The current Senate Economics Committee Inquiry into Consumer protection in the banking, insurance and finance sector held hearings in Sydney on Tuesday 26 April. Dr. Evan Jones reports.
You probably haven’t heard about this inquiry because the media has shown little interest. Save for scribes and witnesses waiting their turn, I and a mortgage broker victim were the only attendees. I’ve never before seen such a lack of interest in a Parliamentary inquiry hearing.
Committee members presiding were Chris Ketter (Labor, Chair), Jane Hume (Liberal) and Nick Xenophon (NXT).
Those appearing before the Committee were representatives of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, the Financial Ombudsman Service, Choice, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and Consumer Action Law Centre, and a couple of financial industry associations (I didn’t stay for the latter).
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
The Chair tackled the ASIC representatives on matters recently in the news, these matters seriously embarrassing for ASIC.
The first concerned the disclosure that ASIC had been for years workshopping its media releases regarding malpractice with the guilty parties. Sleuthing by The Australian’s Ben Butler (ex-Fairfax), after a long FOI battle, exposed the practice on 18 and 19 April. Fairfax’s Adele Ferguson complements the story on 21 April. This practice persisted during and after the 2013-14 Senate inquiry into ASIC, in which ASIC was exposed as seriously derelict in its responsibilities.
Notable is reference to David Cohen’s involvement and ASIC’s kowtowing to him — Cohen at the CBA in 2014 but also at the AMP in 2006. This is the same David Cohen, as CBA Chief General Counsel, who played a dominant role in the foreclosure of close to 1000 Bankwest business borrowers after the CBA takeover of Bankwest in December 2008 and the subsequent cover-up of its criminal character. ASIC’s deference to Cohen is definitely not a good look. Any sector that has a David Cohen as a senior player is a socially dysfunctional sector.
The Chair also raised the matter, again from media exposure, that ASIC tolerated persistent failure of Macquarie Bank to clean up its financial advisory arm, the failure including a compliant report from Ernst & Young.
In reply, ASIC’s Deputy Chairman Peter Kell claimed that there was nothing untoward in ASIC-bank liaisons regarding media releases; in any case, the events are yesterday’s news. Kell also claimed that ASIC has ensured that MacBank is now well and truly accounting for past sins.
The Chair let the parries from Kell go through to the keeper. ASIC’s sole problem, according to Kell, was the lack of additional definitive powers. For example, ASIC needs a ‘product intervention power’ to head off products that are poorly or corruptly designed or are pushed onto the wrong people.
Certainly such an extension of powers for ASIC is desirable, but the Committee members allowed the ASIC representatives to set the character of the exchange. That exchange ended with hearty acceptance from the Committee members that ASIC is on the move, and consumer protection is now looking rosy.
The Financial Ombudsman Service
FOS’ Chief Ombudsman, Shane Tregillas, opened his segment with the claims:
‘In order to fairly and impartially resolve the disputes that come to FOS, we are independent of the parties to that dispute and of the government and of regulators. …
‘[Our principles introducing FOS’ Terms of Reference] emphasise that what we do is resolve disputes fairly, informally and in a timely manner. They also stress the importance of seeking to resolve disputes cooperatively and transparently. These principles mean that, in resolving disputes, we seek to understand all aspects of the dispute without taking sides and then we make a decision based on the specific facts and circumstances of each dispute.…’
Tregillas has made such claims many times in similar circumstances. But the perennial experience of bank victims who go to FOS seeking help experience otherwise. They experience an institution incompetent and inefficient at best, in bed with the banks at worst.
For bank victims, dealing with FOS is an immensely frustrating and depressing experience. They expect commitment, proper procedures and integrity and they generally get none of these. Time limits for the victims are arbitrarily determined, whereas the financial service providers — the guilty parties — determine their own time periods for responses.
Several examples highlight FOS’ modus operandi. Tasmanian Suzi Burge’s complaint about the CBA was detailed in her submission’s chronology. FOS stuffed Burge around for several years, during which period her position deterioriated. FOS contented itself with partial documentation provided by the bank. FOS found in Burge’s favour on multiple counts, but got the story wrong on several key accounts (happy to be misled by the bank). Because of the (avoidable) inaccuracies, FOS’ resolution regarding compensation was trivial, incommensurate with the substance of its determination adverse to the bank. When Burge asked FOS to get it right, FOS, in the person of Justi Tonti-Fillipini, replied to the effect that ‘we got it wrong, that bothers me, but we’re worn out with your case, we’re understaffed, that’s it, we’re not changing anything, go away’.
