Govt should subsidise advice: Financial Advice NZ

admirable suggestion. However given that it seems the government is not willing to deliver the additional funds required to deliver its additional regulatory reform to the regulator it appoints, it would appear to a forlorn hope.

Isn't it interesting how many industries think that the cost of their supply to the consumer should be subsidised by the Government [taxpayer].

Agree gentlemen. An interesting idea given that people on the whole don't like paying fees, yet commission is a dirty word.

Exactly where do we draw the line on the expectation that everything is free and available 5 seconds ago?

Our society with its expectations of now drive many of these questions.

The question here appears to be "should the government incentivise access to advice?"

For me, a number of parallel issues collide here:
1. Government (of any political colour) regularly uses taxation (either increasing a specific tax or removing one) to incentivise societal change and behaviour. Why is this issue any different if there is a genuine appetite for change across society as a whole? Isn't that what we have "government" for: to make decisions for the benefit of society as a whole and then to use the resources of its tax payer base to enforce those collective decisions for the common good?
2. There is no doubt that government wishes to see more private sector insurance and less reliance upon state sponsored programs. The financial literacy noise, increasing difficulty of obtaining ACC (anecdotally), the legislative push for "better consumer outcomes" from financial services and so forth are shifting NZ in that direction. Which is not necessarily something I disagree with incidentally.
3. Regulatory reform of our sector is undoubtedly raising costs for the sector, which in turn will limit consumer access due to higher advice delivery costs, or reduced advice choice (either fewer participants in the market or fewer participants willing to work with segments of the market). While reform itself may be a good thing for the industry, it is difficult to see how it increases partcipation in the use of financial services by consumers at this point. It may in time, but almost certainly won't in the next electoral cycle.
4. Official messaging (from politicians and policy makers and policy enforcers) is consistently disparaging of the industry, and that in turn makes it more difficult for the industry to absorb additional costs when there is decreased confidence by consumers in using the services of the industry.
5. There appears to be a centralised approach to manipulating market models to suit some sort of PR agenda. I am referring of course to the ongoing noise about commission rates and cost of distribution where some fairly provocative statements are made repeatedly which actually appear illogical to me.

Given that the impact of such things are going to be felt most severely by a relatively small number of businesses trying to serve consumers, but they are supposedly for the benefit of our society as a whole in the long term, then I think it is a legitimate question to raise as it is an issue of "fairness" coupled with enhancing (or is it "restoring"?) confidence and participation in the use of the sector.