As the four big banks continue to act as a law unto themselves it’s time for Wayne Swan to match the tough talk with tough action, especially in relation to our competition laws.

Does anyone else think Swannie looks a little tired? Picture: Ray Strange

We have some of the weakest competition laws in the world and that’s why we’re now in this mess with the four big banks.

The simple reality is that Wayne Swan and the ACCC have allowed the four major banks to get as big as they. The ACCC and, ultimately Swan failed to stop Westpac from taking over St George and that was after years of failing to stop the four big banks from taking over the smaller banks.

Let’s make no mistake that Westpac’s takeover of St George was the beginning of the end for real competition. The St George takeover preceded the global financial crisis and really became the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of real competition in the banking sector.

St George had the makings of a fifth pillar and could have become a major bank in its own right. By failing to stop Westpac from taking over St George, the ACCC and Swan opened the door for the four big banks to take a stranglehold over the Australian banking sector.

Significantly, Swan and the ACCC also allowed BankWest, RAMS, Aussie Home Loans and Wizard to be taken out in fairly quick succession as independent competitors to the big banks. In this regard the global financial crisis became a convenient cloak for the big banks to quickly neutralise all the very players that had been so effective in keeping the big banks honest over the years. And we are likely see the same with the wealth management sector if no action is taken to stop the big banks spreading their tentacles in that direction.

Now let’s be clear that big banks are simply doing what they have been allowed to get away with over the years. The old saying of “give then an inch and they will take a mile” so aptly describes what’s happening with the big banks. Of course, there are those with self serving financial reasons for wanting the big banks to get even bigger, but someone needs to stand up for the struggling Aussie families who are being gouged by the big banks.

Let’s not forget that a reduction in the number of independent competitors allows the remaining players to charge much higher prices for goods or services than if there were more independents in the market to keep prices lower. Clearly, the more independent competitors in the market, the lower the prices in that market as those independents compete vigorously for your business.

With fewer players in a market they act as a cosy club with a vested interest in keeping prices as high as possible. Sadly, that’s exactly what’s happening with the big banks. They are merely acting as a cosy club where they shadow one another on interest rates and tell us how tough life is for them since their costs of funding have gone up.

Well, all our costs of living have gone up and every time the big banks push up interest rates above RBA increases our cost of living goes up even more. What are struggling Aussie families supposed to do when the big banks are quick to push up interest rates so that they can continue to make record profits?

Now there’s nothing wrong with the banks making a profit. It’s only where record profits are being made from the blatant abuse of the big banks’ substantial market share that we should be worried. In those circumstances, record profits are just proof that both banking competition is weak and that our competition laws are failing to keep a lid on interest rate hikes to the significant detriment of consumers.

So what can Swan do?

To begin with he needs to do something quickly to make it easier for customers to shift banks. The original switching package announced by Swan has been a real fizzer with minimal take up of the package. The media reports have it at little over 1,800. That’s a tiny drop in the ocean and Swan can obviously do better. One would hope that for the sake of competition and consumers Swan makes switching banks as seamless as possible with the best outcome for bank customers being an ability to simply go the new bank, sign on the dotted line and have the new bank do all the work with the old bank. It would be a bit like what happens when switching mobile phone or electricity providers.

We also need to deal with unfair exit fees and other unfair contract terms as a matter of urgency. This is where ASIC needs to get off its backside and move quickly to enforce new laws against unfair contract terms which came into effect on 1 July this year.

Stronger competition laws and an ACCC ready to effectively enforce existing laws are also essential. For starters, the ACCC should be using its existing powers under the new cartel laws. This means that ACCC could with the help of the Australian Federal Police secretly tap phone calls and meetings amongst bank executives and/or between the Australian Bankers Association to see if the banks and the ABA are privately discussing interest rates. The banks and the ABA would be treading on very dangerous ground under our existing competition laws if they were privately discussing interest rates.

Next, Swan could formally declare banks under the prices surveillance part of the Trade Practices Act. The Government has done this before with unleaded petrol. A formal declaration gives the ACCC the ability to formally monitor interest rates and bank profits and to report on, for example, a quarterly basis. Once there is a formal declaration, the ACCC is able to formally demand that the banks provide the ACCC with all relevant information about interest rates and profits.

As for new competition, Australia Post could be given a banking licence or explore entering into a joint venture with a non-major financial institution to offer a basic deposit account, credit card and mortgage facility. This would be a big plus for rural and regional customers given Australia Post’s extensive branch network.

Encouraging new players into the banking sector would also go a long way to promoting real competition. We are seeing players like Virgin Money lifting their presence in the market and more should be done to encourage and support other new players.

Finally, Swan could extend the retail guarantee for the non-major banks and financial institutions indefinitely. That would maintain confidence in the smaller banks and credit unions. Credit Unions in particular offer great deals to their customers and Swan could do much more to support them.

So Wayne it’s now over to you. And just remember that if you fail this time all Australian consumers will pay the price for years and they may remember all the pain at the next election. 

39 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Gloria Soames says:

      05:11am | 10/11/10

      Purchasing or selling a house would seem to be the most complex transaction anybody ever makes. Section 32,s,90 to 120 days in turn around,then the dreaded stamp duty,legal fees and finally the big borrow. Would it not be wise to enable a buyer or seller to sell or purchase their house as they would a motor car. Advertise on a friday and bank the dough on monday,no stamp duty,no G.S.T.so that when interest rates go up,you simply downgrade your house to exist in affordable premises.This is obviously an extremely simplistic solution but it maybe the style of thinking we need to beat the banks at their greed,they know you wont sell because of the complexities,so you just accept their price hikes.They,ve got you over the proverbial barrel. Investing heavily in removal companies might also be quite prudent.

    • Matt says:

      10:47am | 10/11/10

      Not going to find many people complain about removing stamp duty and putting liquidity in the property market… except for the State governments of course smile

    • dead to me says:

      05:45am | 10/11/10

      How can we make Swan the ultimate smuck pay? We have had enough of him.

    • Mike says:

      09:21am | 11/11/10

      Swan is a doofus - he let these mergers go through and now wonders why the banks are monopolising the situation.

    • Biteme says:

      06:28am | 10/11/10

      Last night I was disgusted watching The IQ Test on Nine to be continuously pounded by advertising of the ANZ Bank taking over ING, now called Onepath. How can our toothless ACCC allow this BS. Of I forgot the chairman of the ACCC worked for Macquairie Bank and is a multi millionaire with his money invested in big business.  Take a look at this country we live in. I reckon we have the same level of government honesty as they have in Afghanistan.

    • julie says:

      07:55am | 10/11/10

      no way!  is that right?  I joined ING to get away from the big banks!!! Just like I joined Virgin Credit Card only for it to be consumed by Westpac, a bank I’d previously been delighted to get rid of out of my life after some monumental stuff ups with my custom.
      Toothless Swanny and toothless ACCC - why do institutions like this, purported to protect and regulate, get away with this, and on the other hand over PC governments uproar about banning this and banning that all for the name of ‘protection’ of ourselves from ourselves? 

      Get a grip ALP and govts in general, start governing for the people allowing choice and quit with laissez faire attitude of business running everything their way.  Hang on, ALP, where do you stand on big business?

    • Gottakloo says:

      06:41am | 10/11/10

      I think it’s too late. This has been a failure of successive governments.

      The only real way to do increase competition is to encourage large foreign banks to enter the market.

      You won’t find any real evidence that banks are actively colluding or price signalling. In an oligopolistic market it is far too easy to get information about your competitors and it is easy to follow what they do.

      With the internet there is little need for branches so the Australia Post thing won’t help that much.

      We need new entrants to the market.

      We also need people that are a little more savvy when it comes to doing their research. There are many credit unions and building societies offering very competitive packages.

    • Rappo says:

      10:43am | 10/11/10

      Gottakloo

      Aussie Post will never become a bank, if they thought there was money in it, they would have already

      They could do a deal with another lender to use their network, but the market is already saturated with competition, you just have to look.

