Co-regulation thrown into ‘experience pathway’ mix
The former Federal Government may have whipped the opportunity to become a code-monitoring authority away from the Financial Planning Association (FPA), the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) and other groups but a new pitch is being made to achieve “a co-regulatory professional association’.
The pitch is being made as part of responses to the Government’s proposals for the “experienced pathway” with the Institute of Public Accountants (IPA) stating it had worked together with other professional associations on the proposal.
The IPA approach would see advisers not only being required to demonstrate 10 years or relevant licensed experience and a clean record, but also having to be “a voting member of a relevant non-profit profit or professional association that has:
- Code of Ethics/ Conduct/ Professional Standards
- Mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) obligations
- Complaints and disciplinary system
- Quality review system
- Must remain a member to maintain eligibility under this pathway
Later in its submission, the IPA states that the professional associations eligible to be part of the ‘experienced pathway’ would need to meet specific requirements, including:
- Responsible for setting core and elective units, including curriculum, quantum, and approved assessment methods
- Would be responsible for accrediting universities – noting this could be courses, qualifications, subjects to provide flexibility to the education provider and potential advisers
- It would have to be financially viable for the professional association to undertake this co-regulatory role – a cost recovery model could be developed
- There would have to be an approved list of professional associations to enable future advisers to have certainty on pathways and so licensees can comply with s912A of the Corporations Act.
This battle has already been fought and lost. Whether we like it or not there is now a mandatory, government controlled, Code of Ethics, CPD requirement, and disciplinary system. Anything a “professional association” does in this area is just duplication that adds confusion, cost, and complexity.
I am a bit bemused as to how an Accounting association makes submissions regarding regulation of the Financial Planning profession. This seems like they are just looking for more funding from advisers. Why would an accounting body have anything to do with regulating Planners?