Simone Constant

Ongoing weaknesses in the death benefit claims handling practices of straggling superannuation trustees risk undermining confidence in the industry’s readiness to service Australia’s ageing population.

While many trustees have made positive inroads, ASIC’s progress review, Report 831 Delivering on death benefits: Have super trustees stepped up? (REP 831), suggests others have failed to implement basic process improvements in response to recommendations handed down in ASIC Report 806 Taking ownership of death benefits: How trustees can deliver outcomes Australians deserve (REP 806).

ASIC Commissioner Simone Constant said while it was pleasing to see many trustees take appropriate steps to address the claims handling failures identified by ASIC, the pace of improvement and an overall increase in claims volumes suggested not all trustees are well placed to meet future service pressures from Australia’s ageing population.

‘There are some promising findings in this report, including a 53% reduction in internal complaints about death benefit delays from early 2024 to late 2025,’ said Commissioner Constant.

‘However, with claims volumes increasing by 10% in the 12 months to October 2025 and with that growth expected to continue in the context of Australia’s ageing population, it’s clear that more work needs to be done if all trustees are to meet member expectations.

‘We’re particularly concerned that some trustees have not actioned basic process improvements and continue exposing grieving beneficiaries to harm at times of heightened emotional and financial distress.’

ASIC’s latest review of the reported progress of 45 superannuation trustees highlighted the following areas where trustees should take action:

• Measuring end-to-end claim times and holding themselves to account by setting performance targets that align to positive claimant outcomes.
• Being responsible for their own risk appetite and customer impact in the processing of low-value and low-risk claims, especially the practice of claims staking.
• Treating their members and claimants as customers, helping with proactive communications about the most important steps like making a valid binding death benefit nomination. This is of heightened importance where there are language and communication barriers.
• Enhancing support for First Nations members and claimants, including updating identification and other practices that produce sub-optimal outcomes.

‘There is no excuse for delays in delivering better outcomes for death benefit claimants. Super trustees have now had over two years to respond to concerns that we began raising back in 2024 with our publication on improving superannuation member services in May 2024 and a direct letter to CEOs on assessing practices for handling death benefit claims in November 2024,’ Commissioner Constant added.

‘Trustees that have made positive steps in the right direction should sustain this momentum and ensure they are equipped to manage future service pressures.

‘For trustees that have failed to take effective action, our progress review should serve as a wake-up call ahead of the Commonwealth Government’s proposed introduction of mandatory member services standards.’

Commissioner Constant said ASIC will continue to monitor trustee progress in improving death benefit claims handling practices and will hold trustees to account for member service failures.

‘Fund members have a right to expect claims will be handled efficiently, honestly and fairly — this is an obligation for trustees under law. ASIC will consider the full range of regulatory tools at our disposal, including enforcement action, if trustees fail in this crucial obligation.  We have done it before and if we need to, we will do it again.  This is a mission critical area for trust Australians place in their superannuation system,’ she said

The next phase of ASIC’s multi-year member services review is also underway. ASIC is testing how well superannuation trustees use member complaints data to identify and address systemic issues and to improve service delivery.

‘A surge in complaints relating to death benefits was a catalyst for our review of claims handling. In the same way, trustees should use complaints data as an early warning system to detect and mitigate risks to members,’ Commissioner Constant said.

‘Unfortunately, despite complaint numbers and trends rising overall between 2020 and 2026, early findings indicate that five of the 10 trustees we are reviewing have not identified a single systemic issue from analysis of their complaints data over our review period. At least one trustee failed to analyse their complaints data at all. This is baffling, and frankly, unacceptable.’

Earlier this month, the Federal Court found Telstra Super (now known as Tetra Servicing Pty Ltd) breached its complaints handling obligations (26-091MR) after ASIC took action against the trustee for failures to respond to about one third of complaints received between 22 October 2021 and 13 January 2023 within the mandatory 45-day timeline.

Background

ASIC commenced a multi-year project in 2024, looking at industry practices and compliance with laws relating to trustee administration and contact centres.

