We don’t have four banks and two supermarkets in this country. We have one predatory group of foreign investors hiding behind different logos.
BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others own large portions of the banks and supermarkets that are ripping Australians off the most.
Transcript
So, why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They own the four banks, sorry they own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. Same policies, same principles, same strategies, same products, same services.
Coles and Woolies, again, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Go right through our corporations in this country. The corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas and what did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? Loaded it up so that foreign multinationals owning the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), an independent industry-funded agency, handles complaints concerning financial losses due to actions by banks, insurance companies, or superannuation funds. While AFCA has a reputation for avoiding complaints rather than addressing them, their recent accomplishment of collecting $300 million for members of the public affected by financial misbehaviour is a good result.
My questioning of AFCA didn’t start smoothly, as CEO David Locke seemed unaware that the AFCA website explicitly asks that individuals with concerns about a code of practice to submit them via the form provided, as part of their role overseeing the Banking Code of Practice review body, the BCCC.
It took until around the 2 minutes 52 seconds mark to receive a response to what, I thought, was a straightforward opening question. Subsequently, I pursued questions regarding AFCA’s success rates. A significant portion of their response was taken on notice, so I look forward to receiving their answers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Your website invites consumers to lodge a complaint regarding the operation of a code of practice. How many such complaints have you received on the Banking Code of Practice?
Mr Locke: We receive complaints where a consumer has a contract with the bank and they have suffered financial loss. Then they can bring a complaint through to AFCA. So the matter is really if, for example, the bank has failed to comply with its legal obligations or they’ve suffered loss through some misconduct or inappropriate action on the part of the bank. We have to determine what’s fair, and, in looking at that, we have to have regard to the banking code. That’s how the banking code comes into effect. We had 56,000 complaints about banks and other credit lenders last year. In terms of a freestanding complaint about the banking code, though, that would normally go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee, which is a separate body, and their role is to enforce the banking code. The banking code is relevant to us in our jurisdiction and we do look at it, but, if it’s just about a financial firm breaching the banking code obligations on its own, then that would be a matter that would go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.
Senator ROBERTS: So you would only field the complaint if it was a breach of the banking code?
Dr Smith: We can take complaints about breaches of the banking code if the consumer can show that there has been a financial loss suffered as a result of that breach or indeed that they have suffered non-financial loss as a result of that particular breach. For example, a breach of the provision under the banking code related to guarantees and whether or not the guarantor was fully informed of their rights before they entered into that guarantee might be a matter that we would take as a complaint.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if someone was just concerned about a potential change or a possible change in the banking code, which is coming up, they would not be lodging a complaint with you?
Dr Smith: The conduct needs to have occurred. But, in terms of future issues, there has obviously been a recent review of that code and no doubt that person could also voice those concerns to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you had any communication with the Australian Banking Association regarding their review of the banking code?
Mr Locke: Yes. We were consulted in a fashion by the Australian Banking Association in the course of their review. They commissioned an independent review of the banking code, which was carried out, and then they undertook an informal consultation process with a number of bodies, including us. Following that, they approached the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for approval to change the banking code. This is a code that has been approved by ASIC, so any changes need to be approved by ASIC. ASIC decided to undertake its own consultation, and we participated in that and made a submission to it as well. So we’ve engaged with the ABA and we’ve engaged with ASIC with regard to the ABA’s review.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I get a copy of your comments to the ABA and ASIC, please.
Mr Locke: Certainly. We’ll take that on notice. We have made a public submission, and it’s available on our website, but we can certainly send the link through to your office.
Senator ROBERTS: From the data on your website, for the year 2023, the number of complaints resolved in favour of the complainant was only 31 per cent, with 69 per cent in favour of the bank or financial institution. However, only five per cent of complaints reached the decision stage. Some were rectified early on and some were refused process. Of the complaints over banking disputes—just banking—how many complaints were received, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant and how many were withdrawn for 2023?
Mr Locke: I can provide all those details on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.
Mr Locke: What I can tell you is the way our process works. A consumer will have gone through an independent dispute resolution process with the bank and then come through to AFCA. AFCA sends it back to the bank for them to have one last opportunity to resolve the matter before we otherwise start working on it. What we’re finding is that about 65 per cent of the time the banks resolve the matter at that point.
