Shot by Oakeshott

Oakeshott has said that he is opposed to a two year opt-in and favours a five year opt-in if one has to be imposed. He has also expressed concerns with the abolition of commissions for risk insurance inside Super. He has not expressed concernbs with any other FOFA reforms and the industry should really just accept these are likely to be law and most Financial Planners will have no problems with them. We can only hope he sees Planners as small businesses and the administrative costs this would impose and not the punching ball the Gov't and Union Funds do. This is not to mention the underinsurance issue exploding further than it already has in this Country.

If FoFA becomes law, we can comply right now and we will have no issues with the 2 year opt-In rule. We do oppose the removal of commissions from super as that introduces another conflict of interest. The government would be better served if they changed the commission to level or flat rate as that will remove the existing conflict of interest. William

These reforms are to protect the consumer and the market. It will be in the longterm interest of all.

These reforms are to protect the consumer and the market. It will be in the longterm interest of all.

It is the way with legislation that it usually follows a trend or a need in the economic society it seeks to regulate. Progressive financial planning firms are well advanced along the path to fee for advice/ service - and usually on a prescribed renewal review arrangement. If commissions are to remain in any product, their reconciliation to a service model shouldn't alarm regulators - or more importantly, clients - providing there is transparent disclosure and opportunity to review the service model adopted. We are supporters of the fiduciary responsibility model as well.