Division Description Changes — Regulations and Determinations — Asic Corporations (Banking Code of Practice) Instrument 2018/700; Disallowance — 14th Nov 2018

Change	Division
senate vote 2018-11-14#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2019-03-21 15:39:59	Title ~~Regulations and Determinations — Asic Corporations (Banking Code of Practice) Instrument 2018/700; Disallowance~~ Regulations and Determinations - ASIC Corporations (Banking Code of Practice) Instrument 2018/700 - Disallow Description <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p> The majority voted against a motion to disallow the [ASIC Corporations (Banking Code of Practice) Instrument](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01102), which means it failed. In other words, the majority voted against taking away the legal effect of that Instrument, so it will continue to be in force. This motion was introduced by Tasmanian Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Greens). *This instrument [was introduced in order to](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01102/Explanatory%20Statement/Text) give "ASIC’s approval of the ABA’s Banking Code of Prac*tice". Senator Whish-Wilson [explained](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-11-14.170.3) that he wanted this Instrument disallowed because it "has no effect in law": > To be clear, the Senate is considering whether to approve ASIC's endorsement of an unenforceable code written by the banks—a voluntary code—when the banks have admitted that the version of the code that has been endorsed by ASIC isn't good enough to stop them charging fees to dead people. That's what you will be allowing today if you don't support the Greens' disallowance of this voluntary code of conduct. > > This regulation is useless. It does nothing in light of the revelations of the royal commission. ASIC can't enforce the code of conduct, and it's not covered by the Competition and Consumer Act. Because it does nothing, that makes it dangerous, and I would argue that it also makes it a highly political document. This is a PR exercise for the banks.

<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
The majority voted against a motion to disallow the [ASIC Corporations (Banking Code of Practice) Instrument](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01102), which means it failed. In other words, the majority voted against taking away the legal effect of that Instrument, so it will continue to be in force. This motion was introduced by Tasmanian Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Greens).
This instrument [was introduced in order to](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01102/Explanatory%20Statement/Text) give "*ASIC’s approval of the ABA’s Banking Code of Practice*". Senator Whish-Wilson [explained](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-11-14.170.3) that he wanted this Instrument disallowed because it "has no effect in law":
> *To be clear, the Senate is considering whether to approve ASIC's endorsement of an unenforceable code written by the banks—a voluntary code—when the banks have admitted that the version of the code that has been endorsed by ASIC isn't good enough to stop them charging fees to dead people. That's what you will be allowing today if you don't support the Greens' disallowance of this voluntary code of conduct.*
>
> *This regulation is useless. It does nothing in light of the revelations of the royal commission. ASIC can't enforce the code of conduct, and it's not covered by the Competition and Consumer Act. Because it does nothing, that makes it dangerous, and I would argue that it also makes it a highly political document. This is a PR exercise for the banks.*