Correcting Testimony Given to a Senate Committee by Helen Rowell
Phillip Sweeney made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,
I refer to testimony given by APRA's Helen Rowell to Senate Economics Legislative Committee on 20 October 2016 in a response to a question asked by Senator Gallagher on a previous response "that your own analysis of 10-year APRA fund level data revealed a reasonable number of retail funds in the top quartile performers. Is that correct?"
In reply as recorded on Hansard Mrs Rowell stated:
"That is correct".
However after this testimony had been given twice to Parliamentary Committees, Mrs Rowell should have check on pages 15 and 16 of the APRA report titled "Superannuation Fund-level Rates of Return" {Issued 8 January 2014), where a listing of APRA regulated superannuation funds is provided ranked in order of their 10 year average rates of return.
There are 45 funds in the "Top Quartile" and only one fund has been classified by APRA as a "Retail" fund. In fact their is only one "Retail" fund in the top 55 funds racked by 10 year average returns.
One fund in the Top Quartile of 45 funds can hardly be described as a "reasonable number".
The Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees requires witnesses to review the transcript of their evidence and to advise the Committee Secretary if oral evidence needs to be corrected or clarified so that the final Hansard record is not "false and misleading".
The document I seek is a copy of a letter from Mrs Helen Rowell to the Secretary of the Senate Economics Legislative Committee {or to Senator Gallagher} in which Mrs Rowell has corrected or clarified her response of a "reasonable number" to what should have in fact been "only one".
Further clarification may have included that the "Retail" fund that was ranked in the top quartile by fund performance was a small fund and would be unlikely to be recommended by financial planners employed or associated with the major banks, which was relevant to the context of the question asked by Senator Gallagher.
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
Dear Mr Sweeney
I acknowledge receipt of your FOI Request set out below. We are processing
your request and will respond to you soon.
Kind regards
APRA FOI Officer
AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
1 Martin Place (Level 12), Sydney, NSW 2000
GPO Box 9836, Sydney, NSW 2001
T 02 9210 3000 | W [1]www.apra.gov.au
[2]http://www.apra.gov.au/PublishingImages/...
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Sweeney
[mailto:[FOI #2547 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2016 12:36 PM
To: Freedom of Information <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Correcting Testimony Given to a
Senate Committee by Helen Rowell
Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,
I refer to testimony given by APRA's Helen Rowell to Senate Economics
Legislative Committee on 20 October 2016 in a response to a question asked
by Senator Gallagher on a previous response "that your own analysis of
10-year APRA fund level data revealed a reasonable number of retail funds
in the top quartile performers. Is that correct?"
In reply as recorded on Hansard Mrs Rowell stated:
"That is correct".
However after this testimony had been given twice to Parliamentary
Committees, Mrs Rowell should have check on pages 15 and 16 of the APRA
report titled "Superannuation Fund-level Rates of Return" {Issued 8
January 2014), where a listing of APRA regulated superannuation funds is
provided ranked in order of their 10 year average rates of return.
There are 45 funds in the "Top Quartile" and only one fund has been
classified by APRA as a "Retail" fund. In fact their is only one "Retail"
fund in the top 55 funds racked by 10 year average returns.
One fund in the Top Quartile of 45 funds can hardly be described as a
"reasonable number".
The Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary
Committees requires witnesses to review the transcript of their evidence
and to advise the Committee Secretary if oral evidence needs to be
corrected or clarified so that the final Hansard record is not "false and
misleading".
The document I seek is a copy of a letter from Mrs Helen Rowell to the
Secretary of the Senate Economics Legislative Committee {or to Senator
Gallagher} in which Mrs Rowell has corrected or clarified her response of
a "reasonable number" to what should have in fact been "only one".
Further clarification may have included that the "Retail" fund that was
ranked in the top quartile by fund performance was a small fund and would
be unlikely to be recommended by financial planners employed or associated
with the major banks, which was relevant to the context of the question
asked by Senator Gallagher.
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #2547 email]
Is [4][APRA request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority? If so, please
contact us using this form:
[5]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[6]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This e-mail is intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it
is addressed, and may contain secret, confidential or legally privileged
information.
If you have received this e-mail in error or are aware that you are not
authorised to have it, you MUST NOT use or copy it, or disclose its
contents to any person. If you do any of these things, you may be sued or
prosecuted.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender
immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.apra.gov.au
3. mailto:[FOI #2547 email]
4. mailto:[APRA request email]
5. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
6. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Dear Mr Sweeney
Please find attached, APRA's notice of decision dated 2 December 2016.
Kind regards
APRA FOI Officer
AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
1 Martin Place (Level 12), Sydney, NSW 2000
GPO Box 9836, Sydney, NSW 2001
T 02 9210 3000 | W [1]www.apra.gov.au
[2]http://www.apra.gov.au/PublishingImages/...
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Sweeney
[mailto:[FOI #2547 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2016 12:36 PM
To: Freedom of Information <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Correcting Testimony Given to a
Senate Committee by Helen Rowell
Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,
I refer to testimony given by APRA's Helen Rowell to Senate Economics
Legislative Committee on 20 October 2016 in a response to a question asked
by Senator Gallagher on a previous response "that your own analysis of
10-year APRA fund level data revealed a reasonable number of retail funds
in the top quartile performers. Is that correct?"
In reply as recorded on Hansard Mrs Rowell stated:
"That is correct".
However after this testimony had been given twice to Parliamentary
Committees, Mrs Rowell should have check on pages 15 and 16 of the APRA
report titled "Superannuation Fund-level Rates of Return" {Issued 8
January 2014), where a listing of APRA regulated superannuation funds is
provided ranked in order of their 10 year average rates of return.
There are 45 funds in the "Top Quartile" and only one fund has been
classified by APRA as a "Retail" fund. In fact their is only one "Retail"
fund in the top 55 funds racked by 10 year average returns.
One fund in the Top Quartile of 45 funds can hardly be described as a
"reasonable number".
The Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary
Committees requires witnesses to review the transcript of their evidence
and to advise the Committee Secretary if oral evidence needs to be
corrected or clarified so that the final Hansard record is not "false and
misleading".
The document I seek is a copy of a letter from Mrs Helen Rowell to the
Secretary of the Senate Economics Legislative Committee {or to Senator
Gallagher} in which Mrs Rowell has corrected or clarified her response of
a "reasonable number" to what should have in fact been "only one".
Further clarification may have included that the "Retail" fund that was
ranked in the top quartile by fund performance was a small fund and would
be unlikely to be recommended by financial planners employed or associated
with the major banks, which was relevant to the context of the question
asked by Senator Gallagher.
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Sweeney
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #2547 email]
Is [4][APRA request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Australian Prudential Regulation Authority? If so, please
contact us using this form:
[5]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[6]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This e-mail is intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it
is addressed, and may contain secret, confidential or legally privileged
information.
If you have received this e-mail in error or are aware that you are not
authorised to have it, you MUST NOT use or copy it, or disclose its
contents to any person. If you do any of these things, you may be sued or
prosecuted.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender
immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.apra.gov.au
3. mailto:[FOI #2547 email]
4. mailto:[APRA request email]
5. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
6. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...