After five days of ungainly wriggling, on Tuesday morning it became clear that Westpac would be getting a clearout at the top level. CEO Brian Hartzer has quit, chair Lindsay Maxsted will be bringing forward his retirement, and long-time director Ewen Crouch will not be seeking reelection.
All of this is directly linked to recent money laundering and child abuse financing scandals uncovered by AUSTRAC .
In the wake of these changes, Westpac is handing the interim CEO role to its chief financial officer, Phil King, who was otherwise due to retire shortly. A new chair will be found with Maxsted leaving in the first half of 2020 and not at the annual meeting in a year’s time. The role will be filled from outside the board.
A front page report in The Australian today claimed that Hartzer told a meeting of senior executives on Monday that “the AUSTRAC scandal did not need to be overcooked”. If true, that’s a remark that confirms Hartzer was still in denial and didn’t see the magnitude of the problems confronting the bank.
The changes came after intense pressure on the board at meetings yesterday involving major investors and proxy advisers ahead of the annual meeting on December 12. It became clear that unless there were departures and some accountability for the AUSTRAC scandal, the AGM could become a slugfest with major shareholders turning on the board and bank in full public gaze.
Two days ago, banking regulator APRA was revealed to have inquired into Westpac’s handling of the breaches. A day later ASIC, the key company regulator, went out of its way to confirm publicly that it was probing Westpac and possible breaches of laws.
ASIC doesn’t usually confirm these inquiries until they are well underway, or until they first hit the courts. It must have wanted to make it clear it was on Westpac’s case. (It would also be handy to know just when AUSTRAC told APRA and ASIC of its problems with Westpac and whether that was a heads up to start to investigate.)
The Westpac departures means that following the banking royal commission’s months of excruciating hearings and damning interim and final reports, and the activities of AUSTRAC, ANZ is the only major bank to retain its top two people — chair David Gonski and CEO Shayne Elliott.
Commonwealth Bank chair Catherine Livingstone is still in the role because she joined the CBA board late into its brawl with AUSTRAC over money laundering breaches that cost Ian Narev the role as CEO. NAB lost chair Ken Henry and CEO Andrew Thorburn earlier this year after being pinged by the Hayne commission’s final report. And among the non-banks, the AMP has lost a chair and CEO, board members and a number of executives.
What is ironic about Westpac is that it missed most of the fallout from the banking royal commission — its problems were mostly in the activities at its then partially-owned fund manager, BT, and nowhere near the seriousness of the accusations levelled at the AMP, CBA and NAB. As a result bank analysts and some in the media had proclaimed it — and later ANZ — the “winners” of the royal commission because of the absence of any really damaging stories.
Little did they know how little they did know.
AUSTRAC completely blindsided Westpac, its board and management and investors large and small. But it shouldn’t have. Westpac had already made public the fact that it had self-reported breaches of money laundering laws, a disclosure that was not highlighted in the first $2 billion of new capital raised earlier this month.
Lawyers and some fund managers are already looking at disclosure levels. Westpac has the last $500 of that raising out with retail shareholders at the moment. The offer closes on Monday (at this stage) and will be a big test of the way the normally loyal and imputed dividend-mad retiree and small investors groups continue to support the country’s oldest and second largest bank.
Seems odd to clamour for resignations at these moments. Just when the going gets tough and it’s time to really work for their money, the glib consensus is to resign.
How about sticking around and taking up the fight. Why were AUSTRAC sitting back so long letting the breaches and fines rack up ? Perverse incentives looks a good candidate. A few resignations and sackings from the regulatory sinecures sounds fair enough. Then there are these insanely disproportionate fines.
The bigger picture is the real problem and conveniently ignored or just not known about here and in mainstream coverage. These laws around the world have cut off remittances to millions of poor people making them more vulnerable to terror and criminal recruiters. We must find better ways starting with not taking all our advice from cops. Back home Australia is a notorious laggard with updating our money laundering laws as per our international promises. Other more competent sources are all over this stuff. A good start is Michael West’s site.
“Back home Australia is a notorious laggard with updating our money laundering laws”
And who would be behind that you reckon? Perhaps a political party that receives substantial donations?
Remember the work that the LNP did to try to unwind the FOFA laws. Remember how much the LNP fought against a banking royal commission. Sure, the regulators are toothless and under-funded, but who are their masters?
Your sights set on the regulator(s) misses the point that if the banks followed the laws there would be no problems, and exonerates completely the LNP puppet masters who are instrumental in us getting here.
Yes, Michael West’s site is excellent.
When a surgeon performs life-saving surgery all the instruments are sterilised. Unless all instruments are bacteria-free the operation will not be successful or effective due to likely infection.
The entire Westpac board should exit.
It’s a good payday if you can get it. Profit from the facilitation of terrorism and child rape, and be able to walk away with a further $2.7 million.
The “funniest” thing in all this is this “go for the throat” by “regulators” – which the same government was restraining by the budgetary balls before the RC – protecting their banking donors from those same regulators?
Where would we (particularly the really done-over and ruined – by banks that had whittled their greed to take out their own eyes) be now if those same regulators had been allowed to do their job 5 years ago? But held back by a complicit, duplicit government?
Regulatory incompetence is one of the crucial findings of all these Royal Commissions that is the common thread and findings – no matter the subject of the Commission.
22 million offences and you get pinged a for the 23rd million ? – that’s a bit unfair.
Why should execs resign – for such minor errors?