And that is a question that goes to, do we have to remediate and how much is “Who that remediation going to cost”?Yes. Yes. And when you talk this issue of, do we characterise the plan service fee?”, “How what that question is relevant to is, we have to remediate everybody who is a “Do member” ?I yes. I believe that’s true, yes. – Was it relevant to anything else?I can’t answer that question. All right?I know it’s a legal question. I know it’s an important legal question that was posed at the time. And on the eligible services issue, which is, there services that NAB can say “Are MLC, or some MLC-related company, provided to members who did not have a linked adviser?” What outcome was that question relevant to?It would be the same. That is, do we have to remediate and how much is it going to cost?” Do you “Who agree?Yes. And ?In yes. – And in point number 2 on this email that you’re sending to Ms Carter?Ms Bourguignon. I’m sorry. You’re Mr Carter. Ms Bourguignon. You are asking for there to be some sort of table that outlines what might be considered eligible or ineligible services?Yes. That’s what you’re in point 2. And then in point 3 you’re asking, based on an analysis of these eligible or ineligible services, provide a breakdown of how many of the 220,000 unadvised members may have had access to these eligible services, plus implications for PSF?Yes. And the implications, can I suggest, is, do we have to remediate”?That would “What be one of the implications of this work. All Were there other implications?I believe this is also just making sure we understood there was full understanding of what the nature of that fee and service was in the first place. I tender that document, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 5.23, emails 20 September between ’16 Bourguignon and Carter, NAB.162.015.3380.
And that is a question that goes to, “Who do we have to remediate and how much is that remediation going to cost”?Yes. Yes. And when you talk this issue of, “How do we characterise the plan service fee?”, what that question is relevant to is, “Do we have to remediate everybody who is a member” ?I – yes. I believe that’s true, yes. Was it relevant to anything else?I can’t answer that question. All right?I know it’s a legal question. I know it’s an important legal question that was posed at the time. And on the eligible services issue, which is, “Are there services that NAB can say MLC, or some MLC-related company, provided to members who did not have a linked adviser?” What outcome was that question relevant to?It would be the same. That is, “Who do we have to remediate and how much is it going to cost?” Do you agree?Yes. And ?In – yes. And in point number 2 on this email that you’re sending to Ms Carter?Ms Bourguignon. I’m sorry. You’re Mr Carter. Ms Bourguignon. You are asking for there to be some sort of table that outlines what might be considered eligible or ineligible services?Yes. That’s what you’re in point 2. And then in point 3 you’re asking, based on an analysis of these eligible or ineligible services, provide a breakdown of how many of the 220,000 unadvised members may have had access to these eligible services, plus implications for PSF?Yes. And the implications, can I suggest, is, “What do we have to remediate”?That would be one of the implications of this work. All Were there other implications?I believe this is also just making sure we understood there was full understanding of what the nature of that fee and service was in the first place. I tender that document, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 5.23, emails 20 September ’16 between Bourguignon and Carter, NAB.162.015.3380.