Insurance advisers may be safe from anti-hawking laws

Professional insurance advisers may be able to breathe easier than expected after the Banking Royal Commission’s anti-hawking recommendations come into effect, a financial services law firm believes, as it looks unlikely that they will be significantly impacted by the proposed changes.

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne recommended that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) Hawking Guide be enshrined in law, which would see telephone calls treated as unsolicited meetings and a possible increase in scrutiny of general insurance in add-on contexts.

According to the Fold Legal, insurance advisers would generally be protected from the changes as most offers of insurance they make would be solicited because of their previous dealings with clients, the nature of their engagement, and because a reasonable person would expect to discuss insurance options with their broker.

Related News:

These would cover the guidelines offered by ASIC on how advice becomes solicited, in addition to a consumer explicitly saying it is, and Charmian Holmes and Jamie Lumsden Kelly of the Fold believe that there’s no reason to believe any anti-hawking legislation would be different.

Indeed, the two lawyers wrote that providing appropriate advice often required insurance advisers to discuss the benefits of various insurance products.

“Where a consumer deals with an insurance agent, it may be more difficult to offer an alternative product unless it was within the scope of the consumer’s initial request or reasonable to expect that that product would be discussed,” they wrote.

“This might occur where it is clear the insured is enquiring about the wrong kind of product for the risk. That said, agents and insurers are already challenged in cross-selling in this way because they cannot tell the client what is best or appropriate for them.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

So many rules that we can only get responses to would be, could be may be. How about one day we can get to the stage that approaches to advice we can to a stage defintely will be rather than playing in the grey area. This grey area of legislation and big government stick approach is just contributing to the higher costs of running a business rather than know the full extent of the rules. Fortunately we have rules for sport or we would never finish a game. Why cannot simple or simpler be best approach? or has it become a game to see how complicated and complex we can make it?

The answer according to the bureaucrats and legislators is more rules as this means we have a safer system...apparently.

Murder has been illegal for 1000's of years but it still happens.

The sooner the regulatory muppet police realise this the sooner proper good can be achieved with sensible and logical professional initiatives, not more forms, paper and compliance costs. I have turned away 3 clients in the last month as our compliance costs to service would exceed the prospective revenue.

I wished them luck....cause that's all they have now.

What is this first sentence. Illiterate people like you are the reason we need FASEA to weed out the advisers who could not have graduated from school. Go back to selling mobile phone deals or something. We need educatied advisers not halfwits cannot structure an intelligible sentences

There should have been a question mark after SENTENCE , as you were asking a question.
You have misspelt EDUCATED and have missed WHO or WHOM between HALFWITS and CANNOT.
You had no reason to include the word AN before the word INTELLIGIBLE as this word is descriptive in isolation and the combination of the preceding word AN with the plural error in using SENTENCES is grammatically incorrect.
May I also suggest you spend some time studying the use of conjunctions and pronouns.
Good luck with your pursuit of grasping the English language and sentence structure Anon , as it is usually a prerequisite to be a champion troll and provocateur.
Unfortunately , a big fail. Score=ZERO.

Anti hawking laws could be a big problem for mortgage brokers that recommend insurance. Many mortgage brokers sell add on home, life, and IP insurance to mortgage applicants. It is usually junk insurance sold under "general advice".

Given the mortgage applicant has already provided the broker with lots of personal information, the insurance recommendation is likely to be perceived as personal advice. It also has the potential to be incorrectly conveyed/perceived as an essential requirement to get the loan approved. Very thin ice.

It is crazy that a mortgage broker can sell insurances (usually more expensive and of poorer quality) to clients under General Advice with no ongoing training, University degrees, SOA or best interests duty. It is also crazy that they can get away with it under general advice as they already know their clients situation and have tailored the insurance to suit the situation.

Why do the regulators think it is wise and fair to send RISK advisers back to uni to do FASEA (just to provide insutance advice with SOA's and Best interests Duty) when we could do a 2 week mortgage broker course and sell insurance under GA.

It is crazy that a mortgage broker can sell insurances (usually more expensive and of poorer quality) to clients under General Advice with no ongoing training, University degrees, SOA or best interests duty. It is also crazy that they can get away with it under general advice as they already know their clients situation and have tailored the insurance to suit the situation.

Why do the regulators think it is wise and fair to send RISK advisers back to uni to do FASEA (just to provide insutance advice with SOA's and Best interests Duty) when we could do a 2 week mortgage broker course and sell insurance under GA.

Correct....more complexity, more ambiguity and more varying interpretation of legislation allows a greater opportunity for the regulator to aim, shoot and fire with success.
The name of the game is notches on the gun in order to justify the taxpayer capital poured into the funding.
No notches and wins means its a waste of money, but over complicating everything increases the potential for unintentional breaches and confusion as to exactly how legislative definitions are applied and so significantly increases the margin for error.
Increasing the margin for error increases the likelihood of success for the regulator.

Add new comment