Financial regulators to face parliamentary hearing

Just eight hours – minus lunch – to sort banking sector problems beggars belief

banker with a fist full of money

In the wake of last week’s ‘grilling’ of the Big Four bank chiefs, all three Australian financial regulators, APRA, ASIC and the ACCC will face a parliamentary committee for scrutiny on their performance and operation. The hearing is scheduled for 14 October, with ASIC first in the box at 8.30 am, followed by APRA at 10.45 and the ACCC at 2.15 pm – the total hearing time is less than eight hours. The hearings, again, will be public and the Chair of the Committee, Liberal MP David Coleman, has stated that “the hearings will give the Committee the opportunity to scrutinise the regulators on their performance and operation. In addition, the Committee will question the regulators on evidence arising from the Committee’s hearings with the four major banks.”

Mr. Coleman also noted, the different and distinct roles that the three regulators hold in relation to our finance and banking system. ASIC is responsible for conduct regulation and consumer protection, APRA is charged with prudential regulation (including financial system stability) and the ACCC is expected to promote competition and fair trade in markets to benefit consumers, businesses and the community.

The hearing will also be webcast. You can watch proceedings here:

 aph.gov.au/live

Opinion: Hint – this mess will take longer than eight hours to fix

Just eight hours to review how the regulation of our banking and finance industry stacks up? You are kidding me, right? We are talking about the four most profitable banks in the world. We are talking about one of the major contributors to our GDP. We are also talking about regulation of an industry which has seriously and serially misbehaved for years. We are discussing recalcitrant behaviour by bank executives which, in any well-regulated economy, would land these people behind bars.

By any measure, along the way, our regulators have failed to protect the little guy. They have failed to uncover the wrong doing, relying instead on the ABC TV’s Four Corners, 7.30 and Lateline and Fairfax Media’s investigative teams to do the hard yards. And still the Abbott-Turnbull Government seems to lack any serious desire to support sufficient regulatory oversight, by first cutting $120 million from ASIC’s budget then replacing it with $127.2 million. In effect this government has simply reversed previous damage, as revealed by Paul Bongiorno in his article ‘The big bank query’ in The Saturday Paper.

When it comes to financial services, it’s time to ask of what our Government is so afraid?

Last week the CEOs of Australia’s largest banks attended a parliamentary hearing on banking practice. Each and every bank chief noted the pain that individuals had suffered due to their bank’s actions, and their sorrow for such individuals. Apologies were offered. But the fact remains that no single bank employee has lost their job, let alone been charged, for the long list of ‘misbehaviours’, perhaps even white collar crimes, revealed during questioning.

The CEOs indicated that they would be prepared to entertain the idea of a banking tribunal. This appears to be a compromise offered to the banks keen to accept anything as an alternative to a royal commission. But it won’t be enough to clean out our less than transparent finance industry.

Millions of ordinary Australians are continuing to have their retirement savings savaged by paying too much, for too little, when it comes to fees on superannuation. These fees remain the third highest in the OECD and can affect savings by as much as $80,000 over a lifetime. Add this greedy grab to the other lengthy list of banking sector problems – bank bill swap rate rigging, refusal to pass on interest rate cuts, refusal to pay out on insurance claims and dodgy financial advice – and it remains clear that our current system is a cartel which rewards the big end of town at the expense of those who can least afford it.

We need a royal commission to thoroughly investigate the practices of our banks and the performance of our regulators. Nothing short of this will suffice.

What do you think? Will one day of questioning the three regulators add much to the challenge of maintaining a fair and transparent banking sector?

RELATED ARTICLES






    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    10:35am
    Ample time and a good idea by the government. When are people going to take responsibility for their own affairs and personal greed? If the GFC hadn't happened and everything had well we would not be having this conversation. Every person I know who has lost money has done so due to their own greed and doing things they should not have done.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    11:44am
    This is just not true. Did you not watch the 4 Corners investigation which demonstrated that bank advisors were putting customers into the riskiest investments when they had been instructed by some clients that they only wanted conservative investments? And then there was the fraudulent alteration and shredding of documents which demonstrated liability.
    Your post is protecting the criminals Geezer and their government now trying its best to cover the tracks with its 'we're on the case' lie whilst refusing to tighten legislation which makes banks liable in future. Can't have any of that can we.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    11:57am
    All I saw on Four Corners was people looking for someone to blame for their own greed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing in that of course people will now say they didn't want to be in investments that didn't go the way their rose coloured glasses wanted them to.

    NO I'm not protecting the criminals but remember back then those risky investments were the flavour of the month. As an advisor if you didn't do what people wanted then they would have just found someone else to invest with in those risky investments.

    I had people asking me why I didn't invest in some very risky investments including people with big mortgages telling me that it was a sure way to pay off your mortgage. These are the people now looking for others to blame for their greed.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    12:44pm
    What you are doing Geezer is what you always do: running the government line.
    Watch the program again. There were accounts as per my explanation above. According to the bank show Turnbull put on for us there have been quite a few bank financial officers sacked. Clearly that was not for being Santa Claus. Of course those who told these people to act this way would have gotten bonuses and pay rises and would have advanced in the banking system.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    12:58pm
    Mick I watched it once that was enough for me to be very sceptical about it. I know some of these people effected and I know their game. They are not as stupid as that program portrayed. These were the people bragging to their mates not so long ago about how well they were doing and what mugs their mates were by not doing the same. Yes it was Santa Claus time but when it went wrong and they had a bad hangover they weren't man enough to take the blame themselves for their greed.