ASIC focussed on death benefit claims handling practices in the first phase after a concerning uptick in reports of service failures relating to death benefit claims and a steep increase in death benefit complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

In March 2025, ASIC released REP 806, which outlined observations of both good and poor practices from our review of death benefit claims of 10 trustees over the 2-year period ending 31 March 2024. This followed an earlier Letter to CEOs of superannuation trustees sent in November 2024 highlighting the need for trustees to assess their death benefit claims handling practices and address deficiencies as a priority.

ASIC first raised concerns in an article published in May 2024, which identified broad failings from across a sweep of trustees in supporting members with basic communications and processes for fair and effective death benefits claims.

Following the release of REP 806, which included a list of 34 actions for all trustees to consider, ASIC issued compulsory notices on 45 superannuation trustees to review industry progress in uplifting death benefit claims handling.

ASIC asked trustees to respond to a series of questions exploring what action they took in the period between 20 November 2024 and 20 November 2025 (review period) to consider and respond to the findings outlined in ASIC’s publications. This included seeking details of further planned improvements. ASIC chose 20 November 2024 as the commencement of our review period as this was the date ASIC published its CEO letter, which put all trustees on notice regarding the need to improve their death benefit claims handling practices.

For the full list of trustees involved in ASIC’s latest review, please refer to appendix A in REP 000.

Last November, the Federal Court ordered Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (Cbus) to pay a penalty of $23.5 million (25-286MR) after ASIC sued the trustee for unreasonable delays experienced by more than 7,000 Australians in handling death benefits and total and permanent disability (TPD) insurance claims.

In March 2025, we commenced civil penalty proceedings against AustralianSuper alleging delays in processing of death benefit claims: see Media Release (25-034MR) ASIC sues AustralianSuper alleging significant death benefit claims failures (12 March 2025).

ASIC’s focus on death benefit claims handling failures was the first focus of a multi-year member services review and followed a surge in member complaints.  As part of its ongoing work on member services, ASIC is assessing how well superannuation trustees use member complaints data to identify and address systemic issues to improve service delivery. Findings will be published later this year.

Downloads

REP 831 Delivering on death benefits: Have super trustees stepped up?

The post Super stragglers dampen progress on death benefits delivery for grieving Australians appeared first on AdviserVoice.

June Smith

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) welcomes confirmation by the Federal Government that it will be the single, centralised External Dispute Resolution (EDR) scheme for scam complaints under the Scams Prevention Framework (SPF).

The SPF expands AFCA’s jurisdiction to consider the role of banks, telcos and digital platforms in scam complaints.

AFCA will be the one-stop-shop for consumers who have not been able to resolve their scam complaint through Internal Dispute Resolution.

The multi-party EDR service for SPF will be the first of its kind in the world and recognises the sophistication of modern scams, which often involve multiple organisations across different sectors.

Designated banks, telcos and digital platforms will be required to be AFCA members from Tuesday 1 September 2026, giving consumers access to an independent external dispute resolution pathway for complaints under the Scam Prevention Framework.

AFCA will be able to deal with scam complaints under the new framework from 31 March 2027.

“We welcome the Government’s announcement and the confidence it has placed in us to act as the external dispute resolution scheme under the Scams Prevention Framework. We have significant experience handling complex complaints at scale, and we’ll be using that experience to build an effective and accessible service,” said AFCA’s acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief Ombudsman Dr June Smith.

“We recognise the size of the task and look forward to working closely with all stakeholders to deliver a robust, fair and efficient dispute resolution process,” said Dr Smith.

AFCA recently appointed David Lacey as its inaugural Chief Scams Officer (CSO) to lead the establishment of the new scams EDR scheme.

“Scams are one of the most significant issues affecting consumers today. They are increasingly sophisticated and they leave people facing devastating financial and emotional consequences” said the Chief Scams Officer.

“We recognise the complex nature of modern scams and the need for fair outcomes for victims and the organisations involved. We look forward to welcoming new members to AFCA.”

The post AFCA authorised as External Dispute Resolution service for Scams Prevention Framework appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Catherine Evans

“Surely this doesn’t apply to me, as my clients aren’t criminals.”

This is heard time and again from advisers and is exactly the wrong way to think about Anti-Money Laundering / Counter Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF).

Australia has been significantly behind the international community on AML legislation for years now, with increased pressure to bring our regime into line being tied to the real risk of grey listing from international trade. This is a large part of why these reforms have moved as quickly as they have.

