Jenny Wong

Australia’s largest accounting body, CPA Australia has recommended that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 be substantially improved or deferred, warning the government is attempting to push through the most significant tax changes in a generation on the back of an inadequate and rushed consultation process.

CPA Australia Tax Lead Jenny Wong said while the organisation supports well-designed tax reform, the current Bill is technically deficient, falling short of the standard required for legislation of this scale.

“This is not a case of resistance to reform – it is a case of reform that could be done better,” Ms Wong said.

“The Bill has been introduced without an exposure draft, without a consultation paper, and without formal stakeholder engagement and the cracks are showing.”

Stakeholders were given just 11 days to respond to legislation that will affect millions of Australians, while the Committee has only 24 days to report.

“That timeframe is simply not fit for purpose for reforms of this magnitude and complexity. This rushed process has produced avoidable errors that could have been caught through proper consultation,” Ms Wong said.

CPA Australia’s submission^[1] to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee includes new estimates showing the reforms will impose substantial costs on Australian taxpayers.

Ongoing annual compliance costs are estimated to be between $295 million and $542 million, while one-off transitional costs, driven largely by the requirement for millions of Australians to establish market values for CGT assets from 30 June 2027, are expected to range from $675 million to $825 million at a minimum.

“The compliance burden is real, it is sizeable, and it will fall disproportionately on everyday Australians rather than the high-wealth investors that this policy was intended to target,” Ms Wong said.

CPA Australia has also warned the Bill fails to adequately account for the realities faced by small and medium business owners and start-up founders.

Under the proposed model, replacing the 50 per cent CGT discount with CPI indexation produces materially worse outcomes for business owners who have built value from a low or nominal cost base.

“A plumber who incorporated for a dollar, a tech founder whose shares cost one cent, an accountant who bought into a practice for nominal consideration – these are not the policy’s intended targets, yet they will bear its full force without a carve-out,” Ms Wong said.

To address this, CPA Australia is proposing a three-tier framework, including retaining the 50 per cent CGT discount for active business assets where aggregated turnover does not exceed $20 million.

“This is a practical, targeted fix that protects genuine small business investment without undermining the broader policy intent.”

CPA Australia has also raised serious concerns about the use of ministerial instruments to define critical aspects of the reform – none of which have been released. The Bill relies on nine separate ministerial instruments to determine who is taxed, at what rate, on which assets, and under what conditions – including the definition of ‘new residential dwelling’ (eligible for CGT concessions) and an alternative method to apportion capital gains pre and post 30 June 2027.

“Parliament is being asked to pass a reform where the key policy settings do not yet exist in a visible or testable form,” Ms Wong said.

“That is not an acceptable way to legislate on matters of this significance.”

CPA Australia has called for these instruments to be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament before taking effect.

CPA Australia is calling on the Committee to recommend that:

• The Bill does not proceed until material gaps and errors are addressed and a revised, disaggregated compliance cost estimate is published
• The draft apportionment methodology instrument be released for public consultation by 1 October 2026 to provide valuation certainty ahead of 30 June 2027
• A small business and start-up carve-out retaining the 50 per cent CGT discount for active business assets with turnover up to $20 million be introduced in second-tranche legislation
• Treasury publish a distributional analysis of the minimum tax before the Bill passes
• The interaction of the CGT and other tax issues are stress tested and consulted on before introduction
• A statutory independent review commences no later than 1 July 2029.

Ms Wong said the issues identified are not insurmountable but require time and proper consultation to resolve.

“We are not here to block reform. We are here to make it work,” she said.

“These are fixable problems, but they need time and proper consultation to get the details right.”

——–

Notes:
[1] CPA Australia’s submission

The post Government pushing major tax changes with a rushed and incomplete Bill, CPA Australia warns appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Richard Webb

In a joint submission to Treasury, CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ) and The Institute of Public Accountants (IPA) are calling for proposals to shift Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) costs onto self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) to be reconsidered, warning it will unfairly burden investors while failing to address the true causes of financial losses.

Richard Webb, Superannuation Lead at CPA Australia, said singling out specific categories of retail investors for reduced statutory rights would not resolve the CSLR’s funding challenges.

