The folly of removing ASIC from the public service

8 September 2017
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Public Service Act sets a high bar for the conduct of Government agencies and those who work within them and it would be folly to remove the Australian Securities and Investments Commission from the Australian Public Service, writes Mike Taylor.

In what represented something of a valedictory speech to the West Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry the soon to retire chair of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Greg Medcraft extolled the virtues of the regulator no longer being an Australian Public Service (APS) entity.

Suggesting the Government would soon move the legislation necessary to see ASIC personnel removed from public service employment, Medcraft also extolled the virtues of an industry funding model and noted that few, if any, ASIC employees had actually been recruited from the public service.

It was clear from Medcraft’s comments in Western Australia that he has little experience in and little knowledge of the Australian Public Service and the value that can be delivered by Government entities funded under the Budget process and staffed by people who have a capacity to make fearless judgements unfettered by commercial considerations.

There are good reasons why financial services regulators ought to remain substantially funded out of the Budget and why regulatory personnel ought to remain subject to the requirements of the Public Service Act. ASIC is not a Commonwealth corporation. It is a regulator and it should be structured and funded accordingly.

Before pursuing his agenda, Medcraft would have done well to consider the stated objectives of the Public Service Act 1999 and how well they fit with what ought to be public expectations of a Commonwealth regulator.

In particular, he might have noted that the main objectives of the Act are:

  • To establish an apolitical public service that is efficient and effective in serving the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public;
  • To provide a legal framework for the effective and fair employment, management and leadership of APS employees; 
  • To define the powers, functions and responsibilities of Agency Heads, the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner; and
  • To establish rights and obligations of APS employees.

There is nothing the consultants are likely to write into the charter and objectives of an ASIC withdrawn from the umbrella of the APS that is likely to deliver the same level of certainty around how both the regulator and those working within it perform their functions and the consequences if they do not.

It is greatly to be hoped that when the Government introduces the legislation necessary to remove ASIC from the terms of the Public Service Act, it is not simply rubber-stamped by the Parliament. The implications of the move need to be fully investigated and debated.

Somewhat typifying his tenure as ASIC chair, Medcraft had no hesitation in claiming substantial ownership of the changes which are being wrought on the regulator including the industry funding agenda and removal from the public service.

It should follow that he must own whatever shortcomings eventually emerge.

Perhaps, though, some of the more thoughtful heads in the Parliament might seek to temper the outcome.

 

 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

6 days 1 hour ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

6 days 2 hours ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND