Bank chiefs in the hot seat
The heads of Australia’s four biggest banks are facing sustained questioning in Canberra this week. A parliamentary inquiry, opening a two-day round of hearings on Thursday, is examining why thousands of local jobs have disappeared at lenders that keep reporting multibillion-dollar profits.
The Financial Services Union estimates that more than 10,000 Australian banking jobs have vanished over the past two years. Many were moved offshore or replaced by automation, the union says. Lawmakers want to know how much of that was necessary, and who is paying for it.
ANZ goes first
ANZ appeared first, followed by Westpac. The bank’s chief executive, Nuno Matos, defended the lender’s position. He pointed to global offshoring trends and the profit margins on home loans, saying earnings in some lending areas, mortgages in particular, are falling.
He also told the inquiry that none of ANZ’s job cuts were caused by artificial intelligence. He added, however, that he could not guarantee there would be no AI-related job losses in future. The committee chair, Ed Husic, pressed the bank to answer questions in public rather than in private briefings.
ANZ shed about 3,500 employees in the year to September. On Monday it reported a 23% rise in statutory net profit to A$7.27 billion. The inquiry heard that up to 9,000 staff work in India and the Philippines, in roles that include specialist positions paid well below domestic salaries.
The wider picture
The other big banks are under scrutiny for similar reasons. Commonwealth Bank, whose statutory profit came close to A$11 billion in the 12 months to September, is expected to have shed about 1,000 jobs by the end of 2026. Westpac said in October that it would cut 250 positions. National Australia Bank announced plans to cut 1,500 workers before Christmas, then pushed those layoffs back to late January. It has said up to 2,500 roles, around 6% of its workforce, could go next year.
Critics see a stark contrast. Customers are dealing with cost-of-living pressure, and banks are posting healthy earnings. As one union voice put it, the banks are cutting Australian jobs and getting the work done offshore at a time of very healthy profits.
Banks’ defence
The banks have a case to make. Executives argue that lending margins have come under pressure, that technology is changing how customer services are delivered, and that they must stay competitive against rivals at home and abroad. Mr Matos said both banks and homeowners were losing out under current house price settings, a reference to the squeeze on mortgage profitability.
Cost reduction is a global theme in banking. Barclays in Britain has said it is cutting about 5,000 jobs, with its chief executive describing artificial intelligence as part of a wider transformation. Standard Chartered has said it will remove more than 7,000 corporate-function roles by 2030. Australia’s banks are following a pattern that is visible across the industry.
Why the AI question matters
The question of artificial intelligence sits at the centre of the hearings. Banks have been investing in automation for years, and AI tools can now handle tasks, such as document processing, customer queries and software development, that were once done by large teams. Staff and unions worry that the technology will accelerate the loss of back-office and support jobs.
Executives tend to describe AI as a productivity tool, not a replacement for staff. Mr Matos’s admission that he could not rule out future AI-linked cuts shows how uncertain the picture is, even for those running the institutions.
What comes next
The inquiry’s findings will not be binding. But the hearings carry political weight, because the banks depend on public trust and operate in a highly regulated market. Lawmakers could press for greater transparency on offshoring, stronger consultation with staff, or limits on cuts when profits are high.
For employees, the stakes are immediate. For the banks, the challenge is to explain how they can serve customers well, protect local jobs and still deliver the returns shareholders expect. Over the next day, the other three chiefs will be asked to do just that.
