When a Regulator Asks for Feedback – Then Deletes It

By James Mawhinney

This week, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) called for contributions from the public on LinkedIn: “How can regulation by ASIC be simpler and more effective?”

It’s a good question. Regulators should invite dialogue from members of the public, particularly those most impacted by their actions. They should want to hear from the people and businesses they affect every day. They should welcome constructive ideas about how to be better.

So, I contributed. I took the time to share feedback based on my 5+ years of first-hand experience in having my life, my family's and our many clients' lives turned upside down by ASIC — feedback that was respectful, constructive, and relevant to the question ASIC itself had posed.

But instead of engaging with my perspective, ASIC hid my comment from public view.

My feedback which ASIC censored from public view.

ASIC's request for public feedback on being a better regulator.

This act is telling. When a regulator silences the very voices it asks to be heard, it exposes a troubling contradiction. It suggests that calls for public feedback may be more about optics than genuine listening. It is the epitome of authoritarianism when Australia needs a balanced, objective, considerate regulator.

Censoring feedback — particularly feedback that challenges or questions their performance — undermines trust. It risks creating the perception of an echo chamber where only agreeable or superficial comments are permitted.

ASIC holds enormous power over people’s livelihoods, businesses, and reputations. If it asks, “How can we be simpler and more effective?” it must be prepared to listen to answers that are uncomfortable as well as convenient.

True effectiveness comes not from suppressing dissent but from confronting it, learning from it, and adapting. Transparency requires more than glossy LinkedIn posts; it requires the courage to face honest feedback, even when it is inconvenient.

Hiding my feedback may have silenced one contribution, but it amplifies a bigger question: is ASIC genuinely committed to being a better regulator, or only to being seen as one?

It’s time for ASIC to decide whether it values public engagement and constructive feedback to be a better regulator or prefers controlled narratives. The public deserves clarity. And if regulators want to rebuild trust, the first step is simple: listen and don't hide inconvenient truths.

James Mawhinney’s investment firm Mayfair 101 was targeted by ASIC in 2020.  ASIC made serious allegations against him in 2020 without interviewing him. 5-years on, the majority of the accusations have been successfully defended and others are being actively contested. Mr Mawhinney has been calling for a Senate Inquiry into ASIC's handling of Mayfair 101.