In a preview address ahead of the AFA National Conference later this month, Ms Hume said she had spoken to “hundreds” of advisers in the last year and had been listening to their concerns around regulatory change.
“Progress has been made and there’s more to come,” Ms Hume said.
“We want you to be able to do what you do best.”
Ms Hume said it was important for the advice industry to speak with a united voice to government around issues that needed addressing, adding that increased demand for advice as a result of COVID-19 made it even more critical to get the regulatory settings in the industry right.
“The economic road ahead is going to be a rocky one and many Australians will face challenges that they never would have anticipated,” she said.
“More than ever, Australians will look to their trusted, professional financial adviser to see them through.
“A united and positive vision for financial advice and the value and opportunity your industry provides is so important.”
Ms Hume said she looked forward to providing further updates from the government later in the month and expressed thanks to advisers for helping clients through one of the most challenging economic periods in recent history.
“We’re facing tough times as we deal with the ongoing challenges of COVID-19, especially in Victoria where normal feels like it’s a long time away,” she said.
“Thank you for continuing to deliver what is an essential service at this time of great uncertainty and stress.”
Too little, and much too late.
dont hold your breath – actions speak louder than words. I’m not surprised if this is part of their political strategy to secure voters for next election.
“Progress has been made and there’s more to come,” Ms Hume said.
[b]WHAT PROGRESS MS HUME ??????????[/b][b][/b]
I hope she is not referring to the useless $300 capped Advice Early Release rubbish that almost zero advisers used.
ASIC are collecting data from licensees currently to see how many advice pieces were undertaken under their relaxed $300 roa due to covid provisions. My bet is, and it was for my practice = 0. If this is the case and the data comes to air, it should show that they do not understand what regulatory relief looks like. The key here is for them to also understand the limits of current technology.
Spot on, the $300 Early Release fee and process was proof of a complete regulatory mismatch of their BS dream world and the crazy over the top BS REGS world they have created.
We also completed ZERO of these $300 early releases.
For a new client it would cost more like $1K to give that advice. Over 3 times what the Communist Government decided we should be paid to jump through their still crazy REGS.
Not even AustralianSuper, the largest Super fund in the country would touch the $300 Early Release advice, their offer was only General Advice = Product Information, and is NOT Advice. Or Full service Advice starting at $2,500.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE MS HUME!!!
Significant damage has already been done thanks to politicians/bureaucrats (most recently Liberals including Turnbull, Frydenberg and O’Dwyer who started the rot), together with lawyers, the large banks and insurers. Now that the banks have exited and all the insurers will be insolvent very shortly, they are all back whispering sweet nothings into the pollies ears to help bail them out. They are NOW starting to realise that they REALLY NEED ADVISERS, but too late 50% would have left the industry by the time they get their act together and nobody will be replacing them anytime soon with all the FARCEA crap to jump through.
The largest problem is the lack of representation. The meddling by the FPA, a body on the payroll of large institutions. If we got rid of the FPA and Treasury actually started to listening to advisers whether it’s AMP advisersor independent rather than listening to the mouthpiece of AMP the FPA, than things would change. You will recall that the FPA sided with CBA in exchange for compulsory membership of either the FPA or the AFA and FASEA was the outcome. The FPA sided with AMP on the definition of independence. Last week I contacted AMP about switching off commissions for an insurance client and the answer was we won’t do it. A clear win for them.
The issue is only partly the legislation, the major issue is how it is interpreted by FASEA, ASIC and licensee’s. Nothing the government will do will change this so financial planning remains dead.
Yep Overly Paternalistic and Consumer Centric ASIC, FARSEA, CHOICE, etc live in a BS world where no consumer can ever suffer any loss regardless of their own actions.
Just like the Wagyu and Shiraz case, ASIC completely off the planet on their Interpretation.
BS REGS in every direction, that’s what ASIC give us.
Hi Ms Hume, the most critical points to address:
1) [b]General Advice is NOT Advice = Product Information and CANNOT in any way be associated with ADVICE[/b][b][/b]. This is a massive scam used by Industry Super to have call centre jockeys giving Illegal Rollover Advice.
2)[b] Advice level playing field[/b][b][/b], it is completely unacceptable to have zero compliance Intra Fund Sales Advice at the same time have the most over regulated and costly red tape Real World Advice.
3) Hidden Commissions from All members to pay for very few members using Intra Fund Advice Must be stopped. This is a complete rort from Industry Super, who for years complained about commissions and is now the only ones charging hidden commissions – Compare the Pair – what a rort.
