Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
That thought has occurred to me. The unfortunate problem is that those with the lack of membership benefit in mind have control of the fund. Fortunately there are a few good men in there, but they are in the minority.
Interestingly the Fund only produced an abridged presentation of the balance sheet to the last AGM. That single sheet lacked detail and was not certified by the auditors as required by the rules of the fund.
Why not?
What are the Trustees trying to hide?
Whilst the Trustees have been trumpeting their genius as financial managers, bailing out of the equities market before the crash:
how is it that the fund has a loss of 12 million showing in the abridged balance sheet?
If the fund is as strong as is claimed, with a net asset value in the order of 80 milllion (that is only a guess as the "balance sheet" presented had no detail), why has the fund paid out $89,711 in interest?
Without access to the audited accounts as required by the rules, what is the membership to make of this.
Something stinks in the state of Denmark.
Maui
Interestingly the Fund only produced an abridged presentation of the balance sheet to the last AGM. That single sheet lacked detail and was not certified by the auditors as required by the rules of the fund.
Why not?
What are the Trustees trying to hide?
Whilst the Trustees have been trumpeting their genius as financial managers, bailing out of the equities market before the crash:
how is it that the fund has a loss of 12 million showing in the abridged balance sheet?
If the fund is as strong as is claimed, with a net asset value in the order of 80 milllion (that is only a guess as the "balance sheet" presented had no detail), why has the fund paid out $89,711 in interest?
Without access to the audited accounts as required by the rules, what is the membership to make of this.
Something stinks in the state of Denmark.
Maui
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spag,
Is your AFAP membership contingent on Fund membership??
Maui,
A full copy was offered and is available to any member that wants it.
News,
Fund membership is a privilige of AFAP membership and that is the way it should be and will remain so ad infinitum.
Is your AFAP membership contingent on Fund membership??
Maui,
A full copy was offered and is available to any member that wants it.
News,
Fund membership is a privilige of AFAP membership and that is the way it should be and will remain so ad infinitum.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just our of interest, and not trying to stir up a hornets nest, why do you think the MBF should be only open to AFAP members.
As an objective observer, I would think that the best interest of MBF members would be served by getting as many members as possible, regardless of union affiliation.
It seems to me that the link between the afap and mbf is a dinosaur from a past time. These days, independent management of financial entities seems to be common practice and growth of membership by opening up to all comers would seem to benefit everyone.
I do understand that there are those that are reluctant to let go of the past and there is an us and them thing with AFAP guys, but trying to get past that, wouldn't it be good to have one great insurance scheme for Aussie pilots, union member or not.
Cheers
V
As an objective observer, I would think that the best interest of MBF members would be served by getting as many members as possible, regardless of union affiliation.
It seems to me that the link between the afap and mbf is a dinosaur from a past time. These days, independent management of financial entities seems to be common practice and growth of membership by opening up to all comers would seem to benefit everyone.
I do understand that there are those that are reluctant to let go of the past and there is an us and them thing with AFAP guys, but trying to get past that, wouldn't it be good to have one great insurance scheme for Aussie pilots, union member or not.
Cheers
V
Vorsicht
Would you also advocate that the Royal Melbourne Golf Club should not be able to stipulate who, and under what conditions people may use their facilities. Same principal.
The MBF was set up by AFAP members for AFAP members. You are free to join AFAP and the MBF. If you feel you don't want one of the pair you are free to take your business elsewhere.
This has been done to death in the past and will not get up and run under the rules as they stand. Suggest you research the difference between a Mutual Association and an Incorporated body.
Bolter
I must have been having a micro sleep when the full balance sheets were offered.
I understand that procurring a set of the papers is a tad more difficult than you suggest.
Maui
Would you also advocate that the Royal Melbourne Golf Club should not be able to stipulate who, and under what conditions people may use their facilities. Same principal.
The MBF was set up by AFAP members for AFAP members. You are free to join AFAP and the MBF. If you feel you don't want one of the pair you are free to take your business elsewhere.
This has been done to death in the past and will not get up and run under the rules as they stand. Suggest you research the difference between a Mutual Association and an Incorporated body.
Bolter
I must have been having a micro sleep when the full balance sheets were offered.
I understand that procurring a set of the papers is a tad more difficult than you suggest.
Maui
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess it's that sort of big picture thinking that has brought us to where we are.
Thanks Maui, that has cleared the position up for me........it would seem that the primary purpose of the MBF is a recruitment and retention tool, rather than what it's name would suggest.
