Professional and ethical standards
4.1
This chapter discusses the role of industry bodies in addressing the
professional and ethical standards of financial advisers providing personal
advice on Tier 1 financial products. The chapter covers:
-
ethical conduct and codes of ethics;
-
implications for competition and the costs of implementing
professional standards and their regulation;
-
recognition of professional bodies; and
-
implementation of a systems approach and transitional
arrangements.
Ethical conduct and codes of ethics
4.2
During the inquiry the committee considered evidence which suggested
that the financial advice industry should apply a more uniform approach to
adopting codes of ethics. It is the committee's view that ethical conduct is
best assured by a culture that is ethical. To this end, the committee has
considered evidence about the efficacy of codes of ethics and in this section,
discusses the function of codes of ethics, their current status, and proposals
for change.
4.3
Codes of ethics and codes of conduct are different but can be
complimentary to each other:
Codes of conduct are designed to anticipate and prevent
certain specific types of behavior; e.g. conflict of interest, self-dealing,
bribery, and inappropriate actions
...ethics codes can focus...on actions that result in doing the
right things for the right reasons. Ethical behavior should become a habit and
effective codes allow both bureaucrats and elected officials to test their
actions against expected standards. Repeated over time this kind of habit
becomes inculcated in the individual and ingrained in the organization.[1]
4.4
Codes of ethics include both a set of requirements and the commitment of
the members of the occupation or organisation to conform to, and uphold the
rules and ideals.[2]
Codes of ethics often include a set of guiding principles such as the 22
principles set out by Professions Australia who suggest that:
A professional organisation’s standards for entry should also
include a requirement to adhere to an enforceable code of ethics, the requirement to commit to measurable
ongoing professional development and sanctions for conduct that falls below the
required standards.[3]
4.5
The PSC identifies ethics as a core part of professionalism which in its
view comprises the personally
held beliefs about one’s own behaviour as a professional. It’s often linked to
the upholding of the principles, laws, ethics and conventions of a profession
as a way of practice.[4]
4.6
Professions Australia's definition of a profession includes codes of
ethics:
It is inherent in the definition of a profession that a code
of ethics governs the activities of each profession. Such codes require
behaviour and practice beyond the personal moral obligations of an individual.
They define and demand high standards of behaviour in respect to the services
provided to the public and in dealing with professional colleagues. Further,
these codes are enforced by the profession and are acknowledged and accepted by
the community.[5]
Current status of codes of ethics
in the financial advice industry
4.7
Dr George Gilligan has argued that a focus on increasing the professionalisation
can make an important contribution to restoring protection for consumers:
There is an imbalance between the privileged participation
and potential for rewards as licensed financial services actors that
individuals and organisations receive, in comparison to the civic duties and
obligations that could or should accompany that privileged status.
Balance can only be restored through normative change at individual,
organisational and industry levels. An emphasis on culture and increased
professionalisation can be a fruitful pathway to reinvigorate the implied
social contract between financial organisations and the financial citizenry, from
whom increasing sophistication is expected by both the state and the industry,
notwithstanding evidence that many citizens have substantial difficulty in
understanding those risks.[6]
4.8
ASIC advised the committee that it considers that the financial advice
industry has a significant amount of work to do to improve the culture of
financial advisers, and to move from operating as a sales-based culture to a
profession exercising independent judgement in the best interests of their
clients.[7]
The current regulatory framework imposes obligations on the AFS licensee or
authorised representative, rather than the individual financial adviser.[8]
4.9
ASIC suggested that the large number of industry associations
operating in the financial advice industry presents some challenges to
achieving a harmonised set of codes. They also noted that there is an increased
system cost when multiple administration and compliance systems for multiple
codes are operating across these industry associations.[9]
4.10
The Superannuation Consumers' Centre submitted that codes of practice are
one of the two main tools of self-regulation, the other being complaints