    Everyone gets bonuses for selling stuff Mick even if it's just a Christmas gift from their boss. It is part of our society and people expect to better themselves and get paid for their time and effort.
    Anonymous
    10th Oct 2016
    1:13pm
    Mick, I have experience with the financial industry and I have to side with Old Geezer and it has nothing to do with politics. I always recorded conversations about loans and investments as soon as the client left to remind me of what had been agreed. On a number of occasions clients queried what had happened, especially at the dreadful high home loan rate times, and quite often they denied having agreed to something because the market had moved against them.

    Sure, there is the chance that I recorded something incorrectly but I don't recall this ever happening. One episode I recall was when a client accused me of not telling him that paying weekly would reduce his home loan by years. His wife remembered me telling them that if they increased their instalments there would be a large saving. He misunderstood what paying weekly actually meant. My point is that when people lose money,their memory can become clouded. I was always taught that the bigger the rate, the bigger the risk when it comes to investments.

    Now, you are correct when you point out the advice given to some investors by the banks was faulty and I am disappointed that no senior people in any of the banks was considered to have played a part and lost their position. I worked with some of these "cowboys" in the money market side of the banks and some of them were disgraceful. They put their egos and bonuses well ahead of their duty to the client and there was very little, if any, supervision. Bosses are supposed to be in charge and know what is going on and if they don't they should be moved on.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    2:03pm
    Old Man and Geezer. You selectively choose to ignore the issue.
    Let's not be deceptive too Old Man. One victim had written documentary evidence. And then records were shredded by the bank so that the tail could not be pinned on the donkey. I'll go with the complainants as there were heaps of them and if they had elected to make bad investments there would have been a paper trail.
    The real question here is whose interests are you two protecting. Pretty obvious and goes with my accusation about government trolls working the site. Little else explains the behaviour and denial of the evidence.
    Anonymous
    10th Oct 2016
    4:36pm
    That's all OK Mick, I can say that I saw Old Geezer having an affair with your wife but saying it doesn't make it the truth. You see, there is a huge problem when people accuse a bank of any wrongdoing and that is the law of privacy. Without the client's permission (preferably in writing) a bank cannot release any specific details regarding a client's affairs. That is why I don't always believe what people accuse big business of because big business cannot always answer back.

    I recall a case where a woman went onto a muckraking TV program accusing Customs of singling her out for special treatment without cause and conducting a full cavity search with only male officers in attendance. A Customs official was in the studio and said that he couldn't discuss the matter due to privacy regulations. The accuser agreed to waive her privacy rights and the Customs official then produced a file you couldn't jump over and proceeded to demolish all of her story bit by bit. It was proven that she had made it all up including the full cavity search which turned out to be a "pat-down" by a female office with no male officers present.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    4:50pm
    Rhubarb! Why bother.
    Anonymous
    10th Oct 2016
    5:02pm
    Gee Mick, surely you're not giving up because of a bit of logic are you? Isn't this about the stage where name calling and illogical conclusions about how a person votes or how many personalities they have shoot out from your fingertips? RU OK?
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    5:13pm
    No point arguing with the mentally incapacitated Old Man. The arguments have been made with a number of posts but the government propaganda machine simply ignores the facts. Everybody knows.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:08am
    Is there anything you haven't done or been in this life, OG? Sometimes you speak like a Hydra, a many-headed speech machine, or perhaps like the three-headed knight in Search of the Holy Grail.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    10:50am
    There is very little I know nothing about or have the ability to find out about Trebour. I treat everything in life as a game and just have to know the rules before I play. No rules or if I can't work them out I simply don't play. I know the possible answers to any question I ask in business. I even use questions to see if people really know their stuff and can be trusted. I have no desire to search for the holy grail or even the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. My only desire is to protect me and my family. There are some real rogues out there.