Senator ROBERTS: Once you step in?
Mr Locke: Yes. Obviously we would prefer for that to have been done and for people not to have to come to AFCA, but we’re finding that 65 per cent of the time there. What we then find is that we are able to resolve the majority of cases through our case-working process—through mediation, through recommendations and through negotiation. Only about five per cent of matters actually go through to decision. What you will see is that the matters that resolve when we go back to the bank or the matters that resolve through our processes—that is a situation where the consumer is effectively happy with the agreement that they’ve reached with the bank. So you would expect that the small number that go through to determinations are probably the ones where it’s more contentious, more of a binary decision. You would expect that, where the consumer had a better claim, the banks would have resolved the cases earlier in the process. But I can set all of that out on notice so you’ve got that.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you also break down the information into value groups so that I can see the success rate at progressively higher amounts of claim. My feedback is that AFCA are great at getting back $1,000 but not so good at getting back $100,000. The banks’ clutches are maybe a bit stronger.
Mr Locke: I’ll certainly provide you with whatever we have in terms of the breakdown. Last year our work secured $304 million in compensation and refunds for consumers and small-business owners, but we can give you the amounts that relate to that. I don’t think it is the case that it’s just lower value amounts that have been settling. We do settle a number of matters where the settlement is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ll provide you with some information on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m hearing settlements are a fraction of the claim but the complainant accepts something rather than nothing. On notice, of all complaints settled on behalf of the complainant, what was the value of claim verses the settlement accepted or awarded?
Mr Locke: I don’t think we would have that information, but I can certainly let you have the information that we have available.
Mr Untersteiner: The challenge with that is: if something is settled between the parties before it goes to determination, there’s no obligation for them to disclose to us what the settlement was, so we typically won’t have visibility. We have some visibility, and, on notice, we can share with you what we do have, but it will be a small cut of the overall data.
Mr Locke: There are three cohorts that I talked about. The first cohort, when we go back to the financial firm, is given an opportunity to resolve. We don’t normally know what the resolution of that matter is. We just know the consumer’s happy and doesn’t want us to do anything further. That is what we call IDR data, internal dispute resolution data. The firms have, since January, had to report that through to ASIC, so ASIC would have some of that data. The data that we will have are those cases that don’t resolve and that are then resolved through our caseworking process or the matters that go through to decision, which you have mentioned. With regard to that, I can certainly provide that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, if you could do that. When AFCA were set up, you were allowed to go back to 2012 to take on older cases. On notice, of all banking cases referred to you for the period 2012 to 2018 for an amount over $200,000, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant, and what was awarded as opposed to what was claimed?
Mr Locke: I will take that on notice. I think, in total in that look-back jurisdiction, if I recall right we had just under 1,500 cases. A majority of those did relate to banking and credit matters. We will certainly take that on notice and provide you with what information we can.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Finally, for that group of claims, are there any claims still outstanding from 2012 to 2018?
Mr Locke: No. They’ve all been dealt with.
Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. The next question is about your administration. Are you still closing your office at 2 pm on Wednesdays so the staff can go home in the name of productivity?
Mr Locke: We don’t close the office, but we do give staff—it’s effectively a bit like compressed hours—three hours to spend on wellbeing or to use for their time. This was an initiative we trialled during COVID, when we were seeing a lot of burnout and stress amongst our people. We discussed it with our people. We didn’t change any of our productivity measures, so the same amount of work had to be completed within the five-day week as was completed with this three-hour period. What we actually found was that productivity increased, and we’ve found that’s continued to be the case. We actually have higher levels of productivity now than at any time in the operation of the organisation, by caseworker. We found giving people that small amount of flexibility has actually made sound business sense. The initial intent behind it was about wellbeing, particularly when we were seeing a lot of and stress and challenges during lockdowns. Of course the majority of our staff are Melbourne, and they had prolonged lockdowns at that time. But what we’ve actually seen is that productivity has increased and continued to increase. So that is something that we do, but we don’t close the phones. It is an optional thing. Many staff work during that period but use it just for quiet time without interruption, but some staff use it to pick up the kids or to look after older relatives or to arrange appointments. As I said, the same amount of work has to be done during the working week.
Mr Untersteiner: I’ll just add that we did measure and we saw our attrition rates drop, we saw absenteeism drop, we saw productivity go up, we saw cost per complaint go down and we’ve seen employee engagement go up. Just from a general business initiative and a cost perspective, it’s been cost positive.
Chair: I need to share the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have another question?
Senator ROBERTS: I can put two on notice, but I’ve got one final question. Are financial institutions afraid of AFCA, or do they see you as another pesky bureaucracy that needs to be surmounted or brushed aside?
Mr Locke: Well, I hope—
Senator ROBERTS: I know you said 65 per cent of complaints are resolved.
Mr Locke: I can’t speak on behalf of—there are 44,000 members. About three-quarters of those are people who have ACRs, and the remainder are different firms with Australian financial services licences. I don’t think there’s any unified view with regard to that. What I hope, Senator, is that financial firms recognise that we play an important role. We do our utmost to act independently and fairly to determine intractable matters that otherwise people would presumably be coming to their elected representatives for or going to the media about. We seek to give people closure on matters, whether that goes in their favour or not. We act in accordance with the rules, and we apply our fairness jurisdiction in accordance with the way that we articulate there. I don’t seek for anybody to be afraid of us. I hope that industry see us as playing a constructive and useful role and recognise our legitimacy, but I hope that they also recognise that we will call matters as we see them and we will treat all parties fairly and independently. That’s our role as an alternative to the court system.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice if there’s any sign, evidence or statistic that reflects that the financial institutions respect what you’re doing.
Mr Locke: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a difficult one.
Mr Locke: It’s a difficult one for us to answer really.
Senator ROBERTS: It is; I accept that.
Mr Locke: We hope that parliamentarians, financial firms and people who act on behalf of consumers, whether that’s law firms or consumer bodies, respect the role that we play and believe that we do that to our utmost ability.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/180324-ASIC-3.png?fit=506%2C401&ssl=1401506Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-03-18 16:03:112024-03-18 16:16:15ASIC Confirms Fees for No Service Still Problematic
I discussed with Greg Jennett the cash drought and the news that Armaguard is in financial trouble, which could have repercussions for cash.
Armaguard is owned by transport magnate Lindsay Fox. His business interests extend not just to trucking but airports also. The Prime Minister attended Lindsay Fox’s lavish birthday party last year – a direct relationship there. Armaguard thinks it can use its connections with the Prime Minister to put its hand out for taxpayers money when there are other options available.
Banks are crying poor over the cost of their ATMs, but with profits at $31 billion last year, the banks could simply pay Armaguard more for their services. They could also stop blocking out smaller competitors like Commander Security, a small Australian cash handling company that wants to move cash for clients. Yet the banks refuse to accept their cash deposits. Why are banks forcing out profitable competitors? It appears so they can cry poor and put their hand out to the taxpayers.
The excuse that nobody uses cash anymore is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Banks are forcing people to use online transactions by closing bank branches – 2000 in the last 6 years, and by pulling out ATMs – 700 in the last 12 months. Banks charge fees on electronic transactions. They make nothing if you pay in cash and as they don’t know what you purchased, they can’t use that information to build your data profile.
The Optus outage last year demonstrated just how easy electronic commerce is to disrupt. Even before that outage drove people back to cash, usage had actually stabilised in Australia at $30 million cash withdrawals a month, with more than $100 billion of cash in circulation. Rumours of its demise are wishful thinking from our greedy, self-interested banks.
Banking is an essential service. If the banks are not going to fulfil their obligations and readily provide people with cash, then we need a people’s bank to do it.
Transcript
Greg Jennett: Now the use of less and less cash by Australians appears to be a choice made freely by consumers. But the problem is it’s having side effects right down the line all the way to the authorised secure trucks that transport cash from where it’s printed to the big four banks that buy from the Reserve Bank of Australia. Arma Guard is the one and only operator left in that market, and it’s in deep financial trouble with this side of its business that’s become a headache for the Big four banks, but also for some remote country towns, which you’re finding it hard to even get their hands on cash in some cases. One Nation, Malcolm Roberts, has been keeping an eye on the couch cash drought for quite a while now. He joined us here in the studio a little earlier. Malcolm Roberts. Welcome back to Afternoon Briefing. It’s been a while, so we’re glad you can join us. I know through monitoring committees and other aspects of the parliament here, you’ve been monitoring the decline of cash and its repercussions for quite some time. I thought we might focus today on some reporting about the possible decline of not one, but both cash in transit firms. These are the ones that officially transported around the country. Amaguard is under financial stress. What happens if they go under?
