Government should increase access to advice, not reduce it

Advisers have a voice, the AFA and FPA , yet they have been anything but proactive, their lamb like obedience to the directives by government and the regulator are a shameful indictment of their incompetence and lack of understanding in just who they ultimately represent

It is my understanding that without the recent introduction of "industry funding" ASIC already returns around $600million in dividends to consolidated revenue. Thus ASIC actually acts as a collector of a hidden tax rather than an industry regulator. The failure of ASIC to properly police existing legislation has been largely swept under the carpet, but in my view made a large contribution to the "flawed culture" which emerged within institutions.

Perhaps if ASIC had been permitted to use its own revenue (rather than paying "tribute") a far better conduct of regulatory action in relation to pre-existing laws (FSRA and FOFA) would have been highly likely. Rather the solution to problem is to make all advice even less affordable. Perhaps if all members of Parliament were required to sit an exam and be qualified with a relevant degree and required to always act in the best interests of their constituents, we would see some better governance?

Great article and thankyou. It astounds me that our industry now finds ourselves in this situation. It also astounds me that these reforms that are being rammed through without any seemingly stopping and asking how average Australians will be better off as a result of these changes!

If any other profession had 19 times the national average of suicide rates in a 6 month period the mainstream media would be all over it. Advice is being treated as a disease to be eliminated and our politicians are the vaccinators.

When will Treasury actually cost the outcomes of no financial advice for people? How will our economy pay for it?

This is starting to look like occupational Genocide.

The lengths this country is going to in its attempts to take anything with a subjective component and tie itself in knots legislating every conceivable aspect of it to eliminate anything resembling a risk knows no bounds.

Let's say the equivalent of FOFA and the upcoming RC legislation made its way into the medical profession whereby only around 20% of productive time was spent with clients/patients and the remaining 80% on justification paperwork. GP's would find themselves spending 15 mins with a patient and then the next hour writing about what took place and what they recommended.

Assuming the GP wants to retain their income, they are now charging patients 5 times as much because they are only seeing around 20% of the patients a day they once were. And what happens to the other 80% of patients that can no longer be seen by the GP? They go off and rely on non-qualified sources for their healthcare. Sure, the legislation may have helped those 20% prepared to pay for their advice, but now the other 80% are likely to be worse off.

At some point, our politicians and legislators need some accountability as to whether their directives are in the country's overall best interests. RC's are largely a waste of time because they don't listen to a balanced view. Instead they listen to a select group of horror stories and interpret this to mean that is what is happening to everyone and legislate accordingly. If the government is unable to demonstrate legislation had the deisred result, then it should be repealed, not more and more layers added to it.

How about we suggest that all sitting politicians, ASIC staff and heads, APRA etc all have to sit an ETHICS exam. If you do not pass you cannot carry on working in your occupation you lose your entitlements and can only resit the exam every two months. PS they have to pay for it themselves!

The industry regulator is overseeing a train wreck. Clients need advice more than ever but the reality is that the practitioners able to provide it are largely self employed or small businesses owners. These advisers need a viable business / business model to survive and deliver the said advice. Along comes the regulator sets exam deadlines, qualification hurdles, bans remuneration, scares large portions of the the industry away and oversees a massive compliance ramp up on those that remain.

The advisers are either leaving, re-setting their prices (upwards) or letting go of low revenue clients.Tens of thousands of advice relationships are being broken. Those advisers that remain will be charging more for their advice and serving less clients than previously. The result will be that the industry will be more expensive and less accessible - exactly the opposite of what the regulator is espousing.

As the AFA and the FPA are not going to represent their members,all advisers should engage Class Action Lawyers firm to represent them for a Class Action against the Federal Government of the day for loss of income and lively hood due to the enforcement of FASEA on planners that have many years of experience ,who have not broken the Law and have a long list of happy financial planning clients they are currently serving.

Planners who have done the right thing by their clients but now legislation says that these planners will have to sit and pass exams to continue in their practice even though they are well qualified to do the job.And let ASIC do their policing on the bad apples.

It would better to allow current planners to be excluded from exams.

FASEA should only apply to new or recent entrants to the industry.

Planners,let the Lawyers have their Picnic.Get some Class Action happening.