Material differences between FOFA policy and delivery
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has pointed to the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) process as containing "material differences between some policy announcements and the draft legislation".
In a submission filed with the Senate Economics Committee reviewing the bills, ASFA has supported the need for a transition period for implementing the legislation on the basis that "even at the best of times it is a considerable risk to authorise the expenditure of resources based on draft legislation".
"In the context of FOFA, where there have been material differences between some policy announcements and the draft legislation, it is even riskier," the submission said.
"Decision makers committing significant financial and other resources to implementing change of this complexity and scale deserve legislative certainty," it said.
ASFA pointed to the two-year transition period allowed with respect to the Financial Services Reform Act and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act.
It said it would support the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's stated intention to adopt an approach of "facilitated implementation" during a transition period of 12 months from 1 July, this year.
Elsewhere in its submission, ASFA has backed other financial services industry players in calling for amendments to the legislation to enable financial advisers to deliver scaled advice.
It said the bill should be amended to enable the client and the financial adviser jointly to determine the subject matter of the advice.
AUTHOR
Staff Writer
Recommended for you
The central bank has announced its latest rate decision amid stubborn inflation and increasing geopolitical tension.
Government has introduced a bill to Parliament to legislate the first stream of the QAR reforms.
ASIC now has a 1:1 ratio when it comes to court success in the enforcement of crypto activities and more action is expected as Treasury seeks to introduce a regulatory framework.
A leading governance body has hit out at “specialist interest groups proposing ad hoc law reform” when it comes to reforms of financial services legislation and believes an independent body is needed.
