The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has, on many occasions, reminded the public that it is in court almost every day.
While that includes instances like today, which sees ASIC defending itself against one in a long line of retaliatory lawsuits from mining magnate and attempted politician Clive Palmer, the vast majority are related to enforcement action and civil penalty proceedings.
In its corporate plan 2025–26, the regulator has kept enforcement and regulatory response front of mind.
According to ASIC chair Joe Longo, the corporate plan will help the regulator deliver on its “mandate to ensure a fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians”.
“Like the world in which it operates, Australia’s financial system is becoming increasingly complex – the heightened volatility, uncertainty, changing geopolitical dynamics, and technological advances that have been features of recent years are all accelerating,” Longo said.
“This added complexity demands a well-calibrated and effective regulatory response.
“As ASIC continues its program of work to be a modern, confident and ambitious regulator, we are focused on addressing the most significant issues in our regulatory environment.”
The corporate plan itself places enforcement and compliance, which it calls “critical parts of our work”, right at the forefront, particularly misconduct involving a “high risk of significant consumer harm” and systemic failures.
“We select our enforcement actions using information from various sources, including the reports of misconduct we receive and our proactive surveillances,” it said.
“We target our enforcement actions to ensure we have the greatest impact on the most serious harms within our remit. We give particular attention to matters that align with our strategic and enforcement priorities.”
Additionally, it argues that the goal of the enforcement is not solely aimed at holding individuals and companies to account but also to “deter future misconduct”.
In loftier terms: “We want to achieve outcomes that reverberate across the market.
“For this reason, and as we are not a complaints resolution body, we dedicate resources to target misconduct with significant consumer harm. This approach helps promote a culture of compliance across the Australian financial system and the corporate sector more generally,” ASIC said.
“We are also committed to pursuing high penalties and sentences through the courts, so that the cost of breaking the law has a material impact on companies and individuals.
“We cannot take enforcement action in every instance. Our compliance work is designed to have maximum impact across as many sectors and matters as possible. While compliance work can take many forms, it primarily involves making sure that laws are adhered to.”
What does ASIC have planned for financial advice?
“Increasingly complex” is a phrase Longo also deployed when talking about financial legislation and regulation, noting that more complex rules make it harder for both businesses to comply and ASIC to enforce.
“Together with a panel of expert advisers, it will continue to focus on simplifying our regulatory guidance, reducing complexity in our regulatory instruments, and enabling easier transactions and interactions with ASIC,” Longo said.
“We will continue to explore how we can more efficiently and effectively administer the law in areas we regulate. 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.”
Financial advice reform was one such area the corporate plan highlighted, pointing to the qualifications deadline and ongoing Delivering Better Financial Outcomes legislation as an area of focus.
Alongside monitoring of the Financial Advisers Register (FAR) and approved qualifications ahead of the 1 January 2026 deadline, ASIC said it would undertake a compliance program relying on FAR records to determine if relevant providers remain authorised to provide personal advice to retail clients.
“We will continue to assist Treasury with the remaining tranches of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms and assist industry by updating our guidance as the government legislates these reforms,” it added.
Advisers and licensees offering managed accounts to retail clients, meanwhile, will be subject to an ASIC surveillance project that it said would “consider compliance with the general licensee obligations and advice conduct obligations”.
“Our surveillance will focus on governance frameworks, management of conflicts of interest, and outcomes for consumers,” the regulator added.
Personal advice provided to retail clients around self-managed super funds, particularly establishment advice, will also see continued surveillance to “assess the quality of advice given and the policies and procedures of AFS licensees”.
Relatedly, ASIC said it would conduct a follow-up review of superannuation trustee practices to “better understand the steps they have taken to disrupt the high-risk super switching model”.
“This will build on the work of Report 781 Review of superannuation trustee practices: Protecting members from harmful advice charges (REP 781) and Report 779 Superannuation and choice products: What focus is there on performance? (REP 779),” it said.
“We will also conduct a review of advice licensees that use lead generation services. This work follows our 2024 review, which identified the use of high-pressure sales tactics leading to super switching. We will focus on how industry practices have changed in response to our 2024 review.”
ASIC’s latest plan again highlights the gap between rhetoric and reality. On paper, the regulator talks about reducing red tape and improving efficiency. In practice, the entire system—advisers, licensees, super trustees, product providers, and even researchers—has been pushed into a culture of box-ticking compliance. Everyone scrambles to prove they are “compliant” on paper, while genuine risk management takes a back seat.
The SOA mess shows the cost of poor leadership. It took ASIC nearly a decade to clarify ROA use, which meant AFSLs defaulted to unnecessary SOAs. That didn’t protect consumers—it simply made advice more expensive and less accessible. Add to that the vague and limited FSCP decisions, which provide so little guidance that AFSLs are forced into extreme, risk-averse interpretations. The result: more paperwork, higher costs, and no improvement in outcomes.
The issue isn’t that ASIC lacks powers or laws. The issue is the culture ASIC has fostered: compliance by form, not by substance. That’s why failures like Shield happened—everyone in the chain was “compliant,” but nobody was managing risk.
If ASIC truly wants outcomes that reverberate across the market, it needs to abandon the box-ticking culture it entrenched. That means clear, practical guidance and consistent enforcement of existing laws, supported by sharper surveillance of fund flows. Without that shift, we’ll keep seeing paperwork mistaken for protection while consumers bear the cost.
“We will continue to explore how we can more efficiently and effectively administer the law in areas we regulate. Opportunities to reduce red tape through law reform are also on the table.”
Unless you are a financial planner. Then the regulator will increase the red-tape and reduce your efficiency, by:
1. Forcing you to report immaterial and technical breaches
2. Force you to send a new fee agreement out to a client, who already signed a fee agreement, just because the account number was not available until after the paperwork was lodged.
3. Release minimal information from the FSCP, so we don’t understand how ASIC are interpreting the law and AFSL’s take the most extreme interpretation because they are petrified.
A great post and 100% correct.
It is an absolutely unacceptable state of affairs.
Time for a Royal Commission into ASIC.
Might I suggest your “expert panel, include some actual financial planning experts
You might suggest that but ASIC would never act upon that because they are an organisation full of muppets that needs to be made defunct. Until that happens nothing will change.
Why would they do something sensible like that?