The laws are now in place and operational, with AUSTRAC’s expectations higher than much of the advice profession has yet appreciated.

Existing reporting entities, including self-licensed advisers, have been operating under the new framework since 31 March 2026.

That deadline has passed, and the next critical date is 1 July 2026. This is when new designated services and new reporting entities come into the regime in full.

The starting point is knowing which services are regulated, and this is where most firms underestimate the complexity in its entirety.

The designated services in the legislation are worded broadly, and AUSTRAC’s guidance does not always map neatly to how advice businesses operate. If for example you recommend an SMSF and simply refer the client to their accountant to manage the set up process, you are likely not providing a designated service (the accountant would be). But if you facilitate the set-up process, by completing forms, using a document provider, effectively setting it up for the client or on their behalf, then you almost certainly are.

Similarly, if you hold authority over a client’s account and make payments on their behalf, that is a designated service. And if you provide a registered office address for any client, that is a separate designated service as well.

None of these are unusual arrangements in an advice practice, they are everyday occurrences. And they are precisely the kinds of services this regime is designed to capture.

What has also surprised many integrated practices is the group-level reach of the new laws. This is  where an advice business has an associated accounting arm, both entities may be caught and need to be separately enrolled.

Corporate authorised representatives providing any of the new designated services will also be regulated and require enrolment with AUSTRAC, not just the licensee entity. The day of assuming the licensee manages all of this are gone.

Once you’ve determined one or more of your services are regulated, then the obligations are extensive and includes a money laundering and terrorism financing risk assessment, policies and controls, personnel due diligence, training, an internal governance framework, and annual reporting to AUSTRAC.

The most common mistake we see is treating this as a documentation exercise. A policy gets written, filed away, and never touched again. But the framework only works and only holds up under scrutiny when it is embedded in how the business operates.

What does the team do day to day? How are concerns escalated? How are decisions recorded? That is what AUSTRAC is interested in, and that is what an independent evaluation will examine.

This is the part many firms have not fully grasped yet, that AML/CTF compliance is not a set-and-forget exercise. Customer due diligence will continue throughout the life of a client relationship, not just at onboarding.

Suspicious matter reporting obligations are triggered by reasonable suspicion, not proof, not certainty. Once that suspicion forms, a report must be lodged within three business days. AUSTRAC has already signalled its concern that the advice industry is not reporting enough, which is a clear indication of where scrutiny is heading.

Enhanced customer due diligence under the new regime is also no longer a checklist. It is a judgement call, based on the specific risks identified. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, and firms need people who can make those calls.

There is one more thing worth being direct about, even if the overall risk profile is genuinely low, that does not reduce any of the legal obligations. Risk shapes how you comply with certain parts of the framework, it does not determine whether you comply.

This distinction matters, and it is where many otherwise well-run firms find themselves exposed.

The firms that will manage this well are not the ones trying to minimise the issue. They are the ones that have taken the time to understand what is required, built it into how they operate, and can demonstrate clearly that their framework works in practice.

With 1 July weeks away, there is still time to get this right. But not much, because when questions come, confidence will not come from knowing your clients well. It will come from being able to show your workings.

By Catherine  Evans, Founder and Head of Legal

The post My clients aren’t criminals, so why does AML/CTF apply to me? appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The post Scam alert: Scammers luring investors onto fake crypto-asset trading platforms appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Joe Longo

New research released ysterday by ASIC shows that Australia is well-placed to harness an ongoing surge of financial innovation.

The Innovation in Financial Technology and RegTech research, conducted by the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre (DFCRC) for ASIC, lays out how Fintech and Regtech innovations are evolving across the world.

It highlights that artificial intelligence is becoming embedded in everyday financial operations, including credit underwriting, claims processing, portfolio management and disclosure.

ASIC Chair Joe Longo said, ‘Australia has long been a laboratory for innovation, gifting the world groundbreaking technologies from wi-fi to the cochlear implant. The same spirit exists in our financial system.

‘For example, Australia is a global leader in some areas, including its “world-class” payments infrastructure, and pioneering ‘buy now pay later’ sector.’

Mr Longo said that as the pace of change accelerates, industry and regulators will need to work together to ensure that Australia not only keeps up but stays ahead.

‘ASIC has often said we want to identify opportunities to back innovation in Australia, and it is clear that innovation can significantly improve productivity in our financial system, boost Australia’s economy and lead to better consumer experiences,’ said Mr Longo.

‘As a regulator, ASIC’s role is to make sure that when innovation happens, it happens safely and responsibly, with the wellbeing of end consumers at the forefront of everyone’s minds. Good regulation is good for consumers – and good for business.’

‘That’s why ASIC will continue to prioritise simple, principles-based regulation through our regulatory simplification initiative. We will continue to engage with industry to strike the right balance between protecting consumers, bolstering market integrity and promoting innovation.’

Commissioning the research forms part of ASIC’s strategy to support responsible innovation in Australia’s financial system. It will inform ongoing industry engagement, including through the ASIC Digital Finance Advisory Panel (DFAP) and targeted roundtables.

Download

Innovation in Financial Technology and RegTech

Background

Innovation in Australia

In 2025, Australian startups raised more than $5 billion in venture capital (VC) funding, the third best year on record, and up by almost half since 2018, just behind France and Germany.

For every $1 billion of VC money invested since 2000, Australia has produced 1.22 unicorns which is a higher ratio than any other country and almost twice the number for the United States.^[1]

Innovation Hub

Since 2015, ASIC’s Innovation Hub has helped innovative FinTech and RegTech businesses navigate the Australian regulatory framework. It also provides a platform for domestic and international engagement on financial innovation and RegTech-related developments.

ASIC supports the goal of responsible innovation by:

• providing informal assistance to innovative businesses on their potential regulatory obligations and the licensing process
• administering the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox (ERS; where the legislation provides a limited licensing exemption for eligible fintechs to test innovative business models), and
• driving information sharing and cooperation through our external Digital Finance Advisory Panel (DFAP), and other regular engagement with industry and peer regulators, both domestic and international.

In November 2025, ASIC Chair Joe Longo announced that ASIC would review and re-launch the ASIC Innovation Hub, with a focus on seeking out ways ASIC can support financial market innovations in Australia.

This review concluded in March 2026, where we identified several areas where it can improve and several areas where ASIC will take the lead on navigating the structural change that system-wide innovation brings, so that Australia’s markets are fit for the future.

The DFCRC published another report (The Economic Impact Potential of Digital Finance Innovation in Australia Report) in March 2026.

Project Acacia

Earlier this week the RBA and DFCRC released the final report of Project Acacia, Exploring the role of digital money in wholesale tokenised asset markets. ASIC was one of the participating agencies in the project and continues to work with the RBA and other agencies on some further work flowing from the report.

Regulatory Simplification

In May 2026, we published our Regulatory simplification progress report, demonstrating ASIC’s commitment to make regulation clearer, more accessible and easier to navigate.

In September 2025, we published our regulatory simplification report. The report sets out ASIC’s progress on initiatives and seeks a broad range of views on how we can more efficiently and effectively administer the law in the areas we regulate, how we can make it easier to interact with us, and how we can simplify guidance, legislative instruments and forms.

Opportunities to reduce red tape through law reform are also on the table. Our efforts to simplify regulation of the financial sector will deliver benefits for consumers, businesses and investors, while contributing to the Government’s productivity agenda.

———-

Notes:
[1] ‘Australia’s startup scene is thriving at last’ (16 April 2026) The Economist

The post Australia well-placed to unlock opportunities from innovation in the financial system appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Joe Longo

ASIC has taken further steps towards clearer regulation, expanding digital services capability, streamlining its website, and simplifying regulatory guidance.

ASIC Chair Joe Longo said the outcomes highlighted in Report 830 Regulatory simplification progress report (REP 830) commitment to making regulation clearer, more accessible and easier to navigate.

‘Regulatory complexity continues to be a challenge for Australian businesses by increasing costs, slowing innovation, creating unnecessary barriers and risking poorer consumer outcomes,’ Mr Longo said.

‘We have listened to feedback through our extensive engagement with the regulated community and will continue to explore opportunities to remove barriers within our control. Our efforts will focus on striking the right balance to ensure we maintain the strong protections that make Australia an attractive place to invest and do business.’

In response to feedback received following the release of Regulatory simplification (REP 813) in September 2025, ASIC also has:

• Developed clearer guidance and simplified legislative instruments to ensure they are easy to understand, while implementing sector-based regulatory roadmaps to help small company directors and financial advice businesses understand their obligations.
• Improved access to regulatory information on ASIC’s website with 280 form landing pages updated to make it easier for industry to comply with regulatory obligations.
• Modernised digital services, which have driven a 380% increase in forms available for electronic lodgement, resulting in 45,000 fewer paper-based lodgements annually, simplifying how businesses interact with ASIC.

REP 830 also outlines ASIC’s collaboration with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) on initiatives to reduce regulatory burden about data collection, as part of the Council of Financial Regulators on better regulation. These include strengthening engagement between regulators and industry and reducing inconsistencies in data collection.

ASIC’s upcoming simplification work will focus on the development of sector‑based regulatory roadmaps, improving ASIC registers through the RegistryConnect program, and expanding digital transactions.

For the next six months ASIC will prioritise working with APRA and other regulators to streamline and consolidate data requests and support the Government’s law reform, promoting productivity. In 2027, the focus will be on RegistryConnect to deliver streamlined digital services for company registrations.

‘We are deliberately prioritising initiatives that deliver the greatest benefit and are consulting openly with industry. I’d like to thank everyone who has contributed their insights, ideas, and time to improve our simplification agenda,’ Mr Longo said.

‘Together, we can create a regulatory framework that supports compliance, fosters innovation and strengthens trust in Australia’s financial system.’

The post ASIC continues to ease regulatory burden appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Kate O’Rourke

ASIC has outlined key focus areas for its financial reporting, audit and sustainability reporting activities in the 2026-27 financial year, including updates to its surveillance programs.

‘Our surveillance programs reinforce the importance of high-quality reporting and audit. Reliable financial information is critical to transparency in Australia’s capital markets and informed investment decisions by investors,’ said ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke.

Financial reporting focus areas

In keeping with ASIC’s enduring financial reporting focus areas, we will monitor areas where significant judgement from preparers of financial reports is required. This includes revenue recognition, assessment of asset impairment, recognition and measurement of financial instruments.

For 2026-27, ASIC will review the financial reports of listed and unlisted companies, registrable superannuation entities (RSEs) and managed investment schemes (MISs).

ASIC will also review the disclosures of companies that have provisions for decommissioning and site-restoration costs. This will include assessing disclosures against new guidance issued by the AASB (illustrative example D of AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets).

Audit focus areas

For 2026-27, ASIC will review 25 audit files. While ASIC will maintain its focus on listed and unlisted companies and RSEs, it will also include a selection of MISs.

Like in 2025-26, ASIC will select audit files from a mix of sources:

• where there has been a material correction to a financial report or where ASIC is concerned that a financial report may be materially misstated,
• based on other internal or external data (including independence threats), which indicates a risk to audit quality, or
• from a random selection process.

In responding to ASIC’s audit findings, audit firms indicate the remedial actions they intend to take. In 2026-27, we will monitor and report on firms’ implementation of those actions.

Separately, ASIC is engaging with the six largest firms to understand the firm-wide actions taken in response to Report 817 Building trust: Auditors’ compliance with independence and conflict of interest obligations.

Compliance activities

ASIC will continue to focus on non-lodgement of financial reports by large proprietary companies.

ASIC will also review compliance by registered company auditors with their obligations to lodge their annual statements. These obligations are fundamental requirements that support audit quality and auditor competence.

Sustainability reporting and assurance focus areas

ASIC has taken a range of steps to support entities’ compliance with the sustainability reporting framework, including guidance, relief and new educational materials. These are on our sustainability reporting webpage.

ASIC has updated its FAQs relating to the review and audit of sustainability reports in response to changes in the law and to address stakeholder questions, and have also provided sustainability reporting relief to related schemes. We are continuing to update our register of relief decisions to include ASIC’s decisions on individual sustainability reporting relief applications. ASIC has also shared preliminary observations on lodged sustainability reports. These observations will assist 30 June reporters as they prepare to lodge their sustainability report for the first time.

