In a written question on notice following the supplementary budget estimates hearings in November last year, independent senator David Pocock raised a range of queries about the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Senator Pocock’s queries included visibility of ASIC’s conflicts of interest register and why it isn’t included on the senior leadership page, as well as the details around what “potential conflicts of interests have been declared by senior leadership” in relation to the companies that ASIC regulates.
Responding to the senator’s concerns, the corporate regulator said that while ASIC staff have obligations to disclose conflicts of interest under both legislation and its own policies, the registers for this are on internal systems and are “not publicly available and are not otherwise published on the ASIC website”.
“The particular disclosures of ASIC staff are personal records and ASIC considers that the publication of these disclosures may reveal and prejudice confidential investigations or inquiries conducted by ASIC or will otherwise be prejudicial or damaging to the privacy of those persons or entities named in the disclosures,” ASIC said.
“Accordingly, those records are securely stored on ASIC’s internal systems and are not published. ASIC only publishes a register of gifts and benefits on its website.”
The regulator added that ASIC staff are required to disclose gifts and complete annual training on its policies and procedures.
“ASIC staff declare a range of interests associated with their duties. As noted above, those disclosures are personal records and contain potentially sensitive information in the context of ongoing ASIC investigations,” it said.
ASIC’s registers fall under two categories, with one being solely for commissioners and the other for its broader staff. While staff are not publicly named alongside the disclosure, commissioners have their gifts, benefits or hospitality specified.
However, the disclosures are almost all for complimentary attendance of conferences or dinners hosted by other bodies.
Indeed, for the first nine months of 2024, ASIC commissioners only made 16 disclosures in total – and none were for an amount greater than $410.
The only gifts that could be viewed as contentious in any way were the six complimentary memberships of the Qantas or Virgin lounge, which are given a value of “unknown”.
During the Senate estimates hearings in November, in which chair Joe Longo and deputy chair Sarah Court confirmed their membership of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, Pocock questioned whether this was appropriate for the regulator.
“So you’re comfortable being the body that ensures Australia’s financial markets operate fairly, transparent and efficiently, and that they are free from misconduct, and you’re happy to take a gift from a company you regulate?” he asked.
Responding, Longo said: “We have disclosed our Chairman’s Lounge membership and we have an established policy that deals with conflicts of interest and, as things stand, if we have any issues with Qantas, then we will deal with them.
“We don’t consider membership of the lounge as being a material impediment to discharge of our duties.
“I don’t think membership of the lounge is a conflict that would require any of us to recuse ourselves from an issue with Qantas.”
In his subsequent written questions, Pocock asked ASIC: “When you last investigated Qantas please provide minutes and other documents that detail how conflicts of interests were raised, declared and then managed as part of this process.”
The regulator was less forthcoming in answering this question.
“ASIC commissioners are required to declare material personal interests associated with their duties, including in relation to ASIC investigation matters. Those disclosures (and associated records) contain potentially sensitive information in the context of ongoing ASIC investigations,” the regulator said.
Pocock didn’t limit his questions on the subject to ASIC, also providing these written questions on notice to both Treasury and the Reserve Bank:
- Who in the department has a Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership – name and position?
- Who in the department has a Virgin Australia Beyond Lounge membership – name and position?
- How many spouses of officials also have access to either lounge (I’m not asking for names on this question, just numbers)?
While Treasury is yet to respond, the RBA noted that governor Michele Bullock, deputy governor Andrew Hauser and their respective spouses have membership of the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, while Bullock and her spouse also have membership of the Virgin Beyond Lounge.
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg also took an interest in ASIC’s potential conflicts of interest, asking: “Please set out all details of hospitality (if any) provided by superannuation funds to ASIC commissioners or the chair in their respective terms of office.”
In response, ASIC said that no commissioners or the chair have been provided with hospitality by a super fund.
What else can you expect from a corporate culture that pays personal legal expenses out of taxpayer dollars and then is exonerated by the next incumbent department head? the corruption is at their core, it’s imbedded cultural issue that has all the same earmarks as the CFMEU fiasco
ASIC answers to Pococks’s questions are bordering on evasive & minimal in detail.
They don’t really want to answer anything that may expose conflict at all.
ASIC would simply rather just play by their rules but not adhere to everyone else’s or expectations.
A law unto themselves.
Disgraceful at best.
Ah yes the keystone cops with their trademark nothing to see here move right along rhetoric…
Guess what? It’s 2025 and that no longer cuts it so look out because your time as a regulator is nigh…!
Responding, Longo said: “We have disclosed our Chairman’s Lounge membership and we have an established policy that deals with conflicts of interest and, as things stand, if we have any issues with Qantas, then we will deal with them.
“We don’t consider membership of the lounge as being a material impediment to discharge of our duties.
“I don’t think membership of the lounge is a conflict that would require any of us to recuse ourselves from an issue with Qantas.”
Seem ASIC clearly holds one view of Conflicts of Interest for Financial Planners, and another for itself, “Qualified Advisers” etc? If I was in a 3rd world country, this could be a good indication of an agenda being pushed and potential corruption? But not in Australia right?
Obviously ASIC thinks disclosure cures all ills. Why doesn’t that same theory apply to financial planners.
Right so the rule “Don’t do as I do do as I tell you” applies to ASIC. Understood.
” ….ASIC considers that the publication of these disclosures may ….. otherwise be prejudicial or damaging to the privacy of those persons or entities named in the disclosures.”
OK, got it. So the precious petals in ASIC do not want to disclose and will not disclose their financial relationships, associations and interests to the public. The public that pay them their remuneration and who rely on them to discharge their functions without conflict or bias. That public have no entitlement to proper open disclosure to allow the public to determine or have confidence that the relevant law enforcement personnel do not have the potential for conflict or bias.
However, at the same time, ASIC will insist on and enforce all these (and more) disclosure measures against financial advisers whether or not it could be prejudicial or damaging to the advisers and the advisers’ families. And, in the latter case, not just a mere reference to the possible existence of these conflicts but also the dollar value (or absent that a worked example of the possible quantum).
Well at least we have clarity now. ASIC’s view is that some animals are certainly more equal than other animals. And please, no horse sh*t about potentially prejudicing investigations. We all know that there can be regulations to specify exemptions in those specific cases. The general rule should be full disclosure to allow everyone to have confidence in the system.
This ASIC secretive position brings the compliance and enforcement system into disrepute. I do not always agree with David Pocock – but on this occasion well done David, do not let up on them.
Get a life David
Public servants are precluded from receiving Qantas points on the flights they take as part of their work, due to perceived conflicts. But these clowns are given Chaiman’s Lounge memberships, and that’s okay?
I am assuming Qantas has a reason for, what is the work, making gifts to these people?
What David asks is fair for all within a democracy, why the internal register and who manages their disclosures/conflicts of interest, this sounds very convenient/protected but release of their at times poor advice to Treasury would be of more value.
This really is unbelievable. Parliamentarians have to disclose and keep updated their disclosures. But not ASIC, because they’ve set up a situation where they run their own rules.
I also note there was no mention of the fact that Mr Alan Kirkman, appointed by Labor to ASIC, was recently disclosed as having a Qantas Chairmans Lounge Membership as a gift when he was running Choice, Publicly complaining vociferously about the bad business practices of Qantas. Come on Mr Longo, what has Mr Kirkman done about returning his gift of Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership
FASEA Standard 3. should apply. Don’t investigate any organisation for which you are directly or indirectly connected.If politicians cannot hide behind a privacy rule then neither can the Commissioner’s or the investigator staff at ASIC.I can’t believe we need to have this conversation