schemes. They also submitted that while the complaints schemes have been more
successful, this was because there was a requirement to belong to an ASIC
approved complaint scheme unlike other codes that are not currently mandatory. [10]
4.11
Some industry bodies with members operating in the financial advice
industry have codes of ethics. The Accounting Professional & Ethical
Standards Boards has published its Australian Professional & Ethical
Standard 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants.[11]
The FPA has had a code of ethics since 1992 and proposed that a code of ethics
should be required for the recognition of professional bodies.[12]
4.12
ASIC advised the committee that while some financial advisers
adhere to a code of ethics as part of membership of an industry association or
as part of a professional designation, it is not compulsory to belong to an
industry association, nor is it clear to what extent the codes are followed,
investigated and enforced.[13]
Implications of adopting codes of ethics
4.13
Some submitters supported the requirement for financial advisers to be
members of an approved professional association and to adhere to professional codes
of ethics.[14]
The committee notes however that this is not a universally held view. Submitters
who did not support a mandatory code of ethics did so on the basis that they
considered codes to be unnecessary.[15]
4.14
The FPA advised the committee that some evidence exists to show that
financial advisers who operate under a professional association are less likely
to be the subject of ASIC enforcement actions in relation to financial advice.[16]
Implications for costs and competition
4.15
ASIC informed the committee that in its view, costs to industry may
include:
-
developing the code;
-
complying with additional obligations that go beyond those
imposed under the law; and
-
funding independent code administration, including:
-
implementing dispute resolution procedures, remedies and
sanctions;
-
monitoring and reporting on compliance; and
-
regular independent reviews.[17]
4.16
ASIC also advised that competition among industry bodies for members
actually means that the existing industry bodies have a disincentive to levy
their members for sufficient funds to investigate and regulate for compliance
with codes, particularly when such codes are not mandatory.[18]
4.17
The FPA informed the committee that the cost for membership of
professional associations range from a few hundred dollars to $1000 annually. The
FPA noted that professional bodies may incur costs associated with ensuring
compliance with standards and these are generally included in membership fees.[19]
Costs relative to benefits of professionalisation
4.18
Implementing codes of ethics can be seen as part of a broader approach
to professionalisation of the financial advice industry. SPAA acknowledged that
there are costs associated with professionalisation but suggested that the
benefits far outweigh the costs involved.[20]
The FPA argued that adherence to professional and ethical obligations must not
be viewed as a cost burden:
This is an essential business investment as the cost of not
taking action to improve standards will be far greater. The cost of not acting
to change the status quo will be borne more heavily by consumers than the
monetary investment industry must make to lift the bar.[21]
4.19
From its survey of industry participants, the PSC found that there is
industry support for professionalisation:
Despite recognising that there are significant costs
associated with professionalisation, all of the industry stakeholders
interviewed were in favour of it. Indeed, all of the interview respondents were
confident that the benefit of professionalisation outweighs the cost and
transition effort required to achieve it. Of the stakeholders interviewed,
association groups, who are aspiring to embark on professionalisation, were
most concerned about the cost. Despite this they all agreed that the benefits
outweighed the costs.[22]
4.20
The PSC reported that results from its survey indicate that industry
participants believe that the benefits of professionalisation outweigh the
costs including increased community protection, less regulation, higher
standards, increased trust in professionals and financial benefits to
individual professionals.[23]
The survey also indicated that there is a general expectation among the
industry stakeholders that professionalisation will eventually lead to reduced
regulation in the industry.[24]
4.21
It was argued that the cost of regulation to industry participants
should be balanced against the broader cost that a lack of professional
regulation represents to consumers.[25]
The committee notes that previous inquiries have heard that the cost of poor
financial advice may be as high as $37 billion over the last decade[26]
and so the cost of developing and regulating codes of ethics should be balanced
against the risks associated with poor standards and inappropriate advice.
