The Government has released a consultation paper on proposed changes to financial adviser education standards as part of its push to improve consumer access to advice.
Its proposed reforms aim to create a more flexible and sustainable pathway into the profession, following a well-documented decline in adviser numbers in recent years – numbers have dropped from around 28,000 a decade ago to 15,000 today.
Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Dr Daniel Mulino said limited access to trusted advice has left some consumers vulnerable to predatory lead generation practices and high-pressure sales tactics.
Under the proposals, he said new entrants would still be required to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, alongside minimum study requirements in disciplines such as finance, economics or accounting.
In addition, candidates would need to complete core financial advice subjects covering ethics, legal and regulatory obligations, consumer behaviour and the fundamentals of advice.
Existing professional standards would remain in place, including the requirement to complete a professional year, pass the financial adviser exam and undertake ongoing continuing professional development.
The consultation forms part of Government’s broader financial services reform agenda, including its DBFO package, which is designed to strengthen the advice sector’s capacity to meet growing consumer demand.
…changes would benefit both consumers and those seeking to enter the financial advice profession…
It also complements a separate consultation on managed investment scheme reforms released in February, as well as upcoming work focused on consumer protections within the superannuation sector.
Mulino said the changes would benefit both consumers and those seeking to enter the financial advice profession by streamlining education pathways while maintaining robust standards.
One of the key barriers has been the current inflexible and highly prescriptive tertiary degree requirements…
Sarah Abood, CEO of the FAAA, said only 464 financial advisers entered the profession last year, and that there needs to be a “substantial” increase of new entrants.
“One of the key barriers has been the current inflexible and highly prescriptive tertiary degree requirements,” she said.
“The numbers enrolling in these degrees have been low, and six qualifying courses were discontinued last year for this reason.
“We have long advocated for more flexible degree pathways including recognising more relevant studies that may have been undertaken in related degrees.”
FSC CEO Blake Briggs responded to the announcement saying that reforming the current education framework is an important step toward addressing the sharp decline in adviser numbers and improving access to trusted financial advice.
“Current education standards are unnecessarily restrictive, creating barriers for both aspiring advisers and existing professionals trying to meet the requirements,” he said.
Briggs added that the proposed reforms would create a more flexible pathway into the profession while maintaining strong professional safeguards.
Consultation on the proposed education reforms is now open via the Treasury website and will close 17 April 2026.
Click here to access the Treasury consultation paper.
Shadow Assistant Treasurer
In other Government news, the FAAA welcomed the appointment of Kevin Hogan MP as Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services.
Abood said Hogan’s professional background in financial services will give him insight into Australians’ financial advice needs as well as those of the financial advice community.
Everyone recognises the problem and NOT ONE entity has the foggiest idea on how to solve it.
The more complex, time consuming and expensive it becomes to join an Industry, especially when money to pay bills is NIL while studying, then people who have many years in the work force and who WERE the vast majority of new entrants, has wound down to NIL for Life Insurance risk advisers, which is the hardest hit Industry.
The ignorance, contempt or blatant stupidity shown by virtually all players in the Life Insurance space is incomprehensible.
The solution has ALWAYS been right in front of EVERYONE, yet it has only been a few Experienced Life risk Advisers who, over a decade ago, highlighted the issues AND came up with easy to understand protocols to remedy and fix the purported areas of concern that were mole hills, not the Himalayan mountain range that vested interest groups pushed to feather their own nests.
The focus on education standards misses the actual bottleneck. The Professional Year is what kills the pipeline.
I am in my late 40's and a professional with over 20 years in superannuation and life insurance. I've led corporate client teams, serviced major employer accounts, and delivered financial wellbeing programs at scale. Half of that was on the insurer side, across group and retail life, in claims, underwriting, product and distribution. RG146 compliant since 2013. I'm halfway through a Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning, sitting on a 93% average (high distinction). I understand risk assessment, product structures, and the insurer/fund/member relationship. I want to do insurance-led advice, because I can see how underserved it is.
Then I started looking for a PY placement.
The placements barely exist. The ones that do mostly want you to spend two or three years in an entry-level support role first, before they'll even consider putting you through a PY that can then run 18 months on its own. So you're looking at four or five years on a junior salary before you're a fully authorised adviser.
I can't live on $50K to $60K for three to four years. Not as a single person, let alone supporting a family. Most established professionals can't. The only people who can absorb that are uni graduates still living at home. That's fine, the profession needs them. But it means anyone with real-world experience and a career to leave behind is locked out by the maths, not the merit.
I understand the intent behind the PY. Supervision matters. But as it works today, it's a near-impossible barrier for exactly the kind of experienced career-changers this profession says it wants. Loosen the degree rules all you like. If the PY stays structured this way, nearly all of my cohort will have no choice but to walk away.
I approached this transition deliberately. I was on board for the cost of the education, the exam, and the 12-month professional year. I was under no illusion it would be easy. I knew it would take perseverance and grit, and I believed it was worth the effort.
What I understand now is that there are barriers no amount of perseverance or grit can get you through. I wanted to bring my institutional knowledge into the advice relationship, specifically to help and educate everyday Australians on making informed decisions about their protection needs.
I keep hoping someone will recognise this and propose a solution. A one-time amnesty for a cohort of experienced new entrants, maybe. Something that makes the PY hurdle achievable for people coming from established careers. Without a change like that, I might have no choice but to walk away myself.
Comments are closed.