Law Council warns on FOFA deficits

government-and-regulation/superannuation-funds/financial-advisers/financial-advice/parliamentary-joint-committee/FOFA/government/financial-adviser/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/

11 January 2012
| By Staff |
image
image image
expand image

The Law Council of Australia has warned that the Government's Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) changes risk going further than is necessary to achieve their core outcomes.

In a submission filed with the Parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the FOFA bills, a specialist superannuation committee within the Law Council said it was concerned that the likely impact of the legislation "will be much broader than is necessary to ensure that retail clients have access to unbiased financial product advice".

At the same time, the submission argues that the legislation introduces a significant degree of uncertainty for financial advisers and product issuers and that if it is passed in its present form it will "have unintended and potentially negative consequences on superannuation funds and their members".

Among the core concerns cited by the Law Council committee were the breadth of Australian Securities and Investments Commission's discretion to refuse to grant an Australian financial service licence, to cancel a licence and to make a banning order; the apparent "mislabeling" of the proposed best interests obligation and the associated provisions; the prospect that product fees will be included in ongoing fee arrangements; the breadth of the definitions of conflicted remuneration, platform operator and volume-based shelf-space fee; and the failure of the bill to address the issue of financial adviser fees being deducted from members' interests in superannuation funds.

The Law Council submission also points to deficits in the drafting of the FOFA bills with respect to existing forms of remuneration for financial advisers, and the manner in which the legislation imposes expectations on licensees and their representatives.

"It should not be left to a licensee or a representative of a licensee to argue that a section of the Act or a Regulation is unconstitutional," the submission said. "It is incumbent on the Government to take advice and determine the extent to which it must protect existing remuneration rights.

"It is not appropriate to leave it to individual action by licensees or their representatives," it said.

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’...

1 week 3 days ago

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

1 month 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 1 week ago

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

3 days 15 hours ago

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

1 week 6 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. ...

2 weeks 6 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

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