| No. |
Member |
Question |
Hansard page
and Hearing date or
Written questions |
Response
(Publication date)
|
| ASIC01QW |
Falinski |
Has there been any report or allegation of corruption related to any of ASIC's law enforcement activities that has been formally notified to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) by the Chair since the new laws came into effect 1 January 2021?
b) How do you the manage against conflict risk of a case manager, and ensure detached rational decision making consistent with the law?
|
Written |
Responses to
questions 1-18
(PDF731KB) |
| ASIC02QW |
Falinski |
In regards to the above, you state that:
“The responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of details of individuals named in media releases, such as the person’s profession, lies with the case officer and senior manager who are most familiar with the matter. The case officer prepares a first draft of the media release, in accordance with ASIC’s internal guidelines, and is responsible for ensuring that the proposed media release is accurate… where necessary other business units including its legal office were involved in drafting announcements around enforcement action, and that for significant media releases, approval by a commission member is also required”.
a) ASIC refers to its internal guidelines. They also have external guidelines, published as INFO sheet 152 https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/asic-investigations-and-enforcement/public-comment-on-asics-regulatory-activities/ . Are your internal and external guidelines consistent? To avoid any doubt that the guidelines are not the same, or inconsistent, will ASIC as a transparent regulator undertake to publish both sets of guidelines? For the purposes of comparison: would ASIC find it acceptable for an Australian financial institution or superannuation fund to have two sets of guidelines: one internal, and one external? Should you not have just one guideline?
b) How do you the manage against conflict risk of a case manager, and ensure detached rational decision making consistent with the law?
|
Written |
|
| ASIC03QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: I get it, Mr Shipton. I'm not trying to be obtuse. But this goes back to a fundamental capacity issue. I'll just highlight that example again: out of the maximum contribution that could be made into a fund of that year, you're saying that half went on essentially administering the fund. What I'm saying is that I accept that you see that there was a problem and I accept that you're saying it's a lesson learnt, but it raises a fundamental issue of the organisation's understanding that it was prepared to not apply sufficient scrutiny or question whether the data it had was wrong or insufficient enough to publish. Could you on notice give us an outline of the steps that were taken that led to that publication. Who sourced the data? Who drafted the fact sheet? Who then approved it and sent it on for publication? This to me is a fundamentally critical issue about the competence of ASIC.
Mr Shipton: We can happily take that on notice, Mr Chair.
|
Hansard p.23
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC04QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: Obviously this issue has been consistently raised, and you can tell my frustration with it. ASIC recently announced at least two—and there are potentially more—investigations into industry super funds that were found by ASIC to have done wrong. So far we're aware of one with Rest and another one with Aware Super. Are you currently in the process of either investigating or considering further action against other super funds?
Mr Shipton: I'll hand to my colleague Commissioner Press.
Ms Press: Yes, we are. We have around 20 investigations currently underway. Those investigations are across all sectors of the industry.
CHAIR: Could you at least give us some guidance: are half of them retail and half of them industry, and are any of them government?
Ms Press: I would have to take that on notice to make sure that I don't mislead and guess, but I can tell you that there are a number across the different sectors. I'll take it on notice and get back to you on the split.
|
Hansard p. 24
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC05QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: I understand. ASIC recently announced it was commencing legal proceedings against Rest for unlawfully preventing members from rolling over their super to another fund. I don't expect ASIC to comment on these matters, which are before the court; however, Rest has issued a press release discussing how it is remediating customers for its misconduct. ASIC does regularly report on the remediation programs of other institutions, so how much is Rest remediating to its customers?
Ms Press: I am aware of the remediation program that is underway. Having said that, I do not believe that this is one that we are reviewing, unlike the—
Ms Chester: We are monitoring it.
Ms Press: We are monitoring it, but we're not fully reviewing it. I will need to take on notice exactly what the numbers are. |
Hansard p. 24
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC06QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: Thank you. We look forward to that data. Does ASIC know whether Rest customers are being remediated out of fund reserves or out of other forms of member savings?
Ms Press: My understanding is the remediation is from the operational risk financial reserve. One of the reasons that they would have established an ORFR would be to remediate members. I can take on notice exactly where the money is coming from. They would have a number of different reserves. |
Hansard p. 24
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC07QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: I understand that First State Super, now Aware, has also remediated its members over $100 million for fees-for-no-service financial advice breaches. ASIC mentioned this in its press release. Was all of the $100 million paid out of members' retirement savings, or was paid out of some other financial vehicle?
Ms Press: My understanding is that the Aware remediation was from StatePlus, which is a different institution and is not a super fund. I can take on notice exactly where that money is coming from.
CHAIR: How is it acceptable for another institution to pay for the remediation of a super fund?
Ms Press: The Aware issue that I think you're talking about was actually StatePlus, which is owned by Aware, but a subsidiary of it.
CHAIR: If it's part of StatePlus, from what pool of money was that then taken?
Ms Press: Again, my understanding is that it was taken from StatePlus revenue, but I would need to take that on notice to be absolutely clear.
CHAIR: Yes, take that on notice.
|
Hansard p. 24
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC08QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: I'll ask them next and keep that one going. ASIC recently consulted with industry on remediation as a topic but was then silent on the source of moneys that can be used for remediation. This is important, given there are inconsistent practices across the industry. Is ASIC making it clear, in its final guidance, whether funds can use members' savings and reserves to remediate customers?
Ms Chester: We'll take that question on notice—only because it is draft guidance at the moment. I know that there have been a number of roundtables, including involving superannuation funds. We'll get an update on that and share that with you as a question on notice.
CHAIR: Just for clarity, then, would ASIC accept a retail super fund remediating members for misconduct out of members' savings?
Ms Press: If the retail fund had established a financial reserve and if one of the reasons for establishing that reserve was to pay remediation, then I would argue, hypothetically, yes. Again, I think it depends on the circumstances.
Ms Chester: There are different obligations of board directors and trustees of super funds when it comes to making decisions of where monies are to be sourced for remediation and other matters. I suspect that might be an issue for APRA, with respect to the trustee of the superannuation funds. Again, we'll take that on notice, seek guidance and see what has come up in the consultation we've had with industry folk since releasing the draft guidance late last year.
|
Hansard pp. 24-25
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC09QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: So you're actually saying there are industry super funds that are engaging in behaviour that is essentially trying to prevent members from moving or using their own money and you're not taking action against said funds because you don't think that they are as big a fish or as concrete an example as Rest?
Ms Press: Each time we take an action in court, we have to weigh up: how egregious the behaviour is, how extensive the behaviour is, how likely we are to win and whether or not there is a deterrent effect. There are many, many things that we take into consideration.
CHAIR: Sure, but the critical point is that you are aware of other examples where other funds are doing this and you've chosen not to take action—I know that's the decision of ASIC; they've got to make that decision—but you are aware of other funds engaging in the same conduct and you're not taking action.
Ms Press: Right now I'm not aware of any fund currently engaging in that action. I am aware of historical behaviour and historical conduct, but I'm not aware of any current conduct.
CHAIR: Okay. Are you able to provide information on which funds have done that in the past?
Ms Press: I would have to take that on notice. I'd need to get advice from our chief legal officer on whether or not we are able to provide that advice. We don't normally comment on investigations that are closed.
Ms Press: I would have to take that on notice. I'd need to get advice from our chief legal officer on whether or not we are able to provide that advice. We don't normally comment on investigations that are closed.
|
Hansard p.25
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC10QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: Has AustralianSuper been blocking any rollovers?
Ms Press: I would have to take that on notice. I'm not aware of that. But we can take on notice whether we have been made aware of any blockage.
|
Hansard p. 26
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC11QON |
Wilson |
CHAIR: Alright. Finally—and I'll ask this question, and then the deputy chair can take over—has ASIC progressed the evidence that this committee has provided to it of the potential for insider trading around the sale or the movement of capital between unlisted and listed entities at different points in the cycle around March and April last year? If so, how far has that progressed?
