Have a look at the below trades in yellow. How many could have...

Have a look at the below trades in yellow. How many could have been placed by retail investors? Zero. Retail investors cannot place trades to quarter cent increments above $1.00, but they aren't being disadvantaged. What possible advantage could there be in being able to pay one quarter of a cent less per share when buying or selling at one quarter of a cent more? It's a fair, orderly and transparent market as per s792. Fair and Orderly per the Market Integrity Rules. This is where the ASX does not have a leg to stand on. Nothing subjective here. The ASX, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for their own market integrity and operating rules by running two sets of rules. One set of rules for retail investors (minimum parcel size $500, must place order close to market price, no visibility of dark pools, no front running or flashing trading permitted, when multiple trades are executed in a day, the trades can be viewed in isolation ... and a set of rules for the big end of town (quarter cent increments? Course you can, no one will notice, it's a quarter of a cent! Dark pools, retail will never know there is anything behind the lit market, requirement to place trades at or near market? Put them wherever you like. We'll say it's "to protect retail investors from themselves", the irony of it! Flash trading, can't believe this hasn't ended up on Four Corners. All the brokers in the same building as the ASX. They are all buddies who meet for lunch. Simple explanation.
Algorithmic trading is viewed in aggregate over the day, not in isolation. What's great is that ASIC said that. Yet a look at the ASX Market Integrity Rules 5.7.3 Obligations apply to Automated Order Processing
A Market Participant must also comply with this Part 5.7 in respect of Orders the subject of Automated Order Processing.

Well, it's great that ASIC views algorithmic trading not in isolation but in aggregation over the day, when the ASX Market Integrity Rules specifically exclude this as being a reason not to comply with the rules around manipulative trading.
Don't you needed to treat all investors equally? s792 and the ASX Market Operating and Integrity Rules talk of a "fair and orderly market". Not on ASIC's watch! ASIC bring the very worst character traits of Sergeant Shultz from Hogan's Heroes, Maxwell Smart and Roger Rogerson, to personify the regulator as not only toothless, blind and not wanting to see crimes (Sergeant Shultz), the chronically inept Maxwell Smart, as demonstrated by their prosecution of Stephen and Ross Doyle for insider trading at Nuix - did the crims get paid damages when ASIC dropped the case? And Joseph Longo as Rogerson, nothing more than a corrupt policeman. You can't lie to senate inquiry that you didn't try to influence it and say that they are doing a great job, when their only intention is to be perceived by the public as doing a good job. Their real objective is maintaining the status quo that the ASX is run like the wild west. ASX have a conflict of interest due to their funding being transaction based and so any reduction in trading volumes will directly impact the amount of money the ASX receives. Would you be closely scrutinising the review of code implemented by the BOTs, if such scrutiny will likely identify code that would generate trades that were illegal when held to the corps act then why not investigate? Don't get between the ASX and a bucket of money.

ASX Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) 2017.pdf