Appearing on The ifa Show, Howarth supported calls for accountants to be able to provide some form of financial advice to help fill the gap in advice accessibility.
Following Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones’ December announcement of greater detail on how the new class of advisers (NCA) would operate under the government’s proposed reforms, the SMSF Association argued the role accountants could play was still being overlooked.
SMSFA chief executive Peter Burgess said at the time there is no argument reforms are needed to reduce the cost of advice and to open up new channels of professional advice, however it remains a mystery as to why accountants aren’t being considered.
“It was our contention that the Quality of Advice Review neglected the significant role accountants can play in addressing the growing advice gap, and the government is perpetuating this oversight,” Burgess said.
“By giving accountants a defined advice role, it will further support consumers to access the advice they need when they want it from their choice of trusted adviser.”
Speaking with ifa, Howarth said the SMSFA is “on the right track there”.
“At the end of the day, I respect accountants significantly,” he said.
“My experience with accountants is they’ve provided good advice. They’re often people that you go to if you want to look at setting up a self-managed super fund and they’re qualified people that know tax law inside out.
“So, giving a little bit of advice, I don’t fear that at all from accountants and I think it probably should be looked at.”
While the accountants’ exemption previously allowed accountants to provide certain types of limited financial advice, this was removed in 2016 and replaced with the limited Australian Financial Services Licence regime, though there are only a small number of accountants operating under the regime.
Howarth added that the Labor government’s approach to regulating accountants, in general, has been “absolutely atrocious”, specifically pointing to the process of changing the tax practitioners’ code of conduct.
“They were about to get it disallowed in the Senate and at the last minute they scrambled to make changes,” he said.
“But this should never have happened in the first place. This was lazy policy done from someone who doesn’t understand or hasn’t run a small business or hasn’t had a career outside politics or unions that really has no idea what accountants do.
“And the vast majority of accountants are trusted individuals that give good advice and I back them every day of the week. I think they’ve really had been treated poorly by Albanese and his minister.”
The shadow minister added that there needs to be more collaboration between the professions.
“Financial advisers shouldn’t fear accountants. Accountants are good people, they’re well qualified and we actually want to try to get more people into financial advice as well,” Howarth said.
“There’s plenty of work for them at the moment. We want to reduce their regulations so let’s work together.”
To hear more from Luke Howarth, tune in here.
It’s remarkable how the so-called solutions to the “advice gap” continue to focus on creating alternative pathways instead of addressing the real barriers faced by qualified financial advisers.
We’ve seen the FAAA push for bringing in Indian advisers, Howarth advocating for accountants, and Industry Super—through their agent Minister Jones—championing a “new class of adviser” with lower education standards and subsidies (trail commission) disguised as collective fees. Meanwhile, no one seems willing to address the suffocating approved degree requirements or the prohibitively expensive professional year, both of which are driving prospective advisers away from the profession.
What’s even more concerning is that the “advice gap” itself is wildly exaggerated, often for nefarious and self-interested reasons. Industry bodies, politicians, and large financial institutions have a vested interest in promoting this narrative to push their agendas—whether it’s deregulating advice, creating new roles with lower standards, or funneling clients into their preferred channels. The reality is that the gap is less about accessibility and more about these stakeholders manipulating the system to serve their own ends.
If these politicians and industry bodies were serious about fixing the advice gap, the solution is simple: revise the degree requirements and make the professional year viable for small businesses. With those changes, the profession could be back on a growth trajectory within two years.
And if the goal is to enable call centres to provide basic customer support, why not just fix the general advice laws? It’s an obvious fix that doesn’t require dismantling professional standards.
Instead, we get politicians like Howarth pushing an accountants’ agenda while failing to address the core issues. It’s yet another example of a clueless and likely captured politician claiming to “save” an industry they don’t understand.
Well said. The muppets-in-parliament already know this, Peter. They simply don’t like us. It’s frustrating that the FAAA is advocating for foreign planners… I’m guessing they, like the muppets, have their own agenda and it excludes us.
