There have been a number of constants in the exasperating succession of financial planning scandals which have gutted far too many people over the years.

Key points: The Accountancy Ethical Standards Board tried to ban commission payments five years ago but was rolled by the big professional bodies

The Accountancy Ethical Standards Board tried to ban commission payments five years ago but was rolled by the big professional bodies Commission payments reward advisors for sales, rather than advice

Commission payments reward advisors for sales, rather than advice Many financial planners are now refusing to sell conflicted products, instead operating on a fee-for-service basis

Greed, hypocrisy and a callous disregard for clients are readily identifiable.

Add to that list commission-based payments, the financial tool that has been at the centre of all the scandals over the last decade or so that have seen ordinary Australians lose billions of dollars from their retirement incomes.

The choice between tidying up the industry and naked self interest has been reasonably easy for the organisations looking after the professional interests of the practitioners in the game, the accountants and financial planners.

Self-interest is of course the winner.

That means fighting reform and holding on to the conflicted commissions is pretty well the stated position of the three big accountancy bodies CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and the Institute of Public Accountants.

The three rival, but in this case united, accountant groups are fighting hard to stop their members who are also financial planners being forced to operate on a fee-for-service basis.

For critics of the current system, only "fee-for-service" advice operates genuinely in the best interests of customers.

Commissions pop up all over the financial system — from commissions paid to insurance and loan brokers to asset based fees (commissions by another name) and third-party payments from product providers.

They are payments that require a sale rather than just advice, where you cannot tell if your financial planner is working for you, or you-know-who. Whether the advisor is just taking easy money at your expense.

First opportunity for reform junked in 2012

The Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board recognised the danger to the public back in 2012 and issued a standard calling for all conflicted payments to be banned.

The board was comprehensively rolled by its paymasters, CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, and the Institute of Public Accountants.

IPA Australia refused to adopt the standard, known as APES 230, while a watered-down version, with conflicts, was belatedly accepted by the other two bodies.

That watered-down standard is now up for review.

A quick scan through the 27 submissions to that review shows that nothing has changed for the three so-called gatekeepers of the accounting profession.

The IPA still doesn't want anything to do with APES 230 while CPA Australia and Chartered Accountants say now is not the time for fee for service.

Client interests still secondary

Which raises the question: when will it be time to put customers first?

In CPA Australia's case, its position could be described as total hypocrisy.

In 2015, it set up its own financial planning arm, CPA Advice, to operate on a genuine fee-for-service basis.

It was seen at the time as a recognition that the winds had changed, that customer well-being, not accountants' bank balances, should be the priority.

But now we know.

CPA Australia apparently believes in fee for service, but only a little bit.

Embarrassingly for it, a director of CPA Advice has made a submission arguing very strongly for all conflicts to go.

For good measure, the Financial Planning Association, which sees itself as Australia's premier financial planning body, has stayed true to form, calling for the conflicted payments to stay.

Winds of change emerging

However, the world it seems is moving on regardless of their attempts to cling to the past.

Many of the other submissions to the APES 230 review echo these thoughts from Queensland-based financial planner, Alan Keal.

"The removal of any perceived or real conflict regarding how advisers are remunerated for their advice is the only approach which is consistent with a true profession acting in the public interest."

There are now scores of financial planners who do operate on a genuine fee-for-service basis.

Enough to suggest that it does work and that the arguments of the IPA, CPA Australia and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand are fallacious and self-serving.

Only about one in five Australians uses the services of a financial planner.

Large parts of the industry still do not understand that Australians are not silly. They know a dud product when they see it.

The harsh reality though is that the three accounting bodies pay for the Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board.

Money talks.

They rolled the Board last time and there is no reason to suggest their view will not prevail again.

And as it was last time, the public will be the loser.