Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Lobbying efforts against proposed PI changes is 'scaremongering', claims association

Notify me of new replies via email
Julia Corderoy | 20 Aug 2015, 08:00 AM Agree 0
The FBAA claims that lobbying efforts against proposed professional indemnity (PI) insurance legislation is “scaremongering”
  • Banker | 20 Aug 2015, 10:15 AM Agree 0
    Look back at what happened to independent property valuers 7 or 8 years ago. The hike in PI premiums (coupled with lower valuation fees) meant that it was no longer viable for many to stay as self employed contractors, they became salaried on significantly lower incomes.
    We can't ignore that there is a risk of this influencing our industry in a similar way.
  • PJ Patterson | 20 Aug 2015, 10:23 AM Agree 0
    It's great to see the MFAA taking up the lobbying effort. The number of times I have heard brokers ask 'What does the MFAA do for me' well, this is what they do and should continue doing for their members (of which I am proudly one).
    Whether Mr. White is correct in suggesting that this is a non issue, I am grateful that the MFAA is taking the aggressive approach and showing the industry that our professional body is on top of the issue. I'd prefer that they address it and this be a non issue than get whacked over the head with a big PI increase in a year or two and wonder what happened.
  • Peter White CEO FBAA | 20 Aug 2015, 10:46 AM Agree 0
    Ummm bloggers this 'maybe' $20m PI aggregate cover DOESN'T apply to finance broking activities which is what your PI Cover reflects - please read what's written.
  • QEDRisk | 20 Aug 2015, 11:23 AM Agree 0
    Hang on - "would only affect anyone who acts as an agent for a lender"??

    I humbly submit that my understanding of the AML/CTF Act is that acting as an agent is precisely what a broker does when they collect ID from a consumer...
  • Harold Spencer | 20 Aug 2015, 12:32 PM Agree 0
    QED Risk I believe all/most lender agreements state that brokers ARE NOT an agent. Can't prove it as our aggregator does not share the agreements (makes it a little hard to abide by their agreement which states we must abide by the lenders agreement but that's for another day) but the previous agreements I have seen all state this. In relation to ID I think you will find that that is a different area more to do with AML. I could be wrong and you are renowned for your technical knowledge so I am more than happy to be corrected. Go Greg!!
  • Peter White CEO FBAA | 20 Aug 2015, 02:24 PM Agree 0
    @QEDRrisk - the AML/CTF obligation only relates to matters pertaining to a loan application, not acting as an agent for AML/CTF VOI for a conveyance matter which is what this is about.
Post a reply