“Singling out specific groups of retail investors for the loss of statutory protections won’t fix the unsustainably expensive CSLR levy. It simply shifts costs onto investors while ignoring the upstream drivers of loss – including product failures and misconduct prior to advice and distribution,” Mr Webb said.

The call comes amid rapidly escalating CSLR levy costs, which are projected to rise from just $4.8 million in 2024 to $75.7 million in 2026, and could grow to$127 million by 2027 – far exceeding the $20 million subsector cap and highlighting structural issues in the scheme’s funding model.

Mr Webb emphasised that the CSLR must operate as a genuine last-resort scheme, supported by effective oversight and accountability right across the financial system.

“For the CSLR to deliver the greatest benefit, it must truly be a scheme of last resort, and that means the upstream links in the chain must work properly. A sustainable model requires all sectors responsible for those losses – particularly managed investment schemes – to contribute fairly,” he said.

“It’s critical that costs caused by product failures are internalised by relevant product issuers, rather than being borne by unrelated sectors through special levies.

“Strong product governance must be incentivised, rather than increasing systemic risk and cross-subsidisation.”

Mr Webb said proposals to shift costs onto SMSFs were poorly designed and risked undermining confidence in the system.

“Making SMSFs fund the CSLR directly is poor policy, especially given that the current funding problems were caused by earlier failures. The people responsible for those losses should pay for them – not the investors who were harmed.

“The current CSLR regime already shows the unfair and disproportionate cost burden imposed on currently registered financial advisors and extending this to SMSFs simply compounds the problem.”
CPA Australia is calling for a holistic approach to CSLR funding, including product providers and relevant service providers, to ensure accountability across the financial services sector while maintaining fair protections for all investors.

The post CPA Australia calls for fair and sustainable solution to CSLR funding appeared first on AdviserVoice.

CALI CEO Christine Cupitt said a blanket ban would reduce customer choice and restrict Australians’ access to life insurance. She said the industry is seeking an exemption from any broad lead generation ban or other restrictions the Federal Government is considering in the wake of the Shield and First Guardian collapses.

“Life insurance lead generation plays an important role in helping customers access information, compare products and obtain life insurance protection,” Ms Cupitt said.

“A blanket ban for life insurance risks limiting legitimate information and connections that support customers to build their financial safety net.”

Ms Cupitt said a blanket ban would prevent life insurers from receiving customer enquiries from comparison websites, a popular and convenient way for customers to access basic information about financially protecting themselves and their loved ones.

“One in two Australians want personalised advice about life insurance and more people are turning to online tools, including market comparison sites, to learn about life insurance,” Ms Cupitt said.

Lead generation from these sites provides a safe and quick way for potential customers to get more information about the life insurance products that might suit their needs.

“The government should not cut off safe, regulated pathways that help Australians access life insurance.”

Ms Cupitt said CALI would be arguing a strong case for exemption, as well as the urgent need for the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes legislation to be released in full over the coming weeks as the government looks to finalise its promised reform package.

“Australians need easier access to life insurance, not more barriers,” she said.

CALI said an exemption should apply where:

• lead generation is undertaken for the sole or dominant purpose of promoting, referring or facilitating access to a life insurance product or service; and
• the initiating party complies with obligations under the Corporations Act, ASIC Act, Privacy Act and other consumer protection laws.

“This approach keeps reforms tightly focused on harmful conduct while preserving legitimate customer access to life insurance protection,” Ms Cupitt said.

The post Australians need easier access to life insurance, not more barriers appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Keith Marshall

AMAFA has formed a strategic investment capability partnership with Human Financial Management Limited (Human Financial) to enhance portfolio construction support, investment governance and adviser resources across the AMAFA network.

The partnership will provide AMAFA advisers with access to portfolio construction frameworks, model portfolio solutions, Investment Committee research and reporting support, market insights and adviser education resources.

AMAFA will retain full responsibility for its Approved Product List (APL), Investment Committee decisions, adviser governance framework and compliance obligations.

AMAFA Managing Director, Keith Marshall said the partnership represents a natural evolution of AMAFA’s commitment to supporting advisers with practical, high-quality investment solutions.

