Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

Hume’s call for a principle-based regulation is ‘knee-jerk reaction’

hume/Synchron/

7 March 2022
| By Liam Cormican |
image
image image
expand image

Legislating a principles-based regulation framework should be considered carefully and not be a “knee-jerk reaction for popular support”, believes Synchron.

General manager of compliance, Phil Osborne, made the comment in response o the minister for superannuation, financial services and the digital economy, Senator Jane Hume’s, proposal to target a principles-based regulation framework at the AIA Adviser Summit last week.

Osborne said: “While principle-based regulation is the ideal destination for how we should be allowed to operate as an industry, we should regard this as a destination that will be arrived at after a bit more of a journey.

“We need to think of this in terms of the application – whose principles will be applied? Will we be allowing advisers to use their professional judgement and be guided by ethical standards, as has been promoted since the introduction of the Code of Ethics?

“If so, what happens when the regulator disagrees with the advice provided? Do we then have to discount the principles under which advice was actually given?”

Osborne said the application of the principles on the consumer was an important and often overlooked consideration.

"How is a nuisance complaint to be treated? Under current requirements, the Ombudsman will always allow the client to decide whether to continue with the complaints process, regardless of whether there is any merit in their case," he said.

“With no disincentive for the client, the advice community is subject to the danger of moral risk under a principle-based system.”

However, Osborne said he wholeheartedly agreed with Hume’s opinion that the domination of checklists was complicating compliance and micromanaging the industry.

“Over the years, checklists that were simple and performed a valuable function have been bastardised – continually being added to and expanded to the point where we’re now seeing checklists for the checklists.

“Adding something to a process doesn’t necessarily mean it's an improvement. It’s the mentality of compliance departments to add extra things to supposedly improve compliance that now sees the industry overwhelmed by monumental amounts of documentation.

“Checklists, lengthy advice documents, onerous fact-finding demands have all had the effect of creating a bureaucracy that doesn’t support our actual purpose – to provide a service to clients.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

3 weeks 3 days ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month ago

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

7 months ago

After last month’s surprise hold, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced its latest interest rate decision....

3 weeks 5 days ago

While the profession continues to see consolidation at the top, Adviser Ratings has compared the business models of Insignia and Entireti and how they are shaping the pro...

1 week 4 days ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

2 days 6 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND