Some 5800 investors with $530 million in retirement savings were invested in Shield. Keystone, which is now in liquidation, was the responsible entity for Shield.

ASIC alleges about $305 million of this total was transferred as "loans to entities" linked to Chiodo and Frolov, who were officers and directors of Keystone. The regulator is also concerned such transfers involved the giving of financial benefits to a related party.

Chiodo was also the director and co-founder of CF Capital, the investment manager of Shield.

Keystone told investors their funds would be used for property development projects, such as apartment buildings and resorts.

In its 2023 PDS, Shield told investors: "the investment manager (being CF Capital) and Keystone as RE of the Shield Master Fund (SMF) each always dealt with the other on at least arm's length terms, and Keystone as RE took its responsibilities under law, including in relation to the management of conflicts, very seriously."

ASIC alleges this was not the case and funds were transferred without basic safeguards, including proper security, valuations, oversight or management of conflicts.

The directors used members' money for unauthorised purposes without a sufficient connection to the intended property development projects, ASIC found, including payments to related parties and third parties without the required prior approval of scheme members.

Additionally, the directors did not abide to the "Shield Compliance Plan" by failing to obtain valuations of the assets of Shield and manage conflicts of interest involving Chiodo and Frolov.

ASIC is also suing Frolov and Jeremy Danon, who were former compliance committee members of Shield, for allegedly failing to meet their obligations.

"We allege hundreds of millions of dollars of superannuation was transferred to related entities without basic safeguards, exposing thousands of Australians to significant financial risk," ASIC chair Sarah Court said.

"These proceedings are about holding those we allege to be involved to account and sending a clear message that directors operating schemes of this kind must act in investors' best interests."

Court added ASIC's investigations into the matters connected to Shield are continuing.

ASIC is seeking civil penalties, disqualification orders against the former directors and costs.

Last year, some 3000 investors had their $321 million invested capital in Shield returned after Macquarie entered into a court enforceable undertaking with ASIC.

The government recently unveiled CGT discount carveouts targeting small businesses, and start-ups and their investors following backlash since the reforms were announced in the Budget on May 12. Testamentary trusts will also be given a reprieve from the new tax regime.

"This is a victory for workers, first home buyers and future generations," Treasurer Jim Chalmers said.

"The bill that has passed today will help ensure aspiration and opportunity are the birthright of every Australian, not just some."

The bill increases the eligible turnover threshold for the 50% active asset CGT concession from $2 million to $10 million, so that all 2.7 million active small businesses and 98% of all active businesses will be eligible for generous CGT concessions, Chalmers said.

The 50% CGT discount will be replaced with inflation-adjusted indexation as the federal government seeks to restore the taxation of real gains. This takes back the CGT discount to the pre-1999 framework where the cost base of an asset is adjusted for inflation. The new rules will apply from 1 July 2027.

The 50% CGT discount for individuals, trusts and partnerships will be replaced with cost base indexation and a 30% minimum tax rate.

It also reforms future negative gearing so it only applies to new builds from 1 July 2027, with grandfathering provisions for anyone who currently owns an investment property.

The bill also locked in two more rounds of income tax cuts for millions of Australians, a "fair go" for first home buyers, and a fairer tax system that better aligns the treatment of labour and asset income, Chalmers said.

"The three right wing parties all voted against tax cuts and they all voted against a fair go for first home buyers. They share a divisive anti-worker agenda," Chalmers said.

"This is all about encouraging investment in new housing supply while also respecting previous investment decisions people have made."

The old intersection between the tax system and the housing market helped make housing unaffordable and coincided with decades of low productivity growth, he added.

"We are taking action because doing nothing would have consigned another generation to that broken status quo and locked them out of the housing market," Chalmers said.

"We will continue to implement the next steps and further tranches of legislation as we roll out our full tax reform package in the months ahead."

In its Listed Entity Supervision Report 2026, ASX noted over the last 18 to 24 months it has been actively reducing the number and type of announcements that are referred to it prior to release.

"We have observed that when we intervene to address issues with an announcement prior to release, there is no broader educational effect if we identify and correct a material issue, and it can make listed entities reliant on our intervention to address simple issues that they should be able to address themselves," ASX said.

"It can also lead to criticism from listed entities - which in some cases is fair - that the issues raised are not always sufficiently serious to warrant our intervention."

ASX also added it can result in unproductive engagement where the merits of particular words and phrases are debated, rather than focusing on market harm.

To tackle this, ASX said it is in the process of shifting to a supervisory model where it focuses more on ongoing patterns of behaviour rather than individual announcements, except when a defective announcement has created a potential false market after it is released.

While it said it will continue to comment on announcements in limited circumstances, in normal situations it intends to focus on the entity's behaviour over time and the market's reaction to its announcements after release.

