Senator calls for Royal Commission into financial planning industry
Clearly there is a problem with ASIC and its complaints register.
With AFSA previously called ITSA 90 % of complaints made about shonky Trustee are fucked over because Matthew Osborne , Principal Legal officer is advising regulation that a trustee has the discretion to fuck over and breach the Bankruptcy Act.
This allows AFSA to protect shonky trustee like Paul Pattison. After an FOI, AFSA admitted they had only received a small number of complaints about Pattison. The fact actually is AFSA received over 40 complaints about Pattison and still failed to act. AFSA also misled Senator John Williams on this.
As with the shonky Financial Adviser Peter Holt ASIC failed to act on numerous complaints made against him. This would have been because of the shonks working in the ASIC Legal department fucking over ASIC obligations
Bob Katter's daughter previously worked in ASIC's Legal Department in Sydney.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 26/06/2014
Reporter: Sarah Ferguson
Misconduct by financial advisers detailed in a Senate committee report questions the credibility of the Commonwealth Bank and financial regulator ASIC to such a degree that a Royal Commission into the industry is needed, according to Senator Mark Bishop.
Transcript
SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: Allegations of fraud, forgery and a cover-up have emerged from a Senate inquiry into the financial regulator and Commonwealth Bank.
The Senate report has slammed ASIC's handling of rogue financial planners at the Commonwealth Bank and is calling for a Royal commission.
The bank is accused of encouraging a culture where advisors were rewarded with big commissions for talking clients into risky products, and when clients lost money, the wrongdoing was covered up and compensation was minimal.
The Senate Economics Committee has described the corporate watchdog as timid and hesitant in its handling of the case.
Retiring Labor senator Mark Bishop, who chaired the committee, joins me now live from Canberra.
Mark Bishop, welcome to 7.30.
MARK BISHOP, RETIRING LABOR SENATOR: Thank you and good evening.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, you're calling for a Royal commission into the Commonwealth Bank and ASIC. Just starting with the bank, what have they done to warrant that call?
MARK BISHOP: What they've done is that they have not done enough. They haven't opened up their books. They haven't disclosed the full extent - the full number of clients who have been affected. They haven't paid adequate compensation to those who haven't been offered compensation. And more importantly, we're still unaware, after six months, as to the real extent of the damage. It's time to open up the books.
SARAH FERGUSON: Alright. Well tell me what you think the real extents of the damage is. What sort of number of victims of this dodgy financial planning are we talking about?
MARK BISHOP: We know the Commonwealth Bank's arm had 300,000 clients over a period of years. We know that 400 or a few more have received some form of compensation. We know that at least 7,000 files are considered to be suspect. Somewhere between 400 and that 7,000, possibly up into the tens of thousands of persons have suffered real harm, haven't received adequate compensation and deserve to have their files reconstructed and re-examined in a transparent, open, accountable manner.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, the Commonwealth Bank tonight is saying that they've apologised for the mistakes of the planners that were identified by your committee and that they now have robust procedures in place to stop that sort of dodgy planning advice coming again. Do you accept that?
MARK BISHOP: I accept that they have put in place some remediation, that they have paid $50 or $60 million to some clients. We still don't know how many clients are affected. There hasn't been a full independent examination of their books and we do know that those clients who retained reputable law firms to act on their behalf received significantly higher compensation payments than those who used the services offered by the Commonwealth Bank. Yes, they've made some changes, but nowhere near enough.
SARAH FERGUSON: So you're saying that the Commonwealth Bank is still covering up the extent of the number of victims and the extent of their suffering?
MARK BISHOP: I'm saying that the Commonwealth Bank needs to release the full number of clients, the number of clients who have lost serious amounts of money, the reasons for those losses and offer compensation via a reputable accounting firm or a reputable legal firm to end this nightmare that thousands and thousands of individuals and families are going through.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, what did the Commonwealth Bank do when it realised that it had these planners offering very high-risk advice? Did it move quickly to shut them down?
MARK BISHOP: No, no, it didn't. It acted inordinately slowly. Those financial planners had thousands of clients, they were reaping in millions of dollars of fees, a large share of that went up the bank chain in terms of profit and was returned to shareholders. It was only after extensive, repeated and extensive demands for inquiry and report and repair did the Commonwealth Bank put into place some mechanisms for change.
SARAH FERGUSON: So are you saying the Commonwealth Bank kept those financial planners in place knowing what they were doing?
MARK BISHOP: A number were let go - were removed after some years. A large number of those financial planners still remain in the bank and some indeed have been promoted.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now your report also looks at the behaviour of ASIC and they're part of your call for a Royal commission. How quickly did ASIC respond to the whistleblowers who came to them reporting that they were suffering at the hands of these financial planners?
