FASEA and ASIC face Parliamentary code of ethics scrutiny

Financial advisers have provided members of both the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics with information regarding a submission from two Griffith University academics which appeared to have been submitted with assistance from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The advisers have also raised questions about the involvement of members of members of the FASEA board in the submission in circumstances where those members are representing organisations which are also represented on the ASIC Consumer Advisory Panel.

Those organisations are the consumer groups CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre (CALC), both of which also had representation on the board of FASEA.

Related News:

The submission causing most consternation was developed by two Griffith University academics, Dr Hugh Breakey and Professor Charles Sampford which notes on the bottom of page one that “this submission was developed with input from members of ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel. It also incorporates issues raised in the FASEA Consumer Forum of June 29, 2018”.

The submission lodged by Breakey and Sampford is regarded as having been supportive of the approach adopted in the controversial Standard 3 of the FASEA code of ethics while a separate submission lodged by CHOICE is regarded as having been equally supportive.

ASIC documentation confirms that both CHOICE and CALC are represented on its Consumer Advisory Panel and CALC’s Catriona Lowe and Carolyn Bond, a former CALC office-holder, were on the board of FASEA at the time of the submissions being received along with CHOICE representative, Elisa Freeman.

Queensland Liberal Senator, Amanda Stoker who has already raised questions about the FASEA code of ethics submissions is expected to ask further questions when the Senate Economics committee next deals with FASEA and ASIC.




Recommended for you

Comments

Comments

No "conflict of interest" here. It's an interesting exercise to overlay the FASEA Conflict of Interest Standards on this one. Multiple Standards breach. It really is a joke and the architects of this mess must be held to account. After all, isn't that the "ethical" thing to do?

Let's hope the Parliamentary Committee will see CHOICE and CALC for what they are... political activist groups like GetUp. They are not "consumer groups". Consumer interests have been greatly set back by the hijacking of these organisations by political activists intent on using them as a tool to impose their ideological agenda.

CHOICE and CALC should have their government funding (via ASIC) terminated, and their representatives should be removed from regulatory agencies such as FASEA and AFCA.

Well said, what a rort when ASIC chose to 'donate' millions in penalty fees to these left wing zealots.

ASIC is corrupt and unethical. FASEA is delusional, misguided and inept.

Well said. Spot on the money.

Not only that, but Dr.Mark Brimble of Griffith University was the FASEA acting Managing Director when Breakey and Sampford were working on the 2 FASEA/ASIC consultancy/commercial research documents noted on the Griffith University website.
Dr. Mark Brimble works for Griffith University.

I'm midway through a joke of an Ethics course where apparently even for a planner to receive a free golf game from an accountant for referring a client to them is 'unethical' and must be avoided blah blah blah (sickening really).

When you look at what is going on at all these organisations, each are rotten and corrupt at the core, and a free golf game pales into nothingness by comparison to the sh*t that goes on with them.

ASIC is so worried about the bird dropping on the windscreen of planner wrongdoing, that they're willing to ignore that lapping the bonnet all around the car is a flood and tidal wave of raw sewerage that union super, CHOICE, CALC, IFM and everything remotely associated with these groups represent.

FARSEA fails every one of it's own Standards and Values.
What an absolute disgusting joke, these Ethical Gods who cast such wide ranging power have ZERO ETHICS themselves.
FARSEA's board past and present must fully disclose any and all conflicts of interest.
FARSEA's board must be held to the same Standards it demands of Advisers.
And thus FARSEA's board members MUST NOT Act when conflicted !!!!!!!!!!
Clean out the FARSEA swamp, and ASIC too.

Jane Hume, simple solution:
Step 1 - Suspend all current exam sittings
Step 2 - After the rorts/conflicts are exposed and it is realised that all this is doint is increasing cost of advice, refund all advisers for fees paid for Farsea exam and associated costs.
Step 3 - Dissolve Farsea and ASIC.

Did ASIC pay Breakey and Sampford or Griffith University to assist with their FASEA submission ?
Did FASEA pay Breakey and Sampford or Griffith University to provide their submission ?
Simple questions......please provide the answers.

You missed one, did any union super fund or union assist financially with Breakey and Sampford or Griffith University to provide their submission?

When I read all these comments about FASEA and ASIC and the mess they are making of the Financial Services industry, it makes me realise what a complete waste of space is Senator Jane Hume. She is obviously there only for her own self-importance because she has done absolutely nothing to clean up this mess that her Government has created.

On the FASEA website it does not specifically refer to Dr.Hugh Breakey and Professor Charles Sampford 's submission under their respective names, but to find it you must open up the Consumer Representatives tab where it is the only submission listed.
Of course these 2 academics received input from the ASIC Consumer Advisory Panel to contribute to their submission, however, although CHOICE are a member of that panel, they also provided their own separate submission which happened to highlight common aspects of the academics submission also.
The input from the ASIC Consumer Advisory Panel received to assist the 2 academics in forming their submission must be disclosed and made available. If there are emails, letters, minutes of meetings held these need to be fully disclosed.
On the FASEA submissions website there are also 3 confidential submissions that cannot be opened.
With the current level of trust regarding FASEA, the submission process and the unworkable COE outcome, it would appear that we don't know the full extent as to who provided submissions and what was said in those submissions.
Amanda Stoker should be demanding FASEA release all details of all submissions made in relation to the Code Of Ethics.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong". Thomas Sowell

Add new comment