Navigation: Previous Page | Contents
Answers to questions on notice
ASIC Oversight hearing, 11 March, 2011
Australian Investment and Securities Commission
Question on notice 1, (Proof Hansard, pp 33 – 35)
Topic: Duplication of Complaints
Mr Day—As you know, ASIC
receives around 14,000 reports of misconduct, or complaints, a year. Of those,
I think it is important to note that about 21 per cent are not in the
jurisdiction. They relate to other things and there is no actual information
there that gives grounds for an offence. So 21 per cent are not something that
ASIC would ever be able to action, for those reasons. We count the 14,000 as
everything that comes through the door. We register and acknowledge everything
that comes through the door and everything gets considered, initially, in that
space. We aim to do 70 per cent of that initial assessment within 28 days. So
70 per cent of those who put in a complaint will get a response within 28 days.
In terms of the criteria and the
matrix of issues that will apply to that, our formal assessment takes into
account the information that the report contains. We will look at other
antecedents. Have we been told about that individual party before? We match up
previous information out of our database. We will take into account other
sources of information that we might have received from other agencies or from
other parts of ASIC. We match all those up, so it is not just taken in
isolation without the context of other things. It is an important component of
what we do.
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—You said
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—You
might want to take this on notice, but what proportion of that would be repeat
business, where you have multiple complaints in an area? Would it be 50 per
Mr Day—We refer to them
internally as duplicates. Those are ones that are about the same thing. Or are
you talking about a person who has come back more than once?
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—No—the
Mr Day—We could probably
tell you that.
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—Do you
want to take it on notice?
Mr Day—I am happy to take
it on notice. The thing you need to be careful about with that, as Mr Ripoll would know, is in relation to a matter like Storm it is in the hundreds. The
commission said some time ago that they put a threshold that anything that has
a certain number, like a hundred complaints, needs to go to the commission. I
can tell you that what we would call a high-volume matter is something that has
something like eight complaints. That is not to say that we do not get matters
that have 50 to 100 complaints. That happens occasionally, although in the last
12 months there has been less of that.
CHAIRMAN—But there is no
CHAIRMAN—If there was
just one complaint, if it was significant—
Mr Day—I would not be
able to mention the details of them but I could point to a number of things in
the last three months that have been accepted for further investigation by our
deterrence teams that have been on the basis of one complaint and no other
information. In terms of the threshold, it does not need more than one. But if
you like, Mr Smith, I can still take on notice the question about—
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—I do not
want you to create a bureaucracy. I am not going to hold you to precise
Mr Day—We will see what
we can provide.
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—What I
was really getting at is that, at any given point in time, 10 or 20 per
cent—you tell us—might be an ongoing matter. For instance, there was one that
was public last year dealing with some telecommunications and small business
matters. There was a crossover with the relevant ombudsman, for instance. At
any given point in time, I imagine, you would have a certain percentage that
are ongoing and then you would have new complaints coming in. What you are
saying is that the substance of just a single complaint is sufficient. That is
really what I was getting at.
ASIC has reviewed the complaints data for the last three
years and identified those matters which were merged together for ease of
handling. The table below shows the proportion of complaints raising the same
issue since July 2007.
Number of Complaints
% raising same issues
However, it may be that some of the remaining complaints
will have raised duplicate issues to other complaints but were not identified
in the review.
Question on notice 2, (Proof
Hansard, pp 36 – 37)
Topic: Following up on
D’Aloisio, a complaint we often get into our offices or from people who write
to us is that ASIC ‘isn’t doing anything about X, Y and Z’, that there is no
response or that you are not acting on what, on the surface, might appear to
some people to be ‘a case’—
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—It is
CHAIRMAN—Or it is still
happening. A fund that has had some issues—perhaps fraud, and I could go
through a number of specific ones. Generally speaking, we do get regular
complaints. I want to give you the opportunity to satisfy us about this process
of dealing with not just a complaint but with the matter, whether it is through
litigation or through a particular action, that ASIC follows through on every
single one as it were. That leads on from my question about the resourcing
issue, but really I want to be confident—I am sure all the committee members
want to be confident—that ASIC fulfils all of that to some satisfactory level,
and hopefully that would then in turn satisfy people who complain about this
view that either nothing or not enough is being done.
Mr D’Aloisio—It is a big
question, Chairman. What I would like to do is not so much take it on notice
but think about it a bit more and come back to you and give you an answer today
as well. [...]
CHAIRMAN—Thanks for that.
I appreciate that. So in terms of some follow-up that you said you would
provide, maybe there are two particular areas of focus. One is that method of
communication—while fully understanding what you have explained about what you
can and cannot communicate, for all the right reasons—and maybe looking at how
that is actually taken on board so that people, organisations or whoever it
might be can feel satisfied that ASIC is undertaking its duties fully. So it is
more of an opportunity for the commission to be able to give people some
comfort that whatever it is that you are doing is satisfactory. The other one
is around the idea or concept, certainly given what is portrayed to us as
members of parliament, that a case might not be of interest to ASIC and there
is a perception sometimes that, as has been explained to me, ASIC thinks it is
too small, insignificant, not important enough, does not have enough public
interest or whatever it might be. The complaint that is around is, ‘Look, there
is a case that exists but it’s just not important to ASIC,’ whereas it is
important to the particular person that is raising the issue. So on those two
themes there is maybe an opportunity to satisfy not only this committee but the
public as well.
Mr D’Aloisio—Let me take
both of those and we will give you a response. In giving you a response we will
also do some internal spot reviews to illustrate our answer, to explain why our
answer is what it is, so that it gives you a bit more meat—without naming
individuals—about the issues that concern us when we balance individual rights
against those of the public interest, the community interest, in trying to
strike the right balance between keeping people informed and at the same time
protecting those rights.
Possible question: What does
ASIC do when it receives a report of misconduct?
ASIC has a dedicated group, with
staff in each of ASIC's offices, to receive, record, assess and refer reports
of misconduct (complaints) that it receives, called Misconduct and Breach
Reporting (MB&R). All such reports are received are registered in ASIC's
internal and confidential national complaints management database within 1
business day of receipt. All reports of misconduct are acknowledged (insofar
as the complainant provided contact details) by way of an acknowledgement
letter and accompanying brochure explaining how ASIC deals with these reports. This
acknowledgement letter is usually sent to the complainant on the day of
registration of their complaint. For Market Integrity matters, the
acknowledgement letter advises complainants that they will not hear further
from ASIC unless we need further information due to the sensitivity of these
matters. These reports of misconduct need to be treated with sensitivity,
because if the complainant was aware if ASIC was taking further steps, or
misrepresents this, it has the potential to move the share price of a stock,
possibly for no good reason.
Once registered, reports of
misconduct are preliminarily reviewed by a team leader who also classifies the
matter in accordance with set keywords to enable ASIC to track and identify
trends and enable accurate reporting. The team leader then allocates the
matter to an appropriate M&BR analyst or lawyer for assessment.
ASIC is committed to finalising
70% of reports of misconduct received within 28 days of receipt. This
commitment (as expressed in ASIC's Service Charter) reflects that ASIC may
sometimes take longer to consider a complaint – for instance where the matter
is complex or if ASIC determines that further evidence should be obtained prior
to assessing the allegations of misconduct. Currently, for the year to date,
ASIC is finalising around 80% within 28 days.
How does ASIC assess and
prioritise reports of misconduct?
ASIC formally assesses every report
of misconduct it receives to determine whether breaches of the legislation
administered by ASIC may have occurred. As part of this process, we gather
further information from internal and external sources to test the complaint
(for example liquidator reports and AUSTRAC data), examine known history or
intelligence about the subjects (including cross-referencing antecedent
complaints, surveillances and investigations) and review the law to determine
whether there has been a breach and if so, what action may be available to ASIC
or the complainant to take.
Where a report of misconduct is
assessed as being outside of ASIC's jurisdiction or where we believe there is
no breach of the law, we will provide information to assist the complainant in
resolving their issue. This may for example involve a referral to a more
appropriate government agency or direct them to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
In cases where a suspected
breach falling within ASIC's jurisdiction is identified, M&BR will consider
whether to recommend further action on the basis of the following primary
What legal action can ASIC take?
Is the evidence likely to be sufficient to support the
How urgent and serious is the complaint, and would action support
one of ASIC's stated priorities?
If ASIC succeeds, will people behave better in future?
M&BR's recommendations are
based on Commission priorities, Stakeholder and Deterrence Team priorities, as
well as the above questions.
How does ASIC action reports
of misconduct that are assessed as requiring action?
