Appearing at a recent hearing of the House economics committee, ASIC commissioner Danielle Press said the case against industry fund Rest, which relates to the fund’s alleged actions to discourage members from transferring money to another super fund, was one of a number of similar cases among industry funds.
“As you would appreciate we don’t necessarily take action against every fund that participates in the same behaviour – the deterrent effect is important here and we wouldn’t have enough funds to take every action to court,” Ms Press told committee chair Tim Wilson.
“I can’t tell you whether there is an active investigation underway, but we have looked at a number of these and concluded the Rest case was the most appropriate for us to take to court.”
Mr Wilson questioned Ms Press further around whether the corporate regulator was aware that “there are industry funds engaged in behaviour trying to prevent members from using their own money”.
“You’re not taking action because you don’t think they’re as concrete as Rest?” he asked.
“Each time we take an action in court we have to weigh up how extensive the behaviour is and whether there is a deterrent effect,” Ms Press said.
“There are many things we take into account.”
Ms Press said she was aware of “historical conduct” of a similar nature in the industry fund sector.
“I am aware of historical conduct but I’m not aware of any current conduct,” she said.
“I would need to get advice from our chief legal officer on whether we could provide that – we don’t normally comment on cases that are closed.”
Ms Press said in historical cases, the regulator would have “had conversations” with the offending funds and “expressed our desire for that conduct to have changed”.
“In the cases I’m aware of, that conduct has changed,” she said.
“We can take on notice whether we have been made aware of any blockage, but I’m not aware of that.”
ASIC deputy chair Karen Chester confirmed that the regulator did “still have investigations underway that relate to historical matters” regarding super funds.
“Our enforcement team wants to be kept very busy when it comes to super, particularly when it comes to preventing members from consolidating accounts,” Ms Chester said.
So on one side we have financial advisers (most of whom are vulnerable small businesses), forced to repay fees to clients based on new draconian, interpretations of the Corps and SIS Act put forward by ASIC, applied retrospectively going back 10 years. And on the other side we have a history of what appears to be illegal conduct by industry funds which ASIC is going to ignore because ‘that conduct has changed’!!!! The corruption of our regulator is laid bare for all to see. Breathtaking.
Typically, Danielle Press states she knows nothing. This time she knows something – that other Industry Super Funds have potentially done something wrong – so she does nothing.
Danielle Press is the gift that just keeps giving.
Now beyond a joke, surely there is more public interest in sorting out all these industry funds for current and historical practices. Surely fines would recover funds for undertaking its duties.???
So, if an adviser was found to have not acted in a clients best interest but was able to refer ASIC to another adviser doing worse, ASIC would disregard the behaviour of the original adviser and pursue the other???? ASIC’s double standards need to be independently investigated and those encouraging this behaviour moved out….oh, that wont happen – Shipton’s still running the show isn’t he??? An absolute slight on our industry!
Actually I don’t think Shipton had time to stamp his leadership on ASIC before his “difficulties”, and no-one is going to listen to him now. The toxic legacy of Medcraft & Kell is what still drives most ASIC behaviour. Everyone at ASIC who worked in a senior role under those two needs to be moved out.
REST chosen because it is not an Industry Super Australia member? I maybe a cynic here, but the question needs to be asked if the lobby group has had influence here.
Ms Press said in historical cases, the regulator would have “had conversations” with the offending funds and “expressed our desire for that conduct to have changed”……i wish they had done that with Dover…double standards everywhere
So lemme get this straight: ASIC would not have enough money to take EVERY action to Court, and that a single case acts as a deterrent? There are SO MANY similar actions by industry funds that they can’t prosecute them all?????
And this is the same regulator that uses the big whip against Advisers, EVERY TIME?
Yes, ASIC is corrupt, agreed.
The more that comes out from this parliamentary enquiry, the more apparent it is there are different rules, regulations and enforcement for these depending on what side of the fence you sit (union super or a planner).
ASIC is corrupt. If it was a financial planner doing what the union funds were doing they would have been prosecuted, fined, jailed and thrown out of the professional. Union funds? Well ASIC doesn’t want to upset their buddies to much so pick one to use as a test case to deter others. Unbelievable.
I’m deterred by what happened to alledged financial adviser “Carrick” and Sam Henderson…can I have a refund of my ASIC regulatory fees please….
So am I interpreting correctly that ASIC is happy to pursue cases against Retail Funds and Advisers for “Historical matters” but doesn’t feel the same need to pursue Industry Funds?
Yes, that is very strange. No exception for financial adviser licensees but only one prosecution for industry funds – just the worst offender.
Of course the same doesn’t apply to Industry Funds, doh it never has and never will.
REGULATORY CAPTURE CORRUPTION AT ITS WORST, ASIC NEVER ATTACK BEST BUDDIES ISA.
Comment of the week..surely!!!