Addressing the Conference of Major Superannuation Funds on Wednesday, Danielle Press said the advice industry was “at a turning point” where significant legislative change may be necessary to ensure consumers continued to access the services they needed.
“The consultation we did on access to advice showed half of that was about legislative reform, which is above my pay grade and not things ASIC can do,” she said.
With financial services minister Jane Hume having announced the government would conduct its Quality of Advice Review next year, Ms Press encouraged attendees of the conference to “lean into that conversation with Treasury”.
“I’d encourage you to engage with that [review] process… and think about what law reform you need to make things better for clients, really make your voices heard in that process,” she said.
“We know trustees are facing a challenge as to how they make sure they’re helping members in the way they want.”
Ms Press said following ASIC’s successful case against BT for breaching general advice laws, the regulator was keeping a close eye on trustees who strayed too close to the line between general and personal advice.
“We can have a lot of debate around whether the law is right, but the judgement clearly identified the line,” she said.
“We’re hoping trustees providing advice are adhering to that law.”
As part of its expanded powers as conduct regulator for the super sector, Ms Press said ASIC had also identified issues with super fund dispute resolution for members and the adequacy of whistleblower policies to identify misconduct.
“In the nine months to 31 March, 25 per cent of funds had more than half of their complaints taking more than 45 days to resolve, which is the new enforceable standard,” she said.
Ms Press added that half of the whistleblower policies sampled across super funds had not been made public, which although not a legal requirement, was encouraged by the regulator.
“Whistleblower protections now extend to people outside employees, they also include former employees and suppliers, so we ask you to think carefully about those policies,” she said.
That is ASIC’s view. Much easier to blame the vulnerable front line workers and self employed men and women with little genuine representation than do real work to eliminate and/or improve the ‘wrong products’ you mention. The end result of ASIC’s 2 decades of ideological driven failure, capital destruction, job losses, bankruptcies, suicides etc. is that we will end up with the financial advice landscape predominantly driven by…. salespeople who are directly employed by product floggers, are more conflicted than those they originally targeted and whose incomes are funded by fees for advice deducted from members who haven’t given permission and don’t receive the service. Great job ASIC. Give yourselves a pat on the back.
By George, You are 1000% correct.
Sorry, I’m not sure that is an acceptable figure to use for your work, that would meet 7 hours of safe harbour analysis but By George it feels right.
The Canberra bubble bureaucratic morons running this country need to learn just 1 thing,
1 new KPI :
[b]How to Reduce BS Red Tape Regs, costs and Madness. [/b]
If ever new law requires the elimination of another the. We have a chance on not Tripoli g the BS again over next 20 years.
It’s part of ASIC obligation to reduce costs in the financial system. Press is saying she cannot do her job.
That she feels comfortable saying that speaks volumes.
The corruption and incompetence knows no boundaries. It must be a BIG problem if it’s above her substantial, overblown pay grade. Hey Jame Hume, pull your head out of your arse and sack this ideolog.
Make no mistake, there is only one agenda. That is to ensure intra-fund advice (or derivatives of such) continue to see billions poured into the Corporate & Industry Super Funds via their marketing reps. ASIC’s & the institutions concern for “best interest” financial advice for regular fund members is ZERO. They reason they are panicking is that some of the submissions have pinged the regulator for their complicity with this shocking intra-fund racket.
To make initial advice more affordable, make that advice tax-deductible.
‘above my pay grade’. Ha ha. The classic excuse given by lazy government bureaucrats. The comment that really takes the cake is – ‘significant legislative change may be necessary to ensure consumers continued to access the services they needed’. Well never mind that most of the problems which are causing consumers to lose access to advice were driven by ASIC’s constant meddling, lobbying of politicians, interference with FASEA, influence in the Royal Commission, Ripoll inquiry, LIF etc. etc.
Most of the problems were driven by salespeople selling the wrong products and licensees taking fees for no service. The rest grew out of that, mainly because we STILL haven’t found a solution to the original problem.
ASIC are truly corrupt and incompetent. It must be good to have all the power but no accountability. ASIC is directly responsible for the number of actions (and inactions) that has resulted in true financial planning advice being out of the reach of the majority of Australians. I would suggest that if fixing your own mess is beyond your pay grade then stop getting paid.
It’s amazing how ASIC & their hordes of employees can come up with detailed legislation when it suits them, but are strangely incapable of doing so, when it doesn’t. Who are they protecting?
Typical bloody ASIC, massive amounts of BS Over Regulation on THIER interpretation of laws.
Yet ZERO RESPONSIBILITY TAKEN.
[i]“The consultation we did on access to advice
showed half of that was about legislative reform, which is above my pay grade and not things ASIC can do,” she said.[/i]
[b]And what about the other half Ms Press / ASIC? [/b]
Don’t even bother to address it.
Don’t even try to accept any responsibility.
Don’t ever admit problems ASIC have caused.
Don’t even try to fix half the problems.
Absolutely pathetic ASIC.
Just blame anyone and everyone else.
Press has to go, what a useless waste of our Adviser levies paying her good $$.
ASIC needs a total clean out or removed from Adviser oversight.
So what about action against industry fund trustees “for breaching general advice laws”…or don’t they count?