Ms Tonti-Fillipini figures significantly in another case, that of the Goldsworthys and their company, Goldie Marketing, against the ANZ. Tonti-Fillipini informed the Goldsworthys’ consultant, Bruce Ford, over the phone (22 October 2014, Ford recorded the exchange) that FOS could not take on their complaint because of staff shortages. The Goldsworthys then took FOS to court, claiming that denial of assistance on this basis was contrary to FOS’ charter. Tonti-Fillipini then penned a reconstructed file note, claiming a range of reasons why denial of assistance was appropriate, the note submitted to the court proceedings. Ford and the Goldsworthys were appropriately outraged. So was Senator Nick Xenophon, who opined that FOS should be disbanded and replaced by a statutory body. This matter has been admirably covered by ABC reporter Stephen Long, both on the 7.30 Report, 16 March 2016, and The Drum, 1 April 2016.
Bizarrely, the court found for FOS (Goldie Marketing v FOS, VSC 282, 19 June 2015).
Cameron J determined that:
‘109 I find that the reasons given and decision made by Dr Tonti-Filippini in the November Jurisdictional Decision are ‘compelling’ within the terms of the Operational Guidelines. They are convincing, rational, logical, reasoned and comprehensive. It has already been noted that those reasons (apart, of course, from the issue of staff resourcing) are not sought to be impugned or attacked by the plaintiffs.’
This is all just so much palaver. It may be that it was ill-advised to take FOS to court in the first place. Red lights would be flashing everywhere regarding this ‘attack’ on the regulatory apparatus and its implied undermining of the ‘legitimacy’ of the entire apparatus. FOS is transparently doing the bidding of ANZ in its refusal to handle the Goldworthys’ complaints. More, this impertinence of the judge complements the deep underlying bias of the courts against bank victims. That judicial bias can be read between the lines in the succeeding paragraph, where substance of the bank customer’s complaints has been obliterated by the imperative of the bank cleaning up its books:
‘110 Finally, the parties differed in relation to the impact of further delay in the resolution of their dispute. Whilst the plaintiffs stated that there is no urgency given the longevity of the dispute, ANZ submitted that it has effectively been prevented from exercising its enforcement rights for several years. By way of observation, it is highly desirable that commercial disputes are determined in an efficient and timely manner which invariably reduces the costs burden on all parties.’
For further exposure of FOS’s dirty linen, we turn to more submissions to the current Consumer Protection Inquiry.
Let us begin with a submission (Name Withheld, #64) regarding a ‘trivial matter’ concerning an ATM’s disbursement of a withdrawal. I have always been ready to concede that FOS handles small-scale complaints reasonably well. No. In this case, FOS refused to accept the complaint regarding the offending bank Westpac’s refusal to deal with the complainant’s concern.
David Bibo’s submission #61 is salutary. Bibo doesn’t explain the nature of his complaint, but goes straight for the jugular. He notes that FOS rightly invalidated a ‘settlement’ (apparently by a FOS ‘conciliator’) that was forced on him through bullying (how can one agree to be assaulted?, he notes), but then FOS overturned its own invalidation.
In my own submission (#87), I claim simply that “FOS is simply corrupt”. Bibo lays it on.
‘The apparent poor institutional culture and low ethical standards of the FOS and its members raise the question as to whether the FOS has any genuine intent or ability to identify, address and help prevent unconscionable, illegal and unethical behaviour of the type constantly and consistently indulged in by its members. The FOS is clearly biased towards its own members and a sham operation that regards itself and its members to be unaccountable to anyone. …
‘Its members [Financial Service Providers] know they can continue to operate in a corrupt manner with immunity perpetually granted to them by the FOS in the secure knowledge that their days of getting away with misconduct, whether it is a breach of law or not, are protected by the FOS, the organisation that is meant to help protect consumers from them. …
‘The FOS has become a corrupt organisation that now serves only it's equally corrupt members. When confronted with that corruption it chose to enforce and entrench it. The FOS, its conciliator and senior management representatives of the FSP lied to me in calculated, coordinated, premeditated manner.’
And so on.