“We have built a strong governance framework over many years, supported by independent research, robust APL processes and technology-driven controls,” he said. “The partnership with Human Financial builds on those foundations by bringing additional portfolio expertise, investment insights and resources to our adviser network.”

Under the partnership, Human Financial will provide support across:

• Investment philosophy and portfolio construction frameworks
• Strategic asset allocation guidance
• Investment Committee support and reporting
• Human Financial model portfolio capability
• Adviser education and investment communication resources
• Market and portfolio commentary

Human Financial Chief Investment Officer, Angus Sippe welcomed the partnership and the opportunity to support AMAFA’s continued growth.

“AMAFA has developed a strong adviser framework with clear governance and adviser-first principles,” he said. “We look forward to working with the AMAFA team to help enhance their investment capability and provide advisers with additional portfolio support and education resources.”

Mr Sippe has more than 20 years’ investment management experience across global multi-asset investing, portfolio construction and institutional investment management. Before joining Human Financial, he was a senior multi-asset portfolio manager at Schroders and a voting member of Schroders’ Global Asset Allocation Committee.

On a day-to-day basis, AMAFA advisers will be supported by Ateeth Rungta, Human Financial’s Head of Distribution, who has more than 25 years’ experience across financial services, adviser support and wealth management.

The post AMAFA enhances investment capability through Human Financial partnership appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The consultation, running until 26 June, follows a recent legislative change which introduced a ban on life insurers soliciting or using protected genetic information.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is opening public consultation on proposed amendments to the rules that govern its work, following changes to genetic testing protections in life insurance.

The consultation, running from 1 June to 26 June, follows a recent legislative change which introduced a ban on life insurers soliciting or using protected genetic information (namely adverse genetic testing results) when offering life insurance.

“These proposed amendments will ensure we can consider complaints about the use of genetic testing in life insurance in line with the new protections for consumers. This will enable AFCA’s Rules to keep pace with changes in the law,” said Michelle Kumarich, Executive General Manager Jurisdiction and Systemic Issues.

AFCA is proposing changes to Rule C.1.4b) and d) to enable it to consider complaints specifically about the use of adverse genetic testing results.

Subject to consultation and regulatory approval, these amendments are expected to take effect from 8 October 2026.

“Engaging with stakeholders through this consultation is essential to ensuring our Rules continue to meet the needs of consumers and financial firms. We encourage all stakeholders, particularly our life insurance members, to have their say during the consultation.”

The Consultation page on the AFCA website provides more information on how to submit a response.

The post AFCA opens consultation on Rules change for genetic testing in life insurance appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Misha Schubert

The Super Members Council says the Government should not hand the bill for the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort to millions of low-paid Australians, warning it would be a dangerous departure from both the scheme’s original risk-based design controls and its purpose as a genuine last resort.

“This should be a fair, sustainable compensation scheme of genuine last resort that doesn’t double-tax hardworking Australians in safe, well-regulated parts of the super system — not one that socialises the cost of financial misconduct to the nation’s lowest-wage earners instead of holding the people responsible to account,” says the Council’s CEO Misha Schubert.

In a submission on Treasury’s proposed reforms, the Council highlights that the scheme was originally intended to compensate victims of financial misconduct only as a very last resort after all other options to recover money had been exhausted.

But it has rapidly become overwhelmed in its first few years by the scale of collapses and misconduct in higher-risk pockets of financial services.

The collapse of one financial advice firm alone eclipsed several years’ worth of the original actuarial predictions for the scheme’s total costs – and a string of others has since followed. Soon thousands more claims from the Shield and First Guardian collapses will start to make their way onto the scheme.

A key design principle for the scheme at the outset was that the part of the financial system from which the consumer harms and unpaid compensation orders had arisen should bear the costs of funding it.

It would be a clear breach of that principle to expand the levy onto unrelated sectors that have not caused the underlying misconduct, and to force millions of everyday Australians – including the nation’s lowest-paid workers in safe, highly regulated profit-to-member super funds – to pay it.

