Both the AIOFP and commenters on the ifa website previously voiced concerns that the two industry associations ignored advisers’ views regarding the Life Insurance Framework (LIF).
However, speaking to ifa, AFA chief executive Brad Fox said the group received “resounding support” from its members, who also understood “the advocacy work done by the AFA on their behalf”.
“Since the LIF began, the AFA membership has continued to grow consistently and, importantly, this is at a time when membership of a professional association is not a legislative requirement,” he told ifa.
“Specifically in regard to LIF, our Life Insurance Roadshow in September last year achieved a 96 per cent positive rating from attendees [who said] they felt more confident after attending the event.”
FPA policy manager Ben Marshan also said member satisfaction has been on an upwards trend for his association. He said the FPA had fought against the original LIF proposals because they were not workable for advisers.
“We helped make sure that the approach was pragmatic,” he said.
“Our view is that, compared to what the original proposals were, what we’ve got to is a much more pragmatic position for financial planners [that] allows them and their businesses to transition.”
But not everyone agrees the latest LIF version is workable.
Mark Dunsford, director of NOW Financial Group, said the AFA had “driven advisers under a bus”.
In a statement directed at the AFA, Mr Dunsford said: “We all feel you have allowed the execs of the life companies and banks via the FSC to frame incorrect arguments blaming advisers unfairly for problems life insurance companies have created.”
He continued: “Do you understand that the LIF in its current format will ruin hundreds of small businesses, increase the under insurance issue, increase the burden on our social security system, increase the cost of advice?
“The only winners are the product manufacturers. Yes, the banks and insurance companies, who surprisingly have framed an argument via the FSC to benefit only them.”
Last month, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee recommended that the LIF legislation be passed without any changes. The government released draft remuneration regulations that will support the reform package last week.
Jerry, put your name and credentials online here to support your flimsy argument and negative comments. Or don’t you have the courage to do that? here is my name, you can google my contact details, happy for you to contact me any time to argue the point.
Mark Dunsford, good job, you are correct in your commentary.
Mark Dunsford is 100% correct in saying that the AFA had “driven advisers under a bus”. I have been a member since 1981 when it was known as LUA (Life Underwriters Australia), then changed the name in 1990 to Life Writers Association Australia and we are now known as Association of Financial Advisers Australia.
I must say that this AFA leadership does not respect and understand the way honest and trustworthy advisers who worked very hard to build a business and have very good clients and only to see it all wrecked by an Association that is now acting like a political party in government and opposition, going hand in hand with them to kill us the long standing advisers paved the way for themselves to come in and draw fat salaries. What qualifications have the people in politics, or in Industry Super have? Have a Royal Commission into Industry Super.
[quote name=”Jerry”][quote name=”David Bourke”]I respectfully refute these claims by the AFA. If it was a resounding success why have over 2300 Advisers and support staff signed up through the LICG refuting the role and decisions our association took on behalf of its members.[/quote]
Sorry David, there are over 19,000 appointments on the ASIC Adviser Register. That equates to 87.89% who haven’t publicly supported LICG and that is excluding their support staff. Am I missing something?[/quote]
No “Jerry” you are missing nothing at all but you are a hard task master. The LICG was only setup 4 months ago, pretty amazing effort to get 2300+ in such a short period of time. Have faith in us “Jerry”.
Latest comments by Brad Fox are incorrect. Majority of members do not support his statements, that is why LICG are opposing LIC. Extremely disappointed with the AFA performance to date. No fire in their belly, second rate performance here, members are very sad and sorry with poor representation. I am a long standing AFA member (50years) and never was consulted on the issues. Only winners here on new issues, are the Life Companies.
I am a LICG supporter because the AFA have not represented Risk Advisers properly on current issues. The latest comments by Brad Fox are incorrect, saying the majority of members support his stand. I have registered disagreement and no reply or contact at all.
Extremely disappointed with lack of performance by AFA on behalf of members they represent. No fire in their belly or real support effort at all. So sad !
[quote name=”Paul”]Melinda, those consumers who are willing to pay the full cost of professional advice upfront in exchange for a longer term reduction in premiums will be better off. The problem is that only about 5% of consumers are willing to do this. The other 95% will not pay for advice upfront, and will end up with a small amount of junk insurance that doesn’t cover their needs and doesn’t pay claims.
So it is not strictly true to say there is no consumer benefit to LIF. It’s just that the consumer benefit only applies to about 5% of consumers, while everyone else is worse off.[/quote]
Please detail the consumer benefit you refer to, if there is any it is insignificant compared to the business model and vertical integration being imposed on advisers and consumers.
My thanks to LICG for running with a stance that reflected my view on the LIF proposals.
Unfortunately. the FPA, who I am a member of choose a position which I believe is primarily not in their members interests but ultimately not in the interests of the consumer.
