The expansion of accountants’ ability to provide advice has been a contentious topic among financial advisers, with some seeing any exemption to full licensing as reducing standards and others believing it could help fill the advice gap.
Shadow financial services minister Luke Howarth falls squarely in the latter camp, reiterating his call to open up restrictions on accountants at Momentum Media’s Election 2025 event last week.
The demand for advice, Howarth said, will “only be increasing”, which necessitates an expanding pool of advisers to match it.
As announced last Thursday, the Coalition has put a numeric target on this goal – aiming to boost the profession’s numbers to 30,000.
Howarth called this a “north star” for future advice reform, though he conceded that a time frame on reaching the number has not been set.
“Setting the target acknowledges the collapse in adviser numbers due to excessive regulation and red tape,” Howarth said.
“We know that ultimately, fewer advisers means advice is becoming less affordable and accessible for Australians who need it most.”
Forming part of this goal to expand access to advice is “making it easier for accountants to provide advice”, particularly when it comes to setting up self-managed superannuation funds.
“The current limited licensing model does not work. It isn’t being used and we need something better,” Howarth said.
He added: “I’m just saying that accountants are good people in relation to self-managed super funds in particular, they should be able to give advice on setting them up. They should be able to give advice on closing them down.”
Appearing on The ifa Show in December, Howarth had supported calls for accountants to be able to provide some form of advice, telling financial advisers they “shouldn’t fear accountants”.
“At the end of the day, I respect accountants significantly,” he said at the time.
“My experience with accountants is they’ve provided good advice. They’re often people that you go to if you want to look at setting up a self-managed super fund and they’re qualified people that know tax law inside out.
“So, giving a little bit of advice, I don’t fear that at all from accountants and I think it probably should be looked at.”
A range of professional associations, including Chartered Accountants ANZ, the Institute of Financial Professionals Australia, and the SMSF Association, had used their pre-budget submissions to highlight the topic.
As CA ANZ put it, an ageing population means it is “critical that individuals can navigate their retirement puzzle easily and simply”.
“Expert financial advice is necessary for all Australians to work through the superannuation, taxation, age pension and aged care regulatory maze. To enable this, legal complexities and inconsistencies need to be removed,” its submission said.
“Australia needs more financial advisers, and this is unlikely to change quickly enough even allowing for the government’s Delivering Better Financial Outcomes announcements.”
ATO portal access
The prospective minister also said he would open up access to the ATO portal for advisers, again arguing the benefits around SMSFs.
“In relation to the ATO portal as well, this would be helpful around self-managed super funds in particular. But access to the portal will ensure advisers access to accurate and up to date read-only information about their clients’ tax affairs to help them provide financial advice.
“It’s something that we’re committed to and we need to get the department moving quickly on that.”
Appearing on The ifa Show last month, the Financial Advice Association Australia’s Phil Anderson said advisers have “been waiting for so long” to get access to the portal, while the association also included it near the top of its list of priorities for the next minister.
“Our future government needs to take substantive steps to fix the crisis in our profession,” chief executive Sarah Abood said.
“Our key asks are designed to help reduce the cost of providing professional advice and also encourage more people to enter the advice profession – both critical requirements for a healthy and sustainable financial advice community.”
I spend a lot of time cleaning up the mess Accountants create with unsuitable SMSF’s.
I agree that most accountants are trustworthy and professional. But this would only work if consistent educational requirements and rules similar to auditors akin to if a firm consults a company, they cannot act as the auditor are in place.
I think this is a good move…..Accountants already give Advice, they’re telling clients what shares to buy in their SMSF, what ETF to get on board with. They’re doing this now without the need to provide a SoA. It may not be legal but it happens every single day in every Accounting business in Australia already.
So if I had a choice between a Backpacker with 2 weeks of training with a sales target over their head to encourage people to salary sacrifice, employed by AustralianSuper or an Accountant that buys a few ETF’s and bank shares and is now an expert I know which option I would select.
