{"id":33582,"date":"2016-06-22T00:12:50","date_gmt":"2016-06-21T13:12:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=33582"},"modified":"2016-07-05T16:45:52","modified_gmt":"2016-07-05T05:45:52","slug":"election-unlikely-to-change-lif-for-advisers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2016\/06\/22\/election-unlikely-to-change-lif-for-advisers\/","title":{"rendered":"Election Unlikely to Change LIF for Advisers"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has warned members that any return of the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) after the Federal Election was unlikely to be more favourable to advisers than that already proposed.<\/p>\n

\"AFA<\/a>
AFA President, Deborah Kent<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Writing to members earlier this week, AFA President Deborah Kent<\/strong> also stated that any revised form of LIF would need to include direct insurance arrangements, which were still the subject of discussion when the Federal Election was called in May.<\/p>\n

Kent reminded AFA members that LIF would need to re-enter Parliament via the Lower House before being reintroduced to the Senate as it had not passed the upper house before the election was called. As a result of this process LIF was subject to change by whichever party won the election.<\/p>\n

\u201cDepending on which party forms power after the election, LIF may continue substantially in its current form, or it may not. From the discussions we have had with the major parties, they will proceed with some type of life insurance reform,\u201d Kent stated.<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of the parties have shown any indication that the outcome would become more favourable for advisers than the current form of LIF.\u201d<\/h6>\n

\u201cNone of the parties have shown any indication that the outcome would become more favourable for advisers than the current form of LIF.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kent also stated that regulations providing guidance on the application of any LIF legislation were also being negotiated before the calling of the election and the inclusion of direct insurance would require new confirmation it was included under the legislation.<\/p>\n

The AFA President stated that where direct insurance was sold with general or personal advice it would be covered by LIF legislation but concerns remained around direct insurance where no advice was given.<\/p>\n

Kent said that despite the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Small Business, Kelly O\u2019Dwyer<\/strong> stating in November 2015 that would LIF would apply to direct sale channels without advice, pressure remained from the Financial Services Council (FSC) to include non-advised direct insurance, under a carve-out, in the final legislation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Minister agreed that there would be no carve-out for direct sales channels\u2026Disappointingly, the FSC continued to call for this after the announcement was made by the Minister through their submission to Treasury on 24 December 2015 when providing feedback on the Exposure Draft Legislation,\u201d Kent stated.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe see this behaviour from the FSC as unacceptable given the thoroughness of the negotiations and that the Minister had already publicly confirmed that LIF would apply to direct insurance.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kent said any carve-outs within LIF may see institutions target these areas with models that failed to protect consumers while also being unfair to advisers who would operate under commission caps and clawback periods.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is the loophole that the AFA Board needs to see closed before legislation and regulations are furthered by the next government.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has warned members that any return of the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) after the Federal Election was unlikely to be more favourable to advisers than that already proposed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":33590,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[282,8,270],"tags":[4247],"class_list":["post-33582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-associations","category-compliance-regulation","category-remuneration","tag-feature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33582\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}