Day 444: 'They should be punished’
Counting the days since the banking royal commission was established.
Good afternoon, and welcome to day 444.
Today in summary: ASIC wants feedback on review of the ePayments Code; an ATO whistleblower faces the possibility of 161 years in prison under current whistleblower provisions; and the Financial Rights Legal Centre wants the Consumer Data Right bill passed with a ban on screen scraping.
-- Alex
@AlexESampson
Current banker panic level: 😐🙄😕
Please don’t keep The Inquisition to yourself. Forward this email to your colleagues and encourage them to sign up for free here.
1. In stark contrast to yesterday’s Economics Legislation Committee hearings on the Consumer Data Right in Melbourne, where the small credit sector made its case to continue the controversial practice of “screen scraping” for data, the Financial Rights Legal Centre has called to ban it.
Financial Rights Legal Centre policy and advocacy officer Drew MacRae said:
“I would love to see the CDR bill be introduced and passed with a banning of screen scraping.”
MacRae argued some operators would not bother becoming accredited under the CDR if they still had access to screen scraping, confirming fears raised by the committee.
2. Corporate regulator ASIC today released a consultation paper seeking feedback on the proposed coverage of its review of the ePayments Code to ensure it continues to be effective and relevant to consumers and code subscribers, such as banks, credit unions and building societies. The review will focus on testing the effectiveness of complaints handling, unauthorised transactions, data reporting and mistaken internet payments areas of the code. The ePayments Code provides consumer protections in relation to electronic payments, including ATM, EFTPOS, credit and debit card transactions, online payments, internet and mobile banking. Submissions are due by April 5.
3. An ATO whistleblower faces the possibility of 161 years in prison under current whistleblower provisions. The ABC is reporting that Adelaide-based public servant Richard Boyle refused a cash settlement from the ATO and instead told his story about unfair debt collection tactics to the media.
New whistleblower legislation was passed by Parliament last month, aimed to give corporate whistleblowers new protections, creating a single whistleblower protection regime for the corporate, financial and credit sectors and introducing a new protection regime for reporting tax misconduct, but Mr Boyle may not be covered. In February Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Labor would create a new consolidated whistleblowing act, which would treat all whistleblowers the same, regardless of their industry. Labor also pledged to pay people willing to speak out against corporate corruption and misconduct.
Today’s burn prize: Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh
🔥🔥🔥
“Bosses who deliberately avoid paying their workers superannuation are breaking the law — and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.”
Leigh was referring to last year’s Liberal bill to to give a 12-month “amnesty” to employers who have failed to pay superannuation guarantee payments, which Labor opposed, saying “employers must obey the law”. It has been reported today that the government asked the tax office to administer the amnesty anyway and the Opposition is pretty snippy about it. But the Coalition hit back saying Labor had “embarrassed itself”, with Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert arguing under the government’s bill Australians “would not only be paid the SG they’re owed by their employers but with a high rate of interest as well, ensuring workers are not disadvantaged by late payment”.
The Commentariat
Australian Financial Review banking and finance columnist Karen Maley spells out her reasons for why industry super funds should avoid engaging in activism. Maley notes the industry super funds are expected to control about A$1 trillion in assets by 2024 and they’ve started flexing their growing muscles.
“Fears that industry funds could use their financial clout to support political or industrial relations campaigns were kindled when ACTU president Michele O'Neill last month demanded that 30 industry funds use their leverage as major shareholders to force BHP to take on 80 seafarers who are losing their jobs.”
Opinion columnist Janet Albrechtsen tackles the same issue in The Australian, arguing Treasurer Josh Frydenberg will:
“deserve superhero status if he manages to protect shareholders from those trying to hijack Australian companies.”
Albrechtsen says ordinary Australians — the small shareholders of the system — with their money in compulsory superannuation funds need to have their interests protected.
“It’s hard to work out the biggest villain if this works. The BHP board for using shareholder money to appease these latter-day Teamsters? Or the boards of the trustees of the industry super funds who agree to reduce the value of their members’ superannuation accounts to satisfy the outrageous demands of the unions that appoint them to their cushy and well-paid board seats?”
This is an introductory service while we’re building a comprehensive daily paid online publication, coming soon.
We’re not here to offer opinion, simply to cut through the noise, and help you make sense of the emerging policy and market trends you need to be across. We call it pure intel. You can read more about us here.