Appearing on the ifa Show podcast prior to the release of the QAR proposal paper, Ms Levy said the review is on track to be released on 16 December and is confident of a quick turnaround.
“I am hopeful — and of course, I don’t control this — that it will be quite quick,” Ms Levy said.
“So part of the process is, as much as I can, to build as much support as I can through this process. The more support there is for it, the easier it will be for it to turn into law quickly.
“… there’s a lot of momentum for change and a lot of support for getting access to advice. So with luck, fingers crossed, it won’t be long.”
In the consultation paper, Ms Levy confirmed she believes changes must be made to the regulatory framework and put forward a number of proposals, including that the financial services regime should regulate the provision of “personal advice” which should be “somewhat broader” to ensure clarity.
A number of industry groups welcomed the proposal paper, including the Joint Associations Working Group (JAWG) — made up of 12 key associations including the AFA, FPA, FSC, SIAA, The Advisers Association and CA ANZ — the Financial Services Council (FSC) and The SMSF Association.
CEO John Maroney commented that the paper is a “breath of fresh air”.
“Where the proposal paper suggests removing the requirement for statements of advice (SOAs) to allow the profession to provide financial advice in a way that suits their customers, it concurs with the association’s recommendations to the review that certain types of advice should be able to be provided in a simplified form,” Mr Maroney said.
“We have long argued for the need to recognise the professionalism of the sector, cut excessive red tape, and put the consumer front and centre in the advice equation.”
On the podcast, Ms Levy said she is keen to hear feedback from stakeholders and whether her proposals could help to solve issues in the advice sector.
“So I encourage people to think about it with an open mind to take and to be prepared to take responsibility,” she said.
“Are you doing the right thing for your customer or your client? If so, have some confidence in what you’re doing and the law should support that.”
Feedback on the proposal paper is now open and closes on 23 September 2022.
Listen to the full podcast with Ms Levy episode here.
I believe that most advisers aim to provide “good advice” however it would seem very difficult to determine what that might actually be. I understand that if the adviser looks at the client’s situation and goals and provides what he/she thinks is a good solution that benefits the client, then it could be seen as “good advice”. However, there would still be a requirement to provide at least one alternative. Others, vetting the advice (by the licensee) or investigating (AFCA/Treasury) at a later stage, may have a different opinion on the advice given. If there is a complaint how would such differing opinions be dealt with?
This is a great question, and is relevant for numerous industries. The same red tape that drives up costs also provides protection for good operators and helps keep out the unethical people. I’d love to know the answer.
But does teh Red Tape actually discourage unethical people? It appears that they are still out there, as they always have been, despite the increase in regulations. The increased red tape only places more pressure and costs on the good operators, which means that a lot of consumers are no longer in a position to afford their advice. Organisations like ASIC just need to get their act together and the Tax Agents Board, which allows an Accountant to be reregistered after clearing from Bankruptcy after 10 months after he had broken numerous laws, and stolen money.