AIST cautions ASIC on Training Register replacement
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has been warned that a Draft Class Order mooted to replace the ASIC Training Register may, in its present form, end up increasing compliance costs and therefore the cost of advice to consumers.
In a submission filed with ASIC this week, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) has made clear that while it supports the Class Order move, there is a need for the regulator to ensure licensees have ready access to data on all planner/employees.
“We believe that locating past data in the same place as a current centralised data resource would further assist licensees in locating this data about all employees, not just those who were educated at certain points in what may appear as an arbitrary timeline,” the submission said.
“AIST believe that the proposal to replace the training register with the Draft Class Order does not go far enough as we believe that the Draft Class Order does not provide sufficient protection for licensees in relying on documentation prepared by assessors. We interpret the proposed text of the modified section 912AC insertion, at (4), to only protect licensees in the instance that certification actually has been provided by an authorised assessor,” the AIST submission said.
“In other words, where a documentation confirming compliance has been provided fraudulently, mistakenly, incorrectly or not, the Draft Class Order will still require licensees to inquire as to its validity,” it said. “Consequently, we believe that this measure will greatly inflate the costs of compliance, and may also result in increased costs of advice for consumers.
“Furthermore, this returns licensees back to the previous position where they did not have the class order relief, and means that there could be no circumstances where the class order relief would actually apply,” the submission said.
Recommended for you
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
New Zealand’s financial regulator is following the footsteps of its Tasman neighbours and proposing to conduct a review on improving the accessibility of financial advice and advice business models.