I was a member of AFA and was not consulted.
AFA and FPA do not represent advisers !.
I have been telephoned by ASIC – thank you Peter Kell, and spoke to Christian from ASIC. Thank you Wayne Handley and the Life Insurance Customer Group, we should all be supporting this Group.
[quote name=”Travis Smith”]Yes, Jerry, I think you are missing something. Assuming you are an adviser, that makes 4 advisers I’ve seen that have publicly supported AFA/FPA actions throughout LIF. So by your logic 99.9789% have not. Hardly resounding support is it?[/quote]
Well 19,000 less 2,300 = 16,700 people (who were most likely spammed by LICG like I was) is still a lot who didn’t sign the petition. Opportunity was there.
[quote name=”AJ Dann”]Hey Jerry….are you missing the point here. The outcome remains the same. The AFA, FPA didn’t mount a successful case in support of Advisers. The message was clear at the outset that the line being run was a stitch up yet no credible well structure argument existed from either association. While you’re running around checking memberships and email addresses I think you have missed the point. By all means check my details if stalking is your thing.[/quote]
I never claimed they were successfull. I’ve only been refuting the claims they didn’t consult their membership base. They did what they could. Make the effort to go to the Advocacy sections on the FPA & AFA websites & read their submissions & media releases again.
[quote name=”AJ”]Member of the AFA and was not consulted, and don’t bother Jerry, there was no email sent to me, so give it up.
The sentiments here echo those of a number of politicians involved, that the AFA and FPA did an atrocious job.
The Life Insurance Roadshow only got a 96% positive rating because there were many presentations unrelated to LIF that were very good, but it had nothing to do with the AFA’s efforts.[/quote]
AJ I call BS on that. If you get the AFA Echo email, you were. If you don’t get it, get your details updated.
Jerry, be a man and use your surname as well, or have you something to hide, like you are employed by the AFA. AJ Dann is right, you are a stalker, very creepy
[quote name=”Paul”]Simon, why will we need to be members of a professional body?
Professional body members were supposed to get an exemption from Opt-In, but that never eventuated. Seemingly there is no recognition or respect whatsoever from the govt for professional associations. The govt seems to rely purely on draconian regulation and expensive compliance. And as the LIF debacle has shown, professional associations are ineffectual in lobbying for member interests.
So what is the point in having professional associations at all?[/quote]
You don’t need to be a member. don’t waste your money. Throw the renewal away
Yes, Jerry, I think you are missing something. Assuming you are an adviser, that makes 4 advisers I’ve seen that have publicly supported AFA/FPA actions throughout LIF. So by your logic 99.9789% have not. Hardly resounding support is it?
Hey Jerry….are you missing the point here. The outcome remains the same. The AFA, FPA didn’t mount a successful case in support of Advisers. The message was clear at the outset that the line being run was a stitch up yet no credible well structure argument existed from either association. While you’re running around checking memberships and email addresses I think you have missed the point. By all means check my details if stalking is your thing.
Member of the AFA and was not consulted, and don’t bother Jerry, there was no email sent to me, so give it up.
The sentiments here echo those of a number of politicians involved, that the AFA and FPA did an atrocious job.
The Life Insurance Roadshow only got a 96% positive rating because there were many presentations unrelated to LIF that were very good, but it had nothing to do with the AFA’s efforts.
[quote name=”David Bourke”]I respectfully refute these claims by the AFA. If it was a resounding success why have over 2300 Advisers and support staff signed up through the LICG refuting the role and decisions our association took on behalf of its members.[/quote]
Sorry David, there are over 19,000 appointments on the ASIC Adviser Register. That equates to 87.89% who haven’t publicly supported LICG and that is excluding their support staff. Am I missing something?
[quote name=”Simon Milton”][quote name=”Jerry”][quote name=”Simon Milton”]I was not consulted.[/quote]
Simon, which association are you a member of if you don’t mind me asking?[/quote]
AFA. I have searched and searched emails and my post to find consultation but cannot come across any.[/quote]
Simon, you need to check your AFA Echo e-mails. AFA did ask for feedback from members, provided updates on what was happening & what they were doing etc.
I respectfully refute these claims by the AFA. If it was a resounding success why have over 2300 Advisers and support staff signed up through the LICG refuting the role and decisions our association took on behalf of its members.
[quote name=”Jerry”][quote name=”Simon Milton”]I was not consulted.[/quote]
Simon, which association are you a member of if you don’t mind me asking?[/quote]
AFA. I have searched and searched emails and my post to find consultation but cannot come across any.
[quote name=”Gavin Bramley”]I am an adviser and was not consulted.[/quote]
Gavin, are you an AFA member? If you are, maybe check to see if they have your correct e-mail? I just did a search of my e-mail for “AFA Echo LIF” and everyone was definitely asked for feedback and kept informed as things progressed.
