Menu lock

News

Jun 27, 2014

ASIC’s problems start at the top

A Senate committee has savaged the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and demanded a judicial inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank -- but it's unlikely to happen.

Bernard Keane — Politics Editor

Bernard Keane

Politics Editor

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a judicial inquiry or royal commission into the financial planning industry and the big banks that profit from dodgy planners any time soon.

The case for some form of independent inquiry with coercive powers to examine what went on in the Commonwealth Bank’s financial planning arm, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s response to it as the casualties of planners working for CBA mounted, was laid out by the majority report of the Senate inquiry into ASIC’s performance yesterday — a report from which only Liberal Senator David Bushby dissented, creating a split with his Nationals colleague, Senator John Williams, who instigated the inquiry.

The committee argues that it was misled by both CBA and ASIC (ASIC, in turn, had been misled by CBA); that the current process established by ASIC does not have an expert to represent the interests of CBA victims; that there are likely to be many currently unidentified people who have not been compensated properly by CBA; and that there are allegations CBA has reconstructed the files of those ripped off by planners in a way that would minimise compensation.

As far as the committee is concerned, it simply doesn’t have faith in ASIC to get the current compensation process right. “ASIC has shown that it is reluctant to actively pursue misconduct … rather, it appears to accept the information and assurances the CBA provides without question,” the committee said, damningly. It believes an independent process with coercive powers that can uncover so-far unrevealed rip-offs and force CBA to surrender information is needed.

The government isn’t interested; Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has already dismissed the idea. Nothing could demonstrate the government’s priorities better: having a partisan witch-hunt on the insulation scheme — and going after trade unions on the basis of a few officials ripping members off to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars — is OK; an inquiry into how one of Australia’s largest businesses has inflicted tens of millions and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on vulnerable investors, however, is beyond the pale. Particularly when it’s a business the government is bending over backwards to help by gutting regulations put in place to protect consumers from self-interested planners and the banks that pay them.

The committee makes 60 other recommendations covering a variety of areas: strengthening corporate law and associated penalties, improving the environment for corporate whistleblowers, calling for an independent investigation into the claims raised by James Wheeldon, moving ASIC to a self-funded model — but most of the recommendations focus on how ASIC does its job and the way it uses its powers.

There’s considerable focus on enforceable undertakings — on ASIC using them more aggressively, on being more transparent about them, on having independent monitoring of compliance with them. Enforceable undertakings are a popular tool with regulators: it saves them having to prosecute a company that has broken the law or breached an industry regulation, and they’re more flexible than prosecutions in engendering cultural change within companies. But the problem lies in the “enforceable” bit, because they’re not quite as enforceable as the name suggests.

“Having a partisan witch-hunt on the insulation scheme is OK; an inquiry into how one of Australia’s largest businesses has inflicted possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on vulnerable investors, however, is beyond the pale.”

If a company that has given an undertaking breaches that undertaking, the regulator can’t move to prosecute the company for the breach — it needs to obtain a court order to compel the undertaker to comply with the undertaking first. Only then can a regulator prosecute a breach if it continues. And as the behaviour of ASIC has shown — believe it or not, ASIC used to be used as a model for other regulators in the use of enforceable undertakings — enforcement is unlikely to be effective if the regulator isn’t aware that an undertaking is being breached. Worse, the committee notes that ASIC seems obsessed with the burden that an undertaking would place on a company that had breached the law.

Moreover, ASIC is the classic example of a regulator too reliant on enforceable undertakings, preferring to use them rather than take on well-resourced companies in court — especially when the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions seems to take forever to actually commence prosecutions. As to whether ASIC has a cultural aversion to taking on “the top end of town” (a claim that ASIC bizarrely challenged by claiming it was also accused of being unwilling to take on small business), the committee concluded:

“There appears to be either a disinclination to initiate court proceedings, or a penchant within ASIC for negotiating settlements and enforceable undertakings. The end result is that there is little evidence to suggest that large entities fear the threat of litigation brought by ASIC.”

