International training standards: not as easy as it sounds
ANZIIF CEO Joan Fitzpatrick spoke last week of the need for uniform global insurance standards administered by a single international institute. The call comes as powerful forces in the global training firmament focus on domination of the Asian training market.
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reported in March that ANZIIF is in merger talks with the UK-based Chartered Insurance Institute (CII). There is no timetable and ANZIIF members haven’t yet been canvassed on the discussions, which are understood to be at an advanced stage.
The CII has 90,000 members, and ANZIIF has 12,000. Both organisations are very active in the Asian training market.
In May Ms Fitzpatrick criticised the sale of the education arm of Australian financial services body Finsia to giant US training group Kaplan. She said it posed “serious questions on who will drive the future of industry standards in the region”.
Another serious question should be: will the only option Australian financial services professionals have in the future be a choice of US or British-sourced industry education?
Industry training experts contacted by insuranceNEWS.com.au aren’t enthusiastic about international training regimes – no matter how standardised – being visited upon the local industry. They say the London-based CII and US training groups like Kaplan are trying to carve up the world between them.
“It’s all about commercial domination,” one said. “You hear a lot about branded certification, standardisation, international standards and so on. No one mentions the real risks of dumbing down, the impact on local training needs and the undermining of our own regulatory regime. And no one says it’s all about the money.”
Ms Fitzpatrick said last week that overlapping industry associations and qualifications confuse consumers and regulators and contribute to a cloudy view of the insurance sector. The solution, she says, is the consolidation of associations to provide efficiency gains, cost-effectiveness and simplification, as well as improved consistency, certainty and confidence in the insurance industry.
She did not mention the impending merger with the CII when she raised the consolidation of associations, but it couldn’t have been far from her mind.
Ms Fitzpatrick also outlined the key issues facing the industry from her viewpoint: professionalism, consumer protection standards, a proliferation of industry associations, technology, consolidation, harmonisation, an ageing demographic and the entry of new generations into the workforce.
No one would argue with that list. But Australian training experts say Australia’s regulatory regime and professional standards are in very many instances more rigorous and of a higher standard than those achieved in Europe or the US. The question then arises: what do the foreign training organisations have to offer the Australian industry?
One leader in the local professional training field says a previous attempt to introduce international standards of training for financial planners took six years of effort and ended when European education groups voted in blocs for their preferred options, which would have resulted in Australian preferences being totally dumped. The idea collapsed under the weight of regional self-interest.
“The big international trainers’ solutions are very standardised, with no ability to be customised for local needs,” the expert told insuranceNEWS.com.au. “A lot of this talk revolves around ‘tick-a-box’ self-assessment. If you have standard qualifications achieved through a range of methods like tick-a-box, how does the local regulator control international companies and individuals wanting to do business in Australia, when they have recognised qualifications?
“Overseas organisations have no regard for local regulatory regimes, and all the power of the local associations which represent professional groups would be gone. What’s the advantage to the consumer or to the country in that?”
In May Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out against the Finsia sale to Kaplan, warning that the “banking, securities and financial planning sectors of the industry must decide if they wish their professional standards to be dictated by the profit margins of a multi-billion dollar American company”.
It therefore follows that before Australia’s major insurance industry training organisation is allowed to be sucked into the arms of a giant British training organisation, there will also be considerable debate about what we stand to win and lose. InsuranceNEWS.com.au looks forward to assisting the communication of the debate that will precede any merger decision.
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reported in March that ANZIIF is in merger talks with the UK-based Chartered Insurance Institute (CII). There is no timetable and ANZIIF members haven’t yet been canvassed on the discussions, which are understood to be at an advanced stage.
The CII has 90,000 members, and ANZIIF has 12,000. Both organisations are very active in the Asian training market.
In May Ms Fitzpatrick criticised the sale of the education arm of Australian financial services body Finsia to giant US training group Kaplan. She said it posed “serious questions on who will drive the future of industry standards in the region”.
Another serious question should be: will the only option Australian financial services professionals have in the future be a choice of US or British-sourced industry education?
Industry training experts contacted by insuranceNEWS.com.au aren’t enthusiastic about international training regimes – no matter how standardised – being visited upon the local industry. They say the London-based CII and US training groups like Kaplan are trying to carve up the world between them.
“It’s all about commercial domination,” one said. “You hear a lot about branded certification, standardisation, international standards and so on. No one mentions the real risks of dumbing down, the impact on local training needs and the undermining of our own regulatory regime. And no one says it’s all about the money.”
Ms Fitzpatrick said last week that overlapping industry associations and qualifications confuse consumers and regulators and contribute to a cloudy view of the insurance sector. The solution, she says, is the consolidation of associations to provide efficiency gains, cost-effectiveness and simplification, as well as improved consistency, certainty and confidence in the insurance industry.
She did not mention the impending merger with the CII when she raised the consolidation of associations, but it couldn’t have been far from her mind.
Ms Fitzpatrick also outlined the key issues facing the industry from her viewpoint: professionalism, consumer protection standards, a proliferation of industry associations, technology, consolidation, harmonisation, an ageing demographic and the entry of new generations into the workforce.
No one would argue with that list. But Australian training experts say Australia’s regulatory regime and professional standards are in very many instances more rigorous and of a higher standard than those achieved in Europe or the US. The question then arises: what do the foreign training organisations have to offer the Australian industry?
One leader in the local professional training field says a previous attempt to introduce international standards of training for financial planners took six years of effort and ended when European education groups voted in blocs for their preferred options, which would have resulted in Australian preferences being totally dumped. The idea collapsed under the weight of regional self-interest.
“The big international trainers’ solutions are very standardised, with no ability to be customised for local needs,” the expert told insuranceNEWS.com.au. “A lot of this talk revolves around ‘tick-a-box’ self-assessment. If you have standard qualifications achieved through a range of methods like tick-a-box, how does the local regulator control international companies and individuals wanting to do business in Australia, when they have recognised qualifications?
“Overseas organisations have no regard for local regulatory regimes, and all the power of the local associations which represent professional groups would be gone. What’s the advantage to the consumer or to the country in that?”
In May Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out against the Finsia sale to Kaplan, warning that the “banking, securities and financial planning sectors of the industry must decide if they wish their professional standards to be dictated by the profit margins of a multi-billion dollar American company”.
It therefore follows that before Australia’s major insurance industry training organisation is allowed to be sucked into the arms of a giant British training organisation, there will also be considerable debate about what we stand to win and lose. InsuranceNEWS.com.au looks forward to assisting the communication of the debate that will precede any merger decision.