      The Aussie population are known to be very stagnet when it comes to finance. That is why you get people saying that they have been with a bank for 30 plus years etc

      I live in a town of 2,000 people, there are 3 different banks, plus 2 building societies, how much competition do people want? More competition wont make any difference if consumers dont actually exercise their right to shop around

    • Dave says:

      07:45am | 10/11/10

      More competition to achieve what. More household debts? Thinner loan margins? A more fragile banking system? Haven’t we been there before?

      CBA did the work that the RBA and politicians were unwilling or unable to do, that is put a lead on house price inflation. We should be grateful for that.

    • M says:

      12:31am | 11/11/10

      Yes, more competition to achieve thinner loan margins, which would not lead to a more fragile banking system.

      No we have not been there before.

      We have no reason to be grateful to the 4 majors banks.

    • Rappo says:

      07:55am | 10/11/10

      I am not a bank lover at all, but if our banks are making a return on equity of about 20%, double that of other countries, dont you think that the other world majors would be scrambling to setup shop here? All artificial barriers for entry into our banking system have been removed.

      The cry for more competition in honorable, however, if it was that easy, why hasnt ME bank (industry fund mortgage provider) out there selling its wares as a full service bank, not just as mortgage provider (where the biggest margins are made). The reason is that they are using their superfund members balance, paying them about 4.5% on the cash component of their super, but then onlending these funds at a much greater interest margin (not rate) than the major banks. I could not belive Bill Shorten went out of his way to spruik them on Q&A on Monday night.

      If you are unhappy with your bank, change. I have a mortgage with one of the big 4, no exit fees whatsoever, even if I left after 1 day, no fees and I am paying less than 7% interest….everyone can do this if they do a little bit of research.

      Banks and mother-in-law’s are very similar, no-one likes them, but they are neccessary evil in the world that we have to put up with

    • Sherlock says:

      09:36am | 10/11/10

      That’s right Rappo. I can think of at least a dozen places where I could get a home loan outside of the big 4 banks.Go and have a look at Cannex to see how many alternatives there are. So to say there’s no competition in the finance sector is just complete and utter garbage.

      Although I’m not in lending I do work in the financial services industry. For years I told my clients to get their finances sorted with one of the big banks. These non-bank lenders that sprung up during the cheap money times were never going to last. All it was going to take is movement in the credit markets to see them become uncompetitive and fall over. Borrowing on the short term money market to finance 30 year mortgages was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

      As predicted, as soon as the credit crunch hit these places started falling like dominoes. Those that survived only did so by the grace of the much maligned banks coming to the rescue.

      If the margins are there competitors will enter the market. However I’d mention that bank issued interest rate securities are currently yielding almost 9% pre-tax. CBA PERLS V notes were issued at over 2% higher than PERLS II notes were. Perhaps this is what the bank executives mean when they say that their cost of funds is rising.. What are home loan interest rates again?

    • Rappo says:

      10:34am | 10/11/10

      Sherlock

      Perls V are 3.40% above the 90 day Bank Bill Swap Rate. It is a cheap way of funding because the CBA includes some of their excess franking credits to make up the yield. It is also a bloody rort that Perls, and the WBC, ANZ equivilents are done through a NZ subsiduary where they can claim the interest payments as a tax deduction…cant do that in AUS (they are deemed equity is AUS, but debt in NZ)

      If they are yielding 9%, 30% if this amount is franking credits, so the cash rate of return is now 6.3%, deduct the tax deduction in NZ, and their funding is now costing them 4.41%, locked in for 5 years.

      It is a bloody cheap way of financing their loan book, with no need to hedge against currency movements, because all is in $$AUS. Term deposits are returning 6%, so Perls are actually 26% cheaper than paying depositors….this is why it is a bit of a stretch to say that funding costs are rising, it is a load of crap

    • Biteme says:

      11:23am | 10/11/10

      Rappo you are right. Why should other banks set up here and create competition, when they can just become major shareholders in our big four and keep the excessive profits high.

