In a message to the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) members, executive director Peter Johnston said the association is hoping to get bipartisan approval across five key issues leading into the 2025 election.
At the top of the list is abolishing consent, FDS and annual opt-in forms. The AIOFP is also seeking the ability for advisers to use professional judgement on the size and content of a compulsory financial advice document to clients; FASEA exam content to be relevant and specific to an adviser’s skills; the ASIC levy to be assessed by an independent party and advice fees to be tax deductible; and for risk commission conditions to be returned to pre-LIF levels.
According to Mr Johnston, with both Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor agreeing to address AIOFP members at the conference, it is a perfect time to push the message.
Part of the bipartisan impetus from the AIOFP is thanks to “advice community threats and adversaries” having departed the space.
“Like any past battle or feud, we must know who our enemies have been, assess whether they are still a threat and if so, put strategies in place to neutralise or combat them,” Mr Johnston said.
“We think there is some great news evolving for the advice community going forward and encourage any adviser contemplating exiting the industry due to the past nightmare conditions to rethink their strategy.”
Detailing the history of changes, from FOFA to LIF, FASEA, compliance issues and the grandfathering ban, Mr Johnston said they were “designed to starve, frustrate and intimidate advisers out of the industry”.
“Unfortunately, very few government initiatives have worked as ruthlessly well as this particular program,” he said.
“This was not a Canberra bureaucratic play; it was a clinically and surgically delivered initiative by a ruthless team seconded from the financial services industry with a clear intent to remove advisers from the client relationship and the industry – they knew where to place the knife and twist it.
“The good news for the advice community is most of these past adversaries have departed the industry and are no longer a direct threat.”
Pointing specifically to former treasurer Josh Frydenberg and his chief of staff Martin Codina, along with former ministers Kelly O’Dwyer and Jane Hume, who have all now either left politics or moved out of the Treasury portfolio, Mr Johnston said “successive Coalition governments from late 2013 clearly had an agenda to ‘cull’ advisers under an authoritarian regime”.
“Current Treasury spokesperson Angus Taylor was not linked to the circumstances at any point,” he added.
I can no longer see any point in making comments on IFA articles, as they often do not published them, particularly if they challenge what the AIOFP says. This must be some form of bias or commercial conflict of interest. What has happened to the “Independent” in Independent Financial Adviser.
This guy is out of control….. nuetralise his enemies, we’re not at war
Thankfully, it appears he is just getting started – and has a good strategy. If your not a Politician anon – I suspect you can just relax.
Whilst the “cull advisers claim” sounds like a good conspiracy theory, expressed as though it is fact, can I ask a simple question – what was the motive for the former Coalition Government to cull financial advisers? How did they stand to gain from this? I know that it will be claimed that this was done on behalf of the financial institutions to take the adviser out of the client relationship. That is often claimed, however product providers don’t actually want that. It is a rubbish claim.
A fair reflection on history would recall the fact that in late 2013, the former Government sought to amend the FoFA legislation, including removing FDSs and part (g) (any other steps) of the Best Interests safe harbour steps. It included stuff that we all wanted, expect that ISA and the consumer groups strongly opposed it. The Government tried to get this through the Parliament, enacted it through regulation, however ultimately it was defeated by disallowance of the regulations in the Senate in November 2014. In the end the advice profession came away with nothing, yet the Government ended with egg on it’s face. Political capital was spent for no return. It got much harder from that point. There was never a strategy to cull advisers, but some of what they did had a very negative impact.
That is often claimed, however product providers don’t actually want that. It is a rubbish claim.
Said like it is a fact – but is it?
All true, except this comment – ‘This was not a Canberra bureaucratic play’.
The truth is, ASIC were up to their neck in it. Starting with the deliberately misleading REP413, which was based on a pool of suspected churners, but sold to the public as a representative sample. Then, following equally or more damning results for accountants and super funds, ASIC breaks up the data into issues which were detrimental and not detrimental to consumers. Still to this day, ASIC have refused to release the same breakdown for REP413. This is the research upon which almost all of the damaging attacks on financial planners was based.
Then there was the meddling with FASEA…the draconian treatment of Licensees etc. etc.