It is also instructive to examine a number of submissions for which the Secretariat has invited a FOS response — notably Harris (#74), Matheson (#75), Slattery (#76), Thomson (#78) and Nielen (#79). In addition to documenting the malpractice of the particular Financial Services Provider/s (FSPs), the victim submission documents the maltreatment by FOS — long delays, transparently ludicrous decisions, occasional right evaluations that are backtracked on or not reflected in the final determination.
In each case, FOS has responded to the submissions with the same form letter. We have considered all material, it says. Well no it hasn’t. That’s a lie. We are independent, it says. By way of “proof”, it cites ASIC support (which merely indicts ASIC as well), then proceeds to claim that because we are formally independent therefore we are in practice independent! That’s a lie as well.
Presumably there is the delicate matter of not pursuing public disclosure of private details of a victim complaint. But the point of standard Parliamentary Inquiry procedure in seeking a response from a FSP or External Dispute Resolution organisation (as is FOS) is to seek correction or reinterpretation of the victim’s submission from that body. In all cases here, FOS merely responds with a vacuous standard form letter without addressing the substance of the victims’ complaints.
In the case of Suzi Burge (#69, as above), FOS’ standard letter response adds, without elaboration, a list of the court cases in which Burge has appeared (and lost). This peccadillo represents a de facto comment and involvement outside FOS’ charter (“independence”) and is reprehensible. It is a clear indication of FOS’ complicity with its bank funders. Ironically, FOS’ evaluation of the Burge complaint was that the CBA had indeed engaged in malpractice against her. FOS should be asking itself, how did the courts came to a conclusion contrary to ours? FOS’ charter, remember, is to provide a dispute resolution mechanism that avoids dependence on the court system.
One of the FOS trio of senior managers appearing at the Inquiry hearing was Philip Field. Field himself is implicated in FOS’ dodgy practices. He apparently condoned the FOS’ rejection of the Goldsworthys’ complaint. In another case involving the NAB which attempted to corruptly manufacture security from a person not involved in some dodgy loans by the bank, Field sided with the bank though the evidence was naturally lacking. Field also oversaw the Determination in late 2014 legitimising the rejection by the CBA of the Sunshine Coast-based Caulfield family’s reasonable claims for financial hardship consideration and for inclusion in Queensland’s Farm Debt Mediation process.
The Caulfields have incidentally raised a new complaint with FOS on the grounds of CBA’s ‘maladministration’ (FOS’ label for alleged bank malpractice) of their loan. FOS initially rejected this complaint on four grounds, all of which were transparently erroneous. FOS subsequently admitted that their grounds for rejection were wrong. But FOS has since moved to demanding comprehensive financial information from the Caulfields so as to assess their claims for compensation. The manifest unreliability of FOS means that this demand is possibly a fishing expedition to facilitate the CBA cleaning up its self-incriminating documentation that points to a corrupt manipulation of the entire loan process. It has come to the situation where bank victims can’t trust to hand information to FOS given the reasonable presumption that FOS, in collaboration with the bank offender, will use such information to crucify permanently a victim’s redress against bank malpractice.
FOS’ slip is showing, and it doesn’t care who notices. Which highlights that FOS, like the corrupt financial system it protects, sees itself as immune from redress. This racket leaves the victims both desperate and enraged.
Tregillas did raise the issue that
‘… current claim limits and compensation caps for consumers and small businesses under our jurisdiction are outdated and do need to be increased.’
Certainly, both the current cutoff limit for accepting complaints and the limit of monetary compensation for small business complainants are arbitrary. More, they have been used cynically by FOS to stuff around SME complainants. However, it’s not clear that it would be a good thing to raise these limits for SMEs. If FOS has demonstrated that it is part of the problem rather than part of the solution in resolving malpractice against SMEs, raising the limits will merely compound the present bottomless pit of misery for SME victims. Either FOS should be disbanded or responsibility for external dispute resolution for SMEs should be taken from it.
Retail customers are suffering
Consumer representative groups also appeared before the Senate Committee on 26 April.
Consumer advocate group CHOICE set the background scene. They noted, from a survey undertaken, that consumers of financial products are persistently ill-informed regarding the products offered and sold to them. Choice found that the mortgage broker sector is particularly suspect, with minor licensing requirements and perennial conflicted-interest recommendations — thus long overdue for a clean-up. Choice did note that previous inquiries had made some important recommendations regarding retail consumer protection, then governments had accepted such recommendations, but that they were yet to be implemented (the federal Treasury has other priorities).