Spreading surging costs to unrelated sub‑sectors would further embed and escalate moral hazard. If safe, highly regulated parts of the system foot the bill for unrelated misconduct elsewhere, it can only further escalate risky behaviour, weaken accountability, and incentivise misconduct and poor practices.

SMC’s submission highlights the unfairness of what occurred last December – when the Government forced 12 million Australians in safe, well-run super funds to pay a one-off special levy to fund the skyrocketing 2025 compensation bill but Australians with SMSFs did not pay.

The current reform consultation now canvasses a new levy ‘waterfall’, in which a levy would cascade down levels in the financial system starting with sectors closest to the causes of harm – but then also permanently pull parts of the safe mainstream super system into the scheme’s third tier of funding.

It also proposes to require everyday Australians in mainstream super funds to permanently pay the levy yet puts forward  the idea of giving SMSFs an opt-in/opt-out choice on whether to pay the levy and be able to claim.

Consistent with the principle that Australians in APRA-regulated superannuation funds should not be part of the scheme, the Council’s view is that SMSFs should similarly be excluded — from both the levy and the ability to claim on the scheme. Both must be treated equally. SMSFs should not be afforded an opt-in/opt-out choice if 12.5 million Australians in mainstream super funds do not have that same choice.

“It would be deeply unjust for the Government to compulsorily force millions of the nations lowest-paid workers to pay a levy for this scheme they will never claim on but then give wealthier Australians with SMSFs a choice to opt in or opt out that no-on else gets,” Ms Schubert said.

The compensation system is now under severe strain, with major financial collapses exposing structural weaknesses in how losses are attributed and funded. In its first few years, the scheme has been flooded by a tsunami of unpaid compensation orders for losses caused by collapsed financial advice firms and managed investment schemes, with the victims often investing via SMSFs and super platforms.

To make the scheme more sustainable and restore it to its original purpose of truly being a mechanism of last resort, the Council is calling on the Government to:

• Scrap the proposed levy waterfall model in the consultation paper, which risks embedding cost‑shifting rather than fixing the underlying problems.
• Instead align the scheme’s funding levies more closely with the sources of consumer harm, in a model that ensures that higher-risk sectors from which misconduct has arisen bear the costs.
• Rule out an expansion of CSLR levies to safe, well-regulated APRA‑regulated super funds whose members already fund their own operational risk reserves.
• Include Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) in the funding base, to better align costs with where risks originate.
• Adopt clear, consistent treatment of SMSFs, including:excluding SMSFs from both the levy and compensation scheme, or
• if included, requiring mandatory and universal participation in funding (no opt‑in or opt‑out)
  Limit CSLR compensation to actual losses only, removing payments for hypothetical or “but‑for” investment returns.

“The scheme is now being flooded by a tsunami of compensation bills that should have been paid by the collapsed firms and schemes who lost Australians’ life savings and then left them in the lurch,” said Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert.

“Prevention is always better than clean-up. Nothing short of large-scale consumer safety reforms that comprehensively lift the bar on consumer safety will stop continuous flooding of the scheme. Merely tinkering around the edges on safety will only lead to more Shield and First Guardian style collapses.”

——–

The opinions above are those of the author in their capacity as spokesperson for Super Members Council of Australia (SMC). SMC, the authors and all other persons involved in the preparation of this information are thereby not giving legal, financial or professional advice for individual persons or organisations.

The post Compensation bill must be picked up by those causing harm, not everyday Australians appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Misha Schubert

Yesterday marks one month until the start of payday super – a reform that has very strong backing from the Australian public, new research has found.

An Ideally survey of more than 1,000 Australians for the Super Members Council found near universal support for payday super, with only 2% of people opposed.

“Australians right across the country overwhelmingly back payday super, because they want more visibility and confidence that their super is being paid properly – on time, every time, in full,” says the Council’s CEO Misha Schubert.

The Australian Taxation Office has said it will adopt a graduated approach to enforcement as businesses transition to the new system in the first 12 months, focusing its resources on areas of highest risk.

From July 1, 2026, payday super laws will require all employers to pay super at the same time as wages – instead of once every three months. Contributions need to reach the employee’s super fund within 7 business days of payday

The reform will be a gamechanger to tackle unpaid super, and 62% of survey respondents say payday super must start on July 1 as planned.