MARK BISHOP: If I have been critical of the Commonwealth Bank, I'm equally critical - the report is equally critical of ASIC. It has been slow, it has been unresponsive, it hasn't taken reports seriously, it hasn't pursued investigations properly, agreements that have been reached haven't been enforced properly. Its tale is a tale of woe and clients and people in the wider community have continued to suffer because of their inordinately unresponsive and slow reaction.
SARAH FERGUSON: And they're about to have a fairly large budget cut, ASIC. Is the situation going to get worse for them?
MARK BISHOP: As this industry grows, as it goes into a trillion-dollar industry, as more firms emerge and lobby and gain business, we need to have a strong, effective, feared regulator. That's going to mean that Government in due course is going to have to allocate further funds, by whatever means, so that ASIC can do the job that's needed to be done on behalf of millions of Australians.
SARAH FERGUSON: Mark Bishop, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
MARK BISHOP: Thank you very much.
115 Comments
Anyone moronic enough to racially abuse someone is not going to stop to think whether he/she may be liable under s.18c of the RDA.
This is simply an attempt by the left and those with vested interests to close down debates before they even start.
And imagine the horror scenario of the Greens ever attaining some measure of political power in Australia. Imagine what those lunatics would have enshrined into law as hate/abusive/intimidating/offensive speech. There lies the slippery slope.
Free speech needs to be free (within the traditionally legal limits) or we might as well have no free speech. Someone with a barrow to push will always go out of their way to be offended by something in an attempt to shut someone else up.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (07:56am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:32am)
Recently “The Examiner” newspaper published an article written by a staff member in which petty complaints of doubtful veracity were made against people described as “Caucasian.”
A few references to non-Caucasians also appeared, always complimentary.
The clear message was that Caucasians were bad, non-Caucasians were good.
No problem for either author or newspaper. But had the article gone in the opposite direction, with Caucasians good and non-Caucasians bad, there would have been headlines around the world about endemic racism in Tasmania.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:50am)
Election NOW
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:41am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:09pm)
Free speech is like pregnancy.
Either you have it or you don’t.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (07:56am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (07:59am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:02am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:21am)
Hate ... speech.
Do you know where the term “hate speech” comes from PSFR? It’s been the favorite tool of totalitarians everywhere, since 1948. No wonder Lefties love it.
“All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the EU adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. (...) In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech. As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia”, launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended —and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended — the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.” [My Emphasis.]
See Jacob Mchangama, ‘The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws’, in Policy Review No. 170. December 1, 2011 (Hoover Institution: Stanford University). http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/100866
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:24am)
It is not for ANY GROUP to decide what is LEGAL speech and what isn’t, regardless of whether that group is the government, news readers, feel gooders, communists, greenies, totalitarians, arrogant boofheads or dinkface fartbreaths. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide if he likes the speech and if not, then it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to reprimand the person, boycott him or otherwise criticise the speaker.
Making THOUGHTS illegal does not address the problem. Changing mindset is through good, old fashioned education, conscience, discipline, respect and politeness, NONE of which the vicious, hate-filled, totalitarian left has. Allowing them to lead the “change” towards a better society is not only doomed to failure, but would create nothing but a prison where your very thoughts will see you getting punished.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:27am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:52am)
You may disagree with this of course, but I think those that do need to realise that they are not in favour of free speech, but rather speech that they find acceptable. If we were seeking to debate, you would have to start your point with “I believe speech that I disagree with should be restricted because…”
I think if people came to the realisation that the previous sentence is a more accurate representation of their position then that may change their mind. Or perhaps they are fine with deciding what people may say and think.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:49am)
They have asked for nothing of the sort.
What happened to Andrew Bolt in his case was not hate speech. It was the usual suspects using a law which was intended to stop hate speech used to stifle free speech. What I always love about the left is there repeated cries they are all for free speech if people agree with them.
You just have to take a look at the climate debate to see that. They want skeptics denied access to have their views aired. Or just like with Max Brenner boycotts.
When the shoe is on the other foot they cry victim.
Your argument which is typical of this is full of emotion and not logic.
All the protections people have will still be there when 18C is repealed. Everyone will get on with their lives. Free speech is what makes solid democracy.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:40pm)
Fact is it is censorship and you support it because freedom of speech is not something the left like and it allows you to push your PC thuggery on us.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:47pm)
@Rooboy - you have no clue - read the proposal before making a fool of yourself.
@Inquisitivemind - have replied to you several times at length, but never been published. I’m disappointed about your position on lawyers and the courts, given your own personal circumstances. You need a better mentor
but with:
At the end of the day, this one is a judgement call and simply a matter of opinion.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:53pm)
Democracy means;
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people”
and not government of the few, by the few, for the few as it is under our current distorted democracy by the few which is an autocracy by stealth.
