The fintech group’s technical and policy manager, Rob Lavery, said while the TPB’s new CPE requirements seemed on the surface to line up with FASEA’s CPD standards, the requirement for advisers to demonstrate a link between their studies and the tax services provided to clients could complicate matters.
“The consultation paper proposes that advisers who meet the FASEA-overseen CPD requirements will ‘likely’ meet the TPB’s CPE requirements, however it is not as clear cut as that statement makes it seem,” Mr Lavery said.
“The TPB’s proposed position that a financial adviser is ‘likely’ to meet the TPB’s CPE requirements if they meet FASEA’s CPD requirements, contains a caveat: any FASEA CPD activities must be able to be demonstrably linked to the adviser’s tax (financial) advice services to qualify as CPE under the TPB’s requirements.”
Given that CPE hours were increasing to 40 hours a year under the TPB’s proposals, this could mean advisers would be forced to commit a significant amount of time to tax related study, Mr Lavery said.
“The TPB has proposed to increase CPE requirements from an effective 20 hours per year, to 40 hours per year to align with the requirements of FASEA,” he said.
“If the TPB insists that all FASEA CPD needs to be related to providing tax (financial) adviser services in order to meet CPE requirements, advisers are going to be left well short of their 40-hour obligation when relying on FASEA CPD alone.”
Mr Lavery added that many CPD topics commonly undertaken by advisers would not contain a tax component, particularly given the strong emphasis on ethical topics within the FASEA educational framework.
“In the technical competence CPD area, training on topics such as aged care, social security and some investments may contain no tax component,” he said.
“Furthermore, it is easy to see how CPD in the areas of client care and practice, regulatory compliance and consumer protection, professionalism and ethics, and in FASEA’s general category may not be viewed as directly related to providing tax (financial) adviser services.”
Mr Lavery said the caveat that all CPE had to be directly related to tax financial adviser services needed to be removed in order to make advisers’ lives easier.
“Complete alignment with FASEA’s requirements, without the caveat that all training relate to providing tax (financial) advice services, seems the only outcome that will streamline advisers’ ongoing education requirements,” he said.
“Inclusion of that caveat, along with an increase in CPE requirements to 40 hours per year, could see advisers needing to do training far in excess of 40 hours training annually to meet their twin requirements.”
Any industry funds jobs going?
This language is the same as that which currently applies in relation to tax CPE. It is the FPA that has erroneously decided to ‘accredit’ all CPD as TASA/TPB compliant causing the problem here. They have confused many advisers and AFSL’s in this regard. Of course it should be tax related to count for my tax (financial) advice CPE!!! Pretty easy to do within your forty hours as long as you don’t just attend conferences and PD days to get your points.
Another week…….another nail in the coffin. This may be the last!
OMG….. What is the point of all this nonsense. It’s just all self fulfilling **** that doesn’t help anyone or fix anything.
I’m honestly getting to the point of “come at me” I’ll just do what I want and you’re going to find a way to bring me down no matter how much we try to do the right thing… So why incur the extra stress of trying?
frankly, everyone else is in the same position as you. i was saying that to myself. so bring it on. let’s just shut the whole thing down
welcome to Australia… where the endless red tape stifles business and frustrates everyone.. the lucky country if you a tax funded public servant!!!!!!
This is not ridiculous – just onerous – as for most professions. And clients should expect us to know what we’re doing if we provide tax advice, just as they should if we’re providing financial and/or investment advice. Over the years most advisers have given some tax advice, but with the caveat that ‘you should get your accountant to review that’ or similar, but now, if you give tax advice you have to show you have obtained reasonable knowledge. Is there something wrong with that?
nail on the head mate!!! Everyone just can’t hack it… the gravy train is over.
Yes, there is Phillip. It should be automatically aligned with the FASEA CPD requirements. That would be the smart efficient thing to do. “As for most professions” ??? Do tell.
Reasonable tax knowledge is now required under FASEA anyway. There is something very wrong with having multiple bureaucratic agencies doing basically the same thing without adding any additional value. It is an unwarranted burden on society.
And please don’t try to justify this ridiculous bureaucratic impost on the basis of “as for most professions”. Financial advisers are now far more highly regulated than accountants, doctors, and lawyers. Financial advice regulation has gone way beyond what is reasonably required for professionalism. It is now being driven by revenge and persecution.
Here, Here…..well said. Too many Chef’s in the kitchen.
I don’t see a problem, it just means that any CPD done will also have a reference to tax which is what a good deal of CPD does at present. Situation normal as per current, you only need to be more prudent in selecting CPD and if it implies a few more hours- so be it.
Great move if this goes ahead.
Sure lets expand the already so bloody stupid Adviser CPD – we have the same CPD course done and it gets at least 5 different CPD breakups to record the training.
ASIC, FARSEA, TPD, FPA, SMSFA, that all report the exact same thing completely differently.
Definition of bureaucratic morons = Adviser CPD structure.
Seriously you could F##K this up more if you tried.
This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason for the TPB to be involved in financial advice regulation at all, given all the other laws and regulators added in recent years. It is just another unnecessary layer that adds cost and complexity, and prevents consumers from accessing affordable, professional advice.
There was supposed to be a review into the TPB last year. Why hasn’t Hume done anything yet to remove the TPB from financial adviser regulation? Why aren’t the adviser associations screaming about this?
I’m an adviser so I also feel your pain and frustration with all this but the simple answer is – no one cares anymore. I’ve
I’ve come to the conclusion that I have had to give up trying to rationalise what’s right and wrong in this industry because it just makes no difference. Conflicts of interest, corruption and unethical behaviour are all fine if it comes from a regulator, a politician or an organisation imposing ridiculous education standards on advisers – it just can’t be seen to come from an adviser. Trying to understand why this is happening, how it can be allowed to happen and what it is doing to the industry when it comes to consumer results, is just unfathomable and makes no sense whatsoever.