Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697646384834.pdf (Australia)
Senate Standing Committees on Economics PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Phone: +61 2 6277 3540 Fax: +61 2 6277 5719 economics.sen@aph.gov.au Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019 I am an Australian citizen with deep concern about the stability and fairness of the financial system as a result of considerable research in this area, particularly since the GFC and I was disappointed that the ‘Murray’ inquiry was a Banker’s inquiry into banking, I was shattered that bail-in was then facilitated through the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 and again when the Terms of Reference severely inhibited the ‘Haynes’ Royal Commission.
This is the first occasion where ‘Bank Separation’ is the sole consideration of an inquiry and it is essential that this subject be given serious consideration and this present submission is concerned with the management of the inquiry.
There has been a significant drive throughout the world to return to a Glass-Steagall system and similar legislation was defeated in the UK by only 9 votes in 2013 and is the current policy of the opposition party, it was an election promise in the last USA presidential elections by B. Saunders, H. Clinton and D. Trump and is due to be debated by the Italian Parliament within the next few months.
The world will sooner or later return to a Glass- Steagall system and I pray that it becomes a reality in Australia prior to a second GFC so that the people are then protected over the banks.

In 2012, former Chairman and CEO of Citigroup Sandy Weill, made the following statement: I’m suggesting that they (the banks) be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won’t be at risk, the leverage of the banks will be something reasonable, and the investment banks can do trading.
The Committee: I am deeply concerned that there are four members of this committee that also served on the previous committee covering the “Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018”.

The previous committee ignored specific warnings by independent experts in their submissions, that the bill contained ‘Bail-in’ provisions in favor of advice to the contrary from Treasury.
This decision was made despite that it was known that Treasury had a major conflict of interest having made repeated commitments to the G20 to legislate Bail-in.

At the very least, the Committee should have obtained independent legal advice or simply proposed an amendment to specifically exclude deposits from the Bail-in provisions.
Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019Submission 22 As a result of blindly accepting Treasury advice, the bill passed both houses without debate and the Bail-in of deposits is now a legal option for APRA to execute.

A copy of a legal opinion provided by Solicitor Robert H Butler is attached and an extract from a letter by Senator Amanda Stoker is also appended (see below).

These both confirm Bail-in was facilitated by the bill.
An amendment to exclude deposits from Bail-in should be immediately enacted or a very public announcement must be made so that the public are aware that bail-in was deliberately legalized.

Perhaps all members of the present committee that also served on the previous committee, particularly the Chair and Deputy Chair and those that were former senior employees within the Australian Banking industry, should consider their ability to be impartial as they may well have a conflict of interest.
Public Hearings: This inquiry must include Public Hearings and must publish all submissions as per a parallel inquiry ‘Resolution of disputes with financial service providers within the justice system’.

At present, your inquiry is following the ‘closed door’ procedure of the previous inquiry, ‘Crisis Resolution Powers’, by refusing ‘Public Hearings’ and by publishing only about 5% of the submissions.
The resulting lack of transparency is most disconcerting given that the restructuring proposed in the Bill was outside the Terms of Reference that applied to the recent Royal Commission and this inquiry represents the first opportunity for a proper investigation.

Please note that the Murray inquiry published about 6000 submissions including 454 submissions against Bail-in and I am sure that you can also achieve this level of reporting.
Kerrie Ifield PS: 5 November letter from Senator Amanda Stoker: Senator Stoker, a top barrister who has been a prosecutor as well as a judge’s associate in both the Queensland Supreme Court and High Court of Australia, in a 5 November 2018 letter to a constituent about the “Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018” included the following: “The legislation facilitates bail-in as a type of resolution power which is available for dealing with financial institution distress.
This was done after the G20 leaders endorsed a new Financial Stability Board standard for Total Loss-absorbing Capacity.

Specifically, it builds on the Key Attributes which specifies that Financial Stability Board jurisdictions should have in place legally enforceable mechanisms to implement a bail-in.
The purpose of the Total Loss- absorbing Capacity standard ensures there are mechanisms in place to stop the ‘domino effect’ and reduce loss on [sic] bank shareholders, creditors and the Government.” Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019Submission 22