AIOFP admits it risked political wilderness by backing ALP
In a frank admission to its members, the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) has admitted it would have been in the political wilderness if the Liberal/National Party had won last year’s Federal Election.
In a message to members, AIOFP director, Peter Johnston admitted the organisation had “bet” on the Australian Labor Party winning the 2022 election.
“We refused to cooperate with the last Government’s attitude towards the Advice community and played the LONG negative game against them by educating Politicians on the damage FASEA/LIF/compliance etc had done, lobbying against them with the cross-benchers, supporting the Opposition and finally implementing the marginal seat campaign with our members and their clients in certain seats,” his message said. “This LONG negative game ended when the ALP won Government in May 2022.”
“If the Coalition had won the last election the AIOFP would have been in the political wilderness and it’s management on a beach somewhere after forfeiting its political capital with the Liberal Party over the last 7 years.”
“We bet on the ALP winning the 2022 election and have now moved to the LONG positive strategy of supporting a Government that is on a mission to rectify the Liberal Party industry damage.”
“Yes, the progress has been slower than we all want BUT there are mitigating circumstances for that, the facts are the ALP are doing something about it. It is fruitless criticising them like others do, they have a process to go through and we must just be patient. The Liberals spent 9 years implementing their nefarious actions against the Advice community, you cannot expect the ALP to dismantle it in 12 months,” Johnston’s message to members said.
“It is fair to say the AIOFP has developed a positive working relationship with the ALP generally, the Ministers office, Treasury, ASIC, AFCA and CHOICE. All essential stakeholders to assist Advisers and their clients going forward.”
“Our strategy contrasts with the SHORT game Ms Levy and the FPA/AFA are playing with criticising the Minister over a QAR response. This constant noise can only cause damage to their political capital with the ALP and the Ministers office. Nagging and annoying someone will either see the targeted person acquiescing or going in the opposite direction – a high risk SHORT negative strategy.”
AIOFP is the only association worth joining who look out for our interests.
FPA/FAAA is only interested in selling their CFP credentials.
I’m a Liberal/ LNP voter but I can appreciate AIOFP’s approach because it seems like Jane Hume was not listening to Advisers and their true representatives, but instead got distracted by the shiny objects dangled by FSC and other bodies pretending to represent the Advice industry but are really a lobby group for product providers.
I’m sitting in the FAAA Roadshow in Brisbane right now and indeed the CFP is being pushed (that nobody cares about except FPA).
The gall of FPA is that they are forcing FChFP holders (AFA’s equivalent of the CFP) to sit for the CFP exam.
Nobody cares about CFP except CFP holders.
Go read Aesop’s fable: The fox with no tail.
Are they pushing grandfathered CFPs to sit for the CFP exam? If not, they have reached new heights of hypocrisy.
Be interested to know more about “the process” the ALP are going through… Michelle Levy seems to think the implementation of her recommendations is not as difficult as the Government or the AIOFP seem to think. I’d suggest that AIOFP have shot themselves in the foot, making a political call like that. Labor won’t be in government forever…
It seems that you missed the point, sometimes you need to put yourself out there, being welded onto one party (Coalition the party of small business) had not benefited advisers.
No one seem to have an issue that Major corporations hedge their bets with donations to both sides.
While this is the path for now, the AIOFP can switch in the future,
Is that not what a good association does fight for its members to get the best outcome.
Indeed, the AIOFP can and should change who they support as the circumstances change. AIOFP made the right call in opposing the Libs at the the last election. Well done. But are they making the right call now, in letting Jones off the hook for his constant delays and weak excuses?
Peter got upset that the Liberals didn’t want to talk at his Conference, whilst the opposition said Yes. Nothing really to do with representing Advisers, more so a personal vendetta against certain Ministers that Peter has. Can’t see him changing.
Some ministers deserved his personal vendetta, but ministers change eventually.
Outcome of this is yet to be seen, but I’m not terribly enthused by what I’ve seen out of Jones and Labor so far…..
As a long-time AFA member, I was always terribly disappointed in the lack of kahunas on display when the AFA was seeking to influence government, particularly when a coalition party was in power. It always seemed to me that we needed to be more like the AMA, or even the Pharmacy Guild, prepared to throw our weight around when it was needed to firstly, protect the interests of practitioner members and then the interests of that wonderful group, “consumers”. Both the AFA and the FPA always “pussyfooted ” around, something politicians don’t respect. Lengthy submissions, invitations to luncheons, and subdued chat just does not cut it! Most politicians don’t have the concentration span to read anything more than what can be contained a one page – I used to work for them, so I know.
Like AIOFP has done with Labor, I would argue that over the last decade the AFA and the FPA attached themselves too closely to the conservative side of politics, probably because they felt that that was the natural leaning of most of their members.( Mention the word “union” and standby to repel boarders)
But the coalition played us on a break, knowing that we’d be too nice to thump the desk, and as a consequence we got dudded!. Remember both those organizations waived through FASEA, LIF & FOFA, without any real adviser-focused analysis on what it actually meant for practitioners. I suspected at the time that both organisations saw an advantage in becoming associated with “new professionalism” and saw a bonus in opportunities to flog the their training courses.
And I have little hope that things will change with the new amalgamated body! Old habits die hard!
The AIOFP may not be in a “political wilderness” (for now) but Peter Johnston making statements that he dosen’t welcome Degree Qualified Advisers into “his” association, certainly puts them in the “Adviser wilderness. “
I can only agree with that. For us as an adviser group to have any say in our destiny, we need to be united.
I expect peter has taken that stance because of the misinformed “Degree Qualified” adviser bias that experienced “Non-Degree qualified” advisers do not deserve to exist!!
All organisations need to be vocal when any government, or their public servant bureaucrats, come out with bad policy.
Peter from the AIOFP seems to think all is dandy with the ALP because they have removed degree requirements for most existing advisers, (and even the ethics exam – go figure) but the reality is, we’re being killed by red-tape and fees. The ASIC tax/levy is a disgrace , as is the the soon to be charged compensation scheme we all (except for banks, super funds and other product providers) need to contribute to.
I’m a member of the AIOFP but will not renew in the new financial year as I believe Peter (who is the AIOFP) is more intent on being buddies with Jones rather than holding him to account.