    Only the other day I wanted something done by an expect that would have taken a few minutes but was quoted over $1000 to do. A couple of hours research and I realised I could do it myself for about $3 for the cost of a tool I needed. Does that person have the right to charge so much? My answer was "no" simply because the payback of doing that job was not worth it. If the payback was more than the cost of the job the answer may have been "yes". Many people just get things done because it seems like a good idea without working out whether it is worthwhile. Rogues play on this.
    Ted Wards
    10th Oct 2016
    10:37am
    NO it is not enough and a real slap in the face to most Australian's. Its time customers stood up for themselves and let our feet do the talking to credit unions!
    btony
    10th Oct 2016
    10:49am
    We'll get the same as we got from the bank CEO's....
    crocodile tears and bullshit, the usual.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    11:45am
    Yes.
    micko
    10th Oct 2016
    10:59am
    I've often wondered. ....does ASIC actually do anything??
    Can't remember the last time they prosecuted anyone for ripping off consumers.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    11:47am
    Yeah, they send out letters and emails saying that they cannot act. That is about all.
    musicveg
    10th Oct 2016
    12:58pm
    Turnball wants to sell off ASIC
    particolor
    10th Oct 2016
    2:01pm
    Turnbull wants to sell AUSTRALIA
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    2:03pm
    And is doing both.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    2:27pm
    I thought Australia was already sold especially after that recent golden week.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    11:12am
    And Trump got it right !! Jail Her :-(
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    11:40am
    You can see the government running their show and tell. Clearly the regulators, all of them, have failed the public on banking issues as well as many others. Having had personal experience of the bureaucracies concerned I have come to understand that they waste taxpayer money writing plenty of fob off emails but almost never solving issues other than for the one or two problems they pursue to justify their (expensive) existence.
    If this government were serious rather than putting on a show for the cameras then it would introduce regulations to curb the behaviour of the big banks and it would restructure the ACCC, ASIC and various Ombudsman's offices to serve the public rather than turn a blind eye and act negligently.
    I am not holding my breath and have to agree with Shorten about the need for a Royal Commission in the absence of proper government.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    12:00pm
    Plenty of regulations already in place Mick. I seem fight regulations everywhere I go now and quite frankly I have had enough of having a nanny to protect me at a big cost.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    12:50pm
    Tell me about the regulations this government put in place to stop the big banks from using dishonest predatory behaviour towards their own customers and indeed anybody else? THERE ARE NONE.
    The whole point about legislation is to restrain the big boys from crapping on people and not having a case to answer. I give you the perfect example: we were disconnected by Optus for over 2 months at the beginning of the year when we were a month in advance. The reason was simply Optus negligence. Not only did Optus not give a stuff but they acted negligently the whole time and even after being connected again they refused to pay the mandatory (legislated) compensation for which they concocted the story that they had a mass service disruption for over 2 months. THIS IS WHY WE NEED LEGISLATION!!! Of course government supporters like yourself will argue the lies rather than the facts.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    1:08pm
    There are already regulations in place for the banks it's called terms and conditions. If you don't agree with them then why are you doing business with them?

    Why did you leave your disconnection with Optus for 2 months Mick? I would have been on the case immediately and had it sorted within a week. I had a problem with another Telco and they lent me a sat phone for free until the problem was fixed.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    1:45pm
    Terms and conditions have nothing to do with intentional fraud. That is the issue!
    I did not leave my disconnection for 2 months. In fact we did everything we could to get back online. I spent a whole day (7 hours straight) engaging with Optus whilst in the US (expensive!) to get the matter resolved for my wife who was in Oz. Then we contacted the Telecommunications Ombudsman's Office.....this is a PRIVATE business acting predominantly for the telcos. Then we contacted the Minister's Office (Mitch Fifield) who contacted Optus and sent us legislation about compensation.......which Optus avoided by lying in regard to a Mass Service Disruption for over 2 months, which it refused to supply proof for.
    Take my word for it Geezer, we tried everything other than going to the media.
    Optus is a deadbeat organisation where we encountered liars and BS artists who did not care. Anybody who stays with this bunch deserves what they get if something goes wrong. We are gone.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    1:47pm
    By the way if you want to check your ISP google the following: ProductReview Optus. You can do the same for all the other telcos. The results will horrify you and that is why we went to a more expensive provider like Internode......which has a much better profile.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    1:53pm
    Mick Product Review is a numbers game. Of course you will get more bad reviews the bigger a telco is. Small telcos will have less customers so less bad reviews. You need to look at the percentages of bad review to the number of customers to get a good picture of how good or bad a telco is.

    The results don't horrify me at all because they tell me basically nothing.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    1:58pm
    MIck Internode is owned by TPG Telecom the second largest telco in Australia after Telstra. So you are now with a bigger fish than Optus.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    2:05pm
    Maybe but not owned by Optus.
    There is a case for going NBN + internet phone. That is on the horizon for me.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    2:23pm
    Unless you want to stream HD movies or pay TV through the NBN it is no better than ADSL. Internet phone will not work if you have no power unless you have UPS backup. I have the NBN plus the old fashioned copper phone as I live in a bushfire area and they can't guarantee service with power outages.
    McGroger
    10th Oct 2016
    2:43pm
    I’m not technically minded, but my experience with ADSL vs NBN is different. We have ADSL, and my son - in a different country town - has NBN. His is much faster than ours - just for normal use.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    3:19pm
    Quoting Turnbull Geezer??? Misleading post!
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    6:18pm
    I don't notice any difference with my NBN to my old ADSL for normal use. However for big downloads and HD movie streaming it is good.
    Patriot
    10th Oct 2016
    12:58pm
    May be we should be "Daring" and "Take a leaf out of Iceland's economic recovery".
    Just jail them - we know they're Greedy Crooks protected by the laws OUR Politicians make & keep enacting.
    Should we take the opportunity & jail some pollies at the same time for allowing it to happen???

