ASIC went direct to academics to commission controversial submission

16 February 2021
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has admitted that it went direct to Griffith University academics to produce what has proved to be a controversial submission on the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) code of ethics because it was running short of time. 

It had been assumed the submission had been commissioned via ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel, but the regulator has admitted it went direct and commissioned the submission itself, paying $10,000 to the academics, Dr Hugh Breakey and Professor Charles Sampford. 

In a detailed explanation responding to specific questions from a Parliamentary Committee, ASIC said it adopted this approach because of the tight time-frame and acknowledged that it had been assisted by FASEA extending the timeframe for submissions. 

“In this case, ASIC undertook a direct approach to a number of possible suppliers and recommended suppliers. Direct approaches to particular suppliers was considered appropriate as the work required specialist expertise and needed to be completed within a short-time frame,” the regulator said. 

“The scope of the work was set out by email to the identified supplier, Dr Breakey, who had the necessary expertise, capacity and availability to prepare the submission and attend a roundtable on 29 June 2018 in response to the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority consultation about:  

i) the draft Code of Ethics for financial advisers; and 

 ii) the proposed guidance on educational pathways for all advisers developed by FASEA.  

“Dr Breakey is an expert in the area FASEA was consulting on. He was the President of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institution for Ethics, Governance & Law at Griffith University.” 

“Because of the narrow scope of the work, short time frame and cost of the procurement, the Commonwealth Standard Purchase Order terms and conditions were used to govern this arrangement,” it said. 

NSW Liberal back-bencher, Jason Falinksi had used questions on notice from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services to question precisely how ASIC had decided to pursue Breakey to develop the submission. 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Simon

Who get's the $10M? Where does the money go?? Might it end up in the CSLR to financially assist duped investors??? ...

4 days 13 hours ago
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...

1 week 4 days 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...

1 week 4 days 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND