A study commissioned by the ABA in partnership with Galaxy Research, which surveyed 1,000 Australians, initially revealed that 46 per cent of respondents were in favour of a royal commission while 11 per cent were shown to be opposed to the idea.
However, when provided specific information on what exactly a royal commission entails as well as the average time it would take for recommendations to be delivered, support among respondents dropped.
About 36 per cent of those surveyed remained in favour, while 25 per cent of respondents opposed a royal commission.
Meanwhile, 39 per cent of respondents indicated they neither opposed nor supported the idea.
Commenting on the decline in support of the royal commission, ABA chief executive Steven Münchenberg said, “People don’t believe a royal commission is the right way to go when they understand that it can’t impose fines on banks or force banks to pay compensation, and it can’t change laws or do anything other than make recommendations which the government of the day is not bound to implement.
“Of those who believe banks need to improve the way they operate, the majority want action now, not in two to three years’ time via a royal commission.”
“People don’t believe a royal commission is the right way to go when they understand that it can’t impose fines on banks or force banks to pay compensation, and it can’t change laws or do anything other than make recommendations which the government of the day is not bound to implement”.
So in other words, people don’t believe the government of the day will actually take any action when the RC finds systemic abuse in Australia’s banks. That’s what it tells me, Mr Munchenberg. I sure if you framed the question, “Would you support a Royal Commission if it compelled the Banks to clean up their practices, pay compensation and allowed bring criminal charges to be brought against Bank executives?”. I’ve no doubt the numbers in support would go through the roof. So where’s your solution to ensure banks are forced to pay compensation etc etc? You don’t have one do you, Steve? Because quite transparently, that is what you’re trying to avoid through your manipulative questioning and spun commentary.