Hume eyes principle-based advice

The Government will target a principles-based regulation framework and remove prescriptive checklists like the safe harbour provision for the best interest duty if it is re-elected, says Senator Jane Hume.

Speaking at the AIA Adviser Summit 2022, Senator Jane Hume, minister for superannuation, financial services and the digital economy, said the Quality of Advice Bill would go back to basics by identifying opportunities to simplify regulatory compliance, reduce costs and remove duplication.

“The regulatory environment has truly become a Gordian knot so now we’re stepping back and untangling that knot,” said Hume.

Related News:

“We want to make sure that the regulatory framework could better enable the provision of high quality accessible and affordable financial advice for retail investors.”

Other than replacing the prescriptive rules based framework with a simplified principle-based framework, as had been suggested by commentators, Hume said the Government would look at simplifying education standards and disclosure as well as documentation requirements.

“Statements of Advice should be more helpful for consumers and less expensive for advisers to prepare,” said Hume.

“The Government intends to rebalance the regulation industry and ensure that standards are practical as well as professional.

“This includes simplifying minimum education requirements to ensure high quality financial advice is available to consumers, and this will achieve the intention of the FASEA reform but without micro-managing advisers, or universities or students and businesses.”

She said it was no secret that the pipeline for new advisers was thin with only a few hundred entrants completing their Professional Year in 2021.

“The sunk cost, the investment in time and in money and the pressure that we're putting on young people straight out of school is simply too much.

“So we want to consider taking a more simplified and sensible approach. The government is ensuring that consumers can expect a high quality of professional advisers certainly, and all new entrants must have a relevant degree.

“But we want to increase the size of the pool that businesses can select new advisers from, and for experienced advisers, we want to recognise the value of that experience.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Does she even believe herself? All talk no action Hume. Don’t feel I can trust Labor either but I won’t be voting Liberal again for a while. What have you actually achieved Jane? Other then some last minute concessions that try to gain votes but never really enact any real change to this mess your party has created. Big thanks goes out to Kelly O’Dwyer and Jane Hume.

I agree with you. Saying you recognize a problem when you you have had 3 years to actually do something is not good enough. I won't be sorry to see Jane lose the next election. We need better than slogans and reviews.

Agree 100%, too late to promise all this just before an election, after overseeing the past years of stupid decisions that have got us here now. They wont have a majority so anything they say would need to go through the other parties anyway so they arent concrete these words by any stretch of the imagination. Untill my daily work life actually changes for the better I wont believe any of it. Who to vote for, thats the big issue we all face now.

They didn't just not fix anything. They orchestrated things to get a lot worse - new taxes on the industry and heaps more red-tape. Hume IS the problem.

Really!!!!
What…now!!
I wonder why the Govt “ appear “ to be listening and for some amazing reason…. right now !!!!!
After so long, after so much damage has been caused, after so many experienced, quality advisers have left with 1000’s still to go, after being told repetitively over the last 5 years they are destroying the fabric of financial advice, they come to us with their tail between their legs in a last ditch desperate bid in order to save their own jobs and to retain power.
It’s the most disgusting thing I have seen.
We are nothing but a play thing for the last decade and now all of a sudden we are are somehow important to them.
The Liberal Govt is a disgrace.

Thank God, St Jane of Farsea is coming to the rescue.

LMAO. Great comment.

It really doesn't matter what Hume says anymore. If the Libs win the election she will be shuffled to a minor portfolio where she hasn't yet compiled a track record of incompetence. She has become a liability to the government in her current portfolio but they are holding on to ditch her as part of an "orderly reallocation" after the election.

Election pitch waffle Ms Hume
The last 22 years have been 75% LNP and this is what the LNP has delivered.
The last 9 years of Frydenbergs Kill Advisers campaign is a total & utter LNP disgrace.
Frydenberg, Hume, LNP you DO NOT DESERVE ANOTHER TERM.
THIS LNP RABBLE DISGUSTS ME.
FRYDENBERG OUT NOW !!!
HUME OUT NOW !!!!
CLEAN ASIC OUT NOW starting with Ms Press !!!!

As a former Liberal branch president, I fully agree. No financial adviser, or their family, should vote Liberal.

These comments make me furious. The 'Gordian knot' wasn't all of her making, but she has done nothing to fix the mess and instead she has added to it significantly during her 3 year reign of incompetence.

In just the last 12 months she has given us stupidly complex annual opt-in legislation. It shouldn't take any more than a few minutes to prepare a simple fee disclosure document and ask the client to sign it at their review meeting. Yet here we are with multiple documents, some as long as 7 pages, which take 30-45 mins longer to prepare for each client. Most of these documents need to be sent to clients at an inconvenient time, outside their review process, adding further to the red-tape nightmare. Then she includes financial advisers in the DDO legislation, which increases the time it takes for advisers to deliver advice to clients, with insane duplicated and unnecessary processes which the client is paying for but will never see. Both of these requirements were introduced in the middle of a pandemic when we were working overtime to help support our clients.

