Brought to you by:

TAA concerned adviser education reforms may cause confusion

The Advisers Association (TAA) has flagged concerns that proposed financial adviser education reforms may leave consumers more confused. 
 
CEO Neil Macdonald says consumers only want to know if their advisers are suitably qualified, know what they’re doing, and can be trusted. 
 
But terms like “experienced provider” and “relevant provider”, as used in the Treasury consultation paper, “just creates deeper consumer confusion”, he said. 
 
“The differences between these two providers are not immediately clear and will have to be explained,” Mr Macdonald said. 
 
“There’s also the risk that people will think ‘experienced’ is somehow better than ‘relevant’. It certainly looks like that at first glance.” 
 
TAA has raised its concerns in a submission to the Treasury consultation. 
 
The adviser body says it prefers a uniform naming convention for all advisers in law. 
 
“The difference between an experienced adviser and a relevant adviser could then be simply addressed at the consumer level. For example, adviser qualifications or lack thereof, and experience, could be contained in the Financial Services Guide and marketing materials,” Mr Macdonald said. 
 
Consultation on proposed Treasury draft legislation to introduce the adviser education changes closed earlier this month. 
 
The draft legislation would deem an adviser to have met the education requirements if they have 10 years (cumulative) experience providing advice between January 1 2007 and 31 December 2021; and have not recorded any disciplinary action on the Financial Advisers Register before December 31 2021. 
 
TAA says it is sure that many consumers still don’t know what qualifications financial advisers must hold. 
 
“And, if they do, they are likely scratching their heads as to why there has so far been such a one-size-fits-all approach to adviser education,” Mr Macdonald said. 
 
“They’re likely also wondering why prior learning and a broader range of relevant qualifications are not better recognised, particularly for those wanting to enter the profession from closely-related professions.”