The Government has announced in the Budget that it proposes to commence consultation on reforms to reduce reporting burden while maintaining core sustainability reporting requirements, and ASIC will participate in that consultation process. Ahead of any reforms, ASIC’s administration of the mandatory climate reporting framework will continue, with a focus on the sustainability reports being submitted by Group 1 entities, and engagement with large audit firms on assurance methodologies as appropriate.

Background

ASIC’s reporting surveillance programs aim to foster high-quality, consistent and comparable financial information to help investors make informed decisions, ultimately supporting the integrity of Australia’s capital markets.

The objectives of these surveillance programs are outlined on ASIC’s audit inspection and surveillance programs webpage. Financial reporting misconduct, including non-lodgement of financial reports, and auditor misconduct are enforcement priorities for ASIC.

ASIC’s enduring focus areas relevant to the 2026-27 financial year are outlined on the sustainability reporting, financial reporting and audit focus areas webpage.

In 2025, ASIC released:

• Report 816 ASIC’s review into the financial reporting and audit of superfunds (REP 816)
• Report 817 Building trust: Auditors’ compliance with independence and conflict of interest obligations (REP 817)
• Report 819 ASIC’s oversight of financial reporting and audit 2024-2025 (REP 819).

These reports summarise findings from ASIC’s surveillance programs and other complementary work for the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. They highlights areas where the quality of financial reporting and audits can be improved.

ASIC media releases are point-in-time statements. Please note the date of issue and use the internal search function on the site to check for other media releases on the same or related matters.

The post ASIC sets financial reporting, audit and sustainability focus areas for FY 2026–27 appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Craig Brooke

Craig Brooke, CEO of KeyInvest, an APRA-regulated, member-owned mutual and specialist provider of tax-effective investment bond solutions, has made the following comment in response to the 2026-27 Federal Budget.

“The Budget is one of the most significant for wealth structuring in a generation. Taken together, the confirmation of Division 296, the overhaul of the CGT discount, and the introduction of a minimum 30 per cent tax on discretionary trusts fundamentally reshape the landscape for high-net-worth clients and the advisers who serve them.

“Division 296 proceeds as legislated from 1 July 2026, with no threshold adjustments and no relief. With thresholds remaining CPI-indexed rather than linked to asset price growth, the cohort of affected clients will only grow over time. What looks targeted today becomes a structural consideration for a much broader group of Australians over the next decade.

“The replacement of the 50 per cent CGT discount with inflation-linked indexation, and a 30 per cent minimum tax on gains from 1 July 2027 further narrows the attractiveness of directly held investments as an alternative to superannuation.

“For investment bonds, where there are no CGT events on internal switching or rebalancing, this is a meaningful structural advantage that advisers should be modelling for clients now.

“Perhaps the most significant measure for advice practices is the introduction of a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028.

“For decades, trusts have been one of the most commonly used structures for high-net-worth clients managing wealth outside superannuation. That advantage is now materially diminished. As a friendly society, KeyInvest’s investment bond structure sits entirely outside this measure, earnings are taxed internally at a maximum of 30 per cent, withdrawals are tax-free after ten years, and there is no annual personal tax reporting required. Tonight’s Budget makes that proposition more compelling than ever.

“The task is no longer about understanding these changes, it is about acting on them. Advisers who engage early and position clients across a genuinely diversified set of structures will be best placed to navigate what comes next.”

The post No relief, no delays: Division 296 planning starts now appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Nick McGrath

Non-bank lender Moneytech has welcomed the Albanese Government’s $1 billion Economic Resilience Program (ERP)^[1] as a timely and important measure to protect Australian businesses from global supply chain shocks but is raising questions about why non-bank lenders have been excluded from delivering it.

The program, administered through the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation (NRFC), provides zero-interest loans of up to $5 million to eligible SMEs in fuel, fertiliser, plastics and other critical supply chain sectors. Applications are currently being processed exclusively through a small group of participating banks, with no pathway for non-bank lenders which now finance a significant share of SME lending in Australia.

Moneytech CEO Nick McGrath says the program is exactly the kind of intervention Australian SMEs need right now but its reach could be meaningfully extended by opening it up to non-bank lenders.