Ms Press: We are progressing that matter. Again, I will need to take on notice exactly how much I can say. I'm sorry, Mr Wilson, but it is a matter that is under investigation, and we don't normally comment on those matters.
|
Hansard p. 25
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC12QON |
Leigh |
ACTING CHAIR: Do you think ASIC made a mistake in not appealing the Mitchell decision? There were a number of circumstances of that case that seemed to concern ASIC at the time, particularly Justice Beach directly calling a witness, Mr McWilliam, and then the decision not to allow ASIC to use the excerpts of the transcript of Mr Healy's examination. One of the criticisms made of ASIC in the Hayne review was that you didn't litigate enough. I suppose the question now is: are you making the mistake of not appealing enough?
Mr Shipton: We're not going to make comment on a court matter or His Honour's comments. I will point out that that was a significant penalty for ASIC. There is actually an important deterrence impact in that judgement. We've looked at that case. We look at all of our cases, and we decide what the next steps are. We've decided to accept His Honour's judgement and I think that's where we should leave it.
ACTING CHAIR: You're not concerned that that might limit future civil penalties that you're able to bring to similar cases, that it sets a worrying precedent?
Mr Shipton: Again, I'm not going to comment on that particular case. We've done lots of thinking around directors' duty, we've done lots of thinking around our enforcement action in this regard and we have confidence that we are going to be an effective regulator and, when necessary, enforcer of the laws moving forward.
ACTING CHAIR: Mr Crennan would have been in charge of making the decision of whether or not to lodge an appeal. Which commissioner within ASIC made the decision not to appeal after Mr Crennan stepped down?
Mr Shipton: Just to be clear on the governance perspective, the commission sitting as the commission enforcement committee makes all strategic and all significant decisions. Most of the time, we do this on the recommendation of the executive team. I'm not going to comment on the internal processes in one particular case except to say that I'm personally very comfortable with the overarching governance decisions that we make in relation to that matter and other matters when it comes to appealing or not appealing, or for that matter, taking cases to court in the first place.
ACTING CHAIR: Were you still on board with ASIC when that decision was made, or was that decision made after you stepped aside?
Mr Shipton: I'll take this on notice, but I understand that both Mr Crennan and I were in the office or on duty around the time that the decision was handed down. |
Hansard pp. 28-29
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC13QON |
Leigh |
ACTING CHAIR: You announced at the end of 2019 that you were commencing a formal investigation of a timeshare provider. We do know that time share can trap unwary consumers. CHOICE has one particularly egregious example of a 99-year time share costing $2,200 a year, rising at nine per cent a year, which was sold. What's the status of the investigation you have? Let's start with that formal investigation.
Ms Chester: I think the sound of silence means that I should take that question, Dr Leigh. I'm going to have to take that one on notice. I haven't had a recent update on that investigation, Dr Leigh, and, apologies, my notes don't help me either. I'll have to come back to you on that one
|
Hansard p. 29
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC14QON |
Leigh |
ACTING CHAIR: Has ASIC gone to any firms to let them know that it thinks their JobKeeper disclosure has been inadequate?
Ms Armour: I would have to take on notice further information. I know we've been having conversations with firms as part of our regular monitoring, but I would need to come back to you on whether we've specifically raised the question of inadequacy.
ACTING CHAIR: I'd be grateful if you could get back to me firstly on the threshold question of whether you've raised it with any firms and, secondly, how many firms it's been raised with. What about the issue of JobKeeper repayments. Have you any concerns about the way in which firms are disclosing that to the market? Obviously, JobKeeper repayment is welcome, but I noticed the Australian Taxation Office observing a pretty big disparity between the share of firms who said they will repay and the share of firms who actually sent a cheque to the tax office.
Ms Armour: That is an issue that we're alive to and monitoring. We're interested in making sure firms have actually done what they've publicly said that they will be doing and that their financial reports are reflecting that. At this stage I am not aware that we have any particular concerns with any particular firm, but, again, I'd be happy to come back and clarify that on notice.
