In a statement, the AFA said it has received the number of forms required under the Corporations Act and will put forward the resolution listed in the forms.
The resolution requests the AFA to withdraw its support for the proposed Life Insurance Framework (LIF) in its current form.
According to the AFA, this would change the association’s constitution in a manner that reduces the policymaking powers of its board.
Earlier in the month, AFA member Mark Dunsford, director of NOW Financial Group, submitted 225 subject forms to AFA chief executive Brad Fox, formally requesting an EGM to propose an amendment to the AFA’s constitution regarding the proposed LIF reforms.
The resolution requires support from 75 per cent of the AFA membership for it to be carried, the statement said.
The AFA must advise members within 21 days of the date of the EGM, which must be by 30 October, the association said.
244 AFA members asked for the EGM, That is about 10% of the AFA membership, or double the required numbers, I would say that the EGM far exceeded the minimum 5% requirement. Hmmm maybe not everyone supports enriching banks and shafting consumers
Could not agree more. Totally sold out. What’s the betting a lucrative job has been promised by the FSC?
A senior role in the AFA or FPA should be the penultimate opportunity to promote the value of advice and represent the interests of financial planners and our clients. Sadly, it has descended into a mere stepping stone for ambitious, corporate-types to strengthen their resume and network their way into high paying corporate gigs. They don’t listen to or even care about what advisers think any more.
Agree Margaret, IMO the AFA and FPA have become organisations that represent the government to the members rather than organisations that represent members i interests to the government.
We have to ask the AFA Board why the LICG made far stronger submissions to Treasury and the Senate review committees about the poorly thought through LIF than the AFA Board did; and indeed the LICG were able to persuade more politicians to reconsider the LIF, whereas the AFA Board only supported the FSC.
The AFA cannot tell us one benefit of the LIF, so again why are they supporting this poor Legislation, no wonder the members want to be heard on this issue,
The LICG was a driving force in stopping the LIF coming into affect on 1 July this year, once again where was the AFA support??