Skip to main content

FAAA says proposed DBFO regulations exceed legislation’s intent

Mike Taylor11 July 2024
overreach

Treasury has proposed regulations around the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes) legislation which will effectively amend the Act and go beyond its intent, according to the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA).

The FAAA has sought clarification from Treasury around the proposed regulatory package attaching to the legislation noting instances where the draft regulations “expand the application of the provisions of the Bill outside of due parliamentary process”.

In doing so, the FAAA has told Treasury that the example, applying to the expansion of the Record of Advice (ROA) statement obligation “illustrates the problems with the financial services regulatory regime, as highlighted in the recent Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report, where the law is reflected in multiple locations and contains inconsistency”.

“It is important to avoid this outcome,” the FAAA said.

It said that provisions of the legislation relating to the expansion of ROA statement obligations “are restricted to ‘market related advice and advice that does not recommend the purchase or sale of products’”, noting that this was line with the existing sections of the Corporations Act.

“However, the DBFO draft regulations propose to amend the Bill by creating a ‘new’ s943N that is not limited to certain advice circumstances. This will have the effect of varying the application of the provisions in s943N to all types of advice,” it said.

The FAAA said it sought clarification from Treasury “otherwise, it appears as the purpose of the proposed s943N in the draft regulations is to expand the application of the provisions in the Bill outside of due parliamentary process”.

The FAAA response also challenged Treasury on the timing of draft regulations, noting that the department appeared to have moved ahead of the Parliament on the issue.

“It is also unclear as to why the regulations have been specifically drafted to amend a provision in a Bill that was still before Parliament when the draft regulations were released for consultation; or the reason for expanding the application of these provisions,” it said. “We seek clarity in this regard.”

Mike Taylor

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor/Publisher, Financial Newswire

Subscribe to comments
Be notified of
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Red Tape Maniacs
5 days ago

Quite simply Treasury & ASIC believe they can do whatever they want.
And their Regulatory Interpretations of Financial Services laws have MASSIVELY added to the Gordian Knot, the Hot Mess of mass BS OVER REGULATION.
These Canberra bureaucrats need their wings cut off.

ASLIC NO MORE
5 days ago

Wings? You give these idiots credit… Quite simply they don’t have a clue or give a crap… They forget $2.7 billion in the last 12 months ripped off by scammers, because they couldn’t afford an advisor…. That’s in the too hard don’t care busket… For every 50 advisors leaving because of like was said Overegulated Bullshit Not a single New Advisor is joining!!!! Who would blame them!!! I wouldn’t that’s for sure

Anon
5 days ago

Most of Australia’s financial services regulatory environment is at odds with legislative intent. It has been hijacked by biased activists in ASIC and Treasury acting contrary to the will of the people. Unelected bureaucrats imposing their narrow ideology on society is why Brexit happened and why Trump is so popular. Australia urgently needs a massive cleanout and cultural overhaul at ASIC and Treasury. Otherwise voters will resort to political extremists to solve the problem. (An approach that obviously comes with a whole new set of problems).

Fed up
5 days ago

The government (of either persuasion) have long lost control of their bureaucracies.
They are killing tehindustry.

XTA
5 days ago

Something seems off at Treasury. Interesting, since there were calls to see whether any staff were involved with Dixons advisory and their involvement in the CSLR.

dissappointed
5 days ago
Reply to  XTA

You write legislation allowing a backpacker on a working holiday visa working in a Super fund..with 3 hours training, to be called a Qualified Adviser…just after adviser need to do 9 hours of ethics training and go back to Uni…..and you think somethings are “a little bit off”?….

I would say it’s rotten to the core. If you worked at Treasury and rolled out of CSS Fund into a SMSF and then invested it with Dixon, you’d be writing legislation like anniversary days and fee consent forms, Qualified advisers, removing GST credits on Advice fee and CSLR & the like.

dissappointed
5 days ago

If I as an Adviser made an allegation against corrupt Treasury or ASIC I’d last 5 minutes. I’d be in jail due to a spelling mistake in the 2019 SOA I wrote.

Allegations of Corruptions have been lobbed at Treasury by the AIOFP… Get on board FAAA before you’ve got no members left….saying “we’re disappointed” gets you no where.

You know they’re corrupt, we know they’re corrupt. stop 2%^&*%*% around and call a spade a spade please.