|
Hansard pp. 29-30
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC15QON |
Hammond |
ACTING CHAIR: Given that conflict of interest includes perception of conflict of interest, could you all, on notice, clarify publicly the relationships between the ANAO and ASIC and also who signs off on what within ASIC. That might be useful. |
Hansard p. 32
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC16QON |
Mulino |
Dr MULINO: I wanted to start with some matters that have been covered in media reports in Toowoomba, some of which have appeared in the Chronicle. They relate to a businessman, Mr Mark Peart, who has been the director of five businesses which have fallen into external administration, I think over the last couple of years, costing creditors some hundreds of thousands of dollars, the most recent one of which is Homestead Highfields. ASIC records indicate that the company has no assets and owes 10 unsecured creditors $526,000. Some of the local media reporting of this reports comments from Nikhil Khatri of Worrells, that there's been behaviour which he finds very concerning. My understanding is that, in relation to the fourth of the five companies that have gone into administration, a Mareva order, in December 2019, Mr Khatri reached out to ASIC seeking additional funding in order to undertake receiver duties properly. Firstly, is ASIC aware of this potential pattern of behaviour? And, secondly, does ASIC have any comments on the fact that somebody from Worrells had reached out to them in relation to the fourth business wind-up?
Ms Armour: Dr Mulino, I'm sorry—I think I'll have to take those questions on notice. I don't have the detail in front of me to address the specifics of those questions. If it's okay, I'll take them on notice and bring you back the detail I can. We have what's called the Assetless Administration Fund, which is administered by ASIC, where we make funds available to administrators and liquidators to potentially pursue actions in cases where a company or an entity is insolvent and there is a prospect of wrongdoing and they're in a position to do that. I don't know in this case whether this matter is one that's been associated with that fund or an application to that fund, so I would have to come back to you on that.
|
Hansard p. 33
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC17QON |
Mulino |
Dr MULINO: Thanks. I have a couple of questions for you to take on notice. Firstly, what is ASIC's awareness of the pattern of behaviour? My understanding is there are five companies involved. As I mentioned, my understanding is that the fourth of them involved a specific request from Mr Nikhil Khatri. I have an additional question which will obviously have to go on notice. Again, this was reported publicly. My understanding is that Mr Jason Bettles, again of Worrells Solvency and Forensic Accountants, is conducting the administration of Homestead Highfields. I understand that Mr Bettles has been the subject of an ASIC investigation and potential action. I'd be interested in any information on that. Obviously, that would be a situation which would be potentially complicated by the fact that a company is being wound up with very few assets and the person administering that process is themselves being investigated. If there are any conclusions as to a potential pattern of behaviour, what are ASIC's overall conclusions as to Mr Peart's fitness and sustainability to act as a director? There has been the allegation, which I would appreciate ASIC's observations on, that some of these companies changed their names some weeks before the businesses were placed into administration and that Mr Peart's wife was made a director. I'd appreciate it if ASIC could comment on that. My understanding is that Mr Peart is currently still raising funds in relation to other entities and is using crowdfunding platforms for that purpose. I have a couple of questions around crowdfunding regulation more generally. My understanding is that there are something in the order of nine, 10 or 11 licences for crowdfunding at the moment, and we're talking about funds where in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars are being raised. I'm interested in how closely ASIC tracks the activities of those platforms and funds that are raised through them.
Ms Armour: There is a limited crowdfunding regulatory regime in Australia, which was introduced in the last few years. We do track the activities. I'm not sure whether the situation you're talking about is something that comes within our regulatory regime or is outside of it, but we'd be happy to look at it further. In the regulatory regime we administer, there are limits on the amounts that can be raised by each crowdfunding activity. That's my understanding. We'd be happy to give you more information about that as well.
Dr MULINO: I'd be also interested in ASIC's visibility of the number of companies that have raised capital on these platforms over the last few financial years and the quantum of funds that has been involved.
Ms Armour: Yes.
Dr MULINO: Also, to the extent that ASIC has visibility, how many of these companies have gone into administration, or how many situations have there been in which shareholders have lost their investments?
Ms Armour: Sure. We'll do the best that we can there. Of course, you understand that, where investments are raised from what's called the wholesale or sophisticated market, we won't have as much ready information, but we will bring you the best information we can.
Dr MULINO: That would be appreciated. I do understand that there is a trade-off here, in that the whole purpose of this area of fundraising is, in a sense, to reduce the level of formality and oversight—
Ms Armour: Yes.
Dr MULINO: but I imagine that ASIC would be wanting to monitor the extent to which investors are getting bad outcomes in order to see whether the regulatory balance is right.
|
Hansard pp. 33-34
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC18QON |
Mulino |
Dr MULINO: ... Could you follow this up on notice: I understand that depositors with neobank Xinja, which recently lost its licence, received all or most of their cash back but that the equity investors have lost their investments. Anything that you could provide on that, on notice, would be interesting.
Ms Armour: Yes.
|
Hansard p. 34
29 March 2021
|
|
| ASIC20QW |
Falinski |
At the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services hearing on 18 November 2020, I asked a question about the use of the term ‘independent’ by an asset consultant, Frontier Advisors Pty Ltd, and whether this was compliant with Section 923A of the Corporations Act. The answer on that day suggested that different rules applied to asset consultants as opposed to financial advisers, however the response provided in writing by ASIC was that Section 923A applies equally to licensed asset consultants such as Frontier as it does to financial advisers.
The response in the Question on Notice 009 did not provide a clear answer on the question of whether Frontier Advisors should be permitted to use this term, despite Commissioner Press giving a commitment at the hearing on 18 November 2020 to consider exactly where they are using that word and whether or not it contravenes the independent requirements.
I further note that ASIC have confirmed in the answers to the Questions on Notice that Frontier Advisors is licensed to provide personal advice to both retail clients and wholesale clients. I can see that Frontier Advisors are still using the term on their website “Australia’s leading independent asset consultant”.
Therefore, if Frontier Advisors is licensed to provide personal advice to retail clients and is owned by HESTA, CBUS, Australian Super and First Super, each of whom are financial product providers and each of whom are also part owners of the holding company that owns IFM Investors, which provides investment products for the wholesale market, then how can they be compliant with the requirements under Section 923A of the Corporations Act for the use of the term ‘independent’?
|
Written |
Responses to
questions 20-21
(PDF129KB) |
| ASIC21QW |
Falinski |
At the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services hearing on 18 November 2020, I asked why ASIC had issued three media releases about the prosecution of Mark Damion Kawecki who you chose to describe as a former financial adviser. The response to Question on Notice 007 included the following:
During part of the relevant period of Mr Kawecki’s offending (between 19 January 2015 and 23 December 2016), Mr Kawecki was an authorised representative contracted to provide financial services on behalf of Fiscus Capital Pty Ltd (Fiscus), the corporate authorised representative of Nexia Corporate Melbourne Pty Ltd (Nexia), the holder of Australian financial service (AFS) licence 460701.
(a) Where was Mr Mark Damion Kawecki listed on ASIC’s Authorised Representative register?
(b) Did Fiscus Capital not commence operations until 7 September 2015, nearly 9 months after the misconduct commenced?
(c) It would appear that the breach of the law was engaging in dishonest conduct related to attempts to artificially satisfy the minimum spread requirement for companies seeking to be admitted to the ASX, is that correct?
(d) Is it correct that the breach in the law was not related to Mr Kawecki’s role as a financial advisor, and that at best, he was providing some form of financial service to wholesale clients?
(e) Did Mr Kawecki, at any stage, during this time (ie. 19 January 2015 to 23 December 2016) provide personal financial advice to clients?
(f) Did ASIC rely on the fact that he was a securities representative as far back as 2004, in order to call him a ‘former financial adviser’ in the three media releases?
(g) Given all this recently revealed information, does ASIC still maintain that it was appropriate to refer to someone as a former financial adviser when the misconduct was totally unrelated to financial advice? And further that there is little evidence of him providing financial advice in the last 11 years before the misconduct occurred? |
Written |
|
ASIC22QW
|
Falinski
|
In Question on Notice 008 after the 18 November Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services hearing, I asked about ASIC funding of consumer groups. In response ASIC advised that funding of consumer groups was a practice in the past as a direct outcome of enforceable undertakings entered into by banks and other financial firms.
(a) When did this practice cease?
(b) Previous answers to questions regarding enforceable undertakings have not provided details of community benefit payments. ASIC has instead invited me to look at all the enforceable undertakings on the ASIC register. Could you give please provide the total sum of money that has been paid through these means?
(c) What other programs do ASIC have where monies are paid to advocate groups or external advocate groups?
|
Written |
(28 May 2021)
(PDF153KB) |
| ASIC23QW |
Falinski |
In regards to the operational sites used by ASIC:
(a) Are there any additional operational sites used by ASIC not listed on the website? If so where are these site located?
(b) Which sites are leased and which are owned by ASIC?
(i) Of those sites that are leased, do these leases include upkeep and renovation costs
|
Written
|
(29 June 2021)
(PDF69KB) |
ASIC24QW
|
Wilson |
For each of the past five years, please advise:
(a) The total revenue for ASIC fees for financial advisers?
(b) The total number of financial advisers issued ASIC fees?
(c) The total number of financial advisers that pay ASIC fees?
(d) The average ASIC fee for financial advisers?
(e) The median ASIC fee for financial advisers?
|
Written |
(26 August 2021)
(PDF174KB) |
ASIC25QW
|
Falinski |
In regards to fees charged by ASIC to financial advisors/planners registration, licencing and associated services:
(a) Please list all fee and charges that a financial advisor/planner could be expected to pay during the course of a year.
(b) Please list all fee increases for each of the past five years.
(c) Is the revenue from these fees hypothecated or is it used as part of general revenue to be used across all operations?
|
Written
|
(26 August 2021)
(PDF234KB)
|
ASIC26QW
|
Leigh |
In regards to small business insolvency measures:
For small businesses to be eligible for the simplified liquidation and small business restructuring measures that commenced on 1 January 2021, a company must:
• have total debts of less than $1 million;
• be up to date with all ATO lodgements;
• be up to date with payment of all employee entitlements; and
• not have had any of its directors or former directors previously involved with a Small Business Debt Restructuring (SBDR) process in the last 7 years.
(a) Has ASIC calculated the number and ratio of small business insolvencies during the 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 financial years that would not have met these criteria?
(b) Does ASIC see a need for further changes that would help small businesses that are not eligible to take advantage of the 1 January 2021 reforms to restructure their debt while remaining in control of their business?
(c) Does ASIC have a view on further steps required to ensure owners and directors of small businesses are able to restructure debt while maintaining control of their business?
|
Written
|
(26 August 2021)
(PDF207KB)
|
ASIC27QW
|
Falinski |
Is ASIC undertaking any compliance action or overview of TikTok financial influencers?
|
Written
|
(26 August 2021)
(PDF162KB)
|
ASIC29QON
|
Leigh |
Dr LEIGH: Did the government ask you to require that disclosure of listed firms?
Ms Armour: I'm not aware. From our perspective, it was business as usual.
Dr LEIGH: You might need to take this on notice, but can you tell me what date the decision was made internally within ASIC to require that disclosure? I know the announcement was on 7 July, but I'd like to know when the decision was made within ASIC.
Ms Armour: I'll take that on notice.
Dr LEIGH: Perhaps, on notice, you can also give me a really concise answer to whether or not the government asked you to do it.
Ms Armour: We're happy to do that.
|
Hansard p. 31
10 September 2021
|
(1 November 2021)
(PDF85KB)
|
ASIC30QON
|
Leigh |
Dr LEIGH: I asked earlier about repayments—I raised the issue of where firms have said, 'We'll repay JobKeeper,' but then the ATO hasn't yet gotten the cheque. I asked you about that, and the response was that ASIC may contact selected companies or the Australian Taxation Office for evidence of repayment. How frequently have you done that?
Ms Armour: I would definitely have to take that on notice, to give you that information.
Dr LEIGH: To go precisely to Premier Investments—this is an issue that I wrote to you about earlier this year—Premier Investments have not reported their JobKeeper receipt. Instead they've bundled up JobKeeper with global wage subsidies across seven countries. That is in their report which came out on 23 October 2020. And then, in their results on 24 March 2021, Premier Investments took a different approach. They decided they would tell investors the net benefit of JobKeeper. The back of my envelope says that Premier Investments got over $100 million in JobKeeper, but they haven't disclosed that—unlike almost every other listed company. Why is it one rule for Premier Investments and another rule for everyone else?
