Chapter 1Interim report

1.1This interim report informs the Senate about several public interest immunity claims received by the Senate Economics References Committee (the committee) in the course of its inquiry into the capacity and capability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to undertake proportionate investigation and enforcement action arising from reports of alleged misconduct (the inquiry).

1.2Since the inquiry was referred on 27 October 2022, the committee has placed a series of questions on notice with ASIC that focus on various investigation and enforcement matters and the referral of the inquiry.

1.3To date, the committee has placed 109 questions on notice with ASIC. These questions have been asked in ‘sets’ which consist of multiple questions focused on specific topics. For the sake of clarity, questions are referred to by set and question through this report.

1.4At the time of writing, ASIC has provided responses to 104 of these questions. In addition, ASIC has refused to provide answers to some questions with the Chair of ASIC, Mr Joe Longo making 13 public interest immunity claims. The questions where public interest immunity has been claimed are listed in appendix 1 to this report.

1.5After careful consideration, the committee has resolved to reject 11 of the 13 public interest immunity claims on the grounds provided by Mr Longo. This report details the reasons for the committee’s decisions. Correspondence relating to each claim is available in appendices 2 to 12 of this report.

1.6Due to the complex nature of these public interest immunity claims, many of them having lengthy chains of correspondence relating to them, they will be dealt with thematically.

ASIC’s engagement with the committee

1.7The committee is concerned by ASIC’s behaviour in relation to the commencement of this inquiry. Rather than engaging with the committee in a transparent and accountable manner, from the outset ASIC has chosen to attempt to undermine and influence the process of the inquiry before evidence had been gathered or hearings held.

1.8This inquiry has received significant interest from the broader community, resulting in the committee receiving a considerable volume of submissions, correspondence and other documents. This evidence has indicated that there are broad community concerns about ASIC’s role as an investigative and enforcement body for the financial sector.

1.9The committee has sought to explore these matters by seeking information from ASIC about how it exercises its investigation and enforcement functions. In doing so, the committee has specifically sought information about particular cases. Whilst the committee accepts that there may be a good basis for not disclosing detailed information regarding open investigations, ASIC has not made a good case for not disclosing details for cases that have been closed.

1.10To be clear, the committee is not interested in pursuing the records of open investigations, it only seeks to understand matters relating to closed cases. Accordingly, the committee has accepted ASIC’s claims of public interest immunity where questions on notice have related to open ASIC investigations and has only pursued questions where ASIC has confirmed that a matter is closed.

1.11The committee finds it troubling that instead of reflecting on and responding to this broad community concern, ASIC has instead chosen to hinder the committee’s work by refusing to answer questions on notice. As shown in this report, the committee has made many attempts over several months to obtain the information sought, some chains of correspondence starting in December of last year.

1.12The committee has formed a view that ASIC’s refusal to provide this information is obstructing the committee’s ability to conduct this inquiry. As such, the committee has taken the significant action of making recommendations that the Senate order the provision of the information sought.

1.13The committee expects that ASIC take this as an opportunity to reflect on its conduct to date and to reassess how it will better engage with the committee’s inquiry in an open and transparent manner moving forward.

Notes on appendices

1.14The questions being pursued by the committee, the claims being made by ASIC, and other relevant correspondence are presented in appendices.

1.15Appendix 1 to this report is a list of all questions on notice provided to ASIC against which there has been a claim of public interest immunity since the commencement of the inquiry.

1.16Appendices 2 to 11 contain correspondence relating to these questions on notice and public interest immunity claims.

Statutory authorities and public interest immunity claims

1.17All claims of public interest immunity in this matter have been made by the Chair of ASIC rather than the relevant Minister.

