The corporate regulator has been accused of treating Parliament with contempt over its refusal to provide documents to the Senate economics references committee’s inquiry into ASIC’s investigation and enforcement activities.
An interim report tabled in the Senate in June by the committee, which has been investigating ASIC enforcement since last year, rejected 11 of 13 claims for public interest immunity made by ASIC chair Joe Longo.
The report highlighted that while posing over 100 inquiries regarding investigations, including the scrutiny of forensic data software company Nuix and laboratory firm ALS, the committee encountered 13 claims of public interest immunity, which it had assessed as a deliberate attempt to undermine its inquiry.
The committee made an official recommendation in the Senate that ASIC provide the documents, with a deadline set for 18 July. ASIC did not supply the committee with the information, leading to Mr Bragg, who serves as chair of the committee, releasing a statement taking aim at the regulator.
“It is disappointing, but not surprising that ASIC has not complied with a unanimous order of the Senate for the production of documents. ASIC has not met our expectations,” Mr Bragg said.
“As representatives, we cannot do our jobs if the agencies, for which we conduct oversight, are permitted to treat Parliament with contempt.
“As it stands, the Senate cannot conduct its inquiry without access to ASIC’s case files. We are unable to comply with our terms of reference.
“This is a serious undermining of the Senate’s role and its investigative powers.”
In June, Mr Bragg said that ASIC was “addicted” to secrecy and accused the regulator of impeding parliamentary investigations into its oversight of the country’s businesses.
“ASIC has one main job, which is to enforce the law and achieve prosecutions. ASIC has failed to do its job,” Mr Bragg said.
He clarified that the report presented to the Senate by the committee is “certainly not” a list of recommendations to fundamentally fix ASIC. “This particular report is designed to end the secrecy and obfuscation to which ASIC is addicted,” he said.
Speaking to the Senate committee after the initial accusations, Mr Longo unequivocally rejected the report’s findings.
“I wish to make clear that I reject the interim report’s findings and the statements made in Parliament about ASIC’s insider trading and general enforcement record,” Mr Longo said.
Moreover, he specifically underscored the groundless nature of the assertion that ASIC attempted to undermine and influence the inquiry process right from the start.
“ASIC is accountable to Parliament. This inquiry is an important part of ASIC’s oversight,” he said.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher is set to appear in the Senate on 2 August provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders.
Ever tried to obtain information on yourself under a FOI request? First they’ll ignore the first request and follow-up or two. Secondly they’ll then (eventually) claim they don’t have what you’re requesting…until you provide them with the evidence that they do. Thirdly comes the “we can’t provide this due to privacy concerns and the fact what we hold contains information on other individuals”. Knowing the individuals involved, you then provide them with authorisation from those individuals to provide said information/documentation. Eventually you’ll receive part of what you requested, with that part heavily redacted. Further follow-ups to receive unredacted copies go unanswered. This has been happening for YEARS.
ASIC is not answerable. To anyone. Is this understood, period
Welcome to the club
Sounds like a code of ethics is required – Standard 11 would work well in this situation?