Speaking from Washington where he is attending the Financial Planning Standards Board (FPSB) meeting Tate said groups such as the IFA were facing similar issues to peers worldwide.

"A lot of it's around the value of professional bodies, what we're adding," he said.

 "In most cases we've found the professional bodies globally have released their intellectual property to the regulators and in turn of course have lost a large portion of members who are saying OK, we've met the required minimum standard, why do I need to do anything else?

"We're slowly but surely coming to the conclusion globally that it's good to help the regulators but we need to recognise the costs incurred, and then deal with that in terms of providing reasons to remain members of a professional body."

Professional Advisers Association (PAA) chief executive Edward Richards said that in the main, he agreed with Tate.

"I don't disagree that the Government regulators take industry standards and practices, codes of practice, and incorporate them into legislation then claim it as their own patch, at a bigger picture level he's right," he said.

On the whole however, Edwards believes professional bodies actually have greater relevance in a more regulated world.

 "Certainly the PAA has had more contact with the FMA than we had with its predecessor the Securities Commission, because we are working together quite explicitly to help the levels of compliance and good advice and financial literacy in the marketplace," he said.

He also said bodies such as the PAA, IFA and FAANZ can play a significant role in providing independent comment on regulatory policy changes as well as providing a lobbying platform for advisers.