4) Short form SoA’s, short form PDS’s, etc as ASIC previously promised by didn’t deliver.
5) FARSEA Code must be made to be real world usable. Standards 3, 5 and 6 are completely unworkable in the real world.
6) AFCA to be brought out of Kangaroo Court status, Advisers have right to appeal as much as the clients complaining do. Some normal legal rules must apply to make it somewhat fairer to Advisers.
Be great to see the LIBs make a start to unravel the 20 years of ever increasing BS Red Tape and REGS mountains.
Why keep SOA’s? When was the last time your doctor, accountant or lawyer handed you an advice document that costs thousands and took a week to put together. If we have higher education standards, the exam, CPD and a code of ethics, then why shouldn’t we have a similar regulatory regime to other professions?
Absolutely.
There are two parts to professionalism – the acceptance of higher standards (a la education, code of ethics, etc) and in return for accepting that burden, certain privileges.
Yet for some reason, for ten years it’s been all about adding more and more to the burden.
Sure get rid of SoA’s, but first lets get some real action in place before dreaming of Nirvana : – )
It would be good to see the Liberals implement some of your suggestions but unfortunately, IT IS THE LIBERAL PARTY that created alot of these issues. I will never vote liberal again.
Be careful, if this is what we ended up with under LNP, imagine what Labour will do.
Imagine what we would end up with under Labour. I shudder to think.
Pretty simple. Isn’t it !?
You missed the one about product providers using advisers as salespeople. Cut ties between product providers and advisers and most of the problems disappear.
Yes absolutely true.
The main thing the RC should have done but didn’t.
If Hume means whatever the FPA wants, then they are not speaking for thousands of non-aligned advisers, who don’t want to become 21st century AMP styled tied agents (as per the 1980s).
I have no idea what this comment means – in what way are the FPA lobbying to restore tied-agency arrangements?
From what I understand, the big part of their policy proposal – individual licensing – would actually shift us even further away from tied-agency?
By the FPA actively supporting intrafund personal “advice” fees, that are charged without informed consent & with no opt out provisions. Intrafund is tied agency
My word, I wrote a comment this morning and you still haven’t published any. What is happening? Are you going broke?
Now grandfathered commissions are gone, the major relief is to eliminate ongoing annual/bi-ennial opts ins, where a client has provided informed consent (via an SoA) for ongoing fees. If the Industry funds advisers can collect $100 million pa in ongoing remuneration without chasing up Opt ins, then so should the remaining advisers. Currently the playing field is as level at the Himalayas.
Sen Hume will be providing “further relief to advisers”. This indicates she has already done something that has made our life easier. Besides allowing industry funds to have a discussion with clients re the withdrawing $10k, can someone please point me in the direction of what other relief has been provided.
Very good question…
Updates from the government you have to be kidding they are the ones who have helped destroy the industry . Check the numbers you morons print articles of relevant
Well done ? Jane!
Just scrap fasea and education requirements for existing advisers. Job done its not that hard.
Someone from Jane Hume’s office called me recently, responding to an email I sent earlier in the year. I’m just a one man show, with no clout whatsoever, so it was nice to get a phone call rather than the usual standard form letter I have received from others in years gone by. This particular person seemed to have some genuine empathy for our predicament. Pretty much said she felt government bureaucrats with little understanding of our profession have had too much sway regarding regulatory changes in the past and that financial advisers have not been consulted or involved in the decision making process as much as they should have been. I am paraphrasing here. It was obviously music to my ears. I am very skeptical after the treatment we have endured for the last 2 decades, so I won’t believe the pendulum is swinging back in our favour until I see concrete action (and I’m not talking about BS $300 ROA’s for super withdrawals). But maybe there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon?
If you haven’t already done so, reach out to your local politicians and tell them about our plight. They need to hear from us and maybe the message is finally getting through?
Spot -on
The whinging in comment threads does nothing but feed the negative impression of our industry. I’ve personally spoken to two federal politicians on this issue. One was so up themselves that it was a waste of time (no longer in parliament). The other a National party member was shocked when I explained what was happening in our industry.
Well done. That is the way to go.
Any commonsense reform measures would be welcomed…if there are any advisers left by then
If it wasn’t so farcical I might actually be optimistic. However Hume and the rest of the clowns running the asylum have no idea what we have been put through, going through and will have to go through.
An amazing and very welcome change in tone. Thank you.