Regulator and industry super to blame for advice accessibility?

Forgetting which party brought in the Royal Commission, the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) and has oversight of the corporate regulator, Liberal members Jason Falinski and Tim Wilson have concluded the corporate regulator and industry super funds are to blame for Australians being unable to access affordable advice.

At the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Economics, Synchron independent chair, Michael Harrison, was asked by Falinski what the purpose of policy was to force experienced advisers with a clean record to commence education requirements.

Harrison noted the accounting degree he did in the 1960s was not recognised by FASEA.

Related News:

Falinski asked how many complaints had been brought against Harrison in his career, to which he said none.

“So here is someone who has been in the sector for almost 50 years, never had a complaint against them in their lifetime and we’re forcing you to go back and get re-educated,” Falinski said.

“We’re going to lose you from the industry, even though in reality you wanted to [continue].

“For no good reason, no consumer outcome or to broader society, we are forcing you to get re-educated… What is the matter of public policy that we are achieving here?”

Harrison said he did not think the outcomes that were desired were being achieved.

“The outcome we should be looking for is to help as many people as possible get financial advice, I don’t think we’re doing that in any way shape or form,” Harrison said.

Falinski asked who benefitted from Australians not having advice.

Harrison said the biggest beneficiary seemed to be the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) because they kept on “finding new ways to make money”.

“Having said that slightly facetiously, it’s hard to see who the beneficiaries are except for high wealth individuals as they’re the only ones that can get advice,” Harrison said.

Falinski said if an ordinary Australian earning between $50,000 to $200,000 a year couldn’t afford advice and it had been made unlawful for banks to give advice, then superannuation funds must be the only alternative.

“Super funds… are they offering a form of advice that looks like advice but isn’t? So you think… just from looking at it, that some of beneficiaries might be ASIC and some super funds?” Falinski said.

“We have a situation where we’re introducing public policy out of a Royal Commission – which by the way was a bunch of a lawyers saying ASIC should use more lawyers to sue people, I found that most amusing – and we get to the point where ASIC is charging the industry they’re seeking to sue more of.

“And the biggest beneficiary are industry super [funds] who are offering intrafund advice that ASIC and APRA refuse to regulate.

“Maybe we should ask a few super funds to come in front of us and explain how this is benefitting ordinary Australians.”

Wilson said: “It’s funny how a lot of these things end up with the regulators and super funds always winning, isn’t it, Mr Falinski?

“What point, Mr Falinksi, does it become corruption where people use public policy to remunerate their own benefit?”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Wow, what a brilliant pair of morons. They've achieved precisely nothing except waste time and our tax dollars. In the name of a petty whinge fest. Well done.

Jo Son you're the same idiot whinging that LNP aren't doing anything for us and to vote Labor next election, right?

And yet, here you have 2 LNP pollies attempting to shed light on the biggest obstacle we face, the combined political and public clout that ASIC & union super (via Labor) have orchestrated against our profession to push public opinion against us and hence all the BS regulations we now face, and still you come up with that imbecilic line whining against LNP?

Kind of ironic by calling them morons, your own highly developed and finely tuned moronic attributes have come to the fore.

Thinking you're nothing but either a Labor/ISA stooge or else the biggest moron of all, that laughing stock Johnson clown who heads the circus called the AIOFP :) :) :) :) :) :) Keep doing that silly tumbling act monkey boy, you're hilarious.

You think chronic regulator bias and an inability for most Australians to access affordable professional financial advice is petty?

Frydenberg, Morrison, Hume and O'Dwyer are bigger morons and have wasted more tax payer dollars. They are the ones responsible for implementing nonsense legislation consumers don't want or need, which has caused good people to lose their jobs and businesses, and has blocked middle class Australia from accessing independent financial advice.

Agree that those 4 in the LNP were/are either inept (O'Dwyer & Hume) or just too politically ambitious (Frydenberg) so purposely implemented Hayne's foolishness without a second thought, or just left it to other underlings to deal with as it was their domain and no political benefit to individually become involved (Morrison).

However, you do have to hand it to Tim, Jason, Slade & co for at least trying to help us!

All TOO LATE!!! Where were you both years ago when the whole industry was screaming for help, saying everything you have just here plus ten times more like Life Insurance commissions and the under-insurance and massive hike in premiums....Now you will be left with a decimated industry of around 10,000 highly educated Advisers, who will only want to look after people with $1 Million/$2 Million plus and less of them.
Well done, typical of Politicians coming after the fact and saying - hey how did this happen????? All of you are useless, both sides and don't forget the Greens.

What is the matter with you. We have a completely broken system, most ordinary Australian can no longer afford advice so we should NOT have a government enquiry with view fixing it?

Secondly, union super funds may benefit but the advice will just be about super funds. Good luck with that Mr and Mrs Australia. Even if it does miraculously go beyond super, here have our internal non benchmarked inhouse insurance product that is guaranteed NON renewable. This will be in your best interests and ASIC will sit by and nod approvingly.

I'm not saying these two have all the answers but if these questions are not asked the completely dysfunctional system Australia is stuck with never be repaired.

Unless of course you are union fund stooge in which case the system is just fine for your own self interested position?

Meant to be for Jo Son

Well done Tim & Jason, hoping with Slade Brockman also on side from the LNP we can see some positive political machinations to start reversing the regulatory burdens.

For too long the left have controlled the agenda and swayed public opinion via their corrupt use of media (nefarious ABC relationship, compare the pair ad's, CHOICE & ASTA etc blasting out negative 'findings' in the media, a regulator becoming a media whore with a goal of 'daily roasting a planner media releases' even if they aren't actually a qualified planner etc). The stitch up they all orchestrated of that doddery inept naive old fool Hayne of acting holier than thou and our in house bickering (FPA, AFA, worst of all the AIOFP and then others with their own views on F4S throwing confusion into our message etc) has brought us to this current situation.

Hopefully, combined with Alecks V now writing in the AFR, we may see some light and the tide of opinion turn our way.

News Flash!!! After belting financial planners over the head with regulation and costs, politicians discover, ASIC and Industry super funds are corrupt and advice is too expensive.

Harrison has an accounting degree - from a long time ago.

Your back - thought this article might entice you out.

Yes Funny - it is funny how any pro-LNP article is like a red flag to our red rag waving comrade Heddie, he can't stand it! Hilarious!

Did you miss the start of the article? "Forgetting which party brought in the Royal Commission, the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) and has oversight of the corporate regulator, Liberal members Jason Falinski and Tim Wilson have concluded the corporate regulator and industry super funds are to blame for Australians being unable to access affordable advice."

It's not pro-LNP, it's pointing out that their own party introduced many of things that have strangled the industry and yet they still want to blame someone else.

Ah, I see you failed 'Comprehension' in your English lessons at school. Let me explain and hopefully it will be in basic enough concepts that even you may be able to grasp:

The opening statement 'Forgetting which party etc" does not preclude the article showing Jason & Tim in a positive proactive light, nor does it negate their conclusion. Rather, it typifies the internal struggles inherent in any political party, particularly one faced with an unwinnable position created by the opposition; in effect "You either conduct and accede to the RC recommendations or else be seen to be siding with the forces of evil".

Jason & Tim's conclusion is extremely valid, and if one were a high-level of thinking financial planner, would recognise the fact that these two politicians at least are attempting to not only shed light on the root cause of the major issues we're facing, but also provide an element of proof and findings that potentially their own party may then be able to recognise & utilise, as well as combat the plethora of utter BS anti-FP propaganda pumped out by both the named miscreants; the union super funds and the corrupted regulator, ASIC.

However, Anon, if you're happy as a pig in sh*t about the quagmire of over-regulation, the insane ever-increasing ASIC levy, the politicking due to billions in super that Labor would directly benefit from if union super win the day, and the potential for things yet to get much worse for FP businesses, then please by all means, continue to display your marvellously developed ability of self-delusion and erroneous finger pointing, and besmirch the very few politicians who are even willing or attempting to do something on our behalf. Your utter brilliance in that area is dazzling in its intensity.

Wow, someone needs to take a chill pill. I'm just pointing out the article is not pro-LNP. You may see it that way because of your view of Tim and Jason's questioning but 95% of the article is just quoting what happened, the only part that gives any view from the author is the jab at the start about them forgetting who has been in charge of the mess that has been created.

