AIOFP’s ambition to get rid of ASIC levy
The financial advice community is in a strong politically strategic position to eliminate the ASIC levy, get tax deductibility of fees and dispose of residual compliance issues leading into the next Federal Election, according to Association of Independently Owned Financial Planners executive director, Peter Johnston.
Addressing his organisation’s conference in Bangkok, Johnston claimed that the lead-up to the next Federal Election represented an opportune to seek the changes financial advisers want.
“All sides of politics will be going into Election mode by mid – 2024, and as always, they will be promising ‘anything’ to get elected. That is the time to strike, when they are ‘singing for their supper!’,” he said.
“There is no doubt the 2004 elimination of the Parliamentary Defined Benefit super fund has put real pressure on all post 2004 Politicians to keep their seat for personal cashflow purposes. This is their personal Achilles Heel…..a former Politician with no pension [and maybe damaged] is not an appealing place to be.”
Johnston also claimed that the Liberal/National Party’s win in the Fadden by-election was also a plus because it suggested that the 2025 election would not be a one-horse race.
He also again canvassed establishing an election fund to “influence outcomes” in the next Federal election and said that delegates attending the Bangkok conference would be asked to support the cause and, by doing so, arouse support from all members of the organisation.
I am sure that the couple of dozen people there would have been lapping up every word from their own Donald. It helps when you promise the world, even if it is largely unattainable. Financial advice is not the only sector in the economy, and the Government cannot simply give everything that each sector demands at each election. Can we really expect that they will remove the ASIC Funding Levy for financial advisers, but leave it for every other sector, including mortgage brokers and general insurance brokers? Bangkok offers a little opportunity for a small group to dream big. They have to come back to the real world eventually.
Who knows about the levy, but the overall sentiment is right. Financial advisers, their families, friends and clients had an influence in the last election. Large numbers of rusted on coalition supporters switched sides. This can be leveraged.
Agreed I doubt the Levy will cease, best case I think is something fairer……we can only dream.
Or ASIC actually is funded by the huge fines charged that they said would Offset the extreme levy costs.
SHOW US THE FINE MONEY$$$$$$ ASIC & GOVERNMENT.
As for political persuasion it has to be tried again.
As a previous Life Long LNP voter I took much delight voting against LNP and seeing Frydenberg get the boot.
What a disgrace to Real Advisers and small business was Frydenberg along with his puppets Hume, ODwyer and extremely dodgy Roberts.
The ASIC Funding Levy should also be removed for mortgage brokers, general insurance brokers, and everyone else subject to it. It is a badly designed system that needs to be rectified. Financial advisers are just the canary in the coalmine because they are slugged the greatest amount, and are also subject to lots of other bad regulation.
ASIC should be funded by the consumers it is supposed to be protecting, via the taxation system. It is ridiculous that most of ASIC’s funding comes from honest professionals, while most consumer harm is done by people and organisations who operate outside the ASIC licensing framework.
It is appalling that ASIC disparages and persecutes the licensed professionals it leeches from, and effectively pushes consumers towards those harmful alternatives.
I don’t understand why ASIC needs funding when it is already funded
Good ol Pete, still offering the world and delivering an Atlas
I remember a lot of similar talk around a fighting fund to reverse the banning of grandfathered commission. How did that go Pete?
I am currently not a member of AI0FP but I do have an intention of joining because I don’t think the FAAA is interested in risk advisers specifically.
I asked the question re-that particular fighting fund and was informed that because it never got to the target required to fund that the action, the monies were refunded to those who had contributed.