Does anyone fact check the nonsense from these morons? Per capita, 15,000 advisers is on par with the US. All we need is sensible regulation, and then anyone who wants financial advice will be able to obtain it from a qualified professional.
For example:
Step 1 – Abolish SOA’s as recommended by QAR.
Step 2 – Remove ASIC from our profession and replacing it with a professional board, overseen by experienced, practicing financial advisers.
Step 3 – Scrap AFSL’s and replace with individual licensing.
Those simple steps would solve 99% of the problems and no-one would complain about paying for the CSLR. Unfortunately there are too many vested interests who are more interested in controlling the flow of money rather than fixing this problem for the good of the Australian public.
Accountants already give lots of SMSF advice that is illegal, inappropriate, and very poor on the investment aspects.
However because it’s illegal, it’s denied, and there is no accountability for how bad it is. I think it’s actually a good idea to make it legal, so that more light can be shone on why accountants are recommending so many SMSFs that are neither necessary nor suitable, and on their terrible investment advice.
“At the end of the day, I respect accountants significantly,” he said at the time.
So how much are their lobbyists paying your party, Luke?
Just awful
More Teals coming into parliament
Bulldust
Thought Luke was a bit sharper than this. Clearly not.
What a load of crock !!
Accountants are self interested.
They set up smsf for everyone in order to to do tax return each year with no real care how it’s invested.
If this happens I’ll be going back to do further education and becoming an accountant and following suit and making some serious money. If Can’t beat them may as well join them yes !!! I’ll become a leech like everyone else.
Not even further education, less education!
So the choice is between the Labor party that employed the soon to be gone union super puppet lips are moving liars Jones or the trust me Gus bloke with his Liberal party that jammed it to us previously…
Alright then I choose neither.
Voting has never looked worse than now because the choice is between very bad and worse for financial advisers in my opinion and those greens and teals have less ideas again but may well decide who governs.
Sell and head for the hills may well be the best option for many!
Spot on, who can we vote for now? Luke’s just shot himself in the foot with this accountants are good people crap, what about us? Aren’t we good people too?
Why cant we give limited advice to open and close a SMSF? Oh that’s right as we have a BEST interest duty to the clients to make sure we aren’t just order takers! I really thought we were past all of this, but no we are back to the future now.
What a twisted situation
Accountants can give advice if they follow the laws that are in place, they choose not to because the rules and regulations are dumb. Providing access to financial planning must start with fixing the unwieldy rules and regulations.
It’s almost as dumb as their respective housing policies.
Yeah cool Luke, let’s open the door to rubbish and appropriate SMSF advice.
If accountants want to provide financial advice, they can do the education and ethics requirements just like everyone else.
The amount of absolute garbage financial advice I’ve seen come from the accounting profession is enormous.
Why do we know that a large majority of “Accountant managed” SMSF’s have no real investment strategy and languish in cash and term deposits for most of their lives, other than maybe a commercial property with a LRBA in place is because the accountant doesn’t want to have to explain to their client why their investment has lost some value and they don’t bloody well understand all the complexities of managed funds, ETF’s, direct shares and other potential investment options that require in depth knowledge and constant education.
Why don’t you grow the f*#k up Luke and say something that actually makes sense.
This is all very bloody vague.The accountants have been in Mr Howarth’s ear and it would appear they would like to get back into Financial Advice, whatever that means.
That includes, without a doubt, providing advice on life risk products particularly as they relate to SMSF’s and who knows what else.
Here we go again. Poorly calculated inadequate Lump sum insureds with no income for surviving spouses, income protection policies with a 90 day waiting period and only a two-year benefit period, “because that’s all you need”. Oh, and don’t forget the inbuilt desire to “review” every two or three years, just to keep the revenue flowing.
These folks, who in my experience have never understood the need for less severity in “offset clauses” in IP, may well be disadvantaging every working director they have as a client and who are compelled by state legislation to take out workers compensation cover, but often don’t. Offset wordings make a big difference in calculation of an IP claim.