Lukey, please leave us alone. We had enough of Josh, we’ve had a gutful of Jones. Now, we just want you lot to remove your noses from the feed-trough and focus on the best interests of your constituents… not your political donors.
this simply confirms that almost every politician to a “person” has no idea about the financial advice game at all! Bernie is alone in the parliament – absolutely Rob Crusoe he is…
As an ex-limited licensee, I appreciate the work done by planners since FOFA come in. But many comments show a continuing lack of professionalism!
I can vouch, having seen what the government did to ALL licensees, especially limited – we paid the same amount of fees as you-all – then I won’t be going back there in any hurry. The government blew it.
PS All professions have rogues. And it is up to the REAL professionals to weed them out.
Meanwhile the pie is all yours!
Same rules for whoever gives a certain type of advice regardless of what they identify as. This includes the recourse available for the client should the advice not meet the standard.
There is a big difference between trusted and trustworthy.
Melissa Caddick was trusted but not trustworthy. Bernie Maddoff was trusted but not trustworthy. Finfluencers on social media are trusted but not trustworthy.
When it comes to financial advice most accountants are trusted but not trustworthy. They have a massive conflict of interest to recommend SMSFs that generate inhouse admin fees. But these SMSFs are rarely in the best interests of clients.
Accountants abide by a strict Code of Conduct, charge a fee for service. Think of the number of financial advisers having their license canceled and getting charged!!
If you are looking for support from
Financial Advisers & are looking at getting elected Luke Howarth, you haven’t got off to a good start with this one.
At the moment Accountants are choosing not to do the education required for a limited license, they have been leaving in droves in recent years, if education requirements are reduced I’m not sure that will change things, accountants have realised that to provide limited advice there is little to no profit in providing limited scope advice with the cost of PI, license costs etc. . Luke where is the access to the ATO portal for relevant providers!
I don’t fear accountants, but just as I shouldn’t be preparing clients tax returns, they shouldn’t be providing financial advice – unless they meet the same education requirements we do, and follow the same best interest duty – oh and help pay for the Dixons fiasco like we are being made do!
Nearly all advice I see coming from accountants is to open a SMSF – and then they say go and see a financial adviser about investments.
As an aside, as a licensed financial adviser, can i start advising on mortgages as well? After all, I am a trusted individual and that seems to be all it takes to “give good advice”.
Hmmm -Must be a political donation in the wind somewhere
If I had my druthers, I would never want an accountant to be advising on life risk without appropriate qualifications. My experience over a long period of time is that accountants tend to sell life risk on price, consider life insurance a commodity that doesn’t need advice per se, and they don’t look to the future as to the welfare of the beneficiaries of a breadwinner.
And of course it has to have a tax deduction, which means things like IP in the super environment, a total disaster for someone who is a contractor and is disabled between contracts.
The real issue with accountants selling life risk products is they don’t do it themselves, because it’s handed to someone in the back office as part of their remuneration package.On the assumption that these accountants providing the advice suggested by Mr Howarth, one wonders how they would handle the communication requirements of Standard 5, when they recommend the replacement of ian expensive legacy IP contract.
I am an accountant and was a financial planner. So, I know how both sides operate.
I stopped being a financial planner as it was not meeting my requirements and I did not want to be giving financial advice on investments – shares managed funds etc, as that is a lot of work and effort, and was not what I wanted to do anyway.
Most accountants do not want to be giving advice on investments, far too risky with clients not taking responsibility for their own decisions and wanting to blame the financial advisor whenever the market goes down.
In respect to structing however, that is what accountants do, provide advice on structuring. But Accountants cannot give advice on setting up a SMSF.
Clients come to us, both new clients and current clients, especially business clients, expecting we can advise them on the setup of a SMSF. We should be able to do this and setup a SMSF for them, as a SMSF is a structure first. Accountants can determine if a client is suitable or not to run a SMSF, and there is more than enough literature produced by the ATO to provide to clients an unbiased opinion on how to run a SMSF and what is required to manage and look after a SMSF. Importantly advising the client what the ATO is looking for from Trustees. The financial planner can look after the investments within the SMSF. I do not want to do that.
I get clients asking me to review their financial planners advice and most financial planners abrogate their responsibility for providing the tax advice, even though they can be registered as a tax financial planner to give this advice, but most don’t want too, and from what the clients tell me, and from what I have seen in Statements of Advice, most have no idea about how Capital Gains Tax works or income tax works within a SMSF, or any structure for that matter, and that is fine that they do not want to do that part of the advice. Just like I do not want to give advice on investments
Of concern are the fees charged by some financial planners to set up a SMSF, which is charged in addition to the financial advice fee. Some of the fee amounts I have seen are obscene. While also not properly setting up the SMSF or advising the ATO of the necessary requirements and leaving the poor accountant to fix up the structure.
This is why clients want Accountants to set up SMSF’s for them, as the accountant can appropriately set up the SMSF to fit within the current clients’ structures in a way that satisfies the clients current estate planning structures and needs.
Most accountants have the necessary education and knowledge to be able to provide clients with advice on the super contributions able to be made, as well as advice on what happens when SMSF members want to move into pension mode.
If you think about it, it is no more than public superannuation funds will be able to provide their members with under the new qualified adviser designation and are currently doing already if you ring up their help lines. Most accountants are significantly more qualified than this proposed adviser’s level.
Allowing Accountants to provide advice to clients on setting up a SMSF if appropriate, and on contribution levels, and entering pension mode, would be a win for all parties, particularly the client. After all that is who is important here.
There is a big difference between a client having the ability to be an SMSF trustee, and a client having a need for an SMSF. A properly trained, unconflicted professional should be basing their advice on whether the client actually needs an SMSF. In this day and age most SMSFs are completely unnecessary.
Fine, you guys can contribute to the CSLR as well then.
I’m a financial planner married to an accountant. My fees for the provision of advice in relation to SMSF are reasonably significant but not what I would consider obscene. If I provide advice it is considered high risk by both ASIC and my licensee, there is an extensive fact finding process, an SOA and the client has recourse to AFCA. My wife can do it based on a check list completed by the client and the client has basically no recourse. There is a reason why my fee is much higher than her’s. Again no issue with accountants providing advice, provided the same rules apply.
“Accountants are trusted individuals”. Just like politicians.
Nah. From my experience, Accountants are very good at looking in the rear view mirror but just hopeless at looking out the windscreen.
Well, it makes sense that Financial Advisers should give accounting advice in that case. They aren’t qualified to too do it, but I respect them so that shouldn’t be an impediment?
Accountants giving financial advice has been tried and failed. In addition there is no way having accountants giving financial advice will reduce costs?
They better pass the FASEA Exam that has caused 15000 real advisers to leave the industry.
Accountants give advice now…they don’t sell products but certainly provide both strategy and product advice..always with a cough cough disclaimer of I can’t give you advice. Always remember the BDM asking me if we had a stockbroker working in our office and it was just the Accountant talking to a SMSF client. Careful what you wish for. Governments making things easy never make it easy.
Perhaps once they’ve successfully completed all the training. I know a person who asked their accountant how much extra tax-deductible contributions they could add. Easy question he thought – $30K including their SG. Turns out they were eligible for a heap of carry forward in that year, but the accountant didn’t know what he didn’t know. Hopefully his PI will cover the tens of thousands of additional income tax his client paid.
haha yeah the same cohort that recommend SMSF’s for the clients but don’t have to contribute to the CSLR – which is predominately SMSF advice issues.
No Luke Howarth, It’s not only we shouldn’t fear accountants, but it’s also uneducated politicians also such as yourself that have no real understanding of the advice industry in full and the qualifications to give advice.
I have no issue with accountants giving advice, so long as they are at the same level as financial planners.
Most financial planners these days as a result of the FASEA standards, are degree (AQF7 or Grad Diploma AQF8 or higher such as Masters).
All have sat an exam.
Some are still hanging out for a reprieve to meeting the education standards, if the experience exemption come in, prior to the 1st January 2026 deadline.
