Pauline Hanson champions adviser inquiry calls on Dixon Advisory
The Financial Advice Association of Australia’s (FAAA’s) calls for an inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory have found a voice in the Senate with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation moving to have the issue referred to a Senate Economics Committee inquiry.
Senator Hanson moved on Monday that the Dixon issue be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and outlined terms of reference which mirrored the issues raised by the FAAA. The Senate voted for the reference on Tuesday afternoon prompting the FAAA chief executive, Sarah Abood to to thank Hanson for her advocacy.
“Today marks a major step forward for our profession, and we want to thank Senator Hanson for her support in seeking transparency and for backing Australia’s small financial advice businesses in proposing this inquiry today,” Abood said. “An inquiry is essential to understanding the full scope of what went wrong with Dixon Advisory – a scandal involving hundreds of millions in client losses – and to ensure it is not repeated.”
Abood noted that the FAAA had written to all Senators seeking their support for a public inquiryHanson moved “that the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in March 2025:
“The reasons for the collapse of wealth management companies, and the implications for the establishment of the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) and challenges to its ongoing sustainability, with particular reference to Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Pty Limited (Dixon Advisory) as an example, and:
(a) the underlying cause of the collapse of wealth management companies such as Dixon Advisory, including the business model and influence of the sale of related party products, for example the US Master Residential Property Fund;
(b) how the actions of directors of wealth management companies and related entities, senior management and the individual advisers contribute to the collapse of these companies;
(c) the role of the financial services regulatory regime in the context of how matters involving the collapse of an investment product promoted by a vertically integrated business are assessed and how fault is attributed;
(d) evaluation of the placement of wealth management companies into administration and the related insolvency issues, including with respect to the appropriateness of actions by directors and senior management and the transfer of advisers and clients to a related party entity for no consideration;
(e) assessment of the period for which wealth management companies can remain a member of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority;
(f) the role of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), including providing consumer information to investors affected by corporate collapse and consideration of the most appropriate arrangements for future cases of insolvency;
(g) ASIC’s role investigating corporate collapse and the appropriateness of any regulatory intervention that may reduce scale of loss for consumers;
(h) options for enforcement action, including litigation, that ASIC has available to it in relation to wealth management companies following collapse;
(i) the implications of the collapse of wealth management companies on the establishment of the CSLR, including with respect to design considerations and the potential implications for future matters; and
(j) any other related matters
Under “any other related matters” should be “how many ASIC or Treasury employees were former clients of Dixons, and whether their actions have been focused on securing a better outcome for themselves at the expense of system sustainability and the broader community”.
It really highlights how little commitment both Labor and Liberal have to professional financial advice and fixing bad regulation, when Pauline Hanson is the one taking a lead on such matters.
Why does the cynic in me believe that the only thing that will come out of this will be more client consent forms that need to be signed, another public register we need to be listed on, more levies to pay and another “single disciplinary body” to make our lives more of a misery?
Because that’s the result from every Govt enquiry in Advice and Govts & ASIC failures
Let the pigeons loose…
Cue the conclusion that Financial Planners are to blame…..!!!! 🙂
Treasury and ASIC officials will be protected, I agree. But my bet is Evans and Partners will take a big hit on this.
Maybe a few nervous ASIC and Treasury officials this morning, along with a few OMFG around Evans and Partners board room.
Bring it on!
Yes, transferring advisers and clients to another entity for no consideration looks very much like phoenixing activity. It is breathtaking that both ASIC and the ATO haven’t taken action and the administrator should be screaming about it. Something is off. I’m very happy to see it in the terms of reference. This behaviour needs to be shut down immediately or else every corporate advisory firm will follow their lead as soon as they run into trouble, leaving small business advisers to pay for it.
You are correct, the client revenue is an asset, you would not be able to transfer any other asset without consideration to a related entity during bankruptcy
Surely the trustee in bankruptcy will seek to have the courts reverse this transaction and/or demand a market payment from the transferee? I also can’t see how the directors aiming to defeat creditors are not personally liable. Was every cent in tax paid? Where’s the ATO prosecution?
Oh that’s right, federal bureaucrats have their dirty fingers all over this from treasury to AFCA and esp the bumbling and corrupt fools in ASIC.
Australia is slowly going down the path of becoming a totalitarian police state. Only bizarrely we are starting with the pernicious, poisoned and unaccountable bureaucracy. We must be working up to the tyrannical dictator. God help us.
Well firstly congratulations to the FAAA. And to all of us advisers who had our clients write snotty letters to members of Parliament. It is never easy to assess the effectiveness of these campaigns because this is a tendency for the issue to be lost with all the other campaigns that are going on against government policy.
I say bring it on. And don’t spare reputations.
It will be interesting to watch the footwork over at ASIC, and Treasury.Watch out for questions being deferred by declarations of “I’ll take that on notice”
I wonder if dear old Daryl might seek to be excluded from an appearance for “health reasons”.
Anyone for a repeat of the Dover appearance at the Hayne Royal commission?
Another reason to vote One Nation.
You should see the One Nation cartoon starring Paul Keating, Wayne Swan and John Setka on YouTube.
It’s a laugh.
In my opinion –
Isn’t it weird that you have a political party who wants to go into bat for the CFMEU regarding matters of their equity?
But that same party has no interest in the equity of financial advice and advisers.
Absolutely rubbish.
Nothing wierd about the love affair between the Greens and the CMFEU
A few years back, in Victoria at least, the Greens were the beneficiaries of one of Mr Setka’s regular fisticuffs with Labor.
The Greens are , as they say, still “obliged”
Just as the Liberals were/are obliged to the banks ( FASEA, LIF ) and Labor is obliged to the industry funds( Jones, CSLR, no action on QAR, qualified advisers etc), the Greens are repaying favours.
We advisers are just spectators in this farce. Look how long it took to get access to Labor, and ALWAYS after the event
Nothing to do with FAAA, Andrew Bragg has been pushing for this for a while
And who told Andrew Bragg about this issue?