“Given that the broader intent of the code is to meet the expectations of ‘the Australian community’ for the provision of professional financial advice, the focus within it on financial advice clients is too narrow and should be extended to include people who are not clients,” Mr Macdonald said.

“Is the focus on clients supporting a view that only intra-fund or robo-advice should be available to everyday Australians, or is it an acceptance of defeat that professional advice is out of reach and not available to everyday Australians? Either way, a narrow scope limits the utility and time frame for this draft.”

In its submission to the authority around the guidance document, The Adviser Association said while FASEA had clarified the delivery of scaled advice was acceptable under the code, this appeared to be at odds with several of the standards that underlined a broader, holistic picture all advice needed to take account of.

“Acting with integrity and in a client’s best interest should not be in conflict with giving simple or straightforward advice simply,” the association said.

“However, the combination of FASEA, legislation, regulation, licensee policies and processes (related to considering broader, long-term interests and likely future circumstances) has meant that despite the stated intent of being able to scope advice, it has become too hard as it is too expensive and too risky to provide.

“This needs to be addressed as there is a fundamental disconnect between what consumers need and want, the difference between low-risk product advice for the client (e.g. a decision can easily be changed the next year), and the more complex or ongoing services a planner provides to clients where the initial advice is out of date the following day and is only part of the services and solutions offered to their client (i.e. annual reviews to keep them on track).”

The association also criticised the inclusion of intra-fund advice in guidance around Standard 6, stating that such advice should not be included in the same category as other limited-scope advice because it was “information about a product, not professional advice”.

“If product provider staff are allowed to continue calling themselves advisers, this will continue to confuse consumers and muddy the waters on the journey to being an advice profession,” the association said.