Sorry, but I have zero trust in Hume. She says what we want to hear, but then does the exact opposite. She has turned financial advisers from ally into enemy. I'm looking forward to voting Labor this time around. Will Labor be any better? Who knows, but they couldn't be any worse and right now I'm at the point where I just want retribution against this shocking government.

Let's just have a system that means we get the most votes at the next election.
The Government and I are fully committed to this over the next few months.

Well after all these years of pain she's now got my vote!

Genius!!!
She/the LNP should have realised this years ago before stuffing it.
Sorry you lost my trust and my vote.
My dad always said "if you do the right thing by people, you'll never have anything to worry about" - unfortunately I didn't think i could be brought to my knees by inept government and bureaucracy - my clients never had a problem

The Gordian knot. Humes tenure has included

- A convoluted opt-in process, that logically should be very simple, yet its not
- DDO. Can someone enlighten me why advisers need to constantly collect TMD's, when the process we follow under best interests duty is more thorough.
- Blow out of ASIC fees
- The mess of FASEA, which you sat on and done nothing
- Introduction of more government bodies - CSLR, Disciplinary board
- Has not addressed the convoluted process of AFCA, where advisers/licensee wear the costs and give consumers a free crack at compensation, despite how frivolous it is.
- Increase of CPD requirements, far and above any other profession

Who is tying the Gordian knot Jane?

BACK ROOM DEAL: LAB >LIBS.. GET RID OD ALL ADVISERS AND LET THE ISF PONZI SCHEME have it all
LIBS > LAB ok but we need x amount of deals to pass when you are in GOVT.
LAB > LIB ok deal

We remain unamused. We are waiting for you Jane, Josh and Scotty with an electoral baseball bat. Does not mean I will vote Labor but certainly not Liberal. I will ensure you never benefit in anyway from my vote. You do not score points for making noises about the need to fix the problems your abject incompetence created in the first place. I mean to way, is there a problem around not created by government?

Too little, too late.

I look forward to flushing this smug, complacent, hypocritical, destructive @#%&%* down the political toilet, along with the other malicious, sound bite mouthing destroyer, DeepFrydenberg. Getting rid of ScoMoron is a given - although AnAl Albo is a dimwitted disaster, along with 98% of Labor career politicians, but a cobbled together minority Coalition Government, held to account by minor Parties will be far better than these mediocre, ignorant, corrupt, self serving trough feeders governing in their own right.

1. This declaration is not merely a disgusting indictment of finally, somewhat acknowledging Government ignorance, incompetence, ineptitude, and actual malevolence, not to mention writing legislation which is diametrically opposed to both the principles and purpose of the F/S Industry and the innate structure required for it to have self sustaining, productive existence.

It is about creating legislation which is designed to bludgeon people into submission, not motivate, enhance, and uplift the participants into professional, self motivating, self disciplined, and honourable conduct.

You can't demand of people ethical, honest, trustworthy, knowledgeable, responsible, "Liable", extremely costly professional and business conduct, then treat them like Call Centre or Warehouse Staff.

2. You can't separate a "Regulator" which serves ALL Australians and the entire broad economic national interest into what is a effectively an "Independent Law Firm" which can pick and choose easy targets in accordance with ideology, Revenue Targets it must feed into Consolidated Revenue [as does the TPB], and overwhelming influence from the "Big End of Town".

What was the immediate result? Weakness and corruption at the very top...

You want participation and some cost mitigation? OK, say a fixed $500 per year per AR - not a variable, horrific, ever mushrooming sum created by unaccountable bureaucrats whom are out of touch with reality, business, and SME's.

Since when is the Financial Services Industry required to fund an Entity which serves and benefits ALL citizens? Just another political trick to move what should be taxpayer funded Government outlays off balance sheet. Should only hospital patients fund Medicare?

You want "Principles"? First, learn what the innate basics are, and design a system from the ground up accordingly, not "Patch on Patch" of ideologically driven, ignorant, reactive, and destructive short term political thinking...

I could go on...

Frydenberg and Hume introduced new taxes (ASIC levy) , are proposing an even bigger tax (compensation scheme of last resort) , pointlessly required registration with the TPB , reduced revenue from life insurances, reduced the quality of life insurance in the marketplace via APRA led changed definitions, imposed pointless TMD's on everyone and have allowed ASIC to run riot.
Hume and Frydenberg are the reasons why 10,000 advisers have left the industry. One can only conclude they are actively trying to destroy it.

refer to my comment above about the backroom deal

Too little too late. So many dedicated advisers have quit advice, heartbroken. Too many words for far too long, too little action to 'remediate." Isn't that a word in financial advice these days?

Add new comment