Access to the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) Online services for agents portal has long been on the advice profession’s wish list, arguing that it would improve efficiency and reduce the administrative costs that are passed on to clients.
Indeed, it formed part of the Financial Advice Association Australia’s (FAAA) pre-budget submission in May last year; however, there has been little acknowledgement from the government on the issue.
There may be a glimmer of hope for advisers seeking access, with Treasury releasing a consultation paper, Review of Tax Regulator Secrecy Exceptions, that has sought feedback on whether the ATO should be permitted to disclose certain ATO-held information with registered financial advisers where they are providing financial (tax) advice to their clients.
“Currently, only registered tax agents and BAS agents can access ATO-held information (such as taxable income, super balance, contributions and other tax components) on behalf of a client. Financial advisers do not have access to the ATO’s Online services for agents (also known as the ATO online portal),” the consultation paper said.
“Financial advisers rely on clients providing this information to them through less secure channels (for example, a client may access information in their myGov account, download it and email it to their adviser).
“Financial advisers are responsible for the accuracy of information provided by their clients. Streamlining financial advisers’ access to ATO-held client information provides the opportunity to utilise more complete, accurate and timely data which may reduce the cost of advice by lessening the administrative burden.”
Beyond this, Treasury has conceded that there are additional benefits around accessing superannuation information, given the total superannuation balance and transfer balance cap affect what contribution and pension rules apply for an individual.
“Financial advisers need to have accurate information so that they can ensure clients comply with these legislative requirements,” it said.
However, the paper raised a number of issues related to cyber security, implementation costs, unintended or pressured access and whether timeliness of data would be assured.
“The size and sophistication of financial advice businesses – and their ability to manage cyber security risks and large amounts of sensitive information – varies widely. While there are some large firms, many financial advice businesses are small businesses who may lack the expertise and resourcing to provide a high level of data protection,” it said.
“Giving financial advisers access to client information increases financial crime risks, which not only affects the retirement savings of members, but can disrupt business operations for an extended period.”
In order to reduce these risks, Treasury said financial advisers need to meet “baseline security standards” to handle sensitive information.
“This is necessary to avoid leaving clients and financial advisers vulnerable to cyber-based attacks and data breaches, but is likely to require businesses to invest material amounts,” it added.
“While financial advisers already handle sensitive client information, providing a channel for advisers to access ATO-held data (including in a digital form) without any security uplift increases cyber security risks.”
According to Treasury, providing financial advisers access to the ATO portal would require the development of a new platform that would give limited client-specific superannuation information once a client has authorised access for their financial adviser.
“This would be a significant cost to taxpayers for granting access to a relatively small cohort of financial advisers,” it said.
Additionally, the paper noted there is still some time lag in reportable superannuation details held by the ATO due to tax reporting time frames.
“This means clients may still need to provide advisers with up-to-date information from their superannuation fund. This therefore would reduce the benefits for financial advisers accessing ATO-held information,” Treasury said.
It also highlighted concerns around client consent for access to the portal and ensuring access can be “easily turned off at the discretion of the taxpayer” without any financial or economic detriment.
“Without such protections, taxpayers may be pressured to provide this system access to gain access to finance, which may then reduce incentives for voluntary compliance with the tax laws because of potential external implications of tax data being available to other parties,” the paper said.
Submissions to the consultation are open until 28 February 2025, with Treasury also holding virtual roundtable discussions during the consultation period.
This is a smoke screen. It is not about the security it is about the cost to update their system taking priority over the cost to consumers and their best interest.
My bookkeeper client from Corryong has a seal team at their disposal incase they get hacked
Give me a break. Treasury is the gift that keeps giving.
Also don’t forget to email treasury your views and Minister Jones.
Minister Jones has made it clear that he is still yet to understand his portfolio.
Most financial advisers these days have gone through a cyber security review and have undertaken other protection avenues to protect client data. In fact, accountants are unable to provide advice around whether their client can make catch up contributions to super anyway, so why the roadblock. Currently, I need to ask the client to contact their accountant for this information which is emailed to them from the accountant and then emailed onto me for review.
So the single practitioner accountant working from home has massive cybersecurity.
Treasury are absolute morons.
And the muppets probably think a financial planner works from the accountants granny flat…lol
My thought exactly. There are far more one person tax agent operations using windows 8 than you could imagine.
Didn’t Treasury have some issues with one or some of the big Accounting Firms and tax advice – leaks etc?
Meanwhile, the ATO uses the census information to cross-match against how much an individual spends on petfood at the local supermarket and their frequent flyer rewards point balance.
What the actual F!? Does Treasury have any idea what we actually do and the types of info we hold from medical to estate planning and financials? I’d love access to carry forward info as it would save the back and forth with clients who try and send screen shots but miss some data. Just give us access the same as tax agents and there we go, no extra cost. Geez!
Well said. However, when i comes to Financial Planners – it seems the Public Servants (if that is what they are) have an agenda? Seems they are looking for a way to allow large Product Providers this information but not Financial Planners at the same time?
It’s an anti adviser agenda. Treasury asic afca and industry funds.
These muppets must think financial planning practices are still using green screen PCs from the 80’s and are only contemplating the first time purchase of some anti virus software…
What hope is there when the cardigan wearers with agendas make important decisions that are not based on what actually happens in the real world…!
Shame shame shame.
Really………how pathetic. They may as well just have said nah we can’t be bothered rather than come up with those ridiculous excuses!
Exactly, the useless boffin at Treasury should be all sacked. Can’t draft legislation don’t cost CSOLR and refuse to give the smallest win to advisers, disgusting bias conflicted liars
This is very interesting to hear this discussion.
