How mapping client emotions can transform apprehension into trust
Clients undergo a range of emotional responses throughout the advice process and, according to new financial adviser-led research, advisers’ ability...
Clients undergo a range of emotional responses throughout the advice process and, according to new financial adviser-led research, advisers’ ability...
The financial services software firm said its renewed focus on core platforms, technology investment and client engagement reflects a leaner,...
ASIC has released a new regulatory guide for exchange-traded products that consolidates previous guidance as the ETF market undergoes significant...
Private credit is reshaping commercial real estate finance. Success now depends on collaboration, discipline, and strong governance across the market.
Excitement sells stories, not stability. For long-term wealth, consistency and compounding matter most — proving that sometimes boring is the...
Excitement drives headlines, but steady returns build wealth. Real estate private credit delivers predictable performance, even through volatility.
Australian investors increasingly view Cardano (ADA) as a compelling cryptocurrency investment opportunity, particularly through staking mechanisms that generate passive income....
Corruption and massive conflicts of interests at play??
I hear that Senator Bragg was attempting to drag out a matter of great public importance.
ASIC are an independent regulator, responsible to the Parliament, not directly to a Minister. But Treasury and the Minister for Financial Services have a say in how ASIC is funded, and as revealed today, there are regular meetings with ASIC and the Ministers office. Hand in glove, as it were.
In terms of administering financial advice legislation, ASIC are required to gather the evidence, interpret the legislation, and take appropriate action. In that sense they are both the police and the prosecutor. But they like to think they are also the COURTS, but thankfully they get the occasional rebuff.
The only problem with that issue is it we, licensed financial advisers, are funding those little legal frolics as though we were litigation funders, but with absolutely no control over any proposed litigation and any assessment of the likelihood of a win.
It seems that a century of public service paradigms has been thrown out the window. Treasury used to draft the policy, give instructions for the drafting of the legislation, then traditionally were always entitled to ask the regulator involved if there were any issues in enforcement. I.e. legal technicalities which might muddy prosecutions.
This old standard of public service advice at arms length was that ASIC was NOT entitled to question the policy or modify the policy to suit their ideological preferences. That great disruptor of public service rules and regulations, the former head of Home Affairs, has a lot to answer for .
It would appear the checks and balances have all gone out the window, and I believe it started under the previous 11 year Coalition rule. Today in a Parliamentary committee we have heard a senior Treasury official, and an ASIC Commissioner, quite clearly state that they had no issues with these amended paradigms, where ASIC are now seriously involved in DEVELOPING POLICY and the legislation needed to put that policy into place.
There’s a fine line a distinction and it’s been totally ignored.
Can someone tell me how we put in a complaint to the NACC-this has to be a conflict!!!
You’ve worded it perfectly! Please write to them or notify them – FAAA won’t do it
ASIC, Treasury and Industry Funds are clearly planning to use this legislation to go after financial planners and super funds, to prevent the public from accessing independent financial advice.
Why else would they fight against making an amendment which simply matches the EM and ASIC’s stated opinion on the matter?
Financial Services in Australia and the stakeholders driving and enforcing legislation are an International Joke and utter disgrace
Agreed…will be exiting in the next 60 days due to the ongoing debacles imposed on our industry….SAD!
BRAGG FOR (initially shadow, then actual once this awful Government is booted) FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTER
ASIC Kirkland and Jones NEED to go. It’s clear as day they are working with the industry super body to promote lazy I’ll considered and harmful legislation at the cost of advisers tine and $.
It’s amazing how a piece of legislation (notably 99FA) that was designed to provide clarity appears to have achieved the absolute opposite based on the evidence today.
The testimony from the notably the Law Council of Australia (& others) really demonstrated this point.
Based on this evidence, surely the ambiguity of the current wording needs to be recognised now.
This point was also well made regarding changing the wording in the Bill.
Cullen:
[i]”It is a real risk that super funds take this legislation notwithstanding what the EM says, on its literal meaning.[/i]
[i]”Now, if ASIC says that’s not the case, if APRA says that’s not the case, if the minister says that’s not the case, if the EM says it’s not the case, then why are we being bloody minded about not moving some simple amendments to clarify the matter at law?”
[/i]My opinion: If all stakeholders are evidently aiming toward the same objective, then just change the wording in the Bill. Not hard.
I think what we saw today supports the need for the Bill being changed. If this change doesn’t occur based on the evidence presented, then why not?
If not, in my view, it would raise some very serious questions as to the how genuine the legislative intent actually is, that’s for sure.
I agree that Keith Cullen’s closing remarks were absolutely on the money. Unfortunately, Jess Walsh seems to lack a basic understanding of what is going on and Senator Bragg sounded like he was half asleep and still in bed. I assume that is why his camera was not on. As an industry we deserve so much better.
Why not publish the considered and comprehensive submissions prior to the drafting bungle? Feedback hasn’t changed and advisers are too over loaded to deal with parroting this to idiots every 6 months after the error and bastardise things. We need a new government
It is patently obvious the Canberra Departments are working hand in glove to make it as difficult as possible for retail advisers to get advice fees paid via a client super fund. Whereas they are happy to allow Big Super Funds to take hundreds of millions in ongoing intrafund advice fees without consent at any point. When Senator Bragg’s Super Home Mortgage Offset Account commences in the future, which it will, and $200 billion rolls out of Big Super, the Trustees & the Bureaucrats can monitor that instead.
And the few bits of advice they do provide to the less than 0.3% of members according to super ratings, is conflicted vertically integrated awful Toilet advice which fails to meet best interests and in over 15% of cases harmed clients according to ASIC REPORT 639. But somehow the super fund groups, ASIC and government want to direct more business that way? Why? It cannot be client outcomes it cannot be to help Australians, it can ONLY be to line their own pockets.
The real issue is WHY has NONE of the multiple Public Submissions to the Treasury DBFO Consultation not been released, now over 5 months since closure, not just the ASIC submission.
https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2023-462698