Good idea. I have no idea why we don’t have a professional standards board, who control compliance and discipline, and then do-away with the useless AFSL system. I can imagine a industry board could approve a standardised fee consent form in 20 minutes, yet here we are…..

The adviser could still recommend mental health cover, but point out the cost difference to the client and let them decide. Even if the client went with the mental health option to begin with, the client would have the option to drop it later on if the mental health component increased by far more than the rest of the policy (which is effectively what’s happened over the last 10 years, but with mental health compulsorily bundled).

OnePath withdrew the mental health opt out option due to “lack of demand”. But that was prior to the mental health claims explosion, and the price difference was minimal. If they offered it again today, and the pricing difference reflected the current cost of mental health claims, demand for mental health opt out would be considerable.

Perfectly summed up….

The option of the adviser being able to recommend to the client that they opt out of mental health cover in IP was tried out by One Path around 15 years ago.

The problem then, is the same problem now, only magnified by FASEA. That is the adviser, who recommended that cover without mental health cover, was effectively deemed to be playing God. Today under the communication provisions of Standard 5, if you recommended IP cover without the optional mental health cover, especially if you tempted the client by a 15% or 20% premium savings, you could book your place in front of the firing squad. If you are lucky, you might get to ask the squad “Shoot straight, you Bastards”

Far better, but time demanding, to allow the insurer to exclude mental health, and depending on the product, offer that 15 or 20% discount.

And on the subject of mental health, can someone explain to me how many mental health conditions (yes, there are exceptions) are of such a nature that they could disappear overnight with a change of treatment, change of environment et cetera. Yet it appears insurers are approving TPD claims on an any occupation test withhout demanding proof of that word “PERMANENT” In a total and permanent disability Test.And then using it as justification for jamming up TPD premiums.

And existing premiums have gone through the roof because there is a 5 year drought of new Life Ins policies placed.
LIF, FARSEA & APRA IP changes.

Yep and besides Frydenberg losing his seat.
No other Pollie or Bureaucrat ever held to account.