I would have to say that does not bode well for the AFAP when someone enevitably starts up an equivalent fund that is open to all pilots regardless of union affiliation, but I'm sure the AFAP will spend a heap of members money in the courts trying to stop that happening as well.
Back to my original post. Has anyone considered the people overseeing this may not have the pilots best interests at heart?
V
Thanks Maui, that has cleared the position up for me........it would seem that the primary purpose of the MBF is a recruitment and retention tool, rather than what it's name would suggest.
I would have to say that does not bode well for the AFAP when someone enevitably starts up an equivalent fund that is open to all pilots regardless of union affiliation, but I'm sure the AFAP will spend a heap of members money in the courts trying to stop that happening as well.
Back to my original post. Has anyone considered the people overseeing this may not have the pilots best interests at heart?
V
Vorsicht
Back to my original response
Maui
Back to my original response
That thought has occurred to me. The unfortunate problem is that those with the lack of membership benefit in mind have control of the fund. Fortunately there are a few good men in there, but they are in the minority.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maui,
As usual all you have to offer is politically motivated hogwash. The predicament the Fund finds itself in now is the end result of the avaricious actions of some of your mates up on the 6th floor. Had the assets been signed over, ultimately they would have been controlled by a staffer, is that what you wanted??
With regard to the AFSL, would you have the Fund flout the law and just carry on regardless??
As for member benefits, the position Spag has on AFAP membership is all too common, i.e. the only reason they have AFAP membership is to get the LOL offered by the Fund. Might I respectfully suggest that your mates on the 6th floor urgently address this issue and desist with their campaign of harassment and vilification of the Fund.
I look forward to your critique of the audited accounts!!
As usual all you have to offer is politically motivated hogwash. The predicament the Fund finds itself in now is the end result of the avaricious actions of some of your mates up on the 6th floor. Had the assets been signed over, ultimately they would have been controlled by a staffer, is that what you wanted??
With regard to the AFSL, would you have the Fund flout the law and just carry on regardless??
As for member benefits, the position Spag has on AFAP membership is all too common, i.e. the only reason they have AFAP membership is to get the LOL offered by the Fund. Might I respectfully suggest that your mates on the 6th floor urgently address this issue and desist with their campaign of harassment and vilification of the Fund.
I look forward to your critique of the audited accounts!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess people are only willing to put the money in when they feel they are getting value.
Personally, I don't feel I would be getting value by paying for AFAP membership alone. I am well paid for my work and my employer is willing to be constructive when discussing terms and conditions with the pilots, and we in turn will go that extra mile for the company when required. I seem to be getting on just fine without union membership. Of course, this situation could change and I may need to reassess my options.
Having shopped around, membership of the MBF is an attractive proposition, even when considering AFAP membership as part of the cost.
Personally, I don't feel I would be getting value by paying for AFAP membership alone. I am well paid for my work and my employer is willing to be constructive when discussing terms and conditions with the pilots, and we in turn will go that extra mile for the company when required. I seem to be getting on just fine without union membership. Of course, this situation could change and I may need to reassess my options.
Having shopped around, membership of the MBF is an attractive proposition, even when considering AFAP membership as part of the cost.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAPMBF: An attack from within?
Last year, at the time we were asked to vote on a group of rule changes I published on this and other fora, the following.
And in a subsequent post, the following questions of one anonymous poster who happens to be a Board member.
To date The Board has not responded to the queries and has never explained the additional requirements. Even as late as two weeks ago the same batch of questions with a few variations and additions was put to the Board from the highest level of the AFAP. As far as I am aware they remain unanswered.
I believe the secondary vote on rule changes is about to be put to the membership.
I expect that we will be presented with a “fait accompli”. We will be told that we have no choice than to go down the road to the issue of a Financial Services Licence. This is not true. In all probability we will be told there are no other options. This is not true.
Members should remember, there was another option, it was put to us in by the Trustees in 2007. The membership voted in favour of it, but the Trustees failed to implement our expressed wish, by not completing the hand over of Trustee responsibilities to the AFAP as we directed.
This is not inconsistent behaviour on the part of the Trustees. In 2001 the rules were changed, eliminating a portion of coverage from overseas members. The Trustees failed to implement the required administrative procedures, and continued for several years, to bill and accept payment for non existent cover.
The Special General Meeting (September 2009) of the members of AAPMBF, passed a resolution that requires the Board to take no irreversible action in respect of the Financial Services Licence (FSL), prior to the normalisation of relations between the AFAP and the AAPMBF. That has not occurred. Discussions to bring that about have been minimal and the current Chairman of the AAPMBF has displayed his contempt for the process by failing to turn up to a scheduled meeting. In the meantime progress toward the attainment of the FSL has continued unabated, despite the expressed desire of the membership.
