The CEO of the AIOFP, Peter Johnston, reports on the FPA disciplinary issue with a member.

Hi, ‘it’s all in the fine print’ so they say….

Over the past 24 hours we have had plenty of feedback from members who have been caught in the ‘FPA DR’ web in the past. It seems few were even aware it existed until the ‘gestapo’ had you in their investigative sights.

This regulation 18 – best sums it up –

‘Relationship with an Approved External Dispute Resolution Scheme

18. Any reference by a Complainant to an Approved External Complaints Resolution Scheme shall not prevent the Complaint being received or dealt with under this Disciplinary Regulation’.

This literally means once AFCA/ASIC/Lawyers have terrorized you the FPA can also have a go, below is a summary of a member’s experience with this ‘member service

Putting aside all the other ‘imperfections’, why would you want to be exposed to this draconian environment?

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 8:00 PM
To: Peter Johnston <pjohnston@aiofp.net.au>
Subject: FW:

Member Bill Mills is onto AFCA about going outside of their jurisdiction and this certainly seems another example of it. It will be high on the agenda with the Minister Jones and Deputy AFCA Ombudsman Shail Singh at the Gold Coast conference.

Hi Peter,

As this document illustrates, the FPA Disciplinary processes is a ‘Kangaroo’ Court where the FPA is noy only the Judge, Jury and executioner – but also the accuser, complainant, prosecutor and applicant of the ‘complaint’.

The reason I choose not to provide any submissions in my ‘defence’ of the FPA’s ‘Complaint’ was that I didn’t want to dignify the process in defending myself against hollow and vexatious allegations!

I refer to my previous communication where you were notified of the complaint initiated against you by the FPA. In that notification, you were provided with any opportunity to provide a written submission to the FPA by Thursday 13 June 2019. I note that no submission has been provided. Accordingly, the FPA will progress the investigation based on material obtained thus far.

If I’d been found ‘guilty’ of any further punishment other than a request to make an apology, I would / could have had a substantial case against the FPA of damages to my reputation and a lack of due process, natural justice and defamation.

If only their ‘ego’ went one step further and ‘hung’ me! I think they were lucky they pulled up short before doing that! Professional defamation can result is substantial damages! They were playing with fire and bombs!