JammePlus
What are your views on the proposed principles for developing the industry funding model?
In response to ‘The design of the model will also be informed by advice from the Financial Counselling Industry Funding Advisory Group (Advisory Group).’ I think that some of the nominated participants in the industry and group are questionable and selective to be invited to participate. These participants being nominated to the table raises legitimate concerns that whoever/however and why they have been nominated lacks clarity and has been done with perceived naivety as to what really goes on in the financial counselling sector here at least in Victoria on the ground. Some agency representatives etc exploit their workers and treat them as an expendable resource by the management and also use and manipulate their HR departments to follow suit, either ignorantly or blindly. Some organisations representatives are bullying their financial counsellors to achieve unrealistic results and targets to be able to demonstrate and manipulate outcomes that they should receive extra funding. This undermines the integrity of the financial counselling profession rather than just allowing the financial counsellors to get on with the increasing complexities required as well as by the work as specific to their current funding and service requirements.
The Financial Counselling Diploma used to include more components of Community Development as part of the Diploma. The Community Development components have been minimised which has the effect of restricting further the workers on the ground i.e., financial counsellors. The peaks have become selective with participation within the sector other than via carefully crafted topics for responses, and any other items raised of concern by financial counsellors that can result in censoring of input.
Along with the above, increased input from industry for funding may undermine and compromise the uniqueness and independence of the current models. With the proposed model one could question whether we are still serving the community or will industry change the direction with their influence?
What are your views on the proposed quantum for each year of the first three years of the model?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
Are there any evidence-based adjustments that could be made to the suggested contributions methodology? What are they and how could they be incorporated into the methodology?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
Should any businesses within a subsector be excluded (e.g. small businesses)?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
What are your views on options 1 and 2 for determining the split within subsectors for voluntary contributions?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
What is your view on the different methods for within subsector splits, for your subsector?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
What is your view on the proposed initial three-year commitment? Is this an appropriate length to ensure flexibility and stability of funding?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
When would an appropriate time be to review the functioning of the model?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
Are peak organisations an appropriate mechanism to obtain a formal commitment from subsectors as part of the initial set up of the model? Are there alternative methods to secure commitments that could be undertaken in a timely manner?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
What are your views on the proposed characteristics of the independent body as set out in Table 4? Are there other characteristics that should be considered?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
Which board composition option do you prefer and why? Are there other options?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
What are your views on the proposed questions the evaluation could test?
No comment as it could appear that am endorsing the proposal
Are there any other comments you would like to add?
Agencies that misbehave and abuse their workforce or continue to – There should be an avenue in place to have these addressed and peak bodies pandering to agencies is at times akin to exacerbating the bad behaviour. Creating an avenue should be a priority.
The peaks are not there to support agencies, their priority is to support a member (financial counsellors). By involving themselves and seemingly siding with agencies in agency’s operational activities, the peak ostracises and isolate their member (financial counsellor/s).
Financial Counsellors do not have an avenue to address this (the misbehaviour and abuse of their workforce by agency representatives).
It would be preferred that peaks establish ways to address this.
Peaks have gone to much trouble to establish complaints processes against financial counsellors, and it seems to result in ostracising and isolating their member (financial counsellor/s).
I do not feel that financial counselling is worthy of being involved in this process until some of the serious issues that I have raised here are dealt with, appropriately developed and established.