{"id":31395,"date":"2015-10-20T20:30:50","date_gmt":"2015-10-20T10:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=31395"},"modified":"2015-10-21T06:46:22","modified_gmt":"2015-10-20T20:46:22","slug":"wide-support-for-governments-fsi-response","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2015\/10\/20\/wide-support-for-governments-fsi-response\/","title":{"rendered":"Wide Support for Government\u2019s FSI Response"},"content":{"rendered":"

Support for the Government\u2019s response to the final report of the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) has been strong but has reflected sectional interests within the financial services sector, with one group praising the use of three-year claw back periods.<\/p>\n

The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) stated that it was \u201cbroadly supportive\u201d of the Government response but was still engaged with it on the issue of the Life Insurance Framework (LIF), which was adopted as part of the FSI response<\/a>.<\/p>\n

AFA chief executive Brad Fox<\/strong> said, \u201cwe remain in discussions on the detail and implementation of the LIF.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEnsuring fairness and balance is important for all parties: consumers, insurers, and financial advisers \u2013 especially those who own and advise in small businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the Financial Services Council (FSC) welcomed the adoption of LIF under the FSI response, including the proposed three year claw back arrangements, hailing them as a good consumer outcome.<\/p>\n

FSC chief executive Sally Loane<\/strong> said the group was pleased the Government had continued its reform of the advised life insurance sector and that it would move ahead with the LIF proposals released on 25 June.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen implemented, this package of reforms, which includes reduced commissions, extension of clawbacks to three years and the introduction of an industry-wide reporting regime, will substantially benefit consumers,\u201d Loane said, adding the FSC\u2019s own life insurance Code of Practice, which is yet to be released, would provide further consumer protections.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe also welcome the government\u2019s commitment to introduce a rationalisation mechanism for legacy life insurance products. It is a timely reform that will help reduce barriers for consumers accessing contemporary products and will reduce industry costs.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the issue of improving the professional and education standards of financial advisers the FSC was more in tune with the AFA and the Financial Planning Association (FPA), stating it supported the \u201cadoption of a high benchmark for the financial advice sector\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bar has now been set for the financial advice sector to evolve into a profession. High quality outcomes for consumers must be the focus for advice and for maintaining consumer confidence in the financial advice industry,\u201d Loane said.<\/p>\n

Fox said AFA members supported the adoption of Code of Ethics as well as the raising of educational and professional standards, but described the detail of transitional arrangement for existing advisers as a critical issue.<\/p>\n

FPA chief executive Mark Rantall<\/strong> said the Government\u2019s response was in line with the associations own 10 Point Plan to improve professional standards but would also protect the term \u2018financial planner\/adviser\u2019.<\/p>\n

The Commonwealth Bank, NAB and BT Financial Group also welcomed the Government\u2019s response with each of them pointing to their existing support of higher education and professional standard for advisers as recommended in the FSI report. NAB and BTFG also highlighted that they had supported the introduction of a registration exam for advisers in their FSI submissions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Support for the Government\u2019s response to the final report of the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) has been strong but has reflected sectional interests within the financial services sector, with one group praising the use of three-year claw back periods.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":31408,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[282,8],"tags":[4247],"class_list":["post-31395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-associations","category-compliance-regulation","tag-feature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31395","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31395\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}