The information financial planners are after is a very small subset of the ATO information – that is superannuation fund information.
This information takes quite some time to be updated, and where SMSF are concerned is very late in being updated.
I would have thought that financial advisers would not need this access, as they already had access to their client’s superannuation funds as a result of having their clients signing all of the necessary forms to gain access to their funds information, as they currently do.
Consequently, the financial planners will have access to more current and detailed information than that available on the ATO portal.
So, if they are doing their job properly then they will not need this information, as they will have all the necessary information from their clients’ superfunds.
I am also not sure the cost of providing access to this information is going to be that beneficial.
So very wrong. The amount of times I meet a new client who has an industry fund that has been amlagmated into one of the larger funds and those funds dont provide contribution history prior to the amalgamation. You cant phone the closed fund either as guess what they dont exist anymore! This leaves a black spot in contribution history that can only be answered by ATO portal access.
Additionally, clients often forget about funds they had when they did that 6 month job, 4 years go, and if they don’t tell you, then you dont know. All this can be avoided with ATO Portal access.
Ignorant, specious uninformed and impractical. Knowing carry forward amounts alone, which is almost impossible to calculate manually without huge risk to a firm is a simple example. Many clients have multiple funds making it even more difficult and most Australians do not have smsf where the information is timely. I feel your comment is ill informed and unfounded.
Absolutely incorrect for all of the reasons listed above.
Who are you, Treasury?
Treasury doesn’t make inadvertent bad decisions because they are ignorant or stupid. They make deliberate bad decisions because they are biased.
The comment above comes from a position of ignorance about the real world. I suspect he/she/they is an academic.
Very humorous
An incorrect statement entirely access to tbc tsb carry forward and other holdings is entirely pertinent for advice and entirely unrelated to tax services. Entirely. Unless the agent is an adviser the do not need access but have it. Whereas adviser definitely need it have access to products centrelink etc and do not have access. This comment is dripping in ignorant pre convieced views wrapped up to sound engaged. I hazard a guess you’re privy to the stupidity of this outcome. It’s a disgrace for Australians
You clearly are not involved in the process of giving advice. Given your degree of ignorance it’s best you just don’t comment as your opinion is uninformed and does nothing to enhance the quality of advice to Australians.
“The information financial planners are after is a very small subset of the ATO information – that is superannuation fund information.”
Why do you say that? Why can’t financial planners see CGT detail, income details etc?
That “small subset of information” is still the easiest place for Financial Planners to start the argument with the Bureaucrats of Australia who seem to have every trick in the book for saying no – too hard – now it seems they want more money right? Accountants can not give personal advice on Super right – yet have the information? Financial Planners can but can’t get the information right?
How this requires treasury and government to waste time doing consultations is beyond me. What a joke. Got to keep bureaucrats in a job I guess
and accounting firms are different to advice firms???? I am not sure that the boffins in Treasury have much of an idea on this. But nothing new in that I suppose…..
Granting financial advisers access to the ATO Online Services for Agents is essential for improving client outcomes. It will further streamline advice delivery, enhances accuracy with real-time data, and reduces administrative costs—breaking down barriers to much-needed financial advice. Modern advice practices already operate with robust risk management frameworks and stringent cybersecurity measures, ensuring sensitive data is protected. This access would also ease the burden on the overworked, under-resourced tax accounting space, fostering collaboration while benefiting clients. It’s undoubtedly time for the government to act without delay, recognizing the value this change would bring to Australians seeking affordable, efficient financial advice. Let’s modernise the system for the better.
The comment about ‘the size and sophistication of financial advice businesses’ is hilarious. Whoever wrote that comment must be a work experience kid or a Canberra Bubble bureaucrat who has never left their ivory tower. The sophistication and oversight of even the smallest financial planning business is far greater than a typical tax agent. What a pathetic embarrassment our public service is.
Financial planners have the benefit of the afsl system to mitigate risks more effectively than the Accounting and Bookkeeping industry. Why cost this when Treasury are too lazy to cost the CSOLR. Seems they are hell bent on not providing any relief to advisers and will pass everything to harm our diminishing profession. Disgusting. Vote Liberal they are so bias towards Industry funds and anti-adviser. Mafia of bias ASIC Treasury and Labor cronies needs to go, burn it down and start again with Howarth and Bragg
Vote Liberal, mate, were you paying attention the 11 years they were in power?
I don’t even think this conversation would have reached the light of day if they were in power, got another big business stuff up to blame on advisers.
Yes I was and am aware of the devastating impact jones complacency and I dusty fund bias has curbed the ability for liberal to wonder back what they admitted had gone too far. Qoar was from liberal and prior to Change of power were very open about how it had gone too far for advisers. Also Hogarth and Bragg and much more enlightened than previous australiansuper employee Hume or useless frydenberg
“The size and sophistication of financial advice businesses – and their ability to manage cyber security risks and large amounts of sensitive information – varies widely. While there are some large firms, many financial advice businesses are small businesses who may lack the expertise and resourcing to provide a high level of data protection,” it argued.
Sounds like the Accounting sector right?
What a load of crap. Dead set the people at Treasury are an embarrassment should be ashamed of how they treat our industry.
I would love to know how many advice firms were consulted in order for Treasury to form their view.
So BAS agents and small business accountants with existing access to the portal have have robust “baseline security standards” and cyber security policies when compared to small financial planning practices?
Well, assuming the Product Providers with their “Qualified Advisers” will need this access so not really surprised it is now happening? How can they give access to Product Providers and not real Financial Planners will be the difficulty?
Yet all those concerns would also be present with advisers having access to PRODA (as you could argue even more data is held on that system). Yet there haven’t been major data breaches from financial planning firms.