Consumer protection in the banking sector : reviewing the Code of Banking Practice

This article explains the relevance of the Code and its place in the regulatory framework, discusses some of the key issues arising in the recent review (as identified by consumer advocates1), and explains the relationship between the Code and the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Joint consumer submission to the review of the code of banking practice

This submission has been prepared on behalf of Australian consumer advocates by Nicola Howell, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology (‘the researcher’), under a consultancy arrangement with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The researcher has been engaged by ASIC to consult with consumer advocates across Australia in order to prepare a detailed consumer submission to the Review of the Code of Banking Practice and the Review Issues Paper.

Revisiting the Australian code of banking practice: Is self-regulation still relevant for improving consumer protection standards?

The Code of Banking Practice is one of the oldest examples of consumer protection provided through self-regulation in the Australian financial services sector. However, since the Banking Code was first released in 1993, the volume of consumer protection legislation applying to banks has increased exponentially and parts of the Banking Code that once provided new consumer rights have now been largely superseded by legislation. In light of the increasingly complex set of laws and regulations that govern the relationship between banks and their consumer and small business customers it could be argued that the Banking Code has a limited future role. However, an analysis of the Banking Code shows that it adds to the consumer protection standards provided by legislation and can continue to facilitate improvements in the standards of subscribing banks and of other institutions in the financial services sector. Self-regulation and industry codes should continue to be part of the regulatory mix. Any regulatory changes that flow from the recent Financial System Inquiry should also facilitate and support the self-regulation role, but the government should also consider further changes to encourage improvements in industry codes and ensure that the implicit regulatory benefits that are provided, in part, because of the existence of industry codes, are made explicit and made available only to code subscribers.

Proposal for a code of good practice in statistics in Latin America and the Caribbean and implementation plan for 2012-2013

Incluye Bibliografía

Code of law, practice and forms for justices' and other inferior courts in the western states [electronic resource] /

Reproduction of original from Harvard Law School Library.

Uptake of an OHS code of practice by Australian construction firms

The Australian construction industry is moving towards the implementation of a voluntary code of practice (VCP) for occupational health and safety (OHS). The evidence suggests that highly-visible clients and project management firms, in addition to their subcontractors, will embrace such a code, while smaller firms not operating in high-profile contracting regimes may prove reticent. This paper incorporates qualitative data from a research project commissioned by Engineers Australia and supported by the Australian Contractors’ Association, Property Council of Australia, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Association of Consulting Engineers Australia, Australian Procurement and Construction Council, Master Builders Australia and the Australian CRC for Construction Innovation. The paper aims to understand the factors that facilitate or prevent the uptake of the proposed VCP by smaller firms, together with pathways to adoption.

Uptake of an OHS code of practice by construction firms : barriers and enablers in an Australian industry

The Australian construction industry, reflecting a global trend, is moving towards the implementation of a voluntary code of practice (hereafter VCP) for occupational health and safety. The evidence suggests that highlyvisible clients and project management firms, in addition to their subcontractors, look set to embrace such a code. However, smaller firms not operating in high-profile contracting regimes may prove reticent to adopt a VCP. This paper incorporates qualitative data from a high-profile research project commissioned by Engineers Australia and supported by the Australian Contractors’ Association, Property Council of Australia, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Association of Consulting Engineers Australia, Australian Procurement and Construction Council, Master Builders Australia and the Australian CRC for Construction Innovation. The paper aims to understand the factors that facilitate or prevent the uptake of the VCP by smaller firms, together with pathways to the adoption of a VCP by industry.

Safer construction voluntary code of practice : implications for SMEs

The majority of Australian construction firms are small businesses, with 97% of general construction businesses employing less than 20 employees and 85% employing less than five employees (Lin and Mills, 2001; Lingard and Holmes, 2001). The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of a small to medium enterprise was used for the purpose of this study (McLennan, 2000). This included small business employing less than twenty people and medium business employing less than 200 people. Although small to medium enterprises (SME) make up the major share of construction organisations in Australia, there is a paucity of published research in relation to occupational health and safety (OHS) issues for this group. Typically, SME organisations “are frequently undercapitalized and depend on continuous cash flow for their continued business” (Cole, 2003; 12). Research by Lin and Mills (2001) indicates that these factors influence the smaller operators’ ability and motivation to achieve high levels of OHS compared to larger firms which tend to integrate OHS into their management systems. According to Lin and Mills (2001; 137) small firms “do not feel the need to focus on OHS in their management systems, instead they often believe that the control of risk is the responsibility of employees”. This report documents findings from a qualitative research study that examined SME organisations’ views of a newly developed voluntary code of practice (VCOP), and ways in which they might implement the code in their businesses. The research also explored respondents’ awareness of current safety issues in industry in the context of their personal experiences.

Safer construction : the development of a voluntary code of practice to improve safety performance in the Australian construction industry

In Australia, between 1994 and 2000, 50 construction workers were killed each year as a result of their work, the industry fatality rate, at 10.4 per 100,000 persons, is similar to the national road toll fatality rate and the rate of serious injury is 50% higher than the all industries average. This poor performance represents a significant threat to the industry’s social sustainability. Despite the best efforts of regulators and policy makers at both State and Federal levels, the incidence of death, injury and illness in the Australian construction industry has remained intransigently high, prompting an industry-led initiative to improve the occupational health and safety (OHS) performance of the Australian construction industry. The ‘Safer Construction’ project involves the development of an evidence-based Voluntary Code of Practice for OHS in the industry.