On Thursday (16 December), the government proposed an “experience pathway” that streamlines the minimum education requirements and recognises on-the-job experience for individuals with 10 or more years of full-time experience.
Welcoming the proposal, the Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association (SAFAA) said it “restores common sense” to education standards to the benefit of Australians needing sound financial and investment advice.
“The government’s proposals restore Parliament’s intent, which clearly stated that a degree or degree equivalent was required and also deep experience and prior learning would be recognised as the equivalent of a degree,” said Judith Fox, SAFAA chief executive.
“It was the standards authority – a bureaucracy that was averse to stakeholder engagement – that narrowed the scope of recognised qualifications. It deemed a range of advisers with degrees best suited to stockbroking and investment advice as unqualified and skills, knowledge and experience unsuitable for recognition.”
Ms Fox pointed to the significant adviser exodus, noting its direct link to existing education standards. She also believes the strict approach is responsible for the cost of advice and the rising tendency for graduates to shy away from entering the profession.
Also, the government confirmed that higher education providers would be responsible for ensuring their courses meet the relevant requirements, which Ms Fox particularly applauded, opining that by disapproving certain degrees, the government was supporting “perverse outcomes”.
“Investment advisers have significant undergraduate and postgraduate education qualifications in commerce, economics, finance and business from Australia’s most established universities,” noted Ms Fox.
“The government’s proposals recognise that universities – rather than government – are best placed to design and accredit degrees suitable for professions.”
The proposal also acknowledged that a degree should have standing, irrespective of when it was acquired.
“It would be inconceivable to propose that High Court judges were unqualified because their degrees date from the 1980s,” said Ms Fox. “Yet the standards authority made such a determination in relation to degrees relevant to the investment profession.”
The government is welcoming submissions to this consultation until 1 February 2022.
Has anyone noticed – the large industry funds are employing Data Scientists – WHILE WE ARE FIGHTING ON WHETHER TO BECOME A PROFESSION.
Its in their interests, and Labor’s interest, for our move to become a profession to self-destruct.
A united FP front means healthy competition from trusted self-employed professionals – they don’t want that!
Funny how these bodies say they support higher education standards in 2016 and in 2021 they do a complete reverse 360 degrees.
The longer we take to become a profession, the longer industry funds can play ‘compare the pair’ and ‘fox in the henhouse’ ads. Pretty obvious don’t you think?
The longer regulators turn a blind eye to union (aka “Industry”) funds’ misleading and deceptive advertising, the longer union funds will continue with their misleading and deceptive advertising.
It’s nothing to do with the adviser education issue. It’s all about regulator bias, and concerns for their careers under a union (aka “Labor”) government.
25 years in this game tells me we can’t change regulatory biases and compete with political donations….we can change education levels and that’s within each of our control. but that requires the current self centered thinking to change…Bruce Lee said if your opponent keeps attacking your weakness fix your weakness. He didn’t say that but it sounds good.
Hear hear!
Total garbage. Myself and others with over 20 years have all lifted. Bending to the lowest common denominator
how ludicrous comparing financial planners to High Court judges to support a weak argument. Seriously, this sort of stuff just shows that there is a cohort in the industry that don’t understand the current climate or the need for proper high level education and qualifications for this industry to improve its credibility
SAFAA sound like a bunch of hairdressers to me.
Agreed. Let’s all make an effort to transform Financial Planning into a profession for all to be PROUD of!
Some of us have been around for over 30yrs and completed the highest level of education available at the time for our profession, and then upgraded to include SMSF, Estate Planning, Equities and Derivatives etc etc.
MUCH MORE importantly we’ve been advising in these areas for decades, me personally in a fee for service only business.
Why do I keep seeing comments by what appears to be younger advisers who think that their more recent education and less experience trumps decades of on the job experience, street smarts and relevant ongoing education? Very sad to see this attitude….it’s not very professional nor tolerant.
Your assumption is incorrect. I have 20+ years experience as an Adviser, have recently completed my Grad Dip and want the industry to be professionalised.
So what you’re saying is for over 30 years you have done the minimum amount of education necessary to make money for yourself as a financial adviser. You are happy to continue as long as the amount of effort to remain qualified is low, so low that it is significantly less effort than any trade and even many entry-level traineeships.