Matters considered to be serious
enough are automatically escalated for SEL referral to an ASIC Deterrence
team. Liaison is also undertaken with appropriate Stakeholder Teams within
ASIC to ensure that the recommendation is appropriate.
Where a matter is considered to
be of a systemic nature or where supporting evidence is lacking to warrant a
formal Deterrence investigation, a referral to a Stakeholder Team for
surveillance or compliance action may be considered.
Where a matter is referred to a
Deterrence or Stakeholder Team, the file is transferred to that team for
further consideration and potential action, and insofar as it would not
jeopardise any potential investigation or action ASIC may be considering, the
complainant is usually advised of this referral.
What does ASIC do when if it
decides not to take action in respect of a report for misconduct?
Like other government agencies,
ASIC is unable to pursue every potential actionable matter due to finite
resources, competing priorities, lack of regulatory impact, lack of supporting
evidence, lack of jurisdiction or alternative remedies available to the
complainant to pursue.
In cases where ASIC decides not
to take action in relation to a report of misconduct, the matter is recorded
for intelligence purposes on an internal, confidential database to enable
future cross-referencing, should further complaints or intelligence come to
ASIC's attention. This approach ensures that ASIC is able to identify
potential systemic issues and patterns of misconduct. Furthermore, assistance
and information is provided to the complainant where possible, to assist in
resolving the complaint or to help the complainant's understanding of other
options that may be available to pursue privately.
In every case, the party
reporting misconduct to ASIC is contacted to confirm whether or not ASIC will
be considering the matter further and, where possible or required, why ASIC
will not be actioning the matter further.
Further review and
ASIC is reviewing the manner in
which it communicates with those who report misconduct to it. In this,
consideration needs to be given to legal or other reasons for not providing
information about why ASIC is not taking action, or where it is, what the
nature of that is and providing those who reported the misconduct with ongoing
reports as to what ASIC is doing.
Further, the M&BR team is
reviewing its handling of reports of misconduct to see what can be done to:
speed the process up further;
provide assistance sooner so the public can consider whether
matters need to be raised with other agencies and not for ASIC unnecessarily;
provide clear and transparent information about what ASIC's
attitude to certain complaints are (i.e. a large group of complaints relate to
inter-director disputes in small proprietary limited companies, of which ASIC
is generally of the view are private matters between the parties, which do not
require ASIC to commit resources to as a matter of public policy).
This additional information, over time, will be available
on ASIC's website to help the community make informed decisions and better
understand how ASIC can assist them.
Question on notice 3, (Proof
Hansard, p. 38)
Topic: Reporting on Cases
which do not proceed to litigation
CHAIRMAN—[...] The Office
of Legal Services Coordination relies on agencies like ASIC to provide them
with details as to self-regulation in terms of any litigation that you are
going to take on. Could you give us some idea of the level at which you do
Mr D’Aloisio—In addition
to the certificate I give on compliance with Legal Services Directions, we
report the cases we take on, the costs of counsel that we brief and the time.
There is a range of reports that we provide back through—
include the cases that you do not take on? Does it go to the positive and the
negative in terms of reporting?
Mr D’Aloisio—I will check
that. I will take that one. I do not think it does go to the negative.
CHAIRMAN—I will explain
why I am asking the question. I am assuming there is 100 per cent compliance
and I am certainly satisfied that it is the case that ASIC does report to the
OLSC in terms of any potential breaches that ASIC might have and in terms of
following the model litigant rules et cetera. But they are for all the cases
that you do take on. What I am interested in is the decisions in the cases that
you decide not to take on. So if there is a decision made, do you report that
Mr D’Aloisio—If there is
no case to answer or if a matter is a ‘no further action’—or an NFA—I do not
think we report that to the Attorney-General’s Department. I will check. But in
any event that material is available to us, to the commission and internally,
and I can give those statistics to the commission. In other words, we can look
at a 12-month period or whatever it is and outline the number of actions. We
already report the investigations we take on—those where we are successful and
those where we are not successful—and in that process we can also extract those
where we decide that the evidence might be of a nature that requires no further
action or where the public interest considerations are not met. We can give
those numbers as well.
ASIC is not required to report
to OLSC on the matters which have not resulted in litigation. The Legal
Services Directions 2005 (the Directions) have limited application to such
matters. The decision whether or not progress a complaint or litigation is
ultimately a regulatory decision informed by ASIC's statutory mandate rather
than a legal decision to which the Directions apply.
