In an update sent to members, AFA chief executive Philip Kewin said it has written to FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield to express its concerns, and would also raise its concerns with Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert.
With regard to FASEA’s education standard, AFA expressed surprise that, despite having received 92 submissions, FASEA chose to announce only two changes as a result of its consultation, which were:
- the addition of financial planning to the list of subjects included in the assessment of a relevant degree; and
- the provision of two credits (as opposed to one) for financial advisers who have between four and seven relevant subjects as part of the completion of a non-relevant degree.
The AFA was also surprised that the final standard was announced only five working days after submissions closed.
“As the legislative instrument is only a list of approved degrees and there is little more detail in the explanatory statement, we remain particularly concerned about the continuing lack of clarity in this area,” Mr Kewin said.
“We were greatly disappointed by the lack of change in response to our submission, particularly given the number of constructive recommendations that we provided.”
On FASEA’s code of ethics, the AFA noted concerns about the lack of clarity on what is required of advisers, we well as whether the practical reality of operating as an adviser has been taken into consideration in the drafting of the code of ethics standards.
It was also surprised that the new CPD requirements have been released with effect from 1 January 2019 and that the financial advice sector has had no time to plan or prepare.
Lastly, the AFA flagged its concerns around the FASEA exam.
“The AFA continues to have a number of concerns with respect to the exam in terms of the curriculum, the cost, the length, type of questions, feedback for unsuccessful candidates, frequency/locations/access and alignment with study towards complying with the education standard,” Mr Kewin said.
@ Patriot, agree with the sentiment. On that matter, it seems that Financial Planners just don’t give a rats. I think it’s the licensing system in Australia that creates this attitude. As planners it’s as if we just think, AMP or MLC or Financial Wisdom will act for me. Then if they don’t then the FPA will….but then the FPA get’s money from all of the above so they are not going to act for planners are they.
Until we get rid of this licensing system we won’t be professionals. No amount of education will lift our profession in the eyes of the Government when the FPA is getting payments from their buddies before the Royal Commission. At the moment we’re like the Doctor being licensed and authorized to act by the Cigarette Company.
Yes we can vote independent.. yet we have to a)have a candidate and b) that candidate needs to be on our side. continue to lobby Stuart Robert and Josh Frydenberg. they dont respond to me (even though Stuart is my MP and I have raised it face to face with him last year… and he agreed with me!). I have now to tell him I and my network will not be voting for him unless he starts to listen to the coal face of our industry. Sadly, most advisers I speak with have not bothered to lobby believing it a waste of time… they are resigned to being shafted. What a poor attitude! my licencee has the same view.. lazy and stupid. please, those who read this, act and speak with your MP and urge family and friends to do the same. Revolution happens this way – people taking back their power. Yellow Vests and the like.. emulate them.
As an Industry (i.e., all staff) we should work together to create a voting block at the next election. As an industry this would cause politicians to think twice. Look what happened at the Division of Wentworth. It we vote for independents, no major party would control the house.
The whole timetable of FASEA needs to be reviewed. Its so blatantly obvious that they are pushing all this crap through ASAP to meet legislated deadlines without considering any impacts or consequences properly.
Announcing standards just 5 days after submission and releasing instruments just before Christmas when no one is paying attention is sweeping stuff under the old rug and is deceitful at best. Typical politician behavior. The deadlines MUST be extended so why is the AFA and FPA not lobbying on that point?
Shouldn’t you do the study first before sitting an exam? Is that not how our entire education system works? And if not, then why do we need to do courses if you have already passed the exam?
Its all back to front. The exam deadline is less than 24 months away (with no guidance still available) but the study can be deferred for another 5 years. CRAZY. C’mon AFA/FPA wake up and address the real issues. Get the minister top adjust the stupid timetable that Odwyer created.
I have a Bachelor of Commerce. And a Graduate Diploma AQF Level 8 covering topics such as Superannuation and retirement planning
Superannuation and Tax
Insurance
Taxation & Investments.
other subjects covering law, finance, corps law, investments and derivatives.
As the subject did not have a “financial planning construction subject” the whole Course is deemed to be non-relevant and is equivalent to a Arts Degree. Having done the DFP and 20 years of expereince I gave that unit a miss. My submission to FASEA called for all Finance Degrees be considered “relevant” given the need for annual exam and ethics unit. Did they listen? No. What is the lesson. Do the minimum in life as far as education.
To be a Registered Tax agent you just submit past qualification. The TPB don’t knock you back because your Uni was closed or your degree is too old. FASEA is a just a rort.
Anne, perhaps you can take this up with Amelia Constantinidis, Standards Director at FASEA – who holds no FP qualifications nor has any advice experience. Amelia is also on the Board of Financial Executive Women (FEW) no doubt advancing the cause of women just like you.
