CHOICE membership

Royal Commission into the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry



I heard that FY Tony Abbott was speaking to Alan ‘I’ve got opinions to beat your facts’ Jones this morning about the Royal Commission, and apparently stated that the regulators should have picked up all this stuff that’s coming out in the Royal Commission. FY apparently thinks - I mean, opined - that some of the regulators should be sacked for not doing their jobs!

For some reason, that got me to thinking back a few years. Thinking about that failure of a prime minister who said that regulators should ‘get out of the way’ of businesses. The one who cut the budgets of said regulators to the point where they said they could not do their jobs. The one who wanted to ‘slash red tape’. And in fact, according to Wikipedia’ entry on his mess (and Wikipedia’s sources):

The government, which favours deregulation, intends to remove customer protections in the sector; allow advisers to earn sales commission and other so-called “conflicted remuneration” from providing general financial advice; and remove the requirement for financial advisers to tell customers how much they are receiving in commissions every year and give them the chance to opt out of the arrangements every second year. This was in addition to removing the laws that require financial advisers to act in the best interest of their clients, and the requirement that they provide clients with a statement of the fees they’ll be charged each year.

Lest we forget the low crimes and misdemeanours of the man who would be king. Shame, FY Tony, shame!


The past paragraph suggests the cynicism some of us share may be wide spread. Will they step up or as usual, step aside?


I was one person that thought not much would really come out of this Royal Commission maybe just a few minor things and that’s about all.But gee it sure has opened a can of worm.Don’t think anyone would have guessed it was going to be this bad


Some apparently knew. Could be why they resisted it so long and hard.


:rage: :rage: :rage:


The following link is today’s ABC round up of the RC. Financial Advice that stinks is the main message but plenty of other stuff to fill you with a wish for more than Karmic justice.

And Mr Turnbull and Co resisted calling an RC about 24 times and the PM now says it was a mistake to resist. You could wonder how he couldn’t have known as he is a Goldman Sachs ex Merchant Banker himself.


The rot is not limited to the big players. The arrogance and dismissive nature behind every exposure is priceless. As Scotty is quoted saying, nothing they did not know about!

edit: Another valued adviser bringing in the profits via pure dodgy, apparently with complete impunity from his employer.


For those wanting to follow the RC as it happens there’s an excellent liveblog at (I have no affiliation with it)

It provides explanations and context for witnesses and questions. And some very funny memes as well.


An article that explores (not too deeply but) possible reasons the LNP Govt resisted over 20 times to call a Royal Commission into Banking. I think it echoes much of what has been said in this topic but good to see it in print.


Today’s instalment reveals how the FPA and probably many other similar organisations operate :open_mouth:


The title of the article linked to below needs no further explanation, it is as clear as pure water:


AMP & Colonial First State may have broken the Law is some of what has so far come out of today’s RC reports, not that many of us already didn’t think that wasn’t the case. But what hope of ASIC mounting a criminal case as they have only done so once in the last ten years (it occurred in 2010).


APRA is it useless, conflicted, or what? CBA gets a tap on the wrist. 54,000 times it broke the law. What is it’s penalty for a culture of poor regulatory compliance (that means it didn’t do what APRA expected it to do). A $1 Billion enforceable undertaking, what a joke but we knew it was the likely outcome. No one but perhaps fools or politicians would have thought it would have been different. If CBA did it just before the Banking RC what do APRA think they are going to do now that is ANY different. APRA let it slip before and I am pretty sure nothing will change.

So at the end of the article it says “At some stage, however, the commission will need to turn its gaze to the regulators” but the Terms of Reference (ToR) prohibit most of that (did anyone who asks/states this read that part of the ToR or did they just fail to understand it). I don’t think they really understand how the regulators will get the soft touch treatment themselves.


And we the tax payers will have to front the legal bill to take these mega corps to court. The only people to win here are the law workers. I’ve seen it before but in a different landscape… developers come into a small town set to “develop” what ever they want… the local council says no (because they were democratically voted in and the residents don’t like what the developers plan does to their community), developers take that decision to court… and keep it there… the council goes bankrupt… the developers win.
Will the same happen here? We bailed the banks out not that long ago and this is how they have treated us… I can’t say they’ll change… it doesn’t make sense for their shareholders. (And their shareholders aren’t your super funds… they own them too).