1.18Although the resolution of the Senate relating to public interest immunity claims assumes that claims will be made by a Minister, there are circumstances where it may be more appropriate that statutory officers, who are accountable to the Senate for their expenditure but are not subject to direction from the executive government, make public interest immunity clams directly rather than a Minister.[1]

Questions relating to engagement with federal Parliament

Context of the claims

1.19The committee provided written questions on notice to ASIC in relation to its engagement with Parliament prior to the commencement of the inquiry, in particular the two questions below:

1.20In its response, ASIC did not provide an answer to question 2 in set 1:

While ASIC will be fully open and cooperative with the Committee, it is not appropriate for ASIC to disclose its regular communications with parliamentarians and staff.[3]

1.21On 21 November 2022 the committee wrote to ASIC and placed a further question on notice, being the question in set 4, question 1. ASIC responded, again simply stating that ‘it is not appropriate for ASIC to disclose its communications with Senators and their staff.’[4]

1.22On 20 December 2022, the committee wrote to ASIC noting the current answers to set 1, question 2 and set 4, question 1:

The committee reminds ASIC that the Senate’s procedural order of continuing effect number 10 requires that where an officer of a department or agency believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose information requested by a committee that it should make a public interest immunity claim. This claim should detail the grounds and the specific harm to the public interest should an answer be provided. It is not sufficient to simply state that it is not appropriate.[5]

1.23ASIC responded to this with a letter on 14 March 2023, further objecting to providing the information requested.[6]

1.24The committee deferred consideration of this claim and agreed to write again to ASIC in a letter dated 31 March 2023, requesting further information about the claim made in respect to set 4 question1.[7]

1.25ASIC provided this information in a letter dated 24 April 2023, stating that the nature of the communications with other senators’ offices was to understand and confirm the scope of the inquiry, as well as to obtain updates about the progress of the motion to establish the inquiry.[8]

1.26On 18 May 2023, the committee wrote to ASIC to reject this public interest immunity claim and to insist on a response to the questions on notice.[9]

Grounds for the claims

1.27As stated in its 14 March 2023 letter, ASIC’s claim of public interest immunity is based on undermining the privacy of members of Parliament:

ASIC is concerned that this would, in practical terms, involve the provision of evidence to this Committee by those members and would be contrary to those members’ objections and ASIC’s understanding of the Senate Standing Orders in relation to provision of evidence by members of Parliament.[10]

1.28In relation to the ground on which Mr Longo seeks to withhold information from the committee – unreasonable invasion of privacy – the Senate has previously accepted some public interest immunity claims where the disclosure of information may unreasonably infringe the privacy of individuals who have provided the information.[11]

Committee’s view of the claim

1.29The committee recognises that it would not be unusual for senators and members of Parliament to have regular communications with government departments and agencies through their work; whether as members of committees, through their own interests, or in discussing constituency matters. An understanding between a senator and a representative of a government department that a discussion will be conducted privately may allow for a degree of candour in these discussions which might not occur if both parties were conducting it publicly.

1.30While there is no recognised right of privacy between senators and members of Parliament and government departments, it would be very unusual – if not unprecedented – for the Senate to direct an order for the production of documents relating to an individual senator, as opposed to a Minister.

1.31The question of whether ASIC sought to interfere in the Senate’s work by influencing the terms of reference of the inquiry would be a matter better considered by the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. It would be open to any senator to consider making such a referral.

1.32As such, the committee makes no recommendation in relation to the claims of public interest immunity made by ASIC in the questions listed in Table1.2 above.

Questions related to ASIC investigations

Context of the claims

1.33A significant number of the written questions on notice provided to ASIC by the committee relate to current and closed investigations ASIC has undertaken. Although ASIC has provided answers to some of these questions, it has refused to answer others and has made associated public interest immunity claims.

1.34As discussed further below, the committee has accepted ASIC’s public interest immunity claims where they have been made in relation to open investigations. It is only interested in pursuing information related to closed investigations.

1.35The questions in Table 1.3 below fall under these claims:

1.36Throughout November 2022 the committee placed written questions on notice to ASIC regarding various investigation matters, in particular its investigations into Nuix Limited (set 2 questions), a superannuation insider trading investigation which occurred in 2020–2021 (set 3 questions), and ALS Limited (set 5 questions).[12]

1.37ASIC responded to all three sets of questions on 5 December 2022, with three separate letters making public interest immunity claims on various grounds (discussed further below). These letters are contained within appendices 2 to 4 of this report.[13]

1.38A further set of answers to questions on notice relating to Nuix Ltd (set 7) were asked by the committee in December 2022. A set of questions on notice relating to Magnis Energy Technologies Ltd (set 12) were then asked on 2 February 2023.

