However, emails and other information released by the royal commission tells a different story. In one example involving the now-famous report, paragraphs which cleared two senior staff members at AMP of culpability for the scandal were inserted following discussions with Ms Brenner. The report itself is also highly critical of AMP's culture and finds a key executive engaged in potential misconduct. In its submission to the royal commission, released on Friday morning, AMP "strenuously" denied last week's allegation by counsel assisting the banking royal commission that it may have committed a criminal offence when it provided the Clayton Utz report to the corporate regulator on the understanding it was "independent". Craig Meller, former CEO of AMP. Credit:Daniel Munoz Ms Brenner resigned days after chief executive Craig Meller left the company. It followed revelations at the Hayne royal commission that AMP had repeatedly misled the regulator and accusations it had doctored the Clayton Utz report it later presented to the regulator as "independent".

Those changes included the initial removal of Mr Meller's name in the report, and the later re-inclusion of his name along with the statement that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by the former AMP boss. The involvement of Ms Brenner in the drafting of the report is referred to in emails between AMP’s then chief legal counsel Brian Salter, another senior AMP lawyer, Larissa Baker Cook, and the Clayton Utz partner preparing the report, Nicholas Mavrakis. Loading The Clayton Utz report places the blame for AMP continuing to charge its customers fees for services they didn’t receive at the feet of AMP managing director Michael Guggenheimer and fellow AMP executive Justin Morgan. Two other executives, the then head of AMP advice Rob Caprioli, and AMP director channel services, Michael Paff, appear to have been absolved of any responsibility following instructions from AMP.

Buried in the documents is a sentence that indicates Ms Brenner’s involvement was greater than previously thought. In a October 5 email, Mr Salter tells Mr Mavrakis: “I got the impression from Catherine that her comments were more substantive than the changes marked on the attached and that there were more of them." Mr Mavrakis responds the same day to Mr Satler’s email saying that: “I can confirm that we have taken into account all of Catherine's comments in the version we sent you yesterday.” I spoke to Catherine earlier today and she had a number of comments which she would like incorporated. Email from Brian Salter Mr Mavrakis added that he has included two new paragraphs of the report in a draft sent to Ms Brenner that outlined the findings of Clayton Utz following discussions with AMP.

The paragraphs in question state in part that: “Based on our findings set out in those sub-paragraphs, Messrs Caprioli and Paff had no knowledge of the 90 Day Exception at the relevant time and relied upon others to prepare relevant communications with ASIC referred to above”. The new paragraphs also appear to introduce into the report the statement that: “Other individuals did not exhibit the level of leadership, direct influence, knowledge and conduct of Messrs Guggenheimer and Morgan. Accordingly, no adverse findings are made about the conduct of other individuals against the requirements of the Code.” A later email, this time from October 11, shows further suggested changes by Ms Brenner have been incorporated into the report. In the email, Mr Salter writes to Mr Mavrakis and Ms Baker Cook to say: “I spoke to Catherine earlier today and she had a number of comments which she would like incorporated into the copy of the report to be handed to ASIC on Monday”. While some of the changes suggested appear to be typographical, Mr Salter adds: “She (Ms Brenner) is concerned about the imprecision of the term "senior management"” in the Clayton Utz report.

He adds: “Its not clear who this covers in the Advice business and more widely in the entire organisation. Please review the references to "senior management" in the document and confirm that the term has been appropriately used and whether it would be better to refer to the specific people.” The documents also included a scathing letter from ASIC to Mr Salter that excoriated the company for its conduct relating to ASIC’s investigation. Loading ASIC said AMP had “frustrated and materially delayed the investigation of AMP’s conduct since its inception". This included AMP's conduct in relation to a separate investigation by ASIC into the life insurance sector. AMP said on Friday there was no evidence to suggest the board, including Ms Brenner and Mr Meller, acted inappropriately in relation to the preparation of the report and that it was not aware of the extent of Mr Salter's involvement in the preparation of the report.