The Minister of State Responsible for ASIC

The following list of questions has been posed by Australian Guardians to the Minister of State Responsible for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The incumbent Minister of State responsible for ASIC is the Hon Bernie Ripoll MP.

If you have a question that you would like to ask the Minister of State Responsible for ASIC post that question below.

Question on Notice – 22 June 2012

“What can I do if someone steals my compulsory Superannuation or a large part of it”?

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 4 July 2012

{For former Minister Responsible for ASIC, the Hon Chris Bowen MP}

Section 123 of the ASIC Act 2001 requires the Chairman and Commissioners (members) of ASIC to provide written disclosure notices to the Responsible Minister disclosing any direct or indirect pecuniary interest. Mr Greg Medcraft was able to comply with Section 123 when he was a Commissioner by providing you with regular six monthly disclosure notices, yet the former Chairman of ASIC Mr Tony D’Aloisio failed to provide you with even one disclosure notice when you were the Responsible Minister. The question Australian Guardians is asking on behalf of Members is:” Why as the Responsible Minister you did not direct the Governor-General to terminate the appointment of Mr D’Aloisio for the contravention of Section 123 as required by Section 111 of the ASIC Act 2001?”

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 5 July 2012

{For former Minister Responsible for ASIC, the Hon David Bradbury MP}

Section 123 of the ASIC Act 2001 requires the Chairman and Commissioners (members) of ASIC to provide written disclosure notices to the Responsible Minister disclosing any direct or indirect pecuniary interest. Mr Greg Medcraft was able to comply with Section 123 when he was a Commissioner and Chairman by providing you with regular six monthly disclosure notices, yet the former Chairman of ASIC Mr Tony D’Aloisio failed to provide you with even one disclosure notice when you were the Responsible Minister. The question Australian Guardians is asking on behalf of Members is:” Why as the Responsible Minister you did not direct the Governor-General to terminate the appointment of Mr D’Aloisio for the contravention of Section 123 as required by Section 111 of the ASIC Act 2001?”

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 6 July 2012

A Member has provided Australian Guardians with a copy of a letter dated 25 May 2012 {AG Ref: 2012/43} from the incumbent Minister of State responsible for ASIC, the Hon Bernie Ripoll MP. In this letter Mr Ripoll states:

Mr D’Aloisio’s Oakridge Estate Winery purchase was disclosed in accordance with the section 123 ASIC Act requirement.

Mr Ripoll as the Responsible Minister would have relied on the Chairman of ASIC Mr Greg Medcraft to provide the Minister with information to support such a statement.

Australian Guardians now refers the Minister to the responses Australian Guardians has received from the Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 {Refer to     FOI Act tab (The Treasury) 8 July 2011 & 2 March 2012} which clearly contradict the statement made by the Responsible Minister.

Australian Guardians also refers the Responsible Minister to subsection 13(9) of the APS Code of Conduct {Red Flag Agencies tab (Code of Conduct)}.

This Member has lodged the following question for Australian Guardians to ask the Responsible Minister:

Question on Notice – 6 July 2012

What action is the Minister of State Responsible for ASIC going to take against the Officer of ASIC who provided the Minister with false and misleading information over the compliance of the former Chairman of ASIC, Mr D’Aloisio, with Section 123 of the ASIC Act 2001 ?”

Australian Guardians reminds the Responsible Minister that it is “sacking offence” under Section 111 of the ASIC Act 2001 if the Chairman (or a Commissioner) of ASIC contravenes Section 123 of the ASIC Act 2001 without reasonable cause.

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 13 August 2012

What assurance can the Minister of State responsible for ASIC give 12 million unique Members of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds that Officers of ASIC are not taking bribes to protect the perpetrators of Superannuation Fraud instead of the victims?

What other explanation can the Minister provide as to why Officers of ASIC refuse to investigate and enforce the Corporations Act 2001 when Officers of the Trustee of a Government Regulated Superannuation Fund engage in criminal conduct, such as contravening the Trustee’s disclosure obligations under subsections 1017C(2) and/or 1017C(5) of the Corporations Act 2001?

These Fund Documents are a Member’s or Beneficiary’s first line of defence against fraud by the Trustee of their Superannuation Fund.

