In the Life Code Compliance Committee’s (LCCC) 2017–18 Annual report, the monitoring body outlined its activities, including:
- establishing processes and procedures for its operations and code monitoring, including launching its Annual Data and Compliance Program;
- meeting and inducting all subscribers, clarifying with them compliance obligations and how to report instances of non-compliance;
- investigating code breach allegations;
- engaging with stakeholders to build awareness of the code; and
- sharing its experience and suggestions for improvements to the code with a submission to the FSC.
LCCC chair Anne Brown said the body aims to achieve robust monitoring of the code in a timely manner, and provide practical guidance to subscribers on how to comply with the code.
“We also want to provide assurance to consumers that subscribers are being held to account in meeting their code obligations and look forward to receiving sufficient ongoing resourcing to meet those obligations and objectives,” she said.
Financial Services Council CEO Sally Loane said that, in the short time since its formation, the committee has established a robust process for monitoring compliance with the code.
“I look forward to continuing to work with Anne, the LCCC and the Financial Ombudsman Service, soon to become AFCA, as we get closer to launching the second iteration of the code for public consultation by the end of the year,” Ms Loane said.
“The new code will build on the existing consumer facing commitments to bring a significant number of enhanced protections for people who have life insurance, either as a choice product, or through their super fund.
“The FSC considers self-regulation to play an important role in the regulation of the life insurance sector.”
I’d like to view this ‘[i]robust process for monitoring compliance with the code[/i]’ and see exactly what the methodology is being used. Surely this should also be made public for transparency purposes and to encourage feedback and improvement suggestions?
The FSC is not a capable or an appropriate organisation to be overseeing this process.
The FSC cannot even manage their own membership’s potential breaches of the FSC Standard No:1 Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct in light of the outcomes from the Royal Commission’s findings.
When the FSC have a fee paying membership base, to enforce serious potential breaches of their own codes would possibly create a fee funding issue if companies were subject to disciplinary action or expulsion.
And in this induction phase just how many breaches were found ?
Ahhh let me guess – NONE.
The FSC is a complete joke and the insinuation of any real self compliance can’t possibly be taken seriously. Nor can ASIC’s enforcement either.
No wonder they act like complete cowboys