01 September 2018

Fake bank apps on Google Play store

Many corporations and governments will tell the general population that in order to purchase their products or services the person must purchase a program which is only available for users of Android or Apple smart phones, where users of other platforms are deliberately overlooked.

The necessity is real for an app to exist that controls your smart phone's hardware, for example its compass or GPS features or the use of apps with regards to offline tasks such as a calculator, media player or document composer or reader.

If you are required to conduct business 'online', with for example a government institution like welfare payment or healthcare departments or a bank, technically there is no reason for an app to exist in order for you to conduct your business with that entity.

An article from 2016 exposed how a bank app actually opened a smart phone's web browser, in reality negating the existence for the need of that app.

See article:
Australians like lambs to the slaughter with easily hackable credit card technology at:

Apps are big business for the powerhouse duopoly of Apple and Google, where you or rather your person is a slave generating data for the duopoly and their so called 'advertisers', which also includes covert government players.

Realistically governments that support apps to access their services are not making it easy for you but rather easy for them in supporting data collection on your person commonly referred to  today as 'big data' where you also must conduct a business transaction through an intermediary (Apple or Google) in order to access the government services.

 See article on fake bank apps on Play store within the illustration:

Apps are technically part of the nanny state agenda.

31 August 2018

Fines are all about road safety

The Australian state's police force will officially claim that their action on the roads with regards to fining motorists is all about 'road safety'.

MANY articles have been written with regards to a quota system for fines with regards to an officer's promotion within the force.

In the state of Victoria, there is even government 'propaganda' on television with regards to an advertisement promoting "TowardsZero" meaning achieving zero deaths on the state's roads, a figure the police and authorities know is never achievable.

It seems that the driver of the speed camera vehicle in the photo, is endangering the lives of cyclists in their very own designated lane.

P.S. In criminal law, which a traffic offence is classified as such, the prosecution must provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of who the drivers was, where currently owner onus is applied unlawfully.

Queensland Australia's most corrupt police state?

Almost 30 years later, all the signs of the pre-Fitzgerald era are back

Change to misconduct and corruption in the police force must come from the top. A culture shift is long overdue

Former Queensland police officer Rick Flori and Renee Eaves after Flori was found not guilty of misconduct. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

The Fitzgerald inquiry was supposed to be a reckoning for the Queensland police, a sign that the bad old days were over.

Tony Fitzgerald’s findings were particularly scathing of the way police dealt with misconduct and corruption. “The Internal Investigations Section has provided warm comfort to corrupt police,” Fitzgerald said. “It has been a friendly, sympathetic, protective and inept overseer. It must be abolished”.

Almost 30 years later, and Queensland is back where it started, showing all the hallmarks of the pre-Fitzgerald era. Internal investigations have been replaced by the “Ethical Standards Command” which more often than not allows police to investigate their colleagues.

How long are the premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, and the commissioner of police, Ian Stewart, going to sit by while history repeats?

In 2011, I took legal action against a Queensland police officer and the state for deprivation of liberty, assault and wrongful arrest.

The officer had come into my home and handcuffed me, while I was pregnant, for an alleged driving offence. I was subsequently found not guilty. The same officer had previously pulled me over more than a dozen times. I complained to every department tasked with the oversight of police. I went to the officer’s station, where I was laughed at. I then went to the Crime and Misconduct Commission, who referred me back to the same station for a second laugh.

By the time I eventually made it to the district court in Brisbane five years later to sue him for damages, I was a single mother with no resources to fund lawyers.

The police internal investigation found my complaint about this officer “unsubstantiated”. But after a four-day trial, the officer was found guilty of false imprisonment and I was awarded damages totalling $93,000. Why did it take a judge to rule his behaviour was unacceptable?

The same officer was one of the six officers previously charged with deprivation of liberty over the “Pinkenba Six” incident in 1994, where three Indigenous boys were taken out to the bush and later gave evidence to the CJC that the officers threatened them, threw their shoes away and then drove off. The charges were dropped, after the magistrate ruled the boys had gone with the police willingly, which resulted in a mass protest. The officers, however, remained in the police service.

For my trouble, police then asked me to pay $5,000 for the officer’s meals, accomodation, lost earnings and a “care and consideration” fee because the trial ran an additional day. This is the sheer arrogance of this police service: asking a victim to pay for the care and consideration of the officer who had violated her rights.