Am I wrong?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:00am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:26am)
Further results from the poll indicate strong opposition to the government’s policies with respect to the Racial Discrimination Act, with 88% disagreeing with the contention that it should be lawful to offend, insult or humiliate on the basis of race, as per the provisions of 18C of the act, and 59% opposed to George Brandis’s contention that people have the right to be bigots, with 34% supportive.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:27am)
Democracy, noun, plural democracies.
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 29 Apr. 2014.
In bold is the part you can’t seem to grasp.
We are a participatory democracy that elects representatives. Your narrow view of democracy (your beloved direct democracy) is but one type of democracy.
Your support for democracy only extends to that type which you support so isn’t support for democracy. You do not believe in democracy otherwise you would simply accept the decision of the majority who voted in a referendum to keep our type of democracy in place.
That republican referendum is a perfect example of a democratic debate that resulted in a free and proper referendum.
It didn’t give the result you wanted, it gave the result the majority wanted. Your constant failure to accept the expressed will of the majority of the people shows that you are the fascist that wants to impose what you think we ought to have.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:01pm)
PaulM you 100% WRONG
Democracy
from the greek
demo=people....... not a few people
kratia= power
power to the people without any preferences.
OLIGARCY:
(from Greek ????????? (oligarkhía); from ?????? (olígos), meaning “few”, and ???? (arkho), meaninga
small group of people having control of a country or organization OR a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few..
Am I wrong?
Stop playing dirty politic and please respect democracy.
No wonder the crooks are in charge to impose their dirty laws.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:01pm)
I guess the biggest issue I have with your comment is the bit about not accepting the will of the majority making one a fascist. Fascist parties can, in fact, be elected in a fair election. So by your logic, those who oppose the Fascist government are then fascists. I’m very uneasy about the notion that something is right just because our elected representatives say it is.
Simple reason is an old saying.
One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Means what you think is ok is poison to someone else and since no-one can ever know what that is, then there is no way to define an insult/humiliation etc.
The only way it can be done is if we are ll drones who take proclamations from Canberra every morning as gospel, no matter how puerile it might be.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:02am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:28am)
Seems like some minority groups are just plain sooks.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:05pm)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones
But whips and chains excite me”
Take for example a doctor presenting a health seminar to an indigenous community. If he advised them that they should be cautious of full cream milk intake because their genetic make-up gave them a much higher probability of lactose intolerance than Europeans (85% of adult aboriginals are lactose intolerant), he might be open top prosecution if one of the audience felt offended. As I read it, offence is all that’s required to make it an offence.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:02am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:46am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:04pm)
Let’s keep in mind that to date it seems that one person has fallen foul of this law and as a result he feels his free speech has been impeded, can anyone cite one other person affected by the law in this way, just one?
Furthermore, he fails to admit that one of the reasons for his this is the sheer number of factual errors he made in the articles.
He just didn’t do his homework. Had he done so, things might be very different.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:05am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:04pm)
It is about time people stopped being so precious and grew up.
If I could take people to court that hurt my feelings, well gee where would I start? Maybe my brother then I could sue my parents then move on to play mates, teachers , work mates, etc etc. Who cares? Enough.
As far as having your feelings hurt because of racists, those on the receiving end should turn it around and thank the person for showing their true selves. It can take the rest of us years to find out what these people are like.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:05am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:45am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:09pm)
You’re being INCREDIBLY naive if you don’t think the minorities also discriminate.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:25pm)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:40pm)
Good thinking champ.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:40pm)
Laws already exist that protect against intimidation and threatening an individual.
Today, you give up your free speech. What will you give away tomorrow?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:53pm)
How about you read what Val actually wrote.
Her point was about hurt feelings. You used the words ‘intimidated’ and ‘threatened’ - not Val.
You have to be pretty dishonest (and rather stupid) to do what you just tried to do and think you wouldn’t get caught out.
..or white or Christian..?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:54pm)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:56pm)
Where did Val ever say that in their entire post?
You just as per usual read what you wanted to read and then sprouted off complete rubbish that wasn’t even mentioned in the original post.
So you are happy for people to be intimidated and threatened (before any physical violence occurs) by some bigot because they are homosexual or black or Muslim, or Jewish or......?
Just pure emotive clap trap with no reason or logic. Not once was this said.
This is why 18C is dangerous because of people like you B4Bear. It isn’t about protecting peoples rights but stopping debate on issues you may not like.
