At a cost of $75m. http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...r/news-story/ebac85c6474c092e629744a31d22aa5a Not bad.
Considering the government spend over $100 million just to put out postal votes for same sex marriage, $75 million for a banking royal commission is a bargain. I'm sure Malcolm will do what's in the best interest of his people though and protect the banks at all cost. Even if they do the royal commission, all that will happen is a few people will get a big pay day and they will over look everything that goes on in the banks. All good here people, nothing to see.
From Lifechoices.com.au: The commission will be given just 12 months to look into the affairs of all banks, big and small, other financial institutions, insurance companies, wealth managers and superannuation funds. That is an investigation of thousands of companies. Is it really feasible for a commission funded to the tune of just $75 million to be able to thoroughly scrutinise the practices of, at a minimum, say 10 institutions every single day for a year? And further, even if this gargantuan task was achieved, the outcome would be sketchy and threadbare at best. Now back to the scope of the proposed inquiry. The four banks who unusuallywrote to the Federal Government requesting a royal commission asked that the net be thrown over all of its financial services cousins, too – insurers, super, wealth managers and so on. This smacks of an attempt to throw a bunch of red herrings into the mix to cloud what should be at the core of this investigation – badly behaving banks. The other sectors may have their indiscretions, too, but let’s leave them for another day. The major banks’ attempt to obfuscate the issue this way is nasty and self-serving and by agreeing to it, the Government is unashamedly siding with the Big Four merchants instead of every day consumers and small investors. In fact, Mr Turnbull could not have made it plainer: “We have much to be proud of about our banking system and the experience of the global financial crisis should remind us of that. We have much to be proud of, but also much to take care of.” He went on: “… all Australians, consumers, small businesses, farmers, shareholders, must have confidence and trust in the financial system. Now this royal commission’s establishment will end the uncertainty and speculation.” The Prime Minister seems so sure of how this will end, it is pretty obvious the whole thing is being staged.
"The Prime Minister seems so sure of how this will end, it is pretty obvious the whole thing is being staged." Turnbull was very confident that the High Court would find in favour of the government regarding Barnaby Joyce in the citizenship case; the High Court determined otherwise. He would be unwise to predict the outcome of the banking Royal Commission.
And it looks like it has backfired on Labour if it also looks into the ultra corrupt union controlled industry Super funds.
I wonder if it will look at deposits are not deposits, the creation of money out of thin air, the mandrake mechanism that allows banks to lend out 9 times what they get, and the practice of using promissory notes as a loan contracts ... as well as the routine paper fraud their lenders engage in on a daily basis ... and how banks fit into treatments of tax free jurisdictions for the shifty few in the know ...
State capture only exists because the crony State feeds it in order to survive. Remove the State (or curtail its function) and you limit the problem. The problem is not with those we put in positions of power, but with the notion we have to put people into positions of powers
The same union funds that consistently outperform the for-profit funds run by the banks who the government was desperate not to investigate? Those union funds?
What a joke , a RC is never started if they don't know the outcome already , AND Why has there never been a RC into police corruption in Vic ?
https://www.australianpolice.com.au/the-wood-royal-commission-10-years-on/ The one they had into NSW police back in '95 sure raised some pulses
“They can’t be corrupt, they are the most profitable” Strangest defense of corporate malfeasance that I have ever heard.
Is anyone without a vested interest in shifting attention away from their own dodgy practices claiming the industry funds are misbehaving? Personally, I'm not with an industry fund, nor a corporate fund so it doesn't affect me either way, but the industry funds don't try to up-sell their members on bank accounts, credit cards, home loans and investment schemes for a kickback performance based incentive like the banks do so it's curious why they've been thrown into the mix when the big banks have a long and well documented history of shafting their customers.