Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
While we wait for answers privately or publicly, new members of the AFAP are, by all reports, being denied coverage by the MBF. These are mostly young guys with families, big mortgages etc who should not be left exposed to risk. The MBF has a "DUTY OF CARE" to provide cover and it is clearly not. This has been going on for months and yet no adequate response is forthcoming. Do we have to wait for a personal tragedy to occur, so the people concerned can say, "not our problem, nothing to do with us, he wasn't a fund member!"
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is AAPMBF being hijacked
AAPMBF members. You will by now, have before you a set of proposed rule changes for the AAPMBF.
Whilst “prima facie” appearing to be innocuous, closer inspection reveals matters that should be of serious concern to all members.
The proposal eliminates any elected administration from the fund and replaces it with a Board of a separate legal entity (Austair). If this vote is passed, the current, elected Trustees will cease to be Trustees of the AAPMBF. Control will then pass to “Austair”. The proposed rules talk of Directors, but there are no Directors of AAPMBF, and Directors are not defined within the rules of the AAPMBF. The proposal appears to hope that you will assume Directors of Austair are automatically Directors of AAPMBF. As the rules are written, such is not the case. Whether that is by omission or commission is immaterial to the effect.
Austair has nine directors.
Austair is a Nominee Company that has (to the best of my knowledge), no constitution.
None of the current Directors of Austair have been elected to those positions, they have been appointed by the other Board members.
Members of AAPMBF are not ‘members’ of Austair and therefore have no say in the administration of or election of Directors of Austair.
What should precede this current proposal, is the formulation of a proper constitution for Austair Nominees , which gives ultimate control of Austair to the membership of AAPMBF, with process’ for election of representatives and the ability to direct the administration of the company. To the best of my knowledge that currently is not in place.
We are being asked to hand over our assets to an unelected body over whom we currently have no means of control.
The proposal has other serious flaws which I will publish separately, however the above facts are the most serious concern and require your immediate consideration.
To vote for the current proposal is to assign any influence you currently have over the direction of the fund and the disposition of your substantial assets.
I intend to vote NO. I urge you to do the same
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
Whilst “prima facie” appearing to be innocuous, closer inspection reveals matters that should be of serious concern to all members.
The proposal eliminates any elected administration from the fund and replaces it with a Board of a separate legal entity (Austair). If this vote is passed, the current, elected Trustees will cease to be Trustees of the AAPMBF. Control will then pass to “Austair”. The proposed rules talk of Directors, but there are no Directors of AAPMBF, and Directors are not defined within the rules of the AAPMBF. The proposal appears to hope that you will assume Directors of Austair are automatically Directors of AAPMBF. As the rules are written, such is not the case. Whether that is by omission or commission is immaterial to the effect.
Austair has nine directors.
Austair is a Nominee Company that has (to the best of my knowledge), no constitution.
None of the current Directors of Austair have been elected to those positions, they have been appointed by the other Board members.
Members of AAPMBF are not ‘members’ of Austair and therefore have no say in the administration of or election of Directors of Austair.
What should precede this current proposal, is the formulation of a proper constitution for Austair Nominees , which gives ultimate control of Austair to the membership of AAPMBF, with process’ for election of representatives and the ability to direct the administration of the company. To the best of my knowledge that currently is not in place.
We are being asked to hand over our assets to an unelected body over whom we currently have no means of control.
The proposal has other serious flaws which I will publish separately, however the above facts are the most serious concern and require your immediate consideration.
To vote for the current proposal is to assign any influence you currently have over the direction of the fund and the disposition of your substantial assets.
I intend to vote NO. I urge you to do the same
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
Last edited by paul makin; 7th Apr 2010 at 00:16.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAPMBF members.
You have before you a set of ballot papers intended to implement changes to the rules of the AAPMBF. Those changes ‘prima facie” appear to be reasonable, however a closer examination reveals a document that is legally incompetent, technically flawed, and one could also opine, deceitful.
