Adviser ASIC registration should be own responsibility

Financial adviser and tax financial adviser registration to the corporate regulator should be the responsibility of the individual rather than the licensees, the SMSF Association believes.

It said, if the responsibility was on the adviser, it made clear these declarations were a statutory obligation and not a requirement of the licensee.

SMSF Association chief executive, John Maroney, said: “For advisers, the lines between licensee policies and the law often become blurred”.

Related News:

He also noted that urgent consideration was needed for advisers who registered as tax financial advisers based on specific experience with approved professional body memberships.

“Given the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority [FASEA] education standards must be completed by 1 January, 2026, transitional measures will be required to ensure these advisers can renew their registrations after 1 January, 2022, and continue to provide these services,” he said.

The association said it welcomed the establishment of the single advice disciplinary proposal as it would remove the complexity around multiple registration, regulatory bodies, and codes.

“It is an important step in raising standards, providing consistency and simplification with the use a single body – the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) within ASIC. Its role is to monitor, review and where necessary discipline the sector,” Maroney said.

“Over time, the FSCP and associated processes will provide greater consumer protection and, in turn, instil a greater level of confidence in the system’s integrity.

“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. Doing so will align the financial advice sector with other professions – the broader policy objective.”

Recommended for you




The deceitfully named "Single" Disciplinary Body doesn't remove much in the way of registration, regulatory bodies or codes at all. FASEA was never a regulatory body, and it's code and education standards are being transferred to Treasury. The TPB registration and code is thankfully being removed, but only for individuals, not practices. However it is being replaced with new, yet to be determined, education requirements that may well be in addition to those of FASEA. And there is a whole new layer of adviser registration being introduced along with the "S"DB.

Meanwhile advisers are still subject to ASIC, AFCA, Austrac, OAIC, and their licensees.

Hume is an utter liar to suggest that this new disciplinary body is anything remotely approaching "single". The professional associations should be refusing to acknowledge it as such.

there is no point protesting. the only thing everyone will understand is when the adviser numbers are down to about 5,000. so don't complain no one is listening, and no one can do anything.

just leave, on the way out

The issues you mention, the multiple layers were examined at the Royal Commission. Those "professional associations" (the FPA and the AFA) were ruled as being incapable of being code monitoring body by the Royal Commissioner. Go back and ask some of those "professional" bodies why they are incapable. Any chance of self regulation and consolidation to a single disciplinary/code monitoring was lost.

Add new comment