The Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) is recommending the financial adviser definition in the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Occupation Standard Classification for Australia (OSCA) 2027 be amended to include the two main types of these practitioners under the Corporations Act.
In its submission to the OSCA 2027 update, the FAAA said it welcomed the change from the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupation (ANZSCO) to the OSCA in 2024.
“[That change] included an update to the occupation of ‘financial adviser’ (2121) to more closely reflect the current legal requirements to practice in the profession. We would encourage all government departments to adopt the OSCA as soon as possible to ensure consistency in the data sets that inform policy decisions,” FAAA general manager policy, advocacy and standards Phil Anderson noted.
However, the FAAA expressed concerns the current OSCA occupations of ‘financial adviser’ (2121) and ‘financial adviser’ (212131) do not separately identify different types of these practitioners, who can be licenced under the Corporations Act, or accurately describe their required skill levels.
‘Financial adviser’ (2121) is currently defined as requiring Skill Level 1, which incorporates a bachelor’s degree, higher qualification or at least five years of relevant experience. However, ‘financial adviser’ (212131) does not include any additional clarification regarding the occupation’s skill level.
The FAAA is proposing that OCSA be amended to include definitions of ‘retail client financial advisers 212131’ and ‘wholesale client financial adviser 212132’ in a way that distinguishes the different levels of education required for each. The two subcategories would be in addition to the current financial adviser’ (2121) classification.
A ‘retail client financial adviser’ would have to meet Skill Level 1, while a ‘wholesale client financial adviser’ would need to meet Skill Level 2, which requires a Diploma or higher qualification.
The FAAA indicated differentiating the two occupations would reduce the risk of inaccurate data collection around the profession, which is critical for informing government policy decisions.
“We would welcome the opportunity to work with the ABS to determine the appropriate wording for the three occupations of ‘financial adviser’ and to discuss the feedback provided in our submission in more detail,” Anderson confirmed.