    • M says:

      12:41am | 11/11/10

      It’s actually not that easy to set up a bank and compete on a retail/business level. You are dealing with 4 majors who have a very powerful distribution structure that is almost impossible to compete with on day 1. However, if the government had not enabled the takeover of St George, Bankwest, Bank of Melbourne etc these banks might have been available to an offshore bank to buy and then to compete. But for as long as they were available they were priced very high because they were ripe for the majors to buy and garner the economies of scale available by stripping out the minors’ head offices etc.

      Tool late now.. but the Australian financial services landscape is crying out for real competition, say no to oligopoly.

    • FAIR DINKUM AUSSIE says:

      09:12am | 10/11/10

      Like many others I put my money into ING to get away from Westpac and to earn some interest. Not once did ING contact me to advise of possible takeover by ANZ.  Very ordinary performance by both ING and ANZ. I will be moving my money again. The only way to sort out Wayne Swan’s lack of ticker when it comes to the Big 4 is to call on the Greens and Independents to force another election. Let’s get rid of Joolya Dullard and Wayne Duck, the Man of Steal, and put someone in there with the b—s to take on the banks.

    • Oxnard says:

      11:04am | 10/11/10

      ANZ only own the insurance and wealth arms of ING. They do not own ING direct - which includes the banking, real estate, or investment management. ING sold these sections to remove the fluff from there core operations. So maybe before chucking a wally about ING, do some research to see what the effect is, there is a reason you were not contacted…it didn’t affect you.

    • Spotlight both banks and Govt says:

      09:26am | 10/11/10

      The biggest cost of moving banks…... The STATE Governments.
      Especially VICTORIA. The dearest of all for stamp duties.
      In the process of buying a house for $420,000 and have to pay over $25,000 in STATE GOVERNMENT FEES and CHARGES.

    • Martin says:

      10:55am | 10/11/10

      You do not pay stamp duty when you are borrowing the same amount.
      You only pay stamp duty if you borrow more and then only on the difference, not the whole amount

    • Personal responsibility says:

      09:48am | 10/11/10

      I haven’t been near a Big 4 in 15 years. ME Bank, owned by Industry Super funds and returning its profits to grow our super, has the cheapest, fairest mortgages going, competitive savings accounts and a call centre of extremely knowledgable, well trained and helpful staff in Melbourne, not Manilla.
      Gittins is correct in the SMH today. Get off ya bums people. Move your business. Not the Aussie National Sport of whingeing I know, but you will save money. You are not helpless.

    • ImaWestie says:

      10:52am | 10/11/10

      In NSW, the publicly owned State Bank was swallowed by Westpac (correct me if I’m wrong) and the publicly owned Commonwealth Bank of Australia became a private company.

      Now media personalities are saying the govt needs to float a new public bank?

      Get a grip, in 5 years - they’ll just sell it (“we’re here to establish a framework for operations, not operate profit-driven enterprises”)

      IF the banks are running their own interest margins - take away the govt backing on deposits. When people take all their wages to govt backed or low fee establishments, the banks will pull their heads in on interest rates.

    • jeffb says:

      12:32pm | 10/11/10

      There is a lot of potential for Australia Post to expand into banking itself nationwide, hell their CEO is an ex-banker from the NAB. The idea has been floating around for a very long time now.

      The only problem is it would be incredibly hard for the big four to compete without major changes to the way they operate but some would argue that’s a good thing.

      I can’t see the any government selling off Australia Post any time soon.

    • Martin says:

      10:59am | 10/11/10

      Problem with these suggestions is that it all started with Swann approving the merger with the ACCC help, continued with Swann as a treasurer with help from ACCC. Even the biggest optimist cannot expect our ACCC and Mr.Swann to say “WE SCREWED UP”.

    • Who says:

      11:02am | 10/11/10

      Probably a little off topic but why is it that interest rates are the only thing used to control inflation?  There are a lot of people who own houses outright or rent that would actually have more disposable income and I know that before I brought my house I spent a lot more.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:07pm | 10/11/10

      Because it’s basically the best and only tool the RBA has to do so.  It can’t control wages and to a large extent it can’t control what prices retailers set for their goods.  But then it doesn’t need much else.

