AFA general manager of policy and professionalism Phil Anderson told ifa it was “sensible” for those that were prepared and comfortable to sit the exam in June by remote proctoring to do so, given that a rule set out in FASEA’s legislative instrument prevented advisers who failed the exam from registering for a re-sit within 90 days of their last sitting.
“The LI for the exam says you cannot register to sit the exam until 90 days after you last sat it, and the registration period closes some time before the actual exam is on,” Mr Anderson said.
“So if you sat it in August and didn’t pass, then you could not register again until 90 days afterwards, which means you couldn’t do the October exam. And the way they’ve scheduled it, what might have been a December is now a November exam, so it will be less than 90 days after the August exam.
“So anyone who failed in August would not technically be eligible to sit the November exam.”
Mr Anderson said while the association had “a higher level of confidence” that legislation to extend the compliance deadline for the exam to 2022 would pass in the June sitting of Parliament, following political infighting that saw the bill fail to be tabled for debate in May, advisers would be wise to “not count their chickens”.
“We’ve been working closely with the government and opposition about getting legislation through and we know what the obstacle was last time,” he said.
“Following the Treasurer’s announcement on stamping fees, we’ve received confirmation from the opposition that their amendment will be withdrawn so the bill should hopefully get through in June.”
ifa understands AMP has been communicating the same message to their authorised representatives, underlining that advisers will need to sit the exam in June to have one more opportunity to resit if necessary.
AMP head of advice education, capability and careers Rod Edge told ifa the institution had been “encouraging advisers since the FASEA exam was launched to sit the exam as soon as they were able to”.
“We expect that all our advisers who wish to move forward as part of the AMP network will have passed the exam by the deadline, whether that is the existing deadline of 1 January 2021 or the proposed extension to 1 January 2022,” Mr Edge said.
Mr Anderson said if any further hold-ups meant the legislation was not passed in the Senate in time to see the deadline extended, there was “a high level of concern” that advisers who sat the exam later than June and failed could be removed from the ASIC adviser register before they got another opportunity to re-sit.
In an upcoming episode of The ifa Show podcast, BT head of financial literacy and advocacy Bryan Ashenden said advisers who were deregistered before they could pass the exam would face having to re-enter the industry through the ‘new adviser’ pathway, meaning they would have to complete a full bachelor-level degree and a professional year.
“The adviser would lose their status as an existing adviser, so the only way they can come back into providing personal advice to a retail client is they need to make sure they have completed formal education, but no longer [being] an existing adviser, they will lose their current pathways,” Mr Ashenden said.
“They will then still need to complete the exam and pass it, but they will also be subject to a professional year. Whilst the professional year might seem easier because they’ve got a lot of experience, technically [that] will also mean they need to have a supervisor, somebody looking over their shoulder and making sure they are doing the right thing.
“There’s no way you can escape that if you lose your existing adviser status and you want to come back in.”
Other options to extend deadline
Mr Anderson said the AFA had made the complication with the 90-day rule understood to the government, and was exploring other options if there were any further roadblocks to the passage of the extension bill, including compelling ASIC to provide regulatory relief or pushing for an amendment to FASEA’s legislative instrument.
“There is a solution whereby ASIC could provide an exemption, but it would require direction of the government – there is a power in the ASIC Act where the minister can direct them to do something,” he said.
“It’s rarely been used but if this didn’t get through the Senate, there is still a fallback solution for an extension to be provided.
“It is also a possibility that FASEA could change the LI and remove the 90-day rule. If FASEA wanted to do it, it would be an exercise where they would need to draft up an amendment to the LI or issue a new LI.
“It’s not impossible, it wouldn’t require parliamentary approval – FASEA has the power to issue LIs and it has the power to change existing LIs.”
FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield told ifa the authority would “consider other options” in the event the extension bill had not passed by mid-August.
Mr Glenfield said the final exam sitting date of 5-10 November had been arrived at so that advisers could receive their results before the 1 January 2021 deadline.
“With an expected extension of the transition date to 31 December 2021, pending the passing of the bill in the Senate, FASEA would continue to offer exams for advisers throughout 2021,” Mr Glenfield said.
He added that the authority encouraged advisers to “take up the earliest possible exam sitting opportunity”.
According to FASEA statistics, 70 per cent of advisers currently on the ASIC register have not yet passed the exam.
The registration deadline for the June sitting is 29 May.




This story is rubbish. Someone needs to do their research before scaremongering. I have been given advice direct from FASEA that an existing adviser will NOT lose their status as an existing adviser simply because they don’t complete the exam by the deadline. It does NOT mean you have to re enter under a different pathway or do a professional year-all it means is you can not provide advice until you do complete the exam whenever that is… AFA please check this out with FASEA.
This is correct. This information is already outlined by FASEA on the information under career break. An Existing Relevant Provider remains one and doesn’t revert to a Provisional Relevant Provider (new Entrant).
However in the detail, if you become ‘ceased’ (after 1 January 2021 as you didn’t pass the exam by that date) it says you have to have BOTH the exam done and the education requirements done before you can be re-authorised.
https://www.fasea.gov.au/faqs/#Exam
From the FASEA website Standards/FAQ:
What are the consequences for an Existing Adviser who hasn’t passed the exam by 1 January 2021?
For an existing adviser who has not passed the exam by 1 January 2021, their Licensee will be required to remove their authorisation to provide advice and notify ASIC that they have not met the examination requirements of the Corporations Act. Their status on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register will be updated to reflect that they are no longer authorised and therefore “ceased”.
If they want to return to practice, they would be classified as a new entrant and would need to meet the new entrant requirements.
The 90 day lag before you can re-register is so stupid….
I hope to pass first go anyway, but see no logical reason for that delay whatsoever.
