Over the past three days, the Royal Banking Commission has heard tragic stories of farmers being forced into leave property.
In some cases, diseases such as heart disease or cancer do not seem to slow banks' quest for bad assets.
But in the words of Ben Steinberg, a senior ANZ bank executive, there is a striking remark.
Although Charlie Phillott never missed a mortgage repayment, he was forced to leave his house in Queensland
"as a bank, we don't want to have a negative impact. We will do everything we can to avoid it."
Steinberg has admitted that Australian and New Zealand banks sometimes behave immoral; and sometimes banks act to disappoint people and even violate the rules of conduct of the banks.
But if ANZ, or any bank, would do everything it could to avoid negative effects, would such behaviour sometimes prevent the victim from doing the right thing? Perhaps the bank is doing this to calm customers down, not settle with them? Are banks using their own finance or law authority to crush customers' complaints, rather than settle with them? Banks turn advertising machines to customers instead of reconciling with them?
As you learn more about the Royal Commission's investigation, you will find an imbalance of power.
Benjamin Steinberg, head of the Australian bank for bank loans, admitted that the bank had no fair and reasonable behavior in the Philadelphia case.
Fortunately, the Royal Commission's legal assistance to the legal skills and storytelling skills of the consultants is correcting the imbalance in such rights and putting bank executives accountable.
Rowena Orr, a senior law adviser to the Royal Commission, asked whether Steinberg's negative impact on banks in several cases affected the bank's follow-up behavior.
This is at the heart of a case study by the Royal Commission, or 84-year-old Charlie Phillott. The family has been farming in Carisbrooke Station, Winto, in central Queensland for the past 50 years.
Although Phillott, never delayed many of his loans, he was forced to leave his farm during the drought. So he asked the media for help.
Journalist went to shoot the story of Phillott. But one of them was an unannounced shot of the Australian New Zealand Bank headquarters in Melbourne.
Given the high security of bank offices these days, this is a bold move.
For example, even when these banks are extremely sensitive, we are prohibited from tracking any bank property.
But because of the cameras, Phillott's story was convincing, and the bank didn't treat their home well. This is Stephen Ries, head of public relations at ANZ Bank, who is very clever. He knew it would be a bad thing to throw a reporter's camera out.
Coincidentally, when Steinberg presented evidence to the Royal Commission over the past few days, Ries often appeared in video footage, directly behind Rowena Orr.
In the end, the 60-minute video shot for Charlie Phillott paid off. The then CEO, Mike Smith, visited his house and filmed for another 60 minutes. He had a cup of tea and returned the house to the Charlie Phillott family.
The story, as well as Smith's actions, prompted many other equally angry ANZ farmers to seek similar treatment, and their stories were presented to the Royal Commission.
But Steinberg's own testimony is a deep reminder of the truth within the bank. Repeat his point: "as a bank, we don't want a negative impact, we will do everything we can to avoid it."
Media people also have the experience of using their positions in the media to bring consumer cases to the top of the bank, which is sad because the media have to do so in order to attract attention.
In most cases, banks do not even have a negative impact on the threat, and some of the problems within banks have reached levels high enough but have not been resolved, and it is not bureaucracy and rules that decide not to solve these things.
The challenge for banks is to trust those who are closer to their customers to make decisions. For decades, banks have focused key decisions away from their customers' headquarters. But this is difficult in an era when regulation is strengthened and lawyers protect the interests of banks.
Ironically, after hearing that countless common-sense events have been ignored because of legal or system-driven decisions, the Royal Commission's final outcome can only be more rules and regulations.
This raises the question of whether the results of the Royal Commission will give better protection to bank customers. Or do we have more ways to deal with it and make a wise decision?