Public submissions not yet allowed for victims of bank misconduct

The ACTU has created a webpage to collect stories from victims of banking misconduct.

Public submissions not yet allowed for victims of bank misconduct

The banking royal commission, begrudgingly announced by Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison in November last year, is expected to get under way early this year.

And yet the main victims of banking exploitation, misconduct and fraud – the Australia public – are yet to be considered for public submission.

In response, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has created a webpage to allow the stories from victims of banking misconduct to be collected and presented to the royal commission before its commencement.

“The commission seems to be dragging its feet on allowing submissions,” said ACTU President, Ged Kearney.

“Its deadline to report is only nine months away. We are eager to do anything we can to enable more voices to be heard.”

With a draft report due on 30 September 2018 and a final report to be handed down on 1 February 2019, the unions want to ensure that the $ 75 million royal commission has all the evidence it needs to make a fair judgement of the foul play rife in Australia’s banking, superannuation and finance sectors.

The “regrettable but necessary” (as Scott Morrison puts it) royal commission will be headed by former high court judge Kenneth Hayne as is hoped to end years of uncertainty over the trustworthiness of our banking and financial institutions.

The commission will scrutinise all large and small banks, superannuation funds, mortgage brokers and home loan lenders, but, according to the PM: “will not be an open-ended commission, it will not put capitalism on trial, as some people in the parliament prefer”.

Labor Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen is worried that the Government will only skim the surface of the scandals ripping through the financial sector, calling on the Government “to get it right from the start” or, after the commission is over, we’ll only see a continuation of the current duplicity.

In order to get it right, says Mr Bowen it is “critical that consultation with banking victims’ groups occurs, to ensure that the victims are able to tell their stories. We also believe there should be strong protections put in place for whistle-blowers”.

ACTU President Ged Kearney shares similar concerns, saying that unless the commission is able to hear public concerns, it will show the people that “the Turnbull Government is more interested in protecting the banks than in ensuring that the system is fair”.

Do you feel the Government is doing enough to make it clear that the real victims of banking misconduct will be heard? Do you have a story to tell the royal commission? Here’s where to make your voice be heard.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    10:16am
    Most people would have had issues with lots of merchants including banks. If it has been rectified then it is very wrong for anyone to put such a story to the commission but over 90% of these stories will be one of those stories.
    ourjeffie
    15th Jan 2018
    12:14pm
    Not sure how you came up with that >90% figure BigBear
    Waiting to retire at 70
    15th Jan 2018
    12:55pm
    Come on BigBear, tell us the truth, you're really ScoMo. Aren't you?

    We can see from your IP address the electorate you're in.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    3:42pm
    I think my IP address currently has me somewhere in New Zealand as I have been looking up prices New Zealanders pay for things as I don't want to pay the prices tourists pay.
    The Librarian
    15th Jan 2018
    10:38am
    Not sure where you have come up with the statistic that 90+ % of serious issues have been resolved. Regardless of how anyone feels about this issue Malcolm is going to have an interesting year. He wants a whitewash of the issue but that could be a bit of a challenge. If people who have been negatively affected by Banking practices don't get the chance to have their complaints aired he has a year of complaints and carry on about how the commission is being restricted and his support for only the big end of town. Likely to turn into a major political theme for 2018. Not something he or the banks really want. If the complaints are aired the banks won't be happy about the negative publicity and I suspect the commissioner will need to ask for more time. What to do Malcolm.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    11:04am
    It's just a big waste of taxpayers money that will achieve nothing. People make mistakes and then just want to find someone to blame for their own mistakes.
    john
    15th Jan 2018
    1:40pm
    Weakening the powers and terms of the Royal commission seems to me, to indicate that Turnbull and the government and the banks have many many things to hide.

    We should be screaming from the roof tops for a full on, sharp toothed inquiry. No forgetting things like Bill.

    If that is not done , and if the situation winds back to what we see, in lots of baking now, then we will all know that this was a fraud .

    Also the common people have to be shown the changes by their banks if unfairness at the lowest or highest level is found to have been happening, or incompetence Or what ever activities have turned our bank experience to be like dealing with the mob, well this is what this RC is about.

