Levies for any purpose, whether they be for supervision or any other proposed purpose are merely another industry cost burden and such a cost must be passed on. 

Generally, the formation of yet another government bureaucracy should be discouraged. The growth in Australian government and the compliance cost of industries in having to deal with a new supervisory body is just another cost, another burden.  While the government might quantify its supervisory cost, it has not calculated the compliance cost by the financial industry, all of which will be passed on. 

The banking industry is all publicly owned - the banks are listed on the stock exchange, and their activities and results are audited and are well explained and understood, so I question the need for a supervisory body. It seems to be a 'make work' effort, to create a body which will then look for things to supervise. Typically, bodies like this feed incestuously and grow, requiring larger budgets and funding, and again the industry will need to fund the compliance cost. Proponents of this measure need to understand that both the proposed levy and the industry's compliance cost must be funded, and that these costs will be passed on. The end consumer, the little guy, will eventually be asked to pay for this, and the gain is clearly not worth the pain. 

Further, there has not been a bank failure in Australia in living memory, so, again, why is a supervisory body needed? The banks seem to be doing a good job of maintaining fiscal health as an industry so why is there a public benefit in creating yet another body, another entity which adds cost, plus the industry compliance burden? The proponents of this supervisory body have not demonstrated this need. 

I propose that the creation of the supervisory body and the funding levy are unnecessary since the industry is fairly transparent,  The creation of the body should be dismissed. 

P. Barry