Choice noted that there was a fundamental problem with bank culture:
‘In particular there was a sense that there had been a real change in banking culture, from one of a trusted partner to one that is much more focused on sales and outcomes, and consumer needs are often left along the wayside due to that.’
Quite. I’ve been making this point for years. The Choice statement is actually too mild. Customers think they are dealing with a professional (competence, integrity) whereas they’re getting a white collar spiv. All the subsequent problems stem from that misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
After lunch at the hearing there appeared representatives of the Financial Rights Legal Centre (NSW) and the Consumer Action Law Centre (Victoria). These organisations are at the front end of the community of the impoverished, financially desperate, hopelessly indebted not because of profligacy but because their incomes don’t cover basic sustenance.
Susan Quinn of the CALC notes:
‘Australia is on the verge of a debt disaster. We have $32 billion of credit card debt currently accruing interest. We have more 16 million credit card accounts with total limits of more than $151 billion. These staggering figures are reflected in our experience. Every week our financial counsellors receive at least one call from a person with credit card debt exceeding $100,000. This extreme level of debt has primarily been driven by grossly irresponsible lending practices as well as unsolicited credit limit increase offers and dubious balance transfer deals [and add-on insurance pressure].’
Quinn noted that the early 2017 Khoury review, initiated by the Australian Bankers’ Association itself, recommended that banks should cease the practice of making unsolicited credit card limit increases,
‘But this was rejected by the banks under the guise of preserving “customer choice and preference”.’
The review also recommended that banks should adopt an ‘ability to repay’ criterion for credit card issue, which the banks formally agreed to, but which remains in limbo.
Katherine Lane was the key spokesperson for the FRLC — honing in on predatory home loans, the brick wall facing insurance claims, and predatory ‘debt management’ firms.
‘I just want to mention responsible lending and home loans. The responsible lending laws came in in 2011, and I have had enormous concerns about compliance with the responsible lending laws for home loans since they came in. In other words, my contention is that none of the lenders and certainly none of the major banks are complying with the law as it stands. It turned out I was correct, because ASIC has launched action against Westpac, and the other banks have all agreed to change their practices. That means, in effect, that we have had very lax responsible lending in the home loan market for six years. And before that it was just a free-for-all of poor lending unfortunately.’
On insurance claims handling, Lane notes:
‘… insurance companies make money by not paying claims. This is obvious. So there is a built-in incentive. Even if staff are not directed, they know that you get a perverse incentive to not pay claims. We see that the law as it currently stands and the General Insurance Code of Practice do not adequately deal with this issue. We have had several inquiries. At the end of the day, we need legislative reform to sort this out, because there is a perverse incentive not to pay claims, to wear people down and to make sure that people just give up, and it needs to change.’
Lane on general compliance:
‘In the code of banking practice review, the consumer movement asked the banks to agree that they would comply with Regulatory Guide 209 by ASIC. Alarmingly, the reviewer decided to not even consider that. … all the banks flatly refuse to comply with the regulatory guide put out by the regulator, and the reviewer flatly refused to even recommend that they should. …
‘It is extremely alarming that to date we have not got an agreement through the banks to comply with the regulatory guide. They have the bulk of the lending. They should be complying with the regulatory guide to the letter. … It is urgent and important. Currently ASIC is taking action, but at the end of the day we need a positive indication from all the lenders that they will comply, and if necessary we should force them to.’
The Chair asked Lane:
‘So to what extent do you think our current regulatory framework is to blame for this level of debt?’
The generally sedate character of the hearing was broken by Katherine Lane’s increasing agitation. By this time, she was almost hysterical with fury:
‘I do not think there is any doubt. There is still widespread evidence of people being given debts they cannot afford to repay. … There are a whole heap of people who have debt that is unmanageable and unaffordable, and that is right through credit cards, personal loans, home loans and even investment loans. It goes across the entire gamut. It is not as bad as before we had regulation, which is something positive to say. Interestingly enough, we have the best responsible lending laws in the world. What has failed here is enforcement …
‘But we also have a cultural problem, an attitude problem. They all sat down and said, “Well, we don't have to comply with Regulatory Guide 209.”’
Lane envisaged (accurately) that interest rates rises were likely, and that more victims will be flooding their offices again.
It’s also not surprising that the CALC and the FRLC have had to fight to have their funding maintained. Perhaps ScoMo’s bank levy can be immediately creamed to allocate funds in their direction.
Parliamentary and political culture
The Senate Economics Committee Consumer Protection Inquiry is the umpteenth Parliamentary inquiry into bank malpractice and related issues. So what’s going on?