1.39ASIC responded to the questions regarding Nuix Ltd on 6 February 2023[14] and the questions relating to Magnis Energy Technologies Ltd on 21 February 2023,[15] making further public interest immunity claims. ASIC relied upon the grounds outlined in one of its letters of 5 December 2022 (the letter contained in appendix2) for both public interest immunity claims.

1.40In subsequent deliberations, the committee accepted two public interest immunity claims on the grounds that the matters asked about were open ASIC investigations. These were question 5 of set 3 and question 3 of set 8.[16]

1.41On 21 February 2023 the committee wrote to ASIC noting the public interest immunity claims made in relation to questions on notice sets 2, 3, 5 and 7. It accepted ASIC’s claim for public interest immunity in relation to ongoing ASIC investigations but rejected the claims made in relation to closed matters.[17]

1.42ASIC responded to this letter on 23 March 2023, expanding on their claims for public interest immunity made in respect of questions in sets 2, 3, 5 and 7.[18] The committee replied to this in a letter of 31March 2023, which rejected these claims and insisted upon a response to the questions asked.[19]

1.43In a letter dated 24 April 2023, ASIC wrote to the committee noting the committee’s rejection of the public interest immunity claims, stating it ‘remains concerned about the potential adverse effect to ASIC and third parties in producing the evidence requested…’[20]

1.44The committee responded to this claim in a letter dated 18 May 2023, reiterating its rejection of the public interest immunity claims made in respect of the questions contained in Sets 2, 3, 5, and 7. It also rejected the public interest immunity claim made in respect of question 7, Set 12.[21]

1.45At the time of writing, ASIC has not responded to the committee’s letter of 18May 2023.

Grounds for the claims

1.46ASIC has made claims of public interest immunity for the above questions on several grounds. These will be dealt with separately below. In some cases ASIC has claimed public interest immunity on more than one ground for a particular question.

1.47In its letter dated 5 December 2023 (letter contained in appendix 2), ASIC provided a list of grounds on which public interest immunity was claimed. As mentioned above, ASIC has relied on the grounds listed in this letter for several of its public interest immunity claims.[22] Some of these grounds are ones where the Senate has previously accepted public interest immunity claims, others have a history of not being accepted and others have not been tested as grounds for public interest immunity claims.

1.48In the letter of 23 March 2023, in response to a request from the committee for more and better particulars of its public interest immunity claims, ASIC provided more information about some of the grounds being claimed, while also no longer mentioning some of the others.

1.49For the sake of brevity, the full list of claims made in ASIC’s letter of 5December2022 have not been included within the text of this interim report. They are available to read in appendix 2 where the letter has been reproduced in full. Only the more substantive claims mentioned in the letter of 23 March 2023 have been addressed below, consistent with ASIC’s approach to these matters.

Prejudice to legal proceedings and law enforcement investigations and methodologies

1.50ASIC has claimed that providing the information requested by the committee in question 2 of set 12 and questions 1, 3 and 4 of set 5 could potentially prejudice related ongoing ‘investigation and enforcement actions’[23].

1.51In relation to the questions about Nuix Ltd (question 12 of set 2), ASIC states in its letter of 23 March 2023 that disclosure of the information could reveal ASIC’s internal deliberations in respect of its ongoing proceedings against Nuix Ltd for other offences than those asked about in the questions contained in set 2.

1.52Although its investigation into ALS Ltd has concluded (questions 1, 3 and 4 of set 5), ASIC also pointed out that it has recently commenced proceedings into TerraCom Limited and its officers (a related entity) and the release of information about ALS Ltd may jeopardise this investigation.

1.53It is unclear from ASIC’s letter whether it is referring to ongoing law enforcement investigations or ongoing legal proceedings. Both grounds have been recognised by the Senate in the past as acceptable claims for public interest immunity.

