Michelle should just have stayed mum until she got all her ducks in a row.

“I don't think that all advice requires a professional. A really important part of the proposal is that the obligation, when it's not with a professional adviser, will sit with the licensee."

Excuse me! What does this mean? A licensee is some-one or some organisation authorised to give financial advice. If you are a licensee authorising professional advisers to work under your licence, then who has the obligation?? And how do you define professional advisers in the first place? The ones who earn an income from being more financially literate than their clients?

Or are you saying that licensees will not appoint professional advisers as AR's?
What's the point of being a licensee? Being able to use unprofessional advisers to give advice?

And what on earth happened to the concept that you can't call yourself a financial adviser unless you are operating under an Australian Financial Services Licence??
Surely you don't mean that just anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a financial adviser again?

And “Advice has to be fit for purpose. Is [the financial institution] telling me the right thing? Is this really the right amount of cover for me? If yes, in my view, that is good quality advice."

Why do you suppose financial advice consumers come to professionals in the first place? To find out whether the product provider is telling them the right thing! Or is giving them the right amount of cover.

And don't even get me started on the financial institutions who refuse to pay up when claims are made. Consumers can absolutely NOT rely on the product provider in that scenario.
Where are your wits Michelle?

And here's one for the older advisers. Do you recall back in the 90's when ASIC defined good advice as being compliant advice? I don't imagine they have changed their tune one iota. Compliant advice can be totally bad advice, and that's been the problem of the past two decades.

The next two decades are shaping up to be even worse.