It should be obvious to anyone that you cannot allow total privatisation of the banks. The welfare of the whole country and the world is in the hands of these unknown bank executives.

Why is it not being proposed to write it into the constitution?

Neither total capitalism or total communism ever work. They are always prone to fail as we have just witnessed with the spectacular failure of the privatized capitalist run banks.
What does work; is a capitalist(free market society) with some communism(for the community), provided where necessary by democraticly elected government who’s job should be to protect the community where necessary from the harmful excesses of capitalism. The lack of training of future skilled workers and now the collapse of the banks is an example of governments not fulfilling their role as guardians of the public interest.

Excellent and well-timed article. The news last night revealed the ANZ banks plans to shift more jobs to India. I hope this does not mean our private information is also being shipped offshore.

Compeition does not exist in the banking industry as they are all, for the most part as bad as each other and all gain to reap the benefits of higher fees, using offshore labour, not passing on all the interest rate cuts in a timely manner, and high loan break costs.

Mmmmm which poison to choose from...arsenic or should it be cyanide. Difficult choice.

Normally when faced with choice the consumer can write to said business and then vote with their feet - but in the case of banks where will our feet take us? Not far.

Even the smaller credit unions are not much better anymore - we need a people's bank for and by the people and targetted regulation - that is the only way real competition can thrive to the benefit of the consumer.

Well said Pelican.
A better model already exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAK_members_bank
It's time to move on.

Great link Grim. You are right it is time.

When Chiffley was PM, the banks were under control by the courts. One of the payoffs for the massive financial support the banks gave to Menzies campaign, was to destroy the courts, and install lawyers as judges. The first step was to gut the powers of the High Court by controlling who could access it. Before 1952, it was freely accessible to all, but since it has been a simple government public service backwater.

Menzies got his way from them by reminding them that any time he wanted he could prosecute them under the common law, and Crimes Act 1914 and they would lose all their pensions and entitlements. The only way a judge, and protect himself from either the State Governments or the Commonwealth, is by taking a jury verdict. The Magna Carta guaranteed both sentencing and the determination of guilt or innocence, was the prerogative of a local committee of 12 electors, called together in a political meeting.

No Prime Minister since has wanted to give courts back their political power. The courts could and did control banks. Now they can all be bought, and the highest bidder wins. The Legal Prodfession have degenerated into a form of Justice Brokers, who arrange deals between a Judge and the richest litigant present. This has made them really rich so it suits them to have a lawyer as a Judge. It is not great for Justice, but the legal professions attitude is I’m alright Jack, and the devil take the hindmost.

Pelican, there are good reasons why banks don't pass on all interest
rate cuts. Fact is that our banks borrow roughly half their money
offshore, at much higher rates then local ones.

You can't really expect banks to pay say 8.5% overseas, to lend
it out locally at 6.5%. Even you should understand that :)

But lets clear up a few points here.

Today the spread on housing loans is around 2%. When CBA was
Govt owned, before Keating freed up banking, it was 4%.

In those days I was told by a banker, that the day would never
come, when bank paid interest on cheque accounts. How wrong he
was. Competition sorted that one out.

Yes, bank CEOs strive to make larger profits. They are driven
to do that, by their owners, which are largely Australian super
funds. Those super fund managers want to show you guys, their
owners, how clever they are at increasing your savings, so that
they too can get a pay rise. Any CEO not up to scratch, would
soon get the chop, under their pressure.

So the whole show is a bit like a dog chasing its tail. What banks
take out of your left pocket, they put back into your right
pocket through dividends, paid to your super fund.

This weekend's FR has a two page article on why Australian banks
have come through so well this present storm, in global terms.

In 2003 Costello appointed a tough regulator, who seemingly has
taken his job very seriously. Rudd has kept him on, for he is
clearly doing a good job.

In contrast Bush and Co decided that enforcing regulation should
not be taken seriously, the result is the present mess on Wall St.

That is a political failure, as voted by the people. Americans
and now the rest of the world, are paying a high price for having
appointed a dummie as Prez. Democracy is not perfect, but it is
the best that we have.