The clear impression given to both the SGM in September and the delayed AGM in December, was that the issue of an FSL was imminent. The reality is that the formal application for the FSL was not lodged with ASIC until late December, some time after the AGM. The process for issue of an FSL is at least a three month process. Now nearly four months after the AGM, we are only just now about to get the rule changes required to establish and comply with the FSL. All the while the AAPMBF has claimed to be unable to take on new members (since August 2009). This too is not true. Whilst it can be construed that to take on new members without having an FSL (or alternative ) in place, would be to act unlawfully, relief from that restriction is available from ASIC. The Trustees when advised that relief was available, were apparently ignorant of that availability, an in any case declined to pursue the matter. In the meantime a significant number of potential members have signed up to AIPA in preference to AFAP on the basis of lack of availability of Loss of Licence coverage.
The Board of the AAPMBF is overshadowed by a triumvirate of non member Trustees. Each of these gentlemen has received their entitlement from the fund and no longer has a vested interest in outcomes. The manager is a commercially driven person who, in my view, has never understood the origins or the rationale behind the establishment of the AAPMBF. It is my view that she is intent on turning the fund into a lean and mean commercial entity rather than a compassionate caring organisation for those of us who unfortunately from time to time require support.
It is my view that we are being pushed down the road to commercial insurance, where OUR assets could become a target of plunder by some obscenely rich AMP, Lloyds, Citibank or whomever. Should that be allowed to happen there is no doubt our coverage will change to our detriment and we will lose forever the concept of “by pilots, for pilots”. Benefits will be harder to achieve and rates will probably rise as we subsidise newcomers not of our choosing.
The Aviation Superannuation Trust, of which some of you are members, has found that compliance costs associated with the FSL are seriously damaging their bottom line, and in turn the return to members. As such they have been actively seeking other avenues to improve their position. Yet our Trustees, when specifically asked at the SGM, stated that there were no significant ongoing costs in compliance. Either they do not know because they haven’t done the required research , or perhaps they have been misinformed by someone who has.
Members, I have nothing to gain here other than an ulcer. I do not seek office within the organisation. At my age (62), whatever happens in the future will not materially affect me. That said, I and many other long term members and past members are very concerned about the legacy our vintage leave for those that follow. Our fund has been built on mutuality, trust and integrity, we need to ensure that it continues that way. We must ever be vigilant and heed the lessons of the past.
As we are asked to vote consider very carefully;
Is this a unanimous recommendation of the Trustees?
Have you been given counter-arguments?
Have alternatives been put and explained?
Have unrelated matters, some motherhood issues and some unpalatable, been lumped into one Yes/No vote?
Have the regulatory (ASIC) requests been included so you can see for yourself what is required, or are you being treated like a mushroom?
Ask yourself, why is that the Board no longer issues to Trustees, hard copy minutes for its Board meetings. Trustees cannot get hard or electronic copy they may only read them electronically at the office.
Ask yourself, why is that Trustees are requested to sign a confidentiality agreement, in relation to all matters brought before YOUR board. Privacy detail excepted, the Board’s business is YOUR business.
Why is it that the AGM was presented with a single page, uncertified, balance sheet. And why is it that the Auditor chose to send an under informed proxy in his stead.
Why is it that the Auditor made no report of significant events occurring after the close of books, as required by his Auditing Standards. The change of Trustees and the declared inability to take new members are two such events. Did he know? Had he been informed? If not why not?
Why does it cost us on average $12,000 per meeting for Trustee expenses, (a rise of 17% over the previous year. Inflation 4% roughly). Could that possibly be something to do with extravagant dinners and chauffer driven trips to wineries?
How is it that whilst the Trustees have been trumpeting their superior financial wisdom, in cashing out of the equities market BEFORE the GFC, the total assets of the fund have declined by $11 million and at the same time the liabilities have gone down by just $4 million leaving a total loss of equity of $7 million? This has yet to be explained.
If any of these matters give you concern, when you are asked to vote, consider very carefully.
The FSL will not be able to go ahead with the rules unchanged. If you require of your Trustees, more discussion and more transparency a NO vote now will ensure that they either explain themselves properly or they will have to propose another way for the fund to operate. Perhaps they may even find themselves forced to properly implement that which the members voted for in 2007. There may be short term pain in any alternative approach, but such will be far better than the long term destruction of our fund by commercial entities.