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iceland-has-jailed-26-bankers-why-wont-we-a6735411.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zlzC_XMQzI
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    1:05pm
    Intentional dishonesty and looking the other way when crooks operate should be punishable by jail for politicians. That would end the game of corruption we see from our coalition governments in particular.
    Patriot
    10th Oct 2016
    1:12pm
    Cops keep telling us that "Ignorance of the LAW" is no excuse and they "Hand Out" infringements weather you were aware or not.
    So, the System certainly "Tells us What should be done!
    I agree, this should be applied to our "Elected representatives" also as, when the time comes, they'll simply "Plead Ignorance".
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    1:38pm
    The irony is Patriot if you are an average citizen you get a fine but if you show up with Chris Murphy then you get a suspended sentence and no fine. Ask John Singleton who was busted on the M5 doing around 60 km/h over the limit. No conviction, no loss of points, no fine. This is the same 'fairness' which is occurring with the banks. It is crooked to the core but that is what you get when you control the system and are on the right side of society.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:12am
    Sillies - you KNOW the 'laws' are only meant for the peasants...

    And you wonder why I'm so active in discussion of political and legal issues, and often so incendiary in my views.
    Patriot
    11th Oct 2016
    9:23am
    TREBOR
    In finer detail, the LAWs have also been designed for the ELITISTs.
    They instigated these LAWs in order to be able to control the peasants.

    So whilst they were designed to be to the peasant's (US) detriment they - at the same time - Support, Promote & Enhance the UNBRIDLED GREED of the few who control the whole system.

    "More fool us" for being subordinate to the UTTER CRAP they impose rather than rise up against it!?!?!?
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:38am
    You are quite correct, Patriot - and the includes the rules and regulations. This country started off as a convict colony - a tabula rasa on which the unrestrained control of the elite over the rest was installed and steadily reinforced. This has shown many faces over my lifetime - again the reason I am so vocal about injustice in all its disguises.

    EVERY rule set in place is designed to reduce the actual rights of the 'peasants' and to create an environment in which their 'betters' have control - and 'party lines' have nothing at all to do with it.
    Patriot
    11th Oct 2016
    9:42am
    TREBOR
    They temselves are slaves to the Rothshields, Rockefellers & Soros CLANS. The INVISIBLE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT CABAL!!!!!!!
    The difference is - for the time being - they are much better paid than we are!
    floss
    10th Oct 2016
    1:02pm
    What a show trial this all it is ,the big end of town wins again and again.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    1:06pm
    And that's all it is looney, a show for the mentally challenged public......who will vote for the same bastards again and again. We do truly get the sort of government we deserve!
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    11:22am
    You seriously have to wonder why it is, when only a relatively minor proportion of people actually own or run a business etc - that around 50% vote for the LNP every time.

    I think the election results are rigged...

    Disclaimer:- Those who've been here long enough know I hold no brief for Labor either... but still...

    Do all those people seriously think the golden eggs will fall on them for voting in people who support big business first and foremost, after the pasty forty years in this country? That somehow by voting for these clowns, they will all suddenly incur the status and privileges of millionaires - or conversely, that voting for Labor will drive them into debt and their rights will be destroyed by commies under the bed?

    It's mass hallucination....
    KSS
    10th Oct 2016
    1:06pm
    So now Ms Fallick and Mick have set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner before a single question has been asked.

    Frankly trying to blame others for paying too much for home loans, super, credit cards, insurance and the like is laughable. It is purely a matter of laziness and inertia for failing to make comparisons and then taking action for a better deal.

    People should also remember that 'investments' go down as well as up. I wonder had the economy been 'better' and these people had made money from this 'advice', whether they would still be complaining? I doubt it. If someone has evidence of wrong doing (not just sour grapes) such as deliberately altering and/or shredding documents, forging signatures or a failure to follow client instructions as alleged, there are already laws and regulations in place to deal with it. As for claims of 'not understanding' and 'relying' on what someone told you - regardless of who they are or who they worked for - this is equally spurious. I was told from a very young age, do not sign what you a) haven't read and b) don't understand. So I now read ALL the small print, I know what I am covered for in insurance for example BEFORE I pay the premium.

    The fact that few seem to have chosen to invoke their legal rights, preferring trial by media instead, suggests there is less of a real problem and more crying over spilt milk.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    1:15pm
    I agree.
    Kaye Fallick
    10th Oct 2016
    1:20pm
    Hi KSS - many thanks for joining the discussion. Yes 'buyer beware' is very necessary - agree 100% on your point about this. But when your financial planner forges your signature then that is a crime. And so far we have not seen the perpetrator(s) punished by the law. And when an insurer will not pay out despite medical advice or coroners findings to the contrary, that is against the letter and spirit of the contract. We are not dealing with 'bad behaviour' here - this is far worse. As always I simply share my opinion - no one is paying me to be judge :-)
    KSS
    10th Oct 2016
    1:31pm
    And of course as all of us, you are entitled to your opinion.

    However:
    " But when your financial planner forges your signature then that is a crime. And so far we have not seen the perpetrator(s) punished by the law. And when an insurer will not pay out despite medical advice or coroners findings to the contrary, that is against the letter and spirit of the contract."

    Have those alleging criminal behaviour by their financial advisors actually taken legal action to have the 'perpetrator' prosecuted, or have they simply gone to the media and whinged?

    If the insurers are acting against the letter of the contract, have those 'victims' actually taken legal action to secure their rights, or are they simply whinging to the media?

    Where are the 'class actions' if this is so widespread? (After all there was a class action over bank fees that the defendants won). Or is it that the lawyers are all in on it too?
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    1:32pm
    There is no evidence that signatures have been forged. It is just hear say from a media program. No one has been convicted of such a crime.

