Readers have a few ideas about what Scott Morrison can do to spin the banking royal commission findings in his favour (though some didn’t want us giving him any ideas). Meanwhile, suggestions kept coming in regarding what Kenneth Hayne missed in his report, and readers discussed potential interest rate changes (and the pundits who seem to get it so wrong).
Wayne Cusick writes: I don’t think there is great advantage in it for the LNP. Labor was always going to support the recommendations, and likely would go harder on the banks than the LNP would. But that may be the point — the LNP have no intention of going hard on the recommendations. As evidenced by the terms of reference, the limited time given to the royal commission and the intention to not have some things changed until 2021.
Bob Morgan writes: Do we really expect anything better than half-smart ideas and responses from the dumbest government in our nation’s history? It is a national disgrace that this government only intends sitting a handful of days in almost five months — talk about lifters and leaners.
Harold Levien writes: The outrageous behaviour of the banks, financial institutions and super funds began after Keating privatised the Commonwealth Bank, deregulated the banking system and introduced compulsory superannuation (a wise decision) but, unlike Norway, immediately privatised super contributions.
To ensure long-term change to protect the community’s interests, the government response to the royal commission’s report should include re-regulating the banking system, reestablishing a public trading bank, establishing a government super fund without commissions (to avoid the current rip-off of $30 billion annual fees) and a government life and home insurance corporation. Modern capitalism has degenerated into massive exploitation of consumers. We can no longer rely on corporate integrity to protect the consumer against their conflicting profit motive.
James Sykes writes: How hard would it be for any and all businesses to have a designated responsible and accountable officer, that is the person who gets charged, tried and jailed for any criminal offences by the business. It would be a defence to argue that as soon as the activity was discovered appropriate action was taken, but a long term “blind eye” is no defence. If a CEO was — or should have been — aware of criminal activity down the line but ignored it because the profit results were too good then the CEO becomes culpable.
John Kotsopolos writes: I shake my head in wonderment that the AFR seems to have such a mesmerising hold on the rest of the media. This was the journal that was running uncritically positive stories from various scribes about the stock market just weeks before it tanked. More than ten years later it still hasn’t recovered its high despite the usual winnowing out of the dead and dying.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.