{"id":62982,"date":"2022-10-04T14:05:38","date_gmt":"2022-10-04T04:05:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=62982"},"modified":"2022-10-04T14:24:33","modified_gmt":"2022-10-04T04:24:33","slug":"no-experience-exemption-to-education-framework-fpa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2022\/10\/04\/no-experience-exemption-to-education-framework-fpa\/","title":{"rendered":"No Experience Exemption to Education Framework &#8211; FPA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The FPA has reiterated its view that the competence obtained through experience should be better recognised in the financial adviser education standards and has recommended that the Government should not implement an experience exemption to the education framework.<\/p>\n<p>In its submission to Treasury on the proposal paper in relation to adviser education standards, the association says that while it shares the Government\u2019s goal of making financial advice more affordable and accessible to Australian consumers, it believes that \u201c\u2026simply providing an experience pathway alone is not going to achieve a reduction in the cost to produce advice.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>However, it says in a statement, that if the Government does proceed with an experience pathway as proposed, the FPA recommends the following requirements be met:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>10 years of relevant licensed experience between 1 January 2004 and 1 January 2019<\/li>\n<li>A clean record<\/li>\n<li>A statutory declaration<\/li>\n<li>Either membership of a professional association or the completion of an approved ethics course<\/li>\n<li>A 10 year sunset period<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The FPA believes \u201c\u2026unassessed experience alone is an insufficient foundation to meet the objectives of raising the minimum education requirements for professional financial advice providers and continuing to build consumer confidence in the profession.\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8230;55% of FPA members have already completed their required education and 35% are on track to meet the existing education standards&#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It surveyed its members to understand their views on the proposed modifications and 55% of FPA members have already completed their required education and 35% are on track to meet the existing education standards.<\/p>\n<p>It says of those surveyed:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>71% of members meet the proposed experience pathway<\/li>\n<li>55% oppose the introduction of the proposed experience pathway<\/li>\n<li>73% would only support an experience pathway if there was a sunset introduced<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/fpa.com.au\/blog\/contributors\/fpa-professional-standards-submission\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click here<\/a> for more details on the submission.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Welcoming QoA Review\u2019s Principles-based Approach<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, the FPA says the Quality of Advice Review\u2019s proposals, to move to a more principles-based approach to regulating the provision of financial advice, is a welcome shift.<\/p>\n<p>In its submission to Treasury the association says however that the definition of \u2018personal financial advice\u2019 \u201c\u2026must have the provision of financial advice at its core and not be based around financial product(s) or the class of product.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In a statement the FPA says it believes the regulatory costs of providing personal advice \u201c\u2026must help improve the affordability of advice for consumers by ensuring there is a level playing field for the regulatory requirements and standards imposed on advice providers.\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8230;the regulatory environment should facilitate the provisions of simple personal financial advice to clients&#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It adds that the regulatory environment should facilitate the provisions of simple personal financial advice to clients &#8220;&#8230;in an affordable manner by financial planners and financial planning practices, as well as non-relevant providers, to meet consumer demand.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The FPA says regulatory requirements must:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Build consumer trust in the different types of advice services and benefits through high standards, appropriate education and training, effective requirements and accountability, and transparent regulation of the provider, applied consistently across the financial services sector<\/li>\n<li>Reduce input costs into the provision of financial advice<\/li>\n<li>Facilitate an increase in financial advice providers (through career pathways\/education\/professional year\/retention\/etc.)<\/li>\n<li>Ensure active accountability for all financial advice providers<\/li>\n<li>Maintain consistent consumer protections across the industry<\/li>\n<li>Unify the industry<\/li>\n<li>Be fair and equitable<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The association believes the impact on competition in the financial advice market must be a key consideration when examining the current legal obligations and making recommendations for regulatory change &#8220;&#8230;and must not provide a structural competitive advantage to one type of provider over another.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It adds that \u00a0only \u2018relevant providers\u2019 who meet the professional standards &#8220;&#8230;should be legally permitted to use the terms financial planner and financial adviser and like terms.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/fpa.com.au\/blog\/contributors\/quality-of-advice-review-proposal-paper\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click here<\/a> for more details on this submission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The FPA has reiterated its view that the competence obtained through experience should be better recognised in the financial adviser education standards and has recommended that the Government should not implement an experience exemption to the education framework. In its submission to Treasury on the proposal paper in relation to adviser education standards, the association [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":62986,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[282,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62982","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-associations","category-compliance-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62982","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\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62982"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62982\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/62986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}