{"id":46523,"date":"2019-09-27T16:26:11","date_gmt":"2019-09-27T06:26:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=46523"},"modified":"2019-10-02T07:01:55","modified_gmt":"2019-10-01T21:01:55","slug":"afa-questions-royal-commission-adherence-to-terms-of-reference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2019\/09\/27\/afa-questions-royal-commission-adherence-to-terms-of-reference\/","title":{"rendered":"AFA Questions Royal Commission Adherence to Terms of Reference"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Association of Financial Advisers has voiced its concerns that a number of the recommendations stemming from the Banking Royal Commission paid little or no heed to one of its key terms of reference.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
The AFA’s Phil Anderson …there was no discussion on the number of clients impacted or the impact on the adviser population<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Outlining the Association’s position, AFA GM Policy and Professionalism, Phil Anderson<\/strong>, has zeroed in on Paragraph K of the Banking Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference set by the Government, which it notes instructs the Royal Commission as follows:<\/p>\n

“We direct you to have regard to the implications of any changes to laws, that you propose to recommend, for the economy generally, for access to and the cost of financial services for consumers, for competition in the financial sector and for financial system stability.”<\/em><\/p>\n

In a paper posted within the Advocacy<\/a> section of the AFA’s website, Anderson argues this directive was not taken into account by Commissioner Hayne in a number of his recommendations:<\/p>\n

There was no reference to the impact on accessibility or the cost of financial advice<\/h6>\n

“There was little discussion about the implications of the financial advice recommendations. There was no discussion on the number of clients impacted, or the impact on the adviser population. There was no reference to the impact on accessibility or the cost of financial advice.<\/p>\n

Anderson referenced a statement he took from MLC Advice in making his point about the impact of the Royal Commission recommendations on the affordability of financial advice:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe implementation of these recommendations will put access to affordable advice at increasing risk for everyday Australians. This was demonstrated by a recent statement from the MLC advice business, that they \u2026will focus on affluent clients, not mass clients.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anderson also called out the issue of the ending of grandfathered commissions as another example of the disconnect between Paragraph K and the impact of the recommendation:<\/p>\n

There were no examples presented at the Royal Commission of poor advice as a result of grandfathered commissions<\/h6>\n

\u201cWhile even advisers have mixed views on the debate about the removal of grandfathered commissions, it is an issue that stands out as a demonstration of the lack of good policy process. There were no examples presented at the Royal Commission of poor advice as a result of grandfathered commissions,\u201d said Anderson, adding that this issue and its history were misrepresented and that there exists a lack of information on the number of impacted clients and the consequences.<\/p>\n

In asking whether it is too late to have a sensible informed policy debate, Anderson reflected that advisers have every reason to feel unfairly treated: “There are many who feel sidelined and stereotyped by the Royal Commission, sacrificed and bullied by the Government, tormented by over-zealous regulators, deserted and slammed by institutional licensees and abandoned by product providers.”<\/p>\n

Click here to access Phil Anderson’s full statement on ‘The Hayne Recommendations: Why is there no debate?’<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Association of Financial Advisers has voiced its concerns that a number of the recommendations stemming from the Banking Royal Commission paid little or no heed to one of its key terms of reference.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":46548,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[282,8],"tags":[4247],"class_list":["post-46523","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\/46523","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=46523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46523\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/46548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}