Update on FASEA code guidance on the wayBY ELIZABETH MCARTHUR | FRIDAY, 29 NOV 2019 2:42PMFinancial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority chief executive Stephen Glenfield has confirmed more guidance on the contested Code of Ethics is imminent. Related News |
Editor's Choice
REI Super chief executive steps down
|REI Super is farewelling its chief executive Jarrod Coysh, after more than seven years in the role.
Former Brighter Super investment lead plots return
|After a six-month hiatus, former Brighter Super chief investment officer Mark Rider is returning to the superannuation industry, set to join another super fund next month.
CGT, negative gearing changes to become a law
|The government's tax agenda announced in the Budget overhauling the capital gains tax (CGT) discount and negative gearing have now passed the Parliament and will become law.
BUSSQ beefs up cyber security oversight
|The Queensland industry fund has welcomed a cyber security expert to its board of trustees, bolstering its oversight on heightened cyber security risk.
Products
Featured Profile

Judith Fiander
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AUSTRALIAN PHILANTHROPIC SERVICES
AUSTRALIAN PHILANTHROPIC SERVICES
When Judith Fiander first walked in the doors of Australian Philanthropic Services her intention was to volunteer for a few months. Fast forward 14 years and she is the chief executive. Eliza Bavin writes.







As a senior Financial Planner of 25 years in the game. I am very concerned about possible future interpretations of the Adviser Code of Ethics. We need a crystal clear code that is in unison with the law that is passed by parliament. I don't think that Glenfield's responses to questions are very helpful, as he seems to be saying that it all about the "Vibe" of the code....I think that the Ethics Code enforces are going to have a field day with this in the future.
De Gori's comments about only needing guidance if there is ambiguity in the code are partly correct. He's either not a lawyer?or being disingenuous. A court will always look at the terms of the Code as directed and look at the Guidance, and particularly the Values which are *paramount* (remember). The bulk of the terminology used including "conflict of interest" are already defined in the common law. So, the courts aren't just going to interpret the Code in any way they want. The Values and objectives are all consistent with basic fiduciary concepts, so the level of uncertainty is really not as claimed.
As for FASEA only creating the Code and not enforcing it, all I can say is, GOOD, that follows a constitutional principle called "separation of powers"! Hardly a criticism of FASEA.