Malcolm Roberts: Well then banks need to find a way to move the cash. And what I think is going on, Greg, is that, well, first of all, Armaguard is owned by Lindsey Fox, who also owns other trucks, trucking businesses and also airlines. And he’s very close to Anthony Albanese who was at his birthday party recently. So, I think there’s some questions that need to be asked about that. But what’s happening is that Armaguard did a deal with the competition Consumer Commission just four months ago saying they promised if they were amalgamated, they would stay afloat for quite some time as a
Greg Jennett: … monopoly.
Malcolm Roberts: As a monopoly. And four months later they’re talking about shutting up shop. So that causes problems for the movement of cash and the banks want to get the taxpayers on the hook.
Greg Jennett: Alright, so who would or should pick up the tab if Armaguard is struggling here? Is it a government subsidy to them? Is it a renegotiated rate of payment from the Big Four banks? How does their financial predicament right now be alleviated?
Malcolm Roberts: There are competitors to Armaguard and one of them is Commander Security. It’s a small firm that can move cash around, but the banks refuse to deal with them. And the banks I think are even talking about banking commander security. They’re trying to wipe out competition. The other thing to remember, Greg, is you’ve taken a surprisingly strong stance for the banks. The banks have a social licence to fulfil. The banks operate in banking, and they must provide legal tender. That’s a fundamental to banking if you’re in banking, provide legal tender. And so, what we’re seeing is the bank’s trying to drive out cash and they shut 2000 branches in the last six years and they’ve shut 700 ATMs in the last 12 months. What they’re trying to do is drive out cash so that you have to use the bank digital transfers, which means you incur fees, which they’re missing at the moment, and also they miss your data. They want your data to build profiles about you.
Greg Jennett: Sure. So, in some country towns where bank branches are already thin or non-existent on the ground, I believe Australia Post has been playing a bit of a de facto role as a bank flying in cash in some cases at their own expense just to keep a town ticking over with cash. If we’re thinking laterally about solutions here, could Australia Post come into play with a funded obligation to be, I suppose, the bank of last resort in a country town?
Malcolm Roberts: Definitely the Australia Post licenced Post office is actually providing those services now, many banking services now, and they’re doing it for fees that some of the banks won’t disclose. Others will disclose. So, we would like to go beyond that and see if People’s bank, because the original Commonwealth Bank before it was privatised in 1995, was back in 1910 when it was formed by the Fisher Labour Government. It provided a vital service. It put our country on its feet, and it provided enormous competition to the globalist banks that own our big four banks. And so, what we need now is that same kind of competition from a people’s bank and the post office is one form of people’s bank that could be extended not just to a post office with banking services, but to a proper bank.
Greg Jennett: And should they be funded because under their obligations at the moment, Australia Post are in effect funded to do certain things but not the transportation of cash.
Malcolm Roberts: I think if they’re providing a service, they need to be compensated for that service. They need to be funded. And cash is a vital service. The availability of cash is vital because it provides competition, it provides choice, it provides freedom to escape the tyranny of the major banks.
Greg Jennett: As you’ve asked questions of different agencies in various committees on this over time, are you satisfied that they are focusing their attention on what looks like a pretty tight squeeze right now on Armaguard? We’re in an urgent state of resolution, aren’t we? Yes.
Malcolm Roberts: I think there’s an underlying premise to your question too, Greg. And that is that cash is dying. It’s not dying. It has declined until the recent years, but we still have 30 million cash transactions for withdrawal of cash [monthly] at the moment. A lot of people need cash. The Reserve Bank itself did a survey recently that said one in four older Australians can’t handle the internet – they must have cash. We also have $100 billion in cash in the economy. And so, cash is here to stay. And what we’ve seen is, I’ve been on a committee to inquire into the closure of bank branches in rural towns. And what we’ve seen is a deliberate push. It is deliberate, Greg to shut down bank branches and to shut down ATMs to drive people to towards cash. So, it’s people that decline in cash until recently when there’s been an uptick in cash, the decline has been driven by the banks for their own short-term and long-term money.
Greg Jennett: So, you’re saying this isn’t entirely market led by the customers, it’s actually being driven by them, but that’s irreversible, isn’t it? This trend towards bank closures only Last week in Western Australia, Bankwest converted itself as a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia into virtually a digital only bank. And we’ve had people on this programme, Malcolm suggest to us that that is a bit of a test bed for where others will certainly follow.
Malcolm Roberts: I think the banks will try to do whatever they can to minimise their costs and to maximise their revenue. But we must remember that banking is an essential service. Banks should not be controlling it at the moment, people. So, what we need is banks that provide a service and fulfil their social licence, they have an obligation to satisfy customers all over the country. And that’s what we need. And if they can’t do it, then let’s have a people’s bank like the Commonwealth Bank used to be.
Greg Jennett: Alright, well we’ll leave you to keep an eye on all things related to Cash Gold and the Malcolm Roberts in your work as a senator. And thank you once again for joining us today on this emerging story around Armagaurd. Thanks so much.
Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Greg. Pleasure to be here.
Greg Jennett: Alright, we’re pretty much done with afternoon briefing for today.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/6fBz2bonV00/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-03-14 17:16:302024-03-19 07:42:59How Banks are Forcing a Cashless Society & Digital ID: ABC Afternoon Briefing with Greg Jennett
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?
Transcript
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.
Here is my reflection on the second Albanese government budget, particularly relevant as the Prime Minister is breaking his election promises at breakneck speed.
Were these promises ever designed to be kept? Or were these strategic promises designed to hide this government’s Soviet-style agenda during the election campaign? It’s that agenda that I speak to — an agenda of making people reliant on government handouts, to make them captive to the government. A compliant, captive population is the building block of a Soviet-style society that this Prime Minister appears to have supported in his youth.
As part of this agenda, rather than creating viable private sector jobs, the Prime Minister is destroying them.
We’ve lost 1,500 jobs in transport with the loss of Scott’s Refrigerated Logistics in the name of net zero-trucking. We’ve lost jobs and risk losing entire communities in coal regions, including the Bowen Basin in our state of Queensland, in the name of net zero-mining. We’ve lost jobs in the live sheep export industry, which Labor is shutting down in the name of net zero-grazing. We’re set to lose more jobs and more family farms in the agricultural sector as Minister Plibersek restarts water buybacks in the name of net zero-agriculture. ‘No water buybacks’ was another broken promise which all along was really a bald-faced lie.
Net zero has made Australians poorer, transferring tens of billions of dollars in wealth from taxpayers to the government’s mates in the solar and wind scam, who then export that wealth to foreign tax havens. Solar and wind are parasitic mal-investments. They’re parasitic and they kill their host, the Australian economy. All this is wrapped in a feel-good cloak of saving the planet.
Net zero is a fraudulent plan to replace productive energy generation with fairytale generation designed to create energy shortage, and from that shortage comes control. The only winners will be the billionaire carpetbaggers who are driving this agenda through their ownership of media, energy companies and, of course, political parties.
The PM has given in to the foreign controlled Australian banks, removing penalties for criminal banking behaviour. As night follows daylight robbery, criminal banking behaviour will follow.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I believe this second Albanese government budget is a time for reflection, a reflection on what this government promised and what it’s delivered. There’s been much talk about the Prime Minister’s broken promises, without any thought to the question: were these promises ever designed to be kept, or were these strategic promises designed to hide this government’s Soviet-style agenda during the election campaign? It’s that agenda that I speak to now. It’s an agenda of making people reliant on government handouts, to make them captive to the government. A compliant, captive population is the building block of a Soviet-style society that this Prime Minister appears to have supported in his youth.
As part of this agenda, rather than creating viable private sector jobs, the Prime Minister is destroying them. We’ve lost 1,500 jobs in transport with the loss of Scott’s Refrigerated Logistics in the name of net zero—trucking. We’ve lost jobs and risk losing entire communities in coal regions, including the Bowen Basin in our state of Queensland, in the name of net zero—mining. We’ve lost jobs in the live sheep export industry, which Labor is shutting down in the name of net zero—grazing. We’re set to lose more jobs and more family farms in the agricultural sector as Minister Plibersek restarts water buybacks in the name of net zero—agriculture. ‘No water buybacks’ was another broken promise which all along was really a bald-faced lie.
Net zero has made Australians poorer, transferring tens of billions of dollars in wealth from taxpayers to the government’s mates in the solar and wind scam, who then export that wealth to foreign tax havens. Solar and wind are parasitic mal-investments. They’re parasitic and they kill their host, the Australian economy. All this is wrapped in a feel-good cloak of saving the planet. Supported by affluent Australians who have led lives of plenty, these people now embrace the climate agenda to ease their conscience about leading lives of plenty. In reality, net zero is a fraudulent plan to replace productive energy generation with fairytale generation designed to create energy shortage, and from that shortage comes control. The only winners will be the billionaire carpetbaggers who are driving this agenda through their ownership of media, energy companies and, of course, political parties. The Prime Minister has given in to the foreign controlled Australian banks, removing penalties for criminal banking behaviour. Surely, criminal banking behaviour will follow.
Let me remind people: former Prime Minister John Howard did the same thing in 2003 when he tore up the banking code of practice and gave the green light to banks to tear apart the laws of fairness and decency, laws that protected everyday Australians from financial exploitation. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones has withdrawn penalties for criminal bankers in his financial accountability scheme proposal. He really is a friend—a great friend—of the big banks and their foreign owners. What, may I ask, is he doing in the Labor Party? The Prime Minister is hollowing out the bush, transferring up to two-thirds of Australian land area to the United Nations through native title and locking it away from Aboriginals. The Prime Minister has cancelled one submarine that will never be built and replaced it with another submarine that will never be built, all the while destroying Australia’s defensive capability. Everyday Australia will feel the result of this mismanagement all at once, and then unrest will result. That’s why the Prime Minister and our weakened, complicit military leadership are training Australian troops to attack Australian protesters. Clearly, the troops on the streets threatening and intimidating Australians into staying silent in their homes were just on a training exercise for what’s to come. Yet the future is never dictated; it can only be manipulated.
Conservatives can retake government in the next election if we come together and do more to spread our message of economic prosperity, family, community and Australian values. I’ve said this before in this place: abundance is not a dirty word; it’s a wonderful word. One Nation is the party of abundance, with policies that generate wealth for everyday Australians and prevent wealth from being leeched away from Australia. Conservatives must do more to drown out the self-interest of the presstitute media, who are advancing the interests of predatory billionaires on their share register over the interests of everyday Australians. Here’s an example: in the recent Senate committee hearing into One Nation’s anti-vaccine-mandate bill, we heard of a fine young Australian killed by vaccine mandates imposed by her employer, SG Global. SG Global is part-owned by the Vanguard investment fund. Their primary shareholder is a South African company that is partly owned by Vanguard. They use financing instruments from Vanguard. Vanguard use their ownership to force vaccine mandates that require the purchase of vaccines from Pfizer, a company in which Vanguard are the largest institutional shareholder. Do you see how it works? That’s how the rich become richer and everyday Australians lose wealth, lose health and, with no explanation or media interest, lose their lives in unexplained deaths. There have been more than 35,000 excess deaths in Australia. In a world run by everyday Australians, this sort of crony capitalism would rightly be considered racketeering, yet no action has been taken by the uniparty to uncover the truth and dispense justice to the crooked.
What we hear from the Prime Minister is rhetoric around plans for better days accompanied by handouts to make it look like he cares—not to do good but to look good. Handouts are government funded fake jobs which will not lift the poor out of poverty. They will not provide a sustainable breadwinner job that is so necessary for starting and supporting a family. The indisputable truth here is that wealth drives social change, not the other way around. Handouts take wealth; they do not create it. This is why every policy that comes out of the antihuman Greens, the teals and the Labor Party is about making people poorer and taking their homeownership, their spending power, their opportunity and, worse, their pride in order to break their spirit.