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 26 August 2012

Does the Responsible Minister believe that Australians have a legal right to be afforded Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness) when they seek the assistance of Government Agencies such as ASIC when large sums of money may be involved?

That is do they have a legal right to have their complaint dealt with my an unbiased decision maker with no undisclosed pecuniary interests and the right to a fair hearing by that decision maker?

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 27 August 2012

In a letter dated 6 December 2011 {ASIC Ref: MRZ 2011/22327} an Officer of ASIC confirmed that it was ASIC policy to deny Members of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds access to Fund Documents once they have been paid a “peppercorn” benefit by the Trustee of their Fund.

Can the Responsible Minister advise the 12 Million unique members of 30 Million accounts in Government Regulated Superannuation Funds of why they should have any confidence that they will receive their lawful superannuation benefit, and large amounts will not be stolen,  when it is ASIC policy to deny these Members the very means of checking their superannuation benefits?

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 2 October 2012

Can the Minister confirm that ASIC received no complaints from any shareholder of Fortescue Metals Group nor from any member of the public over alleged statements made by Mr Andrew Forrest, yet the former Chairman of ASIC, Mr Tony D’Aloisio decided to appeal the decision of the trial judge that Mr Forrest had no case to answer.

The High Court on 2 October 2012 vindicated Mr Forrest with costs awarded again ASIC, that is the Australian Tax Payer has to pay for this farce.

Can the Minister please advise what accountability do officers of ASIC have when large amounts of taxpayers’ money are wasted on cases where there are no complainants?

Answer: Awaiting

Australian Guardian – Protecting your wealth when no one else will®

 Question on Notice – 6 October 2012

Can the Minister confirm that Trustees of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds are required to provide copies of prescribed Fund Documents to Members or Beneficiaries of the Fund as required by Section 1017C of the Corporations Act 2001?

Can the Minister confirm that it is a criminal offence under Item 297B of Schedule 3 of the Corporations Act 2001 to contravene Subsection 1017C(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment?

Can the Minister confirm that it is the responsibility of ASIC to enforce the Corporations Act 2001?

Can the Minister also confirm that the Minister has power under Section 14 of the ASIC Act 2001 to direct ASIC to investigate any alleged or suspected  contravention of the Corporations Act 2001?

Can the Minister please explain to the 12 Million unique Members of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds as to why the Minister has not given such a direction in the Public Interest when there is criminal conduct associated with a Government Regulated Superannuation Fund?

Can the Minister please explain why in a letter dated 25 May 2012 the Minister claimed it was a matter for the “Commonwealth police” (ie Australian Federal Police) to enforce the Corporations Act 2001?

If there has been a criminal contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 it is the statutory role of ASIC to prepare a Brief of Evidence for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions so that proceedings can be commenced in the Courts.

Will the Minister now give a direction under Section 14 of the ASIC Act 2001 to ensure that Section 1017C of the Corporations Act 2001 is enforced so that Trustees cannot conceal their frauds and the theft of millions of dollars from the Members and Beneficiaries of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds?

Answer: Awaiting

Question on Notice – 12 October 2012

Sparkie bluffed by corrupt lawyers at ASIC.

Would the Responsible Minister agree that he has been totally bluffed by corrupt lawyers at ASIC putting the Public’s confidence in Australia’s $1 Trillion superannuation industry at risk.

But then the Labor Government is going to “legally” steal $30 Billion from Super Funds to cover the deficit so why draw the line a “legal” vs “illegal” theft of Australian workers hard earned superannuation?

In a letter dated 6 December 2011 {ASIC Ref: MRZ 2011/22327} an Officer of ASIC confirmed that it was ASIC policy to deny Members of Government Regulated Superannuation Funds access to Fund Documents once they have been paid a “peppercorn” benefit by the Trustee of their Fund.

Can the Responsible Minister advise the 12 Million unique members of 30 Million accounts in Government Regulated Superannuation Funds of why they should have any confidence that they will receive their lawful superannuation benefit, and large amounts will not be stolen,  when it is ASIC policy to deny these Members the very means of checking their superannuation benefits?

Answer: Awaiting

 

Australian Guardians – Protecting your wealth when no one else will®

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>