For the witnesses who stood up to the country's biggest banks and told their harrowing stories of financial ruin and predatory behaviour, the royal commission's recommendations do not go far enough.

Key points: Banking royal commission witnesses say some of the recommendations will be meaningful going forward, but do nothing to help them now

Banking royal commission witnesses say some of the recommendations will be meaningful going forward, but do nothing to help them now They want the financial services industry to use this moment to make a "wholesale change of direction"

They want the financial services industry to use this moment to make a "wholesale change of direction" Despite how stressful and "overwhelming" giving evidence has been, they say any change is worth it

When Rien Low gave evidence in May, 2018, he struggled as he told the hearing about his father Peter Low's unexpected death.

The family was forced to navigate their grief while Suncorp aggressively pursued both Rien and his mother Jennifer Low over five business loans in Peter's name.

"When you lose someone in such tragic circumstances and then get treated so horrifically by a bank, [you feel like] they can't get away with this," he told the ABC on Tuesday.

For the Low family, the recommendations, published in the royal commission's final report on Monday, stopped short.

"I think there should be criminal charges," he said.

"Because if it was the other way around and we had stolen money or embezzled money, there are obviously consequences for us."

Rien Low and his father Peter who passed away unexpectedly. ( Supplied: Rien Low )

As bank stocks surged on Tuesday, Mr Low said his family was in a financial position they "did not want to be in".

The royal commission gave Mr Low an opportunity to tell his family's story and call for change around mortgage broking and irresponsible lending, but he made the point that any change would come too late for them.

"I think if those new laws were put in place earlier on, when my father was borrowing the money, I think we would be in a very different position than we are now," he said.

'It was quite overwhelming in some ways'

Grant Stewart, a pastor at a Baptist church in Melbourne, gave evidence at the royal commission. ( ABC News: Brendan Esposito )

While the final report marks the end of the inquiry, the families affected by the banking sector's era of bad practice have not all felt a definite sense of closure.

Grant Stewart's voice resonated through the banking royal commission hearings.

Mr Stewart chose to speak up after his son, who has down syndrome, was sold insurance he did not understand by a company that was incentivising its cold-call sales staff with promises of gifts and holidays.

Giving evidence was tough.

"It was the emotional dimension to it and dealing with what was quite a difficult issue for us as a family," he said.

"So there was a little more investment … and risk not knowing what would happen as a result and wanting to make sure our son was protected from more vulnerability or anyone who would have a crack at him."

Sorry, this video has expired "If no-one else is named, it will be paid to your estate. OK buddy?": A salesperson on the phone to Grant Stewart's son

The royal commission revealed staff at Freedom Insurance were rewarded with gifts like holidays to Bali and used aggressive tactics to snare customers.

The commission heard the recording of the phone call between Freedom Insurance and Mr Stewart's son.

Sorry, this video has expired Treasurer Josh Frydenberg referred to the Stewart family's case when he responded to the final report.

The salesperson signed Mr Grant's son up to several insurance policies, something the Treasurer made mention of as he responded to the inquiry's report on Monday.

"Who could forget the appalling audio recording of a young man with down syndrome being subject to high-pressure sales tactics resulting in the purchase of a financial product that he clearly did not want, need or understand," Josh Frydenberg said.

Mr Stewart acknowledged giving evidence meant some people "were wounded in the process".

"I find it difficult, even now, to listen to the audio recordings that remain and it takes me back to that time when I was quite angry about what happened," he said.

"Obviously it touched a chord for people."

It was just one of the stories that elevated the public outrage over sales tactics in the banking sector.

Mr Stewart said he hoped it would contribute to a "wholesale change in direction" across the industry and "if things need to come to prosecution that is now in the hands of the regulators".

"It's become clear they needed to be encouraged to have sharper teeth in the process, that they have been willing to make deals of compromise and not been willing to go to litigation," he said.

"If we are going to change long-term behaviour, there needs to be consequences."

Grant Stewart said giving evidence was "overwhelming in some ways". ( ABC News: Brendan Esposito )

Prosecutions 'only way of lifting standards'

Mark Weir agrees.

The Hervey Bay man lost all of his savings in the Storm Financial disaster and said while the recommendations proposed a conditional compensation scheme for consumers caught up in such collapses, the time limit meant it would not help him.

Mark Weir lost his life savings when Storm Financial collapsed. ( ABC News: Sarah Jane Bell )

"The compensation scheme … will be useful and if we'd had that, then there probably wouldn't have been as much collateral damage from the Storm collapse," he said.

When Storm Financial crashed in 2009, it took the life savings of 3,000 people with it. The bill was estimated to be up to $3 billion.

Mr Weir is the co-chair of the Storm Investors Consumer Group.

He has since argued the banks supported and encouraged the Storm Financial model and believed they needed to be held responsible.

"There needs to be some accountability. We're disappointed there doesn't seem to be any," he said.

The Storm Financial directors were found guilty on civil charges in 2016, but Mr Weir wanted the prosecutions to extend to the company's banker backers.

"It would have been reassuring for the community if Justice Hayne had come out and recommended prosecutions for delinquency for the manner in which financial services have been delivered to our community," he said.

"I think that's the only way of lifting standards and protecting the community."

'We can justify punishing them to the full extent of the law'

During the 68 days of hearings, the inquiry — officially known as the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry — was told scathing stories about behaviour right across the sector.

A few themes quickly emerged, including the conduct of financial planners and brokers.

Garry McComb, 70, from Carwoola in New South Wales watched the royal commission with interest after poor experiences with those services.

After income protection payments were cut off without warning, Mr McComb discovered his insurance policy did not cover him beyond the age of 65.

He learned his broker had made mistakes with his paperwork. Not long after, the former vet started asking questions about one of his financial planners.

He said in his experience, some were more invested in the interests of their employer than their clients.

"Instead it was up to myself to research these companies and that's when I found out they were all under the one banner," he said.

"Advisers will often tell you they are independent, but I'm yet to find one that says, 'No we are not independent, no, we are tied to some other bank or insurance company'."

Mr McComb welcomed recommendations made around better regulation of financial planners, especially the disclosure of lack of independence.

Like most Australians, he has money invested in the big four banks.

He wants the people running them to experience the consequences of their behaviour long past the publication of the royal commission's final report, just as banking victims are forced to.

"These people draw huge salaries and huge bonuses and I think they justify their money, then we can justify punishing them to the full extent of the law".

For Mr Low, despite the process of giving evidence being stressful, it was important people understood, "what these banks are capable of".

"I would have liked a more strong and forceful determination at the end, but there will be change and I think any change for the positive is better than nothing."