The AFA says more than 100 of the 230 forms it received could not be accepted for a range of reasons, pushing the number of valid forms below the 5 per cent threshold required to request an EGM.
Fifty of the forms were duplicates, 25 forms were provided by non-members of the AFA and 28 forms could not be verified as it incorrectly identified the member.
“The AFA has notified Mr Mark Dunsford who provided the forms calling for the EGM that less than 5 per cent of the voting members of the AFA are represented and, accordingly, the AFA cannot take his special resolution to change the AFA constitution to the membership as yet,” the association said in a statement.
“The AFA is telephoning 24 members where forms have been received in their name but the details provided are insufficient to identify whether the member completed the form.
“The AFA will help them complete the form if that was their intention.”
AFA national president Deborah Kent said the board appreciates the right of members to call an EGM within the confines of good governance under the Corporations Act and will facilitate a resolution if and when the requisite 5 per cent of voting members is reached.
MIchael, points taken. Agree with you 100% and intend to do as you have mentioned, let’s hope things move in a positive direction.
Cheers, Tim
Sure Tim and I personally agree with the LICG’s objectives since I am the director of an IFA adviser firm with a heavy focus on insurance. I also agree with comments above that industry sponsorship needs to be pulled from the AFA, to quote the good book “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”
Having said that there is a process, it’s called running for the board positions (which are open) and being a constructive part of an association not trying to force a vote that neuters it. Take the passion and grievance of advisers to the insurers and regulators and maintain that focus.
Hi Michael, you make many points which are valid on face value and show real loyalty to the association – which I applaud – however I feel that you are missing a big part of the discussion – particularly if you are a non aligned adviser. The LICG was born out of a number of concerned advisers who run their own businesses, not rebel rousing and not anti AFA – but seriously questioning our associations push back against regs which are designed to weaken the ability of IFA’s to survive- not one consumer benefit to the changes and no alternative ways for clients to pay for the high up front cost of putting business on the books have been articulated. We don’t believe that 60/20 is the end game – there will be further changes in 2019 unless we as a group say – ENOUGH! There will not be an IFA ‘risk adviser’ by 2025 unless we push back and remind the regulators of the work we do. I’m happy to discuss this with you mate, would welcome your call – I’m easy to find. Cheers. Tim
The FPA and AFA have wittingly or unwittingly always supported their sponsors over their members. Hardly seems any point in being a member of a “member association” if the member’s wellbeing is put last.
If the AFA Board was fair dinkum they would have the meeting, anyway, to put the LIF to the vote of MEMBERS like they should have done in the first place, but they don’t want THEIR members to have a SAY – Unacceptable isn’t it!
If you want to bring democracy back to the AFA then email afaresolution@gmail.com, ask for a form and let’s get those last 20 votes to have a meeting.
(Although the AFA Bi-Laws clearly state 5% or 100 votes. Brad Fox has even stated in the press that only 100 votes is all that is needed. There are 100 votes, so the EGM should go ahead – unless the AFA Board have something to cover up! A Board that ignores the association’s own laws and ignores their MEMBERS, is a Board not worth having)
What the voting process has exposed so far is that:
The AFA Board is prepared to ignore the Associations own Bi-Laws
The AFA Board have changed member’s numbers without advising them
The AFA Board have classified members with over-due fees as “non-membersâ€
Brad Fox has stated in the Press that only 100 votes are needed for the EGM and he has subsequently admitted in the press that over 100 eligible votes have been received.
The AFA Board steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the LIF will make Banks/Insurance companies richer and will give them an unfair competitive advantage over non-aligned advisers (AFA Members)
THE AFA Board refuses to demonstrate one benefit for CONSUMERS in the LIF that they whole-heartedly support!
And how about the recent premium increases that all insurers I deal with have been doing since the LIF process started?? Another cynical move by them to increase their profitability BEFORE the LIF becomes law and they will find it next to impossible to justify after they have slashed their overheads (read – screwed advisers over).
Not to mention the recent surge in their total profits.
Yep, the industry is certainly in such significant strife that the only solution is to kick the IFA sector.
Maybe if the AFA had gone into bat for us properly, rather than folding like cheap suits the minute the FSC put the squeeze on them, they wouldn’t be facing the backlash that they are.
One of the problems with claiming you achieved something intangible without hard evidence to present is that people will take the benefit but deny credit. Just ask Kevin Rudd , Wayne Swan & Ken Henry – their stimulus saved Australia from recession in 2008, but the Liberals assert it was just good luck. Parents with kids in schools love it.
Our AFA, warned by the FPA that Trowbridge was a foregone conclusion, were still egotistical enough to participate in its farce. The assertion of the AFA somehow pulling us back from the brink of the calamity of a 20% level commission, if actually true, reveals they did not recognize a Ministerial negotiating tactic when they saw one. Even the FSC were never keen on that, as it was obvious there would be a short term full retreat of advisers and the FSC is not quite ready for that, yet.
The 20/20 was an ambit claim, designed to rattle the AFA cage, and it succeeded. The AFA, based on the minimal information it has deemed to spread to its risk members, apparently fronted negotiations offering 80/20 ( which most could live with ) without seeking concessions. Any union leader worth his salt ( and that’s what they should have been, bugger the façade of “professionalism ” ) would have started negotiations with what we had, and talked tough.
Sadly the AFA leadership were like lambs to the slaughter. Pussycats!!!. They should have WALKED OUT when the good faith disappeared. They also should have used a heavy hitter former FEDERAL Liberal lobbyist to fight back, and raised a levy if needed from Members. They should also have challenged some of the absurd churn claims and flawed statistical “findings “of ASIC Report 413, instead of waving it through, as that started the rot.
But, and this is of the AFAs own creation, there is a sneaky gut feeling among risk advisers that the FSC might just have hinted to the AFA that all that “sponsorship ” from insurers might just be in danger if the AFA went in too hard, or worse still, used some of that cache to hire a lobbyist. The AFA is constantly asked in these forums how they managed that conflict of receiving sponsorship, but have avoided the issue, and the folks who call themselves journalistic contributors to industry publications have not asked the tough questions.
And the AFA might have kept in touch with Risk Writers ! And it might just have enough smarts to acknowledge that the very recent influx of new Members might just be related by a push from the bank-owned licencees to compel their advisers to join either AFA or FPA. You can buy influence in myriad ways.
The anger and disappointment being expressed right now is well justified – Risk writers have been deserted. The next AGM will tell how angry we are.
The AFA and FPA pulled LIF from a flat 20% level commission or a fixed fee per policy to a hybrid commission with a 2 year clawback period.. How do we support our representatives? By outright attacking them and demanding they die in a ditch for an argument that, however valid is just too far past the policy makers objective to get over the line. FoFa was far more savage and we had no effective argument against opt in. An adults ability to enter in to a contract was trumped by an industry network that wants us dead or employed. I get the anger and the desire to avoid change but why sabotage our own in a hissy fit?
This rejection of Risk Advisers opinions by the AFA directors is no different from the manner in which the whole LIF was dealt with by them. Do your members a favour and resign. If you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen.
ODL.
if all the members who cancelled there memberships join back up for a month they will have more than enough for the 5% vote
I am going to join the AFA just so I can lodge one of these forms…. Are the AFA just thinking and hoping this is going to go away?