Govt adopts pro-forma approach to adviser CSLR complaints
Financial advisers who have raised concerns about the Dixon Advisory collapse and the funding of the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) with their Labor members of Parliament appear to be receiving a form letter in response.
The Association of Independent Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) has shared a copy of the letter with its members describing it as a “typical pro-forma response full of the minister’s office [more than likely by a former Treasury bureaucrat]”.
AIOFP executive director, Peter Johnston has suggested the letter is also a sign that the Government is getting worried and that the AIOFP strategy of writing to local members of Parliament is “starting to bite”.
“The response does not address the stench around the Dixon manipulation or how the original intentions of Comm Hayne’s CSLR recommendations have been bastardised [by the Bastards] to suit the Institutions and unfairly blame the Advice community for product failure,” Johnston’s message to members said
“As we know, all the Minister has done since the Education Pathways success is increase compliance costs and extort money out of the Advice community to fund the Dixon victims……which includes Canberra Bureaucrats,” he said.
The letter from the Parliamentarian shared by Johnston defends the Government’s approach around the DBFO Act and asserts the “Government engage constructively with stakeholders and amended the legislation in response to the feedback it received”
On the CSLR, the letter says that the scheme is industry-funded in line with the recommendations of the Ramsay Review.
This feature was consistent with the legislation introduced by the previous government. The annual CSLR levy is imposed on in-scope subsectors, that is, those financial service subsectors whose products and services are covered by the scheme.
“Eligible complaints lodged with AFCA between 1 November 2018 and 7 September 2022 are expected to result in a cost of $241 million for the CSLR. In recognition that this cost may be beyond the capacity of in-scope subsectors, this cost is being funded through a one-off levy imposed on Australia’s ten largest banks and insurers.
“In-scope subsectors will be levied $24.1 million to fund claims processed in the 2024-25 financial year, with in-scope subsectors levied annually thereafter.”
Where is the FAAA on all of this ? I haven’t heard a word ?
FAAA, as has others, have been lobbying too about the CSLR. Here is some public commentary on Linked iN https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7220619889001082882/
The govt seems to be trying to hide behind the “Ramsay Review”. Does anyone know what the Ramsay Review was? Is the govt deliberately misinterpreting it for its own ends? Or was the Ramsay Review a shonky pseudo scientific exercise like ASIC’s insurance churning review, designed to deliver a predetermined outcome by distorting and misrepresenting the facts?
you’re spot on ANON
Aren’t All Government reviews predetermined and they just backfill the evidence to Justify the action. This is both sides
Agree about “Or was the Ramsay Review a shonky pseudo-scientific exercise like ASIC’s insurance churning review”
ASIC should re-open the case and properly investigated the financial planner they crucified (lost their houses, savings and nearly lost his family and suffered significant distress through this experience until now) for alleged churning of insurance products. Through some bogus complaint regarding this financial planner, they alleged the financial planner churned insurance products and put his clients into an inferior product and claimed commissions from it (His superiors received the commissions as per factual evidence, not him). Executives & Staff that presented these evidences were severely manipulated.
Please see below some evidence:
An evidence was presented where allegedly this financial planner was cancelling & replacing insurance covers, low & behold a different financial planner name was clearly visible and was still practising at that time.
An evidence was presented 2 clients was allegedly disadvantaged. Low & Behold, not this financial planners clients at all!
An evidence was presented this financial planner received ongoing insurance commissions etc. Totally incorrect executives & his boss received all this, he was an employed financial planner.
An evidence was presented that a transfer form should’ve been used, however, this transfer form is for a completely different product & does not relate to the matter. The correct transfer form was only generated after this financial planner left to start his own practise.
An evidence was presented alleging it was only this financial planner that was doing it, however, it turns out its widespread. New Business department has provided a reference number on numerous occasions, which indicates, they are aware.
An evidence was presented (signed by an executive, who surprisingly resigned) stating this financial planner was given numerous formal warnings verbally or in writing. Low & behold after a thorough review by 3 independent experts (including an expert that this financial planner hired), there was NO formal warnings whether it be in writing & verbally during his tenure as an employee & few more facts have been discovered.
When this financial planner, decided to represent himself and asked for the 49 client files so he can thoroughly investigate, he has only received 20 client files, until now remaining 29 files have not been presented.
The points above was severely manipulated to make it look like this financial planner was a crook. Isn’t it a crime when an information given to ASIC is incorrect or better yet manipulated?
Turns out, this financial planner had no choice to represent himself at the AAT (no funds to hire a lawyer or barrister, spent $400k trying to prove this complaint was bogus). Proper evidence presented by this financial planner shows new life insurance products had more features and benefits and monthly premiums was “significantly” lower. This financial planner had no compliance breaches throughout his tenure with his coward employer, 100 plus good character references from the community and industry & had all the awards.
When the truth started to surface, executives and including ASIC delegate who ruined this financial planner’s life, retired/resigned and employed somewhere else & ASIC stating after the truth being revealed a better outcome should’ve been “Retraining & monitoring this financial planner” (It would’ve saved time & money going after the wrong person).
ASIC has ruined this person’s life including his family (I am sure ASIC staff have families themselves) by clearly not investigating this matter thoroughly, they simply relied on manipulated & incomplete materials provided to them.
ASIC need to take accountability for these significant errors.