The RC into abuse would have had claims made by some that evidence did not support, eg someone piggy backing onto someone's legitimate claims. But if the RC had not looked as deeply because of some perceived lack of honesty the results would have been different. They, I am sure, rejected some claims as baseless and no further investigation was taken or warranted.
If you look at the amounts the Financial Institutions even before the RC was announced, have had to pay out to aggrieved customers, and the culture of inappropriate financial behaviour by staff in those financial institutions, then those claims will and have included customers with unfounded grievances putting claims forward.
However these do not likely get past the sifting of claims and on further investigation are probably and most likely rejected. The same will happen in the RC for people placing their grievances on record. I would rather the 1s or the 10s getting past the initial barriers with somewhat baseless accusations than the 100s or 1,000s with real claims not being heard, by this I mean the ratio not the actual numbers. The baseless claims will be quickly cut out
Also Financial Institutions have a duty of care to provide honest appraisal of a person's capacity to pay, and in the circumstances of someone investing to take responsible care of that investment. This from both a historic basis and the current revelations, has not occurred to the tune of billions of dollars. Perhaps, and I think likely the situation is far worse than many anticipate.
Some Financial Institutions have also created clutter and delay at the RC by providing poor responses, un-needed and patently wasteful amounts of paper that has no real relevence to the Inquiry. Is this a tactic to bog the RC down so that it's time is wasted and real claims are unable to be fully or even partially reviewed in the timeframe allocated. I am more suspicious and wary of this behaviour.