This article examines a preliminary review and the limited evidence of over-regulation in Australian financial services. The 1997 Wallis Report and the CLERP 6 paper, resulted in the amendments to Ch 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by the Financial Services Reform Act. Nearly a decade later the system based upon 'one-size fits all', dual track regime and a consistent licensing regime has greatly increased the costs of compliance. In the area of enforcement there has not been a dramatic change to the effective techniques applied by ASIC over other agencies, such as APRA. In particular there are clear economic arguments, as well as international experiences which state that a single financial services regulator is more effective than the multi-layered approach adopted in Australia. Finally, in the superannuation area of financial services, which is worth A$800 billion, there is unnecessary dual licensing and duplicated regulation, with little evidence of any consumer-member benefit, but at a much greater cost.

Australian regulation of financial services has had a checkered history. The recent Hayne Royal Commission has made a number of recommendations to enhance the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. This article explores the origins and criticisms of two royal commissions and discussessome of the challenges ahead for the risk regulator.

It is difficult to ignore the widespread concern over the corporate culture of Australia's banking industry. This growing concern has led to close scrutiny of banks and subsequently triggered the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to regulate what it deems as bad corporate culture.