The wording of their statement appears to be correct but it...

The wording of their statement appears to be correct but it avoids a bigger question and therefore needs to be elaborated upon. It is true that loss of Pooled Development Status doesn't affect the various products issued by GDG and its subsidiaries, but none of these products ever had PDF status to begin with...it was only the holding company (GDG) itself that ever had that status.
With this statement they're seeking to reassure GDG shareholders that it won't have an effect on the underlying prospects or cashflow of GDG's various business streams (Life company, Lonsec etc) and this is true.
However, the loss of PDF status has a direct effect on GDG shareholders, who will lose the preferential PDF tax treatment on:
a) Income (from memory of the PDF Act, which I haven't looked at for years...dividends received received could be treated as either tax exempt or fully franked, regardless of franking level, based on investor preference/situation) as well as
b) Capital gains (gains made on sale of GDG shares are tax exempt whilst it retains PDF status).

So their statement is skirting around the obvious, which is that there will be a loss of tax efficiency for GDG shareholders once (or if) this PDF status is lost, even if it doesn't impact the underlying businesses that GDG owns.
Frankly, I never understood how GDG qualified under the PDF provisions all these years, as the scheme was originally set up in the 1990s to foster investment in SMEs/private equity and GDG hasn't appeared to fit that profile for a very long time.
If you're sitting on gains with your GDG investment, my impression is that (all other things remaining equal) selling whilst it retains PDF status may be preferable to doing so after.
This is not advice, I am not a tax or legal expert/adviser, so please make your own enquiries and do your own research to confirm this for yourself.