Risk Committee’s non-disclosure stance slammed

financial-services-sector/disclosure/insurance/financial-services-reform/commissions/government/FPA/life-insurance/chief-executive/

14 August 2003
| By Anonymous (not verified) |

The Joint Parliamentary Committee’s recommendations against disclosure of commissions by risk advisers have been branded a “disgrace” and condemned by virtually all sides of the financial services sector.

The Australian Consumers Association (ACA) has urged the Government to reject - for the third time - the committee’s call for an exemption and “stick to its guns”, while theFinancial Planning Association(FPA) has also vetoed the findings and argued that a universal commitment to disclosure of commissions is imperative.

The ACA’s finance policy officer, Catherine Wolthuizen, says the recommendation to exempt life insurance agents and other vendors of risk insurance from the commission disclosure requirements of the Financial Services Reform Act (FSRA) “flies in the face of the basic transparency and accountability principles which underpin the Government’s new regulatory framework for financial services”.

“If the Government is serious about consumer protection in financial services, it cannot justify allowing parts of that industry to withhold from consumers vital information about the commissions they receive,” she says.

“Sadly, this is also an area where those commissions have resulted in cases of mis-selling and product ‘flogging’ to vulnerable consumers to generate commissions,” Wolthuizen says.

She says that in recent years theAustralian Securities and Investments Commissionhas undertaken enforcement action in response to such practices, underscoring the need for more, not less, disclosure.

The FPA’s chief executive, Ken Breakspear, says exempting risk products from the full disclosure requirements undermines the level playing field for other financial products which require disclosure of the value of commissions paid to licensees and their representatives.

“This is especially pertinent when both risk and investment products are delivered under the one-stop financial advice provider,” he says.

The Committee’s majority report argues that the imposition of mandatory disclosure provisions on risk advisers may force many small businesses to close down or down-size because of the impact of consolidation and the concentration of manufacturing and distribution.

In a dissenting report, welcomed by both the FPA and the ACA, the Australian Labor Party members of the Parliamentary Committee argued that risk advisers should be subject to the full mandatory disclosure regime.

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’...

2 weeks 1 day ago

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

1 month 1 week 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 2 weeks ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

1 week ago

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

2 weeks 3 days 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. ...

3 weeks 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo