Hume believes industry is ‘positive’ on fee renewals

The Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Jane Hume, believes the Government’s legislation imposing ongoing fee arrangements on financial advisers has been well-received by the industry.

In a letter responding to queries from a financial adviser arguing that the renewals should be moved to a five-year cycle, Hume said that Government had fully considered industry feedback to its exposure draft legislation and made amendments in order to minimise compliance costs without weaking protections for consumers.

“I understand that the industry has generally reacted positively to the amendments made,” she wrote in the letter.

Related News:

Referring to the annual fee renewal arrangements, Hume’s letter said that the obligations would help clients in an ongoing fee arrangement to determine “whether they are receiving services commensurate with the fee that they are paying and ensure that fees are not charged ‘invisibly’”.

She said that the legislation had been aimed at addressing the risk of fee for no service.

Recommended for you



Hume has no idea. She only talks to executives. Ignores practicing advisers and our clients. I mean, how the hell did we end up with legislation which bans advisers from getting consent earlier than an arbitrary anniversary date? If a client wants to see you early, even 364 days after the last renewal date, we are blocked from getting the consent and platforms won't even accept consent via email. Advisers are only just waking up to this now and realising we have been duded by this disgraceful Coalition government yet again.

Spot on. Hume has shafted financial planners on this one. Can't get consent early!!! Why the hell not? Did Kenneth Hayne find instances of harmful over servicing? This is harmful for consumers as they will lose access to earlier meetings, and harmful to financial advisers, as they will be forced to use snail mail or to get clients to print and scan signed documents if they relent and see clients earlier. Absolutely crazy nonsense. Are the FPA and AFA so out of touch that they do not recognise this is a problem that needs to be fixed urgently?

Positively received by whom, when and on what forum?

ASIC says advice is too expensive.

The governments response is to increase paperwork by 400% over a rational proposal and a fair compromise.

What planet is this woman living on???

MIA Jane, more lies, more Regs, more costs.
That is the only thing you have done.
What rubbish that the Advisers Fees at platform level have been well accepted.
It has already been an expensive waste of time and it hasn’t yet started.
LNP do not listen !!!!
LNP do not care !!!!!
LNP hate Advisers !!!!!
LNP hate small business !!!!
Time all Advisers vote & encourage clients to vote Independent.
Frydenberg has to be shown we’ve had more than enough crap from LNP.

I am not sure what planet she is living on, but the annual renewals are the biggest cost impost on financial planners for years. Has she event thought about the practical issues surrounding what has been proposed!! For example, a couple with a super and pension account each now have to sign an additional 5 different forms each year (so much for making things simple). I have no issue with transparency of fees and disclosing this each year, but it needs to be one form that the client signs that all trustees and licensee's accept.

She is clueless.

It’s a bit pointless to gather opinions of those that have no choice or input into the matter. Rarely do the masters ask the slaves for their input.....other than to try justify their actions or for public appearance. No the workers must follow the rules or face the consequences.

“But I want to say to Australian consumers that if you want to invest in Dogecoin, I’m not going to stand in your way. Personal opportunity and personal responsibility are two sides of the same coin" Jane Hume. So if personal responsibility is a risk mitigant in the case of Crypto, then why are we doing reams of compliance documents to prove basic advice in the event of a law suit - where is the client's personal responsibility ? Why are we disclosing fees 50 times a year - surely if the client is savvy enough to invest in Dogecoin, they can an understand a conflict in advance or a fee disclosed once.

Well said Bozo !!!
Does Hume even understand what she says ??? Her contradictions are more confusing than the Corps Act, FARSEA and AFCA combined.
It really only means one thing. KILL REAL ADVISERS WITH EVER INCREASING BS REGS. Green light Robo Advice, Intra Fund & General Advice Sales and Crypto.
Disgusting LNP anti Real Adviser agenda.

Of course Jane Hume thinks this. Things are always positive in the 'Sheltered Workshop'. Many clients already view having to sign the current renewal notices every 2 years as being over the top and just a further bombardment of unnecessary paperwork, with the common comment being 'if I did not want to deal with you, I would have already left'.

The general voting public look for truth and integrity. "Does it pass the pub test?" is another way of saying the same thing. Sadly Jane Hume is failing both the truth and integrity tests these comments. I've done my ethics exam and I am now qualified to say this.....

The Minister needs some new advisers if she truly believes what she is saying. The amount of red tape that the advice industry is subjected to is truly astonishing and a cost burden that obviously ends up being borne by the general public.

“I understand that the industry has generally reacted positively to the amendments made,” was the echo Jane heard from inside her inside her arse where her head resides in perpetuity. Not even a senator has to receive an opt-in or renewal from the voting public more frequently than once in every 6 years. Imagine the if they had to get voted in every year for the lack of value they provide. Where is the voter consumer protection from the damage incompetent ministers inflict?

So hopeless, her office couldn't even spell my surname correctly. Meanwhile millions of fund members are paying ongoing intra-fund advice fees for the next 40 years, without providing informed consent & without opt-ins - in many cases without ever receive advice. Hayne2 has simply legitimised the intra-fund advice racket. What a scam.

To quote Cal Thomas "One of the reasons people hate politics is that the truth is rarely a politician's objective. Election and power are!" I hope Thomas was wrong about Hume, but I am worried ....

Jane is unfortunately out of touch in this regard.
The legislation introduced was designed to reduce / eliminate the ability for clients to be charged fees for no service, which is relevant to a small proportion of clients as history tells us.
The unintended consequence of this legislation however, creates significantly increased complexity in administration and therefore cost to serve. As a result, we now have increased fees for ALL clients with no value / benefit to any client.
So by eliminating the ability for some clients to be charged fees for no service, we are charging all clients fees for no benefit. The impact of this is far greater than the initial issue of fees for no service.
I am taking a more conscious effort to explain to clients why their fees are increasing and showing them the areas where my costs are increasing, eg, PI, ASIC, Dealer Fees... Explained clearly and factually, clients see it is not me profiteering, rather recouping costs of poor government legislation.

Add new comment