This week, AFA member and director of NOW Financial Group, Mark Dunsford, announced that he plans to call for an EGM to convince the AFA board to withdraw its support for the LIF in its current form.
In a statement today, AFA president Deborah Kent urged members to reject the call to pass a special resolution change to the AFA constitution.
“The proposed change would be the AFA board would not be able to form any policy position, or negotiate any policy position with government, other associations or consumer interest groups without calling a general meeting and conducting a member vote,” Ms Kent said.
“This is a critical time in the profession’s development. AFA members need representation at the decision makers’ tables. This change to the constitution would reduce and possibly remove the AFA’s relevance as a voice.”
It is perceived that the AFA did not adequately consult members on the LIF, Ms Kent said, but added this is misguided since the association had “consulted extensively with members”.
The proposed constitutional change would reverse the LIF, which has the support both of the government and the opposition, she said.
Lets just agree to disagree Melinda.
Unfortunately the truth is that they don’t know what is going on. Direct contact with many politicians has shown they have taken on board the FSC lobbying and believe LIF is for the consumer’s benefit. Sorry you are so upset by this, but I will be more upset if consumers and our economy are detrimentally affected and we as a profession have not tried to stop it.
Consumers deserve advised, quality insurance. LIF will put that option in jeopardy, and I am talking about long term effects, not just short term commission issues, which you correctly point out can be worked around. Sorry, but in this case, your passion is being misdirected, unless you really don’t care about consumer benefits.
Melinda, I think the Government knows exactly what they are doing after ASICs report, the Trowbridge Review and the Financial System Inquiry. You make it sound like they are completely in the dark and have no understanding after all of the above. They received how many submissions from stakeholders in the process? 402? Did they just bin them? I’m with Steve, public perception is everything on the path to becoming a profession, none of this is helping our cause.
Hey Steve, I had the same opinion as you on the negotiated solution until I did my research and discovered that this is step 1 in the process the FSC wish to implement. The FSC are working towards 20/20 or nil commission, which we could also work around, however their true agenda is to remove advised insurance as an option and have direct insurance as the offer available to Australians.
The EGM has been requested to ensure the Association leaders and Government are aware that the LIF will actually be detrimental to consumers, and not provide any benefit at all. The Government are still under the impression it is for consumer benefit. The fight has to be undertaken to give them the facts. Legal advice has been sought based on the Constitution of the AFA that this is the process that needs to be followed.
Agree James. I don’t accept that the negotiated solution will destroy businesses. For those old enough to remember, we had 2 yr responsibility periods in the ’90s; we all survived then! Why do we have to have an EGM anyway? The AFA AGM is to be held in early Oct at the National Conference, surely this item could be added to the agenda if there is sufficient support. I think we need to lòok through all the grandstanding of the past week and get on with the job of winning clients respect and trust. Public perception is everything on the path to being a profession. Come on people, we’re not the Health Services Union! Not a good lòok for any of us.
I agree with you James B and personal attacks are not warranted, necessary or productive. I think you will find the LICG communications have always been professional. It is true that the AFA, FPA et al do a great job in general and work really hard. Individuals posting in forums tend to vent and are not representative of what the LICG committee are trying to do though. It does show the passion involved in this issue though, but not necessarily in the best way.
Don, yes, yes they have. The likes of the LICG and their supporters as a result of their behaviour.
Melinda, have you been reading the same posts on here that I have? There are clear attacks on individuals. I don’t and won’t accept that behavior. I know the facts. I know what the AFA have done and haven’t done. I’ve been following it all just like you have. However there is a fundamental and ethical difference between having your say in the right way and the wrong way. Simple.
If you did your research you would find that the AFA approved the LIF on our behalf to Government. This is despite Brad Fox acknowledging that there is no consumer benefit. The reason the call for an EGM needs to be made is because we need to let the Government know that LIF in its current form is not supported by the Advice Community. This is not an attack on any individual or association, it is an attempt to amend LIF prior to it becoming legislation to the detriment of the Australian economy and to Australian consumers. Since the AFA are the ones that said it was ok on our behalf, they are obviously the ones who we need to change that opinion. I will advocate for any sensible change that benefits consumers. LIF does not. Check the facts, and research the FSC’s agenda, then you will know why so many passionate people are opposing this legislation.
have someone moved the rock that you have been under, you obviously have not been following the LIF from the outset.
Margaret, my memory isn’t as good as it use to be, did AFA members and FPA members get to vote on the FSR and FOFA reforms? They were massive changes that affected everyone, surely we all had a democratic vote on those?
I am absolutely disgusted by what I am reading on these forums. There are powers far greater than the AFA and FPA at work here. Ultimately it’s the will of the Government to make these changes. Do you really think by attacking the AFA, CEO, member elected President and Board that it will get you anywhere or anything you are after? As an AFA member you will NEVER get my support or vote as a result. You don’t represent me and don’t you ever claim to be. Shame on you and your behavior.
It is extremely disappointing that the email sent out to AFA members by Deborah Kent on behalf of the AFA contained so many inaccuracies. I urge everyone to do their own research on the work being done on the LIF by the LICG, which is designed to make legislation consumer focused and advice on insurance sustainable. The FSC are trying to get rid of advised insurance, and have direct insurance the offer available. This will be to the detriment of consumers and the Australian economy, but will benefit the FSC members with higher profits. Do your research so we can get LIF back to the table and fixed prior to being passed as legislation. Sign this form and send it back so we can tell Government we don’t agree with the legislation in its current form.
AFA Members who would like to vote can obtain a form by emailing afaresolution@gmail.com
Yes why are the AFA Board afraid to let their members have a vote. Surely if the AFA had nothing to fear they would encourage a vote? Don’t we live in a democracy??
Wow, AFA. The problem is that “your Voice” is currently not reflective of what advisers want, and what is best for consumers, and in that context, maybe we are better off if you lost relevance.
Of course members should vote on vital matters such as LIF before the AFA leadership negotiate. This is what being a member is all about! And this will stop the same leadership being able to negotiate agreements that are not in the best interests of customers or members. This response from Deborah Kent is unbelievable. Why are the AFA leadership running so scared of doing the right thing?
How do we get these people in these positions of power and influence when they don’t have a clue and the real problem is they are being paid a salary, for there incompetence, god help us.