Sometimes doing the correct thing has costs. Think recycling as an example. Holding banks accountable to obeying the laws would be another.
The banks can be relied on to raise their fees to the edge of what the market will bear with or without scrutiny or tighter oversight. One just need compare the accounts of the Big 4 and their captive minors against the true minor competitors. The difference, while not always breath taking, can be significant.
I agree a RC might not result in the necessary outcomes, but assuming the report becomes a serious political issue and the pollies are seen to stonewall, it could result in the necessary legislation for their self preservation, or it could cause regime change until they do at least something beside hand wringing and 'looking over there not over here'. (What oh what am I on today? What are the chances? slap, slap!)
My punt is APRA and the ACCC go ever so lightly for a reason, and the reason is how they are appointed and funded. They are at the end of the day a lot of clever window dressing delivering a minor 'product' here and there, except when something becomes unavoidable and politically damaging to their masters,
Not without sufficient political will, and which of our pollies is willing to lead the charge?
Would you really expect that from a government that refuses to require financial advisers to advise in the best interests of their clients rather than themselves? This government is a libertarian hands-off caveat emptor type, and the ALP is not much more hands-on when it comes to the big end of town so the difference is in degree more than substance.
s/back to my normal cynical self