      See, the interest rate is basically the ‘price’ of money: it says how much you have to give back to the lender when you repay your loan.  And interest rates don’t only affect mortgages, they affect *all* money loaned across the country—credit cards, personal loans, business loans, investment loans, and most significantly, loans made to businesses to keep their cash flow in place, which includes most if not all small businesses.

      The theory goes that If interest rates rise, anyone who owes money immediately has to take another look at their finances: this includes all businesses.  Some businesses will have to cut their prices in order to get more people through the doors so they then have enough money to pay the loans.  The RBA’s interest rate basically is intended to have a ripple effect: because the RBA sets the underlying interest rate that pretty well all banks or lending institutions have to set as a baseline, increasing that rate then *should* put the brakes on inflation.  Inflation is the price of goods increasing because there’s too much free money in the economy.  If your increase the price of money, you reduce the free money in the system and therefore slow inflation.

      Maybe you spend more before buying a house, but the RBA isn’t targeting consumers with interest rate rises as such.  It’s targeting businesses and banks—the providers of consumer goods.

    • Martin says:

      01:20pm | 10/11/10

      That interest rates are used to control inflation is only a myth spread by RBA.  As you pointed out those increases in interest rates mostly affect the people with mortgages and do the irrepairable damage to our exporters when our dollar goes up as is the situation today. Sending Australian businesses broke and helping banks to take homes from families has nothing to do with fighting inflation, but everything to do with helping big multinationals and the banks to bigger profits.

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      01:52pm | 10/11/10

      Nothing new under the sun. Memories are short and it seems that most people don’t remember the purpose the C.B.A. was formed.

      Well to enlighten all you out there that think the C.B.A. is now as it always was. That is not correct.

      The C.B.A. was formed by the real A.L.P. as a control over the slimes that then as now were ripping off the people.

      If they wanted to continue in business they had to at least match the C.B.A. WHICH SET A REASONABLE FEE STRUCTURE.

      All is now under the buddy - buddy system with the lowlife politicians selling off every national asset (and hence control) much of which is taken up by the pussbags that were being kept in line.

      The suggestion that Australia Post (Still owned by us) be granted a bank licence could be the answer.

      The main problem here is that the poli A/holes will immediately see it as a saleable commodity and it will quickly go the way of our other assets.

    • Rosie says:

      02:03pm | 10/11/10

      Frank let us see if Swann the Goose has the gumption to heed your advice and the ticker to do something about it for those that are struggling to pay off a mortgage!

      It is not a problem for me as I have bank shares but it does bother me when the nation has an incompetent Treasurer that doesn’t look beyond his nose for my children, grandchildren and future generations.

      With Swann, Gillard & Penny Wong having no stance on anything good for this country we are doomed!

      Oooooooooops the Govt has again lost its way again! Where are the Faceless Men? It is time for a change in leadership! Someone with a ticker and not afraid to do what she/he believes in and stands for, be it the Labor Party way!

    • The Badger says:

      02:29pm | 10/11/10

      Seriously folks
      All Swan needs is a bit of bi-partisan discussion with the opposition.

      If he is really nice, perhaps Hockey will show him where the conservatives hid the levers.

    • JR says:

      02:31pm | 10/11/10

      Can someone answer me this. At the time of taking out a loan for a house, the lending rate is **%. The bank pays the seller and I take over the loan re-payments. This was done years ago; at a higher rate, actually. The seller already has his/her money. How come my rate varies even though the bank has already paid the seller. They are not borrowing my loan bit-by-bit and paying it off. They borrowed my loan at whatever rate it was and passed it on. Why is my loan variable when I don’t need this new money at the new rate? It shouldn’t affect me as I don’t need a loan, I’ve already got one.

    • M says:

      12:49am | 11/11/10

      Because the bank does not match fund your loan. It lends you money from a ‘pool’ of money, components of which are being repaid and re-borrowed and therefore re-priced all the time. Banks were created to do ‘maturity transformation’ borrow short term and lend long term.