DO NOT VOTE EARLY GET ALL THE FACTS BEFORE YOU CONSIDER YOUR ACTION
Paul Makin.
Former Chairman of Trustees.
My concern is, that despite several letters on the matter, the Board has failed to inform the members what lies ahead. If we are to vote on a change of structure, we should be informed of what effects will ensue from that change. Will the Fund recommend the appointment of an alternative Trustee or will we seek licensing under the Financial Services legislation? What will the alternatives cost us and what will be the benefits or pitfalls of each alternative?The one fact you can be assured of is that this vote is not the end of the matter. Other moves must be taken in order to comply with the regulatory requirements. What I seek, is to have the membership fully informed of the consequences and implications of the vote currently before them.
1)What changes are to be made to enable ongoing regulatory compliance?
2)How will those changes be beneficial to the membership?
3)What will those changes cost the membership?
4)What has the AFAP done that warrants dismissal from Trusteeship?
5)What has Capt Seedsman done to warrant removal from the Board?
6)Why is it necessary to invent new rules to achieve that removal, when the mechanism currently exists?
7)Why is the issue of dismissal so imperative that it takes precedence over the rectification of longstanding deficiencies in the coverage of a significant portion the membership?
2)How will those changes be beneficial to the membership?
3)What will those changes cost the membership?
4)What has the AFAP done that warrants dismissal from Trusteeship?
5)What has Capt Seedsman done to warrant removal from the Board?
6)Why is it necessary to invent new rules to achieve that removal, when the mechanism currently exists?
7)Why is the issue of dismissal so imperative that it takes precedence over the rectification of longstanding deficiencies in the coverage of a significant portion the membership?
To date The Board has not responded to the queries and has never explained the additional requirements. Even as late as two weeks ago the same batch of questions with a few variations and additions was put to the Board from the highest level of the AFAP. As far as I am aware they remain unanswered.
I believe the secondary vote on rule changes is about to be put to the membership.
I expect that we will be presented with a “fait accompli”. We will be told that we have no choice than to go down the road to the issue of a Financial Services Licence. This is not true. In all probability we will be told there are no other options. This is not true.
Members should remember, there was another option, it was put to us in by the Trustees in 2007. The membership voted in favour of it, but the Trustees failed to implement our expressed wish, by not completing the hand over of Trustee responsibilities to the AFAP as we directed.
This is not inconsistent behaviour on the part of the Trustees. In 2001 the rules were changed, eliminating a portion of coverage from overseas members. The Trustees failed to implement the required administrative procedures, and continued for several years, to bill and accept payment for non existent cover.
The Special General Meeting (September 2009) of the members of AAPMBF, passed a resolution that requires the Board to take no irreversible action in respect of the Financial Services Licence (FSL), prior to the normalisation of relations between the AFAP and the AAPMBF. That has not occurred. Discussions to bring that about have been minimal and the current Chairman of the AAPMBF has displayed his contempt for the process by failing to turn up to a scheduled meeting. In the meantime progress toward the attainment of the FSL has continued unabated, despite the expressed desire of the membership.
The clear impression given to both the SGM in September and the delayed AGM in December, was that the issue of an FSL was imminent. The reality is that the formal application for the FSL was not lodged with ASIC until late December, some time after the AGM. The process for issue of an FSL is at least a three month process. Now nearly four months after the AGM, we are only just now about to get the rule changes required to establish and comply with the FSL. All the while the AAPMBF has claimed to be unable to take on new members (since August 2009). This too is not true. Whilst it can be construed that to take on new members without having an FSL (or alternative ) in place, would be to act unlawfully, relief from that restriction is available from ASIC. The Trustees when advised that relief was available, were apparently ignorant of that availability, an in any case declined to pursue the matter. In the meantime a significant number of potential members have signed up to AIPA in preference to AFAP on the basis of lack of availability of Loss of Licence coverage.
The Board of the AAPMBF is overshadowed by a triumvirate of non member Trustees. Each of these gentlemen has received their entitlement from the fund and no longer has a vested interest in outcomes. The manager is a commercially driven person who, in my view, has never understood the origins or the rationale behind the establishment of the AAPMBF. It is my view that she is intent on turning the fund into a lean and mean commercial entity rather than a compassionate caring organisation for those of us who unfortunately from time to time require support.
It is my view that we are being pushed down the road to commercial insurance, where OUR assets could become a target of plunder by some obscenely rich AMP, Lloyds, Citibank or whomever. Should that be allowed to happen there is no doubt our coverage will change to our detriment and we will lose forever the concept of “by pilots, for pilots”. Benefits will be harder to achieve and rates will probably rise as we subsidise newcomers not of our choosing.
