The federal government is set to enact new laws covering Australian banks, senior executives and directors. Called the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR), it imposes new legal obligations on banks and their senior management and empowers the banking regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), to take action against banks and senior personnel who fail to comply with these obligations.
However, APRA does not consider itself to be a legal enforcement agency. APRA prefers to operate through consultation and co-operation with the organisations that it regulates, not enforcement action.
APRA’s chairman, Wayne Byres, has stated that APRA does not intend to change the nature of its supervision as the banking regulator. If that remains the case, APRA is unlikely to make much use of its new powers.
So we shouldn’t expect a fresh wave of legal action against banks, senior executives and directors because of BEAR. However, there is some reason to hope that the legislation will gradually change the culture within banks, through new accountability obligations and their impact on banking executives and directors.
BEAR is a response to growing anger at poor culture and behaviour (including alleged money laundering and interest rate rigging).
The legislation follows a federal parliamentary review of the four major banks. It found that the banks had repeatedly failed to protect the interests of consumers and that senior executives had created this banking culture. The importance of having a culture that supported fair treatment of consumers was reinforced by the earlier findings of the Financial Systems Inquiry.
BEAR seeks to address these concerns by imposing new accountability obligations on banks, their senior and most influential executives and directors. The new law obliges them to: act with honesty and integrity, due skill, care and diligence; to co-operate with APRA; and to take reasonable steps to prevent matters that adversely affect the “prudential standing” of banks.
Prudential standing in essence refers to the financial stability of banks. The laws greatly increase the standards of behaviour required of senior bank executives. These go beyond the existing standards under APRA’s so-called prudential framework.
The impact on culture
Critical to the success of BEAR is APRA’s increased powers to disqualify senior executives and/or directors from being able to act in their positions and to sue banks for civil penalties up to A$200 million.
Since APRA is not willing to use its new enforcement powers except in rare cases, you might wonder how these laws will lead to cultural change. Wayne Byers has stated that “the goal must be that, with clear boundaries and obligations set out … boards and executives conduct their affairs in such a manner that intervention by APRA is not needed”.
In singling out the senior executives and directors of banks and imposing new legal duties on them, the BEAR adopts a “top-down” or hierarchical approach to managing bank behaviour. Boards and executives will be expected to conduct their bank’s affairs in a manner that meets the standards implied by their new accountability obligations and to account for poor outcomes.
Given the size of banks, this will require senior management to establish systems for monitoring the conduct of personnel at lower levels of the organisation. While top-down approaches are a common feature of APRA’s risk-management strategies and policies, the heightened accountability of banking executives and directors under BEAR is the first of its kind.
Through the process of co-operation APRA will be able to encourage and cajole banks and their senior personnel to adopt higher standards of behaviour, which in turn will gradually lift standards across the organisation. The experience of the UK, where a similar set of laws is already in place, points to the likelihood of its success.
Helen Bird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Delayed Until 2027 Amid Antitrust Lawsuit
U.S. Unseals Charges Against Five Alleged CJNG Leaders, Raises Reward for New Cartel Chief
Warner Bros. Discovery Shares Rise as Newsom Pushes Settlement in $110 Billion Merger Fight
Appeals Court Rejects Trump Bid to Reinstate $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
Gold Shines on Oil Relief: Buy Dips at $4160, Targeting $4305 as Bullish EMAs Dominate
Domino’s Weighs Appeal After Australian Court Rules Workers Were Misled on Pay
Trump Administration Weighs Executive Order on Vaccines and Autism Research
Same sparkle, different story: how lab-grown diamonds are transforming the market
Mark Carney Jokes About Teleprompter, Takes Swipe at Trump
Brazil Supreme Court Approves Probe Into Lula’s Son Over Health Ministry Lobbying Claims
North Korea May Deploy 120 Missiles to Russia
World game at war: why some European nations have threatened a World Cup boycott
Trump Faces Tough Choices as Iran War Drags On 



