Frustration creeps into Govt reform plans
The Federal Government is beginning to show the signs of frustration that the financial services industry is feeling at the slow pace of legislation aimed at reforming the financial services industry.
Addressing a recent IIR conference on portfolio administration services, Federal Financial Services Minister Joe Hockey highlighted the necessity of passing legislation reforming the financial sector in order to keep up with global trends.
He described government efforts to push through the choice of fund legislation as a "source of ongoing frustration" and argued that a failure to respond immediately to global market trends could see global corporations bypass Australia as a base for their Asia-Pacific operations.
With the last tranche of Wallis recommendations due to be introduced to the House of Representatives within "the next two weeks", and the first CLERP bill due to pass through Federal parliament in April, Hockey argued the strong reform agenda should create a "prosperous future for the financial services industry in Australia."
Hockey outlined a four tier blueprint which the government hopes will see the industry into the next millennium, a plan which relies heavily on reform. The government, he argues, is committed to streamlining regulators in the industry, pushing through the remaining Wallis Report reforms, overhauling the current tax system and establishing Australia as a centre for financial services.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