    If you are referring to using oxycotins then these are a well known drug used to commit suicide. Why would anyone take these drugs belonging to another person unless they had that in mind? Bank is right here in not paying out the insurance claim.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    1:35pm
    Come off the grass KSS. You are burying your head in the sand so that you do not have to acknowledge what has happened.
    Kaye is on the money and you need to watch the 4 Corners story.
    This problem has nothing to do with people making a bad decision. It is about intentional FRAUD and then walking away because individuals cannot win against corporations with deep pockets in the courts.
    Your post appears to be to protect your patch and it has been clear from most of your posts who you support with your blank cheque.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:17am
    Pointing out the stacking in the prepared deck is now being judge, jury and executioner?

    You learn something new every day! Politicians in this country have been adept at stacking decks since Day One, which is one clear reason we need a total change of government, to a Third Party with some cojones.

    The two major parties have created such a mess and a minefield for the ordinary user, such a confused array of rules and regulations and laws that permit corporate thieves to get away with things over and over again, that the whole edifice needs to be dragged down and re-built from the bottom up.
    particolor
    11th Oct 2016
    3:58pm
    One word said it all in this Post "Frankly" :-) :-)
    McGroger
    10th Oct 2016
    1:56pm
    Here’s how retired independent John Hatton, the force behind the Wood Royal Commission into Police corruption in NSW in the 1990s, concludes his letter to the SMH this morning:
    “Now, 21 years on, the focus is on the unconscionable actions of banks. As with police corruptions and the sexual abuse of children, the victims’ stories must be told, investigated and acted upon.
    “The bankers in charge massaged the recent parliamentary committee hearings. Without a Royal Commission, they remain in control of the information, evidence, process and witnesses.”

    I worked in a bank for 34 years. I resigned when I could no longer stand the bank’s deteriorating morals. As far as I know, nothing they did back then was illegal, but every decision seemed to be motivated by greed. Today, with more aggressive incentive schemes in place, I wouldn’t be surprised at any revelations of what staff might get up to - and, even back in my day, the chiefs used to run as fast as they could in any direction other than admitting any “mistakes”.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    2:07pm
    Tell that to the government representatives Geezer, Old Man and KSS above. All pushing the government line.
    Thanks for your observation McGroger. Nice to have some truth rather than the lies which are disseminated online by posters who are anything other than legit.
    KSS
    10th Oct 2016
    3:44pm
    No Mick, I am just not prepared to tar and feather anyone unless due process has been taken. Seems to me there is a lot of 'hot air' and crying 'foul' here but no evidence has been offered by those claiming to be hard done by.

    Put up or shut up, Mick, that's all I am asking. I refuse to be part of a hypothetical lynch mob when all there is are verbal allegations of what amounts to 'it's not fair'.
    Patriot
    10th Oct 2016
    4:36pm
    KSS
    The 1st thing I agree on in your response: "There certainly is a lot of Crying happening".
    If this must be turned into "Foul Crying & Hot Air" should indeed be left to an appropriate investigation and I - as many others - will not believe that OUR government is not part of the scam.
    In the past few weeks, the corrupt system has been investigating itself!
    "Lobbying & Pub Crawls" (and probably a lot more) that goes on at these level of ELITE LIFE has the potential to corrupt very "Quickly & Efficiently". I see the "Crying Foul" (as you call it) as "A lot of Smoke" and, as the old saying goes, (lots of) smoke does not appear without (lots of) fire and so, let's "Qualify & Quantify".

    The 2nd item I agree with is that we should not organise a "Lynching Party" before we - beyond the shadow of ANY doubt - have proven the allegations (Crying Foul) to be correct.
    Having extensively studied the Global & Local banking systems for the past 40 years, I have no doubt that most of the "Foul Crying " will be proven to be factual rather than "Hot Air".
    The Banking system is "Criminally Greedy".

    The 3rd item I agree with is that we should "Shut Up" after we - The Australian People - "Put Up via a "Royal Enquiry" in order to properly investigate these "Criminal Allegations".
    After we "Get to the of bottom of rather than CLOSE (as Big Mal would LOVE to do) Pandora's box" and these allegations have been investigated via "Fair & Honest" procedure, we should "Shut Up".

    If I were you, I would start collecting "Tar & Feathers" from today forward as I am happy to make a bet (and I'm not a gambler) that there are many "Fires Burning" completely OUT of CONTROL!

    It will be good to get some appropriate entertainment by watching the "CHOOKS of SHAME" crawl to jail and see the keys "Thrown away.
    LET THEM ROT!!!

    After having (nearly) killed myself with laughter, I will (and only then) "Shut Up".

    To conclude, if you elect to call the people's current attitude 'hot air' and crying 'foul' (Which I interpret that you believe the Bankster System to be decent & honest), "Alleged Victims & Supporters" should be able to "Have & Express" the opposite opinion.
    After all, It's (supposed to be) a FREE COUNTRY ????? Is it Not???
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    4:55pm
    Don't worry about the crooks Patriot. They own the game and can wriggle out of any cesspit no matter how tight. Turnbull the Terrible seems to be doing that right now so no surprise that the 'no banking Royal Commission' smoke and mirrors is on steroids.
    Watch this space?
    Rae
    10th Oct 2016
    5:40pm
    I doubt there is a solvent bank in the country. A royal commission might just point our a lot of inconvenient truths.