This is the sheer vindictiveness of this police service: when a young father was bashed by police in the basement of the Surfers Paradise police station, they took no criminal action against the officers involved – one was given a “suspended dismissal” and sent back out on the beat. Instead they decided to charge another police officer, Sergeant Rick Flori, with misconduct for leaking the video of the incident.

The most senior officer in the video, David Joachim, is a relative of police commissioner Ian Stewart. In August 2015, Stewart was interviewed on ABC radio and talked about Flori’s criminal matter and the leaking of the video. Yet when his relationship with Joachim was later reported, he said that he had earlier removed himself from the case citing a conflict of interest. Six years after the bashing, in February 2018, Flori was found not guilty. But the damage to this officer, and to his reputation, was already done. The officer who had pursued the charges against Flori was soon after promoted to a role at the Crime and Corruption Commission, the body tasked to investigate the very same kind of matters.

The CCC is where people who fall victim to rogue police go for help. Julie*, whose address was accessed by a rogue police officer, then handed to her violent former partner, went to the CCC. She was referred back to police.

At a press conference last year, Stewart was asked about the case. The commissioner said he was happy to speak to the same victim again, if it would make her feel better. He had never spoken to her the first time. She explained to me she felt further betrayed by an organisation she once believed was there to serve and protect victims like her.

Leaders in government and public service should make decisions that are in the public interest. But they cannot properly serve the community if they continue down the same path: on the one hand pursuing officers who expose corruption, and on the other protecting those who fail in their duty to serve and protect.

You will never change misconduct and corruption from below. It must come from the top. A long overdue culture shift will only happen when the bar is set high, and does not accept anyone who falters or falls below the standard expected.

• Renee Eaves is a social justice advocate

* Julie is a pseudonym to protect her identity. She has also been referred to as Elizabeth in previous reporting about her case.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/31/almost-30-years-later-all-the-signs-of-the-pre-fitzgerald-era-are-back

Support The Guardian

30 August 2018

The Secret State: How you are kept in the dark

Somewhere in Melbourne, there's a public hospital where the risk of something going wrong is much greater than in another hospital across town

But you’re not allowed to know which hospital it is – because this type of data is hidden from patients and doctors.

A few kilometres away, buried in the files of the state Education Department, an explosive police report exists with allegations of a sex “grooming” ring linked to a suburban school.

Just don’t expect the government to release it because, bureaucrats claim, the report is exempt under Freedom of Information laws from ever being disclosed.

"I think there is still very much a culture in large parts of the [government] sector that’s more about, ‘How can I refuse disclosure?"
Victoria's Information Commissioner, Sven Bluemmel

And in the corridors of power at Town Hall, important decisions are being made about the City of Melbourne – about everything from new developments and contracts to transport improvements and rates.

The trouble is, more than a quarter of those decisions are made behind closed doors – and some remain confidential indefinitely.

Increasingly, Victoria is a secret state. Almost every aspect of our government, our legal system, and our public services is pervaded by a creeping lack of transparency.

From the Premier’s Office at Treasury Place to police departments, health, schools and the courts, a veil of secrecy is undermining democracy and having an impact on how we live.

What’s more, the laws that are supposed to ensure transparency – from the Freedom of Information Act to the Open Courts Act – are, in fact, resulting in exactly the opposite.

As Victoria's Information Commissioner, Sven Bluemmel, says, "I think there is still very much a culture in large parts of the [government] sector that’s more about, ‘How can I refuse disclosure?'".

In coming days, an Age investigation will examine how Victorians are being kept in the dark and the effect this is having on the public debate. We’ll also ask to hear your stories.
... cabinet always meets in secret; cabinet documents tend to be secret; and the public service is beholden to government of the day
Monash University politics lecturer Nick Economou
The notion of a secret government is not unique to Victoria. Its genesis goes back centuries to a time when monarchs protected themselves against rivals and official information was considered the property of the Crown.
In Australia, it was the colony of Victoria that set the pattern, according to an Australian Law Reform Commission report: in 1867, Victoria created the first secrecy provision in Australia, forbidding public servants from giving out information without the permission of a minister.

“It’s a throwback to the origins of our Westminster system – cabinet always meets in secret; cabinet documents tend to be secret; and the public service is beholden to government of the day,” says Monash University politics lecturer Nick Economou, who has been an observer of the state’s political landscape for decades.

Since then, various pieces of legislation have tried to cut against the grain and reverse the culture of keeping things hidden. The Freedom of Information Act, for instance, was introduced in 1982 to “extend as far as possible the right of the community to access to information in the possession of the Government of Victoria”.

The Open Courts Act was created to “strengthen and promote the principles of open justice and free communication of information”.

Both, largely, have failed.

The Age has uncovered:


More people are seeking access to information than ever before, yet even the watchdog who oversees the system says departments and agencies are plagued by a “culture of secrecy”. 

Number of FOI requests

First year of reporting: 1984-85

Government decisions

Top 5 public sector agencies with most requests:

  1. Victoria Police
  2. Melbourne Health
  3. Alfred Health
  4. Ambulance Victoria
  5. Monash Health
Source: FOI Annual Report 2016-17

 Despite being accountable to the ratepayers who elect them, all but two of Victoria’s 79 councils held meetings behind closed doors in the last financial year, with East Gippsland Shire, the City of Melbourne, and Whittlesea Council among the worst in the state.

Top 5 most secretive Councils

Percentage of closed meetings 2016-17


Most secretive Councils by type

Percentage of closed meetings, 2016-17.

For all the attempts to improve transparency, secrecy permeates Victoria’s health system, from gag orders on doctors to fudged figures on hospital waiting lists, and sexual assaults being covered up in psychiatric wards.

Department of Health and Human Services

Waiting lists drop ahead of reporting system

Number of elective surgery patients on waiting list (total)

Almost 1600 court orders to suppress information were made between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 – including court orders keeping some of Victoria’s worst paedophiles a secret. Their victims want this reformed.

Court orders

From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, 1594 orders with the effect of suppressing information under various sources of power, with 1,279 orders made under the Open Courts Act. Of these ...

Daniel Andrews was elected partly on a platform to improve transparency. Four years later, Labor has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to block the rorts-for-votes affair in the courts; hundreds of “questions on notice” remain unanswered in the Victorian Parliament; and many of the government's transparency reforms have fallen short.

FOI requests

Source: FOI Annual Report, 2016-2017.

Victoria prides itself on being the “education state”. Yet schools say they're often kept in the dark about policy changes and parents claim they can't always get crucial information about how their children are faring.

The parents of a child with a disability at a primary school in Gippsland feared he had been inappropriately restrained after lashing out at the principal. But when they sought access to their son’s files - including staff diary notes, incident reports, and behaviour plans - they were told the request “would pose a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources to process.”

Can any of this change?

Monash Adjunct Professor Colleen Lewis, an expert on public sector integrity, says there have been steps taken to improve the situation – but whether they're enough is open to debate.

Among Victoria’s public watchdogs, there is now an Ombudsman to deal with public sector complaints; an anti-corruption commission to tackle police misconduct and government corruption; an auditor-general to scrutinise the spending of taxpayer funds; and a local government inspectorate to oversee councils.

But, according to Dr Lewis, these integrity bodies are often hampered by lack of powers and resources, and are subject to the whims of politicians keenly focused on self-preservation and media pressure.

And all of this is happening in an age where we trust institutions less: of the 28 countries surveyed for the annual Edelman Trust Barometer published in February, Australia ranks 21st for the people's overall level of trust in institutions of all kinds, including government, business, the media and NGOs.

"One of things that would help with the lack of trust would be more accountability, more openness, more transparency,” says Dr Lewis.
Economou agrees.

“Ultimately, though, governments do this stuff because they’re fearful of the political consequences if too much of their information becomes public.

“And this government is like all the ones that preceded it: in favour of full disclosure in opposition, but far less so when it’s in office.”

Source: 29 Aug 2018, theage.com.au

Paedophile police rape women and the system hides it

From the 29 Aug 2018 by theage.com.au artcile of the headline:

I want to name my abuser, but the Victorian courts are preventing me

Tracey May wants her abuser identified, but the legal system is stopping her.
Photo: Simon Schluter

Tracey May was one of more than a dozen victims of a serial sex abuser – a former policeman. She fell pregnant to him when she was 11 and miscarried. Now she wants to let the world know who he is.

The trouble is, she can’t expose him, because it's prohibited by the Victorian legal system.

Five years ago, the state of Victoria passed an Open Courts Act to improve transparency of the legal process.

Despite it, restrictions on what the public can and can’t know about ongoing cases appears to be getting worse. One analysis found Victoria was responsible for more than half of the country’s suppression orders, more than every other state and territory combined.