The problems around ASIC’s enforceable undertakings are, coincidentally for a tool so lauded for its ability to achieve cultural change, cultural ones. It’s a rare regulator that doesn’t have sufficient powers to do its job properly, provided its staff are well motivated and led aggressively. Unfortunately, the likes of Allan Fels and Graeme Samuel, who were willing to endure the contumely of the business community (in Samuel’s case, often his erstwhile business friends) in leading the ACCC, are more the exceptions than the rule among Australian regulators. Under chairmen Tony D’Aloisio and Greg Medcraft, ASIC has endured persistent criticism of its regulatory failings — it’s barely two years since ASIC, along with APRA, was criticised by another parliamentary inquiry for its inadequate response to the Trio Capital collapse. Regulators are influenced strongly by their leaders, who determine the culture and the priorities of the organisation they lead, and that applies as much to poor performers like ASIC as to more successful bodies.

As for the government, it remains determined to press ahead with exacerbating the systemic problems of the big bank-controlled financial planning sector by gutting consumer protections, even after one of its own backbenchers has determined that the sector has such profound problems an independent judicial inquiry is needed to start sorting out the mess. Just how much more evidence does the government need that its gutting of FOFA is downright dangerous?

A final thing: this inquiry wouldn’t have happened without the fantastic journalism of Adele Ferguson and her Fairfax colleagues. Whatever good flows from it, they deserve a share of the credit.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

26 comments

Leave a comment

26 thoughts on “ASIC’s problems start at the top

  1. Interrobanging On

    No surprise Cormann doesn’t want a judicial inquiry – the naked corporate cronyism extends to the big banks.

    This story obliquely refers to the attempt to remove the ‘act in the client’s interest’ requirement by Sinodinos (sinbinned) and Cormann, but many reports don’t, incredibly. The shamelessness in the timing is astounding, albeit typical for Abbott’s sorry mob.

    Another thought arising as a Senate committee reports on something of substance. How is that going to work with the lightweights,loons and Palmer glove puppets in the new Senate. Another side to that joke.

  2. klewso

    “How much is that watchdog in the window …”?
    If they bite some company, that company will go lobbying to the government (they helped sponsor) to pull them off?

    It’s all self-regulation, facilitation and window-dressing.

  3. klewso

    ASIC are little more than unstable boys – shutting doors after horses bolt.

  4. klewso

    Why wouldn’t this big-end-of-town government be looking after the banks – they’ve got tax-payers to clean up after them?

  5. David Russell

    It is scandalous that Matthias Cormann and colleagues will not consider a more powerful investigation into this rort. We have been fed a diet of crap for decades about the four pillars being the staunch underpinning of our reasonably admirable economy only to learn – albeit as many suspected – they are tarred with toxicity rather than being purer than the driven snow. I voted for this government and this makes me ashamed.

  6. Bill Hilliger

    Want a royal commission into the CBA dodgy practices? Well this is the way to bring it into effect …there is a need to link someone from the Labor Party or a union official with the dodgy practices and cha-boomba, there is the royal commission you’ve always wanted.

  7. JohnB

    Ok, so now the Senate’s report is available and the commentary has commenced.

    But what will the future bring?

    As I see it, either ASIC and others (eg DPP?) are supported, encouraged and occasionally shamed into decisive action, or “business as usual” will continue.

    Given the tendency of articles such as this to navel-gaze and to stop short of actually rallying the troops and demanding action, I’m certain that all we will get from this expensive and extensive Senate Enquiry will be a bit of public comment followed by BAU.

    It isn’t Cormann’s fault or the PM’s if our journalists operate on a 24 hour cycle and fail to follow up the big issues and instead content themselves with writing stuff about the endless stream of insignificant nonsense that passes as news these days. By this I mean stories about the missdeeds of silly sportsfolk who never had more than half a brain in the first place, about red carpets and the trollops walking on them, about royalty and about personality.

    So, it is not only ASIC’s fault, or the CBA’s, that their actions are not in line with the public’s reasonable expectations. How do we fix the press?

  8. Yclept

    “How do we fix the press?”
    Perhaps the public execution of Lord Vader… er, I mean Lord Murdoch for crimes against humanity would be a good start.

  9. stephen Matthews

    ASIC was too busy -in September 2008- in prosecuting through 3 superior courts a mindless case about what constitutes a business of advising other persons about securities to have time to address the likes of Don Nguyen at CBA financial planning .
    They got their much cherished contempt finding against me but now find that in the court of public opinion they are the contemptible ones .

  10. dazza

    Public executions should start with the bankers for all the fraudulent activities they get away with. In the mean time, bankers puppets like jolly Joe and mathias ‘it’s all labors fault’ Cormann, keep drinking the kool-aid.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWHCMaPb-J8