ASIC needs to be arm’s length from advice associations
Former Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) chair, Tony D’Aloisio says he would not be in favour of allowing professional associations privileged access to the regulator.
D’Aloisio who is now chair of Perpetual Limited, told a Senate committee that he would be concerned about the existence of any privileged arrangements because he believed ASIC needed to be fully and totally independent.
His comments come against the background of the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) having argued for better access to ASIC and the regulator having previously told a Parliamentary Committee that it would look to prioritise reports from professional associations.
Asked by the deputy chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, Jess Walsh, about professional associations having priority access, D’Aloisio said he would be concerned about a connection between a chairman of ASIC or members of ASIC in any formal sense.
“The key for ASIC is that it has to be fully and totally independent and it should have the discretion to consult with whomever it may want by consultation or by order to require information,” he said.
“I don’t see a role for professional bodies to have any greater right than any other individual has to raise issues with ASIC and for ASIC to investigate.”
“In my time as chairman I would not have pursued that level of access for professional bodies,” D’Aloisio said. “I would have remained always at arm’s length.”
The former ASIC chairman said that, for him, the independence of ASIC was the “absolute, critical point, with no fear or favour”.
Elsewhere in his evidence to the committee, D’Aloisio admitted that there had been pressure on the regulator which had given rise to discussion around the possibility of separating ASIC’s enforcement function as well as ensuring competition issues sat under the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
The former ASIC chairman said that, for him, the independence of ASIC was the “absolute, critical point, with no fear or favour”.
…….ah except for Industry Super, they are our best buddies, tickets to sporting events, etc so yes they get massive favours, zero regulation and a total ASIC free ride.
ASIC needs to be at arms length from union super funds, fake “consumer associations”, and dodgy accountants. Any claim to ASIC “independence” is utterly laughable while they maintain chronic bias in favour of these vested interests.
This is the toxic and ignorant attitude that led to enormous consumer damage, with Australians now being denied the professional financial advice they want and need, or paying through the nose for it.
Maybe the former Chairperson needs to have a read of the ASIC Act, where Section 127(4)(d)(i) specifically permits the sharing of confidential information “Where the Chairperson is satisfied that particular information will enable or assist a prescribed professional disciplinary body to perform one of its functions”.
If he thinks that ASIC does a better job in an ivory tower, then maybe he should have a look at what advisers say about how ASIC handled matters such as Storm and Dixon Advisory (amongst others). Maximising your sources of intel seems a better approach.
If he is going to be arguing this on the basis of total independence, then that is a test that would need to be applied comprehensively. It also seems totally inconsistent with ASIC funding academics to do submissions to FASEA in 2018. I don’t recall the former Chairperson standing up to call out this and other ASIC funded activity at the time.
So what about consumer advocates… keep at arm length too?
You have to laugh with this statement, “ASIC needed to be fully and totally independent.”
Yes, all very “independent” and I am sure there are more examples.
Head Honcho at ASIC, now chair of perpetual …. LOL
ASIC is corrupt full stop. Sadly the former FPA can’t be trusted either to remain independent because any independent entity would have blasted ASIC by now and called out the corruption. This is evidenced by the former CEO’s of the FPA receiving “Thousands” of dollars in consulting fees to ASIC. Let’s hope the new FAAA is having a wake-up call.. Sadly the easy option for the FAAA is to remain silent.
In the Finance Industry in Australia you don’t directly bribe someone of course.., (unless you’re a Union Super fund because that’s acceptable and it’s called a donation)… what you do is claim strong independence like this public servant is doing…but you promise things like future work, maybe a board position, some consulting work, the opportunity to appear on some committee, get a part-time lecture job at a Uni etc etc and that goes both ways with promises of job positions with significant pay rise if you come across. In the USA if a “FINRA” employee (their version of ASIC) turned up working the next year at Merrill Lynch they’d be investigated, yet in Australia, when they turn up at a Super fund or a “consultant” we call it a career move.