Former Court of Appeal judge Frank Vincent wrote in his review last year that of the 1594 orders made between 2014 and 2016, 22 per cent were blanket bans that failed to say what was being suppressed or simply stated the “whole or any part of the proceeding” couldn’t be reported. Another 12 per cent didn’t give any grounds at all.
I faced him in court and I wasn’t afraid for the first time in my life. And then to be told I couldn’t speak his name ...
Child sexual abuse victim Tracey May
The review also found adult victims of sexual assault and family violence should, on conviction of the offender, be able to disclose their identity - a recommendation supported in principle by the Andrews government.

Yet to this day, a Magistrates Court suppression order forbids the publication of the man who abused Tracey May.  It also prevents the publication of his image and the police station where he worked, even though he was convicted and sentenced in 2016 to at least 15 years in jail.

His offending was horrendous. He brutalised nine children between 1967 and 1983. The youngest was five years old.

He molested one child in the police station, he attacked another in the back of a divisional van.
One parent reported him to police in 1979, but he wasn't charged. Instead, he resigned from the force and moved to New South Wales, where he offended against another seven children.

“I faced him in court and I wasn’t afraid for the first time in my life. And then to be told I couldn’t speak his name,” Ms May said.

“He can’t be protected and he is."

Victims of Crime Commissioner Greg Davies said while orders are often made to protect the identity of victims, victims are not being asked what they want.

“It’s been deemed by everyone to be irrelevant,” Mr Davies said.
“If a victim wants to go and make mention of what happened to them, usually because they want to prevent what happened to them from happening to someone else, and they can’t, then the victim is being further victimised by the court process.”

The order that prevents Ms May from naming her attacker was made in 2012, when the court proceedings just began, and it has no end date.

In September last year, crossbench senator Derryn Hinch used his parliamentary privilege to name the man he described as "a monster", but media were still unable to identify him.

When the case progressed to the County Court, the higher court did not issue a new suppression order, but the paedophile remained protected because he was given a pseudonym; Lewis Goddard.
Chief Magistrate Peter Lauritsen said the order was made under the Magistrates Court Act, and not the Open Courts Act, which was adopted in 2013. The new act introduced a five-year lifespan for orders.

He said all parties, including media, have the opportunity to argue against an application.
"Non-publication orders serve an important role in our justice system," he said.

"They are designed to protect the safety of any person involved in the court process, to ensure the proper administration of justice, to avoid further distress to a complainant or witness, or to protect national security."

Ms May, however, refuses to give up. As a child, she was made to feel ashamed. Now, she says, “I’ll keep fighting to name him.”

“Everyone said I should keep my mouth closed and don’t say a word. But as I got older, I decided that no, I am not going to keep my mouth closed. I’ve had my voice taken away from me for so long, it’s time I speak up.”

29 August 2018

Australian politicians secretly working for a foreign government

28 August 2018

Victorian police 'kept weapons to plant on suspects, kidnapped officer': ex-cop's affidavit

Police in Victoria's armed robbery squad kept a stash of weapons to plant on suspects, and "kidnapped and threatened" a fellow officer who refused to take a weapon to a crime scene, according to an affidavit from a retired fraud squad detective.

Key points:

  • Police said Graeme Jensen pointed a gun at them before they fatally shot him in his car
  • Ex-detective Bill Nash says another detective told him he was asked to take a gun to the scene after the shooting
  • Affidavits from Mr Nash and another former detective support Mr Jensen's family's suspicions a gun was planted at the scene

In a stunning statement, Bill Nash also says that police presented false evidence to the inquest into the death of Graeme Jensen, a convicted bank robber who was fatally shot by police in October 1988 in Melbourne's outer south-east.

The Narre Warren shooting sparked a revenge attack on police the following day — the execution of constables Steven Tynan and Damian Eyre on Walsh Street, South Yarra.

Mr Nash was part of a police unit that investigated the Jensen case for Victoria's Office of Public Prosecutions in the mid-1990s.

His sworn affidavit, obtained by the ABC, raises a raft of potential corruption questions about Victoria Police's former armed robbery squad.

They include the claim by one of its former detectives that the squad kept a "stash of guns … to plant on suspects" — a claim that was investigated and dismissed by an ombudsman more than 10 years ago.

In the affidavit, Mr Nash also says a former armed robbery squad detective told him he was asked to bring a gun to the Jensen crime scene on the day of the shooting.

Mr Nash said the former detective told him he refused to carry out the instruction, and squad members later "kidnapped and threatened" him to keep quiet about what he knew.

 Photo: Fay Spear, pictured with her brother Graeme Jensen, wants a royal commission into his death. (Supplied)

Officers charged over Jensen's death claimed they shot him in self-defence, after he pointed a gun at officers while trying to escape in his car.

Then-detective Robert Hill, who fired the fatal shot, was acquitted of murder in the Supreme Court in 1995, and is now an assistant commissioner.

Family suspects gun was planted

Jensen's family has always claimed he was unarmed, and that the weapon — which didn't work and had none of Jensen's fingerprints on it — was planted by police.

Two former detectives have now come forward to support that claim — Mr Nash, and former detective Malcolm Rosenes, who signed an affidavit that said he saw a detective place a sawn-off rifle in Jensen's car after the shooting.

In his affidavit, Mr Rosenes says:
"[The police officer] came to the driver's side window and I saw him unfurl the towel and a dark object came out of it. I was of the strong impression at the time that it was a firearm.
"I saw the gun in photographs afterwards.
"Its appearance was consistent with the object I saw tipped from the towel into the car of the deceased."
Jensen's sister, Fay Spear, had applied for a fresh coronial inquest into her brother's death, but has now told the ABC she is abandoning that application, because she is distrustful of the system and is tired of waiting for justice.

 Photo: The gun allegedly wielded by Graeme Jensen, which his family suspects was planted. (Supplied)

In his affidavit, Mr Nash said when the weapon found in Jensen's car was tested by police forensics, no fragments of glass were found on it.

At the time, police charged over the shooting death said Jensen pointed a gun at police through the car window as Mr Hill fired his first shot.
"The gun would have been showered with glass as a consequence," Mr Nash's affidavit said.
"Fragments of that glass would have remained."

After forensic testing, the weapon was handed to homicide detective John Hill, who returned the gun to the lab five months later, requesting that it again be examined for glass particles, Mr Nash's affidavit says.

"Officers of the Forensic Science Laboratory expressed their disquiet as continuity had not been maintained, and any such test would not produce credible results," it says.

"John Hill insisted. The examination subsequently carried out … revealed glass fragments between the stock and the barrel and some fragments fell out of the barrel."
John Hill died by suicide in 1993.

Photo: Fay Spear had lobbied for a new inquest, but says she has lost faith in that process. (ABC News: Daniel Fermer)

The affidavit says that in 2004, Mr Nash was approached by a former detective from the armed robbery squad, and another ex-police officer, who wanted to talk to him about the "murder of Graeme Jensen".

Mr Nash said he was told by the former detective that on the day of the Jensen shooting, the detective was asked to bring a working firearm to the crime scene because of "the firearm allegedly found in Jensen's possession not being in proper working order".

The detective refused the request but one of his colleagues agreed to take the gun, only to be told to turn back "due to the number of media already present" at the scene.

In the affidavit, Mr Nash said the officer who refused to take the weapon told him he was later "abducted from his house by several members of the armed robbery squad [and] taken to a location near a Ford dealership in the western suburbs in an unmarked police vehicle and threatened not to reveal his knowledge of the Jensen shooting".

Family calls for royal commission

Jensen's family said Mr Nash's affidavit confirmed their suspicions that police planted the gun, and later tampered with it.

"I'm really overwhelmed and so happy they [Mr Nash and Mr Rosenes] have come forward," Ms Spear said.

"If they hadn't, nothing would have changed."

But Ms Spear no longer holds any hope in her brother's shooting being investigated fairly.

In 1991, coroner Hal Hallenstein found there was no evidence the sawn-off rifle was planted in the car after Jensen was killed.

Ms Spear said the coroner was misled by police.

"We never heard the truth — it is blatantly obvious that police had all the power and we had none at that time," she said.

Photo: Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill was acquitted of the murder of Graeme Jensen. (AAP: Tracey Nearmy, file photo)

Victoria Police provided a statement to the ABC, which said:
"This matter has been the subject of extensive investigations, examinations and court hearings over many years through numerous forums.
"Allegations previously raised have all been investigated. Recently an application by parties to have the inquest re-opened was rejected by the Supreme Court.
"The coroner has also previously made a finding in respect of the matter.
"There is nothing to warrant a re-opening of the investigation."
Ms Spear said the only way to discover the truth was through a royal commission.

