ASIC declines to immediately name its Dixon Advisory decision-makers

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

5 June 2024

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has been unable to immediately name the former senior executive responsible for deciding how the regular pursued Dixon Advisory.

As well, ASIC deputy chair, Sarah Court, has suggested that the issue might not have been handled significantly differently today.

Court and ASIC chair, Joe Longo declined to immediately name the ASIC commissioner originally responsible for the Dixon Advisory approach and opted, instead, to take the question from NSW Liberal Senator, Andrew Bragg, on notice.

Court’s responses came against the background of financial planning groups, including the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) and the Self-Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSF) Association expressing concern at the cost being imposed on individual advisers to fund the cost of Dixon Advisory complaints directed to the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR).

It also came against the background of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) revealing to Senate Estimates that the number of complaints relating to the Dixon Advisory complaints had escalated by almost a third between February and May to climb from 1,948 to 2,510.

AFCA also confirmed that its receipt of complaints against Dixon Advisory had been driven by ASIC having insisted that Dixon Advisory remain a member of AFCA despite entering administration.

The AFCA representatives also said that there had been no specific meetings with the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, dealing with the implications of the Dixon collapse.

ASIC also acknowledged that while Dixon Advisory had been the subject of a “significant civil penalty” of $7.2 million plus costs, the fact that it had entered administration meant it was highly unlikely to pay that penalty.

Pressed on the decision-making processes Court sought to separate the situation which existed with ASIC decision-making in 2020 with that which exists today with the reality of the CSLR.

Further, she argued that whether ASIC pursued Dixon Advisory as the licensee or its authorised representatives, the outcome would likely have been the same in circumstances where the business entered administration.

“If it were today, then the enforcement committee of the commission would be making the decision based on recommendations from our investigation teams and based on legal advice that we receive prior to commencing proceedings,” Court said.

“That is how the system works today but, back in 2020 I wasn’t at ASIC but I assume the then enforcement committee signed off on it,” she said.