Mr. Larry Broderick:

I am familiar with what the Senator is talking about. We have challenged that decision from a negotiating position in that bank as part of our process. Across the industry, we want to sit down to talk about what is the competency to do roles, what is in the best interest of the customer, as well as the institution going forward and what is the opportunity for there to be maximum staff in a location. In many cases there is not adequate staff in a changed environment. We share the Senator's concerns. The problem is these institutions see themselves as to some extent omnipotent and self-absorbed. Unless we go down the route of industrial action, they are concerning developments and it is difficult to mount industrial action against those kinds of issues. In fairness other institutions are a bit more sensitive to the role and are engaging with us. We want to try to develop a standard in the industry whereby those conversations can be had and that we go to the highest-level standard. My concern is that if those practices become embedded, every other institution will say that competitively they need to do similar things. We also believe the Central Bank has a role in this. Sometimes we are disappointed in that the Central Bank seems to take a view that developments like this are an operational issue. Particularly where risk is concerned, we think it is central to that. The Central Bank has made it clear to us that it does not intend to involve itself in industrial relations issues but these are broader than industrial relations issues. There needs to be an overseer, such as the committee, to talk about values or appropriate structures. They are things that can be looked at to build within the Central Bank. The Central Bank has a role to play in monitoring this, particularly if there are issues raised by us or the committee.