The short timeframe for submissions to the Life Insurance and Advice Working Group (LIAWG) may limit the number of responses it receives before the 30 January deadline.
Wayne Handley, managing director of life insurance-focused group Bombora Advice, says “the timing is unfortunate, the short timeframe to get responses in was a concern that we had”.
Handley suggests that for companies the size of Bombora – which has around 16 advisers across seven or eight practices – the timeframe is not such a difficulty.
“For the next week or so, I’ll be devoted to getting this submission in,” he says.
But for the large insurance companies, who wield arguably the greatest influence among all stakeholders, “it’s going to really push them up against the wall a little bit, but we’ve got to work with what we’ve been given”.
The call for submissions went out on December 17, just before most Australian businesses closed their doors for around two weeks over the Christmas holiday period. With most offices having not reopened until January 5, this leaves only around four weeks for companies to draft and submit their responses to the LIAWG interim report.
“Over this holiday period, you’re not talking to your [industry] brethren a lot,” Handley says.
“We’ve made sure all advisers in our network are aware of our report. But I don’t know how many others have actually done that.”
Two life insurance companies Professional Planner spoke with indicated they are still working on their submissions, with just one week to go before the due date. This suggests at least some submissions may be provided after the deadline, though no official extension has been granted, according to LIAWG chair John Trowbridge.
Handley reveals the key areas Bombora will be addressing in its submission to the LIAWG are competency standards; the cost of delivering advice; claims management; and best interests responsibilities.
Bombora’s submission
He says the experience of the United Kingdom’s financial advice industry, which introduced “too draconian measures” only to backpedal later when terms of trade were found to be too restrictive.
“You’ve just got to watch how you go about this and I just think it’s important we get a handle on the metrics,” he says.
Open or closed?
While some commentators have expressed concern about the report submissions being closed, unless respondents choose to publicise their own contributions, Handley is not one of them.
“When you go back over the last couple of years, there’s been a lot of reports going on. I don’t know any of them that have been made public,” he says.
“But I have faith in John Trowbridge, and I don’t think anyone’s going to be able to provide John with anything other than the facts.”
Handley points to a reluctance to share sensitive company information and intellectual property as key reasons for Trowbridge’s decision to keep submissions under wraps.
“There is some commercial sensitivity in how they structure their conduct,” he says.
“If you’re running a business you do have your own privacy issues, your own IP that you want to retain.
“I understand companies not wanting to give details.”
However, Handley concedes “it would be nice if they were clear on some of the other aspects of the report”.
This suggests another alternative approach the working group could take, in making some parts of submissions publicly available while suppressing other commercially sensitive parts.
At this stage, it is not even clear if the identity of any of the respondents to the inquiry will be made public.