    When you restrict investigation you lose the truth!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    10:46pm
    Banks have asked for a RC so it will be on their terms.
    Rosret
    15th Jan 2018
    11:43am
    Ok - so I have an issue. Does anyone know who I report to? If you deal with the bank its endless cyclical phone calls and the website is a dead end. So how do you actually get a solution to what is a big deal to me and just another drop in the ocean to them.
    Does anyone know the procedure? It seems to be easy to get the money in the bank but not out again.
    ourjeffie
    15th Jan 2018
    12:20pm
    If you have an issue with a bank you can lodge a dispute with the Financial Ombudsman Service https://www.fos.org.au
    Rosret
    15th Jan 2018
    1:44pm
    Thank you - writing that down right now!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    12:06pm
    It would be better to spend the money on stopping those scammers who say they are from your bank and want to help you. Give them what they want and they help themselves. This is a far bigger issue than anything to do with the banks themselves.
    john
    15th Jan 2018
    1:44pm
    Absolute rubbish. FOS will sort it out. As its a fact to them its just a procedure to you it could mean life. Big BEAR DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT SORT OF THING, AND i AM SURPRISED HE'S STILL ON. gO HAVE A BEER MATE OR A CUPPA!
    Rosret
    15th Jan 2018
    1:45pm
    Obviously not your loss!
    Boof
    15th Jan 2018
    12:31pm
    When young people get a loan from the bank for a house or unit. Say, over 30 years. The 1st 15 to 20 years goes mainly, to paying the interest. Payments should go towards paying off the whole loan equally. It is criminal, that if a couple pays off the loan in one hit. Say after 15 years. They are left with the whole loan, nearly. (Maybe 10% of the principal paid. Only). The rest has gone to paying off the interest. Then they are fined for paying off the loan early. Bankers are just crooks in suits.
    KSS
    15th Jan 2018
    12:51pm
    This only true if they elected to pay interest only for a period of time. I last got a mortgage in 2012 and chose to pay both interest and capital. It costs you a bit more but avoids the situation you describe Boof. You can't blame the banks for that. It is the choice of the person repaying the loan.
    john
    15th Jan 2018
    1:56pm
    THIS IS TRUE, THIS IS THE MONEY CHANGERS /LENDERS , MAIN OPERATION.
    This is how gigantic profits are made, and have for many years , well since the bank that saved England and helped defeat Napoleon, probably .

    Round figures here and I am not sure of the interest , quite a few years ago, a house/land package bought at $84.000 dollars in conservative terms cost after 25 years, about $210,000 dollars, now that is a conservative guess , and I am sure it was more in the end.

    But I knew about this loan, thats $126,000 over 25 years profit, thats like $125.00 dollars profit a month. But its more than double the value of the property bought , now as I said thats a under estimated cost all up, so imagine a house now , with a bank loan , I saw an old established house in burwood Victoria 2 years ago go at a sale for $1.2 million dollars. Besides the agents reaping in a fortune , the banks must make billions, yet they have all these outrageous little charges as well.
    Its profiteering , maybe more like privateering, or pirateering.
    But its why a sharp tooth is needed for this royal commission.
    If you let it slip by you Malcolm, you will be dead in the water.
    john
    15th Jan 2018
    2:01pm
    No its not KSS, its the banks who create the systems that allow interest only or paying all , the point is most people buying a house are not going to buy it out of their back pocket wallet???? Unless your Big Bear.
    The banks set the "SITUATION" the buyer never does unless that buyer and most aren't , is very very cashed up .
    So itsd the banking system and greed that the banks are totally to blame for. But that's a big picture, and people must look at the big picture, a complete over haul of banking in Australia the wealthy country for fairness and a massively improved turning over economy , that will make jobs and wealth for a whole lot more Australians than there is now. Its very simple , its wondering why the powers that be should even be in power, they have no common sense!
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    3:46pm
    Wrong with a standard loan more of the repayment goes in interest at the beginning of the loan simply because the amount borrowed is higher. Over time the amount borrowed decreases slowly at first and quickly in the end as more of the repayment goes towards the amount borrowed.
    Rae
    15th Jan 2018
    4:19pm
    Take a good look at bond markets now. If I had debt I'd be staying in and working like the devil to pay it down while I still had half a chance.
    Not a Bludger
    15th Jan 2018
    12:39pm
    Scrap the Royal Commission and save us all a swag of money.

