Regulators failed to stop misconduct: Hayne

APRA ASIC regulator regulators Royal Commission interim report

28 September 2018
| By Hannah Wootton |
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

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

3 weeks 4 days ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

1 week 3 days ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

5 days 16 hours ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

4 days 20 hours ago