1.54Odgers is clear that there are two ways in which providing information to the Senate could prejudice legal proceedings:

(1)‘There may be a reasonable apprehension that disclosure of some information could prejudice a trial which is in the offing by influencing magistrates, jurors or witnesses…’[24]

(2)The release of material could create difficulties in pending court proceedings due to the material now having the protection of parliamentary privilege.[25]

1.55ASIC has also claimed public interest immunity in regard to the abovementioned questions and question 2 of set 7 on the grounds that providing this information could lead to the disclosure of confidential law enforcement methodologies, in particular its methodologies for selecting matters for enforcement and investigating persons of interest, including revealing confidential sources of information.[26]

1.56In relation to a claim on the basis of prejudicing law enforcement methodologies, there is a general practice among Senate committees to not press questions on the operational matters of law enforcement or security agencies due to potential prejudice to these matters. This practice is not set out in any formal rules of the Senate however.

1.57As with all public interest immunity claims, the agency making the claim must clearly illustrate the expected harm which would occur through the release of the information.

Committee’s view of this claim

1.58The claims made by ASIC on the grounds of prejudice to law enforcement investigations or legal proceedings are generally muddled and it is unclear which ground ASIC is basing its claims on. In the interest of providing full consideration of ASIC’s claims the committee has considered both.

1.59For a public interest immunity claim on the grounds of prejudice to law enforcement investigation to be accepted it must be made by the law enforcement agency in question, not another official ‘who can merely speculate about the relationship of the information to the investigation.’[27]

1.60Although ASIC is not a typical law enforcement agency, such as a state or territory police service, the committee does accept that ASIC has law enforcement-like powers for the purposes of this claim.

1.61As for the claims relating to prejudice to legal proceedings, ASIC has not provided any clarity about specific legal proceedings which would be affected by this claim.

1.62In the committee’s view the information ASIC has provided to support its claims is very general in nature and does not address either of the two ways legal proceedings could be prejudiced. It is also unclear from ASIC’s letters whether these matters are even current legal proceedings or are at the investigation stage.

1.63The committee is of the view that ASIC has not fully articulated the harm which would result from providing the information which the committee has requested. The vague statements about general harms which could occur do not satisfy the committee that a significant harm could occur from the release of the information.

1.64As such, the committee rejects these claims of public interest immunity on both the grounds that ASIC has claimed.

Unreasonable invasion of privacy

1.65ASIC has claimed public interest immunity on the grounds that release of the information sought for question 4 of set 3 would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy:

ASIC considers that the public interest in the disclosure of the personal information about persons of interest would be outweighed by the unfair prejudice and damage to the personal reputation and privacy of those persons in circumstances where those persons are no longer the subject of ASIC’s inquiries…[28]

1.66As stated in the discussion of question 2, set 1 and question 1, det 4 above, this ground for public interest immunity has been accepted in the past, however the claimant should establish that there must be a particular harm which would arise from the disclosure.

1.67The harm from disclosure may also be negated by providing the information requested in de-identified terms or providing it to the committee in an in camera hearing. Odgers Australian Senate Practice also notes that the person/s affected by the disclosure may be sought for their approval to disclose the information.[29]

Committee’s view of this claim

1.68In its reasoning provided to the committee in its letter of 23 March 2023, ASIC has not advised of the particular harm which would occur should the information sought in question 4 of Set 3 be released.

1.69ASIC has also not suggested any way of mitigating the harm, such as seeking permission from the affected parties to release the information.

1.70Accordingly, the committee rejects this claim of public interest immunity on the grounds claimed by ASIC.

Legal professional privilege

1.71ASIC has made a public interest immunity claim of legal professional privilege in regards of question 2 in set 7 and question 7 in set 3. It claims that the harm resulting from providing this information would be:

inhibiting the full and frank communications between ASIC and its lawyers; and

the prejudice this disclosure would cause to future enforcement actions brought by ASIC where similar legal issues arise.

1.72A claim of public interest immunity on the grounds of legal professional privilege in itself has never been accepted by the Senate. When these grounds have previously been accepted, the legal advice claimed must be related to pending legal proceedings.[30] In such a case it would be more useful to claim public interest immunity on the ground that the release of information would prejudice an existing legal proceeding, a claim which has been accepted in the past.[31]

Committee’s view of the claim

1.73In its letters to the committee, ASIC has not outlined any harm to pending legal proceedings arising from the release of the legal advice sought. It has made a general claim that the release of this information could harm future legal actions where similar legal issues arise but does not provide information about a specific pending legal matter which the release of this information would prejudice.

1.74As for the other stated harm of ASIC’s public interest immunity claim, that the release of the information sought would inhibit the relationship between ASIC and its legal advisors, the committee believes that ASIC has not demonstrated sufficient harm to override the committee’s role in scrutinising the work of ASIC. The relationship between ASIC and its legal advisors is a matter for these two parties and not the concern of the committee.

1.75For the reasons stated above, the committee must reject both grounds for claiming public interest immunity for question 2 in set 7 and question 7 in set 3.

1.76As such, the committee rejects the public interest immunity claims made in relation to the questions listed in Table 1.3 and makes the following recommendation:

1.77The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents:

That the Senate orders that there be provided to the Senate Economics References Committee by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 18 July 2023:

1)the answers that provide the information sought by the questions listed in Table 1.3 of the report of the Senate Economics References Committee on its inquiry into the capacity and capability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to undertake proportionate investigation and enforcement action arising from reports of alleged misconduct.

2)That on Wednesday, 19 July 2023 the Economics References Committee report to the Senate whether the documents have been provided to the committee in accordance with paragraph (1).

3)In the event that the order is not complied with in full by the due date, the Senate requires that the Minister representing the Treasurer attend the Senate on Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers, to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

a)any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and

b)any such motion may be debated for no longer than 90 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

Question on ASIC’s discussions with the Minister

Context of the claims

1.78The committee placed a written question on notice about ASIC’s discussions with the Minister prior to ASIC making a public interest immunity claim relating to a superannuation insider trading investigation (the claim in question made in the letter of 5 December 2022).[32] ASIC made a public interest immunity claim in relation to one of these questions.[33]

1.79The question that is subject to this claim is contained within Table 1.4 below:

1.80ASIC made a public interest immunity claim in relation to the above question on two grounds: that the communications relate to internal deliberations and advice on ASIC’s response to the committee’s questions, and that:

The disclosure of the contents of such communications would undermine the public interest immunity claim made by ASIC on the matter.[34]

1.81The committee responded to this in its letter dated 31 March 2023, requesting ‘that ASIC more clearly articulate the harm associated with releasing the requested information’.[35]

1.82On 24 April 2023 ASIC wrote to the committee in response, stating that providing copies of the correspondence between itself and the Minister would:

(a)inhibit full and frank communications between itself and the Minister and ASIC officials; and

(b)undermine a public interest immunity claim made by ASIC in writing on 7 February 2022 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the PJCCFS) which was accepted by that committee on 25 March 2022.[36]

1.83The committee rejected this in its letter dated 18 May 2023 and made a final request for the documents to be provided.

Grounds for the claim

Advice to government

1.84Claims for public interest immunity on the basis that the information claimed constitutes advice to the Minister have rarely been accepted in the Senate, despite this being one of the more common grounds used by a Government department or agency making a public interest immunity claim.[37]

1.85Odgers is clear on this point:

Governments have claimed that there is a long-established practice of not disclosing their advice, or of not doing so except in exceptional circumstances. These claims are contradicted by the occasions on which advice is voluntarily disclosed when it supports a government position.[38]

1.86Generally, for a claim on these grounds to be accepted the agency or Minister in question must illustrate some harm to the public interest which would come from the disclosure.

Previous public interest immunity claims

1.87The second basis for ASIC’s claim of public interest immunity is that providing the information requested would undermine a public interest immunity claim accepted by the PJCCFS in the 46th Parliament.

1.88Further to this, ASIC has not provided information on the harm which would result from the production of the documents requested. In both letters concerning this claim (letters dated 2 March 2023 and 24 April 2023) no information about the harm posed by releasing the information is provided.

Committee’s consideration of the claim

1.89The harm arising from ASIC’s first grounds of claim is that the disclosure of this information would inhibit the communications between itself and the Minister’s office. The committee holds the view that this is not a sufficient harm to the public interest. The relationship between ASIC and its Minister is a matter for these two parties and should not be an impediment to the Senate performing its scrutiny functions.

