FASEA received 40 written submissions from organisations and individual financial advisers on proposed amendments to the wording of the contentious Standard 3 of its code of ethics.
However, in a statement on Monday (20 December), it confirmed that there was “no consensus amongst industry as to the form such an amendment should take”.
“Feedback provided by stakeholders during the consultation period highlighted a divergence in views between consumer representatives and industry participants,” FASEA said.
“Consumer submissions consider that Standard 3 in its current form is delivering good consumer outcomes and should be retained.
“Industry participants consider that amendment is required to Standard 3 and provided a broad range of suggestions as to how that may be achieved,” it explained.
As such, and due to its imminent wind-up and transfer of functions to Treasury and ASIC as at 31 December 2021, FASEA said it “considers it appropriate that any final determination on amendments to Standard 3 be addressed by the minister in 2022”.
In November, FASEA said that based on feedback received on Standard 3 during the consultation process conducted on its code of ethics, it was considering amending the wording of the contentious standard to align it to its intent.
“The code of ethics provides an ethical framework of values and standards to assist advisers in exercising their professional judgement in the best interests of their clients,” FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield said at the time.
“FASEA understands that some stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the wording of Standard 3 and welcomes stakeholder feedback on proposed options to align the wording of the standard with the intent of the standard.”
Consultations wrapped up on 1 December.
It seems clear that so called “consumer associations” are the ones primarily opposed to sensible revisions of Standard 3.
It’s time for the government to take a stand against these fringe political activists, who DO NOT represent the best interests of consumers. Their extremism has contributed to professional financial advice being much more difficult for consumers to access and afford. Consumers have been increasingly drawn to unregulated advice and dodgy products as a result. The average financial services consumer is now far worse off than they were 10 years ago. The intransigence of these so called “consumer groups” on the Standard 3 issue is just the latest in their long line of consumer harming behaviour.
If politicians really want to know what consumers think, talk to your constituents. That’s the way democracy is supposed to work. Stop listening to these activist groups posing as “consumer associations”, and for goodness sake stop giving them government funding.
Agree. The other problem is our lazy government bureaucrats. They have zero interest in properly investigating issues and crafting good policy. They tick the box with consultations that consist solely of a ‘calling for submissions’ process. FASEA is proof this process does not work.
I refuse to believe that there wasn’t considerable consensus given that the only plausible and workable option was option one (1). This is typical of FASEA looking for a way to avoid a decision that might show their overall incompetence and lack of understanding of the industry, but most of all their inherent distrust of advisers ability to deal with conflicts.
I find it ironic that this mob of amateurs (aka FASEA) are so conflicted by their hubris, that they cannot bear to have their code modified to coincide with the corporations law.
It was actually option one – a considerable amount of it.
Only Choice & Super Consumers Australia and few other holdouts stated that it shouldn’t be #1.
Even ISA said it should be option 1, and that is really saying something!
Federal Liberal Government gave Super Consumers Australia over $1Million in the 2021 Federal Budget – thanks Scott Morrison and Josh. See you at the next election.
Interesting the submission from ASIC has been withheld from publication.
Most of the submissions can be found on their website. If you read the paper that they’ve published they had a submission from 1 regulator, but the name of said regulator and its preference is not noted on the table on the bottom of that page.
Also, on the FASEA website they state who has made a submission and it’s been blacked out who hasn’t given permission to share. This ‘regulator’ is missing completely. What have they got to hide. Where is the ethics in all of this?
Were they really expecting a consensus?
So instead of doing the hard work, FASEA are happy to pass responsibility to the Minister. Given they have have clocked off, I wonder if between now and 31 December they will still be collecting their pay check…….
Is it April 1, surely this is a gee up?
FASEA, you don’t give up on something and walk away simply because it’s too hard. You were never going to achieve consensus via consultation, you were only ever going to achieve opinions and views, it’s then up to you to make a decision … this is what leaders do.
You have 10 days until handing over to Treasury and ASIC, take the necessary action so that you can hand over something of value and meaning, not a broken system that will forever leave a stain on the history of your existence.
A disgraceful last decision, but similar to many others they have made during their reign of ineptness. Let’s hope the replacement entities are able to make the hard decisions they get paid for!
What do you expect? Given the recent announcement watering down education standards, it’s probably the compromise and consumer protection much needed. When the people making the law naturally have degrees and you’re dealing with a sector where education levels are less than a hairdresser, you as an Adviser really don’t have a chance. This is the outcome. You can’t be called a cowboy one day and expect to be treated like a professional the next. If I’m going to be called a used car salesmen for the next 10 years because a certain number of advisers can’t be bothered doing 4 -6 subjects than it’s probably reasonable to expect terrible laws to be the norm and plan accordingly.
Sorry mate, many people working for Industry Super and soon other product providers selling product to the punters with no such consumer protection – remind me, who is the law protecting?
How can we have a bunch of self interested unethical special interest groups, educators and polititians, who have all been proven to have acted unethically, making rules to the detriment of one of the only sectors of the financial services indusutry which actually act in the best interests of the public.
Has there ever been a most incompetent government department?
It is likely the “consumer submissions” consist solely of Choice. Choice receive funds from ASIC and the Liberal government to make submissions. I consider them more an activist group than a consumer group.
So FASEA have admitted that Standard 3 never said what they intended to say, and they couldn’t be bothered changing it.
Seems ethical.
Dealing with FASEA has been like playing chess with a pigeon. They’ve knocked the pieces over, pooped on the board, and are now flying away.
You forgot to mention those pigeons got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, doing unethical things themselves.
What an unmitigated disaster and failure – not that we’d ever hear a Government Minister concede that.
Yes, indeed, these are the people responsible for overseeing the fully irrelevant FARCE of an “ethics” exam that is to decide if experienced reputable advisers of 30 and 40 year client loyalty were allowed to stay in the industry past Dec 31st this year. Many are gone, especially those specializing in risk advice (I am one). This whole situation angers and sickens me as it should any clear thinking fair-minded adviser. Who in their right mind first proposed that one could test for ‘ethics’ in a sit down online exam? There are some REAL pigeons running this country, this much is sure.
It wasn’t an “ethics exam”, it was an entry exam. All professions require an entry exam. It is a standard. It is not unreasonable to expect a professional entry exam to contain elements of ethics. A degree equivalent is yet another standard. Totally reasonable expectation for those who want to consider themselves in a profession.
Nicely put
Quote of the year and great anaolgy…….
HAHAHAHA! That’s awesome. What a great analogy!
Love the anology mate.