4.22
The ABA advised that the inevitable compliance costs associated with
establishing and maintaining any new framework can be offset by productivity
and efficiency gains such as the portability of qualifications, as well as
deregulation projects, especially changes intended to reduce the compliance
costs of disclosure standards.[27]
4.23
In the FPA's view the associated costs would not be high and were in the
interests of members of the industry as a way of maintaining a competitive
advantage:
It is also important to consider the impact of raising
education standards and requiring the adoption of professional obligations on
competition in the financial advice market. The FPA believes this will be
negligible. This Inquiry is taking place in an environment where financial
advice providers themselves are currently competing to lift standards within
their own businesses.[28]
4.24
The Consumer Credit Legal Service WA submitted that in their view
regulating the professional and ethical behaviour of financial advisers should
result in fairer competition in the industry over the longer term:
It would potentially act as an additional disincentive for
financial advisers who may engage in misconduct for their own financial
benefit. This, in turn, may limit the participation of ‘rogue’ financial
advisers in the industry. Ultimately, financial advisers who already hold
themselves to higher professional and ethical standards are likely to remain
more competitive as the playing field is levelled.[29]
4.25
The PSC informed the committee that the impact on competition can depend
on whether the changes are industry wide or whether part of the industry is
targeted:
This is the challenge that emerges in education: introducing
wholesale, industrywide change just tends to lead to a massive flight to the
bottom and increased competition in providers. This is why our particular
regime is about picking and nurturing the culture of professions. It is not
necessarily about trying to professionalise an entire industry, but about
picking communities that will benefit and respond to it more strongly, and I
think our systems of regulation need to find a way to encourage that.[30]
4.26
Other submitters suggested that the financial advice industry is already
highly regulated with current requirements leading to a rising cost of advice. Some
submitters suggested that this is leading to ongoing consolidation in the
advice industry, where many independent licensees are finding they can no
longer sustain the high cost of compliance.[31]
Committee view
4.27
The committee observes that requiring adherence to a code of ethics through
membership of a professional association may put some cost pressure on industry
participants. From the evidence received in this inquiry, industry participants
generally acknowledge that those resulting cost and competition pressures are
outweighed by the benefits of adopting codes of ethics to enhance professional
and ethical standards.
4.28
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, codes of ethics seek to
bring about the desired behaviour for the right, self-motivated reasons (as
opposed to behaviour motivated by fear of sanction). The committee considers
that adoption and implementation of codes of ethics would help to move the
financial advice industry towards a resilient professional culture that would
lead to consistent ethical behaviour.
4.29
The PSC requires professional associations and their members to have
certain processes, programs and practices in place before a Professional
Standards Scheme can be approved. The requirements are discussed in more detail
in the next section. However, the committee notes here that one of the
requirements relates to ethics which are described as:
The prescribed professional and ethical standards clients can
rightfully expect your members to exhibit. This includes your specific
expectations of practice and conduct, and should do more than just reiterate
statutory expectations.[32]
4.30
To assist professional associations the PSC has published a Model
Code of Ethical Principles, that sets out the nature and role of codes of
ethics, a description of the generic content of codes of ethics, and an outline
of the processes for devising a code of ethics.
4.31
The committee's view is that there needs to be a change in the drivers
of behaviour in the financial advice industry. While acknowledging that there
are many financial advisers who operate to very high ethical standards, the
committee considers that for far too long, there has been a significant
minority of financial advisers being driven by self-interest. It is the
committee's view that professional ethics should be a driver of the behaviour
of financial advisers.
4.32
The committee therefore recommends a new benchmark, that professional
associations be required to establish codes of ethics which are compliant with
the requirements of a Professional Standards Scheme under the Professional
Standards Council. Under the recommended model, every financial adviser will
have to be a member of a professional association that is approved by the PSC,
which means that they will be working under the auspices of at least one
compliant code of ethics.
Recommendation 11
4.33
The committee recommends that professional associations representing
individuals in the financial services industry be required to establish codes
of ethics that are compliant with the requirements of a Professional Standards
Scheme and that are approved by the Professional Standards Council.
Recognition of professional associations
4.34
In this section, the committee discusses the recognition of industry
associations, including options for approaches to recognition, such as the
Professional Standards Schemes through the Professional Standards Councils. As
in other chapters, the committee's discussion focusses on financial advisers
providing personal advice on Tier 1 financial products.
Options for recognition
4.35
Recognition of industry associations would be required if membership of
an industry association is contingent on an individual being permitted to
operate as a financial adviser. The AFA submitted that some vehicle to
recognise professional associations has merit if membership of professional
bodies is mandated.[33]
4.36
ASIC informed the committee that in its view, a recognised professional
body could perform the role of a professional standards body to increase
professionalism in the financial advice industry. ASIC noted that options for
recognising such a body include recognition by:
-
ASIC; or
-
the Australian Government in regulations; or
-
Parliament through legislation; or
-
a specially created advisory panel.
