The minister for financial services has backed the Quality of Advice Review, emphasising the “important opportunity” it provides to “streamline and simplify” the regulatory settings in a statement issued on Thursday.
Mr Jones disclosed that as part of delivering on the government’s commitment to ensure Australians have access to “high-quality and affordable financial advice”, he recently met with the independent reviewer Michelle Levy.
“I am pleased with the progress of the review, and the significant contribution that the financial advice industry, consumer bodies and regulators have made to the review’s progress to date,” Mr Jones said, adding that he supports the review continuing under the current Terms of Reference.
“I look forward to receiving the Review’s final report and recommendations on 16 December 2022,” the minister noted.
Alongside the review, Mr Jones said he remains committed to “looking at reforms now to assist financial advisers in being able to meet the needs of their clients including the education requirements for experienced financial advisers”.
QAR attracts high number of submissions
The Quality of Advice Review has garnered a large number of submissions, with the likes of the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) dubbing it the industry’s “biggest hope”.
“The reality is that with an absence of key policy announcements emerging during the election campaign, the QAR must be our biggest hope of addressing the current issues in financial advice,” the AFA said last month.
Most recently key groups including the AFA, FPA, FSC, SIAA, The Adviser Association and CAANZ united in a join submission to call for a more consumer-focused regulatory approach and reduced costs.
“Existing regulatory requirements are confusing, complex, and overwhelming and mandate a one-size-fits-all advice process that neither caters for, nor considers, the individual needs and circumstances of each consumer,” the Joint Associations Working Group (JAWG) said in a statement earlier this week.
But despite numerous calls for professional standards and education requirements to be looked at in the QAR, Ms Levy said in March that while some key reforms will be addressed, professional standards will be excluded.
“These reforms will be taken into consideration as part of the regulatory framework that specifically applies to financial advice,” Ms Levy said at the time.
“However, the review will not be undertaking a detailed analysis of the operation of these reforms.”
The Labor government has made some firm commitments to implement changes on the professional standards front.
Namely, last month, during the pre-election campaign, Mr Jones said Labor would put in place “a sensible, efficient recognition of prior learning arrangements” fairly quickly.
“Sworn in, consultation process, let’s get this done.
“We want to make sure it’s in place and up and running,” Mr Jones said at the time.
Although he has since acknowledged his commitment to the cause, most recently this Thursday, advisers are yet to see real progress.
I’ll bet $100,000 that the only thing to come out of this review is special concession for this guys mates at his Union backed Industry Super Funds to funnel more money into their funds. Plus some weak ineffective token measure for actual advisers such as the exemption for advisers with 10 years of experience from the education requirements. Wanna take me up???????????????
Hard to fault your logic.
un backable odds
I’m not even prepared to give you odds of 1/1000 because I know I’ll be down a $100…
Let’s hope “they” dont make advice “more affordable” by legislating what advisers can charge for advice…
Where the FSC is involved, I have my doubts since they are so conflicted and unable to admit they got it wrong.
Where industry funds and politicians are involved – no worries about telling porkies, it was all “parliamentary privaledge”…
Whilst I have done my bit in the study department and am all ready for the future – I am yet to see anything that gives me confidence to encourouge others to enter this industry.
We get to see just how little Stephen Jones knows about financial services when he runs this up the flagpole. You have all been sold a pup and in the meantime, delivered the rest of us a nanny state government for at least the next 3 years.
As to the Levy review, unless the law is changed and, ASICs powers are curtailed, or they are given a different mandate, nothing will change. ASIC dances to its own tune, rarely fettered by pesky reviews. ATO decisions are often reviewed by the AAT and then the courts at times. Over time, it modifies the approach they take. I once had a lawyer respond when I questioned the legal standing of RGs or general guidance on ASICs website, “if you’re got deep pockets, try it out, if not, go along with it”. This is unfair and has left the bully in the playground unfettered.
Read – CARVE OUTS.
Read corrupt politics and more inflows of FUM into Industry Super funds.
Read more contributions / political donations to stay in power…from funders with a vested interest to see US gone.
Great to see that Jones is talking about [b]high quality[/b] affordable financial advice. A lot of the media focus has been on the affordability angle. But there is already plenty of affordable advice available via online channels such as “finfluencers” and “roboadvice”. Jane Hume was the champion of these advice channels, but their conflicts and poor quality make them bad options for consumers.
at least you could compete against Tik Tok….Come 2023, your FASEA code will mean it’s better to tell people to go get advice from XYZ Union Super fund because it’s free and takes 15 minutes, rather than your $3,000 fee and 3-5 meetings.
“finfluencers” and “roboadvice” – cheap and affordable?
That like trying to be a plumber in your own kitchen to save a call out fee… Get it wrong and suddenly its exceptionally expensive…just like the “advice” you get off TikTok – which you may take years to discover…or in the case of BitCoin, just 12 months.
Mr should be speaking to financial advisers and not Ms Levy as it is not up to her to determine how much a professional charges for their advice. Enough said. I wouldn’t trust any politician
Exactly this – When its legislated that we cannot charge more than $250 for a complex ASIC approved SOA, and no more than $350 to $700 for a review (the hour or two the client sat in front of us) – they will say they made advice affordable…even though there would be no-one left in business to provide it.
I would like to charge Ms Levy’s hourly rate. I think that is reasonable, don’t you?
Just a bunch of Crave outs for Product providers to sell what they want when they want and call it financial advice.
yes but clearly they don’t trust us financial planners
Come on Mr Jones… there a a lot of us waiting for you to make the announcement for how much prior learning and years of experience credits we get.
yep about 1% of the Advice population. The other 99% started in 2018 and are finished by now.
I have two subjects to go, but if I’m able to get two credits then why would I not take them?