Yes, an investigation of ASIC and Dixon Advisory is warranted
EDITORIAL
There was a time when those working within the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) were public servants substantially covered by the Public Service Act and therefore constrained by the mores of the Australian Public Service and its Code of Conduct.
Were that still the case, then those within ASIC who seemingly unilaterally decided to essentially front-end load the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) before it had even been legislated would have some significant questions to answer.
ASIC moved outside the Australian Public Service on 1 July, 2019.
What ASIC has freely acknowledged is that a decision was taken to advise clients of Dixon Advisory to file complaints with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) so that, in the vent that the CSLR was established, those clients could access compensation.
That could best be described as unwarranted bureaucratic activism and the consequence has been because of the expedient (some might say incompetent) Government handling of the CSLR funding model means that financial advisers are exposed to an estimated $135 million in compensation claims.
It is worth, therefore, considering that within Australian Public Service Code of Conduct sits the provision that public servants will: “not improperly use inside information or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority:
-
- to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage for the employee or any other person; or
- to cause, or to seek to cause, detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth or any other person.
ASIC may wish to try to diminish the sins of its staffers by suggesting that they were simply seeking to act in the best interests of clients affected by the Dixon Advisory melt-down but that will simply not wash in circumstances where financial advisers, not taxpayers, are being asked to substantially fund the exercise.
It is in these circumstances, and against the background of the recent Senate Economics Committee adverse assessment of ASIC that an investigation into its conduct with respect to Dixon Advisory is warranted.
Notwithstanding its critics, ASIC does do important and valuable work, but a number of appointments and its engagement with consumer activist groups have raised questions about its independence and adherence to the old public service maxim of acting without fear or favour.
For the CSLR to be fully accepted by the financial advisers and others who are funding it, the air needs to be cleared around Dixon Advisory, the actions of ASIC and the oversight of Treasury.
‘ASIC does do important and valuable work’
Other than register companies I can’t quite figure out what that is. They are culpably incompetent, down right biased and poisoned at everything else. Their actions in this case only show that even more.
I believe it will also be notable how the Minister, Treasury and Government handle this. If they don’t act and look closely into this issue it will reflect directly back on them given that a number of their “associates” who were clients of Dixon were arguably advantaged by ASIC’s actions.
This issue has public interest and probity aspects which need attention. Even if ASIC is not covered by the Public Service Code, as the previous Government argued with Australia Post, there is a standard that government bodies need to adhere to – like the advisers Code of Ethics.
Thank you Mike. This puts it as plain as possible.
All those years in Canberra have served you well.
There is the stench about this CSLR and the Dixon mob, including perpetrators and investors in high places, that cannot be ignored .
ASIC was never envisaged as anything other than a regulator of existing legislation created by Parliament. Successive governments have allowed it to become a policy developer, apparently, in certain policy areas, almost equal to Treasury
ASIC may have moved outside the Public Service in 2019 but they have been “improperly using power and authority to cause detriment to other persons” since well before then, and continue to do so. They have caused direct detriment to thousands of honest, professional, licensed financial advisers. In so doing they have caused indirect detriment to millions of consumers, who have been unable to access affordable professional advice, and have been nudged by ASIC towards dodgy products and scams.
Dixons and CSLR is just the latest chapter in ASIC’s failure to act with professionalism and impartiality.
Well written Mike.
ASIC think themselves a law to their own and unfortunately the government (both Liberal and Labor) provide no oversight.
Corrupt ASIC & Treasury need to be fully investigated.
1) Failing to act on the Dodgy Dixon’s MIS for 10 years when warned so many times of this fiasco.
2) Allowing Dixon’s to float of the ASX with full knowledge of the Dodgy Dixon’s MIS fiasco
3) CSLR rigged to refund bureaucrats for thier losses in Dodgy Dixon’s MIS
Arrogant
Secretive
Incompetent &
Corrupt
Anyone remember when ASIC gave themselves pay rises and bonuses through Covid, even whilst they admitted they were unable to undertake any (or little) work through the pandemic. I think this shows that ASIC in only interested in their own best interests, and operate based on whatever ideology and activism that suits them. They need to reigned in. Regulators regulate, they don’t set policy.
I think you can also add Treasury to the list of required investigations, as there is something of a stench emanating from over there, based on their recent activities.
The smell coming from Treasury might have something to do with them employing the previous head of advice at Dixons.
And David Evans the so called Investment Banker behind Evans & Partners, phoenixes Dixon Advisory, and walks off with millions as evidenced by the fact that he is the owner of a Greg Norman designed private members gold course. And Alan Dixon the mastermind behind the failed Dixon Advisory, walks off into the sunset with funds generated by deception. Both of them morally and ethically corrupt.