APRA reluctant to name heatmap advisers

5 December 2019

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has declined to disclose to a key Parliamentary committee the names of the consultant experts it used to help devise its approach to superannuation heatmaps.

Despite significant pressure from the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Tim Wilson who referred to his ability to use Freedom of Information protocols, APRA deputy chair, Helen Rowell, declined to reveal which consultants the regulator had used.

Rowell said that APRFA had “engaged external experts to assist us with providing review and validation of the approaches in particular areas” but declined to say who those experts were.

Related News:

Asked why, and who they were, Rowell stated: “We haven't got agreement from all of them to name them and we don't propose to name some and not others”.

Wilson then queried APRA’s reluctance saying he was confused.

“You have actually got a position that has been put forward by APRA. You have used external parties to inform your decision making and presumably they have been contracted by APRA but you’re not prepared to disclose who has been contracted by APRA to do so,” he said.

Rowell said that was correct and one of her senior executive colleagues said that not all those people APRA had used had given consent to be named.

APRA chair, Wayne Byers later said that notwithstanding the use of outside advisers, APRA took total ownership of the heat map approach.

Recommended for you




Probably because they were associated with industry funds at some level and/or Choice which is pro union funds

Im pretty sure Helen Rowell has contempt for the whole industry to be honest. She isn't trying to protect any particular sector.

what country do we live in?

Can APRA guarantee they do not have any potential conflict of interest?? Come on TIM ask the query.

As the Royal Commission has confirmed, disclosure does not remove culpability, so APRA is right to accept responsibility for the Heat Map process.

However, non-disclosure is an indication of potential for bias, misinformation or simple error. APRA should be setting the gold standard for disclosure, at all levels.

I find this a very disappointing development from APRA - an organisation that has generally held a very straight line on the super industry.

Hmmm. Sounds as if there may be some conflicts of interest???

Can't disclose because they need permission? Really - can I use that excuse?

With such a lame excuse like this, it would appear they are hiding something very smelly.

Counsel for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Michael Pearce, QC, told the Federal Court on Thursday during closing arguments in a civil penalty proceeding brought by the watchdog against Mr Mitchell for breaching his director duties, that his silence during the trial was incriminating.
Would the same logic apply in this case Mr Michael Pearce? ASIC and APRA - lets see if they remain consistant shall we?


Surely the public has a #righttoknow. I think these public service institutions sometimes forget that it's the public that funds them. I'd hardly think this information would fall into the same category as national security.....

Add new comment