    Most of the population actually believe their money is in the bank and being kept very safe.

    It ain't that which you don't know that will get you into trouble. It's that which you know for sure that ain't so. Mark Twain.
    Old Geezer
    10th Oct 2016
    6:21pm
    Many people with jobs are only one pay packet away from bankruptcy as well. No money coming in means no money going out.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:39am
    Clear reason to get rid of those currently running the show... their track record is abysmal.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    11:00am
    The biggest problem in keeping this country from prosperity is that businesses are very tardy in paying their bills which effects everyone's cash flow and stalls the multiplier effect of money.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    11:24am
    McGroger - your post above is ideally placed directly under mine above and could be a continuation of the same. I applaud you, sir!

    10th Oct 2016
    4:24pm
    APRA is responsible for overseeing banks, credit unions, building societies, friendly societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance and most members of the superannuation industry. As I see it, if APRA had been doing the job it is required to do there would be no need to question the financial institutions. Perhaps it needs either stronger powers or closing down.

    ASIC is another government body but has a slightly different role in that it looks after consumers and mops up problems. As I see it, ASIC is doing a reasonable job but does not have the power to change what financial institutions are doing wrong.

    The ACCC is, again, another body to protect the consumer. It was raised by a government but is independent of government. It appears to be doing a reasonable job if we exclude petrol pricing (gouging?) and, although it looks at industry regulation and pricing it also seems to lack any power to change.

    Now, we can pontificate as to whether these three bodies need to amalgamate, get stronger powers, have stronger leadership or even be dispensed with but maybe the answer lies elsewhere. Perhaps these three bodies are doing a good job and keeping a watchful eye on the financial institutions and finding that, by and large, the financial institutions are not breaking any regulations.

    We can look back to the times when we were all a lot younger and think about financial institutions as they were back then but we would not be comparing apples with apples. Keating deregulated Australian banks between 1983 and 1985 and this changed the face of banking for ever. Banks are no longer regulated by government but, supposedly, are governed by market forces. Surely everyone remembers when governments manipulated interest rates just prior to elections to gain votes?

    Finally, we hear horror stories which are highlighted by the media but when all is said and done the number of these horror stories is small compared to the rest of the financial industry's dealings. That doesn't mean that the horror stories should be ignored but we expect financial institutions to take action when shady (or downright illegal) practices are carried out by employees who only wish to stroke their ego or make bonuses.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    4:59pm
    APRA. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Is that the regulator which has introduced the Cyprus solution into its operating manual without telling the public what it has set up?
    APRA is another failed regulator just like the ACCC, ASIC and the Foreign Review Board which all may have been set up with good intentions but which have failed to operate properly years ago and now provide jobs to public relations employees acting out a part and doing nothing. Tell me about APRA.
    micko
    11th Oct 2016
    9:41am
    Old Man, could you enlighten me on what ASIC is doing right? I worked for organisations that used them regularly and I found them to be a toothless tiger.
    MICK
    10th Oct 2016
    5:01pm
    Kaye: have you perhaps misnamed this article. Did you intend it to read 'Financial regulators to farce parliamentary hearing'?
    jeffr
    11th Oct 2016
    2:02am
    We are all loosing money because of the GREED of all Government and GREEDY POLITICIANS followed by the GREED of the Cayman Island followers, CEO's of BIG BUSINESS ad infinitum.
    KSS
    11th Oct 2016
    6:47am
    Not to mention of course the GREED of those who buy into 'get rich quick' schemes then whinge when it all goes pear-shaped.
    LiveItUp
    11th Oct 2016
    8:11am
    How do we all lose money jeffr? If you invest for big gains then big risk usually follows.

    However it is not a good idea being so safe that your money is being erode more by inflation and tax than the interest paid. That is risking the purchasing power of your money. So you have to take on some market risk. However this risk must be managed and one must realisle that no one will look after your money better than you.

    Do you just pay your invitations to renew when they arrive or ring for a better deal? I alwatys ring and if not happy change. If they have no loyalty to me and tack on a lazy tax then I certainly have no loyalty to them. Only exception is if the have given me exceptional service in the past. That rare today.

    To me people must be either very greedy or just plain stupid to get involved in get rich schemes. A bit of common sense should tell you that it makes no sense. I just love tthe inheritance ones from lawyers with bad spelling and grammar. For goodness sake lawyers are educated people.

    If you took out a mortgage and it was to take 25 years to pay it off with the best interest rate on the market and then someone offered you a deal to pay it off in 5 years with same repayments wouldn't you think it was not possible and be very skeptical? This was one of the schemes around prior to the GFC that people lost big time on. Another was mortfage your house and boost your retirement with further leveraging in the stockmarket. Even with 10% leveraging you would have been wiped out. 50% leveraging was wiped out very quickly. Stockmarkets can be risky in the short term and you need the ability to ride out the volatility and heavily keveraging is either for nerves of steel or disaster. There no other explanation other than greed for people who used these schemes.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:25am
    Not to mention the few lazy bill stashed away in the Future fund in the Caymans, which looks suspiciously, to the casual el observere, senor, like a stash fund for El Presidente and his compadres if they need to do a runner from a hostile peasantry armed with pitchforks and flaming brands...

