00:00It would be different if the statements which were made were inaccurate, but that's not
00:08the case here.
00:09So no, I can't think of any excuse.
00:13And so what do you make of the argument from ACMA that in the case of Sportsbet here, where
00:17some wording was changed at the request of Sportsbet, that the changes did not just diminish
00:22the final statement in any way?
00:25Why were they there in the first place?
00:27In fact, I've read the original statement.
00:28It seems to me to be perfectly sound, solid, well-reasoned and entirely appropriate given
00:35the job ACMA has.
00:37I just do not understand why they would have capitulated.
00:41So looking at this case, who, in your opinion, is out of line here, Sportsbet, ACMA or both?
00:46Well, not Sportsbet.
00:48They've got a job to do, increase the value of the shares, et cetera, et cetera.
00:53They've got PR people who do this.
00:56The embarrassment here is that our regulatory agency is capitulating to pressure from public
01:02relations firms.
01:04What does that...
01:05And the Commonwealth Bank is a little bit of a different circumstance, but we can come
01:09to that.
01:10Yeah, well, let's go to that.
01:12So we'll just repeat that there.
01:15It was yesterday, the ABC revealed the Commonwealth Bank had successfully convinced ACMA to delay
01:19revelations that the bank had breached spam laws until after the CBA's annual general meeting.
01:25What is problematic about what we're seeing there?
01:29Both sides are problematic there.
01:30If you think about it now, why would the regulatory agency be doing that?
01:36It's not in the interests of the shareholders of the company.
01:39It's not in the interests of the public.
01:41It's actually only in the interests of the management and executive of the company.
01:46Why are they doing it?
01:48And then think about this.
01:49Why is ComBank even asking for it to occur?
01:53However, ComBank's first interest, in some views its only interest, is the interest of
01:59the company, that is, the shareholders.
02:02By denying this information to the shareholders, whoever arranged this with ACMA was doing a
02:10favour to the executive and to management at the expense of the shareholders' interest.
02:14So within ComBank itself, it's actually a fairly, I would have thought, serious breach
02:19of their governance policies.
02:22All their legal requirements, for that matter.
02:25So it's, in some ways, a worse one.
02:28Both sides are guilty there.
02:30What does this say to you about the relationship between ACMA and the companies that it regulates?
02:36Far, far too cosy.
02:39Or maybe they've just got no backbone.
02:41You can't explain it by imagining that anyone could say that it was an appropriate role for
02:48a watchdog to put the interests of PR spinners ahead of doing the regulatory task.
02:57In fact, they're undermining their own position.
03:00And so in your opinion, what needs to be done here?
03:03What needs to change?
03:04Well, it's going to have to introduce a spinal cord to ACMA.
03:09They're going to have to ask it to actually stick by and do its job, which is to act as
03:15a kind of watchdog, something which those who it regulates are concerned about, not because
03:24it's unfair, but because it will catch them out.
03:26And when it catches them out, it will expose them for what they've done wrong.
03:30That seems not to be the current thinking at ACMA.
03:33So something's got to change there.
03:36How do you do that?
03:37Well, it's got to come from the top.
Comments