Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,

Following the findings of the Hayne Royal Commission APRA issued directions and imposed additional registrable entity licence conditions on NULIS Nominees (Australia) Ltd.

The first document I seek is a copy of the document (or documents) that contains these directions and additional licence conditions on NULIS Nominees (Australia) Ltd.

I also seek a copy of any correspondence from NULIS to APRA agreeing to the directions and licence conditions and providing guidance on an implementation timeline.

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Dear Australian Prudential Regulation Authority,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's handling of my FOI request 'APRA issues direction and applies licence conditions on NULIS'.

In the judgment handed down in the Federal Court of Australia on the 11 September 2020 {ASIC v NULIS and MLC Nominees [2020] FCA 1306}, NULIS was found guilty of:

- Failing to all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by its Australian Financial Services Licence Number 236465 were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly, and thereby contravened s 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001;
- Since 1 July 2016, engaging in conduct in relation to financial services that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive and thereby contravened s 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 and s 12DA of the ASIC Act 2001.

This is no trivial finding for a trustee that administers over $100 billion in retirement savings for working Australians.

It is a matter of public interest as to what are the additional licence conditions imposed by APRA on a trustee who has been found guilty of failing to act honestly.

APRA must give regulatory approval for the sale of MLC Ltd the owner of NULIS to IOOF Holdings Ltd

How can members of the public and other "gatekeepers" alert APRA to an alleged contravention of any of the additional licence conditions if these conditions are kept secret?

Default licence conditions are not a 'secret"

SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) ACT 1993 - SECT 29E
Conditions imposed on all licences and on groups of licences

Basic licence conditions Include compliance with "RSE licensee law".

"RSE licensee law" means:

(a) this Act or the regulations; and

(aa) prudential standards; and

(b) the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 ; and

(c) the Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Act 1998 ; and

(d) the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 listed in a subparagraph of paragraph (b) of the definition of regulatory provision in section 38A of this Act or specified in regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph (b)(xvi) of that definition, as applying in relation to superannuation interests; and

(e) any other provisions of any other law of the Commonwealth specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.

APRA cannot claim that some licence conditions are public knowledge {which apply to all trustees - even honest ones), while additional licence conditions that have been imposed on a dishonest trustee following the findings of a Royal Commission are subject to "secrecy provisions".

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney