Over the last six months, the AIOFP has been lobbying both sides of government on major issues such as the banning of grandfathered commissions and reforms in the life insurance sector.
The association’s executive director, Peter Johnston, told ifa that key driver for the AIOFP’s growing ties with the left has been poor past representation of the advice industry by what he describes as “institutionally aligned associations” in Canberra.
“The coalition victory and the institutions’ natural alliance with the conservative side of politics is unfortunately maintained but there is some positives there for us,” he said.
“Our long-term strategy is to use the FSU for the ALP-friendly crossbenches network, the Small Business Association and existing member LNP connections for the conservative-friendly crossbench relationships – nothing has changed, we need a diverse approach.”
While he admits that the Coalition victory does take some emphasis away from the FSU and ALP-friendly crossbench aspect of the AIOFP’s agenda, Mr Johnston said a ‘mixed bag’ of influence in the Senate demands that these relationships be maintained.
“The FSU is critical to the ALP side of politics,” he said. “The other positive aspect to our FSU relationship is the ability to proactively devise policy initiatives instead of only being reactive to them.”
With Labor heavyweights now in a leadership race after Bill Shorten stepped down as opposition leader, Australians are no longer considering the option of being governed by the architect of the FOFA reforms.
“The other positive aspect to the Coalition victory is the removal of past political architects of FASEA and LIF,” Mr Johnston said. “We are pleased to see the end of some political careers and with the retirement of other veteran politicians, we have the chance to educate the new politicians on the facts about our industry.”
“LIF and FASEA architect Kelly O’Dywer and industry critic Malcolm Turnbull thankfully have left the party pre-election, but the departures of other Liberal veterans has paved the way for some new blood into Liberals,” he said.
“The key issue for 10,000 advisers receiving grandfathered revenue is the Coalition have proposed a banning date for 2021. Not 2020 like the ALP. This date gives us time to challenge the legislation in the High Court without the revenue being terminated then reactivated if we win the challenge.”
Congrats to the AIOFP for organizing the high court challenge.
Those wishing to ban grandfathered commission are driven by either ego or emotion or both.
Those supporting the continuance of grandfathered commission, are relying on those who have a contractual obligation to pay, not to breach the existing contracts.
I support Peter, in the naming and shaming of those who breach the contract.
Best to target Centre Allianace & Bernardi in the Senate.
‘Freddy FRYDENBERG’ is still there !! He was the political genius who mandated 60 % and when asked why stated “ Well it’s half of 120% “
Gee I wish Advisers were able to give advice as independent professionals!!! The real reason they cannot is:-
1, The advice service is captured by the product providers! Let me explain; there is no good reason why we need to have licensees at all; for the purpose of giving consumers independent impartial advice. The Whole Licensee framework is designed to give large product providers a distribution channel to flog their own products.
2, Large financial corporate’s and licensee’s have all lobbied and pursued government to ensure they control how consumers’ consume financial services.
3, There are no financial advice professional bodies that have enough capital or the guts to pursue government to ensure that we truly have an impartial advice profession. The AFA and the FPA are merely noise at the edges, which do very little to advocate for professional independent advice. They are happy to take fee income from advisers, while trying to make it look like advisers are professionals?
4, The barriers to entry to be an Independent Adviser are too high and discourages exactly this. At around $50,000 to get a licence and $50,000 p.a to maintain it, is an absolute joke! not to mention the 18 months it takes ASIC to even give you the licence!
5, Lawyers!!! ah the Lawyers!!! They make so much money out of creating and recreating compliance documents and the like. If it is legislated that Adviser need only have 1, Adequate education and experience 2, A fiduciary duty to their clients 3, Be a member of a REAL professional body that is self-regulated you can then do away with all other barriers to entry and BS like FSG’s, Fact Find’s, SoA’s, FDS’s etc.
How good would it be if financial advice was not captured? then consumers could both receive and afford quality unbiased financial advice! Advisers would then be able to provide the advice they all want to; while being able to earn a much higher and better income from doing so!!!
you better push for Intra fund “advice” fee for no service as well you and cut out the crap people can see through it just like they did with Labour just like they did with the mortgage brokers