I see. You were very clear in your own mind as to what the problem was at the time that you were meeting with ASIC?TERP members. Yes. All right. Did you communicate to ASIC what you thought the problem was?We had discussions about how that I felt it was an error. – I think you will get the opportunity to look at this document overnight. Can I ask you about some other parts of it. Can you go to page 4 of the document?Yes. And you see what is paragraph 2.12(c), Compensation Methodology?Yes. Continuing: Compensation methodology. Are considering the right compensation methodology for these members. This methodology should appropriately reflect any potential legal liability position, which we are working through at the moment, and also be practical to implement. ?Yes. Can you recall what the legal liability issue was that you were working through?No. Can I suggest to you that it was the suggestion from the Wealth business that they retain the plan service fees even though there was no linked adviser, because there were other types of general advice available through, for example, MLC Direct?That was not put to me at this as this letter was being written, and nor formally put to me as a proposal for compensation for the plan service fee matter. All right. Can you recall alternatives being put to you as to the proposed remediation?No. You can only recall one possibility for remediation being ?That came to the board, yes. And did you know at the time you signed this letter what the issue was about potential legal liability of NULIS?No. Do you know whether the Office of the Trustee knew?At 22 July, no, I don’t. Was that something that when you signed this letter you were curious are “Why we not able to make compensation yet, because we’re trying to figure out a potential legal liability”?I don’t recall I don’t recall questioning that paragraph at the time. – And then, if we go down to section 3 at the bottom of the page, you see 3.1:
I see. You were very clear in your own mind as to what the problem was at the time that you were meeting with ASIC?TERP members. Yes. All right. Did you communicate to ASIC what you thought the problem was?We had discussions about how – that I felt it was an error. I think you will get the opportunity to look at this document overnight. Can I ask you about some other parts of it. Can you go to page 4 of the document?Yes. And you see what is paragraph 2.12(c), Compensation Methodology?Yes. Continuing: Compensation methodology. Are considering the right compensation methodology for these members. This methodology should appropriately reflect any potential legal liability position, which we are working through at the moment, and also be practical to implement. ?Yes. Can you recall what the legal liability issue was that you were working through?No. Can I suggest to you that it was the suggestion from the Wealth business that they retain the plan service fees even though there was no linked adviser, because there were other types of general advice available through, for example, MLC Direct?That was not put to me at this as this letter was being written, and nor formally put to me as a proposal for compensation for the plan service fee matter. All right. Can you recall alternatives being put to you as to the proposed remediation?No. You can only recall one possibility for remediation being ?That came to the board, yes. And did you know at the time you signed this letter what the issue was about potential legal liability of NULIS?No. Do you know whether the Office of the Trustee knew?At 22 July, no, I don’t. Was that something that when you signed this letter you were curious “Why are we not able to make compensation yet, because we’re trying to figure out a potential legal liability”?I don’t recall – I don’t recall questioning that paragraph at the time. And then, if we go down to section 3 at the bottom of the page, you see 3.1:
transcript-7-august-2018.docx