When the Government responded to the Murray Inquiry, it had already announced, in June 2015, a review to consider the capabilities of ASIC. The panel appointed to conduct that review provided its report to Government in December 2015. The panel recommended changing the governance of ASIC ‘to achieve a clear separation of the non‑executive (governance) and executive line management roles’.[1] ASIC Commissioners would form a full‑time non‑executive internal board of the Commission, and operational decision–making and execution of operational matters would be delegated to the senior executive level, reporting directly to a new Head of Office of ASIC.[2]
Against the background of these recommendations about governance, the panel endorsed the Government’s position not to proceed with the Murray Inquiry recommendation to establish a Financial Regulator Assessment Board, not seeing the need for ‘another regulator to regulate the regulators’.[3]
ASIC did not adopt the governance model the panel had proposed but did ‘adopt new initiatives to support [ASIC’s] role and focus on strategy and accountability’.[4] ASIC identified three initiatives: enhanced management information and performance reporting; a review of the mandate, membership, effectiveness and role of committees; and a review of Commissioners’ engagement with stakeholders.[5]
[1] ASIC Capability Review, Report, 14.
[2] ASIC Capability Review, Report, 14.
[3] ASIC Capability Review, Report, 17.
[4] Exhibit 7.63, Witness statement of James Shipton, 7 November 2018, Exhibit JS-7 [ASIC.0800.0016.0905 at .0001–.0002].
[5] Exhibit 7.63, Witness statement of James Shipton, 7 November 2018, Exhibit JS-7 [ASIC.0800.0016.0905 at .0002].