“This is a well-designed program tackling a real problem, and the Government deserves credit for acting quickly,” McGrath says. “Our question is a constructive one though, if the objective is to get capital into the hands of as many eligible Australian SMEs as possible, as quickly as possible, why limit delivery to the major banks?”

“Non-bank lenders are now a core part of how Australian SMEs access finance. The Reserve Bank of Australia^[2] itself has noted that the non-bank share of SME lending has grown strongly since 2022, particularly for smaller loans driven by demand from SMEs for faster decisions, more flexible criteria and funding options the majors don’t offer. Many of the businesses this program is designed to help already rely on non-bank lenders for their day-to-day finance.”

McGrath points to the precedent set during the pandemic, when non-bank lenders including Moneytech were accredited to deliver loans under the Government’s SME Guarantee Scheme alongside the major banks.

“The SME Guarantee Scheme worked because the Government recognised that a diverse group of lenders would reach a broader group of businesses. That logic hasn’t changed. If anything, the role non-banks play has grown significantly since then.”

Moneytech is not arguing that banks should be cut out, McGrath says, but that the program’s impact would be greater if SMEs could access it through the lender they already use and trust.

“This is about giving Australian businesses more choice not fewer. The SMEs running fuel distribution, logistics, fertiliser supply and manufacturing operations aren’t a monolithic group. Some bank with the majors; many don’t. A program that genuinely supports the breadth of Australian industry should be accessible through the breadth of Australian lenders.”

Moneytech also highlights the role of finance brokers, who are the primary distribution channel for SME funding across Australia and would be critical to getting a program like the ERP into the hands of eligible businesses quickly.

“Brokers are often the first call a business owner makes when conditions tighten,” McGrath says. “They understand their clients’ operations and can quickly determine whether a business is best supported by a bank, a non-bank lender, or a combination of both. Any program designed to move capital fast should be built around the channels SMEs actually use and brokers are central to that.”

Brokers were also key distribution partners during the COVID-era SME Guarantee Scheme, helping lenders – banks and non-banks alike – reach businesses that needed support quickly.

Moneytech has called for the Government and the NRFC to open consultation with the non-bank sector on how lenders outside the majors can be accredited to participate in the ERP, and will engage directly with the relevant ministers and officials.

The post Moneytech Calls for Non-Bank Lenders to be Included in the Government’s $1 Billion Economic Resilience Program appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Alan Kirkland

ASIC is working alongside 16 global regulators as part of its crackdown on unlawful social media ‘finfluencers’, amid growing concern about the influence of financial information online, particularly among younger Australians.

Warning notices have been issued to four finfluencers suspected of providing unlicensed financial advice or engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. ASIC has also commenced a review of several Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees and their supervision of 15 finfluencers operating under their licences.

The action is intended to disrupt unlawful finfluencer online promotion before consumers suffer financial harm.

The warning notices to the four finfluencers relate to suspected provision of unlicensed financial advice, including promoting claims of guaranteed returns, which may also be misleading or deceptive.

ASIC’s action formed part of the second Global Week of Action Against Unlawful Finfluencers, involving 17 regulators globally, including ASIC, across Asia, Europe, North America, South America and the Middle East to disrupt unlawful online financial promotion and warn consumers about misinformation.

The continued crackdown reflects ASIC’s concern about the growing influence of social media on financial decision making.

Recent Moneysmart research shows that 63% of Gen Z Australians (aged 18–28) rely on social media for financial information, with more than half saying they somewhat or completely trust financial information on social media (56%) and from finfluencers (52%) (26-049MR).

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said, ‘Unlawful finfluencer activity doesn’t respect borders, which is why regulators are taking strong action together for a second year in a row.

‘What people see online is shaped by algorithms designed to drive clicks and engagement, rather than promoting accurate information. This means consumers are more exposed to biased or misleading content,’ Mr Kirkland said.

ASIC’s surveillance focused on finfluencers targeting Australian investors and discussing a range of financial products, including leveraged derivatives, shares and exchange-traded funds.

Commissioner Kirkland continued, ‘Finfluencers must either hold an AFS licence or operate as an authorised representative to legally provide financial product advice or arrange for their followers to deal in financial products.