ASIC provides a range of reports
to OLSC. Some of these reports are required by the Directions, such as reports
of any apparent or alleged breaches of the Directions (paragraphs 11.1(d) and
11.2 of the Directions) and reports on expenditure on legal services
(paragraphs 11.1(ba) and (da) of the Directions). ASIC also has a number of
reporting obligations arising from the two exemptions which have been granted
to ASIC. These include a requirement for a quarterly report on all litigation
being conducted by ASIC using its internal lawyers rather than external solicitors.
They do not include any obligation to report on matters which have not
proceeded to litigation.
The Directions apply to
agencies' use of legal services and their handling of litigation and
"claims". The Directions include a number of obligations which have
to be fulfilled as part of a decision to commence litigation. They do not
include any obligations that specifically address a decision not to commence
litigation. At ASIC, such a decision may be made at a number of different
stages along the process of progressing a complaint or investigation. Such
decisions may involve obtaining internal or external legal advice and, when
this occurs, the advice is obtained in accordance with those parts of the
Directions which apply to the obtaining of legal advice. There is no general
obligation to report decisions not to commence litigation to OLSC.
The term "claim" is
not defined in the Directions but, based on the context in which it is used in
the Directions, ASIC considers that it applies primarily to claims by or
against the Commonwealth arising from matters such as claims for compensation
against the Commonwealth or contractual matters involving the Commonwealth and
another party. There are a number of obligations relating to the handling of
claims, including the Appendix C to the Directions which requires monetary
claims by or against an agency to be settled in accordance with legal policy
and practice. There is no general obligation to report claims, including
claims that are resolved without litigation.
ASIC keeps statistics in
relation to these matters for the purposes of internally managing the matters
we decide to action or to take no further action on and to ensure effective
planning in terms of staff and other resources needed to maximise our actions
and support the community. We are continuing to look at ways in which we can
make available these numbers for the information of the committee.
Question on notice 4 (Proof
Hansard, pp 38 - 39)
Topic: ASIC, Model litigant
rules and higher public interest
CHAIRMAN—Still on the
theme of the model litigant rules, they are quite specific about how it all
operates and the role that ASIC and other agencies need to play in adhering to
those rules. Do you believe ASIC has a special case in the sense that there
might be times when, rather than follow a settlement path, you have a higher
public interest case because of giving examples to the market or setting a
legal precedent or doing something which might have a further benefit?
Mr D’Aloisio—Do you mean
outside the Legal Services Directions?
CHAIRMAN—Yes, where ASIC
does make, or has the capacity to make, a decision not to follow model litigant
rules on the basis that there is a higher public interest.
Mr D’Aloisio—I am not
aware of any example where I have been involved or this commission has been
involved in making that decision, that we would make a decision irrespective of
the model litigant rules. Is there an example, Chairman?
interests and the Attorney-General’s interests are entirely consistent. At the
end of the day we are a law enforcement agency and we work within law
enforcement agency rules. There are some differences. For example, we can brief
barristers probably more easily than some other agencies can in terms of some
of the rules that are in place, but they are generally procedural rules. But on
the substantive points of how we conduct litigation and judgments about what is
in the public interest, I am not aware that we would say, ‘Notwithstanding what
the model litigant rules provide, we will go in this direction and then report
it to the Attorney.’ I have not had this question before—so it is not one that
I have thought through—because the default always is that you are a
Commonwealth agency and you comply with the agency rules. I do not see a
circumstance right off. I am happy to think about it, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN—Okay. I will
pursue it at some other point in time. I thought there might be a special case
for ASIC where I think it would be a positive for ASIC to particularly go down
a path which might not be entirely consistent with the model litigant rules
because there is a higher public interest case.
Mr D’Aloisio—We will have
a look at it. As for the most recent example, special leave to the High Court
on James Hardie on an important point of law, when we looked at it we saw it
affected ASIC and other agencies—probably ASIC more so—and the model litigant
rules have provision for that. I will take it on notice.
The Legal Services Directions
2005 (the Directions), including the Directions on the
Commonwealth's Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant at Appendix B (the
Model Litigant Obligations), are not inconsistent with ASIC's statutory
mandate or regulatory objectives. Compliance with the Directions is not
discretionary but, in any event, ASIC has not identified a need to act in a
manner inconsistent with the Directions.