Nowhere in the documentation forwarded to you, is there a declaration of a timetable for the ballot process. At the very least the ballot MUST include a closing date as determined in accordance with Rule 24 of the fund. The absence of a specified date renders the outcome of any vote, vulnerable to a legal challenge as to the validity of any declared result of said vote. Did it close yesterday, will it close next Christmas or sometime in between? The ballot is legally incompetent as it does not comply with the Rules of The Fund.
The inclusion of Rule 24 (c), seeks to impose conditions upon “the constitution” of Austair.
To the best of my knowledge, Austair, a nominee company, at this time:
· does not have a constitution.
· We as members of AAPMBF are NOT members of Austair. Austair has no members, just nine “Directors”.
On that basis the proposed changes to Rule 24 are legally incompetent as we non-members of Austair cannot impose conditions upon a separate legal entity.
There are no “Transitional arrangements”
The changes to the rules eliminate the positions of the current trustees of the AAPMBF, ie , supposing a valid vote in favour of the proposed rules, the positions of the current Trustees of the AAPMBF will no longer exist. It is proposed that, henceforth, there will be no Elected Officials of the AAPMBF as currently defined, only “Directors of Austair”. The proposed changes declare that “Directors of Austair” will be elected officials. To date there are no “ELECTED” directors of Austair, neither is there a mechanism for the members of AAPMBF to elect directors of Austair. The current nine “Directors” have been “APPOINTED” by (presumably) the other members of the Board of Austair. At no time have any of the Ballots for Trusteeship of the AAPMBF been annotated with any reference to the Board of Austair. The proposed changes are legally incompetent as they seek to impose conditions on the Board of a separate legal entity. More importantly they propose the removal of the current elected administration and yet have no “elected” administration to put in their stead. Until Austair has properly elected Directors, the fund will have no elected administration.
Eligibility for the position of Trustee
Rule 1 of the AAPMBF stipulates that a “Trustee” be a “person or persons”. Austair is not a person and therefore not compliant with the requirements of the rules. The rule changes are legally incompetent because they seek to appoint a legal entity rather than a person or persons to the Trusteeship of the Fund.
Retrospectivity
In his covering letter, Capt (ret). O’Neil proposes that the rule changes, if passed, will take effect from the 1st May 2010. Rule 24 of the Fund clearly states that changes to the rules can only follow a resolution by the membership. There is no provision for retrospectivity. Traditionally rule changes have complied with that philosophy, in that they only take effect from the declaration of the ballot. As the ballot process requires (at least) 42 days notice, in writing, at the very earliest, any rule changes effected by this current procedure can not take effect until at least 42 days following the mailout of the ballot papers, May 11th. The proposed changes are legally incompetent because they seek to invoke retrospectivity, which is not authorised by the Rules f the AAPMBF.
The preamble to the Rule changes is deceitful in that it does not tell the complete story. It claims that the Fund is required to obtain an Australian Financial Services Licence in order to comply with the Corporations Act 2001. This is not entirely true. Members will recall that the then Trustees of the AAPMBF, in 2007, proposed that the appointment of the AFAP as Trustee, would satisfy our obligations under the Act. We voted to approve that, but the Board of the AAPMBF failed to fully implement our directions. They then had a change of heart, (for reasons that that have been proved to be false), leading to the sham dismissal of the AFAP last year. Interestingly under the proposed rule changes, the actions of the AAPMBF Board in dismissing the Trustee last year, would no longer be valid. There are no provisions in the new rules for the dismissal of the Trustee. The Trustee can be forced to resign only by direct requisition and ballot by the membership of AAPMBF. As there is no AAPMBF board or Trustees only Directors of Austair, they will hardly be likely to dismiss themselves even if the rules allowed.
The original draft of these rule changes sought to eliminate the requirement for a Trustee to be a member of the AFAP and also eliminated the ability of an Annual General Meeting or Special Meeting to remove a Trustee from office. Fortunately there are some of our Trustees who found the concept repugnant, and secured removal of those provisions. But now these changes have simply removed the position of the current Trustees.
