Regulators failed to stop misconduct: Hayne

APRA/ASIC/regulator/regulators/Royal-Commission/interim-report/

28 September 2018
| By Hannah Wootton |
image
image image
expand image

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry has slammed the industry regulators for failing to sufficiently punish wrongdoers for harm done to consumers, when they did in fact punish them at all.

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne found that when misconduct was revealed, it either went unpunished or the consequences wrought were not proportionate to the level of harm done. This echoed concerns on the strength of regulatory punishment voiced by victims of the industry’s misconduct for years, some of whom testified before the Commission.

“Much more often than not, when misconduct was revealed, little happened beyond apology from the entity, a drawn out remediation program and protracted negotiation with ASIC [Australian Securities and Investments Commission] of a media release, an infringement notice, or an enforceable undertaking that acknowledged no more than that ASIC had reasonable ‘concerns’ about the entity’s conduct,” Hayne wrote.

The Commissioner noted that the conduct regulator, ASIC, rarely took matters to court and the prudential regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), never did.

“Infringement notices imposed penalties that were immaterial for the large banks. Enforceable undertakings might require a ‘community benefit payment’, but the amount was far less than the penalty that ASIC could properly have asked a court to impose,” Hayne continued.

Rather than suggesting a slew of recommended new laws, as many in the industry feared the Commission would, Hayne noted that much of the misconduct uncovered was already contrary to existing law.

“The law already requires entities to ‘do all things necessary to ensure’ that the services they are licensed to provide are provided ‘efficiently, honestly and fairly’,” Hayne wrote. “Passing some new law to say, again, ‘Do not do that’, would add an extra layer of legal complexity to an already complex regulatory regime. What would that gain?”

He said that a further round of public hearings would consider, amongst other questions, whether the law needed simplifying to better reflect whether the above standards should be simplified or administered or enforced differently.

 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

2 months 3 weeks ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

3 months 3 weeks ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

3 months 4 weeks ago

Advice firms are increasing their base salaries by as much as $50k to attract talent, particularly seeking advisers with a portable book of clients, but equity offerings ...

2 weeks 1 day ago

Ahead of the 1 January 2026 education deadline for advisers, ASIC has issued its ‘final warning’ to the industry, reporting that more than 2,300 relevant providers could ...

4 days 4 hours ago

The Financial Advice Association Australia has implored advisers to reevaluate their exposure to AML/CTF obligations ahead of new reforms that will expand their complianc...

3 weeks 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
moneymanagement logo