The CEO of the AIOFP, Peter Johnston, reports on a highly suspicious nexus

Below is a letter to the Minister seeking information on the highly suspicious nexus between DIXON/CSLR/BUREAUCRATS, we are concerned about the following –

• Why Dixon’s Canberra based clients get preferential treatment with CSLR compensation access.
• Considering Canberra Bureaucrats are suspected to be also victims of Dixon’s failure, what role have they played with this preferential treatment.
• Why have all other Product/Advice failures been rejected for access to CSLR compensation despite Comm Hayne recommending it?
• Why the Advice community should be funding the losses of Canberra Bureaucrats.
• If there has been criminal activity why should Advisers pay the CSLR Levy.

We will keep you updated on progress.

Dear Minister,

This is an open letter and has been distributed to members.

The AIOFP, its members and we believe the wider Advice community are greatly perturbed by the suspicious circumstances surrounding the DIXON/CSLR/CANBERRA BUREAUCRAT nexus and the preferential CSLR compensation treatment of Dixon victims when all other consumer victims of alternative product/advice failures are precluded.

We think there is a distinct ‘stench’ of either corruption, manipulation and/or profound conflicts of interest within the construction/operations of CSLR which was directed and managed by Treasury Bureaucrats and/or their associates.

We base this on the following –

1. The Dixon Advisory group was head quartered in Canberra until its failure in early 2022 with several Canberra based residents and Federal Government Bureaucrats as private clients. We believe several of the Bureaucrats/Associates worked in the Department of TREASURY and they all face heavy individual financial losses from the failure of the Dixon Group.
2. In 2019 Commissioner Hayne recommended the CSLR be 1/1/2008 retrospectively applied to include numerous other failed Products/Advice affecting over 100,000 consumer victims – see attached documents and page 36 of the FSRC booklet.
3. Both sides of Politics argued against the retrospective aspect at different times from 2020 which we suspect was instigated by the Institutional lobby not wanting to be held accountable for the management and performance of their failed funds [how unfair…]. No surprise, the retrospective notion was subsequently and comprehensively defeated.
4. The Advice community wants an explanation as to why ONLY the DIXON private clients get preferential treatment with CSLR and not the thousands of other Consumers facing losses over the years with failed funds and the related advice outcomes – the very consumers Comm Hayne wanted compensated are being denied access.
5. We are also perturbed by the potential conflicts with the CEO of AFCA [who decides on who gets CSLR access] is also the CEO of CSLR – how can this happen? –  https://cslr.org.au/about-us/our-team

We would appreciate a response within 30 days, we think it is grossly unfair to expect the Advice community to fund the recovery of losses incurred by Government Bureaucrat personnel decision making when it appears they have engineered an advantage over other consumers to benefit themselves. Please also note there was bipartisan agreement that CSLR was not to be applied retrospectively.

We are also requesting that the persons or body responding to our request are not from the Department of Treasury or connected in any way to them for obvious reasons.

If we cannot get a satisfactory response to this matter, it will be taken to other market options for assessment. If there is criminal behaviour detected, we will assume the CSLR levy will be suspended and accordingly, we will be suggesting to our members to delay any levy payment until the matter is resolved. 

Finally, it is about time that ADVICE and PRODUCT MANUFACTURING are legally/legislatively separated and these diametrically opposed functions are separately reflected in the CSLR funding decisions. DIXON is yet another example of a vertically integrated business model failing, they are profoundly conflicted and should be banned if the Government is serious about eliminating industry conflicts of interest and protecting consumers.

We look forward to your response in due course.

Regards.