The former chairman of the Trowbridge Inquiry, John Trowbridge has hit back at submissions to a Parliamentary Committee alleging the processes were not independent and led to a pre-determined outcome.
In a submission to the Senate Economics Committee responding to allegations contained in a submission from Bombora Advice, Trowbridge has defended the processes which gave rise to his report which was the main precursor to the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) and consequent Federal legislation.
In particular, Trowbridge pointed out that the inquiry “was sponsored by the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) and the Financial Services Council (FSC)” and that, “Both parties pledged at the outset that my role as chairman of the Working Group was to act independently and not as an advocate for the interests of the AFA or FSC”.
His submission also strongly refuted suggestions that he had worked with the FSC to change the terms of reference of the inquiry, stating: “Neither I nor the FSC changed the terms of reference. Instead, the AFA, being dissatisfied with some of the recommendations in my final draft report, attempted to negotiate changes on the basis that the terms of reference required ‘an industry agreed response’. As noted above, this was not the basis of my review yet one of the AFA representatives on the Life Insurance Advice Working Group (LIAWG) chose to make and publicise this allegation”.
Answering the allegation the process of his inquiry had been kept confidential, Trowbridge acknowledged the confidentiality inherent in the arrangements but went further by revealing that the authors of some submissions had insisted that their contents not be revealed to other members of his working group.
“It was essential to conduct most parts of the LIAWG process in confidence but it is important to note that all members of the working group, including both the AFA representatives and the FSC representatives, were part of the process,” he said. “They were fully informed and fully participative at all times, including being privy to most of the submissions.”
“It was the case that submissions were not made public except when individual respondents chose to make them public. The FSC was one of the respondents that chose to do so. It is noteworthy that some of the submissions were provided to me on condition that they were kept confidential from the other Working Group members.”
“There was no unanimity within the life insurance industry or the advice industry as to the full scope of the issues to be dealt with or what should be done about them. As a result there were items of information, opinions or suggestions for change from some respondents who were eager to keep their submissions confidential either from their competitors or from ‘the other side’ (the FSC or the AFA),” Trowbridge said.
He said that represented a valuable part of the process that ensured he was not denied information or input that would have been denied in a fully public process.
