Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones tweeted an image with the independent lead of the Quality of Advice Review (QAR), Michelle Levy, on Thursday, and acknowledged that he had “a lot to think about”.
“Great to thank Michelle Levy in person for all her hard work unpacking the issues in the financial advice industry,” Mr Jones said.
However, it has since emerged that Mr Jones does not plan to do all the “thinking” alone. In fact, according to The Australian Financial Review, the Minister intends to engage additional “expert analysis” with the intention to “stress-test” the report before bringing any recommendations to parliament.
ifa reached out to Mr Jones’ office for comment but has yet to hear back regarding when the advice community can expect to receive concrete information on the implementation of some or all of the QAR recommendations.
ifa did, however, hear from Ms Levy who, in a written statement, said: “I hoped that the review did bring expert analysis to the area and so I do not think more analysis is required”.
“But I understand why the Minister would want to speak with people and to think about what the industry would look like if the recommendations were adopted,” Ms Levy said.
“I hope that having done that he will be persuaded that they have real merit and will make good quality financial advice more affordable and more accessible.”
In her report, Ms Levy expressed hope that some of her recommendations would lead to quick wins, including those addressing charging arrangements, disclosure documents, and reporting requirements.
Ms Levy also shared that superannuation-specific recommendations would not require significant changes to the law.
Moreover, she described the new consent requirements for insurance products as “unlikely to be onerous”.
“I do not anticipate they will require an extended transition period and so they should, in my view, commence shortly after the relevant legislation is enacted,” the QAR reviewer said.
“The other recommendations will likely require a longer transition period,” she noted.
But, despite Ms Levy’s best intentions, the Minister has yet to disclose his plans.
I find interesting that superannuation funds get to review any advice we provide as financial advisers, but who will be reviewing the advice these non-relevant persons provide!?
100% – how ironic would that be!
To be fair, why would he consult with the industry if the responses on this thread are reflective of the industry participants.
He needs intelligent input and not blinkered opinions wrapped up in offensive comments
Totally agree with this comment.
Would lawyers put comments like these in the public domain?
Since when have Lawyers been subject to the constant change, government interference, Regulator biasis, prescriptive compliance, being political pawn, (and more)? I bet if they had, there would be comments all over social media. Get off your high horse! Advisers are sick of it. Its pretty simple!
The majority of comments show the frustration that is felt at being ignored for over a decade whilst people who have no idea about financial planning make changes that don’t impact them in their multi million dollar homes. Whilst I definitely don’t agree with all of the changes proposed by Ms Levy I am however confused why expert analysis is required given that she shouldn’t have been paid if she wasn’t an expert. Whilst I don’t believe a lawyer can be an expert on financial planner she has more idea than either Hayne or Trowbridge.
You can bet when he does his “expert consulting” that the real experts, the seasoned experienced senior financial advisers in the industry, WON’T be on his call list. Nothing to see here. They’ll all analyze the report, their navels and their next pay rise until they’re ready to move (on the pay rise first!). Nothing ever changes in the la la pollie land. A review of a review . . . pathetic these people we pay with our taxes!
Would not mind betting who he will consult with.
Let’s have a poll from our people as to whom they think are the likely participants.
Option 1. Industry Super reps
Option 2. Professional financial advisers
Minister Jones is intelligent enough to consult the review rather than shoving it through without a passing thought about the answers and the implications it will have for consumers or advisers. It is one thing to work out possible solutions with the consumer in mind however there are two sides to this equation which is the adviser side. How can you work out a solution to a complex simultaneous equation (the access to good financial advice) if you have not even looked at the other side of the equation. Well done to Minister Jones to seek expert analysis. He will have time to consider the adviser side of this equation
And this expert analysis will be done by ALP mates, all on the taxpayers’ tab.
Stephen Jones has no idea much the same as his party. An impotent, like the rest of them.
let’s spend more money
GET UNION AUS SUPER APPROVAL TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO INAPPROP REVIEWS
Jones has still done nothing on the “experience pathway” policy he announced more than a year ago. Now he is looking for every excuse to do nothing on QAR.
Jones is becoming the Minister for Doing Nothing. Can anyone name a single thing of substance he has actually done?
anything that is related to FoFA has been rejected he’s stated. It’s an admission of past policy failures was the gist of an AFR article and they’re not going to do that.He’s personally stated he’s not in favour of changing best interest obligations. Clearly the only measure accepted will be allowing Super funds to provide advice and recruit uneducated used car salesmen to provide advice. Will still be doing SOA just another name.
Think I’ll be voting NO on that merger given the FPA sold us down the drain again by accepting the QAR without member consultation. They’ve agreed 100% via JAWG.
They have not agreed to everything via JAWG if you read the submission from them.
Yeah, lets remove the only thing that protects advisors from themselves and more importantly retail clients. The SOA.
so now they thin about it. the RC was implemented at the drop of a hat and the damage is irreversible. I’d actually give Levy more cred than the fool who ran the RC.
Exactly Nukem, when it comes to massive increases in BS Regs via RC, instant adoption, zero consultation, Frydenberg killing Advisers to try to protect his Bank buddies / donators.
But when it comes to Advice deregulation, oh no we best review that.
Lets review a review – can we then review this review until we get what the Labour Party get what they really want – more power to the industry funds
Jones needs to get “Expert Analysis” as he isn’t competent to understand what the recommendations mean, nor the impact they will have on consumers and advisers. He will need someone to break the 276 pages down into small bites he can comprehend.
No doubt his masters at ISA will do everything to influence his thinking to align with their own. It would be too much to hope he would consult with the broad financial advice community.
I have no faith in an early adoption of these recommendations even though some of them will benefit both consumers and advisers.
He has to make sure the Unions are ok with it first!
“expert analysis” meaning get a man instead of a woman to look it over, seriously the polys need to have their head pulled in.
So, he’s going to get a review done on the review. Great!
It is one thing to ‘recommend’ changes (without practical considerations) but another to implement them.
The only time a politician acts with any speed is to accept an increase to their pay rates, or lunch with a developer. Minister Jones obviously has no knowledge of the industry and so now needs to abrogate his responsibility for making a decision to anonymous third parties… Even Ms Levy’s recommnedations aren’t perfect, but they are much more sensible than the current garbage…STEP UP and make the common sense changes as per the recommendations.
yes, my insto client base is expecting me to deliver!
My best guess is no change for at least 2 years.
Hope Steve enjoys the next ISA board meeting, because I have no doubt that’s what this means.