In a statement, assistant minister for superannuation, financial services and financial technology Jane Hume announced that under the new requirements, advisers who were registered on the Financial Adviser Register on 1 January 2019 must:
- Complete the FASEA-approved exam by 1 January 2022 (one additional year); and
- Meet FASEA’s qualification requirements by 1 January 2026 (two additional years)
The changes will not apply to new advisers registered after 1 January 2019.
“The extension of the exam will ensure that all advisers, including rural and regional advisers, will have two years to sit the exam, as originally intended,” Ms Hume said.
“The extension of the qualification requirements will assist working parents, including those taking parental leave during the transition period, to have sufficient time to meet the requirements, maintaining a diverse adviser industry.”
The exam is only available in capital cities, and will not be available in regional areas until September 2019.
It was widely expected that Ms Hume would announce the changes at the recent Association of Financial Advisers Conference in Adelaide earlier this week. However, that announcement failed to materialise.
“The government is listening to your concerns and we want to assure you that we are carefully considering how we will proceed,” Ms Hume said at the conference.
The Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) welcomes the government’s announcement, with chief executive Dante De Gori saying that existing financial planners are no longer being unfairly disadvantaged by delays from FASEA in rolling out its exam and its new code of ethics.
“The government has done the right thing by proposing to extend the deadlines for all existing financial planners to sit and pass the FASEA exam and meet the education standard,” Mr De Gori said.
“The proposed new deadlines will give existing financial planners more time to study, ensuring that these reforms are successful at raising the bar across the profession.
“We’re pleased that minister Hume has listened to the feedback from our members and been willing to work with the FPA and AFA jointly to deliver a better outcome for all financial planners and their clients.”
Similarly, the Association of Financial Advisers CEO Philip Kewin said it is an important development that reflects the government’s recognition of the challenges in the FASEA process.
“We have worked closely with the Financial Planning Association on this and we are pleased that this work and the engagement we have had with the government, along with the work our members have done visiting their local MPs, has been worthwhile. It is clear the government has listened,” Mr Kewin said.
“The FASEA process has taken a lot longer than expected. The new time frame gives advisers the appropriate time to prepare for the exam and to deal with their other challenges.”
Join the AIOFP.
The FPA, AFA etc do not care for independent advisers and only work hand in hand with the big banks.
Dear FPA sympathises. If you have been in a coma for the last 7 or so years or living on another planet, my apologies. Otherwise, do the same thing…get the same thing.
Let’s remember the FPA helped get us in this mess into the first place. Just why did they recommend to FASEA a previous experience be worth 10 points out of 100. A Commerce Degree zip and a Bachelor of Financial Planning the gold standard. Just why did they call for degrees for all during the Productivity review commission review into the CBA advice scandal yet say nothing about CBA?
I find the majority of people who say the below about unity are advisers who have made poor choices as far as business partners goes, have contributed to over regulation, poor trust levels by consumers and are now waking up after years of leaching off clients facing multiples of problems and calling for “we’re all in it together”. Well I’m sorry I have no sympathy.
[quote=InsiderOut Mel]Many people in many places and within and outside of many different organisations helped this outcome to happen. How about we take a leaf out of the book of the AFA/FPA and start working together on outcomes instead of blaming, hating, competing and dividing the advice community. We have unions helping Advisers now (AMP advisers) so it shows things can change. Work on outcomes, the terrible hands have been dealt already, now time to work on the best possible outcomes (as hard as it is). [/quote]
Many people in many places and within and outside of many different organisations helped this outcome to happen. How about we take a leaf out of the book of the AFA/FPA and start working together on outcomes instead of blaming, hating, competing and dividing the advice community. We have unions helping Advisers now (AMP advisers) so it shows things can change. Work on outcomes, the terrible hands have been dealt already, now time to work on the best possible outcomes (as hard as it is).
