Growing concern over bad bank behaviour was brought to a head during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Review of the four major banks (the Coleman Report), when the Big Four banks confirmed that no individuals had their employment terminated as a result. This is one of the main factors behind the release of a consultation paper, which sets out the key features of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, to be known, of course as the BEAR.  This was part of the 2017-18 Budget, where the Treasurer outlined what he termed a "comprehensive package of reforms" to strengthen accountability and competition in the banking system. The BEAR should make it easier to hold senior individuals to account for their behaviour in carrying out their responsibilities. "The Government has sought to draw on elements of a similar system of accountability that is already in play in the UK. While we recognise that consistency is helpful, not all elements will be suitable for the Australian banking sector," said Kelly O'Dwyer, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services The stronger powers for APRA therefore build on their existing prudential regulatory framework. APRA's powers are in addition to ASIC's existing powers for regulating market conduct, O'Dwyer said. Accordingly, Australia's BEAR rules are aimed at "enhancing" - or increasing - the responsibility and accountability of ADIs, their directors and senior executives. The BEAR is intended to provide greater clarity to the responsibilities and heightened expectations of behaviour, moving them more "in line with community expectations". Where these expectations are not met, APRA will be empowered to more easily remove or disqualify individuals, ensure that ADIs' remuneration policies result in financial consequences for individuals, and impose substantial fines on ADIs. ADIs will be required to register individuals with APRA before appointing them as senior executives and directors. On the definition of these 'accountable persons', the discussion paper suggests "the net should not be cast so wide that responsibility can be deflected and accountability avoided. The risk is that if everybody is responsible, nobody will be accountable. "On the other hand, the definition of accountable persons should not be cast too narrowly so as to exclude individuals with effective responsibility for management and control." Stronger powers are contemplated for APRA to make it easier to remove individuals who do not meet standards of competency and conduct from their positions, whilst ensuring those persons receive due process and have appropriate mechanisms to seek review.  While APRA already has powers in relation to directors, senior managers and auditors, it should be given power in relation to accountable persons. In particular, APRA should be given the power to remove or disqualify an accountable person where it is satisfied an individual does not meet the new expectations under the BEAR.  To help APRA enforce the extra powers that it may be given, new rules are contemplated - laws that require ADIs to inform APRA where individuals have been subject to internal disciplinary proceedings, or to dismissal, suspension or a reduction in variable remuneration for not meeting the new