‘Forget the government’: Professional sees liberation in QAR announcement

In a recent LinkedIn post, researcher and speaker Dr Katherine Hunt suggested that the government’s announcement actually liberates the profession from seeking its attention or assistance.

Her post comes in the wake of widespread criticism of the proposed introduction of a new category of advisers, “qualified advisers”, one that would encompass workers of banks, insurers, and superannuation funds.

“The government is not in charge of the profession. Not anymore,” Dr Hunt wrote on her LinkedIn profile.

“The profession can now step up and govern itself.”

Highlighting that it is not within the government’s mandate to “babysit each and every profession”, Dr Hunt urged advisers to focus on constructing highly efficient businesses that render the term “qualified adviser” obsolete.

Dr Hunt indicated her support for the notion that the community will benefit from “some advice over no advice” with the re-introduction of product providers into the fold. However, she added that realistically, being afraid of inferior groups of product advisers is illogical.

“We have the experience, the skills, and the mentors around us to differentiate ourselves. To grow. To serve.

“Professionals don’t worry about inferior competitors. They worry about client outcomes.”

In conclusion, she said, the announcement means that “we can once and for all forget the government”.

“They aren’t coming to save us. It is not their job to save us. And most importantly, we do not need to be saved.”

Any action will take time

Benjamin Marshan also extended words of encouragement to advisers via LinkedIn following the government’s announcement.

The former general manager of policy and advocacy at the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA), urged the advice community to voice their views on the government’s policy stance via a formal submissions process.

Mr Marshan, who recently concluded a brief tenure at the Council of Australian Life Insurers, expressed the view that the changes proposed last week are unlikely to be implemented in less than two years, more realistically around three years. As such, he urged advisers to remain calm and take proactive measures in response to the developments.

“It’s probably hard to remember given the speed at which the royal commission was implemented – but pre-RC – it used to take years for recommendations of reviews to be implemented,” Mr Marshan wrote.

“You used to have the review (about a year), then a government response (3–6 months), then a consultation (six months after that), then draft legislation (3–6 months after that), then through Parliament (that takes 3–6 months, and you might have a Senate inquiry), to make the law. But that usually has a 12–18-month implementation period because ASIC (or another regulator) has to create guidance and maybe a register (that’ll add an extra 12–18 months).”

According to him, the government’s policy stance appeared to be more of a reaction to the QAR, upholding his view that any substantial action could require a significant amount of time.

“It’s not a consultation paper, it’s not draft legislation, it’s not actual legislation being introduced into Parliament. So will there be a ‘new type of financial advice provider’ or a ‘qualified adviser’?

“Will there be superannuation funds and life insurers and banks providing advice tomorrow? I’d be surprised – and I’d be surprised if it is as easy as just calling someone a ‘qualified adviser’.”

In short, he added: “There’s a long way to go on this one”, “and lots of opportunity to come up with a better title”.

“And if you care – put in a submission – or help your association put theirs in.”