In its submission to Treasury on the review of eligibility requirements for registration with the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) consultation paper, the Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) argued against the proposal to remove the professional association accreditation and registration pathway.
While the FAAA noted that most financial advisers are registered as Qualified Tax Relevant Providers (QTRP) with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), there are still members who are registered tax agents.
“For our members who hold TPB registration, the proposed changes to the registration may present significant challenges,” it said.
Under the current regime, the Tax Agent Services Act provides a pathway for professional associations to be accredited as a recognised professional association (RPA).
“Once an association satisfies the TPB that these requirements set out in the TASR have been met and the association becomes an RPA, its voting members are able to apply for tax practitioner registration utilising a specialised registration pathway,” the consultation paper said.
However, the paper added the TPB has “limited regulatory tools” available if an RPA is not complying with its obligations under the regimes.
Additionally, while RPAs need to have “adequate disciplinary procedures”, the consultation paper noted that there is “no requirement for RPAs to report member wrongdoing to the TPB”.
“This may result in a gap in the ‘co-regulatory’ framework. Under the RPA framework, the TPB is reliant on the RPA to adequately regulate their members,” it said.
“However, a perceived conflict arises where professional associations may be perceived to balance the expectations to act in the interests of their members, while adequately regulating (and disciplining where required) those members. It may not be possible to appropriately or adequately manage this perceived conflict in some circumstances.”
The FAAA refuted this claim, adding that it does not “accept that there is a fundamental problem with the conflicts of interest that are created by the recognition of professional associations”.
“The FAAA’s professional conduct and complaints function is ‘ring-fenced’ from other association roles,” it said in its submission.
“Established under the FAAA conduct and integrity regulations, our disciplinary process was put in place as a formal mechanism to investigate complaints and other reports of misconduct against FAAA members. Decisions about whether an FAAA member has breached the FAAA Code and whether they should be sanctioned, are made by an independent Conduct Review Commission (CRC).”
Acting against misconduct, the FAAA added, is “central” to a professional association achieving its purpose to “act in the public interest, uphold the reputation of the profession, and represent the interests of its members”.
“In contrast to the assertions made in the consultation paper, professional associations embraced their disciplinary responsibilities of upholding professional standards. It is not in the interest of professional associations, their members, the profession as a whole, or the public to fail to uphold the professional standards they set,” it said.
The FAAA also argued against the limited time frame available for consultation on the proposals.
“As registration is mandatory to practice, the short consultation period for these proposals is concerning. We would be supportive of further workshop style consultation meetings to ensure an informed and sensible outcome is achieved,” it said.
In its submission, the SMSF Association also noted the “truncated timeline” for the consultation, which originally allowed only 22 days to consider the complex policy reforms, though this was eventually extended by a week.
“We therefore urge Treasury to further engage and consult with stakeholders on the matters raised in the consultation paper before the government considers any regulatory reform. This will be essential in ensuring that any changes considered are effective in addressing identified problems and avoid the risk of unintended consequences,” the SMSF Association said.
Additionally, it noted that the changes would have significant regulatory and cost impacts on both current and prospective tax practitioners.
“They do not clearly demonstrate the public policy problem that necessitates reform. They also fail to clearly articulate their objectives and lack consideration for other interrelated issues and measures,” the SMSFA stated.
“We are also unsure why regulation appears to be the default option, without considering what other non-regulatory options may also be effective, such as new or updated guidance from the regulator, being the Tax Practitioners Board.”
The FAAA, always putting there needs first and looking at ways to handcuff members. Is this the case again?
How many advisers would have not been a member of the TPB prior to 2022 or have not completed the two relevant subjects post 2022 as part of the studies and need to rely on this exemption? How many Advisers are impacted ? Have a I misunderstood this?
Accountants are raising concerns about the compulsory dob in and reporting requirements and Advisers need to be similar concerned…Advisers best interest lays with the client not the TPB which is now merely an arm of the ATO… but this is not raised at all by the FAAA.
Why these requirements when we can’t even access the ATO portal?
This constant softly softly approach by the FAAA as not wanting to upset Treasury has clearly not worked in the last decades, almost where there is a blatant conflict between Treasury and the FAAA and members interest.
Ah is this the same Treasury that can’t manage its own Dodgy Dixon’s conflicts of interest?
Is this the same Treasury that has manipulated the CompoSLR to ensure its employees are paid retrospectively on their poor investment decision losses in Dodgy Dixon’s MIS fiasco?
Is this the same Treasury that has employed Nerida Cole, who previously was the head of advice at Dodgy Dixon’s, who is now employed at Treasury as the Director of the Financial Adviser Regulation Unit?
Is this the same Treasury Pot calling the Associations Black?
What a disgusting, corrupt, conflicted, pompous bunch of bureaucratic liars are Treasury.
Red Tape Warriors inventing more Red Tape, more useless costs, more impediments to Aussie people getting Real Advice to inflate their own importance at Treasury.
Treasury finding all sorts of ways to stick it to Financial Planners now…