Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

Industry divided over ALRC’s rules advisory committee plan

FSC/FPA/siaa/ALRC/

6 December 2022
| By Laura Dew |
image
image image
expand image

There is debate among industry associations about the benefits of a ‘rules advisory committee’ as  proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).

It was supported by the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) which said “mandatory consultation is vital to ensure transparency in the use of delegated legislative powers and to protect democratic processes in establishing legal requirements”.

The Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA) also welcomed the proposals as it believed it would help reduce minor breach reports. Currently, SIAA said, the Corporations Act was “littered” with civil penalty provisions which meant breach reports were needed for matters that were minor, technical or inadvertent.

However, SIAA did have minor issues regarding the inclusion of consumer groups on the panel.

However, the Financial Services Council (FSC) disagreed that a committee of this type should be established as it would and that meaningful public consultation with industry groups, consumer groups and legal experts should suffice.

“The FSC does not support a rules advisory committee (or similar) being established by the Corporations Act which must be consulted by the Minister or ASIC (as the case may be) before scoping orders or rules are made.

“The FSC submits that instead of a rules advisory committee (or similar), public and transparent consultations processes, that allow all impacted parties to come forward are more appropriate and have been the longstanding approach in Australia. A public consultation process should already capture all relevant stakeholders.”

Costs and funding were another issue for the FSC as this had not been disclosed by the ALRC and it recommended it was not funded by financial services industry participants.

“The FSC notes that financial services industry participants already pay significant sums in respect of other regulatory activities (notably pursuant to the ASIC Industry Funding Model, to APRA via the Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies, the proposed Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, and various professional industry associations, to name a few).”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

5 days 15 hours ago

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

4 weeks 2 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

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

1 week 1 day ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 1 day 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...

2 weeks 3 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND