Hume references central adviser disciplinary body

The Government’s proposed financial adviser central disciplinary body has been directly referenced by the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Jane Hume.

While the major financial advice bodies are still seeking details of the proposed new disciplinary structure, Hume used a speech to a Financial Services Institute of Australasia summit in Melbourne to canvass the disciplinary body as a central element of the Government’s approach to addressing adviser misconduct.

While backing the value of quality financial advice and referencing the important role advisers play, Hume said it was critical the industry was held to high standards and any misconduct eliminated.

Related News:

“The Government is committed to ensuring Australia has a vibrant and well-respected financial advice industry. One that customers feel confident that the advice they get is the best advice for them,” she said.

“As such, the Morrison Government has increased the requirements for entities to investigate the full extent of financial adviser misconduct, introduced legislation to end grandfathering of conflicted remuneration and is establishing a new approach for disciplining financial advisers for misconduct through a central body.”

Hume’s comments come at the same time as the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the other bodies making up a consortium to establish a Code Monitoring Authority have sought clarity about where the authority will sit in a landscape inhabited but not only the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the proposed new central disciplinary body.

The central disciplinary body was recommended by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry and the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, outlined that both it and the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority would exist within the proposed new framework.

However, while financial advisers who sign up to the Code Monitoring Authority are expected to fund its operations, there has been no discussion around how the central disciplinary body would be funded and whether it would be separate from ASIC.

FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori, said the FPA was seeking clarity of the new regime in the context of the operations of a Code Monitoring Authority and any additional monetary imposts on members.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Gotta laugh.. yet another "levy" passed onto planners and surprise, surprise.. will ultimately be passed onto the consumer! At what point do you say enough is enough?!

There are already 3 compulsory disciplinary bodies, ASIC, AFCA and TPB. There will be a fourth in November when the Code Monitoring Authority is introduced. They all add costs via fees and regulatory overhead. Much of what they do is duplicated. Many of their requirements are inconsistent with each other. The outcome of this excessive and inconsistent regulation is that most consumers find it too difficult to access affordable, professional, financial advice.

So what does the government do? They introduce a FIFTH regulator!! A Liberal government that is supposed to care about reducing red tape and protecting consumers, has decided to add yet another layer of red tape, which will make things even worse for consumers!

If the government feels a new regulatory body is necessary because Hayne & the media have backed them into a corner, then for goodness sake get rid of some other layers first. Quick and easy wins are available by implementing "Option 2" of the TPB review to remove it from financial adviser regulation altogether, and by scrapping the Code Monitoring Authority before it starts. Once the new body has been fully defined there should also be a targeted reduction in ASIC's and AFCA's roles to remove any remaining duplication.

Agree with your last paragraph.

Bit late for FPA to be introducing a professional regulatory body when it should have done years ago - best if it is out of the picture in regulating professional standards.

We can see that the laziness of the planning industry to have ethical standards and the impact on the reputation of the good advisors who are in the industry.

The Minister is correct in saying that the planning industry has a role to play in the wellbeing of Australians and that its house has to get in order. Complaining about red tape and added costs is not helping to move ahead and can be said to be self-inflicted. It’s a case of shape up or ship out for the betterment of the planning industry.

Simple solution. Do away with the TPB. FASEA and CMBs, and associated Boards, costs and duplication. Have a dedicated Financial Services arm within ASIC as a "one stop shop" from licensing, supervision and monitoring, through to enforcement and penalties. Have a single independent review committee sit above this structure (as recommended by Hayne). Have a single ASIC Supervisory Levy to help fund it. Simple!!

Simple solution. Do away with the TPB. FASEA and CMBs, and associated Boards, costs and duplication. Have a dedicated Financial Services arm within ASIC as a "one stop shop" from licensing, supervision and monitoring, through to enforcement and penalties. Have a single independent review committee sit above this structure (as recommended by Hayne). Have a single ASIC Supervisory Levy to help fund it. Simple!!

and the FPA still asks possible referral services providers to become corporate sponsors before they can provide services to FPA members????? Maybe it's the FPA who needs monitoring in this age of conflicted remuneration

Add new comment