Arjay, The RBA is government owned and has the power to create money for infrastructure, though as I have explained, technically it is not debt free.

APRA regulates commercial banks, other financial institutions and insurance companies. It does not control the RBA, and nor is it controlled by the BIS.

John Howard gave the RBA power over interest rates, but the government has retained a substantial amount of power though it isn't currently exercising it.

I've got better things to do than watch silly youtube videos.

Aidan both APRA and the BIS are right into "Bail In" http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2013_06_05_Kill_BIS_F.html

Are you denying that "bail in laws" do not already exist ?

Arjay, there are no "bail-in laws". Each situation is evaluated and treated on its merits - there is no separate law attached to a bail-in.

Do yourself (and us, indirectly) a favour and acquaint yourself with the facts on what are bail-outs, and bail-ins.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-2

Then tell us why they are not a good idea, compared with alternative actions.

Why is "bail in" necessary at all,if our banks are sound? Why did the c Commonwealth Bank stop reporting its exposure to derivative gambling in 2012 if this exposure to derivatives is sound business activity ?

Why was "bail in" passed at the last G20 in Brisbane Australia and not mention of it on MSM?

For those who do not know ,"Bail in" is the conversion of your bank deposits into bank shares. As a depositor you are deemed by a bank to be an unsecured lender to that bank. Since 2005 Derivatives are the first obligation of banks to honour, next come shareholders and last are the depositors.http://www.corbettreport.com/bail-in-the-birth-of-the-new-financial-order/

Both Aidan and Pericles are masters of obfuscation and deception.

Arjay your problem is you're getting too your information from conspiracy sources that are making ridiculous claims. Your latest link wasn't so bad, but it's really just asking the questions rather than supplying the misinformation you are. I suggest you look at http://www.afr.com/p/business/sunday/push_ins_force_too_big_to_fail_bank_qSf8sGKzJaYuahgIwOCLIM to see what the real bail in plan involves, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11220192/Mark-Carney-No-more-bank-bail-outs.html to see what's actually happening. It doesn't affect Australian banks (as these are not deemed too big to fail), it is proposed bondholders not account holders be liable (unlike the Cyprus bail in) and it won't be implemented until after the next G20 meeting.

And nowhere are shareholders less liable to lose their money than depositors or even bondholders.

Arjay, you really must stop leading with your chin, you know. Statements like this are actually proof that you don't know what you are talking about:

>>For those who do not know ,"Bail in" is the conversion of your bank deposits into bank shares<<

For those who actually want to know what a bail-in is, here are the actual facts:

"According to The Economist, the magazine that coined the term, a bail-in occurs when the borrower's creditors are forced to bear some of the burden by having a portion of their debt written off."

http://internationalinvest.about.com/od/glossary/a/What-Is-A-Bail-in-and-How-Does-It-Work.htm

But what puzzles me most Arjay, is why you think it is better that the taxpayer pays for the bail-out, rather than bondholders sharing the load? After all, if the bank goes bust, customers lose everything, don't they.

As to your other questions:

>>Why is "bail in" necessary at all,if our banks are sound?<<

It isn't. Only banks in crisis need help. Did you see Commbank's results this week?

>>Why did the c Commonwealth Bank stop reporting its exposure to derivative gambling in 2012 if this exposure to derivatives is sound business activity?<<

Mainly because their derivative action comes under the heading of risk-minimisation - hedging, mostly - that is a perfectly normal - and sound - bank activity. The alternative is taking risks with your money, for example assuming that the A$ will rise/fall, creating an expensive exposure if they get it wrong.

The problem, as always, is that you and Barnaby Joyce add both sides of the hedging together, and call that "derivative gambling", when the actual exposure is the net of the puts and calls.

I have explained this to you before, Arjay. One day you might take the trouble to work it out for yourself. If you do, and at the same time stop reading those Chicken Little web sites, you'll sleep easier at night, I guarantee it.