[quote=Anonymous ]Does this now mean that if you are aged 55 as at the 31st December 2025 that you get a 5 year exemption to stay as a financial planner without completing the degree? Still have to do the FASEA exam but I thought there was currently an exemption for those that are 55 by 31st December 2023 so I would assume it has to be pushed out to the new date as well. Can anyone provide clarification?[/quote][quote=Anonymous ]Does this now mean that if you are aged 55 as at the 31st December 2025 that you get a 5 year exemption to stay as a financial planner without completing the degree? Still have to do the FASEA exam but I thought there was currently an exemption for those that are 55 by 31st December 2023 so I would assume it has to be pushed out to the new date as well. Can anyone provide clarification?[/quote]
[quote=Anonymous]The AOIFP have called this correctly in their recent email regarding the “white knight” issue. Sadly the FPA has been shown once again to be ineffective in supporting advisers. Most in the industry are scratching their heads as to what the FPA actually do[/quote][quote=Anonymous]The AOIFP have called this correctly in their recent email regarding the “white knight” issue. Sadly the FPA has been shown once again to be ineffective in supporting advisers. Most in the industry are scratching their heads as to what the FPA actually do[/quote]
the fpa represent the interest of their members. the vast majority of whom work for the big 5
Great and sensible outcome. Now we just need the code of ethics date to be extended in order to allow the implementation of a single, central disciplinary body as per Commissioner Hayne’s recommendations.
So after years of betrayal, the FPA is now taking credit for something that they didn’t do?
The AOIFP have called this correctly in their recent email regarding the “white knight” issue. Sadly the FPA has been shown once again to be ineffective in supporting advisers. Most in the industry are scratching their heads as to what the FPA actually do
Phil and dante are working so hard for the industry. This is because of them. You who have pot shots shame on you.
Perhaps it was another entity that persuaded the government to change its mind rather than those currently taking credit.
If those claiming credit were so effective Hume would not have made the remarks she did at the conference and the AFA’s response would not have been so downcast.
Does this now mean that if you are aged 55 as at the 31st December 2025 that you get a 5 year exemption to stay as a financial planner without completing the degree? Still have to do the FASEA exam but I thought there was currently an exemption for those that are 55 by 31st December 2023 so I would assume it has to be pushed out to the new date as well. Can anyone provide clarification?
FPA is on record as pushing hard for this months ago.
It’s easy to criticise when you don’t have the facts.
Planners should be leaving the FPA in droves they have basically worked with government to reduce the planning industry and make it a closed shop as they always intended. Ask yourself what do you actually get for the fees you pay.
I’m amazed at just how much political mileage is appropriated by various people these days when common sense emerges.
What is more interesting is how we got into the mess in the first place.
It is still back to front, you can’t test the industry until everyone has the same qualification standard. The Exam should be after the degree deadline, we are currently we are currently being tested on knowledge that we don’t all have.
Thanks minister so how about extending grandfathered comms until 1/1/22 to give advisers many that have borrowed funds more time also please?
Best news that I have received for the past 2 years. Well done to AFA and FPA and others who put effort to this! Glad we have a new minister who is more sensible and practical and is willing to work with the industry!!!
Still a complete waste of time with UNI ‘s rubbing their hands together .
great news! some common sense that took a lot of pressure off. Thankyou Jane. And thankyou for every adviser who put pressure on the government and the AFA/FPA to make the change happen. WIthout that pressure, I am sure it would not have occurred. People do have power… use it wisely and effectively. The weekend is sooo much better now!
Nice of Dante to take credit.
It was not the FPA who took a delegation to Canberra on behalf of the hundreds of regional, part time and transitioning planners to demonstrate the clear prejudice against them of the timetable.
There is still no pathway for specialist risk only advisers.
All of this could be severely impacted in 2020 with Treasury review of total compliance and professional supervision issues for ASIC, TPB, FASEA etc. Submissions to Treasury close 31 March 2020. What happens next out of those submissions will no doubt generate a new round of politicing and lobbying by parties who don’t actually ever see a financial planing client face to face.
Interesting that AFA were denied the “scoop”. Does tend to suggest who is pulling the strings in the background.
To think this is largely all about avoiding potential conflicts of interest.
That’s great news!
This is good news for those advisers with particular family or business constraints making it hard to get organized by end of 2020 as it was. It begs the question though, who will protect consumers for the extra time that we will have now all these unqualified potentially unethical advisers giving advice for another 12 months before they are qualified [b](tongue in cheek, people, couldn’t resist!)[/b][b][/b] The whole thing is, of course, a shame to make money for certain ‘entities’ and crony associated Universities (can you hear me FPA?). This ‘exam’ and ‘qualification’ (especially for risk advisers) is wholly unnecessary and worrying to good advisers who only want to care for their clients.
I’m seeing Sen. Hume present at the FINSIA conference next week to FPs and investment professionals. It will be interesting to hear if mentions these changes.
I think thats a win for the good guys…..maybe just not quite as big a loss.
Thank you for one good decision that supports advisers.
Hoo fuckin ray!
An attempt to mitigate the mass exodus of advisers. Clear for all to see.
That’s cool!