The Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA) says SMSFs are not captured by these provisions, which only allow for trustees of APRA-regulated super to send targeted super prompts.
“Our members provide advice to many thousands of SMSF accounts and these provisions should be available to them,” the SIAA said in its submission to Treasury on the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes bill.
“Advice licensees are in a particularly good position to use the information they hold on their clients to develop targeted communications to cohorts of SMSFs that can then result in those clients receiving personal advice.”
SMSF Adviser understands the SMSF Association has also been considering the implications of these provisions, however, it has yet to make its submission public.
Additionally, the SIAA said the impact of collectively charged advice was disproportionately favouring older superannuation members.
“Superannuation fund members who pay to receive personal advice from an external advice provider are subsidising the costs of those fund members who receive advice via their superannuation fund that is collectively charged and essentially ‘free’,” it said.
“Due to the fact that the need for advice increases the closer one is to retirement, younger members end up subsidising older ones. If a member has opted out of receiving targeted superannuation prompts because they do not wish to receive advice from their superannuation fund, it is arguable that they should not be forced to contribute to the cost of other members receiving advice that is collectively charged.”
The SIAA said the bill, as it stands, fell short of enabling more Australians to receive advice as it “merely tinkers around the edges of the existing provisions”.
“It does not deliver on the government’s intent of a clear, concise and fit-for-purpose advice record,” it said.
“Our members have undertaken a comparison exercise between the bill and current requirements. They report that there is very little change to their regulatory obligations resulting from the bill. This is a disappointing outcome from two years of regulatory review.”
It also said the legislation did not include the proposed changes to the best interests duty and safe harbour steps.
“It is difficult to fully respond to the bill without knowing what the Best Interests Duty will look like, particularly its approach to scoped advice.”
“We do not support imposing a civil penalty obligation for failure to maintain records. This adds to the compliance burden imposed on our members without improving access to and affordability of advice.”
