In its submission to the TPB’s consultation on continuing professional education (CPE) requirements for tax financial advisers (TFAs), the FPA said the board had disregarded the standards of the FASEA CPD framework in seeking to introduce its own duplicate system.
“As demonstrated in our previous submissions to the TPB over the past 18 months, and discussed at length in meetings and stakeholder forums during this period, the FASEA legislative instrument and CPE policy set extremely high standards and detailed requirements for financial planners,” the association said.
“The FPA notes that the TPB have mirrored many of the FASEA requirements in the proposed amendments to its CPE policy. However, as these proposals do not replicate in whole the higher FASEA requirements without conditions, it creates two mismatched systems that will lead to confusion and more red tape for advisers.”
The FPA said the proposal, which was announced last month and involves an increase in the number of compulsory CPE hours for advisers from 60 hours to 120 hours per three years, was confusing and created unnecessary additional obligations for practitioners.
“The FPA has received feedback from numerous practitioner members stating that the TPB draft policy requires TFAs to undertake an additional 120 hours of CPE on top of the FASEA requirement, and does not align with the record keeping time frames for FASEA CPE, which will mean that TFAs will need to maintain two sets of records,” the association said.
“Most significantly, practitioners are confused about what exact TFA services they provide that are not also personal financial advice services under the Corporations Act, and therefore what topic areas of CPE are not captured under the FASEA requirements, through the individual’s licensee-approved CPD plan, that the TPB would expect a TFA to undertake.”
The FPA criticised vague wording in the consultation that said advisers “should be able to demonstrate they have complied with CPE obligations” if they had satisfied their FASEA CPD requirements for the year.
“While this implies a willingness to accept CPE completed for FASEA purposes as meeting the TPB’s requirements, it is made conditional by the use of the words ‘should be able to’”, the association said.
“The FPA reiterates our previous key recommendation that the TPB unconditionally accept the completion of CPE for FASEA purposes, as meeting the TPB’s CPE requirements for TFAs.”
Can we get some sense here. We pay fees for being a Corporate Authorised rep member of the TPB. All our advisers pay fees. We skew our CPD from areas would should be studying to overload Tax to meet the TPBs requirement. The renewal process alone chews up time. Yet what do we get for this effort and cost? What benefit do our clients get? They get higher fees and we get less time to help them. We don’t even get access to the client portal or their transfer balance cap amounts? This is YES MINSTER stuff and some……You couldn’t make this up if you tried!!!
THE TPB just want to create CPD to justify Advisers continuing to pay a levy that is for absolutely nothing. If you want to talk about fee for not service, this is a prime example at government level. What happened to the review of the TPB which recommended Advisers should be relieved from having to be a member of the TPB?