The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020, tabled in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, has dealt with annual renewals and payments, disclosure of lack of independence and restrictions on deducting advice fees from super.
The most significant change resulting from the bill for advisers, as noted by the AFA, is the new annual renewal obligation.
The draft law has amended the Corporations Act to require financial services providers that receive fees on an ongoing fee arrangement to provide clients with a single document each year that outlines the fees that will be charged and the services for which the client will be entitled to in the following 12 months. The document will also seek annual renewal from clients on all ongoing fee arrangements.
It would replace the fee disclosure statement (FDS) and the renewal or opt-in notice, merging three documents into one.
But the FDS would be expanded to not only include fees and services for the last year, but also the services and fees to be paid in the following year. Where the fees are an estimate, the basis for the estimate has to be explained.
As previously required, the FDS must be issued within 60 days of the anniversary day, with the renewal period being 120 days. Where a client does not provide consent within the renewal period, the fees need to be turned off within a further 30 days (a total of 150 days since the anniversary).
Providers will also need to obtain written consent before fees under an ongoing fee arrangement can be deducted from a client’s account.
The new process will apply to both pre and post FOFA clients.
The explanatory memorandum for the bill has acknowledged the legislation will involve both material initial and ongoing costs for financial advice practices.
“We are conscious of this additional burden and remain committed to working [with] government and the regulators on how to reduce the cost of financial advice,” AFA chief executive Philip Kewin wrote in a note to the body’s members.
The bill will also require advice providers (AFSLs or an authorised representative) to give a written disclosure of lack of independence where they are authorised to provide personal advice to a retail client.
Finally, the bill has proposed to amend the SIS Act to increase the visibility of advice fees for all super products and prohibit the charging of ongoing advice fees from MySuper products.
It has allowed fees for advice related to MySuper products to be charged to a MySuper product on a one-off basis, when consumers choose to seek advice.
All of the changes are set to apply from 1 July next year, with a 12-month transition period.
The bill will still need to be passed in the Senate before it becomes law – although it is unlikely to be passed until next year as Thursday is the last day of sittings for 2020.
But shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers and shadow assistant treasurer Stephen Jones have criticised the Coalition government for winding back the responsible lending laws, while implementing other royal commission reforms.
FPA chief executive Dante De Gori has called the new bill a “promising development”, with the government making changes to annual renewable arrangements in response to industry concerns around the required notice and anniversary date operation.
The body has said that it advocated for the changes, as part of its push for lower regulatory burdens for planners and more accessible advice.
“We will thoroughly review the bill and continue to hold discussions with government on the issues most critical to our members,” Mr De Gori said.
The first bill implementing the Hayne commission reforms, which includes the claims handling licensing requirements and other measures, was debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday and is set to be debated in the Senate.




So now instead of chasing 200+ signatures every 2 years that will increase to yearly? And who’s going to pay for that extra 500 hours of red tape admin work we have to do?
Aren’t you already doing a review for these 200+ clients every year anyway? How does getting them to agree to continue with your services every year add 2.5 hours to the process?
Nice one, I get to increase my fees again. Thanks Government.
You should see Asgard’s new 7 page fee consent form. Just incredible. What happens when a bank, which is worse than a Govt Dept, owns a platform. If this was imposed on Telstra, to collect their $55 a month plan fees, there would be riot. The platforms are going to get a big shock by going along with this legislation – they will lose even a lot more business to SMSF’s. My heart bleeds for them.
So you’re going to recommend that clients switch from a platform to an SMSF because it’s too hard to charge your fees? Sorry, but whose best interests are you serving? Get a grip people.
ASIC and Pollies say they want more Affordable Advice = More BS Red Tape REGS at every turn.
Moronic Bureaucratic Canberra Bubble
[b]“The explanatory memorandum for the bill has acknowledged the legislation will involve both material initial and ongoing costs for financial advice practices” [/b][b][/b]
Yep that’s right let’s increase Advice costs yet Again. !!!!!!!
And that is why my fees will be going up – again.
How exactly is this a promising development. It’s even more red tape and cost. Not only extra paperwork for client fees each year, but then more paperwork to get the product provider to deduct the fees. Adviser will spend all their time chasing client signatures.
We’re doing that now! If you’re not – you’re well behind the times.
That is hardly the point. Does it really assist the client in a meaningful way ? Does it add to the cost of advice unnecessarily ? Under CURRENT law, my clients are told about 4 times a year what they pay me. Why is this necessary ?
Disclosure of independence a nice win for big licensees ? How do you figure that ? We S923A independents will be flogging that point of difference like never before. Anyone young, just getting into this industry is hopefully, smart enough to read the signs here. Working for a vertically integrated firm where you charge asset based fees or collect a commission while flogging linked products is doomed. Consumers are already deciding – we’re run off our feet with new work..
Why are asset based fees evil ? I have never had an argument put to me against asset based fees in a coherent fashion. They are much more aligned to the clients interests than say an hourly rate.
They might align your interests to the clients in terms of investment performance, but how are they related to the amount of work you do for them?
…because the asset based fee percentage reduces as the funds grow…clients prefer we share in their success and visa versa!
How is the amount of work a real estate agent charges on a $1M sale versus a $3M sale any different? Yet they still charge a 2% fee on an asset that has borrowed funds against it!
Is a real estate agent really the benchmark of professionalism you want to be compared to?
Given that real estate agents are regarded as professional enough by ASIC to be given a complete exemption from financial advice regulation, and professional enough by Austrac to be given a complete exemption from AML regulation, then yes.
Why don’t you head off to a doctor that just get remunerated based on how many drugs she prescribes ?You just don’t get it. The more independent advisers clients have to choose from, the more clients will move across. Proof ? Our phones and all other independent advisers I know. Strip out the commission on the life cover you wrote and in many cases, those clients of yours that come to us are instantly saving thousands. Your argument gets blown outta the water just on that. Change is inevitable and you just have to read the signs. Apart from a few industry players pissing in your pockets, what support for the existing business model have you got ? Politicians ? Nup. Regulators ? Nup. THE GENERAL PUBLIC ? Nup. Most of you were probably arguing 20 years ago that The internet won’t amount to anything… Gotta go, I wanna short some IOOF shares . They’ll eventually suffer the same fate as AMP..
The disclosure of independence is a nice win for large product owned licensee’s.
Welcome to more pain.
Hayne was a old doddery inept fool who had no clue and was easily led by a biased corrupted ASIC and believed the lies that only union industry super were pure, clean sweet innocent angels.
“A promising development” – and then he wonders why his members are leaving in droves