In Thursday’s Senate estimates, Treasury officials found themselves at a loss when faced with inquiries from Liberal senator Andrew Bragg about the origin of the term “qualified adviser”.
Taking the lead in responding to the question, Andre Moore, assistant secretary of the advice and investment branch, stated that the term was a “decision of government”.
“A number of potential names had been raised by various stakeholders.”
When pressed by Mr Bragg to identify these “stakeholders”, Mr Moore responded, “I’d have to take that on notice, I don’t know.”
Asked also about the reception of the proposal, Mr Moore acknowledged that there have been “representations to the minister” expressing concerns about the name and its potential confusion for consumers.
“The final form of the package, including that name, will be sorted as we develop the legislation,” Mr Moore said.
He also touched on the legislative timeline regarding stages two and three of the government’s response to the Quality of Advice Review, notifying Senate estimates that the government intends to progress legislation “through 2024”.
ifa learnt last week that Treasury is again hosting a series of roundtables, kicking off last Friday, with stakeholders, including representatives of institutions and adviser groups, to work through the legislative and technical details of the government’s financial advice reform package.
The first roundtable was expected to address the new class of adviser, best interests duty, statements of advice, and superannuation nudges.
The roundtables are considered a standard procedure for Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones, to gather additional information before turning his focus on developing exposure drafts.
Once these exposure drafts are developed, advisers will be invited to share their input as part of a wider consultation process.
The minister’s last QAR-related announcement took place in December last year, when he delivered the government’s final thoughts on the multiple stages of its QAR response.
At the time, he announced that not only does the government want to see superannuation funds expand their advisory powers, it also supports the creation of a new class of financial advice providers – “qualified advisers”.
Advisers were expectedly outraged with the proposal to grant workers of institutions, including banks and insurers, the title “qualified adviser”, especially since they might only have a few weeks of education and a diploma.
Member bodies, including the Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA), have since assured that the minister intends to change the title in line with feedback he has received.
They want you raging about the term so when they make it more reasonable you wasted your time overr a tiny victory.
Leave that beige cardigan wearer Andrew Moore from treasury alone! The “qualified adviser” name was likely thought up by the creative agency for Industry Super Australia namely The Shannon Company who coined “compare the pair”.
i dont buy it
How about using the name “UNQUALIFIED ADVISERS” to refer to ALL advisers that have not met the education standards including advisers that have only met the experienced pathway criteria.
“potential confusion for consumers.”
Let’s not mince words here.
The term is insidious.
It’s design was to purposefully confuse and deceive consumers.
Someone needs to be held responsible.
An unmitigated, abject disgrace !
This disgusting term “stakeholders” always appears to exclude financial advisers.
The only voices that count are those of the Industry Funds.
“Taking the lead in responding to the question, Andre Moore, assistant secretary of the advice and investment branch, stated that the term was a “decision of government”.
“A number of potential names had been raised by various stakeholders.”
When pressed by Mr Bragg to identify these “stakeholders”, Mr Moore responded, “I’d have to take that on notice, I don’t know.””
Too scared to mention the ISF name????
i sense BS