Industry Super Australia (ISA) believes the call for a royal commission is justified, saying the lack of community trust and confidence in ‘scandal-prone’ banks could infect public confidence in their lines of business in compulsory super.
“A royal commission will have to consider how broadly and deeply unethical conduct exists in their vertically integrated businesses, including their involvement in managing hundreds of billions of compulsory super savings on behalf of millions of Australians,” an ISA statement said.
“Given compulsory super is a central piece of Australia’s long-term economic and social policy, on balance, the answer may be to structurally separate banks and super.”
Principal of law firm Maurice Blackburn Kim Shaw said the royal commission is a long overdue, necessary and welcome measure.
“The personal costs of the industry’s behaviour for people affected – many who are highly vulnerable, under significant financial pressures or very unwell – cannot be overstated,” he said.
“It is absolutely critical that all sides of politics support this Royal Commission.”
However, the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA) believes a royal commission is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer funds.
ABA chief executive Steven Munchenberg said it would have international ramifications for Australia.
“Banks are particularly concerned that a call for a royal commission will send alarm signals to international investors about Australia at a time of global volatility,” Mr Munchenberg said.
“Australia’s banks are already highly regulated. Banks have also just contributed to a comprehensive review of the financial system and are now implementing recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry to ensure the integrity of the system into the future.”
Mr Shorten said that many Australians have suffered through the decisions of banks and financial institutions.
“Retirees who have lost their retirement savings, small businesses who have lost their livelihood, Australian families who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, life insurance beneficiaries, denied justice and legitimate claims,” he said.
[quote name=”AJ Dann”]And the obvious next question to ask ISA would be…’but hang on isn’t ISA a vertically integrated organisation’ with a sales force quasi tied Advisers/Union pushers out there simply flogging ISA funds and forcing employees to be memebers Ie CBus on Union dominated building sites…Oh that would be too obvious. Double standards continue and continue to be ignored. For god sake enough of this goody v baddy stuff. Both are as bad as one another. Its just everyone in the press ignores the hypocrisy of ISA and give them a free run.[/quote]
End discussion. End Enquiry. If a RC is needed it is needed across Industry Funds and the big vertically integrated banks/life companies. Both are as bad as each other.
Hey Mr Shorten – in response to your so called concerns “that many Australians have suffered through the decisions of banks and financial institutions”; I’d strongly suggest that many Australian’s have also suffered at the hands of the thuggery and stand over tactics of the unions you support too. Why don’t you also focus on that as an area worth cleaning up. Phhhht….not likely though hey?
There’s greed and corruption wherever you look these days in business sadly – in banks, life insurance companies, governments, you name it – its there. Consumers are NEVER the sole focus any more.
A royal Commission may be what is needed after the issues that have come out of the wealth management areas of CBA, ANZ, NAB and Westpac.
Kind regards,
Adrian Totolos.
Business Consultant.
Astounding yes, surprising no. Lawyers want to lawyer and the best most profitable Lawyering in town is done at a Royal Commission.
By the way take a look at the bias of comment numbers. 3 to 1. ISA, Maurice Balckburn, ALP on one side and the ABA on the other. Typical and the headline is ‘opinion divided’ but then you read the article and the emphasis is…you guessed it…Socialist bottom feeders with an axe to grind.
I find it astounding that Maurice Blackburn would be asked to comment. Shaw’s comment that “the personal costs of the industry’s behaviour for people affected – many who are highly vulnerable, under significant financial pressures or very unwell – cannot be overstated”, is simply outrageous, a double standard and disingenuous when considered in the light of Maurice Blackburn’s greedy taking of millions from a class action payout for Black Saturday fires while those affected remain unpaid. More credible commentators should be sought.
Two bullies in the school playground having a fight. Standing in the principals office they each blame each other.
Fast forward twenty years and one works for the ISA and the other the ABA.
…and the real loser is…the constituent.
Of course the ISA and the ABA would have counter positions regarding a Royal Commission. Their ISA’s constituents are the natural competitors of ABA membership. Any commercial advantage that can be garnered by either side from a bit of mud-slinging will go a long way.
Royal Commissions are very time consuming and expensive but perhaps, at the end of the day, the washing needs to be hung out to air. A Royal Commission should not be limited to Banks and financial services, but should also encompass Industry Funds, if it is to have any credibiility.
If banks, financial institutions and Industry Funds have nothing to hide, then surely they would empbrace a Royal Commission to clear the air once and for all.
And, if there have been inappropriate practices by either, or both sides of the debate, don’t we, and the international community to the extent they may be interested, have a right to know?
they will also discover the FSC connections if there is a royal commission, that would be interesting.
Might also expose this total LIF falsehood
And the obvious next question to ask ISA would be…’but hang on isn’t ISA a vertically integrated organisation’ with a sales force quasi tied Advisers/Union pushers out there simply flogging ISA funds and forcing employees to be memebers Ie CBus on Union dominated building sites…Oh that would be too obvious. Double standards continue and continue to be ignored. For god sake enough of this goody v baddy stuff. Both are as bad as one another. Its just everyone in the press ignores the hypocrisy of ISA and give them a free run.