    • JR says:

      10:58am | 11/11/10

      Thanks M. Clear as mud. You obviously live in a different world than I. I obviously look at things way too naively. I suppose this is how they keep the populous under control. Baffle them with bullsh*t. Oh well, back to actually making stuff for a living. I haven’t the time or inclination to work this stuff out. There, proof positive that their methods work. Thanks again M, have a wonderful day.

    • Brian says:

      12:01pm | 13/11/10

      The bank does not say ‘Ah, JR wants to borrow money for 20 years, I’ll go and get a 20 year loan myself to cover it’ when you go for a variable rate, they say ‘Ah, JR wants to borrow money for 20 years, and has agreed to share in the risk and benefit of changing costs. Therefore I should borrow in the shorter term, which is usually cheaper, and charge him accordingly. When I need to pay more, so does he, when it’s cheaper, he benefits.’

      If you chose a variable loan, you agreed to accept the varying cost of funds. If you didn’t want to do so, you’d have gone fixed. Of course, the downside may be conditions (such as you must repay it within 10 years). Partially this is because few of the organisations the banks deal with (other banks, some governments, major investment corporations and so on) are unwilling to have their money tied up for decades. Think about it - would you put your money in a 20 year term deposit? What if you needed a new car, or major medical treatment?

      To simplify, it all boils down to the fact that yes, they are ‘borrowing my loan bit-by-bit and paying it off’, in a sense.

    • Ando says:

      04:20pm | 10/11/10

      Not trying to defend the banks here (wouldn’t dare - I have a home loan myself with CBA) but in a way, can you blame the banks? The banks are a business… the main responsibility of a business is to maximise revenues for its shareholders, hence why the gap between interest rates and the cash rate widens. Many of the mining companies make significantly larger profits than the main banks. Many of the big banks are reducing their lending by maintaining or decreasing the amount of customers but increasing their revenues per customer which is increasing their profits without increasing costs.

      There is no motivation for the banks to increase their market share.

      If customers were to actually shop around or negotiate with the banks they would find that they can get a significantly cheaper rate than the rates advertised.

    • Davido says:

      02:41pm | 11/11/10

      What baloney. Sure you can get a better rate - for a small time before they up the rate.

      The banks will often discount for a while. You get suckered in and then they raise their rates later on.

      The real problem is the Unilateral contract. Who can raise their hand and say they have seen their mortgage contract? You may think so ... but the real terms are contained in a ‘compendium’ you are never going to see.

      The Government needs to step in and make a standard mortgage contract banks must use.

    • M says:

      12:56am | 11/11/10

      We pay politicians and government employees to monitor the economy/society/etc and formulate policy that betters the lives of Australians. Swan and Costello before him totally dropped the ball on sensible Bank competition policy.

      As such, it really is a matter of public policy, but one that requires banks to sensibly communicate their actions and acknowledge their privileged position. This they do not do well. Instead they drive a truck through the loopholes of competition policy (aided and abetted by Swann/Costello) and communicate in a way that pours salt on the wounds of those, in this case, with variable mortgages. And those mortgage holders watch the guy that is pouring the salt getting paid $16m to run a quasi public entity. Hurts me.

    • Davido says:

      02:42pm | 11/11/10

      I agree with Frank here. But what is really needed is a change in attitude. Banking is such an essential part of the infrastructure of the economy it cannot be left to chance.

    • Andrew says:

      06:39pm | 13/11/10

      Article likens banking to unleaded petrol. Intesting analogy - the party that brought us the failed Grocery Watch and Fuel Watch scams to “take the pressure off Working Families” (then cancelled them and watched mute as the ALP states jacked up electricity and water on WFs by 50%, before proposing a $20bn+ tax on miners that would have shut the country down) suddenly thinks Hockey’s blowtorch on banks is “Hansonism” and “reregulation.” When did this sudden dedication to the free market happen? It can’t have coincided with the Commie Coalition with the Greens, as they don’t even believe in capitalism (nor do Comrade Gillard’s puppeteers), so who’s it coming from??

    • Andralyn says:

      02:37pm | 14/06/11

      I feel so much happier now I undersntad all this. Thanks!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

This is the week that Craig Thomson defended himself in Parliament, Schapelle Corby got clemency and…

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter