Six-month extension sought to adviser registration regime

The Federal Government has been asked to give financial advice licensees and advisers up to six months breathing space on new adviser registration arrangements.
The request has come in a submission from the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) before they formally became the Financial Advice Association of Australia.
The submission has been filed as part of a review being undertaken by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee.
The Financial Services Council (FSC) has similarly called for a six-month delay “to enable advisers to comply with its requirements to align with the extension of the individual adviser registration”.
As well, the AFA and FPA have urged that in the absence of such a delay, the Government should permit the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to take a facilitative approach to enforcement of the new regime.
The explanatory memorandum around the legislative amendments explains that they are intended to “limit the risk of an inadvertent breach of the law if the licensee who registered a relevant provider revokes their authorisation”.
It said that, in such circumstances, the relevant provider could become unregistered and unknowingly give advice while authorised by another licensee.
While welcoming legislative amendments which will allow financial advisers (as relevant providers) to be registered by more than one licensee, the two organisations have asked for deferral so that ASIC can be more facilitative in allowing licensees and advisers to become compliant.
“…we are concerned about the timeliness of this legislation given the Committee is due to report by 26 May, just 25 working days, and eight Senate sitting days prior to the commencement of this requirement,” the submission said.
“The FPA and AFA request consideration of extending the registration requirement by 3 – 6 months or permit ASIC to use a facilitative approach to enforcement of this measure, to allow licensees and financial advisers to comply with the new requirement.”









If CSLR is the ‘last resort’ please tell us ASIC what measures have been taken before you hit innocent advisers…
ASIC, So who do you think are going to pay your $200m in fines when this lot can’t even pay…
When, oh when, are you going to do an analysis of "wholesale only" advisers who are NOT on the FAR…
I’ve just paid the $1,295 CSLR levy, and honestly, I’m frustrated that my hard-earned money is being used to cover…
Just remind us again how much money a super trustee spent on their 40th birthday party using member funds? What…