4.37
If the power to recognise professional bodies is given to ASIC, ASIC
advises that there should be a clear statutory purpose for the power by reference
to clear statutory criteria. ASIC also indicated that the criteria for
recognition should depend on the purpose of the recognition. [34]
4.38
The AFA was not convinced of the need for financial advice professional
associations to be recognised by ASIC. However, should government consider it
necessary, the AFA suggests that accreditation of professional associations and
clear criteria would be required.[35]
4.39
The FPA proposed that a co-regulatory framework for recognition of
professional bodies should include legislative structure, professional body
criteria, a practising certificate, and restricting the use of the titles 'financial
planner' and 'financial adviser'. The FPA submitted that:
We also considered the role of a profession and the link to
the notion of serving the ‘public interest’, whereby professionals are
considered public servants, whose duty to the public and the community takes
precedence over deriving client or private benefit. This must be a key
consideration in the development of appropriate criteria for a Regulator or
government body to recognise a professional body – serving the ‘public
interest’.[36]
4.40
Many submitters did not support recognition of professional bodies being
undertaken by ASIC.[37]
In FINSIA's view, such a role would be outside ASIC's legislative objectives
and scope. FINSIA suggested that an independent advisory board would be more
appropriate.[38]
The Financial Services Council also suggested recognition by a separate board
or body.[39]
4.41
The Superannuation Consumers' Centre strongly supported professional
bodies as part of the pathway to professionalism, but had concerns about
approval of industry bodies by ASIC:
We think it would be very confusing for consumers, because
industry associations have roles that go well beyond competency and
professional standards. They are effectively a form of
union for their members. They advocate for their members' interests and often
vigorously and publicly oppose efforts of the regulator, including to raise
standards, as we saw quite recently when ASIC tried to raise standards of RG
146.[40]
Professional Standards Councils
4.42
In this section the committee considers whether the PSC would provide an
appropriate body and process to recognise professional associations.
4.43
The PSC is the combined Australian Governments' statutory body
responsible for the approval, monitoring and enforcing of Professional
Standards Schemes. The PSC's goal is to protect consumers by demanding
high levels of professional standards and practice from those professionals who
participate in Professional Standards Schemes.[41]
The PSC informed the committee that:
The three essential goals of professional standards
legislation are to protect consumers, improve professional standards, and
thirdly, and perhaps most uniquely...to encourage and, where appropriate, assist
the self-regulatory capacity of professional communities so that they can take
greater responsibility for consumer protection. We do this by working with
associations to strengthen and improve professionalism, and provide
self-regulation while protecting consumers. In return for these commitments to
greater professional accountability, professionals that take part in approved
Professional Standards Schemes have their civil liability limited under law.[42]
4.44
Professional Standards Schemes are legal instruments that bind
associations to monitor, enforce and improve the professional standards of
their members, and protect consumers of professional services. Professional
Standards Schemes also cap the civil liability or damages that professionals
who take part in an association’s scheme may be required to pay if a court
upholds a claim against them.[43]
4.45
Professional Standards Schemes aim to provide the following benefits to
consumers:
-
their service providers have formal professional standards they
must uphold;
-
creates a body of professionals to make sure their service
provider upholds professional standards; and
-
if anything does go wrong, there are insurance or assets
available to pay damages awarded by the court.[44]
4.46
For an industry association to participate in a Professional Standards
Scheme, there is an intensive application process. The association must fall
within the definition of an 'occupation association' as set out in the
professional standards legislation and have programs and practices in place for
each of the following areas:
- Education: Specific technical and professional
requirements to practice in the professional area, including entry-level formal
qualifications, certification, and ongoing continuing professional development
and education.
- Ethics: The
prescribed professional and ethical standards clients can rightfully expect
members to exhibit. This includes specific expectations of practice and
conduct, and should do more than just reiterate statutory expectations.
- Experience: The personal capabilities and experience
required to practice as a professional in the professional area.
- Examination: The mechanism by which all of the elements
above are assessed and assured to the community. This extends beyond
qualification or certification requirements into expectations of regular
assurance of practice, such as compliance programs and professional audits.
- Entity: The association must be an entity capable of
overseeing and administering professional entry, professional standards, and
compliance expectations on behalf of the community.[45]
4.47
The PSC informed the committee that at present the Institute of Public
Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and CPA Australia are the
only bodies that operate across financial services that are regulated through
the PSC. Other organisations less directly connected to financial
services such as the law societies in each state and territory are also
regulated by the PSC.[46]
4.48
The AFA informed the committee that in its view Professional Standards
Schemes are broader than recognition, noting that approval of a Professional
Standards Scheme also includes the establishment of a limit on civil liability.
The AFA indicated that:
This invariably involves a significant workload with respect
to professional indemnity insurance, historical insurance claims and actuarial
considerations. There are some significant implications with respect to the
financial advice profession that would need to be addressed before this was
considered, including the implications of such a scheme in the context of the
Corporations Act and the role of licensees, who under the Corporations Act are
liable for consumer claims.[47]
4.49
The FPA submitted that professional bodies should be recognised by the
PSC and noted that the PSC scheme is a successful cooperative federal and state
government initiative for the public regulation of professions through
individual professional membership.[48]
4.50
The AFA indicated to the committee that it considered that:
The Professional Standards Council presents a vehicle for the
formal recognition of professional associations through regulatory means. The
application process through the Professional Standards Council is rigorous and
comprehensive. The Professional Standards Council identifies the key elements
that would typically be expected of a profession.
We believe that further consideration of the option and the
criteria set out by the Professional Standards Council is appropriate.[49]
Committee view
4.51
The committee considers that requiring professional associations to
establish Professional Standards Schemes approved by the Professional Services
Councils has a number of advantages including that:
-
the PSC is an existing body, so no new body would be created;
-
Professional Standards Schemes are an established process that
has been implemented in other sectors; and
-
three industry associations whose members provide financial
advice are already covered by Professional Standards Schemes.
4.52
The committee therefore recommends that financial advice industry
associations that wish to have representation on the Finance Professionals'
Education Council and to be able to make recommendations to ASIC regarding the
registration of financial advisers, should be required to establish
Professional Standards Schemes under the Professional Standards Councils. In
making this recommendation the committee notes that:
-
additional resources may be required by the PSC in order to make
appropriate arrangements for implementation and transitional considerations;
and
-
the government may need to consider the interactions between
liability arrangements under Professional Standards Schemes and the Corporations
Act 2001.
Recommendation 12
4.53
The committee recommends that financial sector professional
associations that wish to have representation on the Finance Professionals'
Education Council and to be able to make recommendations to ASIC regarding the
registration of financial advisers, should be required to establish
Professional Standards Schemes under the Professional Standards Councils, within
three years.
4.54
As is currently the case, financial advisers should be free to choose to
join multiple associations, including those industry bodies without a
Professional Standards Scheme. The committee considers, however, that as
outlined in earlier recommendations of this report, a person must be required
to join a professional body that is operating under a Professional Standards
Scheme approved by the Professional Standards Councils in order to be registered
as a financial adviser. That professional association will then become the body
that is authorised to advise ASIC regarding the fitness of the person to be
registered, subject to completion of the professional year and registration
exam. That professional association would also advise ASIC on the continuing
fitness for registration of an individual based on achievement of mandatory CPD
and compliance with the code of ethics.
4.55
If a financial adviser wishes to change professional sectors and have a
different association as the nominated body to oversee professional and
educational standards, they must meet the professional year (with recognised
prior learning provisions) and registration exam requirements for that body and
not have any censures or limitations outstanding from the previous professional
association or ASIC.
Recommendation 13
4.56
The committee recommends that any individual wishing to provide financial
advice be required to be a member of a professional body that is operating
under a Professional Standards Scheme approved by the Professional Standards
Councils and to meet their educational, professional year and registration exam
requirements.
Implementation of measures to raise professional, ethical and education
standards in the financial advice industry
4.57
In this section the committee sets out its views on the implementation
of the recommendations in this report. The section also discusses the need to
take a systems approach and to address transitional arrangements.
Committee view on a systems
approach
4.58
While the committee notes the important role of high professional and
ethical standards, the committee recognises that lifting professional and
ethical standards is only part of a more complex system. All parts of the
system need to be operating effectively to provide appropriate safeguards for
consumers and investors while allowing efficiency, innovation and growth within
the industry. As noted in Chapter 1, Professor Reason's model suggests that appropriate
organisational or systems defences are required to reduce risk, which in the
case of financial advice includes the measures outlined in para 1.55. The
committee is therefore proposing the approach set out in Figure 5.1, which brings
together recommendations from this inquiry. The figure demonstrates:
-
the role of professional associations;
-
professional and ethical standards and their oversight by the PSC
as recommended in this Chapter;
-
ASIC's role in establishing and managing the register of
financial advisers as already announced by the government with the changes
recommended in Chapter 2;
-
the role of AFS licensees in managing license obligations;
-
the Financial Professionals' Education Council and its industry
sub-sector panels as recommended in Chapter 3;
-
education providers; and
-
individual financial advisers.
