Facing questioning from Liberal MP Jason Falinski in a hearing of the parliamentary joint committee into corporations and financial services on Wednesday afternoon, ASIC commissioner Danielle Press said the regulator’s Consumer Advisory Panel (CAP) – which receives its funding from ASIC – had engaged Griffith University to put the submission together, and had funded the development of the submission.
However, Ms Press said ASIC was not directly involved in the suggestions that were put forward in the submission, including that Standard 3 of the FASEA code of ethics be changed to state that advisers must not act for a client if they had any form of conflict of interest.
“ASIC didn’t fund the Griffith University submission – the CAP panel, which gets funding from ASIC, had funded that submission,” Ms Press said.
“ASIC was not involved in the preparation or review of submission prior to it going to FASEA.
“ASIC does fund the CAP panel, and out of that funding of that particular year it did provide or engage with Griffith to provide a submission to FASEA.”
Ms Press said ASIC typically funded submissions to government bodies or inquiries on behalf of the panel, at a cost of around $10,000-$15,000 per submission.
She added that the regulator typically provided “administrative support” to the CAP rather than direct funding, and that in the case of the FASEA submission, ASIC felt it was “to ensure there was a consumer voice being put forward, which we think in most policy debates is important”.
The submission from Griffith University academics was one of just two submissions out of approximately 600 received by FASEA in its code of ethics consultation that called for the wording of Standard 3 to be changed, according to evidence from a Senate economics committee hearing cited by Mr Falinski.
Well done, Sarah Kendell. Great reporting.
What would ASIC know? They only ever see the worst of the industry and assume that is how we all operate. They ignore surveys that paint advisers in a good light and are on record as saying to the RC that clients aren’t good judges of valuable advice or valuable relationships.
Get back in your ivory tower and regulate with consistency please.
Dispense with your conflicts of interest and stop ripping off the taxpayer who can’t choose whether they pay you. At least our clients if they don’t like the offer have been able to leave or turn off fees.
Because, you know, lifetime academics and public servants with little-to-know real practical experience in what they’re regulating and dictating over are the best ones to ensure efficiencies in the industry and that clients are receiving the advice they need IN the way they want to receive it.
The fact that i cannot refer a client (with insurance premiums under $8k pa) to a risk specalist who will deal with smaller clients due to this Standard 3 amazes me. I am forced to say to these smaller clients either pay us an implementation fee (which with commission brings the total payment to us to $5,000 in the first year) or go online and sort out your own insurances. This infuriates me and leads to far worse outcomes for clients than if i was able to refer to a trusted 3rd party adviser.
But it is quite obvious that ASIC are actually campaingning for worse consumer outcomes as pretty much all their changes have lead to less access to advice and pushed consumers to the direct sales market where all people are assumed to financially literate and able to make educated decisions and spend a few weeks searching for reasonable alternatives themselves and weighing up the long term consequences of their decisions
I wonder how many expensive designer watches ASIC gave to their seniour staff for hitting their unstated goal of removing access to indeoendent advice for 95% of the community and ensuring that consumer outcomes are worse off by removing those pesky advisers who work in the best interests of consumers from the advice process so that the investment/super funds and insurers can sell their product straight to the customer with no regulatuion?
No, Danielle Press…ASIC DID fund the submission via the funding it provides to the CAP.
Secondly, you well would have known that CHOICE were providing their own submission on behalf of consumers.
You well knew that CHOICE and CALC are members of the CAP.
You well know that by CAP paying for this submission, ASIC & CAP were ensuring there was to be an additional submission made to FASEA that would emphasize and reiterate the similar themes, recommendations and concerns that would be included within the CHOICE submission.
You well know a second consumer based submission would add significant weight to the recommendation to alter Standard 3.
You well knew, ASIC well knew, FASEA board members with close connections and allegiances to both CHOICE and CALC well knew.
This is collusion in an attempt to skew an outcome and provide additional influence.
With Breakey and Sampford’s submission at 14 pages, it would appear that ASIC may have paid at least $1000 per page of taxpayers monies to ” buy ” a submission that would support their position.
This is an unacceptable disgrace and defines the cultural deficit of ASIC and CAP.
It also identifies the lengths that organisations are prepared to go to in order to achieve their ideal outcome despite how it is done and what it takes.
It is wrong, it is unacceptable and it now has compromised the entire FASEA submission process and the current Code Of Ethics.
Sorry, but that was Agent 99 worthy! Very well put.
He is also on the investment committee of a Dealer Group running managed accounts.
Simply unacceptable that Griffith Uni was paid by ASIC when their Prof was on the FASEA Board.
The net effect of changing the wording of Standard 3 is to subvert the Corporations Act. It overrides the letter and intent of law put in place by an elected parliament. This has been the clear intention of a core group of deluded activists who have abused the power of government agencies. It is a perversion of democracy and an attack on society.
These activists should be immediately cut off from all sources of government funding and power. Those who are directly employed by government agencies should be dismissed for misconduct.
The ship is rudderless. And it is the public who suffer as a result. Shameful.
It’s all becoming clearer now. ASIC have been white-anting the financial advice profession for years. This is the final insult. At least the Government are finally waking up to this nonsense. I’m tipping FASEA will be gone next year and ASIC will be removed from financial advice regulation, replaced with the new SDB where financial advisers have some sort of mandatory control or input. I’m looking forward to Hume’s sarcastic press release where she says – ‘we would like to thank FASEA for their efforts…blah…blah….blah….
Oh the absolute irony of Griffith University putting together an ASIC funded submission (via the CAP Panel) in to how FASEA should structure its Standard 3 on conflicts. Here are two lines from a FASEA release back in April 2018:
The Chair of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority Limited, Catherine Walter AM, today announced the appointment of Dr Mark Brimble to the role of acting managing director.
Dr Brimble has worked within the finance and education sectors for the past 17 years and will continue as Professor of Finance and Financial Planning in the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics at Griffith Business School.
Furthermore Griffith University was subsequently approved as an education provider.
Surely the depth and arrogance of this conflict should be recognised and action taken.
these people need to go back to uni and do a masters in ethics
Only 2 submissions in any case.. where are our professional bodies? Oh and how do I apply for submission funding? I love bashing the keyboard in exchange for money.
There were 600 submissions champ. Only two were pro Standard 3 in its current form
only 2 were pro std 3 yet got their way. the other 598 would have been better conserving some trees. What a joke this country has become run by communists.and they’re not even Chinese
How is a paper written by academics ensuring there is a consumer voice being heard. The best thing the Government could do is start again.
Useless morons
I love it. Standard 3 states “You must not advise refer or act in any other manner where you have a conflict of interest” Should come with the additional wording, unless you are an ASIC funded academic
Do as I say hey FARSEA, ASIC, Griffith Uni.
DO NOT DO AS I DO AS IT IS HIGHLY CONFLICTED, BIASED AND TOTALLY UNETHICAL.
The stench of hypocrisy is over whelming.
Why I’m I not surprised this useless wording was corrupted by….yep career academics. I’m always cautious of the advice of academics that have no real world experience. Why? Because of examples exactly like this.
Just 2 submissions out of 600 to change Standard 3 – 1 funded by ASIC….and regulators wonder why Advisers don’t trust them. Hmmmm.
It’s called a rat hole.