FPA warns against regulatory overkill

10 September 2009
| By Mike Taylor |
image
image
expand image

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has written to the Government warning that unless exemptions are granted, financial planning firms will be encumbered by a double regulatory burden as a result of the new National Consumer Credit Protection legislation.

FPA chief executive Jo-Anne Bloch said the approach being adopted by the Treasury and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), if continued, would mean that Australian Financial Services Licensees would be required to take on another layer of regulatory compliance.

“Requiring a licence simply to be able to provide effective budgeting and debt management advice as part of a financial plan is overkill,” she said.

Bloch said the organisation had written to the Government seeking exemptions and pointing out that Australian Financial Services Licence holders and financial planners were already subject to a higher standard of legislative obligation under the Financial Services Reform Act.

She said the potential doubling up of regulation had occurred despite assurances to the contrary by ASIC and Treasury.

The FPA has expressed its concerns at the same time as ASIC has released a consultation paper detailing how it intends administering the new legislative framework.

That consultation paper, while not dealing with lending with respect to margin loans, effectively outlined a regime similar in nature to the obligations already imposed on financial planners in terms of the suitability of financial advice.

The consultation paper’s statement that “the key responsible lending obligation is that licensees must ensure that they do not provide a credit contract or lease to a consumer (or suggest, or assist a consumer to enter into, a credit contract or lease) that is unsuitable for the consumer”, demonstrates the degree to which the new legislation mirrors the intent of the Financial Services Reform Act.

Bloch said the FPA believes that the root cause of the problem is the definition of ‘credit assistance’ within the new legislation, which is too broad and captures very basic and obvious issues relating a client’s financial position.

She said these were elements already effectively dealt with by financial planners every day under the auspices of the Financial Services Reform Act.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

6 days 22 hours ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

6 days 23 hours ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND