In a statement issued on Tuesday, SMSF Association chief executive John Maroney said the move would be a “critical” reform for the financial advice sector.
“We support the policy intent to simplify the regulatory environment for financial advisers. The changes, set to take effect on 1 January 2022, will assist in removing some of the additional layers of complexity around multiple registrations, regulatory bodies and codes,” Mr Maroney said.
“It is an important step in raising standards, providing consistency and simplification with the use of a single body – the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) within ASIC. Its role is to monitor, review and where necessary discipline the sector.
“Over time, the FSCP and associated processes will provide greater consumer protection and, in turn, instill a greater level of confidence in the system’s integrity.”
Further to this, SMSF argued that the federal government’s consultation draft legislation to implement recommendation 2.10 of the royal commission should not “be the final word” on establishing a new disciplinary system in a submission to Treasury.
“We urge the Government to reshape some of the proposed measures, using them as the essential first steps towards broader regulatory reform for the advice sector,” Mr Maroney said.
“Doing so will align the financial advice sector with other professions – the broader policy objective.
“Individual registration of financial advisers and the inclusion of tax (financial) adviser registrations under one umbrella inside ASIC is one such step. These changes will incorporate a fit and proper person test on application and renewal.
“However, registration should be the responsibility of the individual and not their licensees as the draft legislation proposes.
“This makes it clear that these declarations are a statutory obligation and not a requirement of the licensee. For advisers, the lines between licensee policies and the law often become blurred.”
[quote=Anon]Agreed Paul. The only disciplinary body to be removed for advisers when this new body is introduced will be TPB. And only for individuals, not practices. Removal of TPB was actually recommended at least 3 years ago by an independent review, and the govt has sat on it since then.
This new disciplinary body will only improve affordability and accessibility of professional advice if it replaces other disciplinary bodies including ASIC, AFCA, Austrac, OAIC and licensees. To call it a “single” disciplinary body is laughable.[/quote]
The TPB has been out of date for sometime, and now lacks relevance.
It is disappointing to see SMSF Association come out so strongly in support of this. It will not lead to any efficiencies, but instead is ANOTHER disciplinary body and will increase the fees we pay.
I consider it a very bad development, but would love to hear why the SMSF Association want to congratulate the very people who have driven businesses to the wall.
Agreed Paul. The only disciplinary body to be removed for advisers when this new body is introduced will be TPB. And only for individuals, not practices. Removal of TPB was actually recommended at least 3 years ago by an independent review, and the govt has sat on it since then.
This new disciplinary body will only improve affordability and accessibility of professional advice if it replaces other disciplinary bodies including ASIC, AFCA, Austrac, OAIC and licensees. To call it a “single” disciplinary body is laughable.
The SMSF Association is also pushing for ATO portal access for ALL advisers whilst the FPA has no clue. I wouldnt be too critical as they were first to expose FASEA during its plotting (sorry planning) phase back in 2017. They are playing the long game and individual licensing support should be welcomed in imo considering the FPA has been MIA for years.