Connect and engage

If you have a similar university degree, the extra 3 years of study, versus a diploma that is likely a couple of months study, plus the extra scrutiny on exam conditions, plus the extra group assignments and class participation, this should be recognized for a higher standard of ethics.  Revoke the formal course of study in ethics requirement, respect the years spent at university to be a professional in your industry.

Any more excuses?

Who else is fed-up with this charade?

I wonder how many advisers are incorrectly thinking they are required to complete an extra 5 hours CPD that they weren't aware of as a result of reading this article? 

In the case of Dixon Advisory, the ultimate owner of E&P in David Evans and the person who took advantage of trusted clients in Alan Dixon are both devoid of any moral or ethical backbone. Laws should be in place to claw back as much as possible from the personal assets of these two fraudulent men.  

So your plan is to exit the industry on the 1st of Jan? 

you must be kidding? Only Harvard trained elite FP's can be trusted!

The Ethics unit is a waste of time and resources IMO.

But removing the requirement at the last minute is not a solution.  We've all had plenty of time to complete this unit and most have spent the time and money to meet their obligation.

If necessary, a 6 or 12 month extension and written warning to those who have not yet completed it would be more practical.

I have a relevant degree and also meet the experience pathway. No chance I am paying to do the ethics degree on top of this. Has been a money grab from the start. No surprise in this industry, hands out everywhere you look. 

What a mess.
Don't forget there are thousands of public accountants with strict ethical and professional standards that have clients asking them to provide financial advice on their super and wealth creation but are held by this red tape. Allow suitably qualified accountants to provide much needed financial advice.

Although I agree that the requirement to complete the additional ethics module feels excessive, the fact remains that the rules have been clearly established and in place since they were first announced.

If the Minister were to remove this requirement now, it raises a serious question: what about those of us who have already complied in good faith? Many advisers have completed the module at their own expense, both financially, through course fees, and in terms of time that could have otherwise been spent with their families or servicing clients.

Removing the requirement retrospectively would be unfair to those who followed the legislation and upheld their obligations as required.

Lets just add another $100Mill to Adviser CSLR Levies. 

Given the AFSL Auditor didn't do his job and has admitted guilt. 
Should not the Auditors pay this Levy? 
Likely not as they probably get away with murder like MIS and not included in CSLR. 

This CSLR is a complete and utter shambles, growing more out of control each week. 
Great job Jonesy. 
Or was that your ALP / Industry Super Fund intention to wipe out Real Advisers ?  

As a planner if I don't pay my CSLR levy my PI and my ASIC levy I can't operate. 
It's astounding that on top of those three compulsory fees that I am then billed for the actions of other failed advisory practices. 

Not only should CSLR be chasing the responsible advice providers. ASIC, PI and the auditors need to be held to account before other planners are footing the bill!

The CSLR should be the last resort.
First, PI insurance, otherwise what is the point of it? Doing this might make PI insurers take a more active interest in vertically integrated businesses.
Secondly, if the entity has a parent company, it should be the responsibility of the parent company.

It's difficult to know where to begin in explaining this abject regulatory failure.
Firstly, the ASIC Report 413 was deliberately designed to create a reason to springboard change.
ASIC already had an answer, but they needed a process to support that answer. and they completed a study that would lead to the push for recommendations for the abolition of Risk Insurance commissions entirely.
This was manipulated and misguided based on ideology, political pressure and consumer groups that consistently criticised Risk Insurance Advisers, but who failed to really understand the complex nature and the often long winded process in placing business.
The Trowbridge Report was flawed and then the FSC loudly supported it's implementation and issued veiled threats to the industry that if a reduced commission basis did not result in an increase in the quality of Risk Insurance Advice, then they would push heavily for the total banning of commissions entirely.
I am certain the FSC and ASIC were infuriated when the decision to retain at least reduced commissions via LIF was implemented as opposed to either following the Trowbridge model or banning commissions altogether.
The now Liberal Senator, Andrew Bragg was previously Head of Policy for the FSC at that time and produced several media releases and internal documents that very obviously stated their preferred outcome.
The then FSC CEO, Sally Loane was way too close to Minister Kelly O'Dwyer and the FSC had previously made political donations to O'Dwyer's seat of Higgins.
The resulting outcome has been an absolute disaster for the consumer, the Life Insurers and the Advisers.
It was entirely wrong and based on a web of lies, political pressure and a cohort of left wing consumer and legal groups that could never accept or entertain that anyone gets paid a commission for anything, let alone the placement of quality Life Insurance.
Any notion that churning of policies was a problem, could well and truly have been quickly controlled by the Insurers, Dealer Groups and Licensees and Associations.
Unless the upfront commission rate returns to the pre-LIF levels and the ongoing rates sit at 10-15% minimum, the Life Insurance business will continue to be unsustainable and will eventually die.
The Risk Insurance space used to be a vital, enthusiastic and profitable sector with a vibrant culture of professional people who treated their responsibility to their client's well being and interest with dedication and utmost obligation.
These people still exist of course, however, their numbers are few and far between meaning access to a quality Risk Adviser is almost non-existent whilst the insurance pool of new business continues to plummet resulting in an ever decreasing pool of funds used to manage an increasing claims ratio.
It needs to be rectified immediately and it needs someone with some courage to stand up and say
  "we got it wrong".         




    




 

               

How about MIS be held accountable for their product failures & frauds. 
MIS product failures & frauds are 90% of the problem yet MIS pay NOTHING to CSLR. 
What a disgusting rort the FSC, Govt and MIS have pulled on Advisers. 

Great poddy - well done Keith and Nicole :)

Of course FSC continues to only want Advisers to pay when a huge part of these failures is the MIS product. 
Hey FSC, why should MIS products avoid their Proportionate Liability for the consumer loss ??? 
Why FSC, because your members make very big political donations ??? 

MIS FAILURES MUST BE PAID BY MIS MANUFACTURERS AND OWNERS.  

The above may be a way out BUT I still know of no profession that pays for the fault of others.  This IMO is just plain idiocy and we should all stand up and say NO!

Phil should know all about it....he was up to his neck in the cooperation with the FPA/FSC/Minister O'Dwyer which then led to FASEA, Grandfather ban etc...and this threesome are still collaborating.