Mr Jones has since outlined that this would be a transition arrangement aimed at advisers in the latter years of the profession to halt the large-scale exit of advisers from the industry.

At the time of the announcement, Mr Ashenden said it was a bit unclear whether any formal education would still be required.

“We saw the Coalition come out with a very similar policy soon after that was subject to a consultation. The Labour Party can now pick up any of the feedback that came through that consultation period,” he said.

Mr Ashenden noted that Labor has made it clear that this would be a measure that Labor would look to implement as soon as possible after forming government.

The expectation is that the experience pathway measure will be introduced via a legislative instrument, he said, which is the way various standards were introduced by FASEA in the past.

“So, [there is no need] to have legislation formally introduced into Parliament,” he said.

“It is our understanding that Treasury has been instructed to commence drafting the relevant legislative instrument to give effect to this [measure].”

While the measure will be introduced via legislative instrument, there is still a chance it could be disallowed, warned Mr Ashenden.

“It’s possible that within the first 15 sittings days of that legislative instrument being registered that somebody could put it up for debate,” he explained.

“If it did go up for debate and that motion is successful, then that pathway would no longer be in place.”

Mr Ashenden said there are still are lot of aspects with the measure that remain unclear at this stage.

One of the questions that remains, he said, is how the 10 years of experience for the pathway would be measured.

If it is measured at 1 January 2026, which is when the existing education pathways for existing advisers are due to expire, then this would mean that you needed to be an adviser since at least 1 January 2026.

“That date would make sense, because if you think back to what the qualification was to be an existing advisor under the professional standards regime, it talks about being on the register at some point between the 1 January 2016 and the 31 December 2018,” he said.

It could also be set a potentially earlier date than that, he noted.

“Also, if you think about 10 years of experience, is that full time experience? What does that mean for someone who has worked part time during that 10 year period?” he questioned.

“What about someone who took a break, for example, for a period of time over that 10 year period, how does that actually work? How does that impact on those 10 years?”

It’s also not clear what is meant by an unblemished record, said Mr Ashenden.

“Does that mean that ASIC hasn’t taken any action against that adviser and is it no action at any point in time? Or does it mean no action during that 10 year experience pathway?” he questioned.

“What happens if you qualify for the 10 years of experience and you've got a clean record and then, but then, as an example, in mid 2026 something comes up before ASIC as a result of an investigation or as a result of a report from an AFSL that says, actually, there was a potential issue in relation to this adviser and that issue was something that occurred during that 10 years of experience?

“If something does then come to fruition and ASIC chooses to impose some of action, does that mean you’d actually lose your 10 year experience pathway?”

Mr Ashenden noted that if an adviser lost the 10 year experience pathway at that particular point in time, then all the other existing pathways for advisers would have expired.

“You would end up [having to meet] the new adviser entry requirements,” he said.