk about the things that we look at and take into consideration, such as where customers are travelling to already and the other branches that they’re using.
Ms Jones: When we’re making investment decisions or the decision to close a branch, we look at a range of factors, which include: where are our customers shopping; where are they banking; where are they are travelling to, whether it’s to see the doctor or the mechanic; and where do we need to invest to support them? So there’s a range of things that we take into consideration when we’re not only making investments but also making the difficult decision to close. We also seek input from our staff on the ground. We have a large number of colleagues—around 2,300 across NAB—who work across regional Australia, and many of those are bankers who face customers every day. That may be in retail, or it may be in regional and agri, which is where we have over 774 bankers providing services in those areas. So we listen to feedback from our staff members as well about what’s happening in that community, what’s most relevant for that community and what’s the way in which we can shore up in order to serve them as well.
A theme throughout this inquiry into Australia’s bank closures is that bank representatives continue to say they are committed to providing cash for the foreseeable future despite Australians using cash less frequently.
The Commonwealth Bank has no plans to remove the distribution of cash even though it is a cost to the bank to keep cash available, according to CEO Matt Comyn.
I know that Australians are afraid of losing cash. There’s no doubt that the best way to keep cash alive is to keep on using it.
Despite regional bank closures, more than 90% of customers remain which is seen as a sign less customers see a physical branch as important because more of them are using online services.
I asked Matt Comyn about the bank’s digital expansion which includes the CommBank App. He said this app is used by eight million customers and the vast majority of customers appreciate the bank’s investment in it. The bank’s contract with Australia Post, worth tens of millions of dollars, is a partnership allowing customers to make transactions at Australia Post outlets where the bank has been shutting down branches. For many rural customers the Bank@Post scheme doesn’t offer everything they need.
We also discussed the many ways the Commonwealth Bank along with the rest of the Big Four Banks are supported by the government including bail-in, props such as government guarantees for overseas borrowing, regulatory support and their advantages over smaller banks.
When I asked about the shareholdings by asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, Matt Comyn responded that most of the bank’s shareholders are Australian retail shareholders, domestic superannuation shareholders, and shares held by 12 million Australian families. Share dividends will be high this year with a record $10.2 billion profit and a pay packet for its CEO of $10.4 million.
The Commonwealth bank serves about 10 million customers. Among those customers are many Australians who are worried about digital controls, branches closing, and the gradual loss of cash as a readily available and convenient means of transaction. The Commonwealth Bank prides itself on supporting its customers so let’s hope they’re also a listening bank.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of what has happened to Qantas’s reputation in the last few months?
Mr Comyn: Yes, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: You represent a bank which provides financial services, and cash is fundamental to those for many people. People are afraid of cash. Whether you agree with that or not, they are afraid of cash and
they’re increasing their use of cash. As to your costs and services, from your statement I concluded that they’re reviewed annually, but are you considering the whole service and what people really expect from your bank?
Mr Comyn: Yes, absolutely we consider the whole service.
Senator ROBERTS: More than 90 per cent of your customers stay after a bank closure?
Mr Comyn: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, your customers are sticky?
Mr Comyn: Yes. It could be perceived in a slightly different way as well, which is the role of a physical branch in some customers’ minds perhaps isn’t as important as it was. I sort of agree with that and I think it very
much depends on different customers. I think a range of different conclusions can be drawn from that.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. The fact is your customers are sticky and so are other customers. You mentioned cross-subsidisation of electronic customers on cash is $40 per customer?
Mr Comyn: What I said was we calculated we think the cost of providing cash, and I believe providing cash will continue to be important and is an important issue. I suspect we pay a significant proportion of the costs of providing cash in Australia. I don’t say that as a complaint, I say it more as a statement of fact. We serve about 10 million customers. It works out to be about $40. The reality is, like anything, there’s a small proportion of customers who use cash very often. There’s a much larger proportion who don’t use it at all, and there would be somewhere in between who are using it infrequently across that. I’m not exactly sure I understand the point you made about ‘afraid of cash’? I think you said earlier on in your question that Australians are afraid of cash? Did I mishear you?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. They’re afraid of losing cash. Thank you for picking up on that. That’s a very important point. They’re afraid of losing cash. We’ve seen a digital identity mooted by the Morrison government, now raised by the Labor government, and a bill that was introduced not into parliament as such for processing but into the public debate in parliament last year. We’ve seen attempts to limit the cash ban bill. People are scared, especially after losing a lot of their fundamental freedoms in the last three years under COVID mismanagement. They’re worried about being controlled in all aspects of their lives. How much has your bank spent on digital expansion that cash customers did not ask for?
Mr Comyn: It would be very difficult for me to answer that, because we haven’t asked every one of those 10 million customers.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.
Mr Comyn: I think we could reasonably assume that with our retail bank, the CommBank app, which is our mobile banking app, we have more than eight million users. On average, they log in 39 times per month. It’s
clearly one of the most important, if not the most important, feature that customers use. I’d say that clearly the vast majority of customers highly value the investments that we make, both in terms of hopefully helping make it easier for them to manage their financial lives but also as Senator White was asking, to make sure it’s the safest, secure and most resilient experience possible.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come back to cash in a minute. You just said you’ve got a commitment to cash?
Mr Comyn: I believe cash will continue to be available for many years within Australia. I don’t think people should fear that cash is going to be removed from circulation.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that your commitment or is it just your belief?
Mr Comyn: I can only make the commitment on behalf of the Commonwealth Bank.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I mean.
Mr Comyn: We certainly have no plans to remove cash distribution or the provision of cash in Australia. I don’t think that’s feasible, and I don’t think that would be desirable, certainly in the foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to Australia Post and we’ll come back to cash. How much do you pay Australia Post for the community representation fee—not the transaction but the community representation fee?
Mr Comyn: I mentioned in the introduction it’s tens of millions of dollars. I know I’m protected by parliamentary privilege. Would you mind if I checked whether there’s any commercial—
CHAIR: You can take it on notice.
Mr Comyn: I know what the number is. I don’t have any difficulty sharing it with you, but I probably should check that.
CHAIR: I think usually the best idea is to take it on notice. Mr Comyn can provide the information to us.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your concern one of the figure or of releasing it?
Mr Comyn: I’m not personally concerned with either of those dimensions, but since it’s in a contract entered between the Commonwealth Bank and Australia Post I just want to doublecheck if there are any contractual
restrictions and probably out of courtesy let Australia Post know.
Senator ROBERTS: It was released in 2018 as being $22 million for each bank.
Mr Comyn: It’s more than that.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you’re currently flooding Australia Post. When I say ‘you’, it’s not just the Commonwealth Bank but all banks. You’re closing branches in the regional areas and Australia Post is getting flooded with customers. Is it more than $22 million?
Mr Comyn: The totality of what we pay Australia Post? Yes, it is. Again, not to get caught up in the semantics, I wouldn’t characterise it as ‘flooding’. We pay on a per transaction basis to Australia Post with an extension beyond 2030. We entered into a long-term contract to give Australia Post and some of those individual franchisees certainty. We meet—I know Mr Jones does—regularly with Australia Post to talk about are there opportunities for us to continue to improve the service to be able to support Australia Post’s customers better and to make sure as many transaction types are available in Australia Post to ensure the convenience is as high as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you’re treating them as a partner?
Mr Comyn: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to the structure of the banking system in this country, especially the big four banks, there is protection for the banks if the banks go overboard in risk or the economy collapses. You’ve got protection in bank bailing, which was legislated I think in 2018. That was confirmed to me by a senior Treasury official two years ago. You’ve had props from the government in the past, and government guarantees for things like overseas borrowing. You have enormous support. Four pillars for a start is a regulatory support. You have more generous treatment from APRA in risk weighting. You have barriers to entry that the regulations provide for protecting the big four. You have a barrier that’s legal in the sense that you’ve got deep pockets and you can fund enormous defences in lawsuits brought against you. I’ve seen this first-hand when chaired the Senate select inquiry into lending to primary production customers. You dominate the cash distribution network. You’re essentially now, as a result of the support from the community and governments, a low-risk business. And your customers are sticky. That’s a hell of a ride.
Mr Comyn: I’d challenge just about every one of the assumptions that you made then, but I’m not exactly sure where that would get us. I definitely wouldn’t characterise it in terms of the context that you did. Are we heavily regulated? Absolutely. Is there a lot of investment required to manage and appropriately respond to that regulation? Yes, there is. Do I think significant financial institutions in Australia and others should be heavily regulated? Absolutely. Do I think it’s important that Australian banks and the Commonwealth Bank have unquestionably strong levels of capital? Absolutely. Because we’re big importers of capital and the success of economies and financial institutions are necessarily very intertwined. I could give you multiple examples but I don’t know how helpful it would be. Even if you think about capital levels, Australian banks hold considerably more capital than many other financial institutions and jurisdictions. As a policy setting I think that’s absolutely appropriate, but to help make the numbers real that costs across the major banks per annum between $7 billion and $11 billion. I’d characterise a lot of things differently. I think sometimes our funding facilities are described in a way that’s not necessarily matched by our experience.
Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge your view. I point to the fact that every monopoly in the world—I’m not accusing you of being a monopoly—is there as a result of government. You say you have a low-risk business. Your ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, a significant controlling portion, includes the Vanguard Group and BlackRock. I’m reading from your registry: Vanguard Investments, Norges Bank, Goody Capital Management, BlackRock Advisors, Vanguard Global Advisors and a couple more. When I look at the other three big banks, they’re almost identical in terms of the significant controlling interests. It seems to me that we have one bank with four logos. That’s a very tight industry. You hide behind the regulations, I’d put it to you. When I chaired that Senate select inquiry into lending for primary production customers, I saw the services almost identical from each of the banks. The strategy is almost identical. The disregard for customers is almost identical as is the hiding behind regulations. Regulations are there to protect your bank; that’s the way I see it in practice. It’s almost identical across all four banks. Directors appoint you, I take it, and your directors are appointed by the likes of BlackRock, Vanguard, First State and State Street. The banking sector with the four big banks seems to be a very cosy club and you can do whatever you want with very sticky customers; is that correct?
Mr Comyn: No, it’s not. Again, the shareholder base is quite different to the way you outlined. There are quite significant differences even across the major banks. We’re an extremely widely held retail stock. Approximately 50 per cent of our shareholding is held directly by retail onshore shareholders. Obviously that’s a result—
Senator ROBERTS: How many of those shareholders vote?
Mr Comyn: Every one of them is entitled to vote.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of them vote?
Mr Comyn: I couldn’t give you the exact number. One thing I would say is clearly I meet with institutional shareholders. I just came back from meeting with some institutional shareholders internationally. I can assure you I get stopped and asked about the performance, profitability, questions on people’s minds, and the dividend by a lot more retail shareholders than I ever do from international. To finish quickly on the shareholder base, more than 50 per cent would be direct to retail. The next approximately 30 per cent would be institutional but domestic, primarily through superannuation, some of the biggest industry and superannuation funds. We actually have quite a small representation internationally. You mentioned some of them. There’s a mixture of both. You touched on some of our index funds. Some have a variety of different mandates from either US, North America or within Asia. Fundamentally if the Commonwealth Bank is profitable, 75 per cent approximately of our profits go to our shareholders, predominantly Australian families—more than 12 million. I can assure you based on my experience they absolutely do value it. I’m not sure the point you’re making on regulation, either. Obviously we work very closely with regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: The point I’m making was that regulations help you because they give you protection. It’s very difficult for a small borrower to take you on legally.
CHAIR: We’re going to have to rotate the call. Mr Comyn, you can briefly respond to that if you want to. It’s up to you.
Mr Comyn: In the interests of time
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am