Emma asked Senator Entsch a simple question: "do we need a Royal Commission into
the Financial Sector and the Banks?
Then came 6 mins of drivel...........
You and the Banks now being pulled into line by Mad Mal, Warren?
We put in him in the NO Camp. So much for his pre-election tricky wording.
Interview: Warren Entsch, Liberal National MP
16 August 2016
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4520926.htm
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 16/08/2016
Emma Alberici speaks with Warren Entsch as the Opposition rejects a request from the Turnbull Government to allow 'pairing' of votes in the new Parliament which will add more difficulty for the Government with a one seat majority.
Transcript
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: The nation's 45th Parliament will gather for its first sitting in a fortnight from today. New MPs have already started settling in to their new Canberra digs, being shown around their new workplaces. The Prime Minister says he's leading a stable government, but with just a one-seat majority in the Lower House, his authority is set to be tested in the new Parliament. In a taste of things to come, the Opposition has already denied a request to allow the pairing of votes. Joining me now is Queensland Liberal MP Warren Entsch. Warren Entsch, welcome back to Lateline.
WARREN ENTSCH, LIBERAL NATIONAL MP: Pleasure, Emma. Nice to see you.
EMMA ALBERICI: Before we get into the pairing issue, which I will come to, do we need a Royal Commission into the financial sector and the banks?
WARREN ENTSCH: Well, look, initially if you go back quite a few months ago, I was arguing that we've got to have something to hold the banks accountable, and if it was to be a Royal Commission, then I was prepared to accept that. I've been working with quite a number of victims now of banking bastardry if you like, for quite a few years. And it's been, it was very frustrating, these people, you know, for about a decade or more, have been trying to get their claims heard. Unfortunately, when you're a victim of the banks and you're left pretty much with nothing but the shirt that you're wearing, all efforts, I have tried them through ASIC, I have tried them through all different government channels that was suggested that they could get assistance and they all ran into, if you like, dead-end streets, because continually being told that they don't deal with individual cases.
And by pure accident, and of course the banks, it's in their interest to drag these things on and on. I mean, understand that not only can the banks afford with their profits, afford obscene bonuses for their senior executives, they can also pay for the highest-priced lawyers to make sure that these proceedings go on forever. And of course, they know if they continue to delay them, their problem disappears because eventually these people die. They just, they've got no capacity to beat the banks. And so I was expressing my frustration some time ago, to members of the Corporations and Financial Services Committee, and they'd established a committee on impaired customer loans, and I referred some of my constituents to this committee, and for the first time in almost a decade, they had the opportunity of having their grievances heard. And through that process ...
EMMA ALBERICI: Pardon the interruption.
WARREN ENTSCH: ... have them heard.
EMMA ALBERICI: I was just going to say, having your grievances heard and having an outcome you're seeking, having some sort of redress is something different, isn't it?
WARREN ENTSCH: Well, what happened was that there was a series of recommendations that come out of that committee, this is one that Senator Faucet headed. There was people like Bert van Manen, Philip Ruddock, John Williams, Senator Williams were on this committee and they came up with a series of recommendations, including the establishment of a tribunal and when you look at this tribunal, I mean if you want to beat your chest and make a lot of noise, get a royal commission, you've got the opposition out there, they have no idea what the terms of reference are...
EMMA ALBERICI: Hang on a minute, do excuse the interruption. A tribunal can't propose changes to the law, it can't recommend criminal charges, it can't establish whether there's a systemic problem in the sector and it also clearly doesn't have the investigative powers of a royal commission?
WARREN ENTSCH: Well, what we're asking that it be establish - no, but it can establish whether or not individuals have been, have been injured by this and they can quantify an amount, and we need to be able to give them the power to be able to make forcible, forcible determinations on this, so the banks can't use their very expensive lawyers to avoid the payment. That's the first element of it which I think is absolutely critical.
EMMA ALBERICI: But can I just clarify my first question with you, which was whether you still think a royal commission is in order here, to bring the banks to account? This morning, John Williams said even though he's supporting the idea of a tribunal he still wants a royal commission. What's your view on that, given that four months ago you did say it was a critical step that Government must take?
WARREN ENTSCH: It must take it to give satisfaction or get some sort of justice for the victims. This tribunal, in my view, gives an opportunity at no cost to the victims. Understand, they survived with the shirt off their back. They've got no capacity.
EMMA ALBERICI: A royal commission will be no cost to the victims. I just want to know whether you're still in favour of that?
WARREN ENTSCH: It'd be another three or four years to tell us what we already know, whereas if we put the victims up there now, we can get determinations almost immediately, with enforceable rulings there that will force the banks to pay back what they owe and what we need to do is attach to it and this is a discussion I'm already having, there needs to be a penalty attached on it as well. In some jurisdictions, overseas, I see that the penalty is up to three times the damages. That would be a great disincentive for the banks to continue in some of the practices, and through this, you will also have the transparency there to expose some of these practices and I think that that will certainly help to, again, create a disincentive for the banks to create them. Now, if there are other mechanisms, including what the Prime Minister is suggesting, which I haven't sort of got the detail on, I don't have an issue with that, but my focus is exclusively on the victims. Some of these are up to a decade trying to get justice, they don't have the time to wait for another five or six years before they have an opportunity to have their issues determined, and I think that a tribunal is infinitely the most sensible way to go and it's something that I'm certainly going to pursue.
EMMA ALBERICI: Before I let you go, Labor has said it won't agree to allowing the pairing of votes in the new Parliament. It was you, in fact, in the last hung Parliament as whip who denied pairs to your opposite numbers during Julia Gillard's term as prime minister. Looks like now a case of what goes around comes around, doesn't it?
WARREN ENTSCH: No. You're absolutely wrong. And it'd be interesting to get the facts right. I assume you're referring to the Rowland case.
EMMA ALBERICI: And Craig Thomson, who wasn't given a pairing to, wasn't given a pair to attend his wife's birth, the birth of their child?
WARREN ENTSCH: Well, that's not quite true. And in the case of Michelle Rowland, first of all let me say that when that Parliament started in 2010, I sat down with Joel Fitzgibbon who was the government chief whip and we set up a series of protocols in which we agreed that there would be no issue in relation to pairs. And we stuck to that protocol. We had an excellent relationship as we continue, when Chris Hayes that's took over the job ...
EMMA ALBERICI: Are you denying you disallowed some pairs?
WARREN ENTSCH: Now with respect to Michelle Rowland, there was a lot of politics in there and not a lot of fact. I was approached on the Monday, by, well, Michelle Rowlands, through Joel, asking if I was prepared to give her she had a sick child in Sydney and was I prepared to give her leave on Thursday and I said if she has a sick child, why on earth is she in the Parliament now?
EMMA ALBERICI: So sorry, Warren Entsch, we are unfortunately about to be cut off ....
WARREN ENTSCH: Well, you know, you're cutting me out of time and you're not getting the facts on this because the fact is that I said to her "Go home with your sick child now, don't come back in three or four days."
EMMA ALBERICI: I'm sure this story has a lot more to run.
Thank you so much, Warren Entsch.