“I am humbled by this victory and I am honoured to be given this opportunity to serve as the 31st prime minister of Australia,” Anthony Albanese said on Saturday night, as Scott Morrison conceded the vote.
“My Labor team will work everyday to bring Australians together and I will lead a government worthy of the people of Australia,” he added.
Reacting to Anthony Albanese’s win, Peter Johnston, the executive director of the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professional, slammed the Coalition government one last time for its “unfairly harsh” treatment of advisers over the past almost a decade.
“We hope future governments will think twice before trying to politically victimise our community again,” Mr Johnston said.
Listing out priority areas requiring input from the new government, Mr Johnston pointed to the role associations have played over the past seven years in the advice community, judging that “it needs to change”.
“Fence sitting or mixed member associations backing government legislation against the wishes of minority factions must end.
“Associations with a pure membership base and whose priority is to its adviser members must be the only entities dealing with Canberra on behalf of the advice community,” he continued.
But the most immediate issue requiring urgent attention, according to Mr Johnston, is the exam format and the “cliff facing thousands of mainly risk advisers” on September 1.
“Pleased to inform you that the Minister has the discretionary power to adjust the exam format and conditions without going through the Parliamentary process.
“We are awaiting the confirmation of our new Minister to meet with and discuss the next moves.”
It’s widely expected that shadow minister for financial services, Stephen Jones, will be appointed financial services minister shortly.
In his most recent interview with the Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA), Mr Jones doubled down on Labor’s election campaign commitment to fix the “hot mess” that is the advice industry by introducing an ‘experience pathway’.
“We want to put in place a sensible, efficient recognition of prior learning arrangement so that if you’ve been doing the job for 10 years, you can continue to be a licensed adviser provided you haven’t got any black marks,” Mr Jones told SIAA mid-May.
He assured that if appointed Labor “should be able to” enact the experience pathway “pretty quickly”.
“Sworn in, consultation process, let’s get this done.
“We want to make sure it’s in place and up and running,” Mr Jones said.
Mr Jones joined Momentum Media on a podcast in February, to hear more of what he had to say about the advice industry, click here.
The next federal election (i.e. 2025) will have a few less financial planners voting, the federal election after that (i.e. 2028) will see the lowest level of financial planners voting for 40 years. Their relevance is minimal, shortly gone.
Do you think all those (former) financial advisers who have had their careers and lives destroyed will forget who did it to them when they vote in the future? They will be anti Liberal voters long after they cease to be advisers.
Some former financial planners still vote National, UAP, ONP, etc, but at the passing of each election, there will be less and less of them. There anger is well and truly counter-balanced by the general public that were great to see reforms post the Royal Commission.
I actually wonder how the general public will feel once they realise the Royal Commission “reforms” were botched, and have caused higher costs, greater complexity, and reduced consumer protection.
The general public won’t know the difference. The majority don’t use a financial planner. There accountant is still open for business.
Let’s face it, there aren’t too many organizations that actually represent advisers. Why would an organization that has massive corporate donorship worry about my little $600-$800 annual membership fee.
The softly gently approach employed by the biggest associations has decimated the advice community and we must now take control of the future ourselves. The first step is to abandon any association that has not truly represented advisers.
Correct. It appears to me that the only one is the AFA but they too need to lift there game. It is not just the advisers though but there thousands of orphaned loyal clients.
100% agree.
The FP universe in Australia has far too many associations with differing agendas no wonder the former government didn’t listen to any. So there is a challenge for advisers get yourselves sorted like the MBAA and you might get better outcomes in the future.
If there is ANY watering down or concessions for Advice delivered by Super funds Mr Johnston will be and should be directly responsible.
“Fence sitting or mixed member associations backing government legislation against the wishes of minority factions must end. ”
…so why argue for 900 advisers who havent passed an exam when 16,000 have? I’m a little confused.
You have missed the point, very few of those 16,000 would have chosen to sit the exam voluntarily.
But they embraced it, took up the challenge and passed. Now many have also being completing the Degree or Ethics bridging course. I wonder how far those who are still fighting the “exam” have progressed in the additional requirements?
If you include the advisers forced out of the industry, it’s well over 10,000 that have not passed the exam. But most did not exit because of the exam – it became too difficult, risky, stressful and costly to be worthwhile unless you had high-net worth clients. It would seem that most of those who have left did not have wealthy, high net worth clients.
Because not everyone is a holistic advisor with skills in all areas. I am lucky to have been an all rounder for years, so passed the exam. However if I was a specialist in just insurance or stockbroking I wouldn’t have stood nearly as good a chance.
I believe that those specialists are an integral part of the advice landscape and the exam should be adjusted to cater for them.
The ultimate goal after all is providing services for the public, not a tit for tat, ‘if I did it, so should you’ approach between advisors.
Respectfully I disagree.
The specialists should not be given an easier path into Financial advice. Instead their specialisation should be recognised as a specialist giving advice in that area only. They shouldn’t sit on the FAR. However similar to medical specialists they should be referred to by their GP (FAR). Quality financial planners recognise they aren’t subject matter experts and engage these specialists anyway.
Agreed Michael. Medical specialists need to qualify as generalist doctors first so they have a broad understanding of all relevant medical issues with potential impact or overlap with their specialty. It’s an entirely appropriate model for financial advice too.
I’ve stopped doing insurance advice but would be very reluctant to refer to an insurance specialist who doesn’t have a good grounding in super, tax, and estate planning.
No, incorrect analogy. Medical specialists MUST know all the knowledge a GP does PLUS their specialty. A risk adviser does not needs to know all the info an investment afviser knows – they need to know RISK and it’s overlap into SUPER and social security. Not derivatives, stocks CFD’s currency exchange et al.
Thanks for your views Peter. But I will only be giving my insurance referrals to specialists who have completed a broad based financial planning education in addition to their specialty, and passed a simple exam in law and ethics. My decision is based on what I believe is appropriate for my clients.
Or bring back the ones who aren’t strong enough in their understanding of legislation or the advice process?
How do you disrespect the 16000 who pushed to prove themselves?