‘Judge, jury and executioner’: Industry body rebukes ASIC’s silence on CP 332

In questions on notice to the regulator, Senate economics committee member Gerard Rennick asked how much it had spent on its Consultation Paper 332 on advice affordability, if it was planning to release submissions made in the consultation process and if ASIC would be willing to supply the submissions to the committee.

The regulator said it “[had] not published, and has no plans to publish” submissions made in the review, citing privacy concerns for those who had made submissions.

“Some of the submissions to CP 332 were provided to ASIC in-confidence, and must be treated consistently with ASIC’s obligations under section 127 of the ASIC Act, which sets out ASIC’s confidentiality obligations,” ASIC said.

“Many of the submissions were made by individuals, namely individual financial advisers. These individuals may not welcome publication of their submissions and review of their comments by their employers and others.”

However in a communication to members, AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston said the regulator’s refusal to release the submissions was “preposterous” and likely to be “backed by certain politicians who don’t want any more bad news before the election”.

“The most popular view as to why ASIC will not release information on 466 public submissions about achieving affordable advice for consumers is the submissions are heavily critical of ASIC’s role,” Mr Johnston said.

“ASIC are no longer just the police, they are judge, jury and executioner around a number of issues including affordable advice for consumers. Unfortunately the political process over the past eight years has allowed this to happen.

“ASIC do not have the street smarts, experience or inclination to make things easier for consumers – this has to change.”

The regulator’s response to Senator Rennick’s questions, published in June, pointed to a summary document it would release outlining key barriers to affordable advice identified by the submissions.

However the document, released in July, was scant in its detail around the issues identified and next steps following the consultation, which attracted one of the largest submission volumes of any ASIC review.

While the regulator is accountable to a number of parliamentary committees including the Senate economics committee, when asked by Senator Rennick if it would release the submissions to the committee, ASIC warned the senator off making a formal request for the documents.

“ASIC has already provided responses to questions on notice which are publicly available and include high-level summaries of the issues raised in submissions. On this basis, we are of the view that the committee would be better assisted by this summary information than 466 submissions,” the regulator said.

Mr Johnston added that the AIOFP was happy to receive and publish submissions from any advisers that had participated in the consultation.