Ms Armour: The question is going to be the materiality in the context of that company's operating position. I do not have in front of me any response to your letter, so I really would need to go and get some more details for you.
|
Hansard p. 31
10 September 2021
|
(1 November 2021)
(PDF82KB)
|
ASIC31QON
|
Leigh |
Dr LEIGH: I don't think we're on the same page at all, Mr Longo. I think you're on the page that preceded the royal commission and I would be taking a much firmer approach. Almost all listed entities disclose JobKeeper, down to a fraction of a million, but there's one entity, Premier Investments—of which the largest owner is Solomon Lew—has chosen to obfuscate on JobKeeper disclosure to a very large extent. I would ask you to have another look at this and really think about whether or not a mistake, which I think could be in the order of $50 million, is something you would regard as immaterial.
Mr Longo: I'm happy to take your question on notice, Dr Leigh. I understand it's a matter that you're particularly interested in. At the end of the day, the critical question is what materiality is under the Corporations Act and the ASX rules as to whether or not a particular transaction or sum of money or an event triggered a disclosure to the market. That's all I'm saying. But I'm quite happy to take that on notice and come back to you with some additional material if we can.
|
Hansard p. 32
10 September 2021
|
(1 November 2021)
(PDF97KB)
|
ASIC32QON
|
Leigh |
Dr LEIGH: You came to this position following the resignation of Mr Shipton. Following his stepping aside, an inquiry was conducted by Vivienne Thom. How many versions of that report were done? I know there's a redacted one in the public arena. How many others are there?
Mr Longo: I would have to take that on notice. I was obviously not involved in any aspect of that inquiry. All I know is what's in the public arena, and there was a redacted one published at the end of January. I would have to take on notice as to what other versions there might be.
|
Hansard p. 33
10 September 2021
|
(1 November 2021)
(PDF77KB)
|
ASIC33QON
|
Hammond |
Ms HAMMOND: Have you got any statistics on the usage of the new insolvency provisions, which I think commenced as at 1 January?
Mr Longo: They haven't been used a lot, I can tell you that much. I don't know whether any of my fellow commissioners have the numbers at their fingertips, but I might take that question on notice to be able to give you more specific data.
Ms HAMMOND: That would be great.
|
Hansard p. 34
10 September 2021
|
(1 November 2021)
(PDF81KB)
|
ASIC34QW
|
Wilson |
Earlier this year, ASIC wrote a report regarding Dollarmites where it found that there was limited evidence of success of the programs. Within the ASIC report regarding Dollarmites stating: "Young children are vulnerable consumers and are exposed to sophisticated advertising and marketing tactics by school banking program providers” and "Advertising and marketing is persuasive and children can develop attachments to brands. The use of brand personalities and humanisation of brand imagery can help to develop children's brand salience." Yet the following advertising is tolerated by ASIC from Industry Super Australia: [IMAGES] Therefore, please outline:
a. Has ASIC investigated this Industry Super Australia advertising against the same benchmark it applied to the Commonwealth Bank?
b. If not, why not?
c. If so, what was the result of the investigation?
d. If the investigation is still progressing, when will it be completed?
e. If the investigation is still progressing, will you inform the committee of the result of the investigation when it is completed?
f. And if not, why not?
|
Written |
(1 November 2021)
(PDF84KB)
|
ASIC35QW
|
Wilson |
Until recently Industry Funds claimed they delivered “superior returns” to other superannuation funds, and yet following the introduction of the Your Future, Your Super legislation, and its performance test, EISS Super and Maritime Super, have left the group for underperformance, therefore:
a. Has ASIC investigated how long Industry Super Australia was aware of both fund’s performance?
b. If not, why not?
c. And if so, what is the timeframe?
d. Has ASIC investigated whether Industry Super Australia has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in claiming their funds deliver “superior returns” while some funds were underperforming?
e. If not, why not?
f. And if so, what is the progress of your investigation?
g. And if it is under investigation, when will the investigation be complete?
h. And will ASIC provide an additional report to the committee once it is complete?
i. And if not, why not?
|
Written |
(1 November 2021)
(PDF117KB)
|