Rather disingenuously, the Chairman in his accompanying letter suggests that an important outcome of an affirmative ballot will be that the fund will have the ability to take on new members. What is not said is that the current inability to take members (since August 2009) is a direct result of the then Board’s action to dismiss the AFAP as Trustee, before they had adequately prepared the Fund for a transition of Trusteeship.
The inadequacies of this proposal are, in my view, the direct result of knee jerk reactions by a section of our current administration hell bent on a secondary agenda. The proposals are so obviously flawed it is difficult to accept that they are the product of any legal professional.
The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests. We should all be mindful of the machinations of the QANTAS board in the unsuccessful sale of that company to Allco.
There are other options which have not been put to us. We are being told this is the only way. It is not. Acquisition and retention of the FSL is expensive and unnecessary, but will facilitate the sale of the organisation further down the track.
I intend to vote NO.
I urge you to do the same.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
You have before you a set of ballot papers intended to implement changes to the rules of the AAPMBF. Those changes ‘prima facie” appear to be reasonable, however a closer examination reveals a document that is legally incompetent, technically flawed, and one could also opine, deceitful.
Nowhere in the documentation forwarded to you, is there a declaration of a timetable for the ballot process. At the very least the ballot MUST include a closing date as determined in accordance with Rule 24 of the fund. The absence of a specified date renders the outcome of any vote, vulnerable to a legal challenge as to the validity of any declared result of said vote. Did it close yesterday, will it close next Christmas or sometime in between? The ballot is legally incompetent as it does not comply with the Rules of The Fund.
The inclusion of Rule 24 (c), seeks to impose conditions upon “the constitution” of Austair.
To the best of my knowledge, Austair, a nominee company, at this time:
· does not have a constitution.
· We as members of AAPMBF are NOT members of Austair. Austair has no members, just nine “Directors”.
On that basis the proposed changes to Rule 24 are legally incompetent as we non-members of Austair cannot impose conditions upon a separate legal entity.
There are no “Transitional arrangements”
The changes to the rules eliminate the positions of the current trustees of the AAPMBF, ie , supposing a valid vote in favour of the proposed rules, the positions of the current Trustees of the AAPMBF will no longer exist. It is proposed that, henceforth, there will be no Elected Officials of the AAPMBF as currently defined, only “Directors of Austair”. The proposed changes declare that “Directors of Austair” will be elected officials. To date there are no “ELECTED” directors of Austair, neither is there a mechanism for the members of AAPMBF to elect directors of Austair. The current nine “Directors” have been “APPOINTED” by (presumably) the other members of the Board of Austair. At no time have any of the Ballots for Trusteeship of the AAPMBF been annotated with any reference to the Board of Austair. The proposed changes are legally incompetent as they seek to impose conditions on the Board of a separate legal entity. More importantly they propose the removal of the current elected administration and yet have no “elected” administration to put in their stead. Until Austair has properly elected Directors, the fund will have no elected administration.
Eligibility for the position of Trustee
Rule 1 of the AAPMBF stipulates that a “Trustee” be a “person or persons”. Austair is not a person and therefore not compliant with the requirements of the rules. The rule changes are legally incompetent because they seek to appoint a legal entity rather than a person or persons to the Trusteeship of the Fund.
Retrospectivity
In his covering letter, Capt (ret). O’Neil proposes that the rule changes, if passed, will take effect from the 1st May 2010. Rule 24 of the Fund clearly states that changes to the rules can only follow a resolution by the membership. There is no provision for retrospectivity. Traditionally rule changes have complied with that philosophy, in that they only take effect from the declaration of the ballot. As the ballot process requires (at least) 42 days notice, in writing, at the very earliest, any rule changes effected by this current procedure can not take effect until at least 42 days following the mailout of the ballot papers, May 11th. The proposed changes are legally incompetent because they seek to invoke retrospectivity, which is not authorised by the Rules f the AAPMBF.
The preamble to the Rule changes is deceitful in that it does not tell the complete story. It claims that the Fund is required to obtain an Australian Financial Services Licence in order to comply with the Corporations Act 2001. This is not entirely true. Members will recall that the then Trustees of the AAPMBF, in 2007, proposed that the appointment of the AFAP as Trustee, would satisfy our obligations under the Act. We voted to approve that, but the Board of the AAPMBF failed to fully implement our directions. They then had a change of heart, (for reasons that that have been proved to be false), leading to the sham dismissal of the AFAP last year. Interestingly under the proposed rule changes, the actions of the AAPMBF Board in dismissing the Trustee last year, would no longer be valid. There are no provisions in the new rules for the dismissal of the Trustee. The Trustee can be forced to resign only by direct requisition and ballot by the membership of AAPMBF. As there is no AAPMBF board or Trustees only Directors of Austair, they will hardly be likely to dismiss themselves even if the rules allowed.
The original draft of these rule changes sought to eliminate the requirement for a Trustee to be a member of the AFAP and also eliminated the ability of an Annual General Meeting or Special Meeting to remove a Trustee from office. Fortunately there are some of our Trustees who found the concept repugnant, and secured removal of those provisions. But now these changes have simply removed the position of the current Trustees.
Rather disingenuously, the Chairman in his accompanying letter suggests that an important outcome of an affirmative ballot will be that the fund will have the ability to take on new members. What is not said is that the current inability to take members (since August 2009) is a direct result of the then Board’s action to dismiss the AFAP as Trustee, before they had adequately prepared the Fund for a transition of Trusteeship.
The inadequacies of this proposal are, in my view, the direct result of knee jerk reactions by a section of our current administration hell bent on a secondary agenda. The proposals are so obviously flawed it is difficult to accept that they are the product of any legal professional.
The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests. We should all be mindful of the machinations of the QANTAS board in the unsuccessful sale of that company to Allco.
There are other options which have not been put to us. We are being told this is the only way. It is not. Acquisition and retention of the FSL is expensive and unnecessary, but will facilitate the sale of the organisation further down the track.
I intend to vote NO.
I urge you to do the same.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
Last edited by paul makin; 7th Apr 2010 at 00:17.
Thread Starter
Austair. Isn't that similar to Altair, the company that owns all the AFAP's assets, controlled not by the members but by the management? 
I love it. 
The moves we are seeing here are , in my opinion, the precursors to the sale of the Fund to commercial interests. We should all be mindful of the machinations of the QANTAS board in the unsuccessful sale of that company to Allco.
To Capt O'Neill (or other AAPMBF representative). As a relatively long term member, I request again, in an open forum, that you address Mr Makins (and my) concerns as stated above, in this open forum, such that all present and potential future members have full access to your responses no matter where in the world they are. I have yet to receive adequate explanation from the AAPMBF for my own queries. Sincerely, Michael Motts.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, like a few others above have serious concerns as to the direction of the MBF.
Having spoken to a few of the trustees that have so far been kept somewhat in the dark, there can be no other explanation other than foul play.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but until that time I intend to vote NO and I urge others to do the same.
Capt. O'Neil's cover letter that accompanied the voting documentation has several so call "facts" incorrect. One being that the trustees urge you to vote for the changes. This statement is not correct as I have spoken to several trustees and they are NOT going to vote for the changes.
There is a simple way to get more information and that is to vote NO.
Having spoken to a few of the trustees that have so far been kept somewhat in the dark, there can be no other explanation other than foul play.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but until that time I intend to vote NO and I urge others to do the same.
Capt. O'Neil's cover letter that accompanied the voting documentation has several so call "facts" incorrect. One being that the trustees urge you to vote for the changes. This statement is not correct as I have spoken to several trustees and they are NOT going to vote for the changes.
There is a simple way to get more information and that is to vote NO.
Reference.
Personally I have always found Harry O'Neil and Mike Charlesworth to be honourable gentlemen with a long history of service to the AFAP and the MBF. Both have helped many new aviators gain their foothold in the industry and to keep their hard won conditions intact when industrial tensions arose. Both have negotiated resolutions to seemingly hopeless disputes. They have both done the 'hard aviation yards' over the years and know how important the MBF fund is to pilots. I believe that they are trying to protect the MBF capital from any future erosion. That is not an easy task. They both posess the historical knowledge and experience of many industry battles. When the arguments get this mired in conflict, my instinct is to back the people who have proved their integrity many times over.
