Earlier this week, industry educator and former adviser Dr Adrian Raftery called for the resignation of FASEA director Mark Brimble, who is also the head of department at Griffith Business School.
He said Griffith University “received preferential treatment for its bridging course on commercial and business law that was approved as a financial services law unit when there is zero overlap between the two curriculums”.
ifa reached out to Griffith University for a response to the allegations from Dr Raftery.
“We won’t be able to add anything further to the conversation,” a Griffith University spokesperson said.
Dr Raftery also called for the removal of FASEA directors Catherine Walter, Matthew Rowe and Simon Longstaff, who he said “have played instrumental roles since establishment in April 2017.
“Sadly, all four have significant conflicts of interest which have not been adequately managed and sadly coming to the fore in recent times,” Dr Raftery said.
Dr Raftery also pointed out further conflicts of interests with Griffith University’s longstanding partnership with AMP dating back to 2007.
In response, AMP said it strongly supports the professionalisation of financial advice and has long been a leader in driving improved education standards for advisers.
“We are fully supportive of FASEA and the process undertaken by the government in appointing its board of directors,” an AMP spokesperson told ifa.
Further, ifa also reached out to Assistant Minister for Financial Services Jane Hume for comment, but she is yet to respond.
More to come.
How can advisers be engaged in this process when FASEA has become a complete joke? It’s time that local members were lobbied to have legislative instrument that established FASEA reviewed and amended to enable a re-set and time frames extended to allow for the tardy roll out of FASEA requirements. One local federal senator I spoke with was shocked when I told her that we have to sit a national exam to prove our competence by Jan 2021 only to then go on a study bridging courses by Jan 2024. She argued with me that it was the other way around until I showed her the FASEA web page and she stated that was not what she understood it to be and thought it was meant to be exam last to give advisers a better chance to upskill and then pass the exam!!! This highlights that there are likely many in Canberra that did not fully understand on the legislation they voted on to bring FASEA into play! This is our last chance to educate them and hopefully get things changed into a workable solution to lift standards in advice, rather than the current joke of a standards body we are dealing with!
If FASEA was meant to increase professionalism, then it missed the mark. Examining knowledge of Corps Act is hardly a critical step. Ethics? I think this is a populist move rather than critical… many organisations are jumping on this so the company/gov etc can preach they have strong ethics even when examinations on this topic are silly – most unethical intelligent people can see what the exam answer is and pass the exam. Does not indicate sound ethics.
The fact that this FASEA board has breached common perceptions around ethics proves my point. They are a bunch of unethical people (in this context) and should resign or be sacked by government. mmm government being ethical? a bit of a stretch.
Advisers and AFSL’s need to step up strongly… not just on this forum. Rather get in front of your fed MP and Senators and educate them on the industry, the corruption of professional ethics by the body that examines us and also the conflicts of the FPA/AFA etc where they profit from the education mandates that they helped bring in.
Client benefit reform and a boost to knowledge of sound strategies to help clients meet their goals should be top of mind in any examination. If an adviser cannot articulate strategy, then fail them out of the industry. That would be, in my mind, the most practical examination topic.
Degree for new entrants – Yes. Strategic exam for incumbents – Yes. The rest? well stop over regulating an already regulatory-burdened industry and disband FASEA. It did not work. Fail.
FARCE-EA – no other word for it. Self absorbed confilcted money grubbers all. Client best interest – HA! They wouldn’t know the approximate meaning of the term. Neither would these bought-and-paid-for university creatures. What an absolute SHAM FARCEA!
Angelique….Adrian has only raised this now because his Deakin Uni course on regulatory law was re-written to meet FASEA requirements, whilst Griffith has done the usual broke Uni method and packaged up an existing law subject aimed at 18 year old high school leavers and are offering it in a Financial Planning course. Hence he’s feeling hard done by. This guy was posting #noUni conflicts here, for a while. You have to remember some advisers have been screaming out this conflict since FASEA was put together. It’s just that we advisers are all cowboys and no one listens to us…including professional associations that had their own barrow to push.
It is time all good experienced advisers engage and take control of the future of professionalising financial planning as a true accredited profession, rather than leave it to a handful of intellectuals, lawyers and educators to make decisions for them. If you see something is wrong. Do something about it. Adrian has made a good start. Get on the train folks.
[i][/i][i][/i]”ALL FARSEA directors clearly need to do an Ethics course.”[i][/i][i][/i]
One of the most conflicted FASEA directors actually designs and sells ethics courses! This just proves that ethics education is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure ethical behaviour. It’s a rort.
I don’t intend to enrol in any Griffith Uni courses OR even hire Graduates.
Just remember the task of FASEA was only to determine the meaning of a “degree”. The first release of FASEA was a ridiculous Bachelor of Financial Planning for all. Regardless of whether you held a Masters of Financial Planning obtained in 2008, or you were the adviser with a Bachelor of Commerce plus a Diploma plus a post graduate plus 20 years.
