The campaign, launched last month, is known as the ‘Battle of Fairness’ and AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston has called on advisers from the AIOFP, FPA and AFA to get involved via a three stage “offensive”.
“The minister’s office recently confirmed that the FRC, AFA and FPA risk framework proposal will need Cabinet approval before any further market announcements are made,” Mr Johnston said in a letter to members.
“This opens up some further opportunities to push for change.”
The AIOFP has urged advisers to inform politicians of any opposition to the risk proposals to highlight the potential disadvantages for consumers via this link.
The association has also asked advisers to advise consumers of “the dangers to their family’s wellbeing”.
“This is an ongoing process with articles appearing in the mainstream press recently and possibly talkback radio in the near future,” Mr Johnston said.
Finally, Mr Johnston has urged members of the FPA and AFA to voice their opposition to the proposal by emailing the relevant chief executives.
“It is time for all advisers to now act as one political force. We will keep you informed of progress,” Mr Johnston said.
The form letter states the claim rejection rate for direct policies is 50%, as opposed to 4% for underwritten policies implemented via professional advisers.
If this is true then every adviser in Australia needs to be shouting it from the rooftops. They should also be badgering media outlets to unmask the scandalous rort of direct insurance. Is there a verifiable source for these figures that advisers can refer to?
There should be no clawbacks for our industry to survive, make it a rule that the adviser cannot rewrite a client for the same Product and then lets get on with business.
The above article has a link to a letter to be cut & pasted into an email/correspondence to our local MP however the very last line of the letter refers to an attachment on the recommended compromise… but no further links to the attachment is available – can this be supplied please?
it talks about an attachment, but there is no attachment?