The family of Paul Brannelly, who was national president of the AFA in 1973 and died earlier this month, is calling on ASIC to cease its practice of keeping banning notices on its website indefinitely, arguing the policy may be in breach of human rights obligations.
In February 2009, Mr Brannelly was banned temporarily from the industry for a period of six years for advice relating to the Westpoint Group scandal.
However, despite the fact that the two advisers have both completed their ban periods, the regulator continues to keep the banning notice live on its website – a practice the family says is unfairly tarnishing the reputation of an industry veteran.
The AIOFP has joined the effort to seek reform of ASIC’s media policy, arguing that advisers are too often blamed for product failures created by fund managers such as Westpoint.
A letter from AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston to parliamentarians, seen by ifa, pledges support for the Brannelly family in protecting their father’s memory.
“We agree that humans deserve a second chance in life, to a have relatively minor breach in the financial services industry be maintained publicly for life is abhorrent and a breach of basic human rights,” Mr Johnston wrote.
“This pattern of behaviour where advisers are getting blamed for ‘all and sundry’ in the industry must be changed if the politicians are serious about consumer protection.
“The Brannelly case was principally about product failure and the real perpetrators of the failure escaping accountability.”
Mr Branelly was well-known in the financial advice industry and Brisbane community, and was a celebrated athlete in his early years. More than 200 people attended his funeral last week.
Retrospect is a marvellous thing. Hybrids, Mezzanine and debt products have been around for a long time, and the directors of Westpoint who lied and misrepresented their product ruined a lot of advisers reputations. Most AFSL did not receive the super high commissions that have been reported yet were accused of marketing the misrepresented product for the sole reason of grabbing high commissions when in fact most were looking to provide their clientele which high short term income of 12% as many many mezzanine and debt products have done with out failing for more than 20 years.
ASIC is a toxic waste land that is run by union and labor die-hards. All they care about is destroying IFA businesses and they probably sit around the boardroom table every friday morning having a laugh at the number of lives they destroyed this week. I’m all for banning fraudulent/dishonoest advisers but to put someone in the abyss for holding the adviser against the limitless liabilities that exist due to the indefinite list of obligations under s961 is an utter joke and disgrace. Rapists have more media privacy rights compared to an adviser who gets a lifetime ban and that is what bothers me most about these permanent listings. Its OK for people like Big Trev until it happens to him one day, then he will see firsthand the injustice of it all.
well put. it violates many established principles of privacy, equity, fairness etc.
you make a goodish point (a little bit ranty with the toxic waste land bit) then stuff it up by talking about a lifetime ban – which is EXACTLY what this is NOT about
I’m afraid the “toxic culture” is in the financial planning community. And “Big Trev” isn’t actually wrong…just “harsh”. In my view anyone who recommended Westpoint (and accepted their ridiculously high commissions) was way out of line. Let’s not forget that tis is a professional banning order, not a personal thing so is only looked at by those with a professional interest – no broad, societal scar. ASIC is not here to make us act professionally. It is the policeman and acts after the fact. It takes bad behaviour for them to (be able) to act, so it’s time to stop blaming the policemen for the behaviour of (a small and often greedy or incompetent minority) in our industry.
Philip, there is unquestionably poor behaviour by some individual financial planners, even though this is rapidly diminishing. But ultimately financial planning is comprised of multiple separate businesses. There is no “community” as such. It is completely inappropriate to tar all financial planners with the same “toxic culture” brush.
You are making the same mistake as your friend Medcraft, who really should act more responsibly in his role. His constant theme of “Financial planners are crooks. Accountants and roboadvisers are the solution” has poisoned many of his employees and the public at large against the very good advice available from a majority of honest, professional financial planners. It has pushed them towards favouring much more risky and inappropriate options.
Interesting opinions and comments , i really wish all of those that make comments had the intestinal fortitude to put their real name on display 🙂
Imagine if either Bill Shorten or ISA chief David Whitely replaced Greg Medcraft…that would be like switching over from the texas chainsaw massacre to a nightmare on elm street…!
Anyway Bill has far better things to do like launching his Labor pre election plan to ban trusts for those devlish high flyers who employ Australians and help grow the economy and Whiteley is still comparing his pear with a grape…
Should Medcraft have a permanent banning order against him given he endorsed the failed CPA Financial Advice business that will cost many hard working CPA’s a lot more in PI insurance premiums?
Perhaps he should have a banning order for making professional financial advice so complex and expensive, many Australian consumers have been pushed into using junk insurance, property spruikers, and dodgy accountants.
no way, he is administering the law. who made the law ? i.e. what people have direct input into the drafting of the law. yes, i know it is for the benefit of consumers. why isn’t it working then?
Even if a decision is overturned at the AAT – the banning still shows up. Surely that’s not fair?
The people to ask should be those that lost money through this bloke. I don’t think the name should be taken down. 1) It is a fact that he was banned 2) It serves as a warning to those who might be tempted. I always find it interesting that those with the most criticism of ASIC are those whose: a) Business model of commission based selling stuff in the guise of advice is dead. b) who fail to meet the education standards and believe that experience = competence. It doesn’t and c) Never service their clients other than through Christmas cards and efforts to flog them more. Adios dinosaurs – your time is over…
harsh!!
Big Trev, what a miserable so and so you are, I pity your clients, you clearly come from the school of I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
Only losers are so worried about the ‘dinosaurs’ you know the small minded (but likely big bellied) guys who can’t create a hugely successful business themselves so blame their failure on the older established guys with business models that vary from theirs…
I feel for the Brannley family, they are paying the price for ASIC’s inaction in its first 13 or 14 years of its existence where it did not do its job, they now feel it is necessary to display a continuos war chest of scalps irrespective of the circumstances. The culture of ASIC must change, it permeates from the top, whoever replaces Medcraft should set his/ her first priority as fixing the toxic culture the organisation has developed.