Figure 5.1: Financial advice education stakeholder
relationships

4.59
Figure 5.1 includes the following criteria and information for financial
advisers to be on the register that the committee recommended in Chapter 2:
-
a unique identifier that follows every individual adviser
throughout their career;
-
listing financial advisers on the register when a professional body
advises that the adviser has completed the requirements of the professional
year and passed the registration exam;
-
a record of any higher qualification awarded by a professional
body to the adviser;
-
an annotation with any censure or limitation placed on a
financial adviser by professional body; and
-
highlighting on the register when an adviser is no longer authorised
to provide financial advice if the adviser has their membership of the professional
body is revoked.
4.60
The committee notes that its recommended approach:
-
creates no new government or regulatory entities;
-
expands the membership and function of an existing industry led
and funded council that sets educational standards;
-
should not increase the cost of advice to consumers as the cost
of running the council (currently less than $50 000) will be spread across
multiple associations;
-
complements measures already announced by government, including
the register of advisers;
-
addresses the key concerns of most stakeholders identified during
the inquiry;
-
draws from existing practices in other professions such as law,
health and accounting; and
-
draws on the assessment concept adopted by regulators in other
sectors, of having both a theory exam (centrally controlled but independently
administered by approved invigilators) as well as an assessment of demonstrated
competence including the potential for recognition of prior learning in some
areas.
4.61
The approach recommended above would help address the PSC requirements
that for an industry association to participate in a Professional Standards
Scheme, they must have programs and practices in place related to education,
ethics, recognition of professional experience and use practical assessments
and examinations to test competence and knowledge. In addition, they must have
the capacity to oversee and administer professional entry, professional standards,
and compliance expectations on behalf of the community.
Committee view on transitional
arrangements
4.62
The committee notes that with any significant policy or legislative
change, appropriate time is required for industry and consumers to implement
new requirements. While the committee has received evidence in submissions and
hearings about transitional arrangements, the committee has not examined
transitional issues and proposals in detail. The committee does note, however, that
some of the recommended changes will require different transitional timeframes.
4.63
The establishment of the register of financial advisers may occur sooner
than industry associations are able to establish approved Professional
Standards Schemes under the Professional Standards Councils. The committee also
notes that varied transitional arrangements may be needed for financial
advisers who are at different stages of their career.
4.64
In framing its recommendations, the committee has been mindful of the
need for transitional arrangements. The committee is however firmly of the view
that swift and decisive action is required in order to raise the professional,
ethical and education standards of financial advisers. On this basis, the
committee is recommending that the government require implementation of these
reforms within three years of response to this report. The Finance
Professionals' Education Council should be established within six months, as it
will have a key role as the body that will determine recognised prior learning
requirements for existing advisors. The establishment of a code of ethics compliant
with Professional Standards Scheme guidelines should be finalised within 18 months.
Recommendation 14
4.65
The committee recommends that government require implementation of the
recommendations in accordance with the transitional schedule outlined in the
table below.
Transitional arrangement
and timeframes
|
Date
|
Provisional registration
(available to existing financial advisers from the implementation of the
proposed government register until 1 Jan 2019 to address the goal of
transparency)
|
Mar 2015
|
Finance Professionals’
Education Council established
|
1 Jul 2015
|
FPEC releases AQF-7
education standards for core and professional stream subjects
|
Jun 2016
|
Establishment of codes of ethics
compliant with Professional Standards Scheme guidelines
|
Jul 2016
|
FPEC approved AQF-7 Courses
available to commence
|
Jan 2017
|
FPEC releases recognised
prior learning framework (dealing with existing advisers and undergraduates
who commence AQF-7 courses prior to Feb 2017)
|
Jul 2016
|
FPEC releases professional
year requirements including recognised prior learning framework for existing
advisers
|
Jul 2016
|
Professional associations
operating under PSC Professional Standards Schemes
|
1 Jan 2017
|
Target date for existing
financial advisers to qualify for full registration
|
1 Jan 2018
|
Cut-off date for full
registration - provisional registration no longer available
|
1 Jan 2019
|
Senator David Fawcett
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page