In the midst of political scandals, questionable decisions and seemingly bizarre policy directions, I have a recurring thought.

"These people are smarter than me. They know what's going on. There is something larger afoot, because a sharper mind — with insight deeper and richer than mine — has an over-arching plan that is playing out."

I'm wrong. They don't.

Watching the most senior business leaders in Australia in the witness box this week, I'm stung by the weakness, the timidity and the lack of clear thought exposed in their answers.

Let's focus on the biggest bank in the nation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which has been engulfed in scandals in recent years.

Matt Comyn (second from right) took aim at the culture under predecessor Ian Narev (left). ( ABC News: John Gunn )

Why did it keep happening? Because they just put out the nearest flaming pile, gave money back to those affected and moved on. Or, as chief executive Matt Comyn was forced to admit, there was "a culture of us not learning from issues of misconduct in the past".

Customers weren't prioritised and executives were too timid to call out bad behaviour. Mr Comyn called it "too much fragility … to hear criticism".

Australians know what this means — the standard you walk past is the one you accept.

It was dispiriting. When he ran the retail division of the bank, Mr Comyn advocated for a flat fee for mortgage brokers, doing away with commissions. He'd sent the email with the announcement, but then, and as chief executive, he squibbed it.

The bank knew it was the right thing to do, but thought it would lose money if it went first. Now it's waiting for the royal commission to recommend it and Government to legislate it.

More heart-sinking: the bank kept selling what is sometimes called "junk" insurance on its credit cards and loans, even when it knew about scandals and repayments for similar products in the UK.

The CBA may have dudded half a million of its own customers (it's already paid back $45 million to 150,000, with more to come).

When Mr Comyn fought with then-boss Ian Narev, the top dog told him to "temper [his] sense of justice". Not a very inspirational slogan to put on your Instagram or live your life by.

CBA's ATM issues flagged and flagged and flagged again

Later, as Catherine Livingstone joined the board — with eyes on becoming chair — she sat in meetings where "red flags" were raised about high-tech ATMs breaking anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorism-funding laws.

The machines counted cash and instantly sent it to bank accounts, resulting in millions of dollars flowing to drug lords.

At the highest level, they knew, as evidenced by Ms Livingstone's exchange with senior counsel Rowena Orr on Tuesday.

ORR: The issues were identified by the audit department in 2013? LIVINGSTONE: Yes. ORR: And they were identified again in 2015? LIVINGSTONE: Yes. ORR: And they were identified again in 2016? LIVINGSTONE: Yes. ORR: And in each of those years, the audit reports rated anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing with an overall red rating? LIVINGSTONE: That's correct. ORR: What does an overall red audit rating mean, Ms Livingstone? LIVINGSTONE: Well, it's the most serious rating you can have on an audit report. And in relation to the controls in the relevant area, it would indicate that the area is not in a state of control.

It is important to note Ms Livingstone was only on the board from 2016.

New Australian Securities and Investment Commission boss James Shipton noted this seemingly lax attitude to risk when he talked about meeting boards.

"I actually find, which I was surprised by when I first attended these meetings, I was surprised that such senior people spoke so little," he said.

"So the degree of candidness was, to some degree, muted."

Public's bemusement over bonuses blindsided bank bosses

Then there's the money. As the bank was engulfed in scandals in 2016 — with more known but yet to hit the news — the board committee that decides bonuses was weighing what to pay top executives.

Then chief risk officer David Cohen wrote to the committee.

"I do not believe there to be any risk issues or risk behaviours that would suggest [bonuses] should be modified from that recommended based on other achievements or results," he wrote.

Then the chief executive backed him up.

"I am not aware of any reasons why [bonuses] should not be paid in full to all relevant executives," Mr Narev wrote in his submission.

Then-chair David Turner suggested Mr Narev get 108 per cent of his bonus — $2.862 million on top of his $12 million salary.

They got the money, and the public went ballistic.

The annual general meeting was subject to protests. Inside the meeting, shareholders made a strike against the remuneration report — to that point the largest vote against pay packets recorded in corporate Australia.

The board knew they'd got it wrong. As more scandals hit the news, Ms Livingstone as incoming chair got directors to take a 20 per cent haircut and she asked the former chair, Mr Turner, to give back 40 per cent of his fee.

The royal commission heard she never heard directly from him, but was essentially told "no thanks".

Next week? NAB, AMP, ANZ, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

I'm hoping to be inspired.