In April, the government opened consultations on an exposure draft bill and explanatory memorandum to recognise experienced financial advisers who pass the exam, have 10 years of experience, and a clean practice record.
At the time, Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones said that it was a “transition measure” aimed to stop the exodus of experienced advisers with no history of misconduct.
“The Albanese government is committed to an advice industry with strong professional standards that gives Australians access to high quality financial advice,” Mr Jones said.
“This has been made more difficult by the previous government’s mishandling of the new education and qualification framework.”
Under the proposed measure, an adviser would be deemed to have met the education requirements if they have 10 years (cumulative) experience providing advice between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2021, and have not recorded any disciplinary action on the Financial Advisers Register (FAR) before 31 December 2021. Advisers would still need to pass the exam.
While the new measures would allow more experienced financial advisers to stay in or return to the profession, the response to the experience pathway among advisers has been split.
In a poll on the ifa website that asked advisers if they support the experience pathway as outlined in the government’s draft bill, 51.3 per cent answered that they did not, while 46.7 per cent said they did. Only 2.1 per cent of respondents were undecided.
The results were correct as of 18 May.
The poll, which received 632 responses when it closed, is emblematic of the mixed response that the experience pathway has received.
In its submission to the government’s exposure draft bill, the Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) said many advisers feel “aggrieved” by the timing of the announcement.
“A key factor influencing member sentiment about this proposal is the timing of its introduction,” the FAAA wrote.
“The transition period by which time existing planners/advisers must have completed an approved qualification, commenced more than four years ago on 1 January 2019. Many existing financial planners/advisers, whose qualifications were not recognised by FASEA, have undertaken study during this period.
“Hence, some members feel aggrieved that they have invested substantial time and money in completing qualifications that now might not be required.”
Flipping the results of the ifa poll, the FAAA also revealed in its submission that it had surveyed the draft legislation with 1,197 respondents, of which 50.9 per cent said they were supportive of the pathway, while 49.1 per cent said they were not in favour of the proposal as drafted.
ifa’s next poll wants to know how confident you are that the government’s QAR response will be delivered in early June.
Those who have not bothered doing any study, have much to gain from the watering down of requirements, so they cannot be considered to be offering an objective viewpoint. Our industry should understand better than most that personal gain is likely to bias decision making. Through this debate, I haven’t seen any polls from consumers asking them what their views are? Is that because it’s so bleedingly obvious no-one bothered asking them what is essentially a rhetorical question? I’m in my early 40’s, with 20+ years experience, and am saddened that the future of my profession is being held hostage by a whining few. We continue to be an industry held back by our own legacy. We cannot call ourselves a profession while we still have advisers among us who are putting their own interests (time, cost, etc) ahead of the industry, their peers and the public interest).