An email from senator Rex Patrick to AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston, seen by ifa, said the senator will insist on the amendment if it is rejected by the House of Representatives, meaning the bill is likely to be sacrificed by the government as the House cannot force the Senate to vote on the bill in its original form.
“The bill having passed the Senate, where people were trying to pressure me not to do the right thing, it is now in the hands of the government, where good people such as yourself can pressure them to do the right thing,” Mr Patrick said.
“You need to apply that pressure because if the bill is rejected by the House and comes back to the Senate, I will ask the Senate to insist on the amendment.”
Mr Patrick’s amendment relates to bringing grandfathered large proprietary companies into ASIC’s reporting regime, which the senator said “creates an environment that may very well encourage aggressive tax minimisation behaviour”.
“The Coalition government opposed the amendment, despite Minister Hume not being able to give any policy reason for doing so. However, it was supported by Labor, the Greens, and the crossbench, all of whom don’t want the exemption, which applies to many of Australia’s ‘rich listers’, to remain,” Mr Patrick said.
Mr Patrick said that he was “fully supportive of [the advice] industry getting the extensions that it needs”, but would not back down on forcing the government to address the loophole, to the extent that he proposed to hold up successive Treasury omnibus bills until his amendment was accepted.
“I foreshadowed putting the same amendment to other Treasury bills – so that the government get the idea that they just need to deal with the loophole. I have drafting instructions in for another bill that is before the Senate. I am hopeful to circulate those amendment on Monday so the government get the idea,” he said.
Mr Patrick suggested the advice industry lobby government ministers to accept the amendment as the only possible option to save the bill.
“It’s out of my hands now,” he said.
Suggest every adviser in Australia that cares about an extension contacts Rex Patrick at his Centre Alliance Party asap.
For those who were proactive and got the exam out of the way in the last 12 months, this isn’t an issue. Only those who are slow on the uptake are the ones who are affected
Yeah Like 70% of of advisers
Financial Advisers have put their destiny in the hands of others for far too long. Whether that’s been AMP, or some large licensee or the FPA. But that can’t continue. I’m reminded by the Royal Commissioner who, after hearing from the FPA said they cannot be trusted to be a code monitoring body. Hence we lost our chance at self regulation and this outcome is an example what happens when you continue to trust parties like the FPA or someone else to represent you. We cannot continue doing what we’ve been doing in the past. You can’t leave it to the FPA to represent you, you can’t leave it to your licensee to speak up for you. We need to take back our destiny and put it firmly back in the hands of advisers. For the sake of Australians, your business valuation, your career, don’t renew membership of the FPA, it’s time for change, otherwise legislation like this will just keep happening.
this is just weird.
[quote=Anonymous]We all switched off after the first few sentences. So have you passed the exam yet? If not, good luck with it. [/quote][quote=Anonymous]We all switched off after the first few sentences. So have you passed the exam yet? If not, good luck with it. [/quote]
Missing the point
[quote=Wrong Site ]I just wasted 3 minutes reading this rant, I bill via 6 minute increments and will charge you accordingly. You know people don’t like holier than thou people that come on here just to say I told you so. Why waste your time if you have nothing constructive to offer? Very odd behaviour[/quote][quote=Wrong Site ]
Bit like the ones who keep posting about how they have passed already ??
An idiot
All those people on here who discredit the AIOFP at any chance they get should ask the FPA and AFA if they have bothered to contact the senator directly. Seems like only 1 association that is actually trying to help advisers!
Very funny. Everyone knows the AIOFP are a laughing stock.
Whilst I am not a member of the AIOFP, I would state that it would be a professional group because it’s members “willing” join… unlike most FPA members who are forced to join due to a “backroom” deal done, and some FPA advisers even get discounts based on who they work for. Given members of the FPA (professional partner program) are large institutions and the damage they’ve cause to advice with over regulation, surely I would question the ethics of individuals that want to be part of that collective, and renewing membership sends a clear sign they are complicit and supportive of that behaviour and relationship .
They have a direct line to the senator who is holding up the bill and the’re a laughing stock. I’d hate to hear your opinion of the AFA or FPA. They are too busy flogging redundant courses to bother advocating for the advisers they are supposed to represent.
Alex, you are spot on the money. The AIOFP, the Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association, FINSIA and the SMSF Association lodged a joint effort to get a FASEA extension tabled. The FPA were invited but refused to join in a joint effort. It was great to see these two “professional” bodies and another two industry bodies” put aside their differences to lobby for advisers. Whilst the self interest of the FPA is clearly on display. Whilst I have passed my exam, I do feel given CORVID 19 we should be kind to our fellow advisers. I would not be renewing your FPA membership.
