Via Banking Day:
Under the government backbencher’s proposal, the inquiry could elect to skirt any matters currently before the courts and others under investigation by government regulators and law enforcement agencies.
That might curtail the inquiry’s ambit considerably and might rule out evidence from known victims of poor financial advice whose grievances are still subject to legal action or formal investigations.
Weaknesses in anti-money laundering compliance at several banks might also be a no-go zone for the commission of inquiry because of legal actions and ongoing investigations initiated by Austrac.
Governance failures within the Reserve Bank’s note-printing operation might also escape scrutiny because several matters relating to that controversy are due to be heard in the Federal Court in 2018.
The emphasis of O’Sullivan’s proposed inquiry seems to be on uncovering new cases of misconduct within the financial services industry and providing safeguards for whistle-blowers working in the financial services sector wanting to testify in hearings.
Another controversial aspect of O’Sullivan’s proposal is that people employed by key regulators such as APRA and the Reserve Bank will not be afforded explicit protection under the whistle-blower provisions.
What is it going to look at, Joe Blog’s farm repossession?
Fakes everywhere you look.
