In an open letter to advisers, Sentry Group chief executive Murray Hills said he is concerned that continued infighting will provide “more grist to the mill” to be used against all advisers by lawmakers and the corporate regulator.
“I am very strongly against public disunity in the industry, particularly when it involves an opportunistic attack and outrageous statements by some individuals and other organisations on the AFA and the FPA,” Mr Hills said.
While the Life Insurance Customer Group’s right to have a different opinion from other industry organisations is perfectly understandable, its public turning upon the AFA has seriously detracted from the merits of their case, he said.
Mr Hills added that it reflects adversely on the integrity of both organisations and the financial services profession as a whole.
“No reasonable person can attack solely on the AFA and wonder why the initiator does not apply the same logic and tactic against the FPA – unfortunately it can only be interpreted as a personality clash,” Mr Hills said.
“In my view the AFA and the FPA are the only formally constituted and properly structured industry associations with a long history over many years of representing advisers and lifting the educational and ethical standards of their members that have stood the test of time.
“They will still be around when others with short-term goals are gone and will then have to recover unnecessary lost credibility and rebuild the reputation of their members in particular and the industry in general,” he said.
Margaret, you are representative of the majority of members I believe
Pretty easy to have done this in house had the AFA leadership really wanted to be inclusive of its membership’s views and take a balanced consultative approach. That did not occur and the AFA leadership forced this out in the open for its own reasons, whatever they allege they are. Put your views to the test leadership team, convene a meeting where you can show the members how you are acting in their best interests. Murray Hills, or anyone else, can speak in support of your efforts and show all of us who are so misguide the flaw in our thinking. Alternatively the leadership team could simply admit they were conned and show us what they can do to rectify the situation while there is still time to do so.
AFA – “Unite” towards destroying your income, seeing your clients get screwed and enriching the miscreant banks?? Are the AFA Board out of their minds?
The AFA Paid Trowbridge’s Fees; of all the Trowbridge Committee members, Trowbridge only gave the Minster the FSC’s submission, The AFA backed the FSC’s position and the Minister was told that both the FSC institutions and the AFA members fully supported the LIF and the Minister had the legislation drafted.
Many AFA members have stated publically that they did NOT support the LIF, were not consulted by their own AFA Board and feel that the AFA Board has not only misrepresented its members, but the Board have disregarded the AFA charter to act in their members’ and the public’s interests. The AFA has only acted in the FSC’s best interest!
That’s why the AFA are involved, they not only started the LIF legislation process they also paid Trowbridge to do it to us! If you think the current AFA Board have done the right thing by their members Mr Hills, then vote for them, but you may one of few.
Dacian nothing professional about leaving a large swathe of consumers in a worst position nor leaving professionals that pay fees to them in a position where in some cases their business becomes untenable because of a communist type law this professional association endorsed.
Thats the problem with the industry…advisers should look to join a non aligned group if they want to help solve the industry’s problems.
Dear Mr Hills, we have had differences of opinion before and we certainly have them today. If you did your research, you would find the reason the AFA is being involved in this is because they were the ones who endorsed the LIF with legislators. Feedback from relevant politicians has been that because the AFA said it was fine, they haven’t bothered to check further. This is why the LICG are trying to ask the AFA to remove its support via the required mechanisms of the EGM.
The LICG have shown over and over why LIF is detrimental to consumers or the economy, and the passionate advisers who help people with risk advice (who I believe make up a good proportion of your adviser base) are not going to just let the legislation pass without a fight.
The AFA stood up to represent advisers in supporting LIF, therefore they are the ones who need to know it is not supported. That is all.
Your commentary is only inflaming the situation further, with no value to add. Let this essential process happen as quietly as possible or get involved with politicians and lobbying. Don’t just write ignorant, factless open letters that are irrelevant and inflationary.
Unity in doing the wrong thing by consumers is of no value to anyone.
I am proud that so many advisers are putting their own time and money on the line for this vital issue. Maybe you should be too.
And yes, I still support the AFA, they do a great job in many areas, this is not personal.
The dealer groups have been very quiet on this matter. Most of them are aligned one way or another the rest like this rely on the sponsorship and don’t want to rock the boat.
So you shouldn’t fight for what you believe is right and you should just toe the line as to promote good PR. Is this really the message from leadership today? I am strongly for people expressing opinions and couldn’t give two hoots about public disunity because that is double speak for “do as I say”.
The beauty of democracy’s is that the laws allow people a mechanism to express their opinion. The constitution of the AFA is no different and members are well within their right to use those mechanisms to fight for what they believe is a just outcome. The author of the letter would be well served to respect that notion and let the AFA EGM process take place and then he should accept the decision after all these democratically applied mechanisms have been utilised.
No personalities involved here eh Murray?
So what do you suggest Murray? We should all sit back and watch the life insurance companies collude against small business advisers and embark on a path which will hurt consumers? If the professional bodies and dealer groups had the courage to stand up for the best interests of consumers and support their advisers, we would be united.
Murray with respect I think most advisers would be more interested in what the risk advisers in your group think about this?
The FPA is not an industry association. It is a professional association and failure to grasp the distinction is indicative of the problem.
Unity is a noble ideal. What’s the point in us all agreeing on a Govt proposal of something which is bad for consumers?
If we care enough, we’ll speak up.