Late last year, Stephen Jones said that if the Labor party won the upcoming federal election, the government would not require advisers with 10 years of experience and an “unblemished record” to complete a university degree to practice.
Currently, existing advisers with no degree must have an approved qualification by 1 January 2026.
Speaking at a webinar hosted by the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) on Monday, 2 May, Mr Jones said the Labor believes “there is a need for us to put in place a transition arrangement”.
“So halt the large-scaled exit of advisers who are otherwise competent and have a capacity to perform a job that is needed to be done,” Mr Jones explained.
“I’m thinking largely of people who are in the latter years of the profession — they’ve had no problems, they’ve provided high level competence of advice, often thought of as mentors to others within the industry…”
Mr Jones added that said Labor will also look closely at recognition of prior learning, which has been a specific area of criticism towards FASEA.
“There needs to be a robust process, but not so robust that it defeats the purpose,” he said.
“So a way of recognising their prior learnings and application process and a recognition process.”
Mr Jones continued: “It was always intended that there would be more than one particular qualification and more than one stream within the industry, but that at these early stages is not the way that it has been dealt with.
“We want to have a look at that… we’ll have a look at how we can ensure that we have appropriate qualifications for the profession moving forward.”
Mr Jones’ comments come after a recent appearance on the ifa Show podcast, where he gave a candid assessment of the financial services industry, labelling the poorly managed “tsunami of regulatory changes” as the main culprit for adviser exodus in Australia.
“There was a whole bunch of changes that were in play, there was a known timeline for it, not going back months or even years. Some of this stuff has been five, six years in the making, how a government could monumentally mishandle a bunch of this stuff is beyond belief, particularly a government that says it’s a good economic manager.”
Listen to the full podcast with Mr Jones here.
Its not quite correct to say “no degree”. I have a B.Bus but its not considered “relevant” as I didn’t major is accounting or finance.
Mr Jones does not understand how the education system works. There is already in place the ability to provide evidence of prior learning. The issue is not the time spent in the industry, it is the ability to provide evidence that you meet the competency standards required for post grad studies. Let’s face it, the industry was full of insurance brokers who were then given, for free (albeit pay the new CFP association fees), the FPA CFP designation when it first came out. Yes, they have spent a lot of time in the industry but as we all know, just because you spend time selling insurances, does not make you a competent advisor to provide comprehensive advice across super, retirement planning, estate planning and so on. The education standards had to improve and the ‘sales people’ had to leave. Already, we are seeing greater confidence in the profession because of all of these changes. Labor has no idea how to run a business…all they do is throw up policy to try and secure votes. I am not sure I would want remaining in our profession advisors who are not willing to do the hard yards of updating their qualifications to demonstrate they are competent in their knowledge base and are only interested in selling and taking short cuts.
I agree that poorly educated sales reps should not be given a free pass similar to the FPA’s grubby grandfathered CFP sham.
However RPL should apply more broadly to legitimate, high quality, education such as other degrees and the real CFP course. The good intentions of the FASEA legislation to raise minimum standards were distorted by conflicted FASEA Board members trying to push more of their own courses. That’s the area of RPL that needs to be fixed.
All it does is push the destruction of financial planning down the track. No one with enough intelligence to pass a university degree will be silly enough to become a financial planner under the current rules and requirements.
I disagree. I completed my Master’s of Financial Planning at age 60, 6 years ago and I have operated my practice for over 40 years. I still managed to operate my sole practice and spent many late nights studying. There have been so many advisers complaining about having to complete additional studies. A lot of it is revision. I found that the studies stimulated my practice and was not at all negative. Labor is only trying to capture votes and don’t get sucked in. I’d be extremely annoyed if these changes were to occur but I would also expect greater recognition having achieved current legislative requirements.
My gut feelin is that the current government will be returned.
Hume is a worry
Terrific decision Labour , common sense prevalis.
Bill Shorten was instructed by Treasury based on legal advice to leave grandfathered commissions out of the FOFA legislation as advisers clearly had an existing contractual right to receive the commissions.
Despite multiple attempts to access the documented legal advice through FOI , Treasury’s response was that it would not be released due to legal privilege.
…..and this was in the midst of a Liberal Govt tearing down a contractual right despite Frydenberg knowing legal advice exists directing Bill Shorten not to go there.
The Liberal Govt then simply obliterated contractual income and pushed hundreds of thousands of clients into the advice abyss.
Josh Frydenberg is not the happy, smiley face you see at present……there lies an inherent dislike for advisers with this man.
…only because he thought his seat was safe and advisers couldnt impact it. That’s the reason he’s not smiling now, because even if Lib’s win he could be out of a job…working for a bank might not be his preferred choice?
“Tsunami of change”, but the most important thing that could be done to remove unnecessary work that no other profession has to complete, BID/safety harbor, is staying as per Mr Jones.
ARTICLE STATES:- “So halt the large-scaled exit of advisers who are otherwise competent and have a capacity to perform a job that is needed to be done,” Mr Jones explained. “I’m thinking largely of people who are in the latter years of the profession — they’ve had no problems, they’ve provided high level competence of advice, often thought of as mentors to others within the industry…”
Well . . . two things . . . firstly WHY is this ONLY being trotted out as an election grabber, in desperation to win office and secondly what about the hundreds of advisers that fall into Stephen’s category above that have already left our once-great industry in disgust? Too late for them, their careers and their businesses they sacrificed at low cost for a quick sale so they could retire with ‘something’.
To them (and I know many) the contrived and inappropriate FARCE-IA so-called ‘exam’ was the turning point – no point doing THAT if they were going to be exited anyway in 2026 so they left last year, most of them. What compensatory factors will labor give these older advisers that exited after 40 years thinking they had no choice then?
Centrelink pensions because they sold below value and can no longer self-fund their retirement?
So they have back tracked from their announcement in November. They have reviewed the submissions of the consultation and our now back tracking on the Exeperience pathway as they realised it was going to cost more votes than they were going to win. So what they are saying now is we wont be implementing what we pledged but we will come up with somethign else….In other words no clarity for the indutsry still
Whilst I am absolutely disgusted beyond belief eith the way this current Liberal Govt has
treated advisers for its entire period in power, I am also disgusted that Labor have said or done nothing at all in opposition until prior to a looming election.
It smacks of vote buying as any desperate statement to get support goes regardless of whether there is actually a strategy or planned process to achieve anything at all.
This is akin to a financial planner waving their hands in the air at a client meeting saying how wonderful everything will be and as long as they stick with them, everything will be just fine, without an SOA, ROA or explanatory document to support the promise.
If advisers could practice like politicians practice it would be a clear breach on every single occasion.
This is about buying power with votes from a cohort who have beaten into submission.
Well Labor didn’t actually stay silent. They said frequently “we welcome the legislation” or attempts at making changes were “watering down measures” or even “removing consumer protection mechanisms”.
Thank you , finally some common sense emerging. Such a shame the liberal Government cannot see this as a issue
Just set the rules and let us get on with it. The biggest threat to our industry is over zelous and conflicting legislation. Just come up with a set of rules and let us get on with it!
These arguments have been have been hashed out exhaustively. I’m 64, unblemished record, been successfully mentoring younger advisers in the ‘real world’ (not academic world) and I beleive I can sustain a robust review of my RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) so that I do not require additional study after having passed FASEA exam first sitting and received a DISTINCTION in the Kaplan ETHICS course. You don’t need further empirical evidence than that. I’ll retire at the 10 year mark having hopefully left a strong ethical and robust legacy. The talent drain has to stop its not an educational imperative, but an experiential and practical one in my opinion.
Makes zero sense to me. Just waffle talk , in order to try win over labor votes.
The old saying “better the devil you know” rings true here.
Rubbish. Hume and Freedenberg have been disasters to the industry. Change is required.
Labor tried to destroy us primarily to protect their union revenue? Short memories.
Its not much good voting labor for our own purposes, & letting in a prime minister who shows by the week he’s not up to the challenge. Watching Albanese closely lends to the belief we may have an economy that goes into recession. There are huge issues here, as opposed to our own…
Keep the education requirements and use them as a lever to reduce the regulatory burden. We can’t honestly think the regulatory burden will reduce if there are unqualified people still providing advice.
Unqualified……? They are qualified right now but wont be in 2026. Thats hardly “Unqualified” and a touch elitest. I know a heap of planners that are very good at what they do, and know more than your “qualified university graduates” when they are talking to clients, setting goals, organising portfolios…. You’re happy to call them all “unqualified” now are you?
The FPA interviewer expressed concern that any experience exemption must incorporate a line in the sand after which ALL financial planners would be degree qualified. Jones said this would be the case as it wouldn’t be a rolling 10 years of experience.
This doesn’t solve the problem however. Right now there are 30 year old advisers with 10 years of experience and no degree. And it’s entirely up to them when they retire. It could be another 40-50 years before it’s possible to say every financial planner is degree qualified.
Ironically this is exactly the same problem with the FPAs “grandfathered” CFPs. The FPA continually tries to sweep that historical mess under the carpet by saying the “grandfathers” will all be retired soon. But many of them won’t retire for another 30 years or more.
Get your own house in order first FPA, and then maybe politicians will take more notice of you.
Rubbish. There would be very few 30 year olds who have practiced fro 10 years without a degree. There are far more Advisers who are between 45 and 55 years old who have been practicing successfully as Advisers who should not have to do a degree. I was a Grandfathered CFP and I damn well earned that designation, I did all the study that was available through our Industry, met the qualifications of the CFP and was granted it. I dont and my clients dont need a piece of paper on the wall to say my 33 years practicing experience is not good enough.
I’m sick and tired of the commentary on here criticising Advisers who dont have a degree.
On the FPA, I couldnt agree more, they have failed the Financial Advice sector and have a Government patsy and thats why I resigned as a CFP, it was worthless and provided me with nothing.
Relevant degrees in fields like economics and finance have been available to all financial advisers for longer than the “industry” has existed. The real CFP course has been available for about 15 years.
“All the study available through our industry” is the ultimate cop out. The sooner advisers without degrees are gone the better. The sooner CFPs that haven’t completed the CFP course are gone the better.
It doesn’t matter how many 30 year olds there are. Even if there’s only one, it will be impossible to say all financial planners have a degree until that 30 year old retires. Jones’s plan needs an expiry date for the experience exemption. 1 Jan 2026 seems appropriate.
By all means lower the degree requirement in recognition of experience and prior learning. The AFA’s suggestion of a 4 unit Graduate Certificate makes sense.
Let’s not forget why “industry” education was pitched at such a low level 20 odd years ago. At the time the education level was well below that required for similar occupations, and well below reasonable community expectations. It was pitched at a low level because the “industry” at the time was controlled by product companies, who thought that a higher education requirement would deter the best product salespeople.
Tinkering with the education requirements is not going to fix the regulatory environment in which we operate. The sad thing is that after looking at this for years Stephen Jones has no idea where to start.
This is exactly what I thought. So the Shadow Minister has watched this debacle happen yet still doesn’t have a definitive working alternative. This is the problem with politicians. Very competent in throwing stones but never prepared to say what they are exactly going to do. ‘Looking at it’ doesn’t cut it. You’ve had six years to be ‘looking at it’.
Rewarding laziness, doing the minimum and recognizing unprofessionalism. With so much bad regulation and an opportunity for reform we’re getting this distraction as our only carrot to vote for Labor.