Swan's bank laws could mean costly IT upgrades

 

Carbon tax impacts also expected.

Australian Government plans to introduce bank account portability and a carbon tax may require the nation’s banking sector to make significant new IT investments, according to research group Gartner.

The Gillard Government's plan to make switching banks easier will likely mean investment in new applications to support account portability, according to Gartner.

Australian banks could be the first in the world to set up account portability systems, according to Treasurer Wayne Swan.

But the idea has been mulled over in Europe for the past decade, dividing law makers and the banking sector due to the cost of changing IT systems. 

Last year Andrea Leadsom, a law maker from UK prime minister David Cameron's team, said that banking customers should have a lifetime bank account number to overcome the switching problem. 

In February this year Barclays Bank agued that the cost of enabling account portability "would be prohibitive" and ultimately outweigh any benefits.

"Implementing account number portability would require an overhaul of every payment system together with all banks having to change their accounting systems and delivery channels," it argued. 

Forced upgrades

In a new report, Gartner examined a series of government proposals that may impact banking IT systems across the Asia Pacific region. 

While Australia’s carbon tax debate is yet to be settled, should it proceed, banks will likely be forced to “overhaul and upgrade” high-emission data centres and operations, according to Gartner. 

“It is estimated that data centres across the world currently account for 1.5 percent of all emissions, a level on par with the airline industry," the analyst firm noted.

The significant level of emissions is swaying IT professionals to consider investing in low-power consumption devices and tools, to pre-emptively address raised power costs following the carbon tax".

Similar changes to the IT operations of New Zealand’s banks were expected, the largest four of which were owned by Australian banks anyway. 

The Federal Government’s proposals to improve mortgage and credit card transparency would result in multiple business process changes, which could translate into technology upgrades, the analyst firm notes. 

The new rules would compel financial institutions to explain to credit card customers how long it would take to paid down a credit card on minimum monthly repayments, affecting CRM systems and reporting tools, as well as credit risk analysis systems. 

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Swan's bank laws could mean costly IT upgrades
"@anonymouse The BSB would be dropped. This is left over from the cheque system anyway. It's used to recognise the bank and the branch where the cheque originated from. In the old days the ..."
By marcusg
 
 
 
Comments: 7
David Havyatt
May 20, 2011 9:37 AM
Hey everyone in banking land ... we've heard all this about portability before, in telco land. In the late 1990s the three incumbent mobile operators, faced by the prospect of new operators following spectrum auctions,told the regulators that mobile number portability was prohibitively expensive and certainly the benefits didn't outweigh the costs.

Thankfully the ACA as it was then had the balls to say - prove it. In a neat regulatory play they said "we presume the benefits to outweigh the costs but if you can prove otherwise we'll stop".

The best etsimate I heard for the cost of implementing mobile number portability across the entire industry was $400M (and it was a nine-month project across all providers delivered on time).

It turned out the benefits weren't just for consumers. One reason why your mobile is your number of choice is that you now know you can keep that number no matter which provider you go with and wherever you live. That increases the attractiveness of a mobile, increases the likelihood you'll give it rather than another number as the number to be called on, and hence generate massive terminating call revenue.

The banks should understand that residual resistance to direct debit and credit is that it currently increases bank switching costs.
MerariSchroeder
May 20, 2011 10:10 AM
I like this idea - it's good the government chose to do this, let's see if they can pull it off. If all it takes is a once off IT upgrade - what's the problem? It would be great to have one account number and be able to easily switch banks with the click of a mouse.
realitybites
May 20, 2011 10:19 AM
I like the idea too. But the cynic in me thinks this will just give banks another reason to hike fee's. Despite the fact, going by their released profit takings, that they could easily afford such a transition.

And let's be realistic here, if there are any bank's that can afford to do this, it's our mob.. Bloody robbers :)
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
May 20, 2011 10:29 AM
Yes, we need bank account number portability.
With computers these days, it is nothing for the banks to work from a national mapping table (number lookup tells you which bank to direct transaction to). It is MUCH harder to do this in real time as needed to direct phone calls to the right telco to enable a call to be put through... but it is done every second of every day, without incident.
mjc130
May 20, 2011 2:06 PM
I agree re number portability but I have a slight problem with it. We all know how bad it is when you change credit card numbers or your card expires. You have to notify every Tom, Dick and Harry as your services freeze up one by one (toll, broadband, mobile) from the direct debits. I use the credit card as it si more controllable.

For those who allow suppliers to direct debit from their bank account, this could be a nightmare. Yes I authorised Telstra to debit my monthlies from my Commonweatlh Bank and signed all the forms, but now that I moved to Westpac with the same number, how will Westpac handle this now?? WBC has no authority from me permitting this transaction. Now I don't work for banks so don't know how this is done, but from where I'm sitting, Telstra would be breaking the law by taking my money and Westapc liable for allowing them to do so??

Happy to stand corrected.
anonymous
May 20, 2011 4:55 PM

What's the point of keeping the same account number when you change banks, if the BSB identifier has to change to reflect the change to another bank?

Maybe I'm missing something here.
;-)
marcusg
May 20, 2011 6:50 PM
@anonymouse
The BSB would be dropped. This is left over from the cheque system anyway. It's used to recognise the bank and the branch where the cheque originated from.

In the old days the cheques would go back to the originating branch for processing. Today it is all centralised / computerised, yet it still takes days to be processed.

@mjc130
It would more than likely be a unique number and have different accounts numbers coming off it.

The direct debit would be linked to the account number, then sub-number, say your Everyday account. There would be no need to change direct debits as you’ll have authorised Telstra to take the money from this number, not from a bank. @Graeme Harrison
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 510

Vote