Time for QAR’s Levy to stop ‘barracking’ says AIOFP
The chair of the Quality of Advice Review, Michelle Levy, has completed her job and should now be maintaining a dignified silence, according to the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals.
The AIOFP executive director, Peter Johnston in which he has strongly criticised what he suggests represents Ms Levy “barracking” for her own recommendations.
In a message to AIOFP members Johnston made clear he believed Levy’s contract had been fulfilled.
“Ms Levy has been paid by taxpayers to give her views on improving the dynamics of the Financial Advice industry, this contract has now been fulfilled with the delivery of her final Report in late December 2022 to Minister Jones,” Johnston said.
“Considering Ms Levy was appointed by a Liberal Minister under dubious timing and circumstances, we find it most inappropriate that Ms Levy is actively and publicly goading Minister Jones into accepting her views after the completion of her contract,” his message said.
“Ms Levy should be maintaining a dignified silence, much the same as Minister Jones gave Levy to complete her contractual duties. Publicly criticising the Minister and barracking for your own recommendations is simply poor conflicted behaviour and may just achieve the reverse of what Ms Levy is trying to achieve.”
“The same goes for other commentators demanding immediate outcomes,” Johnston’s statement said.
Levy has been the subject of multiple speaking invitations cover the period both before, during and after the QAR process.
In other breaking news.. “Old man yells at cloud”.
Come on Peter, Ms Levy is busting to get the Big Banks and Life Co’s access to flog product, flog product and flog more product, via uneducated & unlicensed call centre jockeys….. her agreed agenda is at stake…… and her flog product insto bonuses too :-/
Full Fee Disclosure or conflicts of interest obviously don’t apply to Ms Levy.
I only wish that for once we got dignified silence from Peter Johnston. What gives him the right to say who can and can’t talk about the QAR recommendations?
Agree.
Is this bloke serious…does he ever think before he speaks? So, all of us (likely to be 99% of advisers) who are asking for the removal of FDS’s and eradication of SOA’s as soon as possible should maintain a dignified silence? I wonder if the AIOFP’s members read what he puts out and if they do, if they agree with his sentiments.
They don’t actually have any members!
According to the QAR, SOAs might disappear in name or might be withdrawn and replaced with a enhanced ROA. But no one believes SOAs are going to really disappear in some form and not be replaced by copious file notes and structured interviews. Just listen to the PI insurer’s., and AFCA, only today.
As to some peoples objection to the AIOFP comments about Ms Levy’s “barracking”,Ms Levy was a consultant to the government i.e. her role was to follow the terms of reference, interview appropriate stakeholders, send off recommendations to her principal – Mr Jones. It’s up to Mr Jones then to make a decision and sell the sizzle, or otherwise. And just like any report to government, it can be put in the WPB
Ms Levy somehow thought she was a lobbyist (for whom it wasn’t certain) and felt she had to justify her possible recommendations. I grew very tired of watching Ms Levy attend various conferences and ” fly kites” on some of her ideas, just to see what response she would get. That’s the behavior of a political operative, not an independent consultant. Did anyone see Justice Hayne, a consultant with RC powers, fly ideas on some of his possible recommendations during the course of the hearings, or attend adviser or industry conferences, and give hints of what might be in his final recommendations
As to how many members there are in the AIOFP, I’m not sure. But I, as a long-standing AFA member, am about to join a new organisation that will be dominated by the culture of the FPA, despite all the assurances. If the new FAA doesn’t come up to scratch and takes a real interest in specialist life risk advisers, and other specialist advisers, then I’ll be looking at the AIOFP to represent me, regardless of the number of members.
On my reading of the media, Mr Johnson seems to have the capacity at least attract attention from politicians. That’s something the AFA/FPA have failed to do for the last decade as they watched their members, particularly life risk specialists, thrown onto the high altar of compliance and reduced income. Both the FPA and the AFA discovered that a softly softly, submission driven, approach to government, without engaging professional and well connected lobbyists, resulted in being taken for granted by Ministers with a history of bank employment, viz LIF, FASEA