Your post really sums up your irrational thought process.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:03pm)
So you are happy for people to be intimidated and threatened (before any physical violence occurs) by some bigot because they are homosexual or black or Muslim, or Jewish or......?
How about white?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:19pm)
I would also prefer that people were taught how to behave in public as well as in private. I would prefer the enemy of good manners “political correctness” be discarded to the rubbish heap.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:51pm)
Anything else is lie and fraud.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:57pm)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:16pm)
Therefore by extension that includes threaten and intimidate.
Get it?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:17am)
In which case, are we entitled to judge Section 18c a failure?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:30am)
(Before I wrote this I had to check the HRC’s name and I found that the ABC is getting its knickers in a twist about some race-based groups saying that a change to 18C will - not might - lead to race riots like the one at Cronulla NINE YEARS AGO.)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:31am)
Aussies just don’t like bullies.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:35am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:47am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:14am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:46pm)
Nowhere near 90% support censoring opinions the way the left want to.
Why do you leftist fools claim to support freedom yet attack it at every opportunity?
It is much better that people and express their worst opinions,and be argued against then silence them, driving underground and deciding to take unsavory actions.
Less nanny laws and debate your critics rather than using the ‘state’ to silence them. Toughen up everybody.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:41am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:07am)
From Wikipedia, BTW.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:28am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:13am)
Racism is merely a meme, a tool of control.
Remember the Left are heavily into Eugenics,
and have been since before the National Socialist Hitler.
Remember too that like their Nazi predecessors, they are highly Anti-Semetic, The Left are the oldest, most totalitarian racists of all time.
So called “Racism” is really the once imperative, ability of a person to differentiate between his tribe, and everyone else’s tribe.
People are born"Racist" of necessity , The left have turned this obvious fact into a weapon.
Anyone who says that he is not a racist is at best a sincere self deceiver, and at worst a pretentious liar.
18c is childish attempt at thought control, and assuaging guilty consciences.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:43am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:29am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:15pm)
The far right slaughtered six out of eight million Jews during the 1940s and you have the gall to call the left anti Semitic?
Let me quote some good ole rightists and their thoughts on Jews:
“Everywhere? one sees the directing and destroying hand of Jewry!”
-Tsar Nicholas II
The German Kaiser who claimed that the revolution against him was
“egged on and misled by the tribe of Judah ... Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated from German soil!”
-Kaiser Wilhelm II
“If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.”
-Adolf Hitler
“While music is heard and our flag is raised there are wandering throughout the world the damned such as the eternal Jew, whom nobody wants because they are a Communist horde.”
-General Franco
Einstein became a committed leftist after the Second World war for a reason you know.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:47pm)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:03pm)
Churchill was an early supporter of Eugenics.
Using you logic this makes him a Socialist.
After all he did create the British welfare state between 1907-11. And he did write a book about it and propose implement higher taxes on the rich to pay for welfare services for the poor.
Like I’ve said many time MattR. History is not your friend.
Landry, the LIB member for Reid in Western Sydney is getting hammered over it.
I wouldn’t expect Wilson to have too many clues. What was the last piece of legislation he amended?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:50am)
But vilification of individuals purely on their race or religion, rather than being healthy debate or in ‘the public interest’, is the stuff of totalitarianism. History is littered with pogroms on ethnic and religious groups, and any law that makes those crimes easier can’t be permitted.
Bolt’s attack on identified individuals who legally took advantage of opportunities available to them was ill-considered at best, and racist at worst, because his arguments turned on race, not the merits of the individuals concerned as being eligible or competent for the positions.
While I don’t agree with all the judge’s findings, any one of the litigants could be forgiven for thinking Bolt’s views were an attack on their racial antecedents, irrespective of the identification choices available to them.
If race or religion is a factor in a matter that affects our society, let it be discussed and debated on its merits, rather than hidden, but have regard to the rights of individuals to exercise legitimate choices without fear of abuse by powerful people.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:53am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:31am)
Doh!! I should have known a BUT was coming!!!
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:00pm)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:00pm)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:40pm)
After all, if someone says that some in a certain ethnic group is doing something bad, why would I feel bad about it if I am not doing that bad thing but belong to that ethnic group? It is obvious that that person was not talking about me.
Ergo, those who take offense at sweeping statements are GUILTY AS CHARGED!
The government really needs to keep quiet about it for the moment.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:55am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:49am)
Please.
It is much better that people and express their worst opinions,and be argued against then silence them, driving underground and deciding to take unsavory actions.
Less nanny laws and debate your critics rather than using the ‘state’ to silence them. Toughen up everybody.
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:00am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:01am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:31am)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:10pm)
Why do you always twist people’s words to make it sound like we’re bullying you?
Don’t you get tired of playing the victim?
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:21pm)