http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/14489524/senators-to-gauge-post-gfc-impact-on-banks/

A three-day Senate inquiry into the nation's banking system kicks off in Canberra on Wednesday with a focus on developments since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC).

Witnesses will be quizzed on a range of topics, including the impact of international regulatory changes on Australian banks since the GFC, the cost of funds for institutions, the relative share of specific banking markets, and borrowing and lending practices.

The Department of Treasury and the Australian Bankers' Association will be the first of more than 20 organisations to face the Senate Economics References Committee.

Hearings in Sydney on Thursday and Friday will take evidence from the four major retail banks and the Reserve Bank.

Committee chair, Liberal senator David Bushby, said there had been a lot of focus on the banks' cost of funds as their loan interest rates diverged from the central bank's official cash rate.

"I am keen to test the facts in that regard," Senator Bushby said in a statement.

"I'm also interested in examining the impact of Basel III and international regulatory developments, as they may play out in Australia, to ensure Australians don't pay the price for fixing problems Australia never had."

Australia's banking system was one of few among advanced economies that came out of the GFC virtually unscathed due to previously taken prudential reforms.

We are all interested to know.

If the Swan took over in 2008 and the GFC happened in 2008-09.

The impact of the GFC was negated due to previous reforms.

Then what reform did Swan do during his time in government to negate the impact?

Or were the reforms largely if not ALL were attributed to Costello?

If so - why is Swan claiming credit for it?

Based on facts - does anyone believe Swan when he says it was due to his efforts.

Based on facts - does anyone believe Gillard when she promised "There will be no [insert promise] under a government I lead"

So the money that was pumped into the economy made no difference according to you.....LOL???

::) ::) ::)

Swan panicked, plain and simple. He had no idea what to do and as is the case with most fools like him, he tried to spend his way out of trouble. He blew the surplus, blew the Future Fund and panicked this country into a debt of hundreds of billions of dollars that hasn't even begun to be paid back yet. Swan probably got off lightly thanks to the economic reforms adopted by Costello during his tenure as Treasurer. Costello is by far the best Treasurer we've had in the last 50 years at least, whereas Swan will be remembered as being one of the worst since Federation.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:02am:

So the money that was pumped into the economy made no difference according to you.....LOL??? ::) ::) ::)

You did read the article right?

The GFC was about the Banks coming through unscathed due to previous reforms

Maqqa wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 8:02am: So the money that was pumped into the economy made no difference according to you.....LOL??? ::) ::) ::) You did read the article right? The GFC was about the Banks coming through unscathed due to previous reforms

If labor had a brain, they might have realised instead of wasting so much of our money on jobs for the union boyz.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:05am:

Swan panicked, plain and simple. He had no idea what to do and as is the case with most fools like him, he tried to spend his way out of trouble. He blew the surplus, blew the Future Fund and panicked this country into a debt of hundreds of billions of dollars that hasn't even begun to be paid back yet. Swan probably got off lightly thanks to the economic reforms adopted by Costello during his tenure as Treasurer. Costello is by far the best Treasurer we've had in the last 50 years at least, whereas Swan will be remembered as being one of the worst since Federation.

I am bloody sick of all you liberals going on about Howard and Costello having a surplus all the time and no debt.

Now get off your high horse and come back into the real world. Have you got any debt AP e.g. house mortgage, credit cards, personal loans etc can you pay them all on time.

Now we will look at small business  and their loans. Most of them would pay rent where they are so they wouldn't have a mortgage but they would have but rent to pay, business loans, staff wages holiday pay and long service leave, stock on hand etc.

Now we will look at big business they would have the same loads as a small business plus investment loans most of their machinery would be lease and would be on their books as a debt.

Now we get onto the government. Any government that runs a surplus all the time is showing one of two things, they are taxes us too much or they are not supplying services that people want or need and they are not building infrastructure that the country needs for the country to grow. Now with the government borrowing money how do you thing the government would run without money, how would they pay the public services how would they pay contractors.

If you think that the Howard government never borrowed money you don't know how governments works. They all borrow money it is servicing the debt that is the main worry just like the example I gave above they can all service the debt. I don't think we have any trouble of the government not paying the debt down

Maqqa wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 8:02am: So the money that was pumped into the economy made no difference according to you.....LOL??? ::) ::) ::) You did read the article right? The GFC was about the Banks coming through unscathed due to previous reforms

Hey Forrest, it was Keating who bought about the banking reforms ....

Maqqa wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 8:02am: So the money that was pumped into the economy made no difference according to you.....LOL??? ::) ::) ::) You did read the article right? The GFC was about the Banks coming through unscathed due to previous reforms

Unscathed lol

Didn't you hear about the bank bailouts macca?

Yes. Australian banks, that is.

NAB and Westpac almost collapsed during the GFC

Did you know that the NAB and Westpac almost collapsed during the GFC and had to be bailed out by the US Treasury?

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/business/media-2/nab-and-westpac-almost-collapsed-during-the-gfc/

John Smith wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 8:07am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 8:02am: So the money that was pumped into the economy made no difference according to you.....LOL??? ::) ::) ::) You did read the article right? The GFC was about the Banks coming through unscathed due to previous reforms Hey Forrest, it was Keating who bought about the banking reforms ....

And then it was the Howard Government that strengthened pridential oversight of the financial system.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 7:35am:

We are all interested to know. If the Swan took over in 2008 and the GFC happened in 2008-09. The impact of the GFC was negated due to previous reforms. Then what reform did Swan do during his time in government to negate the impact? Or were the reforms largely if not ALL were attributed to Costello? If so - why is Swan claiming credit for it?

As Treasurer and Prime Minister, the list of Keating’s economic reforms was stunning. Among other reforms, he floated the dollar, liberalised the financial system, reduced import tariffs and introduced compulsory superannuation.

Some of these were incredibly unpopular with the public and his own stubbornly left-wing political party, but in undertaking them, Keating transformed Australia into an open and globally competitive economy. 

Keating remade the Australian economy into that modern, super-strong ship that had the flexibility to withstand a recession in the early 1990s, the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 and the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/howard-was-good-but-keating-was-better/






THE Federal Government has won glowing support for its controversial economic stimulus, with the Western world's leading think tank saying the strategy will save up to 200,000 jobs.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's annual employment outlook says Australia will be one of the Western countries to suffer least in the global financial crisis. And it says the Government's stimulus has already had a strong effect in cushioning the downturn, undermining Opposition attacks on the size of the program.

The OECD, a Paris-based think tank funded by 30 Western governments, reports that 15 million workers have become unemployed in its member countries since the end of 2007 - and stands by its June forecast 10 million more will join them by the end of 2010.

OECD employment director John Martin concedes there are ''growing signs that the worst may be over, and a recovery may be in sight. But the short-term employment outlook is grim. Job creation will lag significantly behind any pick-up in output.''


The report urges Western countries to lift their spending on active labour market programs to reduce the risk that their unemployed will end up dropping out of the workforce.

Its data shows Australia spends just 0.01 per cent of GDP on training its unemployed - the equal lowest in the OECD along with Mexico and the Czech and Slovak republics.

They show the Howard government cut spending on active labour market programs in its last two years as the skills shortage became more acute.

By contrast, the OECD report singles out the Rudd Government's stimulus measures for praise.

It estimates Australia's stimulus has been the third largest in the Western world at 5.4 per cent of GDP, exceeded only by Korea (6.1) and the US (5.7).

''Even though many countries moved quickly to enact large fiscal stimulus packages, these packages generally have not had a strong effect in cushioning the initial decline in employment caused by the crisis, although Australia is a notable exception,'' it says.

It predicts that in 2010 the impact of the stimulus will lift employment by between 1.4 and 1.9 per cent - that is, by between 150,000 and 200,000 jobs - relative to what it would otherwise have been.

The report warns there is a big risk that many people who become unemployed in this recession will become long-term unemployed, or drop out of the workforce. It urges governments to ensure that income support for people who lose their jobs or have low pay ''is adequate and affordable''.

It estimates that Australia has among the lowest unemployment benefits in the Western world, equivalent to just 42 per cent of the average wage.

It also urges a greater emphasis on training, wage subsidies to help the unemployed find jobs and public-sector job creation.


http://www.theage.com.au/business/oecd-praise-for-canberras-stimulus-package-20090916-froi.html#ixzz22u55jUl4

Just to make it even clearer, Howard established in 1998:

1. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

2. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

In 2002 the Financial Services Reform Act was passed by Parliament.

Shane B wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

Just to make it even clearer, Howard established in 1998: 1. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission. 2. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. In 2002 the Financial Services Reform Act was passed by Parliament.

yeah, that must have been it (sarcasm) ... along with all the bank guarantees rudd had to give the banks to stop people grabbing their money and leaving in droves .