The Aviation Superannuation Trust, of which some of you are members, has found that compliance costs associated with the FSL are seriously damaging their bottom line, and in turn the return to members. As such they have been actively seeking other avenues to improve their position. Yet our Trustees, when specifically asked at the SGM, stated that there were no significant ongoing costs in compliance. Either they do not know because they haven’t done the required research , or perhaps they have been misinformed by someone who has.
Members, I have nothing to gain here other than an ulcer. I do not seek office within the organisation. At my age (62), whatever happens in the future will not materially affect me. That said, I and many other long term members and past members are very concerned about the legacy our vintage leave for those that follow. Our fund has been built on mutuality, trust and integrity, we need to ensure that it continues that way. We must ever be vigilant and heed the lessons of the past.
As we are asked to vote consider very carefully;
Is this a unanimous recommendation of the Trustees?
Have you been given counter-arguments?
Have alternatives been put and explained?
Have unrelated matters, some motherhood issues and some unpalatable, been lumped into one Yes/No vote?
Have the regulatory (ASIC) requests been included so you can see for yourself what is required, or are you being treated like a mushroom?
Ask yourself, why is that the Board no longer issues to Trustees, hard copy minutes for its Board meetings. Trustees cannot get hard or electronic copy they may only read them electronically at the office.
Ask yourself, why is that Trustees are requested to sign a confidentiality agreement, in relation to all matters brought before YOUR board. Privacy detail excepted, the Board’s business is YOUR business.
Why is it that the AGM was presented with a single page, uncertified, balance sheet. And why is it that the Auditor chose to send an under informed proxy in his stead.
Why is it that the Auditor made no report of significant events occurring after the close of books, as required by his Auditing Standards. The change of Trustees and the declared inability to take new members are two such events. Did he know? Had he been informed? If not why not?
Why does it cost us on average $12,000 per meeting for Trustee expenses, (a rise of 17% over the previous year. Inflation 4% roughly). Could that possibly be something to do with extravagant dinners and chauffer driven trips to wineries?
How is it that whilst the Trustees have been trumpeting their superior financial wisdom, in cashing out of the equities market BEFORE the GFC, the total assets of the fund have declined by $11 million and at the same time the liabilities have gone down by just $4 million leaving a total loss of equity of $7 million? This has yet to be explained.
If any of these matters give you concern, when you are asked to vote, consider very carefully.
The FSL will not be able to go ahead with the rules unchanged. If you require of your Trustees, more discussion and more transparency a NO vote now will ensure that they either explain themselves properly or they will have to propose another way for the fund to operate. Perhaps they may even find themselves forced to properly implement that which the members voted for in 2007. There may be short term pain in any alternative approach, but such will be far better than the long term destruction of our fund by commercial entities.
DO NOT VOTE EARLY GET ALL THE FACTS BEFORE YOU CONSIDER YOUR ACTION
Paul Makin.
Former Chairman of Trustees.
Paul, you put forward some compelling points. What I find most concerning is the silence from the AAPMBF reference these points. I have contacted them in writing, expressing my concerns also, as an overseas member. The response was, effectively, a non-answer, advising that things were 'under consideration.' I am no fan of the AFAP due to certain members of the current staff (non-elected), but I am afraid I am starting to smell a rat at the Fund. We, as members, are entitled to a comprehensive answer from the fund re: our questions. These answers are not forthcoming? Why? I urge all members to start asking these questions. After all, it is our (the members) fund, not the Trustees.
As this is a widely accessed public forum, I challenge the Fund to answer these questions here. There is no 'commercial in confidence' issue, and it would be one of the best ways for the Fund to widely disseminate their position. If they are unwilling to do this, we again come back to the 'smelling a rat' scenario. Also, if the assertion that a chauffer driven winery trip took place can be proved, I would like a written justification for this, with a cost/benefit analysis to substantiate the trip. I would also ask of the participants an explanation to all members as to how they saw this as appropriate useage of OUR monies.
As this is a widely accessed public forum, I challenge the Fund to answer these questions here. There is no 'commercial in confidence' issue, and it would be one of the best ways for the Fund to widely disseminate their position. If they are unwilling to do this, we again come back to the 'smelling a rat' scenario. Also, if the assertion that a chauffer driven winery trip took place can be proved, I would like a written justification for this, with a cost/benefit analysis to substantiate the trip. I would also ask of the participants an explanation to all members as to how they saw this as appropriate useage of OUR monies.