In a LinkedIn post to members, Mr Fox criticised an AFA member’s call for an EGM to propose a resolution that the AFA withdraw its support for the LIF in its current form.
Mr Fox said an EGM and the proposed resolution would hark back to the criticisms the AFA received during the days when it had minimal influence negotiating the Future of Financial Advice reforms.
“If an EGM is called, and if the resolution is subsequently passed, members will have a board that cannot fully exercise the rights to govern,” he said.
“The proposed changes to the AFA Constitution would remove the ability of your elected member board to set the policy of the AFA.”
Mr Fox added that the AFA board would be forced to hold additional member general meetings to seek support before being able to agree or further negotiate terms with Parliament.
“This is akin to the AFA being asked to wait outside the room while the other parties make the decisions,” he said.
“The association would lose years of hard-earned respect and relevance.”
Mr Fox said further that the resolution would also mean the AFA’s working relationship with the FPA on life insurance would dissolve.
This would be an inconvenient time for such an event to happen, he said, noting the AFA and FPA need to “stay united on professional standards reforms” in order “to have influence with politicians, consumer groups, accounting bodies, academics and Treasury”.
Some of this interview and the logic applied is hard to follow but one or two comments are a stand out.
– Without the requisite authority the AFA would have had to stand outside the room of the decision making. The outcome was better standing inside the room?
– The FPA have to be united with. Why is that? An institutionally aligned training organisation has a mandate for what? The training of institutionally owned advisers and those closely aligned with them. Why would the AFA want to limit itself to just that interest group?
You could go on but basically it’s all just more of the same. Trust us! We know what we are doing. You members don’t have a clue.
Brad. You don’t have support for what is a terrible negotiation for both risk advisers and customers. You also have not answered the questions regarding the FSC’s sneaking in of the direct carve out. Your job is to support the views of the majority of members, not the profiteering of the FSC members regardless of what financial support they may be giving the AFA now.
The actions of the AFA leadership in the LIF have been nothing short of disgraceful.
By taking the right stance this would be the right thing to do and would not effect the ability to negotiate in the future. It is your current actions which are going to see the AFA lose years of hard-earned respect and relevance.
He’s dreaming – the premise of the LIF – is purely tokenistic and its disingenuous try to paint it as otherwise – the AFA boss is supposed to serve his members – or at the very least properly explain the position taken. On all accounts a very poor effort to date
Taking a stance and contrary position to the AFA board and management is a courageous position.
Have the AFA board and management lost touch with a segment of membership ?
Surely over 2500 advisers cant all be wrong and do they represent the views of the silent majority ?
Mr Fox, your ever desperate attempts to defend the LIF are bemusing. Just stop the rubbish scaremongering and go work directly for the FSC or Institutions that you effectively already work for and we can all clearly see who you really represent then.