Recent analysis by the Council revealed the scale of the scourge of unpaid super, finding Aussie workers were underpaid a shocking total of $24.4 billion over the five years to 2023.

More than 70% of people surveyed agreed it will help them keep track of whether their employers are paying their super correctly, and more than half said they will now check their super more regularly.

The Council has long championed payday super laws as a key reform to help stamp out unpaid super, coupled with more proactive recovery of unpaid super by the ATO.

The Council’s modelling shows a worker being underpaid $1,730 in super in 2022-23, and a typical affected worker could be more than $30,000 worse off at retirement due to the loss of compounding investment returns.

Unpaid super disproportionately hurts vulnerable groups. Among the hardest hit workers from unpaid super are women, who already retire with a quarter less super than men.

Younger workers, and low-income earners are also at risk: one in two workers who earn less than $25,000 a year have unpaid super entitlements.

The new laws will also make it much easier for employers to stay on top of their cashflow and worker entitlements, and level the playing field for all the businesses already doing the right thing by their staff.

With digital payroll and single touch payroll reporting systems now available to all employers, around 40% of businesses already pay super more frequently than quarterly.

ATO data shows that since payday super was announced, around 19,000 more employers are paying super more frequently than quarterly – a 2.4 percentage point increase in the share of employers doing so.

Ahead of July 1, the Council is urging employers to take immediate, practical steps to get their systems ready.

“Payday super will be a big change for some employers that will make a very big difference for the workers they employ,” Ms Schubert said.

“For employers making this transition, we appreciate the scale of the task and that’s why we support the ATO’s graduated approach on enforcement in the first 12 months.”

“Unpaid super is a silent pay cut that costs Australian workers nearly $6 billion each year. This is money Australians have earned but never been paid – and it’s leaving millions much poorer at retirement.”

The post Australians are raring to go for payday super as more businesses adjust to frequent payments appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Jenny Wong

Australia’s largest accounting body CPA Australia has warned the Government’s tax reform legislation risks creating a more complex and uncertain system, after the Treasury Laws Amendment Bill 2026 was introduced into Parliament yesterday.

While the Bill delivers the core elements of the Federal Budget’s tax package – including changes to capital gains tax (CGT), negative gearing, the Working Australians Tax Offset and the proposed standard deduction – but leaves critical components unresolved.

CPA Australia Tax Lead Jenny Wong said the most structurally significant measure for private business and family wealth had been deferred.

“This Bill is consistent with the CGT and negative gearing changes announced in the Budget, however the proposed minimum tax on discretionary trusts – arguably the most consequential reform for private business owners – has been split into a separate Bill, leaving a major gap in the system,” Ms Wong said.

Ms Wong said the Government’s decision to introduce sweeping reforms before completing consultation was deeply concerning.

“We would encourage the Government to consult first and legislate later. Introducing significant tax changes into Parliament before properly engaging with affected stakeholders is not how tax reform should be done,” Ms Wong added.

Ms Wong said consultation is still ongoing on critical technical issues, including the treatment of capital gains for small and start-up businesses, interactions with managed investment trusts and tax consolidation.

“Despite these issues still being worked through with additional concerns raised by stakeholders, the legislation has been introduced. This leaves small businesses, investors and everyday Australians with material uncertainty about how these changes will apply to them,” Ms Wong said.

CPA Australia warned that implementing the changes in stages risks undermining investment confidence.

“We acknowledge this is the first tranche of legislation, with more to follow. But Australians cannot plan their financial futures based on half a tax system.

“Implementing reform in tranches creates a two-tier system – where some Australians know where they stand and others do not. That uncertainty has real consequences for investment decisions being made right now.”

Ms Wong rejected comparisons with past reforms such as the GST.

“The GST was the product of years of consultation, negotiation and public debate. This is fundamentally different – a Budget-night announcement followed by staged legislation, with key elements still unresolved,” Ms Wong added.

CPA Australia said the immediate impact of the negative gearing changes highlights the practical challenges of the legislation.