What is going on is a ritual, a costly and diversionary ritual.
There is little collective memory. At the hearing, Senators Ketter and Hume did most of the questioning. Senator Hume is new to the game. She appears to have done no homework, save for reading an ASIC report (narrow and self-interested). Senator Ketter was a member of the 2015-16 Impairment of Customer Loans inquiry, and was an active participant at those hearings, but none of that experience seems to have carried across.
Those Parliamentarians with collective memory fail to use it. Senator Xenophon has known about the extent and depth of bank malpractice for well over a decade. His own law firm has handled such cases. As noted above, Xenophon got hot under the collar a year previously regarding a FOS staffer fabricating a diary note for the purposes of a court case. The 26 April hearing was an ideal opportunity for Xenophon to remind FOS’ head, Shane Tregillas, of that matter and its implications for the integrity of FOS operations. Xenophon’s only concern here, asked of all witnesses, was their views on the merits of a compensation scheme of last resort.
Nationals Senator John Williams is not on the Consumer Protection inquiry, because he is a member of the contemporary Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. This is an appropriate location. Williams’ experience of bank malpractice goes back thirty years when his farming family fell foul of the CBA’s involvement in the foreign currency loans scam. But as a long time member of the Senate Economics Committee, veteran of multiple banking inquiries and recipient of endless victim complaints, his questions and comments rarely rise above the tepid. Whatever success Williams has for individual victims through back channels, his public influence as a champion of reining in the banks has been close to zero.
A fundamental problem is that the Parliamentary Inquiry system is beset with a rampant civility, utterly inappropriate for the investigation of finance sector malpractice. The pollies are evidently capable of raising the temperature, as the antics in the House against the other side attest. There was also some heavy questioning of bank CEOs, on a bipartisan basis, at a special Parliamentary Economics Committee hearing in March (designed by Turnbull to head off a Royal Commission). Is this aggro merely MPs grandstanding? But there’s capacity there, so it’s a mystery.
The centre of gravity in these Standing Committee inquiries should be victim submissions, not least because victims have no other means of being heard. There should be an initial interrogation of victim submissions, of hearings devoted to a representative sample of victims (and/or their agents), and only then an interrogation, assertive, of the alleged guilty parties and the negligent regulators regarding the precise details of the crimes exposed.
Regrettably, even that procedure is not enough. The hearings of The Impairment of Customer Loans inquiry devoted considerable time to hearing from select victims and their agents. Alas, those hearings were diverted by the theatrics of Phillip Ruddock, who played his own game of Hypotheticals. Ruddock was early seen as a great hope by the activist group of CBA/Bankwest victims , credited with playing a key role in having the inquiry established, but Ruddock then catered more to his own vanity than to the expectant victims. In this case, the victims came and put the crimes upfront, but nothing came of it. Worse. This was a second failure after a comparable process at the 2012 Post-GFC Banking inquiry.
Behind this ritual is an evident severe disconnect. Let us presume that the typical pollie has the smarts to discern the nature of the problem in front of her/him. But it appears that the political class in toto does not want to know.
Is it the endless lobbying of the banks, etc., in Canberra? Is it a matter of individual MPs falling into line with Party agendas? Financial institutions donate to both sides of Parliament.
The Liberal Party has a special affinity with the banks (the NAB heavily financed John Howard’s victory in 1996, CEO Don Argus expecting that Howard would overturn the 4 Pillars policy), an affinity that transcends mere filthy lucre. The Labor Party is hamstrung by its weighty contribution to comprehensive financial deregulation that gave us the monster we enjoy today. Recent Labor caucuses have an inability to acknowledge that the grand father figures Hawke and Keating might have got it wrong.
Is it a matter simply of self-interest? As a bank victim emphasised to me, remember that every Member of Parliament (and every lawyer and judge) has a banking connection. Are MPs merely safeguarding that personal relationship?
The case of Barnaby Joyce is instructive. Farmer Bruce Freeman of Stanthorpe Queensland was brutally foreclosed by the NAB around 2003. Freeman wanted to subdivide their property but was denied by the NAB. The NAB lent the mortgagee-in-possession purchaser 100% of the sale price and permitted the purchaser to immediately subdivide the property, from which he cleared his indebtedness.