Paragraph 4.2 of the states
Claims are to be handled and litigation is to be
conducted by the agency in accordance with the Directions on the Commonwealth's
Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant at Appendix B, noting that the agency is
not to start legal proceedings unless it is satisfied that litigation is the
most suitable method of dispute resolution.
ASIC is required to comply with
the Directions under s55ZG of the Judiciary Act 1903.
In addition to the wording of
paragraph 4.2 of the Directions set out above, Appendix B to the Directions
sets out a number of other obligations to consider alternative dispute
resolution and to limit the areas in dispute in litigation. Paragraph 2 of the
Model Litigant Obligations contains a number of sub-paragraphs which set out
various aspects of the obligations and relevantly include:
(d) endeavouring to avoid,
prevent and limit the scope of legal proceedings wherever possible, including
by giving consideration in all cases to alternative dispute resolution before
initiating legal proceedings and by participating in alternative dispute
resolution processes where appropriate
(e) where it is not possible to
avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by:
(iii) monitoring the progress of
the litigation and using methods that it considers appropriate to resolve the
litigation, including settlement offers, payments into court or alternative
(h) not undertaking and pursuing
appeals unless the Commonwealth or the agency believes that it has reasonable
prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public
In each case, the requirement
allows for each individual agency to determine what may constitute, for
example, "the most suitable form of dispute resolution" (paragraph
4.2 of the Directions) or "methods that it considers appropriate to
resolve the litigation" (paragraph 2(e)(iii) of the Model Litigant
Obligations). Paragraph 2(h) of the Model Litigant Obligations expressly
refers to appeals being "justified in the public interest". For a
regulatory and enforcement agency such as ASIC, consideration of what is "suitable"
or "appropriate" will be made in the context of any regulatory
outcome that ASIC seeks to achieve from litigation, consistent with its
From time to time the most
"suitable" or "appropriate" course for ASIC will includes
some form of dispute resolution or settlement. ASIC regularly participates in
dispute resolution of its enforcement matters and sometimes settles such
matters. Prior to the commencement of litigation, ASIC will consider the
available evidence and the regulatory responses available under the relevant
statutes. These may include non-litigious outcomes such as the acceptance of
Question on notice 5 (Proof
Hansard, p. 41)
Topic: Complaints and frozen
CHAIRMAN—To follow up on
the complaints area: can you give is an idea of the level of complaints and
what they revolve around at the moment.
Mr Day—In relation to
Mr Day—I do not have that
information in front of me, but we can provide that on notice.
CHAIRMAN—I would be interested
to see. I assume there would be fewer complaints today.
Mr Day—Yes, without a
doubt. As Commissioner Medcraft said, when we get those we are speaking to the
relevant stakeholder team investment managers so we can facilitate and foster a
discussion with the fund.
could take on notice to provide the committee with a short brief on where it is
today in terms of complaints, what the complaints are and if they are being
Mr Medcraft—We have an information
sheet that we publish online for investors in frozen funds. It advises them of
Mr Day—A lot of those in
those circumstances we push back to the service that assists with that and
gives them the information that Commissioner Medcraft referred to.
The table below shows a monthly
breakdown of the number of complaints ASIC has received about frozen funds
since January 2010. The "spike" in August last year was due to a
number of duplicate complaints raising concerns by unit holders in the Pacific
First Mortgage Fund (formerly the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund) prior to
the meeting held on 1 September 2010. The matter was referred to ASIC's
surveillance team who raised the complainant's concerns with the Fund. The
meeting went ahead on 1 September with the proposed resolutions failing to
achieve the required majority. The fund has continued to update investors via
Since then, the number of
complaints received about frozen funds has declined to an average of approximately
10 per month. These largely fall into three categories - those raising initial
concerns with ASIC about their inability to access their investment in the
frozen funds; those complaining about a fund's failure to implement a hardship
policy; and those who have been unsuccessful in attempting to access their
Where complainants have come to
ASIC for the first time, ASIC responds to them by providing ASIC's Information
Sheet 111: information for investors in frozen funds. ASIC also advises
complainants that the development of a hardship policy is a matter for the
individual fund. Where complainants have made an unsuccessful application for
funds, they are referred to the Fund's dispute resolution procedures.
