Power is a funny thing.
It shifts and flows, is both tangible and vague.
More Business Videos
Bank chief won't sign ethics oath
Why hasn't Commbank CEO Ian Narev signed the Banking and Finance oath, developed to ensure ethical behaviour?
Often, it is most identifiable when it is missing.
As Ian Narev, the Commonwealth Bank CEO who received $12.3 million in pay last financial year, fronted the first of what are to be annual parliamentary committee hearings, who held the power was clear.
And it wasn't the government.
As far as Narev was concerned, everything he needed to say was said at his opening statement - the bank had not always done right by customers, but it was learning and changing and on the whole, its customers were "the most satisfied they've been".
It was all, he said, about being strong and fair. Strong banks equalled a strong economy. And that was almost an excuse for anything, even if they needed to work on being a little more fair.
Throughout the three-hour hearing, he often referred to what he said at the beginning, to the point where it became a mantra, no matter how many cases were mentioned.
![Commonwealth Bank chief executive officer Ian Narev appears before the committee.](/web/20161008053640im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/u/o/3/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.grurji.png/1475637775082.jpg)
Like the case of Rainer and Emmaline Matthews, who had their application for hardship assistance with their home loan denied because they didn't meet the criteria, despite Emmaline having been diagnosed with terminal cancer at the same time she gave birth to their second child.
The bank hadn't always done right in every case, but on the whole, it did its job.
![Labor MPs Pat Conroy, left, and Matt Thistlethwaite question Commonwealth CEO Ian Narev. Thistlethwaite, Labor's strike ...](/web/20161008053640im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/u/o/w/h/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.grurji.png/1475807609251.jpg)
Michael Gill was struck down with rheumatoid arthritis, but denied his CommInsure claim, because it relied on a definition of the illness set down in the 1940s.
Heart attack victims had their claims rejected, because there wasn't enough of a certain protein in a patient's blood.
The bank hadn't always responded in a "customer friendly process" but it was working on it.
Strong, working on being more fair. But not a single person has lost their job over the revelations, Narev admitted, even when reviews had found that wrong had been done. The bank was strong, Narev said. It was working hard on being seen as more fair.
Time and time again Narev, and his chief risk officer, David Cohen, who sat like a general at his side, referred back to his mantra, with only his legs betraying his level of frustration. During his opening statement, they tapped, crossed at the feet, in time with his words. As he relaxed, so did his feet. During questioning from government MPs, they largely remained still, stretched in front of him or flat on the floor. For here, under these questions, Narev knew there was a common goal - to avoid the need for a royal commission.
Under questioning from the three Labor MPs on the committee, and Adam Bandt on the phone, the legs flexed and tapped, as the cases mounted, Labor using them to mount their own case for a royal commission.
The competing motivations meant Narev was never more discomforted than a thigh twitch, the most compelling moment coming as Pat Conway argued with chairman David Coleman for more time, announcing he was "happy to sacrifice" time set aside for tea, in exchange for more questions.
His request was denied and many of the government committee members returned with their tea cups in hand.
Deputy chairman Matt Thistlethwaite waited until the last moment granted to him to drop Labor's gotcha moment - having confirmed former Liberal Party director Brian Loughnane was consulting for the bank - when he asked whether that included advice on "how to avoid a royal commission".
Labor had made its point. The first of the banks had made theirs as well. Strong banks make for a strong economy - what government was going to interfere with that?
153 comments
Comment are now closed