I only want these people as my competition IF they are required to have the same qualifications that I do.
Any lessening of standards is not in the best interests of consumers and in my view would be a retrograde step
Standing by to repel boarders!
Ok, what’s so awful with a 90 day wait, Old risky?
“Accountants are good people”
” I respect Accountants significantly ”
” My experience with Accountants is they’ve provided good advice”
” So, giving a little bit of advice, I don’t fear that at all from Accountants………..”
It must be close to an election and the national Accounting bodies must have made some donations which require some value for their investment.
I want Howarth to now come out immediately and state:
” Financial Advisers are good people”
” I respect Financial Advisers significantly”
” My experience with Financial Advisers is they’ve provided good advice”
And…….
” Financial Advisers are my recommended primary source for good quality, comprehensive and professional financial advice”
C’mon Luke, we know you can do it…….you want our votes don’t you, after your party crucified us over the last decade.
Dumb words, from a dumb politician…and just like take, every accounting client will be offered a SMSF.
Most of them get an SMSF via “execution only” already so it doesn’t really matter.
They are experts in tax law but not superannuation law, the ongoing requirements to facilitate an SMSF, the loss of protections when establishing an SMSF, the detriment of a single asset strategy can be long-term and time out of the market loss when closing the fund down or setting it up. This is a terrible idea that will result in an SMSF boom and clients lose significant wealth.
Egg sperts
So how is an accountant going to do all the research on the previous fund and if it’s in their best interest to change across to the new one and also the insurance that they’d be leaving behind before they set up the new one… they can’t keep both open in every event. I don’t believe accountants are in a position to give advice on it… I don’t disagree that they understand self-man super funds and tax implications probably better than most advisors but there’s a lot more to change into a smsf than just setting up all the documentation for a self many Super Fund
“ohh the client instructed me to set the smsf up”
“let’s just park your money in cash for now”
“shares? ohh yeah I invest in these shares myself……”
“insurance? ohh you don’t need that”
“you want to do a property in smsf? sure thing, lets consolidate that $120k super in to the smsf first”
Can’t wait to have to fund this in the CSLR!
Read my lips “not interested”. I had a limited AFSL. Cost me a motza. Gave me little additional revenue and loads of heartache!
ASIC and their revolving policy flips and back flips (under both governments) since 2011, it was a nightmare. It has driven many good planners out of the industry and most of them won’t return either.
You can promise all you want, but you are not in government, and the moment you start making changes all participants are going to think “here-we-go-again”.
The planners worked hard to kick out accountants, and you are just going to open the door again. That will peeve quite a few.
And, if that is not enough, all the accountants previously working in this space, STOPPED. Their knowledge may not as sharp!
And you are asking many to put themselves into far greater risk. There are also insurance requirements. PI is now only available if you are registered. I don’t see you talking about any of this in your briefings?
So, you will have some untrained, unregistered, uninsured advisors. Yep – thats great policy!
Change the definition of an SMSF not a financial product – it is a structure – that is all that is required. But you should ensure that operators in this space are regulated. Under Corps Law you could only provide limited advice if you were CAANZ, CPA & IPA and you were covered by Public Pratice licensing/therefore PI!
Accountants should be advisers under an AFSL if they want to provide advice keep it simple. Pay the fee’s, do your CPD points, go to seminars, write the advice under SOA’s and ensure that best interest is maintained especially if it’s an SMSF.
Fix the CSLR, advisers shouldn’t be paying for stuff up’s by funds managers who can’t manage anything and why is ASIC approving any of their funds
OMG… which is worse? Gus saying he’s going to swamp us with doubling advisers numbers or, this galah?
(or, was Stephen Jones the worst possible option?)
Most accountants really haven’t got a clue.
Advisers: Make it easier to give advice to everyday Australians!
Howath: Did you say more SMSFs?
Advisers: No, please n….
Howath: Accountants exemption!
You nailed it. Well said.