“Negative gearing was wound back on Budget night for investors buying established homes – but the Government hasn’t shared what counts as a ‘new residential dwelling.’ That definition will be written by the Minister, after the Bill passes. This creates avoidable uncertainty at a time when Australians are making significant, long-term financial decisions.”

Ms Wong said the reforms contradict the Government’s stated objective of simplifying the tax system.

“The Government has committed to making tax time simpler, but this package does the opposite,” she said.

“It introduces a new tax offset, a new instant deduction, a new inflation-based CGT framework, a minimum tax rate and revised negative gearing rules, each with different start dates, transitional arrangements and carve-outs.

“That is not simplification – it is layering new complexity onto an already complex tax system.”

Ms Wong said multiple start dates, grandfathering provisions and exemptions will make the tax package arguably one of the most complex in recent memory.

“Australians will need to navigate overlapping rules depending on when assets were acquired, how income is earned and how structures are set up,” Ms Wong said.

“Accountants and financial advisers will be left guiding clients through a system that is still being built, with further changes flagged but not yet legislated.”

CPA Australia is encouraging the Government to reconsider its approach and work more closely with industry.

“We urge the Government to work with us and other stakeholders to get this right. Tax changes of this scale deserve genuine engagement, proper consultation and a complete legislative package that gives Australian and the market the certainty they need. We look forward to consulting with the Government on the next stage of CGT changes.”

The post Tax reform conversation has a long way to go, CPA Australia appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Misha Schubert

The Super Members Council has called for a comprehensive set of consumer safety reforms to create a level playing field of universally high standards of governance, accountability and oversight across Australia’s super system to prevent further Shield and First Guardian style collapses.

In its submission to Treasury’s proposed reforms to strengthen consumer safety, the Council urges the Government to act decisively to lift governance and accountability obligations for both platforms and SMSFs to match the high standards that apply for mainstream APRA-regulated super funds.

“Right now, safety gaps in some parts of the super system are being exploited, putting Australians at serious risk of losing the money they’ve worked hard their whole lives to save for retirement,” said Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert.

“We urgently need to level the playing field and lift protections and accountability in the parts of the system where they are weakest, bringing them up to the same high level as the strong safeguards that apply in mainstream super funds – so that every Australian can have confidence their super is safe, protected and working hard in their best interests.”

Almost 12,000 Australians lost more than $1 billion of their life savings in the Shield and First Guardian collapses, and comprehensive safety reforms are urgently needed to avoid future consumer disasters.

Those cases show how aggressive lead generation practices, high‑pressure sales tactics, conflicted pay incentives and poor oversight can funnel Australians out of safe, high-performing, low-cost, tightly‑regulated super funds and into high-risk, unsafe or unsuitable products such as the collapsed schemes, losing people’s compulsory life savings and undermining trust in super safeguards.

Those failures were not isolated incidents, but an ominous warning sign about serious risks of consumer harm in any part of the super system where governance, accountability and regulatory oversights are weaker.

Access to safe, affordable, high-quality financial advice is also a crucial consumer protection, and a key defence against predatory practices. Each day of delay in the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms is a day that leaves Australians exposed to safety risks, with the affordable advice gap making consumers more vulnerable to lead generation and high‑pressure sales.

This is particularly important when APRA data shows advice fee deductions from super have doubled over the past five years — growing from $1.464 billion in 2020 to $2.975 billion in 2025, with a sharp $1.1 billion increase in just the past two years, largely concentrated in platform channels.

ASIC’s Report 781 on advice fee charging raised concerns about “inappropriate balance erosion” of members’ retirement savings and pointed to “weaknesses in trustees’ assurance processes” as a key risk factor driving harm.