‘When viewing financial content on social media, we urge Australians to check a creator’s credentials, and sense‑check the information before acting on it.

‘If someone on social media is promising easy money or guaranteed returns, there is a real risk they’re breaking the law, and you could be the one who loses money,’ Mr Kirkland said.

Consumers and investors can check whether a person or business is licensed or authorised using ASIC’s professional registers search tool.

ASIC reminds licensees of their obligations

For the first time since issuing Information Sheet 269 Discussing financial products and services online (INFO 269) in 2022, ASIC is reminding licensees about their supervisory obligations when engaging finfluencers.

Under these arrangements, unlicensed finfluencers may operate as authorised representatives of AFS licensees, however responsibility for supervising finfluencer conduct and the liability for any breaches remains with the licensee.

As part of this, ASIC has contacted and met with three AFS licensees to review their supervision of 15 finfluencers operating as authorised representatives and reminding them of their legal supervisory obligations.

ASIC expects licensees that authorise finfluencers to have adequate, documented arrangements in place to actively supervise their conduct, and to maintain records of that supervision.

‘Licensees remain responsible and liable for what their representatives say and do online,’ Mr Kirkland said.

‘We expect active supervision, not a set‑and‑forget approach.’

ASIC will continue monitoring social media activity and may take enforcement action where finfluencer conduct or licensee failures place Australian consumers at risk.

Australians should always check whether a person or business is licensed or authorised before acting on financial advice they see online.

‘If a social media influencer isn’t licensed or authorised, they cannot offer financial advice in Australia and could face up to five years’ imprisonment or million-dollar fines,’ Mr Kirkland said.

Moneysmart provides free, independent information to help consumers make informed decisions.

Suspected unlicensed finfluencer activity can be reported to ASIC via the Reporting misconduct to ASIC webpage, or by calling 1300 300 630, so that ASIC can consider appropriate regulatory action.

Downloads

• Template letter to suspected unlawful finfluencers (PDF 253 KB)
• Template letter to AFS licensees (PDF 248 KB)
• Graphic: Finfluencer red flags (PNG 1.6 MB) 

Background

Financial services laws protect investors and promote market integrity. They set minimum requirements and provide important protections for investors if something goes wrong.

ASIC monitors select online financial discussion by influencers who feature or promote financial products for any misleading or deceptive representations or unlicensed financial services.

In March 2026, ASIC urges Gen Z to ‘sense-check’ money advice as social media fuels riskier financial decisions (26-049MR).

ASIC has previously taken action against licensees who have failed to maintain their licensing supervisory arrangements.

• In February 2026, ASIC cancelled the AFS licence of Pulse Markets Pty Ltd for, amongst other things, failing to take reasonable steps to ensure its representatives comply with financial services laws (26-027MR).
• In December 2024, Sanlam Private Wealth Pty Ltd accepted a Court Enforceable Undertaking following an ASIC investigation for failing to supervise its 113 representatives (24-290MR).

ASIC issued Information Sheet 269: Discussing financial products and services online (INFO 269) in March 2022, outlining how the financial services laws apply to social media influencers and the obligations of AFS licensees that engage them.

In addition to ASIC, the 16 regulators involved in the Global Week of Action Against Unlawful Finfluencers included:

• Belgium, Financial Services and Markets Authority
• Brazil, Comissão de Valores Mobiliários
• Canada, British Columbia, British Columbia Securities Commission
• Canada, Ontario, Ontario Securities Commission
• Canada, Quebec, Autorité des marchés financiers
• Denmark, Financial Supervisory Authority
• Hong Kong, Securities and Futures Commission
• India, Securities & Exchange Board of India
• Ireland, Central Bank of Ireland
• New Zealand, Financial Markets Authority
• Norway, Finanstilsynet
• Qatar, Qatar Financial Markets Authority
• Qatar, Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority
• Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore
• United Arab Emirates, Capital & Markets Authority
• United Kingdom, Financial Conduct Authority

Following ASIC’s 2025 action against 18 suspected unlawful finfluencers (news item):

• several became authorised representatives
• others amended their content or ceased targeting Australian consumers, and
• offshore operators remain under scrutiny.

The post ASIC continues finfluencer crackdown alongside global regulators appeared first on AdviserVoice.