Existing financial advisers will not be required to complete a bachelor’s degree under proposed new education standards and will be given five years to reach a degree equivalent status once the standards commence, the Federal Government has announced.
Making the announcement, Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer, also stated the education and exam requirements contained in the new proposed standards would be pushed out by 18 months from 1 July 2017 to 1 January 2019.
“The Government is clarifying that the reforms, which were announced for consultation late last year, are not intended to require existing advisers to complete a bachelor’s degree,” O’Dwyer said.
“The Government is clarifying that the reforms…are not intended to require existing advisers to complete a bachelor’s degree”
“Existing advisers will be required to reach degree‑equivalent status, which can be achieved via a number of flexible pathways, including by completing bridging courses approved by the new standards body.”
“We recognise that existing advisers will need to balance any further education requirements with the demands of continuing to provide high-quality financial advice to their clients. Existing advisers therefore need sufficient time to meet the new standards.”
As a result of this move, the timetable for existing advisers to reach a degree‑equivalent status will become 1 January 2024 and the date for all advisers to pass the proposed exam will become 1 January 2021.
The announcement also included further detail on the new standards setting body which would initially be established as a Commonwealth company and may have the power to determine if senior and experienced advisers should be exempt from undertaking the exam.
“The Government will seek views on whether the standards body should have the power to exempt, on a case-by-case basis, existing advisers from the requirement to pass the exam. This exemption is intended to be reserved for highly experienced advisers with exceptional skills and qualifications,” O’Dwyer said.
The Government has also released the revised draft legislation and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum for further targeted consultation but has not made them public at this time.
Sanity has finally prevailed in at least one section of this industry…………. I wonder if it will raise it’s wonderful head again before the final commission/clawback issue is set in stone ??
Pardon my sceptisim but don’t we have an election coming up? I hope for everyone’s sake this sticks as it is the only piece of common sense to come out of this mess.
Hopefully as suggested the “clawback” situation is revisited before it raised its ugly head
So obviously no further need for 30 or 40 hours per year ongoing CPD, as obviously this has meant nothing in the eyes who decide that our ‘knowledge’ needs improving and this new regime will solve it all – yes? And BTW, no representatives of any ‘body’ or ‘association’ that also promotes educational courses should be involved in any way in this standards body, as that would be a conflict of interest at its best/worst.
Very valid points.
yes, I have been arguing that RPL and CPD should be recognised – years of experience…
Does anyone know if this relates to all financial advisers or retail risk advisers only? Also, does it include “advisers” who flog direct insurance offerings?
Can anyone advise how this would affect those with bachelor degrees already in similar fields, accounting and commerce for example?
Can you please clarify what are existing advisers . Are they who currently hold DFP & ADFP and currently involved in other business project instead of advise however still qualified to provide advise to customers? Or who have done bare minimum RG146 and giving general advise?
My question also. How about adviser for 30 years, stopped for cancer treatment, now all clear and wish to resume. ?. Existing or new ? The whole business has been so messy and variable until now and my guess is that is why they going to have to allow for case by case.
Is there a link to the legislation and the explanatory memorandum?
yes I am trying to find same. where is a link to the revised draft and EM,,???
does not mention other specialist areas again does it..?
Ian, riskinfo has been informed the revised draft and EM are ‘confidential’ and will not be made public at this time. If that changes we will publish further details as they come to hand.
What about advisers who are simple ‘risk advisers’ – must we jump through hoops and do everything that ‘full’ financial planners have to do? What ever happened to the separate risk licence that has been mooted for ages?
There is no such thing as simple risk advisers anymore. With Best interest and Reasonable Basis already in play the adviser must consider super, salary sacrifice, client’s retirement needs, cash flow budgeting, cash flow analysis, before giving advice. It’s not good enough to give risk insurance because “the client asked for it.”
This must be a joke. The DFP or ADFP is not comparable to a finance/commerce/accounting degree in the slightest. By comparison, the diploma requires 1-6 months of part time study – and is self paced, where ANY degree requires a structured 3 years full time study. Many of the degree level subjects are well beyond the entire diploma – and we’ve seen this reflected in the standards of advice examined by ASIC.
Turn it around and ask if you’d be happy with a diploma qualified ‘professional’ investing your hard earned money for a commission…
How about if I already had a degree in a much harder course, Land Surveying, a professional license in that, decades of real engagement across many real industries, project management, running a business etc then other training in real estate sales, in sustainable design, then financial sales , then the first adviser qualification in Australia in 1986,Then wrote a personal finance guide book with my accountant selling 30,000 copies, then co-authored the first guide book for ethical investing, then everything required of me, and only did the dipFP etc to comply, whilst being supervised at all times by highly qualified Licensees, lost a lot of time and money mid career due to health crisis, am well now and aged 70 and want to keep going. Is that a joke????? Where were you when I was battling for actual on the ground applied expertise and ethics against an industry that rewarded the opposite. Think first. Then speak.
Comments are closed.