The pathway was first introduced to the House of Representatives on 14 June and then to Senate on 2 August. A note in Parliament on 6 September stated it has now passed both houses.
The experience pathway provides a way for those with 10 years’ experience or more to continue advising without the need to meet educational requirements.
The summary of the bill states it “removes tertiary education requirements for financial advisers with 10 or more years’ experience and a clean disciplinary record; addresses certain limitations in the education requirements for new entrants into the financial advice profession and financial advisers who are registered tax agents”.
Judith Fox, chief executive of the Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA), told Money Management that the bill’s passage is an “outbreak of common sense”.
“The original legislation provided for recognition of prior learning and the government has implemented the experienced pathway to uphold the legislative intent and to address FASEA’s failure to recognise our members’ experience and educational qualifications. We commend the government for valuing experience rather than denigrating it.
“The next step is to ensure we have a more flexible new entrant pathway to allow graduates from the top tier universities with commerce, finance, economics and business degrees to join our profession. This would recognise that stockbroking and investment advice is a different profession than financial planning. Both are important, but they provide a different financial advice service and require different qualifications.”
Sarah Abood, chief executive of the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA), said: “It is good that the experience pathway issue has been resolved. It has been subject to debate since late 2021, leaving many advisers unsure of their future in the profession. We welcome the recognition of the experience of long-serving financial advisers.
“Now that this important matter has been resolved, advisers have clarity on what they need to do to remain part of this important profession and we can all focus on the future of our profession and servicing clients.”
Colin Williams, founder of Wealth Data, who previously stated over 3,000 advisers could potentially benefit from the pathway, said he expected the pathway to be extremely popular with those who are eligible.
“I expect anyone and everyone who is eligible will take it up, it’s a no-brainer for them,” he said.
“There are some conditions to it and some people will miss out, but overall it will keep more people in the industry and will add stability after some big falls in previous years.”
He suggested an identification method could be used to clarify whether an adviser is still practising because they have achieved the qualification or because they have utilised the pathway.
“The industry is very split on it. Those who have studied and paid the tuition fees will be annoyed. If they can find a way to distinguish between the two, that might keep those who have studied a bit happier,” Williams said.
Education is never a waste of time nor of money.
But, common sense and experience will almost always trump a piece of paper, if that’s all you have.
Well said Rob! It’s your cohort that built the Financial Planning Industry! I wonder how many hours of CPD you’ve done over all those years while gaining the 40 years experience …?? Keep banging that drum..!
Then there is the “Somewhere In Between” Adviser.
B.Bus ((Accounting / Commercial Law)
DipFP
DipFin
40+ years industry experience
Feeling relieved I can see out the non existent 10 year sunset clause that in my humble opinion should have been included
…nothing funnier than a Jaded Financial Adviser Hedware..!
Dumbing down of the profession for those who are too lazy or too dumb to study. This decision shows total disregard to the advisors who do the study, who lift the professional quality and who lift the standing of their work in the eyes of their clients.
The officials of the Association should resign for not focusing on long term reputation of the financial advise profession.
Prevents further exodus. Also holds the industry back though.
It was done so that a case can be made for industry funds to use non-qualified staff to provide advice.
I can see a very intense legal battle brewing over discriminating by designation between experienced qualified and degree qualified advisers…
This is a slap in the face for many who paid good money to sacrifice time away from both family and business, that now are told us wasn’t necessary…new marketing tag line “is your adviser qualified or just someone who’s been around long enough?”
Yet another example of government overreach, with the net result being, the minority is better off than the majority…
What a load of rubbish! Advisers have committed to undertaking the education requirements since 2015 (or earlier). It showed our dedication and commitment. We are keen to raise the standards and become a profession. This is a massive step backwards – you may as well let the banks and super funds in now anyway. #furious
So the poor older advisers who have sold their business and left the industry as a result of the changes introduced, can they now look to seek recourse from the government as they have changed the rules again after 5 minutes. Thus meaning they may have worn a financial reduction in value due to a reduced level of buyers at the time, based on changes the government now seems to admit were poorly judged at a minimum? Asking for a friend…