Amelia has never not once been a planner spent a career going into financial practices updating systems like COIN how did someone with a Bach on Science and a two tafe courses even get elected into a position like this good makes you wonder wow just wow
You have been dudded. FASEA are out of control. They are acting outside their mandate and against the spirit of the legislation. What they are now doing is nothing like the recommendations in the Financial Systems Inquiry and the Parliamentary Joint Committee which led to the formation of FASEA. With a bachelor of commerce and Grad Dip covering those topics, you absolutely should not have to undertake any further study. The purpose was to raise standards up to a minimum relevant degree, not to force those of us who already have degrees to go back to uni. I urge you to write to your local minister and also the minister in charge of financial services, Stuart Robert – stuart.robert.mp@aph.gov.au
I have a Masters degree in Financial Planning and it is not approved due to tricky fine-print in the legislative instrument. I suspect the majority of degree-qualified planners will wake up and find themselves in the same boat. Clearly FASEA is conflicted with the majority of the board working currently or previously at universities. This is the body which has been set up to remove conflicts and improve the standards for our profession!!! It is crystal clear to anyone who scratches the surface that they are abusing their power to help themselves and their mates. Do they have no shame? This is a scandal and it will soon be discovered by the mainstream media, who will relish the opportunity to drag our industry through the mud again. Kelly O’Dwyer created this monster, where is she now?
I have a Bachelor of business management and only 1 subject shy of having a related degree because I changed from accounting half way through. However, I also have CFP, Adv. diploma FP, SMSF accred., margin lending acced. copious amounts of CPD points and 7 years of experience as a practising planner. And yet, a lawyer or accountant right now is technically going to have to do less study than I am. It just makes no sense to me!
Would you mind explaining the tricky fine print reference? I also have a MFP and I am curious if I am impacted by what you are referring to?
Look up your course in the legislative instrument (link below). It’s a long list, so hopefully your course is covered. Then check the conditions. If you have one of the 17 courses with no conditions, you have won the FASEA lottery and there is nothing else required. But the majority of courses have specific subjects which must have been completed (an average of 9) and this is where it get’s bizarre. There is no allowance for subjects exempted by the uni for RPL and some subjects on the list are electives. Some subjects (like super and insurance for example) are compulsory for some courses and not for others. Some courses have mandatory subjects in fields like management, marketing and statistics, absolutely nothing to do with a financial planning curriculum. I suspect the majority of us will find our courses are not approved. The only ones who can apply for a course to be added to the list are the universities themselves, so is it any wonder there are long lists of retrospectively compulsory subjects? They will now flog us the extra subjects. Some courses have even gone to the extreme of having 13 or more subjects that are mandatory. This is for masters degrees which only have 12 subjects. Now that’s really taking the piss!
Best of luck. Here is the list….
https://www.fasea.gov.au/relevant-providers-degrees-qualifications-and-courses-legislative-instrument/
PS. If you have been dudded, I urge you to write to your local minister and also the minister in charge of financial services, Stuart Robert – stuart.robert.mp@aph.gov.au
The Legislative instrument for approved qualifications has 3 levels and these are very specific: 1) Institution and name of course, 2) Year commenced/completed and 3) Required subjects you must have done. If you miss any one of the criteria you don’t have an approved degree. For example Kaplan Grad Dip FP completed in 2009 or before is not approved, only one commenced/completed in 2010 or after. It’s a very problematic standard.
you have just highlighted how many are going to get caught out. this is going to catch out a lot of people who already have a relevant qualification
Yes, based on the standard as it is, very few people have an approved degree as it is mostly qualifications done in the last few years only. What is worse, and likely not understood yet, is that many qualifications fail as “approved” AND also may not be “relevant” either based on that separate definition. That means starting from scratch.
That is terrible. It was clear on the first drafting that Advisers like you rised having their Masters of FP being ignored. You’re not alone sadly and FASEA is clearly in the pockets of selective Universities. This is now where any planner who disagrees with FASEA is shouted down by people who have been in this industry for 2 seconds and states you’re against lifting higher education standards or… we’re told to get over it. I hope you write to your local MP and you’ll help me spread the message if the Government is doing this to us they can do it to School Teachers, Nurses and Doctors.
How many Teachers are out there that obtained there education degree prior to the invention of the internet. How can that Degree still be considered relevant when education is delivered online? If it’s happened to us then let’s get the message out it can happen to other sectors as well.
I dont think I have seen anyone argue that advisers with relevant finance degrees should need to keep studying further. That needs to be fixed, especially if someone has a MFP. That needs to be taken up with the education provider to apply to be considered an approved degree.
However, those who have just DFP, grandfathered CFP and ‘experience’ in the industry at the time advisers were akin to used car salesman should need to go back to school. They should be thankful they have been allowed to be a ‘professional’ this long, we have known these requirements were coming for years.
I have gone to my local MP regarding this…and crickets…nil…nothing…I, like many, will not be voting for him in this election…
Over Bloody Complicated ODwyer has been an absolute wrecking ball to the Advice and Super industry with the most complicated changes to super, FARSEA, LIF, worlds most restrictive terms on Independent Advisers, etc what an absolute train wreck she has been !!!
Disgusted in this Liberal party to small business Advisers especially but every Adviser too.
I’m just speechless at how FASEA can be allowed to conduct itself in this manner and wreck the lives and businesses of so many hard working, honest advisers.
I have no doubt whatsoever that [b]serious corruption[/b] is at play here. No doubt at all.
Not corruption, just a mandate well beyond the capability of the people involved. Have a look at the CV/background of the Standards Director at FASEA. That person has no FP experience or qualifications whatsoever.
The points raised by Philip Kewin are just further indicators that the good intentions of the FASEA legislation have been hijacked by conflicted course providers. It’s time for the government to suspend the whole FASEA process and commence a corruption investigation into the Board.