In its submission to the governments consultation on the education reforms, the Financial Services Council (FSC) said that, given the proposed changes are “broadly in line with the framework” that the Joint Associations Working Group had proposed, it is “strongly supportive of the package overall”.
“Importantly, these reforms would create a more flexible pathway into the profession while maintaining strong professional safeguards,” the FSC said.
“Prospective advisers would still be required to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, complete core financial advice subjects, undertake a professional year, pass the financial adviser exam and maintain ongoing professional development.”
Based on this strong backing and relatively minor recommendations the FSC included in its submission, it has pushed for the government to “expedite the passage of relevant legislative amendments attached to the reforms”.
“We are very encouraged by the Government’s commitment to progress this consultation with the prospect of making the changes a reality in the short to medium term,” the FSC said.
It added: “To ensure prospective advisers have certainty about their pathway into the profession, whether directly through the tertiary education system … or transitioning from another profession or industry, they will need a level of certainty as to how and when the new qualifications standard is online and ready to serve their needs.
“Given the urgent need to bring more advisers into the profession the FSC supports these new requirements being introduced and passed by Parliament as soon as possible to allow prospective advisers to begin meeting the new standard following Royal Assent.”
The organisation also argued in favour of a more principles-based approach to the legislation, as the reforms will need to evolve alongside the advice profession.
“We suggest that legislation enacting the reforms be structured primarily as principles-based instructions to inform delegated legislation or regulations that contain the necessary details of the reforms,” it said.
“This may help ensure flexibility for the profession, Treasury and HEPs as they move to finalise the appropriate details regarding the curriculum, course pathways and guidance.
“This should also provide the Government with the flexibility to respond to changes to the PY flexibly and without unnecessary delay following the finalisation of the current changes outlined in the consultation paper.”
The FSC did, however, flag some areas of the curriculum for “further consideration”.
“Given the increasing regulatory focus on the provision of retirement income through the Retirement Income Covenant (RIC) and best practice principles for superannuation retirement income solutions, and the growing need for advice in relation to the retirement phase, we suggest there could be a greater (or more deliberate) emphasis on ensuring advisers have a foundational understanding of providing advice on retirement income,” it said.
“Separately, a direct reference to demonstrating an understanding of the role and application of the Statement of Advice (or its successor document) in the advice process.”
This is in line with the FAAA’s recommendation that a subject on creating a statement of advice should be included within the accredited subjects, as it is a “core activity for financial advisers”.
I’m a career changer in my late 40s with over 20 years in super and life insurance. My background covers product, pricing, technical operations across claims and underwriting, people leadership, and partnership distribution with blue chip corporate clients. I’ve always had an interest in advice and decided to give it a go. I’ll finish the Grad Dip FP around August or September 2026 and plan to sit the exam soon after.
Unfortunately, that might have to be where my journey ends.
For most mature career changers, the logistical economics of the Professional Year are not feasible. The PY is technically designed to take 12 months. In practice, completion is averaging three to four years. Employers require applicants to commit to full-time, entry-level roles (typically low-paid) for the first 12 to 36 months, regardless of prior professional experience. PY training only commences at the employer’s discretion, and only after that initial employment period.
This is the true barrier to entry, not education.
Coursework can be done online over time. The exam can be sat when ready. Both can be completed without major disruption to current employment or income. The PY cannot. It demands that experienced professionals walk away from established careers and incomes for years, with no guarantee on if, or when, PY training will commence.
Broadening education pathways is fine, but it solves the wrong problem. If the goal is genuinely to attract experienced career changers into advice, the PY is what needs reform.