Question on notice 6 (Proof
Hansard, p. 43)
Topic: Statistics on
prosecution of women
cannot go past the 100th anniversary this week of International Women’s Day and
the discussion on women on boards and women as directors without talking about
the gender breakdown of people who are being prosecuted, whether there is, as
Pru Goward said this morning, an incredible risks to shareholders to try to
increase the number of women on boards by taking some quite specific measures.
How does the gender issue play out in terms of ASIC’s compliance regime?
Mr D’Aloisio—It is
certainly not an issue that has been raised with me. Obviously, as an agency,
issues of gender do not really come into consideration in prosecutions and so
on. But I am happy to look back at the statistics over 12 months—
would be helpful.
Mr D’Aloisio—and just
extract it for you on a statistical basis and provide it to you. It is an
interesting point that has been raised.
ASIC does not record the gender
of directors of companies, nor does it categorise prosecutions in terms of
gender. However, an analysis of the available information indicates that of
the 454 individuals prosecuted by ASIC in 2010, 15% were women.
Question on notice 7 (Proof
Hansard, p. 47)
Topic: Complaints about
interesting issue for us is to what extent those organisations that are
regulated by ASIC would have more or fewer complaints or compliance issues than
any other organisations.
Mr Day—I can say off the
top of my head that we occasionally get the odd complaint about a
not-for-profit, but in terms of what level it is as a percentage of the
population that we regulate, as John Price has pointed out, I would not be able
to say now. I could take that away and come back to you about that.
Senator STEPHENS—It would
be very helpful for us to understand the extent to which there are compliance
issues within the ASIC regulatory framework.
As at December 2010, ASIC 's
records indicate that there were 1,796,738 companies registered in Australia
of which 95 215 were not-for-profit (5.3%).
The table below shows the number of complaints received about
not-for-profit companies as a proportion of all complaints.
Number of Complaints
Number about not-for-profit companies
Proportion of Complaints
Question on notice 8 (Proof Hansard, p. 48)
Topic: Nature of issues raised in the not-for-profit
CHAIRMAN—In reference to the not-for-profit sector,
are there any particular issues for ASIC in terms of its oversight of what is
really just a small percentage of the whole sector in terms of their level of
compliance as compared to the rest of the licensees that ASIC has?
Mr Price—It sort of goes back to Mr Day’s comments a
little earlier. I am certainly not aware of anything.
Mr Medcraft—I can probably comment, Mr Chairman,
because I attended a session with you last year or the year before and I got
some statistics on it, in terms of complaints, about two years ago. Most of the
complaints were about governance coming from the not-for-profit sector, and we
can come back with that. For the number of corporations that we have in this sector,
the number of complaints was actually relatively high, but, as I said, the
nature of them related to governance. That is my recollection, but we can come
back with more detail.
Senator STEPHENS—It would be helpful if you could
look at it again.
Mr Day—We can refresh the information about that.
In the main, the issues raised in the not-for-profit sector
appear to be internal issues as to control and decision making within the
company and access to financial reports of not-for-profit companies. By and
large ASIC sees these as internal matters to be resolved by the organisation and
rarely require ASIC's intervention.
Australian Securities Exchange
Question on notice 1, (Proof Hansard, pp 5–6)
Topic: ASIC Report: ASIC supervision of markets and
CHAIRMAN—ASIC did a
report last year on market supervision called REP 227: ASIC supervision of
markets and participants. In there they refer to trading alerts, referrals
on investigations and similar activities, including a whole range of other
Mr Lewis—As I said, I have not read
the report in detail. I am aware of it. I recently saw the press reports and
some of the press releases on that.
CHAIRMAN—Can you take that on notice.
I would be interested to hear the ASX’s view on that particular report, whether
there are any issues that come out of that and whether it is something that the
ASX wants to comment on. I am happy for you to take that on notice. Just write
back to the committee with your assessment or your opinion of the particular
Mr ANTHONY SMITH—Just on the question
that the chair raises, if there is some sort of comparative analysis that you
are able to do on what that report showed compared to the period prior to the
handover that would be good. On notice is fine.
Mr Lewis—Yes. I certainly do remember
reading the summaries in the press of the market surveillance activities that
have been undertaken and the number of alerts that they were generating and the
fact that the volume of alerts in their market monitoring system, which is
known as SMARTS, was generating was in fact consistent with the volume of
alerts that we were generating.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents
Back to top