Speaking at the AIOFP’s virtual conference on Thursday, Liberal MP Bert van Manen said while the government had an eye on FASEA’s ongoing accountability process, it was also keen to ensure the authority maintained a significant degree of independence.
“With respect to accountability for FASEA, they’re required to report to Parliament and appear for Senate estimates, and as part of those hearings to answer questions from senators at estimates. Those hearings are conducted by both government senators and the opposition,” Mr van Manen said.
“The second bit is we’ve got to ensure with any regulatory body that they maintain independence – whilst there are ongoing discussions with the relevant ministers, given their responsibility to make decisions we want to make sure they make decisions free from political interference.”
The comments come following a recent hearing of the House economics committee in which Mr van Manen’s Coalition colleague Tim Wilson blasted FASEA for its poor implementation of the industry standards framework and suggested the authority needed to be regularly accountable to the committee in the same way as ASIC and APRA.
Mr van Manen said the government had no immediate plans to change FASEA’s accountability to Parliament, but that the establishment of the adviser disciplinary body next year could provide an opportunity to restructure the way both organisations were regulated.
“The accountability function is through that Senate estimates process, but we will continue to review those in due course if we finish up with a different model for FASEA in particular,” he said.
“In terms of the establishment of a single disciplinary body or those sorts of models, the accountability measures could change in time to come.”
Having an independent regulatory body is fine in theory. But if that body is controlled by people with ideological bias and commercial conflicts of interests the way FASEA is, then it makes the whole situation worse.
It sounds like Bert has been told to play dead on the regulatory disasters in financial advice if he wants to get ahead in the Liberal Party.
Van Manen’s and Jones’ performance on Thurs last week was incredibly disappointing.
Nothing of any value or commitment shown or communicated at all.
They delivered like the politician’s they are….vacuous words without substance or value and no fight.
They go around in circles talking waffle.
Bert Van Manen was there in the thick of the adviser’s plight during LIF and where did that get us ?
I know it can not be left to rest on the shoulders of one person to convince a party, but if Bert really has the Financial Adviser’s best interest and the consumers best interest at heart, then the message has to be delivered in a very much different way than we have seen last week.
To be honest after listening to Jones speak, I honestly couldn’t have told you 10mins later what he really said of any value whatsoever that would support the incredible and unrivaled challenges we currently face.
I made the effort to ensure I logged on to see these political views put forward and left the session more disheartened than before……and that is pretty bad.
100% agree, the Pollies and bureaucrats have their heads stuck so deep in the Canberra bubble they have no idea of real world issues.
Guarantee theIt no.1 KPI is how many more BS REGS can be put in place each and every year.
REGS ON TOP OF REGS ON TOP OF REGS ON TOP OF REGS and let’s ADD MORE REGULATORY BODIES TO REPORT TOO, 9 is not enough, how about 10.
Unbelievable Freaking Morons !!!!
Congratulations to Peter and Ray for faciltating a video “conference” in spite of the pandemic.
The AIOFP has the advisers interest at heart.
LEAVE FASEA ALONE…. FPA called for a degree to mean a Bachelor of Financial Planning, IMPLEMENTED. FPA called for prior work experience to be worth 10 points out of 100. CFP and prior education was ignored therefore IMPLEMENTED. Bachelor of Commerce to be worth 20 Points ALL implemented, implemented implemented. Stop blaming FASEA and start looking at those self interested clowns that claim to represent you.
FASEA have consulted and they listened. It’s not there fault they listened to the wrong people.
So FASEA have failed because of the FPA? Come on. Every single standard is excessive, and goes further than other professions. Zero conflicts? 9 hours ethics cpd? Back to uni even if you have a masters in fp? 5 files audited if you supervise a PY? No passmark for exam or accountability re the questions? Do I need to go on? No genuine consultation has occurred with practicing financial advisers. FASEA have failed to properly research and understand how the code will work in practice and due to widespread confusion, licensees are now rolling out insane policies that make it almost impossible to operate. That’s why advisers are fleeing. They see no hope for the future, so why bother with the exam and education. But there are also advisers with approved degrees, who have passed the exam who are leaving as well. It’s a disaster. If FASEA were willing to listen and make urgent changes to the standards, the unfolding disaster could be averted. But time is running out and based on comments from Glenfield I won’t be holding my breath.
Van Manen & Jones provided lip service about unmet needs of investors & a tacit acknowledgement of red tape impacting the industry. Solutions provided? NIL. Simply reinforces the need for the AIOFP to keep fighting for these issues, as the other advocacy groups are missing in action – sending the businesses of retail advisers broke. At least the AIOFP members know what the real problems are. A great effort, given the hindrance of Covid19.
I also heard Bert and Stephen Jones. Bert, you put on a very disappointing performance. Perhaps you are working behind the scene to fix the unworkable mess we are in…I hope so. And as for Jane H, I was taking pity on her because I thought she understood our plight, but as a junior minister with very little clout, Josh was trampling over her in his misguided attempts to “fix” the industry. But no more, laughing at the number of regulators overseeing us is no joke. Hang your head in shame, Jane. Or move quickly to sort this rubbish out!
