The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) is again on notice to explain to Senate Estimates how it went about the consultation process around the development of the financial adviser code of ethics.
Cross-bench South Australian Senator, Rex Patrick placed key questions to FASEA on the Senate notice paper which, as yet, remain unanswered by the authority.
Patrick has asked FASEA which stakeholders were engaged in the consultation period around the development of the code of ethics, whether the consultation was conducted by “survey, by some sort of town hall meeting-and, indeed, from which entities you received submissions” and the timelines.
“Could you maybe lay out the actual internal process that FASEA went through in terms of who was involved in that final determination and how they took input from consultation and acted on it,” the Senator asked.
The questions on notice to FASEA are among a raft of questions asked during the March Senate Estimates hearings, none of which have yet been answered by any of the Government departments and agencies involved.
Comments
Looks like FASEA might be trying to hide something here?
Where is Hedware?
Yes?
Have no disagreements with Senator Patrick's questions.
Seems you do.
No problem with the question.
I suspect Hedware, and all the other union PR flunkies, are too busy writing comments on websites and social media with much broader readership than this one. The unions' shameful attempts to stymie withdrawals from their super funds and redraw from their loans, has rightly created a public backlash. It's all hands to the pump for the union PR machine at the moment to shore up their image amongst the mainstream. Finance industry trolling can wait until another day.
And what has this to do with the post? Concentrate please.
The answer is obvious. They used a white board to do the planning, and consultation. The people in the room were staff and other employees of government bodies, and afterward they wiped the board to ensure that the attendees did not feel constrained by formal meeting and minutes.
They don't want to answer the question because they don't want the truth exposed. The code is unworkable nonsense and the so-called consultation was a sham. The majority of the FASEA board have zero interest in our profession. They are there to improve their CV, and they want to look tough. They don't give a stuff about the livelihoods and careers they are destroying, or the elimination of affordable financial advice.
Imagine if we took that long to respond to questions from one of our regulators...we'd be subjected to a public stoning
Yet Jane Hume re-appointed Brimble and Longstaff for another 3 years!!! If the minister thinks the board has done a good job, she is completely out of touch. What a farce
I wonder if their answers would breach their own code of ethics that is set for Financial Advisers?
Well, we already know there was no consultation with Advisers/Industry as a whole, but more so with theorists like academics, and consumer groups (choice), whom operate on their own ideology with zero practicality for Advisers.
There is a time limit to taking questions on notice in a Senate Estimates hearing.
Senator Amanda Stoker previously asked hard hitting questions of Stephen Glenfield in relation to the consultation process and had to take those questions on notice.
There seems to be a continuing theme in relation to exactly what entities had input into the consultation process and what influence they may have had in relation to the final outcome.
It has been highly suspected that the change to the Standard 3 " variable income" clause was influenced by ASIC and potentially consumer group input in an attempt to deliberately introduced very difficult parameters for advisers to be able to continue to be remunerated via asset based fees or insurance commissions.
This appears to be a subliminal attempt to bring forward a banning of these forms of remuneration via a potential breach of the Code of Ethics.
Similarly, there are many unanswered questions in relation to Standard 7 referring to fees being " fair and reasonable and represent value for money for the client".
Although the clause states " You must satisfy yourself"........it is quite obvious that ASIC will have their own interpretation as to what they believe is fair and reasonable irrespective of what is stated within an FSG or Ongoing Service Agreement.
The FASEA process has been one of manipulation from outside forces and ideological perspectives from within the board to formulate what is currently a heavily compromised and unworkable document.
In Part 1, page 5 of the FASEA FG002 Code of Ethics 2019 Guidance document it clearly states:
" The Code is a living document subject to change".
If FASEA have stated the above and there is considerable industry wide concern in relation to the structure of the Code of Ethics then it is imperative that further consultation and negotiation are forthcoming sooner rather than later.
For FASEA to take questions on notice and then not respond is a sign that not all appears to be as independent and transparent as required.
This whole FASEA thing is a shambles. In the current climate if you want to sit this exam remotely you need to have someone remotely looking at you via a webcam, sharing your screen with them and a mirror in the room so they can watch what is on your desk and in your room. We are not criminals and FASEA is not GOD.
Unfortunately a tiny percentage of financial advisers are criminals. This is the rationalisation used by left wing zealots in FASEA, ASIC, Choice, & the Unions to justify their personal prejudices against all advisers. It is the same warped principle as saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all African refugees are part of criminal gangs.
Add new comment