In a LinkedIn post to members, Mr Fox criticised an AFA member’s call for an EGM to propose a resolution asking the AFA to withdraw its support for the LIF in its current form.
Mr Fox said an EGM and the proposed resolution would go back to the criticisms the AFA received during the days when it had minimal influence negotiating the Future of Financial Advice reforms.
“If an EGM is called and if the resolution is subsequently passed, members will have a board that cannot fully exercise the rights to govern,” he said.
“The proposed changed to the AFA constitution would remove the ability of your elected member board to set the policy of the AFA.”
Mr Fox added that the AFA board would be forced to hold additional member general meetings to seek support before being able to agree or further negotiate terms with parliament.
“This is akin to the AFA being asked to wait outside the room while the other parties make the decisions,” he said.
“The association would lose years of hard earned respect and relevance.”
Mr Fox said the resolution would also mean that the AFA’s working relationship with the FPA on life insurance would dissolve.
He said it would be an inconvenient time for such a possibility, saying the AFA and FPA need to “stay united on professional standards reforms” in order “to have influence with politicians, consumer groups, accounting bodies, academics and Treasury”.
Brad Fox is yet to properly justify his support for the LIF. We know this because if he had the LICG would not even be in existence.
The odious LIF is an reductive piece of work that aims push up the price of retail advised insurance to the same stratosphere of Direct Insurance offered by enthusiastic FSC members. And for their final installation; dis-intermediate their palaces. This utopian dream has been red-carpeted by Ms O’Dwyer and Messrs Fox and Freydenberg.
The untold damage the LIF will do to consumer confidence has been discounted 120% by Mr Fox and the FSC. And if the LICG hadn’t formed, would anyone have acknowledged the consumer impact?
Brad you refer to “respect”. Where was the respect shown by the AFA and the FPA to Risk Advisers by the total lack of appropriate consultation with the membership base and risk advisers in general before you sold us out. Risk advisers are a unique group of individuals who don’t fold like a pack of cards
I could not agree more with all of Tim Ross’s comments below and well said. It is a disgrace that the AFA leadership are trying to stop the vast majority of members who disagree with the LIF in the current format having a say in THEIR futures and the best interests of customers. It is a disgrace that the AFA leadership did not poll members before negotiating an agreement that will only profit the FSC members, will wipe out many independent risk advisers and will most importantly leave customers worse off.
Those who signed up to the LICG are small business owners who are committed to providing advice which is accessible to all members of our community. They are concerned that a drive to severely reduce or eliminate commission as a means of payment for risk advice will price many out of the market. The LIF as it stands does not acknowledge these commercial realities and as such plays into the hands of vertically integrated businesses and direct insurers. This imbalance needs to be addressed. It is the right of the members to meet with the body which represents them to call for a meeting if they feel under or misrepresented in such vital discussions. Such concerns do not indicate an unwillingness to move forward and progress or to accept that certain elements seem destined to change, but there has been little to no push back or public comment by Mr Fox or the association in general to call out aspects of LIF that threaten consumers access to quality insurance advice and the many small businesses which currently provide it. As a long time adviser I am appalled at the lack of backbone shown by the AFA and the FPA to stand up for hard working self employed advisers who serve the community well.