Under the pro-bono program, those eligible for assistance include if:
- they or an immediate family member have been seriously injured;
- their immediate family member has died;
- their principal place of residence has been destroyed or seriously damaged; or
- they operate a small business that has suffered serious damage to its premises, plant and/or equipment.
Impacted Australians will be matched with a financial planner, with the amount of assistance provided to be decided by the adviser based on their needs and their capacity to provide pro bono support.
Types of financial advice that would be needed by those affected by the bushfires could include:
- Accessing Centrelink payments and other government benefits;
- Considering claims on any of your existing assets or personal insurance;
- Debt management;
- Accessing superannuation (and/or accessing insurances within superannuation);
- Options for your existing investments and superannuation;
- Replacing lost income;
- Rebuilding financially and getting your future plans back on track; and
- Estate planning.
FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said that it is expected that those affected will face significant financial pressures requiring the support and expertise of a financial planner.
“To address this, we put a call out to financial planners to volunteer their professional expertise and time in the aftermath of the bushfires in early January and have been overwhelmed with the response we received from our members across Australia,” Mr De Gori said.
“Many of these planners live and work in the bushfire affected areas and are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of their communities.
“The Financial Planning Bushfire Pro Bono Program is all about offering guidance to help individuals affected by the disaster to consider their options and recover financially from these traumatic events.”
AFA chief executive Philip Kewin said people impacted by fire are having to make financial decisions at an extremely emotional time, and for many, these decisions can be much less intimidating with the right guidance and support.
“Financial advisers are in a unique position to lend their support to these families and small business owners alike. Particularly during the stressful process of filing insurance claims, having to navigate digital self-service platforms can be overwhelming,” Mr Kewin said.
“Advisers offer an invaluable human touch and can provide tailored support appropriate to individuals’ circumstances.
“This no-cost service will help those in need to work out how they’ll manage the immediate impact of the fires on their finances, and plan for their future.”
People who have been directly affected by the Black Summer bushfires can call 1800 560 685 or visit the FPA website to apply for assistance.
I reckon these guys should go to impacted regions and set up a tea and scones stand for victims. They’d then say “let’s just wait and see how things pan out and have a scone, and tell you what, you could come to our conference we’re having”. That’s pretty much what the FPA have been doing for 20 years..i.e useless.
So advisers are losing their homes suffer mental health issues committing suicide and the best our industry bodies can do when they put their heads together is come up with a plan for advisers to donate their time and already stretched resources for free???? How much of their wages is being donated? Useless from every angle.
That’s great but it would be far better for both member bodies to deliver something a little more.
There are numerous circumstances where people need advice but would otherwise never obtain it.
It would be great to see the bodies craft a more serious policy and then work with ASIC for regulatory relief under RG51.
Our practice provides pro-bono advice in the following circumstances:
1) where the client been diagnosed with cancer and has no capacity to pay for advice (ie liquid or investment assets excluding the home and superannuation of less than $20,000)
2) where a client or their spouse has suffered a claimable event and needs assistance on obtaining a benefit from the policy (note we often charge for services relating to the investment of those funds once received but no cost manage a claim or advise on where it should be paid to)
3) where the client is moving to an aged care facility and has investment assets of less than $50,000 excluding the family home.
4) where the adviser determines a clear need for scoped or single area advice for a client that has no capacity to pay and where the absence of this advice would likely lead to financial hardship (eg a client on aged pension about to forgive a loan provided to a child for business purposes where doing so would likely count as a gift and reduce the clients entitlement to a pension without the corresponding increase in assets).
In all these situations we still need to do all the same research, SOA and carry the same risk as if the client had paid a handsome fee. It would be FAR FAR better if we had some kind of limited liability and reduced need to issue an SOA (similar to the intrafund advice exemption) to lower the cost. There is obviously no incentive or benefit to us because the advice is truly free and considering the current framework is based on the assumption is a scheming, lying product sales person surely there would be space for some time and cost savings.
This kind of work is far better at building trust from the community than bleating psychobabble at the latest forum or industry event.
It is commendable for the member bodies and financial planners who are able to lend a hand to do so to these impacted clients. There are sure to be many out there in need of assistance. The question to be asked here though, is why can’t these member bodies come together on some of the very large and very important items currently impacting us all as financial planners. Maybe that would be worth our annual fees.
Particularly the families affected by the reported adviser suicides…..or is this issue not ‘main-stream-media” enough…
The lack of response seems to indicate the Govt would like to see a few more. Even lower than returned servicemen.
I think you will find that since Kerwin and de Gori became respective heads of AFA and FPA they have indeed worked very closely on a number of large and important issues. Obviously not with the success we all would have liked, but probably with a “less worse” outcome than previously when there was no cooperation at all.
Moving forward as adviser numbers dive and FASEA forces everyone into the same standards boat, it would not be surprising to see AFA and FPA merge.
FPA/AFA virtue signalling at it’s best.
Who do they think they are signalling to…?
The government? That horse has bolted.
Existing members? No one cares anymore.
Potential new advisers? There are no new advisers…just look at the number of people doing the new PY.
There is no one left to virtue signal to.
The FPA/AFA will go down in history as two of the most ineffective industry associations this country has ever seen. They stood on the sideline and watched while the monster devoured their members.
Maybe to the general public who think advisers are scum and can’t be trusted? Maybe they could ask the accountants if they’d like some positive PR instead?
In addition to the FSC, who have allowed the Union Super funds to emasculate them. Absolutely pathetic.
If you can afford to do probrono work in financial advice you are charging other people wayyyyy too much money!…
Whilst the initiative is commendable I find it a bit galling for two people earning around $400K each to be preaching about advisers working for free. Most of us due to legislation, the LIF etc, etc are virtually working pro bono anyway due to the ineffectiveness of our industry bodies.
Perhaps Dante and Phil could agree a pay cut for a short period and donate this towards helping those effected?
We’ve been recommended by our legal team not to provide any pro bono advice as it’s a potential breach of Standard 7 of the Code of Ethics because it then means we wouldn’t be operating fairly to our other clients who are charged fees. Bureaucratic madness at its best!
lol, you need a new legal team if this is what they’re saying to you!
That’s the most ridiculous BS I’ve ever heard. It’s fair and reasonable to make a profit from the services provided to a client and it is fair and reasonable to spend that profit on subsidizing services to another client so long as there is no conflict of interest (eg asset based fees where cross subsidy is implied but clearly benefits the adviser). I’d like to see the advice and I wonder how it would be reconciled with the fiduciary duty a lawyer owes their client and the common practice of pro bono work in that profession.
What a load of legal BS.
Please IFA have these lawyers clarify exactly how this breaches any law.
The Code of Ethics has many far reaching problem issues – This is NOT one of them.
That’s about half of my client base now, under the post Hayne RC rules. No need to go looking for them.