So, there we have it. An omnibus bill. Many items related or not on the one bill. Agree to all or none. That is the option. So perhaps, this is how the government wanted this to play out. Knowing full well they would like to destroy the advice industry once and for all for their mates in the Financial Service Council and knowing the toxicity of what they are doing that this was going to get of side with a senator or 2. This is our government folks and the opposition at their filthiest. They knew this would happen and anticipated so. Otherwise, why was this not addressed back in September or February as we were all told that both sides agree to the extension. They lied and expected us to blame…err this senator…. point the finger, it’s not us, its them. What a sick pathetic joke. Let us start informing our staff about closures folks. Oh, and for those that remain, good luck also as the LIF review is almost near, more courses by 2024 and not 2026. Meanwhile markets are tanking again, and volatility abounds, people still are retiring and dying and if AFSL’s go, more revenue you say, how about more compliance and you are in the target of AFCA. These are idiots running the show and the people to blame are the FPA and AFA and AIOFP for sitting doing nothing accept giving platitudes of assurance, the FSC and Minsters on both sides and YOU THE ADVISER. Yes you. when you had the opportunity to do something about your association’s stupidity. Did you keep paying their damn fees. When you were thrown under the bus with the FASEA exam and its brutal approach of no transparency and honesty, you know those ethics, did you find them unethical in approach? So, what did you do? Nothing except finger point at anything and everyone. Little wonder why this industry and its practitioners now are in trouble. Shame on each one of the advisers who sought to kick any adviser for speaking out. Such fools. All of you. The advice industry be you an accountant or planner is dead. Costs to keep a client will rise because of overreach compliance and the swine that created promoted and enabled this face from the AFA FPA AIOFP Government Minister Hume and Libs/Nat, Labor and of course the Financial Services thieves I mean Council. All these people and their enablers, such as the naive adviser who thought their association was fighting for them are at fault. AFC will do their number on those that remain, lawyers will get rich as a result as they do in all forms of litigation and the consumer is screwed. Imagine if during a pandemic, they got rid of doctors with experience and knowledge. This is what is happening to the financial service sector. You have been played for fools. Here in this article is the proof.
Well that’s a long winded rant. No wonder Twitter has a word limit. IFA should do the same.
If you are actually a Lawyer, and it’s not a nom de plume, why are you posting to this forum?
We really don’t care what you think.
exactly, and he keeps referring to himself as an honest lawyer. there is no such thing as an honest lawyer. they don’t exist except in John Grisham’s novels.
Grisham is a trained lawyer himself and that is why his books are fiction.
silly person. just go away…
I just wasted 3 minutes reading this rant, I bill via 6 minute increments and will charge you accordingly. You know people don’t like holier than thou people that come on here just to say I told you so. Why waste your time if you have nothing constructive to offer? Very odd behaviour
He is right and if you all take a good hard look at what has happened you would agree with most of what is said.
We all switched off after the first few sentences. So have you passed the exam yet? If not, good luck with it.
You triggered?
Thanks Terry. welcome back. we missed ya.
The honest Lawyer is spot on the money. I bet he doesn’t work at ASIC though
The criticism of Patrick is interesting. If the bill had Labor support, it would be a non-issue, so don’t just criticise Patrick. If you want to make that comment, you must add the other parties into your criticism – Labor, Greens etc.
The first round of the FASEA exams were now 12 months ago. For those that claim politicians are holding the advice industry wake up to yourselves. Sit the exam, complete the bridging courses – i already have. You are only sabotaging yourself and delaying the inevitable. I hope the bill isn’t passed so the stubborn dinosaurs are forced to leave the industry and we can move on….
Sounds like you have no clients,family,friends or business to run,unlike the rest of us dinosaurs.
Im with you my friend. Its easier to blame everyone but yourself.
If many of us have done it, why the rest haven’t? with an average of close to 80%+ pass rate…. give me one more year please! its not that hard people. unless you’re not suited to be tested, which says a lot to clients.
If I was going to a doctor that refuses to have his skills (even if its ethical ones) tested, why should I go to him/her? and not the one that has done it in a timely manner?
No one is asking all Dr’s to complete a ethics exam part way through there careers. That’s right, Drs qualify and then they compete ongoing education just as Financial Planners have – but they don’t have to re qualify.
Perhaps you should ask your Dr when they completed their qualification?
Though no one is telling the Doctor/s or Lawyer/s or Accountant/s who’ve studied over the years and continue to via CPD that they need to retrain in order to keep doing their jobs, or that they have to sit an exam to ensure they’re suitable to keep their profession.
good quote my friend ‘who have studied over the years’, we know many advisers today that have not done any studies whatsoever and this is a good way to flush them out for good.
We haven’t seen a whole practice of doctors closed because of unethical behavior, but yet, we have with financial advisers.
I think just do the exam, subject or degree and keep on moving with your practice.
So you are ok with the FPA and AFA setting the now precedent to just roll over and give up on financial advisers
Only to the ones that are too lazy to do a simple exam and a graduate diploma level course with more than 1.5 years notice, yes.
We should focus on the ones that can lead and not the old, i’m better because I have field experience alone.