Then why is is so hard to get an explanation of what is going on?
A one page letter just saying that we have to so your should vote yes is not good enough.
It doesn't explain why we have taken this route. I don't know if its the right way or the wrong way, why? Because they haven't told us their reasoning.
The letter also states they will be able to take on new members.
1. I haven't heard why they couldn't take on new members for the last 6 months from the MBF. I've heard rumours but nothing from the Trustees.
2. Does a new member still have to be an AFAP member?
All in all, its a disgraceful way to treat the members. Apparently they are all knowing and we as paying members should stop asking questions and expecting answers.
I'll be voting NO, until I'm given the FULL backgrond about what is going on. In both this issue and the relationship between the AFAP and the MBF
A one page letter just saying that we have to so your should vote yes is not good enough.
It doesn't explain why we have taken this route. I don't know if its the right way or the wrong way, why? Because they haven't told us their reasoning.
The letter also states they will be able to take on new members.
1. I haven't heard why they couldn't take on new members for the last 6 months from the MBF. I've heard rumours but nothing from the Trustees.
2. Does a new member still have to be an AFAP member?
All in all, its a disgraceful way to treat the members. Apparently they are all knowing and we as paying members should stop asking questions and expecting answers.
I'll be voting NO, until I'm given the FULL backgrond about what is going on. In both this issue and the relationship between the AFAP and the MBF
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingfox, I have no doubt that all the trustees are of high caliber. I also know the trustees that are being kept in the dark and they are in my opinion of the highest caliber and have also spent their very long careers serving us as pilots through the MBF and several other organisations.
Ozbiggles has hit the nail on the head. We need an explanation, so we can make an informed decision about OUR MBF.
I still intend to vote NO until we get the answers to the questions that have been asked.
Ozbiggles has hit the nail on the head. We need an explanation, so we can make an informed decision about OUR MBF.
I still intend to vote NO until we get the answers to the questions that have been asked.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the air
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only been a member of AFAP and the MBF for the last year.
During this time I have been getting the updates about this on going issue, and to be honest its all a bit above my head.
Correct me if I am wrong but here is my basic understanding:
The MBF is trying to distant themselves from AFAP, however they (MBF) are not really saying much about their reasons for this.
For this reason alone people are swinging towards voting NO until more information is devolved.
What I am worried about is how much resources has been wasted on this, and will a NO vote just drag this on for longer?
During this time I have been getting the updates about this on going issue, and to be honest its all a bit above my head.
Correct me if I am wrong but here is my basic understanding:
The MBF is trying to distant themselves from AFAP, however they (MBF) are not really saying much about their reasons for this.
For this reason alone people are swinging towards voting NO until more information is devolved.
What I am worried about is how much resources has been wasted on this, and will a NO vote just drag this on for longer?
Flying Fox,
I used to think they were honourable men too. Actions however, speak louder than words, and their actions and motives remain, in the most charitable view, obscure. Indeed, there have been next to no explanatory words anyway. I will vote No and urge everyone else to do so until these "honourable gentlemen" put their case to the fund members
I used to think they were honourable men too. Actions however, speak louder than words, and their actions and motives remain, in the most charitable view, obscure. Indeed, there have been next to no explanatory words anyway. I will vote No and urge everyone else to do so until these "honourable gentlemen" put their case to the fund members
Vote NO!
O'Neill and Charlsworth both honourable?
I was involved in an industrial issue in 1987.
If this is the same M. Charlsworth involved then (I know it is) , the word honourable does not come to mind.
I too have contacted the MBF to have questions answered and guess what not even an email or a phone call back.
Also, I agree that some trustees are being kept in the dark by O'Neill. [U]However it is incumbent on these trustees to bring O'Neill and Charlsworth to account.
One can only speculate what these pair and a few others are up to. Vote NO and bring them to account and get our questions answered.
