ASIC cites confidentiality on public conflicts of interest disclosures
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has declined to reveal any conflicts of interest its staff and managers may have declared because they “contain potentially sensitive information” and may compromise investigations.
Asked by ACT independent senator, David Pocock why ASIC executives’ conflicts of interest register is not visible and “what potential conflicts of interest have been declared by senior leadership in relation to companies you regulate” ASIC declined to reveal the details.
In doing so, it cited the personal nature of such disclosures.
Pocock also asked ASIC to detail when it last investigated Qantas and to “provide minutes and other documents that detail how conflicts of interest were raised, declared then managed as part of the process”.
Pocock’s question followed ASIC’s appearance before the Senate Economics Committee in November when it was asked about Qantas flight upgrades and whether membership of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge might constitute a conflict of interest.
“The particular disclosures of ASIC staff are personal records and ASIC considers that the publication of these disclosures may reveal and prejudice confidential investigations or inquiries conducted by ASIC or will otherwise be prejudicial or damaging to the privacy of those persons or entities named in the disclosures,” ASIC’s response said. “Accordingly, those records are securely stored on ASIC’s internal systems and are not published.”
It said ASIC staff declare a range of interests associated with their duties but added: “as noted above, those disclosures are personal records and contain potentially sensitive information in the context of ongoing ASIC investigations”.
“Under ASIC policies personal shareholdings are required to be declared prior to commencing with ASIC, and annually, with any changes in holdings during this period to be declared on an ongoing basis. ASIC staff are also required to complete mandatory training on conflict of interest policies and procedures annually,” it said.
“These ASIC policies apply in the context of legislative requirements for:
- ASIC staff to disclose material personal interests under the PGPA Act, and
- ASIC Commissioners to disclose shareholdings in their biannual disclosures to the Minister under the ASIC Act.
“ASIC Commissioners are required to declare material personal interests associated with their duties, including in relation to ASIC investigation matters. Those disclosures (and associated records) contain potentially sensitive information in the context of ongoing ASIC investigations,” the regulator’s response said.
Arrogant
Secretive
Incompetent &
Corrupt
BS
What another load of crap out of Canberra.
Every day I come on this website, it is more of the same and has been for years.
Simply appalling.
Congratulations David Pocock for asking questions about the financial interests of ASICs commissioners and senior staff.A politician who clearly cares about ethical standards in government instrumentalities.
This has degenerated into a Trumpian nightmare.Executive orders everywhere. A Government regulator that operates on different ethical standards to the people they regulate. Where the hell do they get off? Conflict, what conflict?
This Labor Government has lost control of ASIC, and their Coalition predecessors never even bothered to think about it. ASIC are a law unto themselves, and they have proven they can do what they like, mis-interpreting the legislation that they squeeze out of complicit governments (both lots) who now give them millions of incentives from advisers, in the form of the ASIC adviser levy
And since 2015 on, we now know ASIC ignored the complaints made to them about the activities of Dixon, probably because they thought they could argue that the “complaints” were coming from competitors in the same business.Isn’t that anti=consumer?
Think about this for a moment, nothing will happen to change this situation with ASIC regardless of who wins any election. Either way, government is cuckolded. The Coalition introduced legislation whereby advisers fund the litigation undertaken by ASIC on advisers,without any controls from anyone over ASIC’s selection of cases. But if ASIC win in the courts, the proceeds go Consolidated revenue.
No Treasurer is going to turn his nose up at a revenue source like that, and that would be ASICs ongoing line of argument in budget deliberations
ASIC will continue to get away with this little farce of a “privacy” pretense and refuse to disclose the financial interest of commissioners and senior staff, unless both Labor and the Coalition find some kahunas. At the end of the day ASIC are a government instrumentality, responsible, eventually, to the people via Parliament, represented by your local member, who if they are part of the ruling party, are not keen to rock any boats.
And somewhere I think they may have been granted an exclusion for examination by the Commonwealth Auditor General about expenditure of taxpayers funds. Oops, I forgot, advisers funds, so it doesn’t matter anyway
The Hot mess of Advice, the billions lost to scammers, terms like Qualified Adviser, is born via the corruption and incompetence amongst these Public Servants.
Whether you’re a Treasury Official caught up in the Dixon Scandal and writing laws to get yourself covered, ASIC failing to consult in a CSLR proposal and now this, it’s just one thing after the other.
We don’t write legislation based on what’s good for Australians we write legislation based on what’s good for Industry Super et.al.. There’s a reason why Australians are being forced out of face to face Advice, and it’s because of corrupt ASIC and Treasury writing bad legislation based on post and future employment practices. In the US if you worked in the SEC you’d be sent to jail for the behaviour being exposed here.
Just take accountability, there is many more like this:
ASIC should review the case and properly investigate the financial planner they crucified (lost their houses, savings and nearly lost his family and suffered significant distress through this experience until now) for alleged churning of insurance products. Through some bogus complaint (severely manipulated & incomplete information) regarding this financial planner, they alleged the financial planner churned insurance products and put his clients into an inferior product and claimed commissions from it (His superiors received the commissions as per evidence, not him, he was an employee). Turns out, this financial planner had no choice to represent himself at the AAT (no funds to hire a lawyer or barrister, spent $400k), Evidence shows new life insurance products clearly had more features and benefits and monthly premiums was significantly lower and had a reference number before assessment for every single file. Materials was severely manipulated to make it look like this financial planner was a crook. This financial planner had no compliance breaches, 100 plus good character references from the community and industry & had all the awards, 3 independent experts was hired to investigate the matter and turns out there was no formal / verbal warning of any breaches and other financial planners were doing it and still practising. The transfer form provided was the incorrect form. The correct transfer form was generated after this financial planner left.
When the truth started to surface, executives and including ASIC delegate who ruined this financial planner’s life, retired/resigned and employed somewhere else. ASIC has ruined this person’s life including his family (I am sure ASIC staff have families themselves) by not investigating this matter thoroughly & properly, they simply relied on materials provided to them. Lastly, they alleged 49 client files was churned, however, when this financial planner, decided to represent himself and directly asked for the 49 client files so he can thoroughly investigate his matter, he has only received 20 client files, until now remaining 29 files have not been presented. Information on the judgement states, “retraining & monitoring this financial planner was a better option considering the truth was revealed”.
ASIC need to take accountability for their significant errors and correct this.
With no legal background, this planner represented himself against ASIC for 2days to show them the truth, he was by himself and had the courage to do it
A great illustration of the absolute contempt that Australian bureaucrats treat Australians with.