AFA Reports Bipartisan Support for FASEA Extensions


The AFA has reassured its members the intended extensions to the time-frames for advisers to undertake the FASEA exam and complete its new minimum education standards will pass the Senate this year.

In a video message to members before the Easter break, AFA CEO, Phil Kewin, said he had received confirmation from Government contacts that the legislation for the extensions, which has already passed the House of Representatives, will be passed by the Senate this year (see: FASEA Extensions Confirmed).

Kewin noted he had also been in contact with the office of the Opposition Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Senator Stephen Jones, which advised him Labor will support the extensions Bill when it is brought before the Senate.

Once the new requirements have been legislated, advisers who were registered on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register on 1 January 2019 will now be required to:

  • Complete the FASEA-approved adviser exam by 1 January 2022
  • Meet FASEA’s minimum qualification requirements by 1 January 2026

Previously, advisers were only given until 1 January 2021 to pass the exam and until 1 January 2024 to meet the minimum education standards. This means advisers have one extra year to pass the exam and two extra years to complete their required studies.

Click the image to hear AFA CEO Phil Kewin’s message to members last week, including confirmation the FASEA extension legislation will be passed by the Senate later this year with bipartisan support…


  1. I don’t know about this. If I don’t pass the exam by the end of the year (I have done it) then, as the law stands, I will lose my licence. I find it incredible that over 10,000 advisers rely on the mercy of a Parliament that has urgent other business. Another black swan like Covid-19 … what will happen then? What kind of risk management is not using every opportunity to sit the exam until one passes?

  2. shouldn’t have had to do the stupid exam anyway, the test was so hard no one really passed (all of my staff passed – id love to see the real results) and totally irrelevant to most of the industry….. total waste of money and time.

  3. Hi Chris, 2 common reasons why thousands of advisers have delayed sitting the exam, was for many, it and the required qualifications, along with all the other body blows advisers have had to endure, was the final straw and there was going to be a mass exodus, especially for Risk only advisers who could not accept irrelevant, costly and time consuming studies.

    The second reason was a protest vote.

    The extension has delayed the mass exodus of risk advisers and that is all it has done, unless there is an overhaul of the LIF.

    The reality of the way Government and Big Business operate, is a series of steps to hopefully end up with the correct result.

    What the extensions will do is enable the Industry and the regulator to collate data and see the consequences of the LIF and consult with the correct people who can actually save, remedy and rebuild the Life Insurance Industry to be a strong pillar of the economy.

    • Well summarised Jeremy. The exam and qualifications are indeed irrelevant to risk advisers. Fancy any sane person thinking that ETHICS can be tested in a classroom on paper. It is like any other subject that any dishonest person and/or sociopaths can study for and pass because they are good at exams and intelligent. What about politicians doing such an exam – seems MUCH more relevant to me and if they are consistent in their word they should as there’s much more supporting evidence POLITICIANS need an ‘ethics exam than risk advisers need it. It bears no resemblance to how an adviser may act in the field when called upon to be ethical and do the right thing when personal advantage is one of the options. An adviser either will be ethical or they won’r – it is already programmed in and an ethics exam won’t show it on paper OR help in the field. Only academics who have been in school their whole life (no proper work or life experience) could possibly think that ethics can be proven in an exam.
      As for the ridiculous ‘full financial planning degree’ we riskies must obtain at MUCH time and money cost (time AWAY from family and client service) – don’t start me on how irrelevant that is to me helping clients with simple term, trauma and IP as I have for 30 years. That’s ALL I do in my job and it is served in NO way by these exams or degrees. Just completely ludicrous, insulting and totally unjustifiable by these academics pushing it for their own reasons. In this case of risk advisers there is the OPPOSITE of ‘client best interest’ as it will drive trusted risk advisers away from the industry into retirement and relationships of decades with clients will be shattered. These academics, politicians and ‘special interest groups’ pushing all this simply don’t get ‘client best interest’. Hypocrites all!

  4. I agree with every comment on this page and unfortunately its not the first time we have all had a “winge” about it. It obviously appears no one is listening and no one cares { including associations} !
    Jeremy is 100% correct on a mass exodus “watch this space” come the 31st December 2025 { it will still slowly trickle away until then though} and i am more than likely going to be one of them ? After 41 years providing assistance and guidance to thousands of clients it truly upsets me that i will not be able to provide this care unless i complete some BS course that has no impact of any sort on what i do. Including the clients best interests duty consistently thrown about like a rag doll!
    After 40 years and not one complaint of any sort you would think they would understand i have a good idea of how to treat my clients by now. Not to mention the cost and time away from my business that is already suffering due to 40% commission reductions 2 year responsibility periods and every other obstacle that has been thrown at us over so many years now.
    Thanks a lot AFA and FPA you have “paraded” your so called concerns for 4 years now but never addressed the real issues here for your advisers who have consistently paid fees and supported you. Not one letter to any Governing body saying ” enough is enough”
    Does the grass really look greener on the other side? You may well find out when you have no members.
    Yes its a ” rant” born out of shear frustration.

    • KEN WROTE:-
      “After 40 years and not one complaint of any sort you would think they would understand i have a good idea of how to treat my clients by now”.

      WOW, yes, spot-on Ken. What’s the chance a person in power may read that and FINALLY ‘get it’?!
      FORTY years you’ve notched up now and I thought I was the proverbial furniture piece at only 33 years 🙂 No doubt we’ve bumped into each other on occasion. You say the exodus is in Dec 2025 – could very well be. Personally I’ve been targeting Dec 2021 so I don’t have to go through the pain, time-wasting study and possible humiliation of a fail in the idiot ‘ethics’ exam. I understand that the whole exam is full of tricks in how you read the question and not so much on how ethical you are – beyond reprehensible! FARCE-IA should be ashamed and publicly shamed!
      I figure because I’ll be 61 in Dec’21 I’ll then grab my super, sell my business(?!) and call it a day. My ONLY real regret will be that I’ll have to stop looking after my beautiful, wonderful loyal clients about 10 years earlier than I envisioned about 10-20 years ago. Too sad for words now, an industry run by academics and clueless piggish pollies instead of the people who truly understand ‘life’ at the coalface. Cheers and best wishes mate, wherever this circus may take you . . .

Comments are closed.