Invoices to recover its FY 2017-18 regulatory costs were issued on 31 January 2019, either via the ASIC Regulatory Portal to those that registered, or via mail to the address registered with ASIC, according to a statement.
ASIC commissioner Cathie Armour said this was the first year of the new regime.
“Ensuring a fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians is our goal and is at the heart of all our regulatory activities,” Ms Armour said.
“We worked closely with industry to implement the new model to recover ASIC’s cost from industry. The due date for payment of invoices is a significant milestone in this inaugural year.
“We want people and firms to avoid penalties for late payment and encourage them to pay their invoice by 15 March 2019.”
Ultimately the consumer pays for this. What a gouge!!
[quote=Anonymous]”Use a service, pay for a service. It’s simple errconomics derp.” Really, so what did they do for the Government funding they have been receiving for years?
Remember, ASIC came up with the figure of $70,000,000 to in-bed staff in AMP and the Banks (5 organisations only) and has never investigated the Industry Funds. What have they been doing up until now?
It has been discovered that ASIC Commissioners and Senior staff enjoy FREE membership from QANTAS to the Qantas club. What is this for? Does this mean that ASIC will go easy on any issues at Qantas Super or is it somehow unconflicted and standard practice for what were public servants to accept such gifts? ASIC has not released what gifts it received in 2018 – a very important year in which a Royal Commission was held. Would there be any reason for concern of this lack of disclosure? [/quote]Yep, embarrassment – the chest beating is all for show.
[quote=Anonymoud]Use a service, pay for a service. It’s simple errconomics derp.[/quote] Sorry, but, that’s why my company and I already pay tax.
So good advisers pay the same as the bad big end of town where ASIC should be spending their time. A user pay model that costs the good advisers even though ASIC won’t need to spend any time on them.
What a great example of FEES FOR NO SERVICE!
A newly self employed licensed adviser setting up on his / her own to save clients from the criminals at the banks pays the same dollar amount of ASIC levy as the guy at MacBank turning over $1m in fees. Now that’s a tax levied fairly NOT!
This is absolutely outrageous. I am ashamed we have a public service that operates on this abjectly LOW-level of ‘professionalism’. Good advisers being forced through the barrel of a gun (police force) and threatend with being locked in a cage (jail) to pay ASIC through no fault of their own. ASIC should have been hard at work years ago (doing their damn job as paid for) weeding OUT the bad ones to avoid this thievery of funds from hard working good advisers. Fully useless government sub-clerks, all of them!
Thanks ASIC and O’Dwyer for our new TAX Bill.
How many more levies, taxes, cost recoveries, education costs, exam costs can you throw at us – plenty it seems to be an endlessly expanding list.
Use a service, pay for a service. It’s simple errconomics derp.
“Use a service, pay for a service. It’s simple errconomics derp.” Really, so what did they do for the Government funding they have been receiving for years?
Remember, ASIC came up with the figure of $70,000,000 to in-bed staff in AMP and the Banks (5 organisations only) and has never investigated the Industry Funds. What have they been doing up until now?
It has been discovered that ASIC Commissioners and Senior staff enjoy FREE membership from QANTAS to the Qantas club. What is this for? Does this mean that ASIC will go easy on any issues at Qantas Super or is it somehow unconflicted and standard practice for what were public servants to accept such gifts? ASIC has not released what gifts it received in 2018 – a very important year in which a Royal Commission was held. Would there be any reason for concern of this lack of disclosure?
Use a service pay for a service, that’s fine and dandy, however who pays for the time ASIC spends on work not related to us? For example looking at unlicenced advice, or attending super fund functions/conferences. Why should we fund that if its not directly related to us?
ASIC’s costs in relation to unlicensed advice would be very low because they do very little in this area. ASIC’s resources are disproportionately focused on licensed advisers, even though most consumer harm is done by unlicensed advice. ASIC should be funded by taxpayers to protect taxpayers. Not funded by licensed advisers to persecute licensed advisers.
Care to explain how each user is paying?