It is more likely to be carefully crafted to, and is working, exactly as intended. Lots of brouhaha and little substantial happening to right the industry, except bad press. The government thinks it will get votes from allowing the RC to happen,and the outcome will blow over sooner than later, and life will go on much as before with those profits rolling in.


I don’t doubt it is working as intended but you would hope someone who makes a statement that the RC needs to look at macro-prudential policy, regulation and organisations would look carefully to ensure they really understood what the ToR really offered.

By the way how are the holiday digs/layover?


To stay on topic I replied in the holiday thread.

Some politicians seem to get away with that, don’t they? :wink:


So in 2016 CBA lost control of somwhere near 20 million customer account records. They are just telling us now. They tell us the magnetic tapes the data was stored on “was likely erased/destroyed” by the third party dealing with the tapes, but it isn’t really known, why? well because that’s why they lost them because they don’t know.

Want to read their oh so reassurring blurb about it?

Dear CommBank Customer,

Following recent media reports detailing an incident in May 2016, we want to reassure you there is no evidence of your information being compromised and you do not need to take any action.
Here is what you need to know:
• There is no evidence that any customer information was compromised.
• In May 2016 we were unable to confirm the scheduled destruction of two magnetic tapes used by a supplier to print bank statements. These tapes contained information including customer names, addresses, account numbers and transaction details.
• They did not contain passwords or PINs which could enable fraud.
• We deployed enhanced reporting and ongoing monitoring of customer accounts to ensure customers were protected. These protections are still in place today.
• This was not cyber-related. CommBank’s technology platforms, systems, services, apps and websites were not compromised.
• CommBank offers you a 100% security guarantee against fraud for all your accounts, where you are not at fault. We cover any loss should someone make an unauthorised transaction.

Here is what you can do:
• Continue using your accounts as you always have.
• Please remember that CommBank staff will never ask you to divulge your passwords or PINs. We do not send emails with links requesting you to confirm, update or disclose your confidential banking information.
• If you have questions or would like to discuss, please call us at 1800 316 433.
• If you would like to find more information you can visit

I want to apologise for any concern this incident may have caused. If there is any change in circumstances I will let you know.
Yours sincerely,

Angus Sullivan
Acting Group Executive Retail Banking Services

Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124. "

Does it make me feel any safer? Not really, I remember the Fed Govt confidential papers found in a filing cabinet incident, and who is to say this Bank incident won’t have that type of outcome eventuate with this debacle. The Bank decided we weren’t to be told as we might have become concerned about the safety of our data. Guess what I and others are even more concerned now because of that delay in advising.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH CBA and not good enough the regulator who had been advised of this issue. What a joke and how woefully we as the affected consumers are treated.

And if the circumstances change…When will they let us know as Angus promises to do if they do change? Perhaps like this advice now, two or more years down the track?

I haven’t stopped fuming yet so as I wandered again through their advice I was struck by the complacency of their utterances…We will protect you against fraud “CommBank offers you a 100% security guarantee against fraud for all your accounts, where you are not at fault”…But you are a customer who has Identity Theft carried out on you because of this detail being lost, how in the world do you prove it is fraud? The Bank will say “prove it isn’t you as we believe it is you until you prove differently”. How do they know it hasn’t been used successfully, by the very nature of being successful it isn’t detected so they won’t and wouldn’t know.

And just because this incident isn’t cyber fraud (which I would be more understanding of) doesn’t make it any the less very very bad. In fact it really calls into account the Bank’s procedures that are involved in securing client information any time, what are they because they certainly don’t and didn’t work.

Hmmm what did I say about proving it was fraud, oh that’s right the Bank would say it was the account holder until they proved it wasn’t them. Here is a tale that shows exactly that:


Hmm… and the supplier? The one who had these tapes with all of this information on it… to print statements… what’s their security like? And… who are they?
“It’s not my fault your Honour, I gave it to a mate of mine to print and he lost it”

Oh really?


I’ll just leave this here … :wink: