JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Financial advice law meddling raises the question: why bother?


Peter Martin

The federal government's sneaky plan to thwart changes to Labor's financial advice law is puzzling. The changes are sure to be struck down by the High Court or by the new Senate.

What could be so urgent that the government needs to sneak it through by regulations rather than wait until the new Senate meets on July 7?

It’s the destruction of parts of Labor’s financial advice law. The government can’t wait until July 7, because the law will bite before then.

From July 1 banks will have to stop rewarding their financial planners and tellers for steering customers into the banks' own products. Not only that, financial advisers will be forced to tell their former clients exactly how much they are continuing to take from their accounts.

That’s why, just two days before the July 1 deadline, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann will ask the Governor-General to sign a regulation that purports to negate those parts of Labor’s law.

Of doubtful constitutional validity (regulations are meant to support the aims of laws, not negate them) it’ll stay in place until it is struck down by the High Court or struck down by the new Senate after it is sworn in.

The Senate will have 15 sitting days to disallow it after it is brought to its notice.In the meantime our banks will get breathing space.

And they need it.

On their own evidence they are woefully unprepared. Bank staff are paid in bonuses as well as salary. Part of determining those bonuses is sales - how many of the bank’s products they shift. The existing law bans sales-related bonuses from July 1. The banks have known about it for years. The Future of Financial Advice Act was introduced on July 1, 2012. But rather than prepare for the ban, they’ve lobbied against it.

At the Senate hearing in May, Diane Tate, the director of retail policy with the Australian Bankers’ Association, was gently asked whether banks were acting as if they expected the provision to be repealed.

“Banks have a choice to continue to operate in the way that they do,” she replied.

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson told her: “One thing I know corporations are really good at doing is managing risk.”

“You have not changed your compliance, from what I am understanding now, because you obviously have an expectation that these laws are going to be changed for you.”

She replied: “We do have an expectation, because we had bipartisan support prior to the last election that these things would happen. If they don’t happen, it just means that expedited and fast changes need to be made.”

Expedited indeed.

It would be entirely possible, in fact desirable, for banks to reward their staff in ways that didn’t constitute commissions. That’s what the act intends. They could reward them on the basis of customer satisfaction, they could reward them on the amount of money they advised on, or both. But banks are desperate for this not to happen.

Recently, the ABC's 4 Corners program told the story of Noel Stevens. When Stevens was phoned by his local branch of the Commonwealth Bank and asked to switch his life insurance policy from Westpac to the Commonwealth he didn’t know that the teller received a referral fee of $444.60. The bank-employed financial planner received  almost twice as much plus an ongoing commission.

When Stevens  was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given six months to live the bank refused to pay. It said he had a pre-existing condition.

A judge later found the planner did not act in Steven's best interests. Commissions and kickbacks might have influenced the advice.

Commissions will continue under the changes the Coalition is planning to sneak through. So long as the commissions are part of a "balanced score card" of rewards and so long as the tellers are not making "recommendations" the banks will be in the clear.

But it’s easy to get confused.

In an ABC 7.30 interview last week the chief executive of the bankers' association, Steven Munchenberg, spoke at first as if he thought the changes would allow recommendations.

“They are broadly about making sure that staff in banks are able to recommend – not recommend – sorry I'll have to rephrase that because it's actually legally incorrect. Please don't use that,” he told reporter Greg Hoy. The correct term was general information rather than recommendation.

It’s beyond me why bank staff providing general information need to be rewarded for the number of customers whose life savings they switch across, although I am also easily confused.

The two other changes the Coalition intends to stop before they take effect on July 1 hit financial planners even harder. On the anniversary of each sale from which they are still getting a commission they will need to write to each customer and tell them how much money they are taking out of their account. They will also have to ask each customer for permission to keep taking it out. No permission, no more commission.

It’s a great thing for anyone who has ever been put into an investment product by a financial planner. It’s an appalling thing for financial planners, although I suspect their complaints have less to do with “red tape” than the amount of income they will lose.

But much of that income has already been lost. As July 1 approaches financial planners have been getting out and selling their practices for much less than the value of the ongoing commissions. They’ve taken the government at its word on commissions and taken a loss. In many cases the big firms and banks who have bought their practices cheaply will get the benefit of the Coalition's move to rescue ongoing commissions rather than the planners for whom the commissions were intended.

For a while at least. The Senate will most likely strike the regulations down and returns things to how they were. Which makes me wonder why the Finance Minister is bothering.

Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age. 

Twitter: @1petermartin

44 comments so far

  • recently had a relative switch out of his first profession due to the abysmal pay he was receiving with respect to the years he had spent studying at university. his new career is in the Financial Planning business. in order to reach the lofty heights of such a profession, his sole training consisted of a month long course to cover the basics of finance. with such relaxed laws governing the education needed to deal with people's wealth, I find it astonishing that the government would move to further deregulate professional obligations. it's these kind of 'non issue' policies that often go by without a fuss and end up distorting economic markets for sole benefit of big business. when it happens, you get a glimpse of who really matters to Tony and the Boys.

    Date and time
    June 24, 2014, 2:08AM
    • Correct Jerry

      You see a very clear course with the LNP actioning the requests from its powerful donors.

      Carbon tax removal for the miners and the big three power companies. Even though figures are coming back that its working and putting pressure back down on rising prices (competition is good for us not them).
      The big banks wanting to flog every conceivable useless "wealth" package on you when you visit the bank and wanting all restrictions that are built in to protect people removed to do so.
      Thanks LNP you are not the peoples party at all because you got owned by the powerful !!!!

      Why political donation is allowed is beyond me!

      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 9:53AM
    • I was surprised when I read Adele Ferguson's weekend report about the RG146 financial planner qualifications - only 8 days study.

      "Clean-up of banks' financial planning will be tricky"
      (The Age 21 Jun 2014)

      "Right now planners can become qualified by sitting a course known as the RG146, which takes about eight days to complete and costs an estimated $2000."

      "This is a ridiculously low standard of education given the seriousness of their job and the trust and money being put into their hands by unsuspecting consumers."

      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 2:42PM
    • @Tristan - That's why you avoid planners associated with vertically integrated firms like banks and insurers. People need professional advice. See an independent financial planner.

      Independence day
      Date and time
      June 26, 2014, 5:24PM
  • Each day seems to bring more bad news about what the government is trying to do to the people of Australia. The people who they should be trying to protect and serve. I do not understand how they can act in the best interests of the finance sector and be on the side of the banking industry. The stealthiness with which they have tried to bring in these changes is also worrying. Is that because they know that most people won't like them? So why do they insist on making the changes? I am honestly becoming fearful about what this government has in store for us down the track.

    Date and time
    June 24, 2014, 2:13AM
    • The only 'bad news' comes from the leftist media.

      If your only source of news is left-wing propaganda then you'll never understand the full story.

      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 9:32AM
    • Care to elaborate, Simon?

      Andrew Bell
      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 10:17AM
    • "Left" of what? Abbott, Hockey et al? Mate more than half the population is to the left of them.

      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 11:30AM
    • @ Simon. I'm forever amused at folks who bother to read the Age, but then berate it for it's so-called leftist views.How do Rupert's papers not spread 'propaganda' Simon? Surely a variety of opinion is not that threatening to you is it? Surely on this issue, laws designed to protect the consumer, rather than being for the Corporations benefit, isn't exactly socialist/ marxist dogma.

      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 12:56PM
    • @Simon
      Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can share exactly what "the full story" is. We're all ears.

      Date and time
      June 24, 2014, 2:09PM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Featured advertisers

Special offers

Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo