Planner exam – more Canberra lobbying required

Financial planners will have to resume lobbying in Canberra to secure the legislative and administrative changes necessary to ensure they are allowed the full two years originally promised for the preparation and sitting of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) planner exam.

After meeting with the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Jane Hume, in Melbourne last week, both Financial Planning Association (FPA) chief executive, Dante De Gori and Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) chief executive, Phil Kewin, acknowledged that Parliamentary support would be needed to ensure the time extension was delivered.

Speaking to Money Management, De Gori said the two organisations had received a sympathetic hearing from Hume but had been left in no doubt that the fact that the exam time-tabling was embedded in legislation meant that any changes would need to be dealt with by the Parliament.

Related News:

The Government, with its majority in the House of Representatives, is expected to largely wave through the changes which means that financial planning organisations will need to present their arguments to the cross-benchers in the Senate.

De Gori said the key message was that financial planners were not trying to avoid the exam or take any short cuts but, rather, to be given all the of the time originally envisaged in the legislation.

The industry has complained that because of the amount of time taken by the FASEA to develop the exam and associated structures, the amount of time available to planners had been reduced to less than 18 months.

Recommended for you




I have a question. If the exam doesn't meet the requirements set out in the legislative instrument, is it valid?

Once would assume then that both the FPA and AFA already have appointments in the diaries of the crossbench Senators.

Not completely confident I understand Aust politics, but I am not sure that any senator can raise a new bill and put it to the house of reps. Surely it has to start in the house of reps first????

You’re spot on, from there it’s debated in the Senate and any amendments or changes are recommended - this is why they’re saying they should target the senators that will hold the balance of power in the upper house as they could tweak an amendment with minor detail and get the party to pass it through the house again.

Aren't we splitting straws here?
I did the exam in the first round. I am pretty confident I passed. I only needed to spend a couple of days to study. Even that was probably overkill. It is open book for goodness sake. If 'advisers' really need two years to pass this then maybe it is not the profession for them.

That's great, but I have a question for you. Did each question state the maximum number of points you could obtain? Check the legislative instrument, specifically section 9.2. Oops. Since you did so well, I guess you won't mind repeating it.

Add new comment