The Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) has yet to settle on a position as to whether it will support the new class of advisers proposed by the government, but will continue to argue they should not be titled as such as they lack the duties and obligations of fully qualified practitioners.
FAAA chief executive Sarah Abood said the association has received a range of feedback from members as part of consultations on tranche two of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes changes, but at present opinions were divided on what level of support they should receive from the representative body.
“We’ve asked members to get back to us on should we be supporting the new class of adviser and there are views on both sides, but I don’t think there’s a strong view either way,” Abood said during an online member update today.
“We have some members saying we should support them as we need to ensure they’re doing the right thing and so they become a feed-through class of members to full professional advice.
“We have another group of members who are against that and feel it would dilute our focus on professional advice and we should not have anything to do with them.”
She called on members to provide more feedback and noted the new class of advice providers should not be called ‘financial advisers’ or ‘financial planners’ as they would have different obligations and objectives.
“The really critical element that will set us apart from other people practising in this space are the fiduciary duty and the requirement by law to prioritise the interests of the client,” she said.
“There’s more work for us to do in ensuring that people understand we’re there to help them, but also that we’re on the same side of the table as they are.
“That will also set us apart from the new class of adviser and one of the most common pieces of feedback I’m getting from members at the moment is the new class of adviser probably shouldn’t be called that, or at least if they are it is under very limited circumstances, because the term is protected and those who hold it at present have that fiduciary duty to their clients.
“We want that protected and made distinct from what the new class of adviser will be able to offer. They will not personally have a duty to their client. It’s their employer who will have the duty to their client and that’s why I would argue they are not a member of the profession.”
