FAAA denies Treasury claims it is ‘conflicted’
The Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) has hit out at and refuted claims in a Treasury consultation paper that the so-called professional associations pathway should be changed because the associations are conflicted.
The FAAA has denied a claim in the Treasury consultation paper that professional associations are unable to balance expectations to act in the interests of their members and being able to discipline those members.
The Treasury consultation paper expressed concern regarding: “perceived conflicts [arising] where professional associations may be perceived to balance the expectations to act in the interests of their members, while adequately regulating (and disciplining where required) those members”.
“It may not be possible to appropriately or adequately manage this perceived conflict in some circumstances,” it said.
”In refuting the Treasury suggestion, the FAAA pointed out that its professional complaints function is “ring-fenced” from other association roles.
Established under the FAAA conduct and integrity regulations, our disciplinary process was put in place as a formal mechanism to investigate complaints and other reports of misconduct against FAAA members. Decisions about whether an FAAA member has breached the FAAA Code and whether they should be sanctioned, are made by an independent Conduct Review Commission (CRC),” it said.
“The purpose of professional associations is to act in the public interest, uphold the reputation of the profession, and represent the interests of its members. Acting against misconduct is central to achieving this purpose.”
“In contrast to the assertions made in the consultation paper, professional associations embraced their disciplinary responsibilities of upholding professional standards. It is not in the interest of professional associations, their members, the profession as a whole, or the public to fail to uphold the professional standards they set,” the FAAA said.
Elsewhere in its response to the Treasury, the FAAA also questioned proposals to impose succession planning obligations on tax practitioners.
It pointed out that tax (financial) advice services provided by a financial advisers are different to tax agent services provided by an accountant.
“Accountants, as tax practitioners, offer different professional services to financial advisers,” the FAAA said. “As such, accountants play a different role, and interact differently with the financial system on behalf of clients, compared with financial advisers.”
“The provision of financial advice services is heavily regulated by ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001 licensing regime. Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees provide financial product advice to clients and deal in financial products. They do not provide accounting type services.”
Perceptions of conflict have always dogged FPA/FAAA, and have been one of the main reasons they have been so ineffective at lobbying for member’s interests. While it is impossible to avoid every perceived conflict, there are some egregious examples of conflict that FAAA has steadfastly refused to stop. These have a massive drag on FAAA’s broader credibility.
Accepting bulk membership renewal payments from licensees associated with product companies is one. Maintaining “grandfathered” CFPs is another.
Please get your house in order FAAA and stop doing these things!! Yes, we’ve all heard your carefully crafted and well rehearsed rationalisations for them, but no-one is fooled.
Grandfathered CFP’s was actually always in breach of the (then) FPA’s code of ethics.
It as always about the grab for money.
NO – Not all CFP holders are of the same standard. That was never the case.
If it’s OK for doctors and lawyers and accountants to do this, why should planners be restricted?
I suggest these overly paternalistic muppets in treasury shut the hell up and get on with cutting red tape and doing their job properly, which has never happened, before they worry about whether other people can or can’t do their job based on suppositions, postulations or other dreamed up problems. Just like the reasons for LIF, there simply is NO evidence to back up their claims.
Because we are not a profession,
An industry that fights tooth and nail against educational uplift standards will never have the same autonomy as a profession
Ah is this the same Treasury that can’t manage its own Dodgy Dixon’s conflicts of interest?
Is this the same Treasury that has manipulated the CompoSLR to ensure its employees are paid retrospectively on their poor investment decision losses in Dodgy Dixon’s MIS fiasco?
Is this the same Treasury that has employed Nerida Cole, who previously was the head of advice at Dodgy Dixon’s, who is now employed at Treasury as the Director of the Financial Adviser Regulation Unit?
Is this the same Treasury Pot calling the Associations Black?
What a disgusting, corrupt, conflicted, pompous bunch of bureaucratic liars are Treasury.
Red Tape Warriors inventing more Red Tape, more useless costs, more impediments to Aussie people getting Real Advice to inflate their own importance at Treasury.
That is because it is filled with Lawyers…
This all came to light via Dante De Gori’s grand display of ignorance at the Royal Commission. Suffice to say that a past Chair of the FPA inserted himself into investigations into his mates. “Ringfenced” my @rse. I know. I was there.
Treasury is just another bureaucracy trying to find purpose. No wonder the country’s productivity is non-existent, the government and their bureaucrats keep dreaming up issues we either need to pay for or comply with .
Red tape at the federal level has increased by 88 per cent since 2005, and is now at a record high (earliest available data).
Red tape has grown at a rate two-thirds greater than the overall growth in the national economy since 2005.
Regulations are increasingly lacking in transparency. Since 2005, 97% of all new regulations have been implemented by ministers and regulators, rather than normal parliamentary processes.
There are currently over 370,000 regulatory restrictions currently imposed on businesses and individuals. This compares to less than 200,000 restrictions in 2005.
“Red tape is a major drag on productivity and economic growth, it makes it harder for business and individuals to be productive, which means basic goods and services, like food and housing, take us longer to produce and cost us more,”
Red Tape At Record High Across Australia (ipa.org.au)
The treasury are in the pockets of the Industry Funds. That’s obvious.
They have no right to talk about conflicts of interest when their government and unions are linked to organised crime.