And is it your understanding that that is one of the reasons why the bank has now agreed to refund the PSFs to all MKPS members?Yes. And so you know that the way in which this has been presented is that this was just a problem with disclosure?No. You don’t think so?No. Okay. You think that it has been presented as also a problem with whether or not the services were actually provided?I so depending on who you think it is being – presented to is The public. In the public statements that have been made you’ve given a statement about?I think we’ve made yes, I have. I think it the point of the public – – statement is not to go into the entirety of the rationale for why we’ve determined we have an error. It’s to the point of that public disclosure was to ensure that our – members were aware of information that was going into the hands of advisers so that they knew at the same time that an error had occurred, and that we would be refunding a particular category of members. There was a I don’t I wasn’t – – involved in the drafting of that. I don’t know how the words were chosen or why the words were chosen, but primarily the the starting point for the PSF event actually – was concern from ASIC with the disclosures that we had made. All right. Let me just show you another document, which is exhibit 5.12. It’s NAB.005.871.0022. You just need to look over on the screen. Have you seen that document before, Ms Smith?I don’t recall. I may have seen it as part of my witness statement preparation, but that would be the only time. I have reviewed All right? a lot of documents in the last few days, so I understand. And you see it’s a document titled Removing an Adviser/Turning off Commissions, MKBS /MKPS?Yes. And you see in item 3: What action will we take if a member requests us to turn off commissions or stop paying their plan adviser? ?Yes. And you see: When a member directly requests us to turn off commissions, we will perform the following. And the first thing is:
And is it your understanding that that is one of the reasons why the bank has now agreed to refund the PSFs to all MKPS members?Yes. And so you know that the way in which this has been presented is that this was just a problem with disclosure?No. You don’t think so?No. Okay. You think that it has been presented as also a problem with whether or not the services were actually provided?I – so depending on who you think it is being presented to is The public. In the public statements that have been made you’ve given a statement about?I think we’ve made – yes, I have. I think it – the point of the public statement is not to go into the entirety of the rationale for why we’ve determined we have an error. It’s to – the point of that public disclosure was to ensure that our members were aware of information that was going into the hands of advisers so that they knew at the same time that an error had occurred, and that we would be refunding a particular category of members. There was a – I don’t – I wasn’t involved in the drafting of that. I don’t know how the words were chosen or why the words were chosen, but primarily the – the starting point for the PSF event actually was concern from ASIC with the disclosures that we had made. All right. Let me just show you another document, which is exhibit 5.12. It’s NAB.005.871.0022. You just need to look over on the screen. Have you seen that document before, Ms Smith?I don’t recall. I may have seen it as part of my witness statement preparation, but that would be the only time. I have reviewed All right? a lot of documents in the last few days, so I understand. And you see it’s a document titled Removing an Adviser/Turning off Commissions, MKBS /MKPS?Yes. And you see in item 3: What action will we take if a member requests us to turn off commissions or stop paying their plan adviser? ?Yes. And you see: When a member directly requests us to turn off commissions, we will perform the following. And the first thing is:
transcript-7-august-2018.docx