To protect Australians from more Shield and First Guardian style collapses, the Council is calling for:

• A major uplift in consumer safety protections across the rest of the super system architecture to match the highest APRA‑regulated standards that apply in master trust super funds.
• Urgent legislation to pass the DBFO reforms.
• A ban on conflicted payments and incentives that distort investment decisions and drive harmful switching behaviour. Restrictions should cover any fee, rebate, marketing/support payment, “shelf-space” payment, data/access fee, or other benefit provided directly or indirectly in exchange for platform access.
• Ending “trustee-for-hire” models.
• Stronger governance of platforms, including, mandatory due diligence standards, risk-based holding limits for higher-risk investments and active trustee gatekeeping of products
• Targeted protections at the point of SMSF establishment and switching, including mandatory, standardised warnings when moving to higher-risk settings, instead of proposed cooling off periods.
• Closing the SMSF protection gap, including clear warnings about the loss of consumer protections when leaving APRA-regulated super, mandatory education and knowledge checks for SMSF trustees, equivalent safeguards on advice fee deductions, and minimum balance recommendations.
• Stronger oversight of advice fee deductions, including a requirement for trustee-set fee caps, protections against balance erosion for low balances, and stronger transparency and reporting.
• Better regulator visibility of switching and fund flows, enabling earlier intervention to stop harm.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 Australians found strong public support for the Government to be bold in strengthening consumer protections.

“Millions of low- and middle-income Australians also urgently need the promised DBFO reforms to become law to unlock access to safe, affordable guidance and advice from their own trusted super funds,” Ms Schubert said.

“They are a key consumer protection measure in their own right that will help protect Australians from predatory social media ads and high-pressure sales.”

The post Level the playing field: universally high standards of governance and oversight needed to protect Australians’ super appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Misha Schubert

The Super Members Council is calling for an outright ban on lead generation targeting Australians’ superannuation, warning these predatory sales tactics are putting retirement savings at serious risk.

The urgent call comes in the wake of disastrous collapses such as Shield and First Guardian, where high-pressure sales funnels that started with social media ads and clickbait opened the door to thousands of Australians losing more than $1 billion of their hard-earned retirement savings.

Lead generation models are designed to look like helpful “super health checks” or consumer comparisons but are in reality industrial-scale sales funnels that harvest personal data, pressure consumers, and steer them towards costly or risky financial products.

In a submission to Treasury, the Council warns that simply licencing lead generation is not a solution, as consumer harm does not hinge on whether an operator is licenced or not — it stems from the structure of the lead generation funnel itself. Two lead generators in the Shield and First Guardian cases were licenced.

That’s why banning lead generation is the single most effective way to stop devastating harm to Australians before it happens — by shutting down the high-pressure sales pipeline that pushes them into moving their super into high‑risk products like the collapsed Shield and First Guardian schemes.

The current regulatory framework is being gamed, with lead generation models breaking the sales process into multiple steps that can individually appear legally compliant but collectively lead to devastating consumer harm.

A network of operators runs ads, harvests data, qualifies the sales lead, makes the cold call, books the meeting, and then hands the consumer to an adviser who pays the lead generator a cut of the fees the consumer will end up paying out of their own super.

Lead generation is very different from safe and legitimate activity by trusted institutions engaging their own members – such as super funds communicating with and educating their members, including general advice provided under strict legal safeguards, or an employer or union giving staff access to information about their workplace super fund – all of which helps Australians make informed decisions.

Recent consumer research by Ideally for the Super Members Council shows overwhelming public support for ending lead generation: four in five Australians on social media support an outright ban.

The research underscores the serious risks of predatory clickbait, with more than 70% of people saying they found it difficult to tell the difference between a scam and an ad from a reputable source.

To shut the door on harmful lead generation, while protecting legitimate member communications, the Council is calling for:

• A total ban on lead generation in financial services for both licenced and unlicenced operators.
• Targeted carve‑outs for safe, legitimate education and communication activities.
• Alignment with Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms, to expand access to safe.

“These sorts of clickbait ads and high‑pressure sales funnels are putting Australians’ life savings at risk, misleading them into switching into high‑risk products like the collapsed Shield and First Guardian schemes,” says the Council’s CEO Misha Schubert.

“Incremental changes — such as adding a bit more disclosure or tighter licencing rules — simply will not be enough to stop this terrible harm – and would risk just shifting dangerous pressure sales into new forms.”

“The most effective fix is to ban this conduct outright — to stop the harm before it can happen.”

The post Ban predatory super switching ads to protect Australians’ retirement savings appeared first on AdviserVoice.