FPA's strategy depends on who has control of an adviser register

4 June 2020

The actions of the Federal Government ensured that the Financial Planning Association (FPA) missed out on the opportunity to be part of a code monitoring body. Now it has put in place a policy objective – planner registration – which it appears to hope will deliver it the next best thing.

The FPA’s plans for forming a code-monitoring body will still-born when the Government opted to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services by established a single disciplinary body.

In doing so, the Government denied the FPA and other adviser bodies the opportunity to have advisers compulsorily sign up to be part of a code-monitoring regime. Now, the FPA wants to achieve something similar via the establishment of an adviser register with the likelihood being that it would be run by the FPA.

Related News:

Importantly, however, the FPA wants this register to override the existing Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) regime to the extent that advisers would be licensed to practice because they are on the register, rather than because they hold a license or are authorised representatives of a licensee such as a dealer group.

As FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori said in outlining the FPA’s objective – his organisation “sees responsibility for registration resting with the individual financial planner and not their employer or licensee”.

“The registration of financial planners must include verification that they have complied with the professional standards for financial planners set by the Financial Advisers Standards and Ethics Authority [FASEA], including passing the professional exam, meeting the education standard and ongoing compliance with the ethical standards,” he said.

“This information should be provided by the individual financial planner and verified as correct by the single disciplinary body,” De Gori said. “In this manner, the register will become an authoritative source of information on each financial planner, including their qualifications, compliance with professional standards and disciplinary record.

“By placing responsibility for registering on individual financial planners, the register will promote portability of qualifications between businesses and licensees, and promote financial planners taking responsibility for their qualifications and compliance with professional standards.”

Left unspoken by De Gori was the degree to which the FPA’s membership numbers and consequently its coffers would be enhanced if the organisation was given carriage of maintaining that register.

Little wonder, then, that a number of influential financial planning licensees have taken issue with the FPA’s objective of having adviser registration override the traditional relationship between advisers and their AFSLs.

Recommended for you




Mike - you should make it clear that's your opinion - not what the policy platform or Dante's quote says! His quote clearly states the single disciplinary body should do this!

All the Industry Bodies (AFA, FPA etc) need to merge into one. The board needs to be manned by actual Advisers, or at least were Advisers, so that they can represent Advisers, but also handle adviser registrations (no need for AFSL's), setting of compliance standards, templates etc, and the enforcement of the CoE and discipline.

Selecting one industry body to do this wont work. They all need to be merged and united for the benefit of the profession.

The only thing the FPA cares about is handcuffing advisers to the FPA. This is the body that remained silent during the CBA advice scandal in return for compulsory membership.

Add new comment