The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has unequivocally rejected claims that it tried to undermine a Senate inquiry.
The inquiry, chaired by Liberal senator Andrew Bragg, was tasked with examining the capacity and capability of ASIC to undertake proportionate investigation and enforcement action arising from reports of alleged misconduct.
In a report this week, the committee said ASIC had been reluctant to disclose information during the inquiry.
“Rather than engaging with the committee in a transparent and accountable manner, from the outset ASIC has chosen to attempt to undermine and influence the process of the inquiry before evidence had been gathered or hearings held,” it said.
In an opening statement today to the Senate economics references committee (Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement) inquiry, chair Joe Longo noted the regulator had opened 104 out of 109 questions posed.
“ASIC unequivocally rejects any assertion of an intent to obfuscate or obstruct the committee. There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. Nor is there any evidence to support the assertion that ASIC attempted to undermine and influence the process of the inquiry from the outset,” it said.
“ASIC is taking an open, constructive, and cooperative approach to this inquiry. We have provided a detailed submission to the inquiry which sets out our approach to investigations and enforcement. This has included how we develop our priorities to target areas we consider to be of greatest regulatory harm and how we assess reports of potential misconduct and other intelligence sources, to identify matters for investigation and possible enforcement actions.”
It said releasing information about closed investigations could still prejudice ASIC’s related and future investigations and adversely impact people who had assisted ASIC as well as unfairly prejudice people who have been subject of ASIC investigations.
A regulator funded by enforcement action… enforcing technical breaches rather than actual client harm, who has proved willing to punish smaller firms but is reticent to tackle anyone with deep pockets and good lawyers – and been caught at it. Why would they be keen to answer questions transparently?
ASIC need solid oversight AND serious changes based on detailed review and analysis of how best to serve the institutions they regulate and the public supposedly they protect.
Well said. Great commentary awolfend