Mark Rantall<\/strong>, said that while the Association remained opposed to opt-in, he “…hoped members would see that the end result is what counts”.\u00a0<\/p>\n“For FPA members, the formal opt-in process may not apply and they may not be subject to that law at all.\u00a0 Our members are also in the best possible position to be captured under the restricted definition of the term ‘financial planner’ which will be tabled in Parliament next year. There are no other groups or bodies that can claim these concessions for their members.”<\/p>\n
Mr Rantall acknowledged the Government, the Opposition and the Independents for their open collaboration, hard work and contribution to the final shape of these reforms.<\/p>\n
The ISN also issued a statement saying it applauded the passage of the Bills because they deliver important safeguards for financial advice consumers.<\/p>\n
Referring to\u00a0the opt-in amendment, ISN CEO, David Whitely<\/strong>, said: “This dual approach delivers protection for consumers and the opportunity for the financial planning industry to evolve into a respected profession, an objective which is supported by industry super funds.”<\/p>\nIn contrast, the Association of Financial Advisers’ (AFA) Richard Klipin<\/strong> said tricky, eleventh-hour politics had blighted the reforms.<\/p>\n“Side deals negotiated by sectors of the industry with vested interests amount to tricky politics,” Mr Klipin said. “They represent poor process, poor governance and poor transparency – all of which spell poor outcomes for consumers and the advisers who serve them.”<\/p>\n
It demonstrates that the Government has played favourites and has not listened to the industry<\/h6>\n
“We are disappointed at the outcome and sceptical about the merits of this ambiguous deal.\u00a0 It demonstrates that the Government has played favourites and has not listened to the industry,” he added.<\/p>\n
riskinfo readers also had their say, with numerous comments posted on our site.\u00a0 Some expressed their concern and disappointment with the FPA for making the deal, with one reader calling it a “member grab”.<\/p>\n
Others offered their congratulations to the FPA for its efforts to make financial planning a recognised profession:\u00a0<\/p>\n
“Well this is actually a great result for those who aspire to belong to a true profession.\u00a0 Opt-in was always a disaster waiting to happen.\u00a0 I say well done FPA.”<\/em><\/p>\nStill more readers said it was too soon to determine whether the amended opt-in rules were a positive or a negative for the industry, as the details were yet to be finalised…<\/p>\n
“Frankly, the cynic in me suggests that unless opt-in rules or similar are incorporated into an Association’s Code of Conduct, then ASIC won’t offer relief. \u00a0I think it’s a bit early for everyone to be jumping for joy and sending messages of heartfelt congratulations.”<\/em><\/p>\nIn related news, the Self-Managed Super Fund Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA) said it would modify its own member Code of Conduct to ensure its members are exempt from the opt-in obligation.<\/p>\n
“The FoFA reforms will result in the raising of standards across the financial planning profession which is a positive step to boosting consumer confidence in advisers,” said SPAA CEO, Andrea Slattery<\/strong>.<\/p>\n“SPAA will work closely with ASIC on the modification of our own Code of Conduct, to ensure it meets the standard required.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The passing of the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms legislation by the lower house last week has been met with a mixed response from the industry, following a last minute amendment to the opt-in provisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[282,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-associations","category-compliance-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}