Only a small group of Universities (Griffith) offer post graduate studies in financial planning and the difference between a Commerce degree offered through non- metropolitan or regional University and Financial Planning degrees could only be four subjects. Just why did FASEA start from this base? Conflicted YES. It was only until certain advisers and CPA Australia screamed blue murder that FASEA was adjusted. The conflict still remains.
Jane Hume needs to quickly intervene in this conflicted FASEA mess before it becomes a political s***storm.
What about the deceptively named “Ethics Centre” headed up by the conflicted and unethical FASEA Board member Simon Longstaff? Has ifa “reached out” to them yet?
The whole FASEA debacle is beyond a joke and the body needs to a complete reset and redesign. It was set up by legislation, so clearly this can only be done by parliament drafting an amendment to enable this to happen, following lobbying with the now seemingly sufficient level of evidence to enable this to at least be referred back to the house and senate. The board have clearly failed to deliver the desired outcomes (despite cries that FASEA is simply a culling exercise) and what we have is a slapped together set of requirements that have caused considerable uncertainty and anxiety to many advisers due to the lack of information, guidance and delays caused by FASEA bumbling through to adhere to their interpretation of their mandate. Now we have massive conflicts of interest that is also supposed to be our ethics body!! If we are serious about lifting standards, surely having a standards body that advisers respect is vital and clearly we dont have that with FASEA in its current form. Time to lobby Canberra hard for FASEA to be reviewed and the framework redesigned.
The whole FASEA debacle is beyond a joke and the body needs to a complete reset and redesign. It was set up by legislation, so clearly this can only be done by parliament drafting an amendment to enable this to happen, following lobbying with the now seemingly sufficient level of evidence to enable this to at least be referred back to the house and senate. The board have clearly failed to deliver the desired outcomes (despite cries that FASEA is simply a culling exercise) and what we have is a slapped together set of requirements that have caused considerable uncertainty and anxiety to many advisers due to the lack of information, guidance and delays caused by FASEA bumbling through to adhere to their interpretation of their mandate. Now we have massive conflicts of interest that is also supposed to be our ethics body!! If we are serious about lifting standards, surely having a standards body that advisers respect is vital and clearly we dont have that with FASEA in its current form. Time to lobby Canberra hard for FASEA to be reviewed and the framework redesigned.
FASEA have another dilemma on their hands. The exam didn’t include the maximum number of marks for each question. May seem like a small oversight, but it was a requirement in the legislation (ie. Standard 9.2), so it is not valid. ACER are aware of this. Not sure about FASEA yet. Will the 600 advisers who went early, be forced to repeat the exam in September?
What about Mr Longstaff’s organization providing the FASEA Ethics Course while on Board of FASEA. Unresolved conflict ! ? Sheer hypocrisy !
Has Griffith met conflict priority rule, or did snouts in trough win?
Totally Unethical of FARSEA and Griffith Uni to not at least acknowledge the conflicts exist.
And then to be silent on how they are addressed or not.
Ethics 101 please FARSEA – ALL FARSEA directors clearly need to do an Ethics course.
FARSEA needs to very clearly document any real or perceived Conflicts of Interest and how they are managed or not.
Adele Ferguson at The Age and SMH would love this. Might be time to let her know
someone needs to hold Griffith to account here…they must prove that Brimble was removed from any promotion or decision making and how assessments were made. They must at least address how they managed the clear and apparent conflict.
[i]”Griffith University’s longstanding partnership with AMP dating back to 2007″[/i][i][/i]
Hmmm…
The same Griffith University that has strong representation on the FASEA Board and influences RPL policy.
And
The same AMP that has BOLR liabilities to it’s adviser network that were previously valued at around $1 Billion.
Now let me see. The following is absolutely pure speculation I must admit.
Griffith offers FASEA courses at $3,000 per subject. Existing advisers question value and time as FASEA’s RPL policy ignores or reduces vast swathes of prior learning forcing anyone remaining to load up on additional subjects. As a result many existing AMP advisers do not meet new FASEA requirements.
…Equals AMP BOLR liabilities of $1 Billion wiped clean as existing advisers do not meet standards required to qualify. Existing advisers cannot move clients due to another licensee due to contractual arrangements. Train new advisers to service clients.
What a wonderful convergence!
But this is just wild theory and speculation anyway.
Griffith is right. Nothing to see here people! Moving on…..
These Academics all have a conflict of interest. Design the course and then promote their Universities.
Would anyone be surprised by this??
Funny how the ABC or other Majors have not picked up on this.
ifa…you’ve done so much ‘reaching out’ lately you’ve completed an arm workout. How about you change that term to what it should be i.e. contact. Fair dinkum.
I would have no issue with the perceived conflict of interest if Mark Brimble had excused himself from any discussion and voting on whether any Griffith education course was being accepted by the Directors of FASEA – exactly the same should hold for the other Directors. What is concerning is that neither FASEA nor Griffith have come out to report whether this happened. Lack of communication commences the loss of trust in any brand.
Glad these guys will be teaching advisers about ethics
At least the relationship between Griffth and FASEA would be a really great case study on the conflicts of interest and ethics topics in the course.