Source: abc.net.au

27 August 2018

Commonwealth Bank 'recommended' to face over 13,000 criminal offences

(Australia's No1 corporate criminal(?), Mr. Ian Mark Narev, CEO of Commonwealth Bank 2011-2018)

In the world pertaining to criminals in politics and corporations, it seems that it's a different legal reality to what the plebs face.

Under criminal law, the plebs of Australia are under strict and absolute liability, where first and foremost the person is guilty until proven otherwise, where also in the case of  alleged (criminal) driving offences owner onus unlawfully applies.

The pleb is not 'recommended' for criminal charges but rather criminal charges are bought against the person, where one must prove otherwise.

In the case of the royal commission, apparently lawyers 'recommend' the banks, in this case the CBA and NAB, face criminal charges with regards to superannuation law.

Could it be that the royal commission is a farce?

On the 3rd of June 2018, the mainstream media reported that the royal commission handed out a $700 million fine to the Commonwealth Bank for anti money laundering, which the bank gracefully 'agreed' to pay.

On the 8th of August 2018, the mainstream media announced that the Australian Government is giving the Australian tax payer's cash to the Commonwealth Bank in the form of a $12 billion business tax package.

As a result of the Australian tax payers funds supporting a criminal organisation, the tax office (ATO) is on the hunt to make up the difference, where it is on an assault on vulnerable Australians in order to make up the difference.

From the attention drawn to the criminal offences the banking industry has committed, we have obtained other information that indicates banks act unlawfully.

See article from 25 Aug 2018 by abc.net.au of the headline:

Lawyers recommend NAB and CBA face criminal charges over treatment of super customers

Photo: Senior counsel assisting the commission Michael Hodge QC claimed NAB and CBA misled super customers. (Supplied: Banking Royal Commission)

Lawyers for the banking royal commission have recommended the Commonwealth Bank and the National Australia Bank face criminal charges over their treatment of superannuation customers.

Key points:

  • CBA admitted to more than 13,000 breaches of superannuation law
  • Michael Hodge QC also recommended that NAB face criminal charges for misleading and deceptive conduct
  • ASIC highly likely to take banks to court over fees-for-no-service scandal

In his closing submission on misconduct in the superannuation industry, senior counsel assisting the commission, Michael Hodge QC, said the Commonwealth Bank (CBA) had admitted to more than 13,000 criminal breaches of the superannuation law.

That is because the CBA-owned Colonial First State failed to move 13,000 superannuation members into low fee, no commission accounts known as My Super by the legal deadline of January 1, 2014.

Mr Hodge also recommended to Commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC that NAB face criminal charges for misleading and deceptive conduct because it wrongly charged fees to superannuation customers.

Mr Hodge alleged that NAB's superannuation form, MLC, and its superannuation trustee, Nulis, may have mislead customers under the ASIC Act by failing to tell them they did not need to pay a plan service fee.

He also said that NAB admitted breaking the law 84 times between 2014 and 2017 because it failed to tell the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) about the fees-for-no-service scandal within the legal deadline.

NAB is also accused of breaking superannuation laws by failing to promote the financial interests of customers in My Super products.

The bank is paying back $90 million to more than 300,000 superannuation members who were charged fees but received no financial advice.

Mr Hodge slammed the bank's behaviour and said the NAB executives who appeared before the commission appeared to lack insight into the misconduct.

"It is submitted that this behaviour indicates a disregard on behalf of the NAB Group for members of the relevant superannuation funds, for regulators and for the law," he said.
IOOF and AMP were also accused of breaking superannuation laws and Mr Hodge said IOOF may have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Mr Hodge also criticised ASIC and the banking regulator, APRA, for not being tough enough on financial institutions who broke the law because they emphasised negotiations over going to court.

"The approach of neither APRA nor ASIC to regulation of superannuation entities is sufficient to achieve specific or general deterrence," he said in the submission.

Mr Hodge pointed out ASIC has yet to start legal action over the fees-for-no-service scandal.

However the corporate regulator told the commission last week that it was highly likely to go to court over the scandal.

A secret report on NAB by ASIC accused the bank of criminal and civil offences over charging fees but not providing financial advice.

ASIC deputy chairman, Peter Kell, told the commission that $260 million had been refunded by the big four banks and AMP so far but the total cost of compensation could be more than $1 billion.