TheFinancial Planning Association(FPA) has failed in its attempt to include the term ‘financial planner’ in the list of restricted words and expressions in the Financial Services Reform Act (FSRA).
Speaking this morning at an FPA briefing in Sydney, FPA senior manager of public policy Con Hristodoulidis confirmed the FPA’s bid to restrict use of the term was unsuccessful.
Hristodoulidis says despite a positive meeting with a Treasury representative last week the Treasury’s response to the FPA’s claim was that no change was needed as, in their view, a ‘financial planner’ was a generic term used in the financial services industry.
But the FPA has pledged to appeal the decision and re-enter the fight in the next three to six months.
Hristodoulidis says the term needs to be restricted to protect consumers from misleading financial advice given by financial planners operating outside the scope of the FSRA regime.
“We are now building our case. We have met with ASIC and devised a definition of what a financial planner is. We think we have a pretty good case,” he says.
Hristodoulidis says through the help of internal FPA policy and advisory committees the Association has devised a six step process to define a financial planner.
The FPA is also consulting with its counterparts in Canada, Singapore and the United States, where issues had also arisen around the use of the term ‘financial planner’.
Meanwhile, the FPA has launched a comprehensive FSRA kit introduction for financial planners to follow.
The kit, entitled Financial Services Reform Implementation Kit, details the steps financial planners need to take to make sure they comply with ASIC’s regulations.
The kit also provides planners with warnings and cautions about taxation issues which planners may come across while complying. However, the FPA is quick to point out that despite the kit being slanted as comprehensive, planners should use the kit in conjunction with guidelines released by ASIC.
