The dual regulatory system covering the Australian financial services industry means superannuation funds are encountering inconsistency of approach not only between the regulatory bodies, but the different state offices of those bodies, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
In a submission to the Administrative Review Council on Government Agency Coercive Information-gathering Powers, ASFA pointed to the roles of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).
It said where more than one agency or regulator was involved, there was a need for consistency of agency trigger powers.
It said feedback from members suggested “there were not only inconsistencies between ASIC and APRA, but inconsistencies in how officers in different state offices of a regulator dealt with issues”.
“Appropriate training, accreditation, monitoring and audit of the use of powers are needed to ensure consistent application of the triggers,” the submission said.
ASFA went on to say that it was concerned that some agencies went beyond “or at the very least stretched what is generally understood as the objectives of the legislation”.
It cited an instance where APRA had gone to a number of superannuation funds seeking copies of periodic statements and fee data — a function normally carried out by ASIC.
“APRA also only asked a few funds, gave no satisfactory reasons for its (rather than ASIC’s) interest and no report or explanation followed,” the submission said.
It added that there was then only a vague reference in the communication to the fact that provision of the information was “voluntary”, but everything else about the request gave a clear impression that the request was mandatory.