Wow. If Bert van Manen, a former financial adviser, doesn’t fully appreciate that irreparable damage FASEA is doing, then we are truly stuffed. Why isn’t the message getting through? Why doesn’t he understand the scale of the exodus? Why is he not aware that young advisers are fleeing the industry, including those who have passed the exam and hold approved degrees? Extending the exam deadline did nothing to address the fundamental problems with FASEA and ASIC which causing the exodus. 10,000 to 15,000 will be gone by the end of next year instead of the end of this year. What a bunch of heroes the politicians are.
It seems like the politicians have unlimited time while the advice industry is suffocating crying “[b]I can’t breathe[/b][b][/b]” and they don’t care. Sounds familiar? Our simple message: [b]Change direction NOW![/b][b][/b]
I listened to both Bert and Stephen Jones speak yesterday and all i can say is we are in a lot of strife. I was more disappointed in Bert as he dismissed most of the points and said that we aren’t doing enough as advisers to sell our value to the community. No commitment to look at easing the red tape that is strangling this industry or an acknowledgement that FASEA/LIF needs reviewing.
Agree 100% If Bert is our LNP hope Advisers are stuck with STRANGULATION BS REGS.
Bert showed zero interest in the massive over compliance burden the LNP has put in place and zero interest in helping advisers.
I am disgusted in the LNP, Bert, Hume (who laughs at the 9 different regulatory bodies who can audit advisers), Frydenburg and bloody ODwyer, have all completely F##ked Advisers over many years.
Dear LNP, would you listen to somebody who talks like this?
Arent doing enough to sell ourselves to the community. He is spot on there, that has been our issue for years. Our associations hide away, never on tv or the papers, just talk at industry conferences preaching to the converted. They let us get dragged through the media without even as much as a whimper. If associations have a marketing levy why arent they hiring a good pr firm to get the public onside. This is all pollies care about, its so simple, we are the punching bag as we dont stand up for ourselves and have hardly any public support! We have all these associations working at cross purposes. The simple awnser is one strong association with a bit of mongrel about it. Untill we get that we are doomed.
That makes quite a bit of sense.
FASEA had an impossible and contradictory mandate to fulfil. It was born in a climate of revenge against the excesses of financial advisers and licensees but its official brief was actually to make advisers behave like professionals.
That meant that initial communications between FASEA and advisers looked very disdainful to this adviser but over time they have improved substantially, especially once they saw the high pass rates on the adviser exam. That advisers actually had a function, as shown in March during the height of the Covid-19 market crash has helped even more.
You are living in a fantasy land. FASEA are unaccountable, conflicted and not transparent. Advisers who fail the exam aren’t even told what mark they got or areas they failed in. Doesn’t seem very ethical to me and I passed the exam 1st go.
Wrong wrong wrong. FASEA is accountable – they have to meet with & be questioned by relevant Parliamentary committees. You’re probably more conflicted than the FASEA Board, but I doubt you’ll stop practising. Where’s the lack of transparency? What do you want to know that you dont right now?
Advisers who fail in one particular section are told to beef up in that particular area. The issue for many who have failed, is that they have failed in all three areas the exam covers, so they are told they need to study across all three areas. The exam isnt that hard, as the 87% – 92% pass rate indicates. If you fail once that’s maybe unlucky but if you’ve failed more than once, that points to a real issue with the individual. And if you’ve failed twice and especially run your own AFSL, as that bloke complaining to Craig Kelly does, then perhaps you need to have a good hard look at whether you should be staying in financial planning.
I am actually happy with the job they are doing. They can, should and I expect will do better.
One area they may want to look at is their board member who runs a university department that has funnelled graduates to AMP for years – those same graduates presumably bought the C+D clients existing advisers could sell back to AMP at 4 times recurring revenue, including commission clients. That is clearly legal but how can you be a member of a standards body and STILL do that?
“It was born in a climate of revenge against the excesses of financial advisers and licensees”
What does this mean? What is your definition of excessive.
I have heard “fee for no service” and “charging the dead” from the mouths of many members of the public. That seems to be the public’s definition of excessive.
I have to agree with It’s a farce. I’ve passed the exam first attempt, but still struggle to understand how that infers any better standard in the advice industry, whether I’ve sat the exam or not. The exam will really only separate those that are good at the modern exam process versus those that aren’t. Ethics isn’t determined by tick box answers, it’s determined by personal integrity and empathy towards others. Wasting time studying for an exam, instead of actually helping our clients during whats proving a very difficult period isn’t more likely to enhance the professionalism and reputation of the industry.
I’m on the younger side of the average adviser age and think it’s a disgrace how these policies are discriminating the older advisers that have decades of experience and continue to be able to help and provide comfort to many Australian’s at this time. Their reward is to be slowly pushed out by BS legislation that really fails to understand the true value of advice and where it actually comes from.