Speaking to ifa on the sidelines of an event in Sydney, the Financial Services Minister said proposed changes to section 99fa of the SIS Act do not attempt to change arrangements currently in place.
“All we are attempting to do is ensure that the law confirms the status quo. That’s what we’re trying to do,” Jones said.
“[We’re not trying to] change any arrangements that are currently in place. Levy’s review said current practice was not supported by the law, so we said, ‘OK, let’s sort that’.”
Jones also confirmed that if needed, the government would “sort through some of the details”, hinting at the possibility of responding to industry pressure by including assurances directly in the legislation rather than relying solely on the explanatory memorandum.
Namely, the advice profession recently learnt that the government had amended the explanatory memorandum (EM) of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes Bill to clarify that it does not require a rigorous review of each statement of advice (SOA). Despite this, the profession and legal experts have argued that changes to the EM are not adequate and that the legislation itself needs to be amended.
But Jones clarified on Tuesday that while sorting out details is a possibility, he doesn’t want it to be a “distraction from the main game”.
“The main game is getting on to the second tranche of reforms,” he said.
Moreover, the minister again confirmed that he does not expect superannuation trustees to check every single piece of advice documentation.
“They won’t have to check the individual statement of advice, they’ll put in a risk-based approach, as they are supposed to today. They should be continuing the process they have in place today.”
While the advice profession is broadly supportive of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, it has expressed fierce opposition to a reworked section 99fa of the SIS Act, arguing that it would only exasperate the red tape and therefore the cost of advice.
The changes proposed in the bill, as interpreted by the profession and some members of the legal profession, suggest that funds need to review clients’ SOAs before they can satisfy members’ requests for payment of advice.
Does anyone really believe that we came to the situation we are now in. It was obvious right from the start.
Simon Creans words were at a ACTU congress many years ago we will control the capital and the people.
Job done.
This clown will fix it just the way the unions and labor want it fixed and that is to drive the financial planning business into the ground. Leaving their mates with the control of clients money. It is simply communism slowly but surely coming in. Control the finances of the people you control the people!!
Don’t worry about Unqualified Advisers masquerading as Qualified Advisers, we now have an Unqualified Politician masquerading as a Qualified Politician !!!
As Tom Gleeson would say on Hard Quiz………. OUT !!!!!
When an Australian retires and moves their funds to pension phase they are meant to have full access to their OWN funds.
Yet Stephen Jones now wants super funds trustees to supervise and authorise pension withdrawals.
Controlling pension withdrawals, and imposing ne taxes with their NON-indexed $3 million balance, shows that Labor is decimating people’s faith in the superannuation system.
Mr Jones is not good for customers or advisers. Just union funds.
Not good for Australians period has and will drive up the costs and red tape for advisers who help clients and not their vertically integrated employer product manufacturers. Disgusting
Become a “Profession” they said – it will all be better they said?
Foresight in becoming a “Profession” – now we have Trustees (who have their eye on FUM?) with authority over our decisions?
And no experience in advice
This addresses nothing. What a putz
Being a financial adviser seems to be the only profession in Australia where the biggest risk in practicing is legislative and regulatory risk emanating from Canberra.
No other profession would tolerate such nonsense.
“All we are attempting to do is ensure that the law confirms the status quo. That’s what we’re trying to do,” Jones said.
Well then, is that official – Treasury is to blame?
I don’t understand why this minister engages in so much defensive conduct. Accept that you screwed up the legislation as has been echoed by numerous lawyers and fix the mess that was drafted.
Let’s face it, we have been led down a garden path by both major parties with so many promises. The unfortunate outcome in every situation seems to be the opposite of the promises, being higher operating costs, more compliance and more unnecessary change and uncertainty in our daily operations. This is not musical chairs, leave us alone to get on with doing business and helping clients.
I’m truly concerned that after years of fee hikes there is a ceiling on what we can charge clients. Does the Government not understand this?
This guy truly is a Muppet, with the Industry Super movement as his puppeteers.