    And, above all, do not listen to those lefties in the ACTU.
    Rae
    15th Jan 2018
    3:06pm
    Yes indeed. The young are moving to the shadow banks that are not only cheaper but more trustworthy.

    It is not worth the money and the unions have no power anymore.

    Everyone needs to look out for themselves now. The LNP way isn't it?

    Boycott or vote with your feet and change banks. Nothing hurts more than cashflow collapsing through lack of customers.

    When they start losing customers and share prices and dividends fall they will move into line on their own accord.
    Anonymous
    15th Jan 2018
    5:06pm
    Total crap NaB. Goodonya ACTU. God save us from Rightard cretins.

    15th Jan 2018
    12:57pm
    It is a hight time, Australians, to realise that we and almost the entire world is governed by organised banking Mafia. Governments are their lapdogs! BigBear is their BigBrother watching us eyes.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    3:50pm
    That's been happening since 1984 according to George Orwell.
    john
    15th Jan 2018
    1:32pm
    This royal commissions terms of reference need to be as wide as possible
    Public submissions is the only way to make sure that this is going to get some honesty and decency back into the banking system. Which is ruthless , in some circumstances .
    Just purely evil in others for a bottom line, which actually gets fuzzy after a while.
    When the banks say we are the shareholders, grabbing benefit from bank charges , while at the other end, the same share holders are getting robbed from their back pockets whole sale! With fee's mismanagement of loans and funds, and all sorts of little robberies that happen, . When pays began being put directly into banks , our world changed , and the banking system the people who we all simply have to trust , became untrustworthy, at the press of a computer button 1 cent here 1 cent there , that's what it became like.
    The worst part was it sort of became legal robbery, plastic cards in ATM's and direct debiting conditions in certain areas, where some companies will only sell, if you direct debit, or it costs more, they are as bad as or in cahoots with the banking industry. Who continually describe their banking operations and deals as products!!! THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTS, they are money making exercises using from the very beginning other peoples money.
    When its fair its great, when you get bamboozled and your bank makes mistakes, well you are almost still in a lose lose position.
    The Royal Commission must have teeth, we should be making sure the answer IS NOT KNOWN before we even start this investigation, the Unions got away with murder in their royal commission so the government better not let this one off the hook .
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jan 2018
    1:56pm
    To leave out the bank victims from testifying is not a royal commission but a royal farce in contempt of all bank customers affected.

    15th Jan 2018
    2:16pm
    Before I can answer this, can I have the parameters of the Royal Commission please? What are the rules and what areas will the Royal Commission be investigating? It seems that YLC is very quick to report what Labor and the ACTU has said but there is no proof that the matters raised are to be excluded from the Royal Commission. When the rules are known I will be able to offer an opinion based on facts, not hearsay.
    The Librarian
    15th Jan 2018
    4:55pm
    https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Documents/Signed-Letters-Patent-Financial-Services-Royal-Commission.pdf
    Anonymous
    15th Jan 2018
    5:15pm
    Thanks to The Librarian for the link. After reading all of it, I can't see where The Honourable Kenneth Madison Hayne AC QC is precluded from asking for submissions from the public. In fact, I can't see how a decision of whether the conduct meets or falls below community standards can be reached unless the public (community?) is allowed to be involved.
    floss
    15th Jan 2018
    3:46pm
    Big Bear your cover is blown, you are as gutless as your leader Turnbull. Time for a name change.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    3:55pm
    Why? Is OG coming back?
    floss
    15th Jan 2018
    3:47pm
    Big Bear your cover is blown, you are as gutless as your leader Turnbull. Time for a name change.

    15th Jan 2018
    5:03pm
    If submissions were allowed from ordinary members of the public, the Royal Commission would not be completed until well into the 22nd century.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    15th Jan 2018
    6:07pm
    I often wonder if banks gave away free samples if people would complain even louder than they do now.

    15th Jan 2018
    7:15pm
    as usual it did not take long for flossy to become abusive
    roy
    15th Jan 2018
    10:17pm
    Where's MICK in this discussion?
    Boof
    15th Jan 2018
    7:34pm
    Credit Unions & or Building Societies are the way to borrow for a house.
    They are overall much chesper than banks.
    But guess what. Surprise. Surprise. The Libs brought it in ages ago, that C.U.'s + others HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BANK to legally operate, to be able to give loans to house buyers, etcetera. Other wise they would be even cheaper, if allowed to stand alone. Bankers run the Govt.
    Rae
    16th Jan 2018
    8:20am
    The AFR had an article on the savings in interest and charges over a mortgage timeframe using shadow banks rather than the big Four.

    Savings of up to $700 a month on a typical mortgage.

    Pepper money is offering consolidation of debt on a 10% deposit basis and savings of $650 a month on the average loan.

    The big $ still hold most of the mortgage market but greed and unethical behaviour could change that over time as the young wake up to the fact they are paying too much for money.
    Claudius
    18th Jan 2018
    1:27pm
    Customers of Banks who only have day to day banking activity - deposit withdrawal credit card- probably are not exposed to the myriad of potential perverse activity engaged in by Banks. To provide one example. If you borrow money from Westpac (and possibly others of the big four) for investment and you have an existing Margin Loan with them or another Bank, acknowledgement that the Margin Loan exists in listing you liabilities on the Loan application, Westpac simply note a figure of $1, regardless of the magnitude of the loan. Margin loans are secured by the investment in the equities market. It is customary that monthly interest payments are not required on Margin Loans as the interest is paid in advance, usually by capitalizing the interest to the loan. This is all very good in circumstances of a rising equities market but in circumstances where Market volatility manifests itself, if the margin loan to valuation of the equities supporting it rises to a point where a margin call is imminent, there is insufficient equity to pay the interest. This circumstance also generally means that the income from the investment ceases to exist. How this impacts on the investment loan from Westpac is that, Westpac, having advanced the loan based on serviceability by income from the investment, a mortgage on the borrowers home and the strength of the borrowers assets.
    Westpac, although denying that it has any responsibility for the success or welfare of the investment, despite its willingness to depend on it to advance to loan, in our case, threatened us with foreclosure. I might also add that that Westpac, repudiated the Industry standard of only taking 50% of projected returns from investment, where that income is taken into contention to grant the loan. Also, in relying on assets to advance the loan, the Banking Code of Practise prescribes that agreement must be reached between the Bank and the borrower for that to occur, a requirement the Bank ignored. I would also mention that the $1 acknowledgement on a Loan application was only discovered after we had sought to have the Bank provide us with all documentation surrounding the loan. That notation was clearly made to the Loan application document after we had signed it. We made a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and after a lengthy process of investigation by an allocated Case Manager, we were advised that it had found in our favour. Thirty five days after we were advised of that outcome, Westpac were also advised that the Finding was being prepared in our favour. Two days after the Bank were advised, our Case Manager disappeared from the Ombudsman Service and we were allocated a substitute Case Manager. Five weeks later, we were advised by him that- "Sorry, we have now found in favour of Westpac"
    You can take it from me BigBear that there will be thousands of stories just like this one. I speak from personal experience in listening to similar stories over the last ten years since the Global Financial Crisis. In one case with NAB, following having advocating on behalf of a lady who was granted a loan that she could not service, the Bank retired her loan of several hundred thousand dollars. In discussing this event with a senior NAB staff member I was told - "Mr.---------, we are not averse to telling the f..king lawyers to get out of the way and let us handle our own mistakes". Despite this matter being rectified BigBear, it is my belief that the community needs to be made aware of events such as this. Not all Bank customers are extended such consideration in dispute events. It is fundamentally impossible to talk, eyeball to eyeball, with anybody in authority in a Bank but rather you are subjected to a litany of weasel words from a designated correspondence, who are simply act to fortress the faceless puppeteers who are paid the big money.