John Laker, former chair of APRA and member of the Commonwealth Bank review panel, was questioned at the 18th annual Wraps, Platforms and Masterfunds conference about perceived differences in regulator responses to non-compliance.
Shartru chief executive Robert Coyte asked Mr Laker why businesses like the Commonwealth Bank appear to receive less severe punishments than their smaller counterparts.
“At an adviser level, at that smaller level, to have your career taken away by a banning order, it’s a substantial impact and I do think that there’s a common view out there that the big end of town get treated considerably differently in that they just get a slap on the wrist,” he said.
Dr Laker rejected the idea that two sets of rules existed.
“I know from my experience at APRA that we didn’t differentiate between the big end and small end of town,” Mr Laker said.
“There was no criteria by size, but you’re right in that if you’re the only one with capital in the business you’re most affected. You’re the shareholder bearing the brunt.
“I’ve never been myself conscious that there’s been a different set of rules. I don’t think it’s set up that way, but I can understand why you might perceive it differently.”
