Frydenberg urged to make decision over ASIC chair
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is being urged to make a decision over the tenure of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) chair James Shipton following an expenses scandal last October.
In a statement, Labor MP Stephen Jones, called on the Treasurer to make a decision whether Shipton could remain in the position or whether a replacement should be appointed instead.
Shipton was currently on gardening leave from his position after an expenses investigation into exceeding limits set by the Remuneration and Tribunal Determinations for relocation expenses.
A report into Shipton’s expenses had been issued by former inspector general of intelligence, Vivienne Thom, following an inquiry, but Jones said Frydenberg was holding off on releasing this information.
“The longer he stalls his decision about the future of James Shipton as chairman, the more potholes he’s creating in the long road to economic recovery. Mr Shipton cannot remain on gardening leave on his full $775,000 a year salary while a million Australians are looking for work and corporate Australia deals with economic uncertainty,” Jones said.
“He must immediately decide whether Mr Shipton or someone else will lead ASIC through these challenging economic times. And he must outline how and when Mr Shipton’s replacement will be chosen if his position is untenable.”
ASIC deputy chair Daniel Crennan resigned from his position over the same investigation.
Recommended for you
Adviser Ratings has explored whether there is a financial benefit to advice firms seeking to have a specialised client base in terms of client assets and fees charged.
Research by two recruiters has revealed whether salary or team culture is more important to financial services professionals when considering a new position.
Two financial advice businesses are to merge in a bid to create a multidisciplinary professional services firm as part of AZ NGA’s “super firm” strategy.
While the Financial Services and Credit Panel can take action on individual advisers’ misconduct, a compliance professional unpacks why the panel does not always subject licensees to further action.