In a statement issued just now, Senator Cormann said the government is swiftly progressing its commitment to establish an “enhanced public register of financial advisers”, as agreed to in negotiations with the Palmer United Party ahead of Labor’s failed FOFA disallowance motion.
The government will set up a “dedicated industry working group” which will “consult with all relevant stakeholders to develop the best way of setting up this public register”, the statement revealed.
Specifically the working group will assess the scope and content of the adviser register; whether reporting obligations will be placed on advisers, licensees or both; responsibility for provision and input of adviser data; and a range of relevant privacy law issues.
The composition of the industry working group has not been announced, but the statement says it will begin its consultations shortly and provide a report to government by mid-August.
Leo is quite right. A register will not capture all who can, want to and are capable to provide sound financial advice yet are not licensed through an ASIC Licensee. An adviser who chooses to leave a licensee does not suddenly become unethical, incapable and unskilled to help Australians with their money matters because they are no longer licensed through a licensee. It merely legally prevented them from helping clients because their ethics prevents them from being licensed via a licensee where there is CONFLICT OF INTEREST FROM ASSOCIATION which they cannot control. Obtaining their own ASIC license may be an option but the institutional compliance is inappropriate, very expensive, time-consuming and very onerous for an individual financial adviser. Financial advisers are human beings, not an institution or corporation.Is the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) with licensees the appropriate mechanism to appoint, monitor and supervise financial advisers? if not, what are the alternatives?
The register should also name all those struck off the register either by ASIC, due to FOS findings or by licensees where improper professional behaviour was the reason for termination of an authority. And licensees should be required to share with any prospective licensee the reasons for termination of an individuals authority. WE must get rid of and keep out all of the bad apples!
The register could also include aligned or non-aligned as a designation.
Interesting to see how this pans out. Ideally if you are not licensed you are not on the register. The register could give details of memberships (FPA etc), qualifications (CFP/ degree/ Masters etc) and experience (date first appearing on the register or date since obtaining AR status). If you are a property spruiker you are not on the register. If you are a real estate agent you are not on the register, if you are an Accountant without a AFSL and not an AR, you are not on the register. If you are running an unlicensed ‘investment’ scheme you are not on the register. If you are an unlicensed telephonist working for a product provider’s call centre you are not on the register. With a consumer awareness campaign and enshrining the term ‘Financial Planner’ this could work quite well.
Every day represents a new positive development. Well done to the government on all their hard work.
If you give advice, no more hiding behind the wall, one level advising field—ALL get registered the same as any other planner–via ASIC–so there are no secrets.
I’m not a great fan of Clive Plamer but this sounds like a very sensible suggestion. If well designed it should allow the public to see which advisers are truly independent, which are quasi-independent but have a major institutional parent company, and which are in-house advisers selling in-house products.
Makes a lot of sense.