The legislation around the Life Insurance Framework reforms will pass through Federal Parliament unhindered according to a Government Senator who stated there was very little political opposition to its progress.
Speaking to media at the Association of Financial Advisers – Beddoes Institute Consumer Choice Awards, Nationals Senator John Williams said the legislation around LIF and the proposed remuneration arrangements were ‘done and dusted’.
“I don’t think anyone will oppose it in the Parliament or in the Senate. It is not controversial and I am sure Kelly O’Dwyer (Minister for Financial Services) has worked with Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer) and others on this issue,” Williams said.
“Eighty per cent of legislation that comes through the Senate goes through unopposed. I cannot see the LIF legislation being controversial and when it gets to the Senate I don’t expect it to be a huge tidal wave and cause disruptions. I see us tightening the industry and improving the industry and the Senate will take that pretty well,” he added.
“I cannot see the LIF legislation being controversial and when it gets to the Senate I don’t expect it to be a huge tidal wave …”
Williams said while some people wanted to ban commissions altogether there was a difference between being able to pay for financial advice when a consumer had money and when a consumer needed life insurance but did not have money to pay.
He said the Government’s retention of life insurance commissions recognised that “the circumstances between financial advice when you have got money and financial advice for insurance are two different kettles of fish”.
He also stated the current Parliamentary Joint Committee (PJC) into the Life Insurance Industry, of which he is a member, will examine the issue of vertical integration and he was keen to see greater independence of advice.
“In England to be a financial adviser you have to be independent and not attached to a company. If that was to come to Australia I would not be disappointed…but I don’t think that will happen,” Williams said.
“If we see advisers not giving the best product to their customer, as FoFA says, but gives the best product their company offers then this issue will raise its head later on again. It will depend on how people do their job in the future. If they do the right thing there will be no problem but if they do the wrong thing there will be more inquiries and problems,” he stated.
Williams said any change to vertical integrated structures would require legislation but doubted there was currently enough political interest in making any changes and would await the outcome of the current PJC inquiry.
John Williams, a bill will be introduced that you and every Federal politicians Salary and all other cash injections to cover your expenses, will carry a 2 year write back, that you personally will be responsible for, if you fail to do your job properly and even if you do your job well, though some others disagree, you have no recourse to fight this and you must immediately pay all monies back to a private Company who will pass this directly to their shareholders.
For instance, your salary of $200,000 and the $350,000 to cover staff wages and office running costs will be reviewed every day to make sure you are doing 100% of your duties in a manner that pleases every Australian.
You are now in our position, though the majority of Advisers do not get $200,000 salaries.
12 months after being elected, you must now repay $550,000 from your personal assets to the large Private Company, as a lobby group that dislikes your policies, has lodged a complaint and as you have no recourse in the legislation to defend yourself, this is payable within 2 weeks.
John, can I ask you how do you think this will go down with all the elected politicians who will now vote on this bill?
I think we all know the answer to that.
It is ironic how quickly politicians will jump onto something if it appears popular, even though the perpetrators of this scam, have bent the truth to suit themselves.
When the same rules are to apply to them, they are outraged.
John, don’t lose too much sleep as I cannot see this type of bill being introduced in the real world of your Incomes, which are paid by us, though you appear happy to destroy thousands of peoples jobs and negatively impact every Australian, as well as add multi Billions of debt to the Government, simply because you chose to ignore accurate information that shot down the lies and falsehoods perpetrated by the Lobby groups who only have their shareholders interests at heart and stuff the rest of Australia.
May I suggest that you spend a few minutes reading what the LICG and all it’s members have been saying from day one, which is to question and demand accurate answers to the inaccuracies perpetrated by the FSC and all the other self interest groups.
The only problem I can see is that a number of Small Business advisory firms will be forced to close, adding to the unemployment problem and vulnerable clients will be left to the whims of Direct and Group Insurance with a Tsunami of claim denials adding millions to the welfare bill!! Other than that Senator Williams everything is good to go.
expected a bit better from Libs and Nats for some reason. But then I remembered, just like the rest of them, their care factor for voters is non-existent, it is all about them looking like they are doing something whist keeping their snouts in the taxpayers trough. No wonder voters are turning away from the mainstream, we have simply had enough.
Well said Jeremy Wright. I would urge all pollies and any adviser unsure of the situation to read your comment a few times over until it sinks in. Definitely couldn’t have said it better myself! We need YOU in parliament pushing our cause JW – that’d make them sit up and listen!
I have been implementing personal risk solutions like many other advisers for many years now and with a complete honesty and sincerity I can say that the majority of subsequent claims I have processed were for insurance policies that would not have been considered by those individuals, or for the benefit amounts that were compatible with their actual needs which they ultimately were able to quantify with my assistance.
I would like to know from those who are pioneering the current changes whether they honestly feel that the changes will result in helping with the under insurance problem in Australia, or make things worse?
And for those who experience an “insurable event” having made the decision to decline advice because of the cost and as a result was left under insured, who is going to take the blame for this? And has anyone calculated the additional burden to the tax payer as fewer people experiencing an insurable event do so complete financially dependent on the state ?
The wrong solution to a real problem only causes another problem of a different kind.
GMCR
Comments are closed.