To me, personally, Stephen Jones has always displayed a lack of media training, contrasting with the common practice among politicians of packaging their messages in a way that makes them more likeable – a prerequisite for a successful career in a profession often deemed as lacking in humility.
However, this doesn’t make him honest, as he has been known to exaggerate and embellish the truth on occasions, such as when he promised to “fix the hot mess” quickly.
If anything, Jones’ apparent lack of polish in media engagements makes him seem lacking in subject matter expertise, and frankly, uncaring.
This week, while speaking at an AIOFP dinner in Sydney, Jones didn’t hold back, telling advisers that the only way to reduce compliance costs in the industry is by fostering its growth – as if it were a simple task.
But where I believe he truly crossed the line is when he essentially cautioned advisers to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Perhaps it would have been accepted as a moment of genuine care if Jones hadn’t been guilty of the exact behaviour he was cautioning advisers about.
Namely, Jones told advisers: “Anybody who comes to you peddling simple solutions, be very, very, very suspicious of them.”
And don’t get me wrong, this is a fair and legitimate comment, but it was Jones who did just that a little over two years ago now.
In 2022, Minister Stephen Jones pledged to fix the “hot mess” left behind by the Morrison government, and quickly.
He said he planned to stem the flow of advisers exiting the industry and stop advisers from having to jump through “crazy hoops” in order to deliver advice, so that more Australians have access to high-quality, affordable financial advice.
However, here we are in May 2024, and all he has objectively done to date is make advice more expensive to deliver, and therefore, more inaccessible to Australians.
Is Jones warning advisers to be wary of him? Frankly, his term in office should have been accompanied by a cautionary note – “full of promise, but lacks execution”.
“If there’s anything I’ve learned over the last five years of dealing with this area, if there was a simple solution, it would have been put in place, and short-term bandaids are not sustainable. We’ve got to get sustainable solutions to these issues and I’m committed to doing that and I’ve got the support of my government to see these things through,” said Jones this week.
It’s regrettable that he didn’t opt for honesty from the beginning; it would have led to a smoother and less disappointing journey.
Ok, he does deserve credit for fronting up to advisers on many occasions and often fielding questions from a potentially hostile audience, but that doesn’t change his lack of real and genuine action.
So, where to from here, Jones?
Let’s don’t forget Jones promised and delivered on the Education Pathway 10-year rule legislation that assisted 3,000 older Advisers to stay in the industry, that was the first bit of positive legislation in 12 years after the horrors of the Coalition Governments actions….remember LIF, FASEA, ban on trails? Just be careful for what you wish for…..
It is not his “lack of training” that makes him seem uncaring, its his lack of caring.
So true well said
Wow! This is a great article. I’m surprised its so hard hitting. BRAVO!
“So, where to from here, Jones?”
Back to opposition.
Thank you Maja, thank you for telling it like it is. There is always the truth.
Maja, this is the most accurate and succinct assessment of Stephen Jones I have read.
His attitude and delivery in my opinion shows a complete lack of real understanding or empathy in relation to the unsustainable period of stress that Financial Advisers have been subject to over the last decade.
The discriminatory and relentless pursuit of this Profession by both sides of Govt has been utterly unacceptable, bordering on obsessive and predatory in nature.
Stephen Jones had an opportunity to address matters in a professional, caring and responsible manner following his ” electioneering ” grand stand to a beaten, broken and desperate industry that was looking for support and understanding.
Sadly, his ego, his lack of empathy and his position of power has somehow dissolved any hope.
He has failed and failed badly when he could have turned this around and gained some respect.
Instead, he has no respect and continues to damage his brand and his political party’s chances of a successful re-election.
Well said. However where are the journalists at the functions Mr Jones attends asking him hard questions. While Mr Jones uncaring and uneducated attitude to financial advisers is clear, and you probably won’t get answers, put his feet to the fire and ask him:
2 years in, what actions has he implemented that have addressed the “hot mess”?
After stating action would be taken within 3 months of his term, why has it taken him so long to address the QAR report?
What is the exact plan to grow the number of quality advisers?
Why is he focusing on advice from super funds rather than easing regulations which would allow existing advisers to give advice to more Australians?
With numerous parties stating that his proposed legislation will increase advice fees and reduce accessibility to advice what amendments will be made?
If prior to the election he assessed financial advice as a hot mess, how does he assess it now?
Why is he focusing on advice from super funds rather than easing regulations which would allow existing advisers to give advice to more Australians?
Probably the same Super Fund are spending significant amounts of $$$ on advertising – perhaps even at the IFA? Perhaps difficult/unrealistic to see/expect the media biting the hand that feeds? Could be wrong?
Hotter. Close to or at boiling point…
It was easy to see his hubris in the electioneering. He really “sucked” people in and maybe they were ripe for the picking given the “Gordian knot” that is financial advice compliance. Jane Hume made a commitment to fix but, given the LNPs apparent extreme dislike of super, channelled the focus into “fintech” solutions. Very simplistic concept but, a very difficult solution to get traction in the market.
Jones demonstrated from the first time he opened his mouth that he is very immature and not a deep thinker. He is very unsuited to this part of his portfolio. Let’s hope there is a reshuffle at some stage.
In the meantime, the QAR came up with some big ideas but any honest reflection would have to agree that some it is was really hard to do. “Replace the SoA with a simple piece of advice reinforced by enhanced file notes”. How do you move from this neurotic interpretation of the Corps Act as it relates to client advice to something that is plain speaking and may even be client focused? We had consumer affairs out hysterically claiming QAR recommendations would lead to another RC. I think this put the wind up Jones as he doesn’t get it, doesn’t understand it, as is only capable of acting in a political best interest.
If the BID rules, especially the safe harbour steps, ever actually produced better advice, I think it would be good to see the examples, even a research project to come up with validation. The biggest step toward shifting the dial to the client’s best interest was professionalising the industry. A professional has a fiduciary duty to serve their clients so doesn’t need a statutory one to add a compliance process. We all know it was the Regulator that wanted a statutory insertion so that it didn’t have to haul off to court if is found a breach. Was this the right reason? And so it goes on. Financial advice is anything but client focused and all the so called protections afforded by the majority of the compliance requirements do not result in better advice as, a key check for better advice is – client understanding and informed consent. How anyone can understand the current form advice is produced. It’s hard work for the adviser to provide the essence of the advice in order to get the informed consent. This is a part of why financial advice is so expensive. It is simply the time required to get it done
Could not have put it better, myself, Maja. You couldn’t even say Jones was long on promise and short on delivery, because that would suggest he had actually delivered!
As you state, we are WORSE off than before he became Minister and there does not appear to be anything coming down the pipe that will change it.
Libs had an experienced MP who had worked in the FP industry, a potentially well informed person to jump in and deal with coal face issues.
Sorry Bert, we need to promote Luke, experience and quiet results doesn’t help us win elections. Head office knows best.