Please note that FPA and AFA comments referred to members (not advisers). The companies that make up the FSC are all members/sponsors of the AFA and FPA and I’m sure that’s who is giving them “resounding support”.
And to Melinda, please keep asking but maybe adjust to #noaverageconsumerbenefit
[quote name=”Simon Milton”]I was not consulted.[/quote]
Simon, which association are you a member of if you don’t mind me asking?
What absolute rubbish. the majority of advisers DO NOT support the stance taken by the AFA. The LIF legislation will be detrimental to advisers and consumers. life companies are hoping for a bigger slice of the pie, but will see the inevitabel downturn in insurance sales. I have not paid my membership and boycotted the AFA conference last year.
[quote name=”Keith Coles”]It is wrong for Brad Fox to say that he had “resounding support” from the AFA members the members were never asked as a collective[/quote]
Keith, guess that would make Mr Dunsford wrong by claiming “We ALL feel you have allowed the execs…” since I was never asked how I felt.
Never been consulted by FPA, AFA about anything, ever, personally. Have advisers in the practice who are members of each.
I did get told off personally by one of the board members from FPA once for commenting on here about no response to a letter I sent to the FPA though. Only personal response ever!! Gave me the real warm and fuzzies…Not!
I was not consulted.
[quote name=”Mike Matheson”]…and as a result don’t attend AFA meetings and have not renewed my membership.[/quote]
Mike, just a heads up need to update your Website, Adviser Profile & ASIC Adviser Register. They still say you’re an AFA member. You wouldn’t want to mislead your clients that would be awkward.
In fact if we as advisers could forward this link to our fellow advisers and ask them to comment if they were advised or not.
I am an adviser and was not consulted.
If everyone reading this article could confirm ‘consulted’ or ‘not consulted’ about these issues we could certainly get an understanding if there was any consultation with advisers or if it was only the ‘others’ that were consulted.
The fact that both the AFA and FPA are defending their positions suggests to me that they do have a case to answer. I have nothing to do with Mark Dunsford but I agree with him 100%
It is is so easy to bend the truth.I was never consulted and as a result don’t attend AFA meetings and have not renewed my membership.We have been sold out and now they expect us to work for a loss.
Simon, why will we need to be members of a professional body?
Professional body members were supposed to get an exemption from Opt-In, but that never eventuated. Seemingly there is no recognition or respect whatsoever from the govt for professional associations. The govt seems to rely purely on draconian regulation and expensive compliance. And as the LIF debacle has shown, professional associations are ineffectual in lobbying for member interests.
So what is the point in having professional associations at all?
Melinda, those consumers who are willing to pay the full cost of professional advice upfront in exchange for a longer term reduction in premiums will be better off. The problem is that only about 5% of consumers are willing to do this. The other 95% will not pay for advice upfront, and will end up with a small amount of junk insurance that doesn’t cover their needs and doesn’t pay claims.
So it is not strictly true to say there is no consumer benefit to LIF. It’s just that the consumer benefit only applies to about 5% of consumers, while everyone else is worse off.
Well not wanting to spoil the party the two associations were dreadful and disingenuous in their approach.
They have not represented advisers – certainly not the bulk of ones I have been in contact with
they have communicated poorly – from the outside of the process it seems as a fait accompli
and importantly there is no evidence to show a push back against the proposed reforms.
bloody woeful
“Resounding support”? You know you have to talk to some people other than FSC members Brad??? The reason your membership continues to grow is because the AFA seems like the lesser of two evils and we will need to be members of a professional body. Totally agree with Mark Dunsford and all of his comments!
Regardless of associations or personalities – can someone please answer this question for me?
Where is the consumer benefit in LIF ?
#noconsumerbenefit #whodoesbenefit?
I’m with Mark Dunsford. The inability to construct and execute an argument based on facts has been very disappointing. Advisers could see the stitch up why couldn’t our representative bodies. A refusal to do business with insurers who were front and center is my private protest. When the association renewal hits my desk next year I will be asking myself the question yet again…why am I writing this cheque for?
As a member of the AFA, I have written 3 emails to the AFA over the last few months against the LIF reforms, and have received ZERO responses. Thanks for your continued support and listening AFA.
“We all feel you have allowed the execs of the life companies and banks via the FSC to frame incorrect arguments blaming advisers unfairly for problems life insurance companies have created.”
Beautifully crafted and 100% correct. I am a CFP and the FPA are a bunch of mutes who have already made their money.
It is wrong for Brad Fox to say that he had “resounding support” from the AFA members the members were never asked as a collective and when it came time for robust debate in a proper forum ie the AFA AGM the discussion was quickly closed down and the meeting ended