PJC to Hold Second Round of Hearings

7

Representatives of the life insurance sector will be asked to make another trip to Canberra to answer questions before the Parliamentary Joint Committee (PJC) Inquiry into the Life Insurance Industry, which has announced three new hearings.

The PJC Secretariat, which has yet to release the programs for the hearings, confirmed the dates with Riskinfo as 26 May, 18 August and 8 September.

The extra dates follow the PJC being granted an extension by the Senate in late March to move back its reporting date by four months, from 30 June to 31 October 2017.

To date, the PJC has already conducted three days of hearings – one in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra during February and March, and received more than 70 submissions and 17 responses to questions on notice from insurers, associations and advisers.

At the earlier hearings, the PJC indicated it would not be looking at making changes to the Life Insurance Framework legislation (see: PJC Review Will Not Tackle LIF Reforms) and has instead focused on direct insurance, clawback, churn rates, underwriting practices, and mental illness and insurance (see: Inside the Mind of the PJC).

Update – 19 May

The PJC has released the program for the 26 May hearing with insurers Zurich Financial Services Australia and Real Insurance appearing alongside NAB, medical advisory group MedHealth, The Ethics Centre and the Australian Genetic Non-Discrimination Working Group.

Appearing on behalf of Zurich will be Chief Executive Officer, Life & Investments, Tim Bailey and Chief Operating Officer, Life & Investments, Philip Anderson.

Appearing for NAB will be Chief Customer Officer, Consumer Banking and Wealth Management, Andrew Hagger; Executive General Manager, Wealth Advice, Greg Miller; and General Manager, Customer Experience, Super, Lara Bourguignon.



7 COMMENTS

  1. Does anyone know what purpose the PJC serves? After all, the above article itself reaffirms that the PJC will not tackle LIF reforms! Therefore what will it achieve?

  2. I agree with Warren’s comment. The PJC got it wrong in the first instance and are too proud (or perhaps too stupid) to admit their mistake and fix it!

  3. The more meetings regardless of the content and outcome serves to show the public that they have looked at this in depth. ?? As mentioned what’s the purpose unless the adviser is really lisenened to and their concerns truely addressed
    ” snow jobs” seem to be the norm with the LIC reviews
    I doubt anything of true value will come out of any of these ” get Together’s”

  4. What is the purpose of this Charade.? After all it`s been a slam dunk right from the very start.The advisers were not at any real stage listened too or our concerns in any addressed. Just another get together to stroke egos.

  5. The terms of reference are broad in scope, though shallow in depth, which means every vested interest group with their own agenda will muddy the waters so no clear and properly articulated argument will see the light of day.

    WHY?

    Because there is no accountability required in the submissions, which means people and associations and lobbyists and left wing loonies can say what ever they want, with no actual verifiable proof needed as part of their submission.

    What this enables everyone to do, is put forward their case with impunity.

    If it was a condition that every person and entity that provided a submission, had to sign an agreement that held them responsible for their words, then you would find most of the lobbyists and fools with no practical experiance, would refrain from voicing their inane and ridiculous statements, which then would lead to positive action.

    Honest people could then be heard and the correct measures implemented to follow the principles of the Terms of reference, which are fine, though will never be properly investigated with this current model.

    It is not about fixing issues. It is about being “seen” to be addressing the perceived issues.

Comments are closed.