According to an advertisement listed on job search website Seek, the FPA is seeking a “senior academic leader” to fill the post left vacant by Dr Brimble, a professor at Griffith University and FASEA board member, who stood down from the FPEC role in February.
The advertisement – which is listed by third party recruiter Paul Dickinson Consulting on behalf of the FPA – states that the position would suit an individual with “over 10 years’ academic experience at a university with expertise in financial planning education and research”.
The candidate should be “committed to the development of the financial planning profession” and well-versed in the history of the industry and its education and training infrastructure, it said.
The FPEC chair position is an unpaid, voluntary role requiring a time commitment of 10-15 hours per month and will include responsibility for liaison with FASEA and other government bodies.
It will also involve oversight of the process for accredited academic courses as ‘approved programs’ and the broader FPEC curriculum.
Given that the FPEC curriculum was “gifted” to FASEA for use as a guide for determining professional standards, the FPEC chair will have the potential to greatly influence the mandatory education standards regime.
As such, Deakin University associate professor Adrian Raftery described the position as “probably one of the most important roles in the financial planning profession right now”, questioning whether a voluntary position would attract a high calibre of candidate.
The advertisement describes FPEC as an “independent” body but the FPA is listed as the employer organisation. Moreover, records held by government body IP Australia list the FPA as the “owner” of the FPEC subsidiary.
Dr Brimble stood down following the airing of concerns from FPA members that his concurrent board position with FASEA and employment with Griffith University may present a conflict of interest.
Asked to comment on the resignation in his recent interview with ifa, FPA chair Neil Kendall conceded there was an issue of appropriateness at play.
“When [Dr Brimble] originally accepted the role on FASEA, there was no relationship [between FASEA and] FPEC,” Mr Kendall explained.
“Subsequent to that, the offer of a gift of the [FPEC] curriculum [to FASEA] occurred and Mark felt that it was no longer appropriate to be the chair of FPEC while there was the FASEA relationship at the same time.”
You post this incorrect statement a lot. Repeating it won’t make it true. CBA has no direct influence on FPA policy.
I’m sorry Fat Cheque but you’re wrong. Firstly Incorrect. Here’s a correct FACT check for you. The FPA states that for a fat cheque CBA Financial Planning “work in partnership with the FPA to shape the future direction of the profession through a close working relationship with the FPA executive team” One such close partner (NAB) is now accused of accepting bribes.
Again it’s all about Perception. So the CBA are just giving the FPA a “donation” and expect nothing in return?
Do you think Financial Planners will ever be taken seriously whilst our industry associations are in bed with the NAB’s or CBA’s of the world?
I tried to tell Treasury a Commission from CBA of 0.6% and a commission from BT of 0.6% and a commission from Perpetual of 0.6% couldn’t possibly influence my advice and they laughed at me and you’re trying to tell me Treasury don’t think your Professional Partner Program is nothing but a commission via another name? Give me a break. Finally CBA + FPA = FASEA
Why don’t you focus on supporting your members and the profession that has supported you FPA? Why continue on this self fulfilling education is everything tilt and focus when all you need to do is help you industry rid itself of the bad eggs and practices of the past that a tiny minority took part in. Why make the vast majority pay for clowns and cowboys? I’ll tell you why, CASH. Your behaving like chopper Reid wanting the cash from memberships, courses etc.
Pull your head in FPA. Your days will be numbered. I don’t know a single financial planner with good industry experience who wants to continue being a member of your organisation. You have had decades chipping away at this outcome and you have finally lost the plot and forgotten who you should be representing.
You are a sham FPA. Can’t wait to see the back of you.
If FPA is still the official owner of FPEC and the employer of the FPEC Chair, it implies the “gift” of FPEC to FASEA has not been formalised.
In that case FPA should rescind their offer and shut FPEC down. It serves no valuable purpose anymore in a FASEA controlled world and is actually doing more harm than good through FASEA’s misuse of it.
And who is paying Paul Dickinson Consulting”s fees? Long suffering FPA members I assume. Shut it all down immediately FPA, and focus on your core responsibility of lobbying for better member outcomes.
FPA Member resources (time and recruitment costs) are being directed to FPEC. If you make a submission and they totally disregard it then yes shut down FPEC.
The Chair of FPEC committee is being solely appointed by the FPA board. In that mix is Commonwealth Financial Planning which pays the FPA an undisclosed & hidden sum every year via the Professional Partner program. This payment gives them a key stake in policy direction and setting of the FPA. An example of this pulling power was seen recently when the CBA openly called for planners to have degrees in return for not having the Royal Commission finger pointed squarely at them. The FPA remained silent on the whole CBA issue, the biggest advice scandal since Storm. CBA blatantly blamed planners and thus avoided all the questions of and issues of a sales culture. The FPA concurred and had an opportunity to defend planners. Shortly after this, degree requirements and FASEA was born. The FPA traded off more Government intervention and more regulation (FASEA) for Dollars and members from the CBA.
The FPA have also supported the banks via their position of the definition of independence. So could it also now be claimed that the FPEC chairman is being appointed by the Commonwealth Financial Planning via the FPA and then in turn, again influencing, like they the FPA claim the direction of advice in Australia.
There will be no argument with FASEA, no questioning. As this goes against CBA’s desired outcome.