Shadow minister for financial services Stephen Jones has assured the financial services community that Labor’s proposed ‘experience pathway’ will be implemented in the event of a minority government.
Appearing at a Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA) webinar, Jones was asked whether he had any discussions with independents to ensure Labor’s promise to impose a degree carve-out for advisers with at least 10 years’ of experience would be met in the event of minority government.
“No, I haven't, in short, and you shouldn't be worried about that,” he said.
He said Labor’s proposal could still be enacted through existing ministerial powers and regulatory powers.
“So, no primary legislation would be needed. I'll take advice on that. But my initial thinking and analysis is we don't need primary legislation.
“And if that's the case, yes, it'd be a disallowable instrument, but I've got to say it'd be a courageous Senate that [would try] to block it.”
Jones said Labor’s experience pathway policy would be enacted “pretty quickly” if the party was elected.
“Unless you move on quickly, it becomes a bit redundant so we want to make sure that it's in place and up and running.”
He also said he thought the election resulting in a Labor minority government was unlikely.
“I think it's going to be easier for Anthony Albanese to get to 76 seats in this Parliament at the end of this election period than it will be for Scott Morrison,” he said.
“I'm not taking anything for granted. And I'll be back out on the hustings as soon as I finished with you guys.”
Jones said in the event that he was wrong and Labor had to form government with the support of crossbenchers, a coalition agreement would not be made.
“If you support us on legislation by legislation, fine, but we're not going to try and get a full coalition agreement with [crossbenchers],” he said.
Comments
This is a disgrace if you go through with this. What you are allowing is the possibility for a 32 year old to qualifiy under the experience pathway and only complete Ethics. The desire for this industry to be considered a profession along side others would be set back another 25-30 years. Kid of makes the last 4-5 years of our lives a waiste.
Yep. It's the same problem as those grandfathered CFPs who were gifted their undeserved designation early in their careers and will be around for a long while to come.
Any experience pathway should have an expiry date by which time the adviser needs to meet the education standards or be deregistered. Just as grandfathered CFPs should have an expiry date to complete the real CFP qualifications or be stripped of the designation.
And just to be clear, the reason grandfathered CFP standards were the "highest available at the time" is because they were deliberately set at a level well below other professional education standards at the time. It was designed to lock in as many poorly educated product pushers as possible. Only once the product pushers were grandfathered was CFP upgraded to a genuine professional level.
So in other words those of us who followed the guidelines and worked through what was thrown at us get tossed under the bus?
Interesting way of looking at it Duke - those who followed the guidelines years ago have been feeling the same way as you - thanks for catching up and finally having a better understanding.
Better late than never.
And Agreeing that all this was unnecessary for existing advisers. Good to see your now on the same page.
Whether you agree with Jones' specific proposals or not, his discussion of the process makes it pretty clear the original FASEA legislation was nowhere near as prescriptive or narrow as the resulting FASEA rules. The conflicted FASEA Board departed from the legislative intent, to impose their own bias and self interest. This could easily have been fixed by a capable and responsible Minister. If only we had one.
Yes..there charter was to define the meaning of a degree. That was the only thing put into legislation. A simple task. FASEA could have said the meaning of a "degree" includes X experience or an existing Bachelor Degree etc etc. It was then hijacked by Academics. Let's also remember (google it for people with short memories) that the FPA gloating how they "gifted" them what a Financial Planning Degree should be. Yet I don't see anyone voting them out? If you're the Minister how do you go against industry recommendations.
More flexibly defining the meaning of "degree" is also an easy route to compromise on the whole experience issue. Define "degree" as a 4 unit Graduate Certificate for anyone with 10+ years experience. One of those 4 units would be the Ethics subject everyone has to do anyway. Many older planners would get 2 units RPL for DFP, so might need to only do one other subject in addition to Ethics.
You might see a lot of people voting the FPA out in six weeks or so when renewals are due, given FPA membership no longer has any benefit for TPB purposes.
Of course that shouldn't be the only reason to be a member of a professional association. But the FPA isn't a professional association yet. It won't be until they get rid of grandfathered CFPs and corporate memberships. Sadly, the FPA steadfastly refuses to acknowledge those things are problems, let alone fix them.
This is so disappointing - too late for those who have already left the industry or spent lots of time money and stress getting through the studies, to change it now is a disgrace
Great to hear, another version of the 'Grandfathered CFP' designed to bail out the lowest common denominator who couldn't be bothered putting in the work.
Stuff like this is why the industry will never be taken seriously.
Thankfully some AFSL are already setting their own standards.
Don't have decent qualifications? See ya. We're not authorising you. Go see a second rate Licensee.
So this stance, a win for the whingers (inc many old stockbrokers), hardly matters.
20 years yes....10 years is just a joke. This is now some 4 years old and many have since obtained Masters Degrees. Can we get refunds? Labor consistently blocked reforms to education standards since FASEA was first enacted years ago. Using terms such as "not wanting to water down consumer protection". Advisers have had decades to make the adjustments. Rather than attacking political parties Advisers should be asking questions of their Industry representatives, those certain bodies that did back room deals during the CBA Advice scandal. Yet no... they reward their CEO's with overseas posting to Professional Standards Boards.
Idiot with an idiotic policy. Just gives a free pass to those who cant pass a profession exam for people wanting to be professionals. Lowers the standard required for the financial advice profession to be recognised as a genuine professional and accorded appropriate status amongst the other professional groups.
Hedware criticising a union comrade?!? I'm guessing Jones must be from an opposing faction. Or are you angry about him expressing reservations about intrafund advice - the union super fee for no service rort.
Labor; the party for rewarding mediocrity.
Liberal; the party for self flagellation.
Where do we go? Such a state of political malaise we are in.
Add new comment