What obligations do you refer to? To provide advice and accept payment for same, regardless of whose better interests that advice is in? Oh yes, there is a Code of Conduct, self policed as I read it.
Reality is the licensing regimen requires the planner to:
-have a relevant bachelor or higher degree, or equivalent qualification
-pass an exam
-meet continuing professional development (CPD) requirements each year
-complete a year of work and training (professional year) – although this will not apply for individuals who are already relevant providers before 1 January 2019
-comply with a code of ethics and be covered by a compliance scheme that monitors and enforces compliance with the code of ethics.
That last one looks nice and is documented here. The penalty for non-compliance is being struck off. The process to demonstrate non-compliance could be costly, lengthy, and kept from the public to protect the innocent, but also the guilty. The efficacy of Belle Gibson’s prosecution comes to mind as how enforcement and prosecution might go more often as not.
To be clear I am not saying a licensed planner is not preferable to an unlicensed person, just that a license does not necessarily demonstrate anything beyond the planner has initially met the requirements to be listed.
/no end to my cynicism font 
