Hope for accountants, advisers as big new education regime rolls in
FASEA has heralded its intentions to do a better job of recognising prior learning by working with associations and universities, giving hope to those advisers who were facing doubled-up CPD and irrelevant mandatory training.
The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA), which is setting the federal government’s mandated education requirements for advisers and accountants with an AFSL, today marked its plans to recognise the prior learning of those with specialist designations and tertiary qualifications related to financial services.
This has been an extreme sore point for the accounting and planning communities, who are facing thousands in fees for bridging courses which cross over with training they’ve already done, and mandated training which can’t be used in practice.
Sister publication Accountants Daily reported last year that FASEA had written to the major professional bodies, inviting them to consult about having their designations and CPD training realised as prior learning. FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield confirmed this today at the SMSF Association’s national conference in Melbourne.
Speaking to SMSF Adviser earlier today, former chief executive of FASEA, Deen Sanders, explained FASEA has the mechanisms to recognise specialisations, and the specific learnings of more niche advice professionals.
“The law doesn’t stipulate that the outcome is that there is a minimum requirement that all participants must adhere to that’s the same. But it is certainly the way FASEA has chosen to, at least do the phase one work is: what do we have to do that covers most people?” said Mr Sanders.
“Currently, FASEA hasn’t dealt with life insurance specialists, or SMSF specialists, or stockbrokers, and those other areas of specialisations that might be appealing in terms of the marketplace,” he said.
“It’s a matter for the board to consider what role it wants to play in identifying future specialisations and opportunities,” he said.
Mr Sanders stressed this recognition relates only to education requirements, specific licensing considerations are a matter for ASIC.