FSC justifies ‘secret’ Treasury submissions

12 October 2021
| By Laura Dew |
image
image
expand image

Avoiding being part of a “political fight” is the Financial Services Council’s (FSC’s) reasoning behind making confidential submissions to Treasury inquiries.

Appearing to the Standing Committee on Economics inquiry on common ownership and capital concentration in the House of Representatives, Blake Briggs, FSC deputy chief executive, was questioned about the FSC’s submissions.

The organisation had previously submitted evidence on the issue of proxy voting but had chosen to make that submission confidential until discovered by a Freedom of Information request.

Andrew Leigh, deputy chair of the committee, asked Briggs why he had been making “secret submissions” and what that indicated about the organisation’s transparency.

Briggs said the FSC had wanted to provide a policy view on the issue of proxy advisers but wanted to avoid becoming part of a “political fight”.

“The use of the term ‘secret’ is a loaded term and I disagree with that characterisation,” Briggs said.

“The debate about proxy voting is a political one, it’s not one that the FSC felt a need to participate in on either side of the politics on that equation. So, the FSC asked for our submission to be treated as confidential.

“It wasn’t a political fight that we wanted to participate in. The main reason for keeping it confidential was we didn’t want it to play out in the media, we didn’t feel the need to be part of that space.”

Meanwhile, Briggs said it would take a “very courageous person” to not participate in competition for the benefit of its shareholders. While he thought the committee was right to investigate competition and the potential for law reform, he said he could not see evidence of problems.

“It would take a very courageous person to infer that someone didn’t want to compete and risk breaking the law based on their hunch of what their investors might want them to do,” Briggs said.

“It is very difficult to see any real evidence out there that suggests companies are not trying to compete because of a perception of who their owners are.

“In the absence of there being any evidence, and with clear incentives for companies to compete to grow, there is not a clear need for change.”

 

 

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

3 months ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

3 months 1 week ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

5 months 1 week ago

ASIC has suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of a Melbourne-based financial advice firm....

3 weeks 1 day ago

The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered....

3 weeks 6 days ago

A former Victorian financial adviser has been sentenced after stealing $4.4 million from clients, family and friends to feed his “raging gambling addiction”....

2 weeks 6 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND