Voters strongly support Joe Hockey’s call for more banking regulation, according to today’s Essential Report — although Hockey himself has lost ground in voter estimation as a contender for the Liberal leadership.
There is strong support for the broad concept of more regulation, with 64% of voters agreeing there should be more, 20% saying the current level of regulation is about right (4% want less). It’s the partisan split that makes this result interesting — Labor and Liberal voters are virtually indistinguishable in their support for more regulation, but its Greens voters who are softest on the idea of more regulation, at 57% compared to 68/67% for Labor and Liberal voters, and much higher support for the idea that the present level of regulation was just right — 35% — who knew Greens voters were such economic rationalists.
While all proposals for more regulation were strongly supported, it was the idea that banks be required to inform customers if their personal data is being sent to other countries for processing that had nearly universal support, at 93% support and 71% strong support, and uniform across the parties. With fees likely to feature prominently in the looming Senate inquiry into the banks, “ensuring bank fees are not higher than the actual cost of the service” also attracted near-universal support, at 91%, again with virtually no difference between support across the party divide. “Capping bank CEO salaries” predictably earned strong support too at 84%, although Liberal voters were slightly less likely to back that than Labor or Green voters.
And the idea of interest rate regulation, which the Government keeps trying to pin on Joe Hockey after his stumbles the week before last, is also strongly supported. “Only permitting banks to change interest rates in line with Reserve Bank rates” is backed by 82% of voters, although there’s a more substantial party difference – 87% of Labor voters back it, 82% of Liberal voters, and only 73% of Greens voters, possibly suggesting a higher proportion of Greens voters don’t have mortgages.
Voters also support the (re)establishment of a government-owned bank fifteen years after the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank and after calls for Australia Post to use its nationwide network of branches to offer financial services: 62% of voters support the idea, though Greens (72%) and Labor (68%) are more attracted to the idea than Liberals (60%).
But while Hockey’s push on banks is in tune with public sentiment (including the sentiment of Liberal voters), it is Malcolm Turnbull who has gained some ground as alternative leader of the Liberal Party. 23% of voters believe Tony Abbott is the best person to lead the Liberals to the next election, 1 point ahead of Turnbull on 22%. Hockey is third on 14%. For a similar question in September, Abbott had a clear lead over Turnbull of 6 points, 26-20%, and Hockey on 15%. However, among Liberal voters Hockey has gone backwards: in September Hockey was second — albeit by a distance — behind Abbott as preferred leader, on 17% to Abbott’s 53%, and Turnbull on 15%. Now, however, Abbott has gone slightly backwards to 50%, Turnbull is on 19% and Hockey on 15%.
They’re all doing better than John Howard, however, after the re-emergence of the former Prime Minister last week to spruik his book. 24% of voters say they have a worse opinion of Howard now than at the 2007 election, compared to 15% who look on Howard more favourably. 57% say their view has stayed the same. And just to show Howard remains as polarising as ever, only 4% of those surveyed didn’t have a view.
On voting intention, the two parties remain locked in their post-election stasis: exactly the same outcome as last week, with the 2PP vote at 50:50 and no changes on the primary vote, even at the minor party level.
‘Voters strongly support more banking regulation’
no doubt they would also support a four-day working week; a reduction of the tax on beer, wine and spirits; the removal of speed limits on rural roads; and any number of other populist ideas
I look forward to Joe spruiking those
Interesting that the commentariat and bullying bankers like the ANZs corpulent Mr Smith use “populism” as a dirty word to attack Hockey and The Greens. A dictionary definition of populism is:political ideas that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes. In spite of the elite’s sneering I rekon Hockey is onto a good thing.With Parliament on a knife edge, the banks and the far right ranters at that sheltered workshop down at THE AUSTRALIAN are no longer dictating policy. If Mr Swan, who has shown he has the backbone of an eclair in standing up to banks, continues to do nothing, legislation will force his hand.
Incidentally populism is often seen as opposed to statism which holds that a small group of professional politicians know better than the people and should make decisions on behalf of it.Rather describes what we have had up untill now. Aren’t hung Parliaments great????
If you re-regulate the banks, there will be credit rationing and house prices will fall.
If that happens, Labor will be tossed out at the next election.
Bank bashing is the anti-semitism of our times.
What voters? I wasn’t asked.
Sure, go ahead, regulate the banks. Then we can have a return to 1982 when rising interest rates led the Fraser/Howard government to regulate home loan interest rates, capping them at 13.5%. Rates could go down, but could not rise above that amount. Wonderful idea – not!
Cash interest rates climbed to 22% in 1982, but banks were not able to recoup that amount on new home loans. They responded in two ways –
First, by making home loans very hard to get. Many homebuyers back then had to resort to ‘cocktail’ loans, where you combined a standard mortgage with a personal loan.
Second, through higher rates and charges for other bank services like business interst rates and overdraft fees. These flowed on to consumers so ultimately those of us who didn’t have home loans subsidised those who did.
Is this really what Hockey wants to go back to?
I agree with Skink, John and Leone. Bank-bashing has become an example of herd mentality — those who know no better, jump on the band wagon of “more regulation” without understanding what’s meant by that (who does?) and without an idea of what it could mean for the economy. Why not go the whole hog and re-nationalise the CBA, then put a low ceiling on the CEO’s remuneration? Hands up those who think that would be a good idea. The thought bubble about using Australia Post as some vague notion of a financial distribution outlet is dumb. It’s hard enough already to buy a 60c postage stamp without lengthy queuing; what would it be like to stand in a queue while people discussed mortgage lenders etc? AP would have to vastly increase its headcount; is that a good idea? The amazing thing about this confected controversy is that Australian banks have been universally acclaimed for their wise management and excellent performance during the GFC. One might have some sympathy for the “more regulation” outcry if this was the UK or US. Talk about a beat-up!