So sick of hearing about the exam there are much bigger issues. If someone hasn’t passed the exam by the end of this year they don’t deserve to be in the industry, just get it done
Alot of people were ripped off by bad financial advice and understood it after the global financial crisis
A quick update.
The June deadline is not May 29. I have just wasted time registering, and find that i have registered for August. June is not available.
This FASEA foolishness is so unethical that i simply cannot abide the statutory cover it has been given for its complete failure to consider market conditions or market impacts of its actions.
And for those who “have no pity” for advisers who have not already sat the exam? More than half of Australia’s advisers are looking down the barrel of being kicked out of the industry, and you smirk at their position? Not particularly ethical, nor compassionate nor understanding.
I have yet to meet an adviser who does not applaud the aims of increased ethics, transparency, and better client outcomes. Throwing shards of glass on the path to those aims is counter-productive, to say the least.
I could register today but had to select remote proctoring. Its the only option for June
Around 17,000 have not completed it yet.
If your exam gets extended don’t go thanking either the FPA or the AFA.
Perhaps IFA could run a story about how 4 Associations came to together (AIOFP, SMSFA, Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association and I believe FINSIA) to present a united front to 1) get a FASEA extention and 2) get the legislation pinned onto the exam removed, therefore enabling a greater chance of it being discussed….and two Associations the FPA and the AFA didn’t want to be part of that group.
Advisers have known about the requirement to pass this exam for almost 2 years now, I have no sympathy for those that are complaining about the looming deadline. Advisers who have shown commitment to the industry and their clients by taking the time to study and pass the exam will emerge from this period stronger and in the best possible position to thrive.
Agreed. Stop complaining and get on with it.
You show no compassion for those who may have encountered issues here. Upon hearing that Ethics was an essential criteria, i enrolled in an Ethics course at Macquarie University. Loved the course, and did ok. When presenting the completion material to my compliance officer i was told the course did not count, as it was not accredited. Later i was told it was accredited, but only if you passed it the month after i passed it. The legislation allowed FASEA room to put in place an implementation plan that allowed for 26,000 different situations but they ignored it completely – deciding to implement what should have been a great system but one that fails completely in terms of prudent, appropriate and effective implementation. Your lack of empathy is symptomatic of the bloody-mindedness that has driven all such legislation and change. I would suggest another bout of ethics study.
try studying for an exam while your daughter born in september has spent most of her life in the Royal children’s hospital Melbourne on and off life support, Then on top of that – run a business, look after clients, complete CPD points and spend what ever quality time you can with your family:
That’s right I must be a lazy planner.
Give me a spell
I hope your daughter is ok. I am 6 months pregnant with a 17 month old. As well as being a CPA and dealing with JobKeeper, running a business etc, I find the comments regarding people who have not sat the exam yet to show no empathy and lack of understanding. I am enrolled in the June exam but would really appreciate an extension to the deadline. Some of us have a few things going on and are doing our best.
“…commitment to the industry and their clients by taking the time to study and pass the exam”.
I’ve spent most of my adviser life studying in fact. A Business degree and a Masters, amongst a myriad of other certifications and assessments. If that’s not commitment, what is? For many advisers who have passed the exam and proudly exhibiting their wares on Linkedin followed by numerous hashtags…i often see very little in the way of previous commitment to study.
Well done, Phil Anderson, for pointing this out. If you have already passed this exam all of this is hilarious, if not, it is probably less pleasant.
AMP’s Rod Edge is a crock of shit. 70% of AR’s have not sat it and it would be great to see if we all tell FASEA that the world has had a big bump in 2020 and been to busy looking after clients and our business to sit a crap exam and be interesting where AMP would bew if only got 30% of AR’s. Ohhhh Rod would be out of a job.
Agreed. If AMP’s Rod Edge was required to sit the exam, or had already passed, the same as Advisers, then I would be interested in his opinion. Otherwise, no.
If a lot of AMP Advisers are doing this exam online (proctored) in June, and not waiting for the regular ‘in person’ exam sessions to resume, then the results will be very interesting to hear in August.
So it sounds like Glenfield has been lying all along when he said FASEA’s hands are tied by the legislation.
I have not sat the exam. I would like to remain in the industry and have an accounting qualification and a cfp also most recently. I hate the fact that FASEA is intent on destroying the advice industry by not having more frequent exams say monthly instead of the current fiasco. Why does an adviser need to wait 90 days? What does this count for if I complete this? Does it make me an ethics guru, fact is it counts for nothing other than losing nearly $600 a pop. AFA and FPA, you could have stood up to the thuggery of FASEA but you chose to roll over and allow this farce. I love what I do as an adviser and have a loyal client base. Seeking to destory me, my staff and my livelihood by placing a financial gun to my head, extracting money from me and not giving me any option is the mark of a bully or worse. I do not trust FASEA and strongly condemn both the FPA and AFA for the next to nothing effort they have shown for the industry and the respect of honest advisers around the country. Wait till the economy bursts and then lets see what consumers will have for advice. Much like getting rid of medical staff such as doctors and nurses at a time of a health crisis. The country is run by fools.
Time to see who’s got what it takes to stay in this industry!
Are you now ethical and does this mean you are not a crook? How does a consumer like me tell the difference?
Just wondering when the Politicians AMP execs and Journalists will be sitting the exam??
So does passing this exam guarantee the clients all around Australia that they will now be not ripped off and no adviser will be dragged by asic through the courts again for bad advice or the like????????
Not at all. It’s just made the cost of advice gone up.
suddenly the afa and fpa care what now that the banks have canned them it is hey we better look after the advisers or no one will pay our high good for nothing salaries.
I think you’ll find Union Super funds and their call centres are members of tomorrow.