With the experience pathway before Parliament and the government due to consult on changes to the Financial Adviser Exam and the Professional Year later this year, the Financial Services Council (FSC) has voiced its support for “deeper learning” among financial advisers.
The FSC revealed earlier this week that it has “provided government” with a package of initiatives to support “greater knowledge transfer” and “specialisation” within advice businesses, while “further incentivising” new entrants to the profession.
In a video update, Zach Castles, policy director of advice and platforms at the FSC, said, “moving the barrier for tomorrow’s financial advisers, those enrolled in financial planning courses today, is a key concern for the FSC’s members”.
Mr Castles explained that this “deeper learning”, “specialisation and knowledge transfer” will facilitate innovation and growth in advice.
Mid-June, Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones introduced Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 to Parliament, which includes measures to recognise experienced financial advisers who pass the exam, have 10 years of experience, and a clean practice record.
According to the bill’s explanatory memorandum, there are 10,030 practising advisers that were first authorised in 2011 or earlier, which is the cut-off date for eligibility of the pathway.
Citing data from the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) and the Financial Planning Association (FPA) prior to their merger, the government estimated about 6,520 advisers with 10 years of experience would benefit from the experience pathway as they have not yet met the education requirements to remain an adviser.
It also estimated that 2,086 advisers were not intending to remain in the industry after 1 January 2026, which is the deadline for existing financial advisers with no degree to attain an approved qualification.
The Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) had however sought certain changes prior to the bill’s entry into Parliament. Among those was the introduction of a sunset clause, which the minister dismissed.
Namely, in a video message to the Stockbrokers Conference held in Sydney in May, Mr Jones confirmed that there would be no sunset clause.
“This bill will recognise the qualification that comes with a decade of experience, while maintaining a clean record on the adviser register. There will be no sunset clause on this qualification,” the minister said at the time.
Responding to Mr Jones at the time, the FAAA chief executive Sarah Abood told ifa that the body is disappointed.
“We’re disappointed that the sunset clause suggestion has not been included,” she said.
“However, it is a positive that advisers are getting more clarity on the operation of the pathway, and we will continue to work with the minister and Treasury to help ensure implementation is smooth.”
I just can’t get my head around this sunset clause proposal. It makes no sense. So if you are not ‘qualified’, you can practice for ten years based on your experience. However, after ten years you are no longer fit to practice, despite now being in practice for at least twenty years. What am I missing? This is why I didn’t join the FAAA.
FSC are not to be trusted on any level whatsoever in relation to Financial Advisers.
They have done nothing for the last decade to advance the cause of Financial Advisers or the delivery of financial advice.
They were a key player in the negotiations with Kelly O’Dwyer regarding the completely destructive implementation of the Life insurance Framework and continually recommended to media, politicians, ASIC and John Trowbridge that Life Insurance commissions should be reduced to a Level basis only and ideally be eradicated altogether.
Well, if you now consider the dire state of the Life Insurance advice business which is effectively almost destroyed, the consumer benefits the FSC were crowing about as a resultant outcome of the LIF have never eventuated and the premium cost has skyrocketed out of control and the experienced, professional Life Insurance Advisers have dwindled to a minuscule representation of what was previously a profitable, vibrant and successful model.
The FSC were instrumental in pushing for the changes they believed would deliver massive profit gains to their Life Insurance company members and it was an abominable failure of significant proportions.
For Zach Castles to carry on about ” knowledge transfer” is an insult.
FSC…a blight on the advice profession.
How many advisers in the FSC advocacy area? Then why are they a voice? It’s like a lender telling government brokers need to change their ability to hire staff. What in the heck, Any other country this would be laughed at, not noted as new of public interest. Ridiciulous
Deeper Learnig – which is code for – so we can charge advisers lots of money for all the education courses.
Can someone explain why an industry group centered around product is casting their opinion regarding the financial planning profession?
Great comment, and no, no one can rationally do so, unless they’re conflicted