1.90The committee is also not persuaded by the second ground that answering the question on notice would undermine a public interest immunity claim granted by another committee.

1.91The decision by one committee to grant a public interest immunity claim in relation to a request for information does not bind another committee to make the same decision.Committees are made up of individual senators, and their deliberations and decisions will be unique to the considerations of that committee at that time.

1.92The committee has formed a view that in this circumstance the grounds claimed by ASIC do not present a sufficient harm to the public interest to accept the requested public interest immunity claim.

1.93Accordingly, the committee rejects this claim of public interest immunity on both grounds provided by ASIC and makes the following recommendation:

1.94The committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following resolution requiring the production of documents:

That the Senate orders that there be provided to the Senate Economics References Committee by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 18 July 2023:

1. the answers that provide the information sought by the questions listed in Table 1.4 of the report of the Senate Economics References Committee on its inquiry into the capacity and capability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to undertake proportionate investigation and enforcement action arising from reports of alleged misconduct.
2. That on Wednesday, 19 July 2023 the Economics References Committee report to the Senate whether the documents have been provided to the committee in accordance with paragraph (1).
3. In the event that the order is not complied with in full by the due date, the Senate requires that the Minister representing the Treasurer on attend the Senate on Wednesday, 2August2023 at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers, to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

a)any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and

b)any such motion may be debated for no longer than 90 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

Senator Andrew Bragg

Chair

Liberal Senator for New South Wales

Footnotes

[1]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 671.

[2]This question was asked as a follow-up question to Set 1, question 1: Did ASIC undertake any engagement with members of federal parliament in relation to this inquiry before it was considered by the Senate?

[3]Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), answers to written questions on notice, 3 November 2022 (received 18 November 2022).

[4]ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 21 November 2022 (received 25 November 2023).

[5]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 20December 2022, [p. 1] (available at appendix 4).

[6]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 14 March 2023, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 8).

[7]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 31March 2023 [pp. 1–2) (available at appendix 10).

[8]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 24 April 2023, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 11).

[9]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 18May2023 [p. 1] (available at appendix 12).

[10]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 14 March 2023, [p. 1] (available at appendix 8).

[11]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, pp. 664–665.

[12]ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 8 November 2022 (received 5 December 2022); ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 21 November 2022 (received 5 December 2022); ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 22 November 2022 (received 5 December 2022).

[13]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 5 December 2022, [pp. 1–4] (available at appendix 1); Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 5 December 2022, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 2); Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 5 December 2022, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 3).

[14]ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 20 December 2022 (received 6 February 2023).

[15]ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 2 February 2023 (received 21 February 2023).

[16]As these public interest immunity claims have been accepted by the committee the questions are not listed in Table 1.2 above but are listed in the tabled contained in appendix 1.

[17]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 21February 2023, [p. 1] (available at appendix 6).

[18]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 23 March 2023, [pp. 1–3] (available at appendix 9).

[19]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 31March 2023, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 10).

[20]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 24 April 2023, [pp. 1–3] (available at appendix 11).

[21]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 18May2023, [p. 1] (available at appendix 12).

[22]See: ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 20 December 2022 (received 6 February 2023) and ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 2 February 2023 (received 21 February 2023).

[23]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 23 March 2023, [pp. 1–3] (available at appendix 9).

[24]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 662.

[25]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 663.

[26]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 23 March 2023, [pp. 1–3] (available at appendix 9).

[27]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 663.

[28]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 23 March 2023, [pp. 1–3] (available at appendix 9).

[29]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 665.

[30]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, pp. 668–669.

[31]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 662.

[32]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 5 December 2022, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 2).

[33]ASIC, answer to written questions on notice, 20 December 2022 (received 2 March 2023).

[34]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 2 March 2023, [p. 1] (available at appendix 7).

[35]Senate Economics References Committee, correspondence to Mr Joe Longo, Chair of ASIC, 31March 2023, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 10).

[36]Mr Chris Savundra, General Counsel, ASIC, correspondence received 24 April 2023, [pp. 1–2] (available at appendix 11).

[37]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 667.

[38]Harry Evans and Rosemary Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, Department of the Senate, 2016, p. 668.