Originally inquiring into the drafting errors that made their way into the DBFO bill, Bragg asked Dr Andre Moore, assistant secretary at Treasury’s Advice and Investment Branch, how they were missed.

Moore responded that the error was introduced into the bill “inadvertently” as Treasury “sought to respond to feedback that we received at the exposure draft stage that indicated that aspects of that exposure draft didn’t fully meet the policy intent”.

“We addressed that issue and in doing so, unfortunately, we introduced that error. As soon as that was drawn to our attention, we and the government immediately moved to address that issue,” he said.

While angling to apportion blame for the drafting error to the government and Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones, Bragg was taken aback at the revelation that it was an error that ASIC had also missed.

“This is not an error of the government’s making. This is an error of officials’ making,” Moore told the hearing.

“Our final checks of the bill, that’s Treasury OPC [the Office of Parliamentary Counsel], also ASIC, we collectively missed that error. It was only once it was drawn to our attention by stakeholders that we [saw] it and then immediately moved to address it.”

Senator Bragg responded: “Did you say ASIC checked it?”

Moore explained to the committee that one of the “standard clearance processes for bills” is a final quality assurance step with ASIC, adding that “where there is legislation that has provisions that might be administered by ASIC, ASIC is consulted on the development of those provisions as needed”.

Despite Senator Bragg’s concern over the role of a law enforcement agency in giving advice and input on how a law is crafted, Moore stood by the “longstanding practice under multiple governments”.

“I think having the ability for the regulator to input into the law and provide feedback on how it might be administered helps to ensure that, one, that the legislation delivers on the policy intent but also is administrable,” he said.

Bragg responded: “Wowsers, well I have to say I’m very surprised to hear that.

“I wonder whether they’d be better at more enforcement if they weren’t spending time talking about how new laws might be created.”

He added: “I’m just wondering whether that’s been a good approach. I mean, I think from their own law enforcement record, I mean, not sure that’s working.”

Turning his attention directly to ASIC and commissioner Alan Kirkland, Bragg asked: “What involvement did you have in this business? You were involved in the background, were you?”

“As part of the normal process of developing legislation, ASIC was consulted by Treasury during the development of the legislation, and as Mr Moore has mentioned, ASIC also provided advice on whether we were able to administer the law consistent with the government’s policy intent based on the information provided,” Kirkland said.

“The quality assurance process normally involves, as part of that longstanding practice, where ASIC is required to administer part of the law, the draft provision has been provided to ASIC so that ASIC can provide advice on whether we’re confident we’ll be able to administer that law in line with the government’s policy intent.”

When Kirkland informed the committee that ASIC only became aware of the drafting error when it saw media reports about it, Bragg noted that picking up on the error “could have been one benefit of you guys being involved with drafting new laws”.

However, Kirkland defended ASIC’s part in the legislative process, saying it serves a “very specific purpose”.

“To provide advice on whether we’re able to administer the law in line with the government’s intent as articulated in the various extrinsic materials, and that was the nature of the advice that we provided on the bill,” he said.

This is in line with Kirkland’s previous comments, such as those made at an FAAA roadshow event in May, where he explained that ASIC’s role is not to make policy decisions or design legislation, but it does “assist Treasury through that process”.

“We also then provide regulatory guidance once legislative reform has passed. And the point of that regulatory guidance is to help people and the entities we regulate to understand how to comply with the law,” he said at the time.