    WHO holds the keys to this fund and WHO has access to it?
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:27am
    And how much is allocated to it each year in an allegedly ailing budget?

    Man - we need a Federal ICAC - a real one...
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:48am
    **coughs** - for the remedial class ...... 'we' - the taxpayers of Australia in which are included everyone since all pay taxes every day in every way (they're getting bigger and bigger) - are 'losing money every day' for the simple reason that our rules, regulations and laws permit companies and corporations to offshore massive alleged debts etc, and thus to pay zero tax here.
    LiveItUp
    11th Oct 2016
    7:46am
    If things are as bad as the media protrays why aren't we seeing lots of class actions and other legal pursuits against the banks? All we have seen have been class action against small fees that may or may not have been illegal. Bank settled out of court so we will never know. I regularly get small credits to my bank accounts that I have no idea what they are about or relate to.

    If you go back to 1987 and know about the things that happened back then we have certainly come a long way in tightening legislation and if social media had been available back then it would have been a whole different bapll game.

    Personally I don't like managed investments as one never knows where thier money is invested.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:31am
    It's called the cost of running any legal action - and is something the majority of people simply cannot underwrite - unlike the big organisations such as banks and even slandering television programs, who have access to a vast amount of the money of the same people who may wish to join in such a legal action, with which to hire the finest shysters in town at huge rates, and can also fund the costs of even getting the case into court.

    Countless people with a grievance can't even afford a single day in a local court... let alone one in the higher courts, where the fees are astronomical. How do people who've been sent bust by a bank find the funding to sue that bank?

    Ask me again why I campaign endlessly for an absolute review of the court system so as to make it a $25 cost to any person seeking redress.

    There is no time limit, and there is no cost imposed - on Justice!
    Patriot
    11th Oct 2016
    9:37am
    TREBOR
    Now you're showing the TRUE "Lack of Freedom" the populace in AUS is subjected to.
    We are subjecting "those who can afford it" to freedom whilst committing the rest of us (98% ???) to slavery!

    Bonnie's remarks are changing drastically in colour when "the realities of Life" are applied!
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    10:56am
    Trebour it costs very little to take some one to court. I have done it myself a few times. If I reach a stalemate in a problem then I have found that just filing court papers will expediate the matter and a settlement will be quickly reached with most corporations.

    Would I take one of the big banks to court? Definitely yes.

    Most people don't go to court because they are too ashamed or too intimidated by it not because of the cost.
    TREBOR
    12th Oct 2016
    1:55am
    ... and this 'intimidation' is? You mean people should be frightened of going to a body that is designed to set right wrongs? You mean that people feel that they are not worthy to face such an inquisition? You mean that people feel they are out of their depth in dealing with all kinds of twists and turns that make up 'law'?

    Or are they frightened off by the reality that they simply cannot afford those fees that go on and on?

    All of these things come into the issue here - and that primary issue is that we live, and have lived for two centuries, in a country that has allowed those with money and position to design everything so as to control the rest.

    How... primitive! (THAT'S THE ONLY WORD FOR IT!)

    As a once great leader of men....... I would not for one instant consider such an approach - my door is always open, and I wear the same garb as you.... and I may disagree with you, but I will never disrespect your view or your right to present it, and if it is within my power to correct wrong - I will do so without fear or favour.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    9:04am
    Regulators? Oh - you mean those supine gentlemen and ladies who have the occasional good whiskey at the club with the Bank Men? That exceptional example of the 'old mate's network' alive and well in Oz?

    Keating/Hawke's 'de-regulation' of the banks was supposed to create an environment of greater competition - well, it did - but it also created an environment in which fees to customers rose astronomically, and introduced a sideshow chicanery to the 'selling' of products to customers. A once staid group of organisations became the province of hucksters, shysters, and carpet baggers - all preying on a public defended to the last ditch by a toothless group of people overseeing, from a position of comfort, the 'self-regulation' of the same hucksters, shysters and carpet baggers.

