Faced with increasing costs which are adding to the pressure on financial advisers, industry organisations have signalled they are going to be pressing the Federal Government to absorb or at least mitigate some of the cost of the new single disciplinary body.
As well, they are concerned at the likely cost of the annual registration fees which will have to be paid by advisers.
On the back of the Government on Monday releasing the exposure draft legislation which broadly explains how the new single disciplinary body will work, there was general agreement among industry executives that some rationalisation of costs was needed in circumstances where the new structure entails pre-existing systems and operations.
Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) acting chief executive, Phil Anderson said that it had always been inevitable that the establishment of the single disciplinary body would bring another layer of cost and it was important to recognise the impact.
He said the AFA would be making a comprehensive submission to Treasury responding to the exposure draft legislation which would include pointing out the manner in which financial advisers and licensees were already being impacted by regulatory costs.
A number of dealer group executives told Money Management that they believed the Government should be urged to use the establishment of the single disciplinary body as a catalyst for an overall review of the regulatory layers, particularly in circumstances where the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) was being removed, and the those of the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) subject to some consolidation.
However, they said that the recent substantial increase in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) levy had left many advisers concerned about their continuing financial viability.
“They will doubtless want to delay any wind-back of the existing regulatory structures until they see how this single disciplinary body structure works, but they simply cannot continue to just build one layer of regulation and cost on another,” a senior executive said.
“They cannot hope to achieve a more affordable advice environment if they keep imposing regulatory layers and costs.”