Many thanks to Paul Makin (who I have never met or ever spoken to) for his posts
O'Neill and Charlsworth both honourable?
I was involved in an industrial issue in 1987.
If this is the same M. Charlsworth involved then (I know it is) , the word honourable does not come to mind.
I too have contacted the MBF to have questions answered and guess what not even an email or a phone call back.
Also, I agree that some trustees are being kept in the dark by O'Neill. [U]However it is incumbent on these trustees to bring O'Neill and Charlsworth to account.
One can only speculate what these pair and a few others are up to. Vote NO and bring them to account and get our questions answered.
Many thanks to Paul Makin (who I have never met or ever spoken to) for his posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth???
There are complex issues at play here. It is proving difficult for some members to understand the significance.
To simplify the current stuation lets analyse the most significant part of Capt O’Neils letter of the 30th March.
Capt O’Neil claims that “This change will not alter how the Fund is managed and CONTROLLED. The Directors of Austair are the same nine individuals who are currently trustees of the fund.”
This is simply and entirely not true.
Proposed rule 14 states:
The latest documents lodged with ASIC in respect of the directorship of Austair reveal that:
AS OF 1st APRIL 2010 ( the day after Capt O’Neils letter) the directors include two gentlemen who are NOT elected Trustees and more importantly two of OUR elected Trustees have NOT been registered as Directors of Austair. This is not merely a function of a lazy ASIC, as they processed other Austair documentation lodged on 23rd of March and 1st of April.
Capt O’Neil's statement is simply not true.
Capt O’Neil states that the Directors of Austair will be elected by YOU.
That cannot happen. We are not members of Austair.
The Memorandum of Association of Austair clearly states at 5 (b) that:
(Austair) “limits to not more than Fifty the number of its members ………..”
The Articles of Association of Austair states that:
“…………the Directors shall have the power at any time and from time to time to appoint ANY person to be a Director………………”
Capt O’Neil's statement is simply not true.
Capt O’Neil's letter does not stand up to scrutiny. Whether this is by sinister design or by lack of understanding, or some other reason, I do not know, but it is a matter that clearly needs to be addressed. The stakes in this are too high to allow any question of motive.
If truth, honesty, integrity and transparency are important concepts to you, vote NO and make Capt O’Neil explain himself, and the position of ALL Trustees.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
To simplify the current stuation lets analyse the most significant part of Capt O’Neils letter of the 30th March.
Capt O’Neil claims that “This change will not alter how the Fund is managed and CONTROLLED. The Directors of Austair are the same nine individuals who are currently trustees of the fund.”
This is simply and entirely not true.
Proposed rule 14 states:
(a)……………..the Trustee of the Fund is Austair Pilots M.B.F. Nominee Company……………………..
(b) The Trustee through its directors…………SHALL CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND ……………………
Currently the Fund is controlled by AAPMBF members through their ELECTED representatives, the Trustees. Austair however is controlled by the Directors of Austair. It is proposed that CONTROL of the Fund shall be handed to the Directors of Austair.The latest documents lodged with ASIC in respect of the directorship of Austair reveal that:
AS OF 1st APRIL 2010 ( the day after Capt O’Neils letter) the directors include two gentlemen who are NOT elected Trustees and more importantly two of OUR elected Trustees have NOT been registered as Directors of Austair. This is not merely a function of a lazy ASIC, as they processed other Austair documentation lodged on 23rd of March and 1st of April.
Capt O’Neil's statement is simply not true.
Capt O’Neil states that the Directors of Austair will be elected by YOU.
That cannot happen. We are not members of Austair.
The Memorandum of Association of Austair clearly states at 5 (b) that:
(Austair) “limits to not more than Fifty the number of its members ………..”
The Articles of Association of Austair states that:
“…………the Directors shall have the power at any time and from time to time to appoint ANY person to be a Director………………”
Capt O’Neil's statement is simply not true.
Capt O’Neil's letter does not stand up to scrutiny. Whether this is by sinister design or by lack of understanding, or some other reason, I do not know, but it is a matter that clearly needs to be addressed. The stakes in this are too high to allow any question of motive.
