He expressed the view during an interview for the next edition of ASSET magazine, which looks back at the major regulatory changes the financial services industry has been through this year.

Asked what he would have changed if he had been in charge of the regulatory process, Tate said he would have taken a different approach to adviser accreditation.

"My pet desire is to get rid of the two-tier accreditation process - I wouldn't have Registered Financial Advisers and Authorised Financial Advisers, just AFAs.

"At the moment it is confusing to consumers, who don't understand the difference between a Registered Financial Adviser and an Authorised Financial Adviser.

"I wouldn't have given lawyers and accountants a free ticket to the game."

Tate said there's technically no such thing as an RFA: "they're really just non-AFAs."

He said it was "way too easy" to become registered, and disagreed the way certain financial products had been categorised under the regulations.

"According to the FMA risk insurance is a simple product much like a term deposit.  Well I would dispute that.

"Show me a simple income continuance policy... the implications of getting it wrong are massive, the cost of getting it wrong is bigger than the policy itself."

Another criticism he had of the regulatory system was that if he and an RFA down the road both gave the same advice on the same category two risk product they would be treated in different ways if things went wrong.

"I'm held to a different standard than they are and that's wrong in my view."