There are events in the history of ASIC and APRA’s relationship that show the harm that can come from a lack of co-ordination.
In April 2003, the Report of the HIH Royal Commission was published, providing early insight into the relationship between ASIC and APRA. The HIH Commission found failings in the joint relationship. These included deficiencies in information exchange on APRA’s part, which meant that ASIC was less well–informed of issues concerning HIH than it should have been.[1]
Commissioner Owen said:[2]
The evidence indicated there were difficulties in the relationship between ASIC and APRA. Those arose principally from the fact that the two organisations took on overlapping and unclearly delineated roles from June 1998 in relation to financial service providers … The differences in regulatory approach extended … to information exchange between the two agencies, which was the subject of regular debate in the ASIC–APRA coordinating committee. [An ASIC employee] said that although there were legislative restrictions on such exchange, APRA was ‘conservative’ in its interpretation of those restrictions.
The Commission concluded that sensible co–ordination of relevant activities and exchange of information of possible interest to the other was required.[3] In particular, the Commission recommended that communications and exchanges should be undertaken in a systematic way (through both formal and informal means) and based on clear protocols.[4]
[1]See HIH Royal Commission, Final Report, vol 3, 466–7 [24.3.4].
[2] HIH Royal Commission, Final Report, vol 3, 466–7 [24.3.4].
[3] HIH Royal Commission, Final Report, vol 3, 466–7 [24.3.4].
[4] See HIH Royal Commission, Final Report, vol 3, 466–7 [24.3.4]. See also Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Inquiry into the Collapse of Trio Capital, May 2012. I say no more about that report.