Risk Committee’s non-disclosure stance slammed

financial services sector disclosure insurance financial services reform commissions government FPA life insurance chief executive

14 August 2003
| By Anonymous (not verified) |

The Joint Parliamentary Committee’s recommendations against disclosure of commissions by risk advisers have been branded a “disgrace” and condemned by virtually all sides of the financial services sector.

The Australian Consumers Association (ACA) has urged the Government to reject - for the third time - the committee’s call for an exemption and “stick to its guns”, while theFinancial Planning Association(FPA) has also vetoed the findings and argued that a universal commitment to disclosure of commissions is imperative.

The ACA’s finance policy officer, Catherine Wolthuizen, says the recommendation to exempt life insurance agents and other vendors of risk insurance from the commission disclosure requirements of the Financial Services Reform Act (FSRA) “flies in the face of the basic transparency and accountability principles which underpin the Government’s new regulatory framework for financial services”.

“If the Government is serious about consumer protection in financial services, it cannot justify allowing parts of that industry to withhold from consumers vital information about the commissions they receive,” she says.

“Sadly, this is also an area where those commissions have resulted in cases of mis-selling and product ‘flogging’ to vulnerable consumers to generate commissions,” Wolthuizen says.

She says that in recent years theAustralian Securities and Investments Commissionhas undertaken enforcement action in response to such practices, underscoring the need for more, not less, disclosure.

The FPA’s chief executive, Ken Breakspear, says exempting risk products from the full disclosure requirements undermines the level playing field for other financial products which require disclosure of the value of commissions paid to licensees and their representatives.

“This is especially pertinent when both risk and investment products are delivered under the one-stop financial advice provider,” he says.

The Committee’s majority report argues that the imposition of mandatory disclosure provisions on risk advisers may force many small businesses to close down or down-size because of the impact of consolidation and the concentration of manufacturing and distribution.

In a dissenting report, welcomed by both the FPA and the ACA, the Australian Labor Party members of the Parliamentary Committee argued that risk advisers should be subject to the full mandatory disclosure regime.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

GG

So shareholders lose a dividend plus have seen the erosion of value. Qantas decides to clawback remuneration from Alan ...

4 weeks ago
Denise Baker

This is why I left my last position. There was no interest in giving the client quality time, it was all about bumping ...

4 weeks 1 day ago
gonski

So the Hayne Royal Commission has left us with this. What a sad day for the financial planning industry. Clearly most ...

4 weeks 1 day ago

The decision whether to proceed with a $100 million settlement for members of the buyer of last resort class action against AMP has been decided in the Federal Court....

2 weeks ago

A former Brisbane financial adviser has been found guilty of 28 counts of fraud where his clients lost $5.9 million....

4 weeks ago

The Financial Advice Association Australia has addressed “pretty disturbing” instances where its financial adviser members have allegedly experienced “bullying” by produc...

3 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS