The Senate voted 40-25 in favour of the establishment of the inquiry, with only the government senators opposing it, according to a statement from Labor Senator Katy Gallagher.
The inquiry will look at existing legislative and regulatory frameworks to ensure they have Australians best interests at their core.
It will also look at the impact of misconduct in the banking, insurance and financial services sector on consumers as well as incentive-based commission and fee-for-no-service structures.
Further, the inquiry will examine the culture and chain of responsibility in relation to misconduct within entities in the sector; the adequacy of legal advice and representation for victims of misconduct; and the availability and adequacy of redress and compensation for victims.
“Malcolm Turnbull’s continued refusal to establish a banking royal commission means that those who have been ripped off and left with nothing have no way of having their stories heard. Labor wants to change that,” the statement said.
“Mr Turnbull’s refusal to establish a royal commission proves he is the best friend the banks have ever had. He will give a $50 billion tax cut to big business and the banks, but he won’t do anything to stop the rorts and the rip-offs.
“This committee will provide an immediate opportunity for people all around Australia to put their experiences on the record and give their opinion on what needs to change in Australia to better protect consumers into the future.”
What about the ASIC being subject to a Code of Conduct and being accountable for legal expenses and costs when their actions have not been properly discussed and reviewed before submitting their victims to excessive waste of time and legal expenses and then not being found guilty of any crime……….the ASIC and the staff members move on to their next victim without being accountable for their past actions and having these actions recorded on their staff records or compensation for the victims of reckless allegations and including accusations and threats
The union backed industry super funds, just like uber, have a strategic agenda to influence legislation to support their business model. The difference between the two is that Uber will openly admit that is their strategy whereas the industry funds pretend that they are doing this for the greater good.
And don’t forget that Uber is also clearly the superior service… Industry funds are not.
For a minute I thought Labor was going to establish a financial misconduct enquiry into themselves both State and Federally and got excited.
Its obvious then that you have not seen the direct impact of bad advice on affected families. Yes, the inquiries into the big banks are a waste of time when looking at financial planning as that has been done to death. What needs to be looked at are the victims of agribusiness, and the banks (not necessarily the big 4 at all) who have benefited from clients’ losses – the loss of their homes, super, livelihood, sleep, etc. It is a very real impact and has not been acknowledged, dealt with or managed anywhere near the level of justice it deserves, especially when you have a certain banks committing fraud in order to profit from a bad decision it made, yet ordinary mums and dads are bearing the brunt of the banks poor management decisions. This needs to be looked into.
Serey, we would take Labor a bit more seriously if they didn’t have such a blatant conflict of interest via their Union funding, who in turn generate hundreds of millions in revenue for themselves compliments of the ISA, which gets fed back up to…. yep, you guessed it, the good ol’ ‘honest’ Labor party.
If they proposed a broader approach, (and ended their almost decade long witch hunt of planners for their own superfund preservation/revenue self interests), and had this inquiry into the overall banking sector decisions particularly during the GFC and immediately after, I would 100% agree with you. Aside from pulling funding from agribusiness, banks in their haste for self preservation destroyed other countless viable businesses and investments by ‘reducing credit risk’ and demanding unreasonable payback terms and timetables. Everything from regional infrastructure companies to major commercial property syndicates in capital cities were affected. And then the ‘administrators’ step in and rape with exorbitant fees, before bayoneting the wounded and winding up the businesses with little to no payout to anyone at 100 cents in the dollar except their own greedy selves. So if you think about it, if this ‘inquiry’ was as fair dinkum as you and “Henry’ below are trying to make out, it would be one the banking system and financial management/administration & liquidation services industry – but of course there is little mass public emotional appeal or direct financial incentive to Labor in doing something so commonsense as that.
Joe, I’m sorry but I can’t seem to understand the union connection and frankly don’t care about that. All I want to see is that the clients who were impacted by the GFC, via agribusiness or by forced closure of their businesses, etc. In fact I thought your ‘broader approach’ that you outlined in your second paragraph was what this senate inquiry into financial misconduct was about. If not, what can we, as an industry, do to give faith back to impacted consumers and bring about the kind of inquiry that we would like to see? What made you think that this senate inquiry was at all about unions?
It is about time the banks and insurance companies and other financial institutions who accept people’s money under trust, are held accountable. I had an insurance claim that was dealt with summararily and rudely by Comminsure some years ago. Their refusal to meet the terms of the insurance contract was frustrating and at the time there was no way to take them to task. I hope that this inquiry does put the spotlight on there practices. Good on Labor for doing what is right and bucket loads of crap on Turnbull for protecting the banks. Turnbull is an apologist for the crooks.
I know who I will be voting for at the next election.
Interesting that Lleyonhelm, Hanson, & Hinch seem to be siding with the union super agenda. I wonder how many of the people who voted for them realised how cosy they would be with the unions.
[b]Now now Henry,[/b] just imagine if you had a professional adviser initially give you advice and then help you through the claims process. Certain it would have been a completely different outcome for you, especially if you initially provided full disclosure. We know as we have done exactly that with numerous clients.
You can’t judge ‘the system’ on one personal experience, I am curious where you got your Comminsure policy – [i]betting it was an ISA group cover that was worthless due to their agreement with the insurer. [/i]Or worse still, you thought you would do it all yourself… bit like someone having health issues by self-prescribing rather than seeing a Dr, and then blaming the ‘big pharmaceutical’ companies for the side effects. (That is assuming you are not telling porky pies and are in reality a Labor/ISA/Union lackey? :roll:)
How many more enquiries do we have to have? What a complete waste of tax payer funds when we have already had FOFA, LIF and what seems like dozens of other enquiries which have lead to amended legislation and regulations. Is there not currently an enquiry under way in regard to suitability of compensation arrangements. Labor and the ISA are never going to be happy until they have regulated Financial Planners out of existence. As Jimmy has said this will never look into the problems in Union Super Funds as they are the ones driving this through their friendly political party the ALP.
It’s time this stopped so that we as Professional Advisers can focus our efforts on providing advice to clients rather than wasting time putting in place new procedures for regulations which will never ultimately benefit the client.
Maybe the Senate enquiry will look at the rip-off that is Group Insurance cover offered by Union Super Funds. It’s obviously the fault of financial planners that we can offer clients insurance in the advised channel that is of better quality, lower premiums, and with better outcomes at claim time because we receive those nasty commissions. It’s obviously so much better for members of Union Super Funds to be paying higher premiums for crappy cover, that has a higher instance of problems at claim time. All but one of the cases highlighted by Adele Ferguson in the 4 Corners episode related to group insurance within Union Super Funds but that never stopped Adele from conflating the so-called financial advice scandals with the issues faced by these people. Will the Senate Enquiry also consider the fact that Union Super Funds may not PAY commissions, but are only to happy to ACCEPT commissions from the insurance increases paid by the insurers. And to accept bonuses when claims are contained within certain limits. But with a Labor initiated enquiry i dont expect the terms of reference to include Union Super Funds, given the Labor party is the best friend they have.
Jimmy – don’t let the facts get in the way. You highlight better claims outcomes if an adviser is involved. ASIC’s report issued in October shows that retail declines 7% of claims and group declines 8%. Its time we stand together.