ASIC spent $3.5m on consultants in less than 5 months
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has revealed that as well as spending $3,521,031 on consultant contracts in less than five months this year, it spent millions on contracts with consultancies including KPMG, Deloitte and PWC.
As well, the regulator revealed that it spent over $1 million on consultants delivering “Specialist Communications Support”.
Answering questions on notice from Tasmanian Senator, Jacque Lambie, ASIC revealed that 53 consultant contractors were working with it between 18 February and 2 June, this year, but declined to reveal the specific nature of the work they were undertaking.
However, while refusing to detail the nature of the work, ASIC did release a table giving descriptions of the contracts currently being fulfilled and the value of those contracts.
Amongst other things, that table revealed that major consultancy KPMG had been retained on a nearly $1.6 million contract described as “First Pass Business Case Development Services”, another $192,500 contract described as “Development & submission of NPPs” and a further $59,400 contract described as “Benchmarking exercise”.
At the same time, Deloitte was listed as working under a nearly $4 million contract described as “Data Squad for Data Strategy Plan FY22/23, and another contract valued at $482,240 for “Provision of Digital Strategy and Consulting Services”, along with another $41,184 contract for “Annual compliance audits for FY22-23 and FY23-24.
On the technology front, the ASIC list also detailed CYBERCX Pty Ltd as being employed under three contracts worth more than $4 million relating to cyber security.
Explaining its use of consultants, ASIC repeated a previous claim that most related to technology skills which could not be retained in-house.
“The vast majority of engagements however relate to IT skills that are not easily recruited due to the non-ongoing, short-term requirements of projects. Consultancy and IT skills are often required to support major business transformation programs, such as the Modernising Business Registry Program,” ASIC said in its answer.
ASIC also said that none of the consultants it had used were given authority to act as a delegate for the Commonwealth during the period 18 February 2023, and 2 June 2023 and that no consultants had been given authority to act as a delegate for the Commonwealth since 18 February 2023.
The amount expended by ASIC is likely to anger financial advisers who have persistently objected to the level of the ASIC levy.
Eye-watering.
And this is what I pay a levy for.
Disgusting.
@ Anon E Mouse,
I hate to tell you but your levy was designed to build a financial war chest by ASIC so that they could prosecute you or others they felt that had misbehaved or worse to a client.
The trouble is, the original levy in theory was predicated on the number of advisers when it was first introduced (viz 29,000) but as we all know those numbers have since been reduced by 45.0%….so far.
So, if you budgeted for a certain number of dollars based of an imaginary number, then clearly the dollars had to increase for ASIC to meet their planned budget.
All I can say is, ” good luck to the last man/woman still standing”.
DISGRACEFUL.
It’s great being a financial adviser in Australia, isn’t it…. ?
ASIC out of control corrupt rogue regulator with an open cheque book that is funded by Advisers.
It’s great being ASIC.
FFS Canberra bureaucrats out of control
Fully agree with the sentiments expressed in this blog. ASIC are an expensive habit
But please, most of the ASIC bureaucrats are actually located in Sydney and Melbourne, not Canberra
And remember, the politicians you probably voted for in the last decade gave this unfettered power to ASIC. Remember who you voted for.
ASIC’s culture is a cocktail of big city dodginess and Canberran incompetence. The worst of both worlds.
Financial Planning in this country is determined by these people with no idea, using overpaid consultants with no direct experience, designed for companies with conflicted interests. The Consumer, my fellow Australian is placed last. BUT try changing this conflicted Gestapo like department and see how you go. As a Financial Planner I can relate to Russians asking for change.
Amazing, we pay for all this! As they say, it’s only a rort if you are not involved!
ASIC surely wouldn’t be dishonest, biased or corrupt in any manner of word or action – preposterous!
But… has anyone done a deep dive into whether there were any personal relationships with key personnel in any of those consulting firms? Kickbacks? Other inducements of any sort? How about the tender process, was there one & was it suitably impartial?
Far be it for me to draw parallels with known Industry Super practices that only engage unionised workgroups, regardless of how much higher their tender quotes come in at, and then a substantial portion of the resulting payments aren’t even on the project or building but rather brown paper payments to the union bosses, who in turn pay their tithe to Labor to ensure the cream keeps flowing…
I mean ASIC employs heavily from those who failed as real-world lawyers, surely that type of person is beyond reproach?
Simple answer
Four corners expose…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-06/shadow-state:-how-consultants-infiltrated/102686146