ASIC fails test of Parliamentary responsiveness
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) may measure the performance of financial planners but appears to have failed in meeting one of the key measures expected of the Federal Parliament - responding to questions on notice.
According to data compiled by the Rule of Law Institute of Australia (ROLIA), ASIC was asked 135 questions during the parliamentary committee hearings held when Parliament resumed this year, but has answered none by their due date.
This compares to its sister financial services regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which was asked 126 questions and had answered 45 of them by the due date.
Indeed, ASIC emerged as the worst performing agency in terms of the volume of questions it received and its responses, with the Commonwealth Grants Commission having been asked four questions and also having failed to provide answers.
A significant source of the questions asked of Government agencies proved to be Tasmanian Liberal Senator David Bushby, who asked a total of 996 questions during the period reviewed.
Recommended for you
ASIC has accepted a court enforceable undertaking from a Perth-based company auditor who failed to adequately conduct multiple audits on an advice firm that receivers say has $100 million missing.
After a brutal month for adviser numbers, the net loss for June now stands at more than 100 advisers, but the financial year is still on track to end in positive territory.
Two advice platforms have been identified by Adviser Ratings as standouts for efficiency as time-pressured advisers become evermore fickle in their platform selection.
Private wealth manager Escala Partners has increased its alternatives allocations to more than a third in the past three years, describing the asset class as offering “fertile ground” for diversification.
