AFA To Validate EGM Request Forms

13

The Association of Financial Advisers has confirmed receipt of a request for an Extraordinary General Meeting but has stated it will need to verify the 225 forms submitted with the request before moving to call a meeting.

The verification is a requirement under the Corporations Act and the Association’s constitution, which stated that preliminary checking has found a ‘substantial number’ of duplicate forms have been submitted by the same persons, some forms have been submitted by non-members and some forms are incomplete.

“It will take the AFA some time to correctly verify those forms that are incomplete or appear not to be from members.”

“It will take the AFA some time to correctly verify those forms that are incomplete or appear not to be from members.  It is therefore not readily apparent that the statutory limit has been reached,” the AFA said in a statement.

“The notice calls for members to vote on a special resolution that seeks to change the AFA’s Constitution in a manner that restricts the member elected Board from deciding policy positions in relation to life insurance for a period of three years,” the AFA said.

The request for an EGM was made by AFA member, Now Financial Group Director and Life Insurance Customer Group (LICG) founding member, Mark Dunsford who lodged the request late last week after claiming he had ‘overwhelming support’ for the move. (See: Formal Request For EGM Lodged With AFA)

Note to Advisers:

We welcome your comments and in the interest of fairness, request that you properly identify yourself either in your post ID or at the end of each comment…



13 COMMENTS

  1. “Substantial number” is this the same as the “substantial consumer benefits” contained in the LIF proposals? Still waiting to see any of those…

  2. AFA will be pulling every trick legally or not out of the book to try to defend the indefensible LIF. What a farce of an Adviser Association.

  3. Really? What is the AFA so afraid of?? Not that the truth about this whole fabricated legislation based on reports that only tell what the FSC want people to hear or believe ? Surely not?? Let’s get on with this and have our meeting ! As I have said before we might actually come up with a plan that woks for everyone , everyone that matters the consumer the adviser the association and the Australian people AFA stop running away from this ! Face up and let’s debate it like adults

    • Ken, I reckon the AFA are trying to have this debate like adults in a fair and democratic way for all. The AFA is obliged under the Cororations Act to adhere to strict guidelines governing in house democracy. The verification process is not only legally required, but is supportive of the democratic rights of ALL members in this matter.

      • I agree Steve but it has unfortunately taken this extreme action to get a “rise” out of them ! Despite numerous requests for information on how these changes will assist consumers everyone AFA FSC andFPA for that matter have all been very quite
        As soon as the cage gets ” rattled” a nervous response is the reply What are they looking for ? are there really that many “bad eggs ” that have gone out of their way to voice there opinions ? and bring the AFA to their knees ? I think not

  4. I do not dispute the AFAs right to examine the Member requests for validity of Membership
    What I strongly object to is that Messrs’. Fox & Kent have again politicised ( “it’s them & us “) that technical necessity by publicly bragging they are checking the validity of requests via media release, just like Ms Kent’s defensive mechanism letter to all members of a week or so ago which was released to the media. Now, after investigation, you will need to tell us exactly how many requests were found to be invalid. Don’t forget !!!! .
    Its our AFA, not yours Mr Fox or Ms Kent – you just happen to be, for the moment, the custodians of office, charged with representing our views. If sufficient Members are so disturbed to overcome their normal apathy to request an EGM, then do as the AFA constitution says and accept the EGM in good faith, and do not run your counter arguments in a public space and attempt, subtly or openly, to attack the proponents of the EGM.
    Bill Brown Member since 1988

  5. The ‘churners’ seem very upset…maybe the world has changed in the last decade or three and the massive commissions and churning every 12 months is not in the clients’ best interests, but in the interests of the old lifey churners.

    • Modern Day Adviser – This debate has nothing to do with churning and everything to do with insurance companies manipulating targeted data to arrive at a pre-determined outcome which will lead to higher insurance costs for average Australians and greater profits for the FSC insurance companies.

      Do away with upfront commissions by all means and make hybrid mandatory but don’t preach clients will be better off as they won’t be. Premiums are not reducing they are going up and in some cases substantially.

      As Risk Info have requested above please also identify yourself with your full name so we know who you are just like you know who I am. As you seem to have a strong opinion I am sure that you will be happy to let other readers know who you are.

  6. I am not fussed which way the change goes as will not have any material effect on me. What I do object to is how the AFA and FPA hold themselves out to be representatives of the industry when they are clearly not but more interested in their own self preservation. I also find very offensive how they rag about increased membership as a sign of how great they are – or is it that most dealers made membership of a professional body mandatory hence greater membership drive – I wonder where that idea came from.
    Its about time the government legislated a proper professional body where membership is mandatory (similar to the law society) and we get rid of the AFA and FPA which are pointless as can be seen by this lash between LICG and its supporters and the AFA. The AFA should stop being so defensive and welcome the vote so that they can truly get their members opinions.

  7. Steve
    I see that they have never acted in the best interests of the AFA Members in any way since this all started. Not once have I seen where they have stuck to these strict guidelines governing in house democracy under the Corporations act. They have gone about this process failing to understand nor care about the AFA Members business’s or our clients. There are a huge amount of clients out there who will never afford a Fee for Service for Risk Advise. Hubby and Wife and three children combined salary, say, 70k have not one cent left over at the end of the week. There are hundreds of thousands of working families around Australia just surviving. These are the people where advisers will shift away from, they are the ones needing advice. Cutting Commissions will not help in any way.
    Fox and Kent have a lot to answer for the way this whole debate has transpired. Roll them out the door at the next AGM. This is not the AFA as I once felt proud to say I’m a Member..
    Member 30 plus years.

    • Reg, the AGM is coming up. Like you I would like to see it conducted democratically and within then remit of the governing law. If there are the numbers lets decide on the LICG motion- it can’t proceed if the participants calling for it have ‘voted early and often’. Its not an avoidance measure from our association, its just the law. If there are groups looking for change then they have to do this in a way that protects the democratic rights of the entire voting group. Putting their motion in the right way is the first step.

Comments are closed.