In a number of questions on notice to FASEA, Senate economic references committee member Amanda Stoker pointed to paragraph 6.9 of the explanatory memorandum to the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2017, the legislation that had originally established the remit of the standards authority.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the new law explicitly states that courses undertaken before the new law commences must be taken into consideration. The body may take into account diploma or degree courses, licensee training courses or CPD,” the explanatory memorandum stated.
Ms Stoker asked how FASEA had “reconciled [its] position” that past adviser CPD hours could not be counted for prior learning credits under its education standards with the wording included in the bill.
The standards authority said it had followed advice from education quality assurance board TEQSA in disallowing CPD for the purposes of prior learning credits, and that it had acted in the spirit of the law’s wording by allowing CPD to count towards ongoing education requirements.
“FASEA is guided by the [Australian Qualifications Framework] principles and has consulted with the TEQSA to validate the pathways in line with their policies as the regulator for higher education providers that award bachelor degrees and higher in Australia,” FASEA said.
“FASEA considers other CPD undertaken by advisers (including technical seminars, conferences, online reading, attending professional updates, etc) would generally not meet
the principles of the AQF for the awarding of credit. This form of ongoing education can, however, satisfy the ongoing 40 hour CPD requirement of advisers.”
TEQSA advice suggested excessive awarding of credits to students who had completed industry CPD only may lead universities to admit students who were “insufficiently prepared to undertake the level of higher education required”, the standards authority said.
In further responses to questioning from Ms Stoker around its position on CPD standards, FASEA also noted that the government had called attention to the low standard of CPD training in the industry in its regulatory impact statement attached to the original FASEA legislation.
The statement had said that “the existing minimum education and training standards have not been applied consistently across the industry, and the rigour and quality of some training courses is questionable”, meaning it may be inappropriate to award prior learning credits for CPD courses, FASEA’s evidence suggested.
I dont understand why they cant just send an accreditor out and audit 5 random files of ACTUAL client advice provided. Why do they insist on making me pay to do THEORETICAL cases and assignments? Surely the actual PRACTICAL element is worth more than the THEORETICAL element…So you’re a surgeon are you? Yes, Ive been performing surgery for 30 years with no deaths or serious breaches. Im sorry sir, but we need you to understand the THEORY of being a surgeon before we can allow you to perform PRACTICAL surgery. Makes zero sense. Map the skills that need to be assessed (I beleive already done) accredit assessors (could even be a nice career change for some advisers) and get them into advisers offices ASAP. I’d galdly pay the $10k+ that FASEA currently want me to spend on going going back to school to study the exact same subjects I have already completed.
What bureaucratic Canberra bubble morons look at the Real World of Advice.
Bah huh huh – you so funny…….that will never happen with their heads firmly planted up their Canberra Bubble butts
If you’ve studied them why do you need to go back? What quals do u hold?
Dfp 1-8 plus estate planning and smsf specialist accreditation. I need to do 6 subjects all pretty much the same but apparently at a higher level.
Thanks but I’m happy with the $540 I paid for the exam and $220 for a pre-exam workshop. Why would I want to pay $10K+ ??? Makes zero sense…
I’ve passed exam too. That’s not the issue. I have to do 6 subjects 5 of which I’ve done as part of dfp 1-8. The 10k cost is the least it…its the 40 hours per subject of lost productivity that is the real issue
Amanda Stoker is simply deflecting any criticism away from the LNP, the ones who implemented this now supposedly flawed FASEA legislation, onto others.
Or it shows how the Regulators like FARSEA and ASIC can completely butcher the intent of the law and the wording of the law with their crazy over the top, psycho interpretation and REGS of the law.
Maybe it shows that the barriers to entry into financial planning were way too low for way too long. Very disingenuous of LNP politicians to be grilling FASEA board when it was the government who set the requirements in stone for “a degree or degree equivalent”. Doing annual CPD is not equivalent to a degree and that’s the reason so many are carping, because they know they couldnt cut the mustard to complete a degree or even the reduced requirement of a Grad Dip….do u need some cheese for your whine…
I agree. Stoker, Bert Van Menen and other Liberals are cleverly asking some tough questions without actually doing anything of substance. Hume has scrapped FASEA but there is no sign of Treasury fixing the broken Code. It’s a political game and we are the football.
“The standards authority said it had followed advice from education quality assurance board TEQSA in disallowing CPD for the purposes of prior learning credits”
Interesting to note that a brief look at TEQSA website confirmed that this is overseen by a board of four Commissioners all of whom are drawn from the Tertiary institutions who sell education for their survival.
Professor Nick Saunders AO (Chief Commissioner) – previously Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Bond University, having taken up this position after retiring as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, Australia
Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake AO (Commissioner) – completed his almost fifteen-year term as Vice-Chancellor and CEO of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in December 2017, and is a former Chair of both the peak body for Australia’s Universities, Universities Australia (UA)
Emeritus Professor Joan Cooper (Commissioner) – was previously a Higher Education Consultant, a position she took on after retiring as Pro-Vice Chancellor (Students) of the University of New South Wales (UNSW)
Emeritus Professor Cliff Walsh (Commissioner) – Professor Walsh has held professorial appointments at the University of Adelaide and the Australian National University and visiting appointments at universities in Canada, the USA and the UK
Whilst we should not question the abilities or motivation of this impressive group, they are a product of their background, as we all are, and we should not be surprised that they are likely to determine the best course of action is further tertiary education. I’m not sure if this is an excellent choice when seeking a balanced form of guidance to assist in establishing the parameters of changes that have such a severe impact upon both practitioners and the clients we represent.
Let’s keep in mind that our goal should be to ensure availability of “good” advice to the majority of Australians not “great” advice to a diminishing minority. Leaders interested in all Australians and responsible for charting our course should think deeply on this as we evolve our future path.
Thank you, Senator Stoker, for questioning and supporting the development of that path.
No conflicts of interest at all – bah huh huh.
These FARSEAcal, Academics and ASIC clowns ALL need to spend 120 doing an Ethics course to better identify and NOT ACT WHERE THEY HAVE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Good point and thanks for bringing this to the attention of this forum. The financial services industry is a clear case of “Loevinger’s law of irresistible use”. That is, if there is a regulator then there must be something that needs regulating.
Hats off to Senator Stoker for raising the pointlessness of these financial services regulators.
Fancy having educators on the Board of an educational quality assurance board…..
A total rushed debacle
Industry destruction
Financial advisers are doing up to 4 times the amount of CPD that other professionals are doing. Its nuts.
FARSEA make us do a 120 hrs Ethics course.
FARSEA then says this only = 30 hrs CPD
FARSEA then awards the whole 120 hrs course to a very narrow Ethics only category in their annual CPD requirement and guess what, your 120hrs Ethics course doesn’t even qualify for 30 hrs FARSEA CPD, at best it will be 25 hrs of their CPD.
FARSEAcal in everything they do.
There was a strong financial incentive for the original members of FASEA to disregarded that section. No disclosure of vested interests but a brazen disregard for the best interest of the industry and its customers.
The response from FASEA as always is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. Where in the legislation is there a requirement for the new education requirements to meet to higher standards of AQF and why did they take the advice from TEQSA which are not even mentioned in the legislation.
My biggest objection is that FASEA have not recognised the six unit Diploma of Financial Planning of completed in 1994/5 to allow addtional credits so that I only need to compete the Ethics unit. This was an actual Diploma, not ongoing CPD which I spent considerable hours completing whilst still running my own practice full time.As a Financial Planner of 33 years standing with a Bachelor of Commerce (Melb), Dip FP as above and met the required FPA 40 hours of CPD over every training year, I find it totally inconruous some of the irrational logic used by FASEA in making this decision< The sooner they are removed from this space due to their conflicts of interest and incompetence the better for all concerned.
So FASEA deliberately violated the mandate given to it by the Government, because of advice from TEQSA? Ignoring CPD and experience is very bad, but what about those of us with degrees and masters in financial planning who are now forced back to university to complete another subject on a topic already tested in the adviser exam? What is their excuse for that gross breach of their mandate? What a basket case
How about the other way too, besides Economics & Business Law degree, Full DFP, SMSFA specialist, Adviser Estate Olan specialist, 22 yrs CPD, 15 yrs AFSL RM, now I’m not qualified.
So I get a distinction wasting my time of 120 hrs doing the FARSEA Ethics course.
Now I must do another exam that is 1/3 what I just passed ?
FARSSAcal the whole approach.
Just remember FARSEA started out saying Any degree over 10 yrs ago counts for nothing = everyone start education again from scratch.
I would like to see ONE example, just ONE, of an adviser being given credit for prior learning that ISN’T from a formal qualification. I’m all for lifting standards, but to receive no credit for decades of CPD is a disgrace!
Most people know that quite a lot of past CPD has simply been a box ticking exercise, where many people go and sit in a room but do little learning.
Anonymous – you just described a University Lecture. Now that you have done that, what is you point?