At some stage, Freeman’s wife rang then Senator Barnaby Joyce’s St George office to seek assistance. She spoke to the Senator’s wife who apparently advised that the Senator could not help disaffected NAB customers as he had NAB mortgages of his own. It is relevant that the NAB has a comprehensive exposure in Queensland by virtue of its acquisition of the then Bank of Queensland in 1922 and the Queensland National Bank in 1948; the NAB distinguished itself by its bastardry after the deregulation of the dairy industry in 2000.
In 2006-07 when Freeman was seeking assistance for their plight, a collaborator investigated Joyce’s banking relationship. This investigation disclosed that Joyce and his wife then held two mortgages with the NAB, contracted in 1998 and 2000. These were linked to Joyce’s acquisition of properties in St George Queensland, ironically previously owned and occupied by the NAB itself — a manager’s residence and adjacent branch office respectively.
Regardless of the facts in the Freeman cases, we do know that Joyce has never stood up for his rural constituency regarding the matter of bank depredations against farmers — and not just regarding the NAB but the banking sector in general. This absence from the front line is simply unforgiveable.
I am privy to a letter that Joyce, then MP for New England, sent in reply to Claire and Chris Priestley, Walgett Shire NSW victims of the NAB, May 2014. Joyce gave his condolences for their plight, but could only recommend that they approach FOS for assistance. Given FOS’ history of complicity with its funder members, a fact that should be known to Joyce and his fellow National Party members, Joyce’s response is both glib and cynical.
Joyce’s silence is representative of the Party which he now leads. Apart from internal grumblings by Senator John Williams and MP Warren Entsch, the National Party cares more about the health of the mining sector than about its farming constituents facing banking and general corporate predation. The National Party Parliamentary members are essentially a self-serving rabble.
Whatever the reasons for a political and Parliamentary culture devoid of bite, it is deeply entrenched and there is no sign of a rebel publicly breaking ranks from the collective lassitude.
What happened to small business?
Apart from FOS raising, in passing, the issue of its jurisdiction limits for handling small business cases, there was no mention of the small business domain at the 26 April hearing. Yet the formal scope of the inquiry covers ‘The regulatory framework for the protection of consumers, including small businesses, in the banking, insurance and financial services sector …’.
Part of the problem is that the SME sector, naturally, is a vast canvas of businesses linked only by its size (and that varies enormously). There is no natural institutional representation of the sector that such inquiries can call on for representative comment. The Council of Small Business of Australia (COSBOA) is near comprehensively useless.
The silence regarding SMEs is perennial and deep-rooted. ASIC doesn’t want to know, repudiating its legislated responsibilities under s12 of its Act. The relative media silence on SME/farmer victimisation complements the blank picture.
It reflects the fact that, in these Parliamentary hearings, SME victim submissions don’t appear to register. As noted above, even in those hearings where SME victims are given the privilege to appear as witnesses, their testimony doesn’t appear to register.
As I noted in my submission to this inquiry, nobody in authority sees fit to delve into the character of the bank - SME/farmer borrower contractual relationship. It is a relationship of profound asymmetry, a relationship ripe (by design) for corrupt abuse by the bank lender.
The most cursory inquiry would confront that a bank lends on security rather than on business prospects. A farming family naturally loses both business and residence (and often a multi-generational history of emotional attachment to place), but so do all SME families. On the street, derelict, recipients of NewStart or a pension at best, is the lot of all SMEs foreclosed by the banks. And the judiciary is happy to legitimise this practice and go off to a liquid lunch then sleep soundly without a qualm.
Nobody in their right mind would start a family business in Australia that relies on bank finance.
One can almost guarantee that the report from this Consumer Protection inquiry will give short shrift to the SME domain.
More generally, one can predict a substantial divergence between the Inquiry’s omnibus terms of references and likely namby pamby recommendations. The government will then procrastinate, formally accept some of the recommendations, following which those destined to implement them may or not carry them out. The impasse will continue to reign.
In the interim, there will be many more victims, more scandals, more diversionary mechanisms set up. I remain pessimistic that a banking Royal Commission will ever be established, certainly with the appropriate coverage and personnel that would give it the requisite teeth. The necessary seismic change will probably not happen until corrupt bank officers (i.e. acting against customers rather than the bank itself) and CEOs are indicted on criminal charges and given a punishment commensurate with their crimes. As I noted in August 2015: ‘To Fix Australia’s banking culture: Start sending bank CEOs to gaol’.
This article was first published on Independent Australia on 7 and 10 June.
Author: Dr. Evan Jones