Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement

Royal Commission Poll

Do you support the Government's decision to establish a Royal Commission into the alleged misconduct of Australia's banking and financial services sector?

  • Yes (55%)
  • No (34%)
  • Not sure (11%)

Our latest poll seeks your opinion about the Government’s decision to conduct a Royal Commission into Australia’s banking and financial services sector.

Last weeks’ announcement by the Prime Minister and Treasurer (see: Government Calls Royal Commission…) was greeted with a mixed response by key stakeholders, depending on the interests of the constituents they primarily represent.

…there remains the prospect of further examination and review of adviser and life company conduct

While most industry organisations would probably not embrace a Royal Commission whose remit includes examination of “…the nature, extent and effect of misconduct by a financial services entity,” and “…any conduct, practices, behaviour or business activity by a financial services entity that falls below community standards and expectations,” there has nonetheless been a general acceptance that the fact of the Royal Commission will eventually lead to improved consumer trust in the industry.

Many within the adviser community may hold the view that the sheer volume of recent investigations and inquiries into adviser and institutional conduct should be sufficient to ensure the Royal Commission directs its focus elsewhere, but there remains the prospect of further examination and review of adviser and life company conduct.

What’s your view? Do you think the Royal Commission will ‘clear the air’ and ultimately become a turning point that will indeed improve consumer trust in institutions and the adviser community? Or do you think this is the last thing the advice sector needs at the moment, given it has figuratively been through ringer in recent years, thereby rendering the inclusion of financial services in this mandate as an ‘over-the-top’ reaction by the Government?

As always, we welcome your vote and your measured comments and will report back to you next week…


  • alistsir

    So another Royal Commissin. Australia has had since Federation a total of 133 such Royal Commissions or commisions of enquiry since Federation back in 1901. This is more than 1 PER YEAR. Each costing John Q Taxpayer millions of dollars and for what. The Royal commision into child abuse by churches continues since 2013 to date while the Royal Commission into the NT Government detention centre scandal continues also since 2016 to date. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody in 1991 resulted in nothing being done, hence the issue of the NT Government fiasco in 2016. An as for our industry, we have had the following enquiries from Ripol to David Murray, the Wallis enquiry, over 56 changes in regulations via ASIC, more and more compliance where costs are driven up and yet we have….another enquiry. To reveal what ? I wonder. If this fiasco is going to make any sense at all, then the terms of reference need to bring in not only banks but also insurers, the mortgage industry, the industry super network and their industry funds including trustees and also Pay Day Lenders. This last category ought be an interesting one as Bill Shorten ought know as he was financial services minister in 2011 when as the responsible minister, he was fine and dandy with allowing pay day lenders with their massive interest rates and fees to go forward and be parasitic to the most vulnerable in society. Creating massive financial harm. What a farce we have as so called leaders in politics. This is a disgrace. Bad behaviour is only cured by one action. No not more education and over compliance. Jail. Jail for those who obtain financial advantage by deception. This may be a contract in small print which no one ever reads…well almost no one. Jail is the answer and not a complete waste of John Q Taxpyers money. Jail….

  • Jeremy Wright

    A Royal Commission will hopefully get to the truth, though you are allowing wolves in sheep clothing to look after the sheep.

    It will be a Lawyers feast with the Australian Tax Payer and customers of the Banks and Bank owned Life Insurance Companies once again getting screwed over.

    Why do you ask?

    The very people who have caused most of the confusion and subterfuge that has allowed the whole fiasco we now live under to exist, have been allowed to once again be at the helm to guide us to more confusion and waste of our money for the next couple of years, where Lawyers will be able to argue their case at our expense and achieve what lawyers always achieve, which is vast sums of our money lining their pockets, while coming up with dribble that no one will understand and a report that will have little to offer, which will end up archived with all the other numerous reports that once tabled, will be put to bed with little positive action due to the Legal eagles from the Banks putting up a rearguard action that ensures a lot of words, a lot of fee’s and a lot of confused Australians that will once again say, “”what was that all about?””

  • Totally Frustrated Risky

    If I knew for sure that the pending Royal Commission was going to focus solely on the misconduct and wicked culture of MANAGEMENT in the Big 4 banks (because that’s exactly where it should be aimed), I would be all for it.

    BUT, I fear the aim of this will somehow swing around and focus back on non-aligned advisers (is that term allowed now ASIC???????) instead again and slam us even more ridiculously than the recent LIF Legislation has so for that reason, I’m not sure if the Royal Commission should go ahead. Don’t know if that opinion even matters though to be honest.

    Truth and integrity seem to have gone out the window with BOTH political parties (sadly) these days as each only use RC’s as a political gain tool – not to sort out a legitimate issue and hold the responsible people for fraud and deception to account.

    It also seems the deeper your pockets, the more you can get away with now – which is just BS!

    All I know for sure these days is that I’m doing the best I can by my clients to help them and that my claims, when they arise, are paid without issue. I used to think that was what I joined this industry for.

    Now it seems my role in this industry is filling out paperwork and compliance checklists to cover other people’s backsides.

  • Alan

    Yes I support an enquiry into bank culture and inappropriate behaviour but not through a long and costly Royal Commission. Let’s get the organisations that were set up in the first place to regulate and oversee the banks and the industry in general, ASIC and APRA to do their job. They are well staffed with well paid people who should be doing their job.
    If they are not working to their charter, then there should be an enquiry into why these organisations are not carrying out their responsibilities.
    Also the CEO’s and senior management who are well paid should be leading and ensuring that banks and other institutions maintain a customer focused culture.

  • Old Risky

    There is one golden rule with politically-based enquiries – always write the Terms of Reference (TOR) to get the result you want, then pick your enquirer to suit – lets have no surprises. The banks wrote these TORs, not this mob that do impressions of a Government, and probably picked the “black letter ” judge. The TORs are still “Draft “, a week later ????.
    Already the media are being fed a line by the banks that the RC will not be a parade of aggrieved victims. In other words the RC will hear from representative bodies only, the usual suspects – the FSC, Bankers Assoc., FPA and AFA and that unrepresentative swill known as “consumer ” groups, which are full of lawyers who have never worked as such. Probably ASIC & APRA will lob in a few gentle grenades, but lets face it they represent no one, but only know they have to make noise to get Government funding, and find jobs for more lawyers.
    In the insurance sector, you can guarantee no changes to LIF and no one will be concerned abut the rapidly decreasing competition in life office choices. I doubt even vertical integration will be touched. And the great OUT in the TORs is that the RC cannot look at recent legislative “corrections ”
    To paraphrase Mark Twain – ” The political and commercial morals of Australia are not merely food for laughter, they are the entire banquet ” 1907