Outgoing AFA president Deborah Kent said the resolution was “soundly rejected”. Out of more than 842 votes, 620 (74 per cent) were against the association withdrawing support while 222 (26 per cent) were for.
“Today I feel very pleased that we know we have the backing from our members,” she said.
In August, AFA member Mark Dunsford, director of NOW Financial Group, submitted 188 valid subject forms to the AFA formally requesting an EGM to propose an amendment to the AFA’s constitution regarding the proposed reforms.
The Life Insurance Customer Group (LICG) had backed the EGM call, arguing it would have provided the AFA an opportunity to start over in the LIF reform process.
More to come.
More than 1 in 4 are not supportive of the AFA view.
Hardly a resounding mandate from the membership after all the member funded AFA resources expended on the Yes campaign with only a relatively few self funding the No campaign.
How many members in the AFA?
Less than a thousand actually voted.
Maybe Ms O’Dwyer should wonder about the very low number relative to the industry population that voted in support of the LIF proposals?
Especially if banks are reconsidering their political funding position.
What other outcome would anyone have expected. When about 75% of the membership base of the AFA are unaffected or only marginally impacted by the proposed LIF legislation this was the only outcome that was possible. I don’t see this as a victory for the AFA, I see it as highlighting that the AFA and FPA do not represent Specialist Risk Advisers at all. What it tells me is very clear that Specialist Risk Advisers (most of whom are not members of either the AFA or FPA) are fighting a lone battle to achieve a “just” outcome.
I told Kelly O’Dwyer on Monday that this would be the outcome. It’s interesting that when Financial planners were “protecting their turf” against adverse changes to them the Specialist Risk Advisers stayed out of the discussion – it’s a pity the same can’t be said in reverse. What’s the saying “united we stand divided we fall”
Well now that sll that excitement is over and done with, can anyone tell me exactly what difference it would have made to the lif changes if the egm vote went the other way?
Not sure how Deborah can say roundly defeated, 32% of proxy forms voting to not give the AFA board carte blanche is hardly a resounding victory, that means 32% of the association members that voted are not happy…a warning to the AFA board – do not ignore this and start to engage your membership base better and with more respect. the Headline Should read “[b]Massive Wake Up call to AFA board” 32% of membership happy with your performance[/b]”
I feel that we have now cemented a situation that is inflexible and must rely upon lobbying of MP’s directly from advisers…something that is unlikely to amass much support. The LIF has no basis to improve the outcome for clients at the lower end…precisely those who need the insurance advice most.