    Yes - I thought that a fine literary foray by me, as well.....
    micko
    11th Oct 2016
    9:34am
    Want an example of a banking rort? Well I've got one....
    I am currently overseas and received a text last week informing me that the annual fee of $30 on my CBA c/c was due and if it wasn't paid yesterday I'd be up for a $20 fine. $20 on a $30 debt!! Not a bad mark up I thought. Replied by return text, no response. Asked my brother to go in and pay it, and they wouldn't accept his money! Have now shot off an email to their customer assist department and haven't even received a reply that they have it. Gunna be interesting to see how this pans out when I get home.
    Patriot
    11th Oct 2016
    9:39am
    micko,
    Sounds like you're subjecting to "Good Old Banking Service".
    Well, that is, you cannot complain about their service because you're not getting any.
    Or should we call it: "Passive Resistance"?
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    11:46am
    micko You know that this fee is payable so why didn't you leave it in your account? Not to do so is simply bad money management. Bad money management comes with costs.
    micko
    11th Oct 2016
    9:21pm
    So you think a fine of 67% is fair and reasonable Old Geezer? And how about the unanswered email....good customer service? The companies I worked at made good customer service a priority. Have things changed in the 2 years I've left the workforce?
    Old Geezer
    12th Oct 2016
    2:05pm
    Yes it is fair and reasonable as it would be in their terms and conditions. If you used the product you have excepted their terms and conditions in their PDS. It is a simple matter of leaving the fee in the account and replacing it whenever it is used.
    micko
    12th Oct 2016
    2:35pm
    And your response to the customer service aspect Old Geezer?
    Eddy
    11th Oct 2016
    12:20pm
    Methinks Old Geezer takes the time honoured defence of blaming the victim. If the Abbott government had no trouble having a Royal Commission into unions why are the hesitant in having a similar RC into banks. Again methinks the answer lies in the 'donations' made to the liberal party by the construction industry and the banking industry. Is there any other reasonable explanation?
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    1:18pm
    NO! Next question??? ... (yes the gorgeous redhead reporter at the back?)...
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    2:20pm
    RC into banks just like everything else will prove or fix nothing. All it will do make the silks rich.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    2:21pm
    Many victims have only themselves to blame but can't accept it.
    Eddy
    11th Oct 2016
    4:04pm
    Yes OG I agree, many victims have themselves to blame but that doesn't exonerate the perpetrators of dubious or illegal practices.
    Old Geezer
    11th Oct 2016
    5:20pm
    Eddy no one has been charged so you cant say anything illegal took place. Victims will say anything to the media but it is a different story in a court of law. Last I heard we had court to trial people not the media. So you need to take everything the media does and says with a lot of scepticism as they main aim is to sell.
    TREBOR
    11th Oct 2016
    7:58pm
    So if I sign up a lawyer who turns out to be an axe murderer - it's all my fault?
    TREBOR
    12th Oct 2016
    1:57am
    Buggar! I thought I was capable of picking a mouth-piece..... BUGGAR!
    Not Senile Yet!
    12th Oct 2016
    10:45am
    OMG!!!!
    Just a CHAT then break for a BBQ paid by taxpayers (and swindled investors)...BYO Wine/Beer!
    This is what the Liberal Party view as a Storm in a Teacup......delay...delay...appease...put on a show....and the smoke will blow away with the breeze!
    All of the Government Regulators should accuse the Liberal Government of Withdrawing Funding deliberately when questioned and accuse them of playing poker!
    But then Just like the Big Business and Banks...trouble makers are PAID OFF......with legal Non Disclosure Deals.....to disappear off the Planet!
    On this Site ........the Common threads defending this debacle......all appear to be brain washed similarly by the Liberal Propaganda Machine ......or as Mick calls it.......paid well to be Trolls for the Party!
    The Right Wing extremists have always played ........Catch Us If you Can.......type of games! Not a bad tactic......but glaringly obvious......when old and young/male female.....start playing the same tune and giving the same POV.
    Bit too choreographed for Me!!!!
    As for the Blame Game.......yep same old same!!!!
    We are talking Human Beings here......and THEY are the ones who Corrupt things!
    Systems and Rules work until you put a Human Being into them and then don't Regulate or check on them!
    One bad apple in a Barrel becomes more rather quickly when not removed!
    As for your view Mick.......you seen to forget that the Big $ Banks .....are owned and run for the Investors/Shareholders......none of which are being treated badly!
    The Investors themselves are mostly from where?????
    The Directors and Boards of these Banks are nowhere to be seen!!!! Why????
    Aren't they paid anymore????
    It is clear that NO ONE in Government wants a Royal Commission ......nor in the Banks!
    Self REGULATION and or De- Regulation is directly connected to White Collar Crime increases.....history shows us that!
    Within the Banks......a simple solution is NOT allowing a Financial Adviser to sign off anything on his/her own....but enforce Countersigning of Documents by their appropriate Manager!
    The Banks could have fixed these complaints themselves.....quite easily......but obviously no one has been authorised to do so!
    Simply not a Coincidence however..... that ALL 4 BIG BANKS.....are playing the same Game and allowing the same Stuff Ups!!!
    Certain CEO's and Top Middle Management are collecting their Salaries under False Pretenses and most certainly need to be removed.......even if only as an example!
    Old Geezer, Old Man, KSS etc etc......MICK and others......
    same old one eyed ..one sided view of the world!!!!
    I swear that if she wasn't dead.....KSS is Margaret Thatcher....reborn!
    Old Geezer & Old Man sound like John Howard when behind Party Doors!
    And Mick must be related to Gough Baby!!!
    Talk about still living in the EIGHTIES...with No New Ideas!!!!
    Some People should just retire and take up....Getting a Life!!!
    Gigi
    14th Oct 2016
    10:52am
    Yes we do have the top earning 4 big banks but unlike USA we do have a regulatory authority & a legal system which has made banks atone for their wrongdoings AND despite that all our banks operate in an reasonably ethical way, unlike banks OS, case in point, Wells Fargo!! I don't like having to pay fees but that's the price of having a free enterprise banking system which obviously works better than most worldwide. We may well be able to make small changes but in the end its Australians that benefit from our Banks' practices either the shareholders, customers or our economy. There will always be unethical people working in the financial industry but mostly the vast majority of our bankers are law abiding citizens who practice in an ethical manner. As individuals we have all made changes to the way we handle our own money in the light of GFC, obviously the Banks are made substantial changes to reduce the exposure.