In responses to questions on notice from House economics committee chair Tim Wilson, ASIC said it was “considering whether to make further inquiries” into the matter, which was raised in the royal commission into union corruption in 2015.
“We know in the royal commission, TWU Super paid officials $150,000 a year to encourage employees to sign up to their super fund,” Mr Wilson said in a previous hearing of the committee.
“So, would that be considered the basis of financial advice, or have you not reviewed the royal commission’s report?”
The interim report of the inquiry stated that TWU Super subsidised the wage costs of the TWU’s superannuation liaison officers, who were existing employees of the union tasked with “acting as a liaison between TWU Super and its members”.
The report said the fund typically paid 50 per cent of the officers’ wage costs, or “such other amount as is determined by the TWU branch secretary at his discretion”, with payments ranging between $63,000 and $164,000 per branch.
TWU Super’s then chief executive William McMillin told the commission the officers were tasked with undertaking promotional activities for the fund, such as holding events at local work sites, for at least 50 per cent of their working hours.
TWU Victorian assistant branch secretary John Berger, who was employed in the position in 2011 also gave evidence to the commission that his duties had included “making members love the fund” and “reaching out to the TWU and employer associations to gain as many members for the fund as possible”.
With the commission at the time having referred to evidence around the duties of superannuation liaison officers as “amorphous”, ASIC also concluded there was not sufficient information to assess whether the activities of the officers could constitute advice.
“The report has only very limited information about the activities of SLOs. It is not possible for us to reach any conclusions about whether the SLOs were providing financial advice in contravention of any law based on that information,” the regulator said in response to Mr Wilson’s query on the issue.
ASIC also said it had made some initial inquiries into the issue, but had so far “not found information to indicate that the SLOs were providing financial product advice”.
As mentioned by others on here, ASIC is clearly and irrevocably corrupt.
Get rid of them all and start a new regulator with Liberal appointees.
Real Adviser’s you ALL know that ASIC will never do anything against their best buddies @ Industry Super.
[b]Regulatory Capture Corruption at it’s worst ASIC’s constant support and promotion of Industry Super. [/b][b][/b]
Real Adviser’s should revolt on mass and refuse to pay ASIC’s annual adviser fees, that have tripled in 3 years.
Come on fella’s – they are too busy making sure the boss is ok taking his 130k tax advice at public expense – nothing to see here.
the bit that does my head in is that the Govt of the day – seems happy for this to go on.
ASIC as we now know is corrupted. Why should we as advisers have our SOAs inspected ,our files notes and anything else deemed inspection/compliance worthy –which between client and the advisers are private matters.. What right has anyone to inspect or ask for this info unless the client complains about criminal or fraudulent dealings or behaviour? Maybe ASIC should employ their own adviser teams.. WE are then not needed?
WHY NOT LITIGATE? or is it only applied to planners?
ASIC is corrupt
Last time I looked, giving financial advice without providing an SOA was $1.5 m or 2 years in jail. And $19.5 m for a corporation
Why are ASIC “mulling this over” “why not litigate”?
If ASIC is not corrupt, then tell me what the hell is going on here?
ASIC needs to seek criminal prosecution (jail if necessary) against the Board Members of the TWU Industry Fund, Unless they do that, nothing will change and Industry Funds will continue to flout the laws as they always have done.
Hey ASIC, The SIMPLE exercise is to do the following:
-Imagine a private business or financial institution was doing it.
-Apply the same outcome to the industry super fund.
It’s so ugly how transparent their biases are.
[i]A person provides a financial service if they provide financial product advice. Financial product advice is defined in section 766B of the Corporations Act; it is a [b]recommendation or statement of opinion, or a report of either those things, that is intended to influence a person or persons in making a decision in relation to a particular financial product or class of financial product, or an interest in a particular financial product or class of financial product, or could reasonably be regarded as being intended to have such an influence.[/b][/i]
[i]Personal advice is defined in s 766B(3) of the Corporations Act, as financial product advice that is given or directed to a person in circumstances where the provider of the advice has considered one or more of the person’s objectives, financial situation and needs, or [b]a reasonable person might expect the provider to have considered one or more of those matters[/b][/i].
Even if we ignore the remuneration part, it seems pretty clear cut to me; there was plenty being done here to influence people to put their money into this super fund. Not sure how it could be argued otherwise?
What is financial product advice? Let’s check ASIC’s guidance:
RG 36.4 A recommendation or a statement of opinion, or a report of either of those things, constitutes financial product advice under s766B if:
(a) it is intended to influence a person or persons in making a decision about a particular financial product or class of financial products, or an interest in a particular financial product or class of financial products, or could reasonably be regarded as being intended to have such an influence; and
(b) it is not exempted from the definition of ‘financial product advice’.
They will be mulling for the next 10 years
I didn’t mind a bit of mull about 10 years ago myself!
What intrafund is all about. Charging all the TWU Super accounts for advice fees (without having to obtain informed consent & with no regular Opt Ins), in order to pay their marketing staff an ongoing income. And most of those fund members never receive any advice. A playing field against retail advisers, as level as the Himalayas.
Why not litigate?
ASIC don’t win that often!
Industry Super is ASIC’s pet project. Move along, nothing to see here.
Just goes to show that ASIC is corrupt since they turned a blind eye to this to begin with.
Nothing to see here, move along people
ASIC management was probably to busy trying to figure out how much of their tax bills could be illegally paid by the government to do any proper investigations.
Long bow, Timmy boy!
You’re essentially displaying that you’re an idiot or an ISA/union/Labor flunky; actually that is a bit of tautology there isn’t it, as they’re all synonymous (couple big words for you to look up, Ruprecht).
Regulatory Capture Corruption at it’s worst hey ASIC & Industry Super.
ASIC will not do a single thing ever against Industry Super.
[i][b]”Regulatory Capture is a corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a constituency, such as a particular ideological group”
[/b][b][/b] [/i][i][/i]
The captured ASIC & their best buddies Industry Super = a perfect example of massive Regulatory Capture Corruption.
[color=blue]…not possible for us to reach any conclusions about whether the SLOs were providing financial advice in contravention of [color=blue][/color]any law…[/color]
Oh look…a squirrel!
“WHY NOT LITIGATE?”
Or is that mantra just for planners?
ASIC is corrupt.