The concern for many advisers and licensees in the lead up to the 1 January 2026 education deadline has largely been either ensuring that they have the necessary qualifications finalised or that they correctly lodge these on the FAR.
However, it appears as though the stability of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) IT system is another spanner in the works.
Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) executive director Peter Johnston has shared concerns with members after some reported delays in details that they lodged showing up on the register, despite their best efforts.
One licensee indicated that following a new adviser they had added not showing on the FAR, an ASIC representative had informed them that there have been issues with a newly upgraded IT system and that the regulator’s call centre had been flooded with inquiries.
In an email to the AIOFP, seen by ifa, the licensee said it would be a “travesty of justice if a qualified adviser was removed simply because the system did not update their details”.
Johnston said the association would raise the issues with Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino this week.
“We are meeting with Minister Mulino and his chief of staff next Wednesday about CSLR and the ‘education cliff’ to reiterate our views and possible solutions on both issues, any widespread problems with ASIC accepting data should be a pivotal concern,” he said.
Speaking with ifa, Forte Asset Solutions director Steve Prendeville said this isn’t the only issue he has heard about related to education requirements, with some licensees noting that despite putting education requirements in the system some time ago, they “actually haven’t been recognised”.
“Many of them, they are there, but the system hasn’t allowed recognition of it,” Prendeville said.
He added: “As I understand it, ASIC has recognised that they don’t have the resources to do it and they’re basically just saying ‘it’s your responsibility’. But they’re aware of this failure, is my understanding.”
ifa asked ASIC whether its system was facing issues, however the regulator did not respond prior to publication.
Last week, FAAA general manager policy, advocacy and standards Phil Anderson said the association has been working closely with ASIC to help advisers get their qualifications up to date.
“We have recently contacted impacted members and licensees about ensuring that ASIC Connect has been updated to reflect qualifications going towards the qualification standard, and to remind qualifying experienced advisers to complete the declaration and have it processed by their licensee,” he said.
Anderson said that there are a range of common issues that the FAAA has noted, including advisers who have not flagged which pathway they intend to use, while there are also advisers intending to use the experience pathway whose date first provided advice is later than January 2012 and/ or who did not pass the Financial Adviser Exam before the cutoff, which is late October 2022.
He added that there are also advisers who flagged they do not intend to use the experience pathway, however their qualifications do not appear to be sufficient.
“Several members who we recently contacted were unaware they might have an issue until they received our email,” Phil Anderson, general manager of policy, advocacy and standards said.
“ASIC has created a webpage with detailed information on how to update the register, which also includes a link to the temporary dataset.
“Time is running out fast to resolve this. We urge advisers to double check their ASIC record and contact their licensee urgently if updates are required.”
Also last week, ASIC delivered its “final warning” for financial advisers that are yet to meet the education requirements on the Financial Adviser Register.
AFSLs are responsible to ensuring the records are both accurate and up to date on the FAR, and ASIC said their AFSL “should consider ceasing their authorisation on or before 31 December 2025 to avoid consequences to the existing provider status”.
“In accordance with the legislation, if the relevant providers remain authorised and their authorisation ceases by operation of law on 1 January 2026, they will be required to compete a professional year and obtain an approved degree or equivalent qualification set out in Schedule 1 of the Corporations (Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard) Determination 2021 before they can provide personal advice to retail clients again,” the regulator said.
“They will be unable to meet the qualifications standard by accessing the existing provider pathways as set out in Part 3 of the determination.”
In the update, the regulator said that, as of 20 November, there were 15,469 relevant providers on the FAR. Of these, AFS licensees have notified ASIC that 7,959 hold an approved degree or qualification, 4,212 are relying on the experienced provider pathway, and 972 are recorded as holding both an approved degree or qualification and relying on the experienced provider pathway
“The remaining 2,326 relevant providers have yet to meet the qualifications standard according to the information currently recorded on the Financial Advisers Register,” ASIC said.
“Of this cohort, 836 may be eligible for the experienced provider pathway, but their AFS licensees are yet to notify ASIC of this.”
It added that 827 relevant providers who are also existing providers, unless exempt, will need to complete the specified courses in commercial law and taxation law to continue to provide tax (financial) advice services from 1 January 2026.
I am a little surprised to read that any member of the AIOFP actually had education qualifications that needed to be uploaded. Perhaps Garry Crole has been too busy of late to update the FAR with his completion of the ethics course.
Not sure if Garry Crole is a licensed adviser or not, but if he is like most large licensee managers (including the so called “Responsible Manager” of the firm) then he is not licensed, and doesn’t need to complete an ethics course or advice training.
That is the nature of our system. The people who are responsible for supervising and monitoring and setting standards for advisers, require far less training or experience than the advisers they are responsible for.
Why? Because the licensee model is primarily designed for product distribution, not professional advice.