It irks me that they can constantly put together Watchdogs, Regulators, Reviews and Royal Commissions to identify misconduct and other nefarious deeds etc but none of them will act after the fact.
In my case we identified “behaviour falling below community standards” but according to the Regulator “we could afford the loans”, so the misconduct was overlooked and there was no case to answer for??
This is precisely why the culture of the Banks, Financial Services and Brokers etc continues.
ATM dispenses $100 notes instead of $10 notes and the bank states that the lucky customers can keep their windfalls.
Imagine that happening here with the grubby, bottom-feeding banks.
Another disgusting episode from the Banking R. C.
And he was formally a leading advisor to the Australian Government.
“Don’t you worry about that”.
It looks like it is just not the ACC, ASIC and APRA who are useless.
Time to add the QBCC and others to the list of incompetent authorities.
Now even the Reserve Bank has scored a guernsey.
APRA may change a few expectations.
Given APRA has been slow to respond in the past though, is it reasonable to expect APRA will be any more diligent in the future?
There are doubtless many good executives within the regulators and the industry. They however all work in a common environment with a shared culture. Future career moves probably depend more on an individuals ability to fit in first, not rock the boat second and work with the team third. Don’t get caught out and don’t blow any whistles might also help. Somehow any morally concerned individual needs to navigate a fine line between profit and conscience.
Is the need to change the environment absolutely paramount to achieving the degree of cultural change necessary? Or do we rely on confession and promises of self improvement? We all need good banks?
Choice’s current submission and requests for member support for legislated change to the Banking and Financial sector is a much more direct approach to changing the environment and influencing the culture.
"The most charitable thing you could say about the subsequent performance of NAB’s chairman, Ken Henry, was that he was demonstrating the independence of the role.
In a display that visibly and verbally appeared condescending, petulant and dismissive, Dr Henry came across as the arrogant face of banking — openly scoffing at questions from Rowena Orr QC and talking under his breath."
This is not particularly to do with Henry’s role at the bank nor how he chooses to represent the bank, this is Ken Henry under pressure, it’s his defence mechanism. Look at old interviews of him as Treasury Secretary or when he did the tax review, just the same. He projects this combative aura that says, I am the expert here and you are not qualified to ask these questions. Orr has his measure though. I think she is brilliant.
Which bank?
Yep. Those grubs.
I wonder what they do invest in …