If truth, honesty, integrity and transparency are important concepts to you, vote NO and make Capt O’Neil explain himself, and the position of ALL Trustees.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
Last edited by paul makin; 13th Apr 2010 at 06:30.
Thread Starter
Paul,
In relation to Austair when you were a past Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF, could you please explain:
-what Austair was then;
-who ran it/who were it's members
-what was it responsible for and
-who elected it's members.
In relation to Austair when you were a past Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF, could you please explain:
-what Austair was then;
-who ran it/who were it's members
-what was it responsible for and
-who elected it's members.
Thread Starter
Harry's comms skills may not be the best but a man lacking in integrity he is not.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 14th Apr 2010 at 01:06. Reason: Mr Makin has decided to delete his post, so I have edited this reply so it still makes sense.
As explained to me by one of the Trustees.
The MBF cannot function in its current form due to changing rules with regards to Financial Services and will need a Licence (Australian Financial Service Licence=FSL, ) in order to continue providing these services. In the meanwhile no new members may join the fund (however members already in the fund may continue to receive its services). It was believed at one point that the MBF could get around this issue by using the AFAP however after some legal advice it turned out they could not and instead have opted to get their own FSL . The FSL is under the company name Austair which has always been a part of the MBF.
If you vote yes what will happen is this:
• The 9 Trustees voted in by the membership previously will become the directors of Austair.
• Austair will become the Trustee of the fund.
• The 9 Directors will no longer be personally responsible for a 1/9th share of the many $Millions in the MBF, instead Austair will, under the direction of the 9 directors.
• If one of the directors chooses to flee the country to some tropical island they will not be able to take several million with them
(which is the case right now)
• The MBF will then have a FSL and new members will be able to join.
• You will be able to vote in the directors just as you have done in the past with the trustees.
You choose how you want to vote, and if you are unsure about how the changes will affect you then call the MBF and ask.
Please also remember that the MBF provides an important service to the aviation in Australia, it provides loss of Licence insurance to the pilot community, for several months now no new member has been able to join due to the above issue and as such there are many young (and old) pilots out there without coverage.
The above is how I understand the situation to be, If it is incorrect I do apologies however the topic very quickly becomes complicated as you may have noticed from the letters sent out.
Cheers 
The MBF cannot function in its current form due to changing rules with regards to Financial Services and will need a Licence (Australian Financial Service Licence=FSL, ) in order to continue providing these services. In the meanwhile no new members may join the fund (however members already in the fund may continue to receive its services). It was believed at one point that the MBF could get around this issue by using the AFAP however after some legal advice it turned out they could not and instead have opted to get their own FSL . The FSL is under the company name Austair which has always been a part of the MBF.
If you vote yes what will happen is this:
• The 9 Trustees voted in by the membership previously will become the directors of Austair.
• Austair will become the Trustee of the fund.
• The 9 Directors will no longer be personally responsible for a 1/9th share of the many $Millions in the MBF, instead Austair will, under the direction of the 9 directors.
• If one of the directors chooses to flee the country to some tropical island they will not be able to take several million with them
(which is the case right now)• The MBF will then have a FSL and new members will be able to join.
• You will be able to vote in the directors just as you have done in the past with the trustees.
You choose how you want to vote, and if you are unsure about how the changes will affect you then call the MBF and ask.
Please also remember that the MBF provides an important service to the aviation in Australia, it provides loss of Licence insurance to the pilot community, for several months now no new member has been able to join due to the above issue and as such there are many young (and old) pilots out there without coverage.
The above is how I understand the situation to be
, If it is incorrect I do apologies however the topic very quickly becomes complicated as you may have noticed from the letters sent out.Cheers
Last edited by rmcdonal; 14th Apr 2010 at 07:52. Reason: Pilot error with link
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the air
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the topic very quickly becomes complicated as you may have noticed from the letters sent out.
I will be more than happy to vote yes if rmcdonal has posted is correct and is required for the fund to continue, but this information needs to come from the Fund.