The fact that you chose to be an adviser earlier than others doesn’t make you a better adviser (or are older), the ones who can constantly learn and develop their knowledge and be really tested on these, should be the ones standing after this.
Overall there will be collateral damage but starting with a clean sheet of professional advisers I believe is better than keeping all the ones we currently have.
Still missing the point. The precedent has now been set the government and the powers that be know that they can and will use financial planners as political fodder when ever they want to or see a need to. It doesn’t matter who or what you think make the industry professional, the fact is the associations AND financial planners as a whole sat back and allowed this to all happen.
100% correct.. Do the exam or just P*** off and stop complaining!!
9 exams, actually
it is the easiest exam in the history of mankind. I have sat many exams, maybe 50 or 60 this is easy.
don’t worry about it, just register and have a go, I did no study at all. that’s the god’s honest truth.
zero study and still passed.
Again I say – you must have had an easy question set. My questions were completely irrelevant, poorly worded and even had mistakes in them. Don’t be so superior and make assumptions about the ease of the exam.
the pass rate has been averaging over 80%….seems easy enough if u know your shit…
Don’t bet on it. Not if you get a crappy question set.
LOL Move onto what you nincompoop? More compliance BS?
Third line forcing occurs when a business will only supply goods or services, or give a particular price or discount on the condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a particular third party. If the buyer refuses to comply with this condition, the business will refuse to supply them with goods or services. (Source ACCC)
If only the government had to follow the rules set for others! (I have passed the exam)
sounds like the Financial Planning industry.
Another reason why we should not put our faith in politicians of any flavour. If the extensions were important to the government they would not have been buried in an Omnibus Bill. The system is bigger than all the best will in the world of an individual politician; while we all love what Jane Hume has been saying that she will do in the lower house- you must realise their is an overall lack of will- there is still no prioritisation of our profession in the parliament, particularly among the disparate rabble that is the Australian Senate. We all need to control our own destiny and do what needs to be done not relying on a broken upper house to deliver change.
Mike you are an arsehole. You have no idea of what’s happening in the real world.
Who’s Mike?
David. Maybe you would be more suited to flogging used cars. Advice might be too advanced. It is not personal, just the way it is. Fyi. It would appear I am more a part of the real world (qualified advisers) than you are.
So Rex Patrick is effectively blackmailing the financial advice industry and holding them to ransom.
Well done Senator Patrick…well done.
i passed so I really do not care. I do care though about self obsessed obscure senators that seem to think that hijacking parliament is perfectly ok.
Your attitude is interesting.
It’s akin to saying that because you don’t have cancer you don’t really care about those who do.
It’s great that you have passed.
By stating that you don’t care either means that it no longer concerns you or you really do not care about those remaining advisers for a whole variety of valid reasons have not yet passed the exam.
If it’s the latter, then that is of some concern and incredibly disappointing.
So People like Patrick who are elected only on the preferences of other minority candiudiates are prepared to sacrifice an industry because they want the Government to legislate on an unrelated topic. We saw during the FOFA debate that sensible shanges were scuppred because Palmer & Lambie blocked the proposed legislation to spite the Government.
Patrick needs to be told that punishing the advice industry by refusing legilsation that he actually supports to blackmail the Government in regard to other legislation is the worst type of government that we can have and just another reason why we shouldn’t have the fringe lunatic minorities presiding over legislation.
Who cares. There is no reason why a competent adviser should not have passed the exam by year end. I passed in the first round with 1 day of study. Just get on with it.
Spot on Mike, same here. Cannot understand why this is still a topic.
Totally concur
Clearly you have too much time on your hands and not enough clients if you have enough time to do the exam.
Clearly you have no idea on how to prioritise your time. What is more important than passing the exam in time? If you don’t pass, what will your clients do without you? Just go to another adviser who passed the exam….lol
Mike lucky you. Your question set must have been a good one. I studied for five weeks and my questions this round were absolutely ridiculous. Nothing to do with anything we do on a daily basis. If I fail, which I hope I don’t, I have absolutely no idea about how to prepare differently. We need the extension in case other people fall into the same situation.
“You must’ve had a good question set….”
yet you think i didn’t know my shit….
You’re the one looking for excuses….studied hard but got bad questions….
Too much time has been spent on trying to get this extension, as Mike says. Literally spend 8-10 hours studying and half a day out of the office to sit it and move on.
These things have to be expected due to the weak spine that the FPA has shown through this whole process. They let themselves get pushed around and thats not going to stop as they have shown they are an easy target.
Hi, can anyone provide insight as to why the Liberal government opposes bringing large prop companies into ASICs reporting regime?
Glad financial advisers don’t have a business to run and clients dealing with government shutdowns to help.
Clearly you have no idea on how to prioritise your time. Maybe you should spend less time in the comments section, you’re always here. What is more important than passing the exam in time? No pass, no business, no clients. Just do it & stop whingeing
what a stupid thing to say