Govt releases terms of reference for ASIC levy review
The Federal Government has revealed the terms of reference for the review of the industry funding model underpinning the Australian Securities and Investments Commission which will include the temporary levy relief provided to financial advisers.
The terms of reference were released by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones who reinforced that notwithstanding the review of the industry funding model, the Government remained committed to “maintaining appropriate industry funding arrangements for ASIC”.
Importantly, however, the terms of reference point to the review addressing the circumstance in which the financial advice sector was levied to cover the costs of ASIC’s action against Westpac over superannuation-related advice.
It also has scope to look at the impact of industry changes, such as the exit of the banks.
It specified that the review would look at how ASIC allocates costs to sub-sectors with a focus on regulatory activity that impacts multiple sub-sectors, the consequences of time lags between regulatory action and cost allocation, and the changes to sub-sector composition, including firm exits.
“Whether key aspects of the design and legislative framework for the IFM remain appropriate, including in light of structural changes in parts of industry. This will include considering whether changes are required to any sub-sector definitions and/or levy metrics, and whether any opportunities exist for simplification,” the terms of reference said.
As usual with any government enquiry there is enough wriggle room in those terms of reference for the enquiry to come up with a result that suits the government. That’s business as usual. I am appalled that our advisor Levy apparently is not calculated to take into account the amount of reparations that are being paid to ASIC in fines by the likes of AMP, Westpac et al. I really object to paying an advisor Levy that’s designed to finance legal action against banks and their crap advice – the bank should be paying the fines to ASIC whether or not they still have an adviser workforce.
As usual Treasury has its fingers on the reparations from any fines paid and they go into consolidated revenue. I just can’t see ASIC giving up on this source of revenue to keep up nice fat salaries for lawyers who can’t get jobs in the real world
Banks created the problem, and have left us with the ongoing consequences of their actions.
Great Advisers have always acted in the best interests of their clients, abided by their own high standards, values & ethics, FASEA didn’t change anything great Advisers were not already doing!
I’m curious. Is there any other professional that pay a levy for a government regulator to fund actions against people no longer engaged in the profession, and then the government gets to keep any settlements that are received via that action. Without a strong representative body to fight this issue it is guaranteed that the ever shrinking number of financial planners will be forced to continue paying a levy that has very little to do with them.
…and the more ‘little’ AFSL’s there are the higher the proportionate fee….