Diversa board backs chief executive pay rise, bonus amid First Guardian fallout

Diversa Trustees' board paid chief executive Andrew Peterson a bonus of $770,000 and increased his salary at the height of the First Guardian collapse, an inquiry heard, doubling down on its confidence in his leadership and suitability to lead the business.

Peterson received a base salary of $825,000 in the 2025 financial year, an increase of $77,000 from the prior corresponding period, the recent Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry heard, which attempted to make sense of why he was generously rewarded amid regulators taking serious action against the company.

Diversa chair Vincent Plant doubled down on the board's "unanimous" confidence in Peterson and its decision to retain him as chief executive.

The review of Peterson's remuneration happened at two levels, Plant said, it was first considered by

the remuneration committee and then by the board, where it was reviewed again during an in-camera discussion.

Plant could not calculate how much time the board spent discussing Peterson's bonus and remuneration, when pressed by committee chair Deborah O'Neill.

"And that is part of what concerns me. That there will be a lot more from the board going into remuneration of people who are inside than there was in the decision making about putting up [First Guardian] on your platform and putting at risk 2079 Australians," she said. "I'm very concerned about that."

Plant confirmed that Diversa has a general provision in its remuneration policy for clawbacks of bonuses as well as deferrals but decided against using them given Peterson delivered on target key performance indicators.

"He did an excellent job against those objectives, built the business and implemented uplift in several areas of the business at the same time," Plant said.

O'Neill asked if the board has broached any discussions or made any decisions as to Peterson's continuing employment and his suitability for the role.

"No," said Plant.

ASIC sets the record straight

Also appearing at the hearing, ASIC set the record straight on the regulator's investigation into Diversa's disclosure of trustee fees and other issues. The other investigation relates to the possible misuse of members' money and the alleged series of undisclosed payments made within the group. This is separate to issues relating First Guardian.

Diversa general counsel Simon Stanistreet said: "We haven't been able to calculate the quantum because we haven't reached an understanding of what ASIC is actually looking for. We are working with ASIC to understand what falls inside the class."

He went on to reiterate that ASIC "hasn't clearly articulated to us the scope of its inquiry."

"We don't understand specifically which payments fall within and outside the scope of the investigation. We're working with ASIC to clarify that scope so that we can answer its questions. But because it hasn't clarified the scope, we can't ascribe a number to it," he said.

"They're asking about cost-recovery payments. Under a trust deed, a trustee has a general right of indemnity for costs incurred in the proper performance of its duties as trustee, and that's one of the ways we try to keep member fees low."

ASIC executive director for enforcement and compliance Chris Savundra rebuffed these statements, saying Diversa has stalled and procrastinated requests for documents and challenged Diversa's assertion it is being open, transparent, and working in a constructive fashion with the regulator.

"We are compelling production of information, and we've experienced delays in the production of that information. They have sought numerous extensions of time to comply, sometimes after the expiration of timeframes. In our opinion, too, Diversa either narrowly reads or reads down the scope of our notices, which requires us then to do further work, which causes more expense and more delay," Savundra said.

To say that Diversa has been "working constructively" with ASIC and assist in its fact-fining would be an "overstatement."