Executive director of the AIOFP Peter Johnston has been very vocal since the release of the reforms and has questioned why the associations will not release their proposals to the Assistant Treasurer.
“We feel it is fair and reasonable that the three associations who constructed the Proposal for the Minister immediately release it to the advice community,” Mr Johnston said.
“If the advisers’ views and concerns were seriously taken into account why was it not done from the outset? We can only assume that the Proposal was heavily weighted in the institutions’ favour and the advisers were disadvantaged.
“Associations should be transparent with their members at all times otherwise it undermines their credibility,” he said.
FPA chief executive Mark Rantall said, however, that the association did consult its members and publicly made its position on the life insurance industry known.
The FPA’s ‘life insurance blueprint’, which it released in May 2015 for consultation with its members, rejected a level commission structure and claimed the proposals of the FSI would “only serve to benefit life insurance providers”.
AFA chief executive Brad Fox had also previously responded to Mr Johnston’s comments, stating it is “very easy to criticise the [associations] for being involved in the process”.
“The fact that the AFA and the FPA could come up with a joint, shared, identical blueprint that was taken to the FSC and to [Mr Frydenberg] helped enormously in getting that final outcome,” he said.
“Things were considerably worse before that, so us coming together, united, was a very beneficial part of this process.”
This is pure corruption. AFA should of walked away when it was obvious to be to the advantage of FSC. To lend your name to a process could give the impression to the minister there actually was a consensus.
Back in 2012 the FSC tried the same proposal but AFA and others wouldn’t let it.
Fast forward to 2015 AFA jointly recommended the proposals with FSC as well as halving upfront income for all members as the best outcome.
Why didn’t they survey members and conduct studies to show the drastic effects of the changes?
This death by a thousand cuts really just inches up bank market share every year.
I can’t see a liberal govt legislating what two parties pay each other unless both parties tell them that’s what they want. The use of fear tactics the AFA is trying to use sounds like poor result excuse syndrome.
How reform to increase better consumer outcomes turned into legislating reducing costs for insurers but not consumers is incredible.
It’s like Brad fox tied both hands behind his back and smiled while everyone has a free punch. Says it’s the best he could do because if he didn’t agree to them beating him up it might of been worse. Forgets to tell people they will be back with even harsher reforms in three year now they know he is an easy target.
I can say right now the review in three years will say the reforms haven’t done enough and need to go further. Ie level commissions – because they already have their agenda but just couldn’t justify without conceding somewhere in the middle for a few years and some more finger pointing later on.
Corruption is a 3 letter word
AFA FPA FSC
Problem is the AFA/FPA joint submission has yet to be aired
By not taking advisers into their confidence, and not entering negotiations with the status quo as a starting point, the banks, with Fydenberg in support, rolled us, particularly on the clawback.
We let Frydenberg smash us up in the interests of his promotional prospects and his bank allegiances. We may as well not bothered on that evidence
Someone in the banks insurers better tell their banking masters the true cost of modifying internal systems to administer a clawback as nasty as that
I find it hard to fathom that Mark Rantall can say that they (FPA) have consulted with its members on this.
I know that at the CBA the staff that become members of the FPA which is paid for by the CBA do not have voting rights – when they complete their application form – it states that only managers have voting rights – so whilst Rantall can say that they have consulted its members – the only ones that have a say are those with vested interest – not the advisers