This is not an unfortunate outcome of Albanese government policies. This is the agenda the Prime Minister was covering up with his empty promises during the election campaign. It is a deliberate strategy to return the public to poverty, where they can be controlled, indoctrinated and caged in their 15-minute cities. Even the Bank of England stated recently that the public had to get used to being poorer. To hell with that. Corporate ownership and influence in Australia have gone too far. Health has been compromised, as I spoke about during my recent matter of public importance on a COVID royal commission, which the Albanese government promised before it was elected. Education has been compromised, as I spoke about in my two-minute statement on the sex education program of the UN and the UN’s World Health Organization that can only be called child sexual grooming. Energy has been compromised, as Treasurer Chalmers’s $15 billion income support in the budget shows. This giveaway is an admission of the failure of parasitic solar and wind energy to provide energy that people can afford.
It’s not just energy, of course. Food is becoming much more expensive, and that process will continue until everyday Australians eat the bugs or the lab meat—the in-vitro, cancerous meat. If this is not obvious to the chamber yet, then let me use an example from the Netherlands, where the globalist government of World Economic Forum lackey Mark Rutte has announced that they’re buying back 1,000 family farms from Dutch farmers and rewilding them, using taxpayer money to buy back farms and shut the farms, shutting food production. The purchase agreement made at the point of an administrative gun requires the farmers to agree to never farm their land or any other land in the European Union ever again—all that knowledge gone, all that experience gone and all those farmers prevented from ever growing food again. Is this where Australia is heading? Under the antihuman Greens and the soviet Albanese government, the answer is yes, no doubt. I call on the Prime Minister to categorically rule out purchasing and rewilding Australian farms and to rule out taking food off the table and the future away from rural Australians. One Nation’s message to the Prime Minister is this: Australia is not the Soviet Union, and it never will be.
It’s time Australian conservatives left behind the fifth column of globalist infiltration that has infected parts of the Liberal and National parties and returned to genuine conservativism. History has shown that the only way to lift people out of poverty and oppression is through economic progress. That’s the basis for human progress. The last 170 years have been remarkable for that. The last 30 years have seen a backward step under policies adopted from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. History has taught us that some rich greedy bastard will always try and take everything for themselves. It is, though, only in recent years that the Labor and Liberal parties have decided to let them do that, no doubt in response to pressure from the party of the rich, the teals. The Liberals seem to have forgotten one of their founding principles: wealth in the hands of everyday Australians is the antidote to oppression and tyranny.
One Nation will grow the wealth of everyday Australians and drive Australia forward using our abundant, cheap means of power generation, coal, to produce clean, environmentally responsible baseload power—reliable, secure, stable, synchronous baseload power. This will provide an answer to net zero for those who have joined the UN and World Economic Forum’s alliance and its net zero cult, while we will also save the national silverware—and by that I mean our productive capacity.
One Nation will use vehicles driven by internal-combustion engines that power our productive capacity in a way that electric vehicles can only ever pretend to do, at a fraction of the cost of those monstrous electric vehicles—inefficient resource hogs. One Nation will build infrastructure, including through Project Iron Boomerang, the Outback Way project, the Gladstone port upgrade and the Hells Gate water and hydro project. These are Queensland projects that will provide breadwinner jobs for 100,000 Australians and add 20 per cent to our gross domestic product. The longer the Albanese government wrecking ball continues, the more Australia will need a One Nation conservative government to restore wealth and opportunity to everyday Australians.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KKXrwnU5B-0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-23 12:58:542023-08-23 12:59:01Soviet-Style Rule in Australia Under Labor
Customers of Australia’s ‘Big Four’ banks are not getting a fair go.
The Commonwealth Bank announced a $10.2 billion annual profit made on the backs of the hard work of their customers and staff, who deserve better.
The Senate inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia has heard evidence of banks acting in concert, if not collusion, to close branches, forcing customers online and preventing the use of cash. Even with online banking unavailable in areas where bank branches close and despite their actions not serving their customers’ needs they’ve gone ahead with closures. Worse, the banks have misled the committee not only about their plans to close branches in the future, but even about the reasons why.
I will be addressing the reprehensible behaviour of the Big Four banks in the next sitting.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people in our one Queensland community, it’s my duty to ensure that our constituents get a fair go. Customers of the big four Australian banks are not getting a fair go.
The Commonwealth Bank announced a $10.2 billion annual profit made on the backs of the hard work of their customers and staff, who deserve better. While the banking superprofits tax will return some of that excess profit to taxpayers, my question is: how are the big four banks able to exploit their oligopoly power to deliver obscene profits?
One Nation, of course, supports the right of companies to invest money and receive a fair return on investment—a fair return. One Nation believes that free market competition is the answer to providing all Australians with wealth and prosperity. Australia does not have free market competition in many industries, including in banking. We have an oligopoly conspiring together to rip off as much money as they can from captive clients. That was evident in 2017, when I chaired the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. The committee heard evidence of inhuman banking behaviour that screwed their own customers, taking homes, livelihoods, equity and even cattle, to which the banks were not legally entitled. No compensation has ever been made, because good luck suing a bank. Banks are above the law.
The Senate inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia has heard evidence of banks acting in concert, if not collusion, to close branches, force customers online and prevent the use of cash, despite online banking not being available in areas where bank branches closes and not suiting customers’ needs. Worse, banks have misled the committee regarding their future branch closure plans and misled the committee on the reasons for closures. The big four banks’ behaviour is reprehensible. In the next sitting, I’ll advance the debate regarding a proposal to stop banks further hollowing out the bush and forcing their customers into digital prison.
Previously, Westpac abruptly announced their plans to close the branch that deals with millions of dollars in agribusiness and mining contractors, with no consultation.
When this inquiry announced we would be coming to Cloncurry to hear from locals and interrogate Westpac, they suddenly reversed their decision to abandon Cloncurry.
While the backdown is a small win, there are still dozens of regional branches on the big banks’ chopping blocks. Despite taking millions of dollars from the bush, the banks are happy to keep hollowing out regional town services to save a few cents.
Residents are forced to travel hundreds of extras kilometres to bank and community events are put on hold because they can’t get a decent cash float in their own town.
Bank profits are at record highs, the Australian community expects that they do the bare minimum for our regional towns and they are failing them.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/347227093_999435974745975_5460500859279044836_n.jpg?fit=2048%2C1366&ssl=113662048Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-05-17 10:39:232023-05-17 10:40:32The inquiry into Bank Closures in regional Queensland has kicked off this morning in Cloncurry.
After the SVB and Credit Suisse crisis a bail-in, which is where the banks take their depositors’ money to save themselves in a collapse, is still possible in Australia.
I call on the government to categorically rule out a bail-in and properly fund the bank guarantee scheme.
Transcript
As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our one Queensland community I note that in the last few weeks we have seen with the failure of Silvergate Bank and Silicon Valley Bank what is in aggregate the largest banking collapse in US history. Australia is not America and it is not Europe. If everyone keeps their heads, we will be fine. Our big four banks are bastards, yet they are well capitalised. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to not take this opportunity to revisit how to save a failing bank.
I remind you that there are two choices: bailing out, with a large injection of taxpayer money, increasing debt for everyone, or bailing in, which is where the banks take their depositors’ money to save themselves. A bail-in still requires the bank to close for days or weeks, preventing customers accessing any money left in their accounts. Business are left without money to pay staff or suppliers. The effect on the economy is catastrophic.
Everyday Australians trying to pay for their shopping would find their account empty or their card suspended. Travellers may be stranded.
One Nation introduced a bill to prevent bank bail-ins and to protect the people. Labor and the Liberal-Nationals defeated our bill in 2020. One Nation did lead a successful campaign against the cash ban bill that the Liberals, Nationals and Labor proposed in 2021, so Australians can still use cash in an emergency. This is relevant again because President Biden initially chose to seize half of Silicon Valley Bank depositors’ funds and freeze the rest for up to three years. That’s a bail-in. What followed was a run on all banks, forcing the president to backflip and instead initiate a bailout.
Australia has a bank guarantee scheme, a bailout, but it’s a con trick. There’s no funding and no requirement to use it. It covers only $20 billion per bank—$80 billion total. This is supposed to protect $1 trillion in depositors’ funds. It’s eight per cent. I call on the government to categorically rule out a bail-in and properly fund the bank guarantee scheme.