Sorry, my fees are rising considerably on 1 July 2024.
Inflation plus INCRESED red tape necessitate a very significant fee increase.
Where is the red tape relief ?
It would be nice if all advisers disclosed what they charged so we could all bring the line up. We are not charging enough
all advisers should start itemising their bills with separate line items for ASIC tax, CSOLR tax, Government imposed PI tax etc
I don’t officially itemise it, although I absolutely say that much of the cost is driven by Government legislation and ASIC fees etc.
I do encourage clients to take it up with whoever their Federal Member is.
I don’t make the rules, however I must follow them = significantly higher fees.
See? told you there was noting to see here. All good, Stevie said so.
Don’t you just love Jones’ colloquial language on everything to do with Financial Services legislation.
” ok, let’s sort that”
” sort through some of the detail”
” distraction from the main game”
and………the winner is….
” fix the hot mess” !!
What a joke.
Why don’t you act and communicate like the Senior Minister you are and take control of this situation as you promised you would do.?
Otherwise, your tenure will be short lived when you are booted from the “main game”.
But Jones clarified on Tuesday that while sorting out details is a possibility, he doesn’t want it to be a “distraction from the main game”.
Please allow me to translate this from political speak into something we can all understand: “But Jones clarified on Tuesday that while sorting out details is a possibility, he doesn’t want “the necessary level of thought, attention and detail to be a distraction from the primary objective, which is to truly stuff this up”.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt early on Minister, but you are all talk and NO action!
Heck, the one opportunity in over a YEAR to get a SINGLE quick win (by placing an apostrophe in some legislation) saw you prioritise a trip to Singapore rather than show some ministerial backbone and making a call to get it right.
So stop using sporting analogies, making idle chit chat, treating our industry with contempt and actually get something done.
I’ll make it easy for you if you’re struggling with what’s next.
1. Stop with all the shenanigans,
2. Admit to yourself (and us) that you have no intentions of fixing any issues because you’re conflicted,
3. Resign or put the feet up on the desk until the next election.
It is clear that Jones is out of his depth. The statement that “current practice was not supported by the law” is false. It’s so false that it is disqualifying. If the law he is referring to is the SIS Act, then I have two questions: Which part of the SIS Act does not “support the practice”? And secondly, why are you not fixing the SIS Act if that is where the problem is?
Jones must not have watched or been briefed on the Senate hearing. Does he not know that the head of the Law Council described the change of language as “prohibitive”? Does he not know that the head of ASFA admitted that some of her members have already received advice to “check every SOA”?
If this is incompetence, then it’s disqualifying. If it’s not, and he is part of the non-profit brigade, marching to ideological tunes, that is also disqualifying. This man had every opportunity to easily fix the hot mess that is financial services, yet he’s allowed himself to be a useful tool against the whole for-profit profession.
“[We’re not trying to] change any arrangements that are currently in place. Levy’s review said current practice was not supported by the law, so we said ‘ok let’s sort that’.”
Of all the things Labor promised at election time – and this is what they are concentrating on?
Come elections time, I wonder what I should do?
It doesn’t matter what he thinks, the advice from lawyers is the change does not retain the status quo and the EM is not sufficient. So either fix it or stop talking. The fact he is fighting this so hard, when the fix is simple, proves the true intent of the change, which is to stop clients from using their monies to pay for advice.
Can you trust a word he says?
You better believe it. “The main game is getting onto the second tranche of reforms,” he said.
Yep Jonesy and Industry Super are gaging to roll out on mass
– Uneducated,
– Unqualified,
– BackPacker Call Centers to
– Flog Single Industry Fund Only Products,
– Vertically Owned & Integrated.
And these Uneducated, Unqualified BackPacker Call Centers will be paid via HIDDEN COMMISSIONS charged to every member of Industry Super when most over 98% of Members pay HIDDEN COMMISSIONS for NO SERVICE.
Hidden Commissions?? No that wouldn’t happen haven’t you seen the escalator comparison??
Please stop reporting anything this clown has to say