I never said I was happy about the over-regulation but it shouldn't be ignored who introduced the regulations and who has had oversight of the corporate regulator during this time.

Fair call, went hard at you, sincere soz.

But by same token, thinking any sitting political party really has control over a rabid regulator watchdog like ASIC is inane. Unless of course they're already philosophically aligned, like ASIC & Labor are over the future of our profession.

Just sick of the idiots banging on that somehow Labor would be better. it's like ants busily manufacturing their own pesticide.
Good quote by Octave Mirbeau which fits perfectly the idiot philosophy of Jo' Son about voting for Labor:
"Sheep run to the slaughterhouse, silent and hopeless, but at least sheep never vote for the butcher who kills them or the people who devour them. More beastly than any beast, more sheepish than any sheep, the voter names his own executioner and chooses his own devourer, and for this precious "right" a revolution was fought."

Jo'Son & the AIOFP leading the charge in their little 'election revolution' is exactly that.

When Wilson and his mate Bragg were office holders in the IPA, did they have any consideration/care for the people they are pretending to be concerned about today on their committee? They were busy arguing for the cutting wages of employees, reducing any surplus for superannuation. They have got their wish as wages haven't risen during the last decade.

Let me make it simple - the less surplus for superannuation means the less work for financial advisors. It is so simple that some here might grasp it. It's about business for financial advisors (well for those who can do the maths).

Union controlled funds staffed by old union hacks will do better. What has this got to do with the article anyway, or are you just here to promote your warped view of the world? Based on what experience and qualifications I would also question.

"...... reducing any surplus for superannuation" - what does this mean?
"Let me make it simple - the less surplus for superannuation means the less work for financial advisors". Well, Hedware, you need to bring yourself up to speed. Statements like this show complete conflict to FUM. This is not what professional Financial Planning is about. Conflicts around FUM still do exist - but it is only in the land of Industry Super - they want more FUM - more FUM means more capital to control, more members to mail to, and more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from Intra Fund Advise Fees. And to state it simply, Industry Super is all you think about. You are completely bias and certainly no professional Financial Planner. Professional Red Flag waiver - perhaps.

You lot want accountants to be handing out financial advice? I for one do not. Keep accountants out.

hi hedware is your name Tim ?

hi hedware, if your name is not tim, is it claire?

Hedware - I suspect many of those who are appointed as Commissioners of Royal Commissions have law degrees from a long time ago as well.

What's your point?

Bahahahaha....bang on

Good point - when did Hayne get his qualifications and what is Hedware's point?

in 1901. Hayne is about 900 years old.

retarded, senile lawyer. well past his use-by date. lawyers are such retards and morons. all of them. only one bachelor's degree AQF 7. not even more qualified than a book keeper accountant at AQF 8.

Jason Falinski would be much better than Jane Hume or Josh Frydenberg.

I'm actually wondering what the actual cost of intrafund advice is (aside from the cost to the client).

How many were done, how many intrafund advisers are there and how much were they paid, and what are the other expenses of the advice providers over the last year?

Then we'd also know what the "cost of crap" is, as a comparison to what we charge for a real SOA.

you're sure to upset old comrade Hedware! He always comes out swinging if anyone has a go at his beloved ISA, union super, IFM, Labor or the unions. Or if anyone dares praise the LNP. But according to him, he is such a fair, impartial and well balanced fellow.

So that means both of us are fair, impartial and well-balanced fellows.

Haha knew that would bring the bile to your throat and force a response :) I am taking that as a win, Hedware.

At least I have at times highlighted aspects I agree with regardless of political persuasion or industry group. I've even admitted error when someone has correctly pointed it out, even to my chagrin at times.

On the other hand, over many years reading this forum and despite the many and varied people pointing out numerous facts accurately refuting the majority of your deep-set beliefs on your pet subjects, you point blank refuse to acknowledge let alone accede that there is even a chance that they could be right.

Deny, deflect and decry are not only your commonly used traits, but of all socialists world-wide. Welcome to the real world, my red comrade.

Add new comment