When we are so close to a profession and professional standard, along comes a politician brain fart for another carve out or grandfathering.
Unfortunately, we have always been an industry of carveout’s and grandfathering, all at the expense of professionalism and education standards.
All “carve outs and grandfathering” do is to distort the true education standards of the industry, stifle any inroads to professionalism, and allows all the regulators, and vested industry groups to decry the lack of professionalism and education standards when there is one of the many reviews that seemingly occur at regular intervals, which inevitably leads to more compliance, more regulation and in recent times, the Fasea exam and education standards, and the cycle continues.
Vertical integration, banks, sales models etc were the past main causes and who to say the future causes may still be vertical integration from the industry and super funds giving advice, or MDA providers perhaps and from the lower educated depending on what is finally approved.
The restricted term “Financial Planner etc” was brought in for the primary object was to restrict this to those authorised to provide financial advice and be listed on the ASIC register and also for consumer protection.
QAR and Minister Jones has proposed allowing Super funds etc will be able to provide scoped, scaled, or limited advice, if they meet the criteria above.
Will Mr Howarth do the same if in government?
Will they be able to use the restricted term as well or the new “Qualified Adviser “ term.
Will accountants be able to use the restricted term as well?
The restriction of the term should only be for those that are on the ASIC register and fully meet what was the Fasea education standards.
Otherwise, we are back to the handout of authorisations again from past times where no one can tell the difference especially the very people where the protection is needed being the consumers.
If there is another subset planning group created, such as accountants, then they should not be allowed to use the restricted terms.
Otherwise, it will all end up like when everyone had RG146 again where can claimed the same level as experienced and educated Financial Planners, but the disparity is confusing and wide.
And when there is an issue, we will be grouped as “financial planners”.
This is like Paralegals, conveyancers, and clerical staff all being grouped as lawyers.
Surely the profession can come up with appropriate categories for all the proposed subsets and separate what the restricted term was meant to be for.
By all means be a Cert IV risk something, but you cannot be a Financial Planner. Likewise for a Super fund call centre console operator.
Let’s keep the Financial Planner restricted term for those that have met the FASEA education standard so there is a level to aspire to for those that choose or want a professional pathway and not give away authorisations again.
My vote is going to the Teals, Luke.
Yes, the major parties ‘shouldn’r fear’ losing votes Trudeau-style to the cross bench.
If anything the advice regulations should stay and all registered Financial Advisers should be able to provide Accounting services
delusional statement, some of the worst advice I’ve seen and compensated in the CSOLR is from Accountants. Awful idea.
Financial advisers dont’ fear accountants. We work with them all the time. But, if they’re going to provide financial planning advice, they need the requisite credentials, just the same as advisers would need to have in order to be allowed to provide accounting and tax advice.
Lucky that advisers only advice on tax……. just constant disrespect for what financial advisers do and the education we now all have.
Accountants can give financial advice, they meet most of the education requirements – they just need to be licensed. In my experience the reason so few accountants have gone down the path of licensing is that they don’t want to do the work required to prove best interest, don’t want the additional cost of the license and they don’t want to be liable for the advice they give.
If the liberals are looking to open up advice to other professions without the same requirements they place on us then we should get the same benefit.
Sure, no problem with Accountants giving advice, do the education, the exam, and get licensed!
They already do but it is ignored. Don’t need to fear them but it should be level playing field regarding the regulations.
Provided they have to follow the same rules as financial planners no issues. If this is the case they won’t become licensed and will continue giving unlicensed advice as is currently the case.
Where does this end?
Unqualified advisors providing advice via super funds, accountants providing advice, insurers providing advice, banks providing advice etc.
The only group not able to provide advice are qualified financial advisors.
Seems to be the situation?
I’m assuming after the appropriate qualifications are achieved…Of course, where is the discussion about providing Financial Planners access to the ATO portal for relevant information about our clients!
I wonder if (or how quickly) the ATO will allow Super Funds “Qualified Advisers” access so they can make contributions to the inhouse product?
Agreed
Yes long overdue!