I read somewhere that the Commonwealth Bank makes around one billion dollars from bank fees. I'm sure this is enough to cover their entire payroll. The Commonwealth Bank, as well as all the other major banks have been engaged in a vast downsizing of branches, particularly in poorer suburbs. The problem is, these poorer suburbs are precisely the ones that need the branches, and the banks know this. That's why they close it down. It is not economical enough. One of the main problems with privatisation is that while they result in efficiencies, the poorer people, or the people most in need of services will go without in order to provide a more efficient outcome for larger users. Privatisation means the Government can pretend to be able to do nothing about the corporation shutting down. If a Government has the right to take away Native Title, it has enough parliamentary sovereignty to enforce banks keep a minimum amount of branches open. Very simple. But, there are political factors for Governments who would dare not mess with the powerful capitalist institutions. I think the local governments who threatened the banks with withdrawing 100 million dollar accounts were on the right track. 100 million dollars is substantial - it makes a difference. Then there are the crazy assertions that Australian banks should be congratulated for being unharmed by the financial recession - that's because they make so much from fees and that possibly they've learnt alot from the near ruin that the 1990 recession brought to institutions such as WESTPAC.

It's interesting to see that the bank chiefs claim that AUTOMATIC TELLERS are replacing those cashiers that work at banks. However, exactly the opposite was argued to the High Court in 1996. Of course, the High Court believed them. In fact, it is one of the most remarkable decisions in recent memory because it is so short. All five justices, used to providing complex commentary and detailed reasoning (and often separate judgements), summed up the case in one page! While the facts in Kennison v Daire involved fraudulent use of a card to obtain money - the important issue was that the High Court found that the machine did not have the consent of the bank to hand out the money. One awaits for a more thorough and legitimate case to go to the High Court to see if an autmoatic teller will be awarded the same authority that a bank teller has. The implications of this case mean that in fact, the bank faces a lesser standard of responsibility with the electronification of its services. In Evernett (1987) 24 A Crim R 330, in the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal there was a case where a man took advantage of the teller by withdrawing an amount of money over his spending limit without having some sort of "overdraft arrangement". They upheld his conviction for stealing under the Queensland Criminal Code. Why shouldn't the bank assume responsibility for allowing a person to overdraw on an account. Why isn't there software written up that way? If a bank teller had allowed that person to overdraw the money, then that person wouldn't be charged with stealing. It's surprising to hear that the "bank had no intention" of passing the money - yet its electronic teller did. Therefore, electronic forms of communication at the moment according to the banks' legal reasoning ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE to that of the bank teller. To suggest that the closure of banks are adequately replaced by electronic tellers must mean that a certain legal responsibility must be adopted by the banks. If they are not willing to face the legal responsibilities, then they are lying to their consumers.