Is ASIC under-funding the Super Complaints Tribunal?
The Federal Government has been urged to get the financial services regulators — the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) — out of the external dispute resolution (EDR) process.
At the same time, the Government has been warned that there is a widely-held view in the superannuation industry that ASIC has been diverting funding intended to resource the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) towards its own regulatory activities.
Financial services barrister and panellist on the SCT, Noel Davis, has called for the retention of the tribunal as the best EDR for the superannuation industry but has raised key questions about the involvement of ASIC and APRA in the funding equations and the manner in which SCT resourcing has declined.
"A widely held view in the superannuation industry is that part of the levies paid by the industry for the SCT and collected by ASIC are being retained by ASIC to fund regulation," he said in a submission filed with the Treasury.
He said the consequence had been that matters before the SCT which had previously been dealt with within around 12 months were now taking up to three or four years — something which was unacceptable for people who are unemployed and are disputing a disablement claim.
Referring to the financial services levy collected by APRA, Davis said there had to be transparency in relation to funding and the way in which levies are spent, so that industry could be confident that levies are directed solely to the purpose for which they are paid.
"An independent government tribunal should not be associated in any way with ASIC or APRA because it is inappropriate for an independent tribunal to be seen to be associated in any way with a regulator," he said.
Recommended for you
Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones has shared further details on the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms including modernising best interests duty and reforming Statements of Advice.
The Federal Court has found a company director guilty of operating unregistered managed investment schemes and carrying on a financial services business without holding an AFSL.
The Governance Institute has said ASIC’s governance arrangements are no longer “fit for purpose” in a time when financial markets are quickly innovating and cyber crime becomes a threat.
Compliance professionals working in financial services are facing burnout risk as higher workloads, coupled with the ever-changing regulation, place notable strain on staff.