"This will likely result in less pre-release interaction with listed entities but more post-release follow up," it said.

Problematic pattern of behaviour includes the timing of the release of the announcements, the number of announcements released, whether the entity has accurately characterised the sensitivity of the announcements, whether announcements contain any new information and whether ASX has previously raised concerns about the company's announcements.

ASX said its concerns are heightened when an entity's disclosure practices appear to be aimed at supporting a placement price, maintaining post-raising trading levels, or inducing speculative interest rather than informing the market of material developments.

"ASX expects disclosure practices to be supported by robust assessment and escalation procedures and that announcements are not used to deliberately 'manage' share price outcomes that are divorced from information concerning the entity that is complete, accurate and not misleading," it said.

It intends to also conduct a review of post-admission disclosures of listed entities providing investors exposure to private credit.

ASX Supervision group executive Lucinda McCann said: "Our engagement will be risk-based, visible and transparent and so we're letting companies know what we will be focusing on and how we will respond where we have concerns."

"Being more transparent on our priorities gives listed companies and their advisers more certainty on where we will focus our attention, supporting more efficient engagement and allowing listed companies to keep operating with confidence," she said.

ASX has also expanded its market education program, reinstating regular briefing sessions and updates for company secretaries to improve understanding of listing rule issues and supervisory expectations.

"Prudent remuneration practices play a critical role in driving sound governance and protecting the best financial interests of superannuation fund members," APRA chair John Lonsdale said.

"APRA expects superannuation trustees to ensure remuneration decisions reinforce accountability and appropriately reflect risk and performance outcomes, particularly in circumstances where member outcomes may have been adversely affected."

APRA said the investigation will not consider whether Diversa is responsible for member losses arising from the collapse of First Guardian, which is currently the subject of ASIC's proceedings in the Federal Court.

ASIC has put forth several allegations, starting with Diversa failing to conduct adequate due diligence before allowing its members to invest and failing to conduct adequate ongoing monitoring.

Members of the Powerwrap Fund, Praemium Fund, and MAP Master Superannuation Plan together with its sub-plans, YourChoice Super and AusPrac, were exposed to First Guardian between 2020 to 2024.

This week Diversa dragged Praemium and its subsidiaries into the legal proceedings, providing a notices of a cross-claim relating to ASIC's proceedings for its involvement in First Guardian.

Praemium said it will "will review the claim and take advice and update the market in due course."

Diversa Trustees has said it will be "vigorously defending" ASIC's allegations, arguing the managed investment scheme was "fraudulent."

APRA had also imposed additional licence conditions on Diversa in late 2025.

The prudential regulator said it has concerns relating to Diversa's investment governance frameworks and practices, including oversight of platform investment options made available to members.

Diversa acts as trustee for 10 registrable superannuation entities and has approximately 291,000 member accounts and over $15 billion in funds under management.

Equity Trustees recently decided to exit from its super trusteeship business via its subsidiary Equity Trustees Superannuation Limited (ETSL), after facing continued scrutiny over the Shield and First Guardian collapses.

In effect to this, KPMG national chair Martin Sheppard has announced that he will leave the firm shortly and retire from his regional board responsibilities. Two audit partners, Paul Rogers and Eileen Hoggett, are also leaving the firm.

This follows the resignation of KPMG chief executive Andrew Yates along with the national managing partner of audit and assurance Julian McPherson from their positions on May 29.

KPMG said it will overhaul its governance arrangements, including appointing its first independent chair. It will also appoint independent members to the Australian board and ensure a balance between KPMG representatives and independents.

The firm will review and update the board's role and remit in line with corporate governance best practice. This will include involving independent board members in new sub-committees focused on priority areas such as audit quality, ethics, whistleblower oversight and other matters of public interest.

KPMG interim chief executive Stan Stavros said: "The decisions announced today are necessary and immediate. We did not meet the standards expected of us, and we recognise the impact this has had on the whistleblower, our people, our clients and the community."

"We are acting where it matters: changing leadership, strengthening independent governance, commissioning external reviews, improving whistleblower oversight, tightening controls and reinforcing accountability across the firm."

A parliamentary investigation into the whistleblower allegations is currently being led by Senator Deborah O'Neill.

KPMG said the parliamentary inquiry has shone the light on its failings, including unethical behaviour by senior people, and the human impact of its handling of the whistleblower.

Speaking at the Senate Chamber on March 24, O'Neill detailed some of the allegations against KPMG by whistleblower including misappropriation of confidential Lendlease board papers which were used by KPMG to pursue major audit tenders including Westpac and Dexus.

She also mentioned serious concerns regarding independence and integrity during the pursuit of the Macquarie audit contract.

KPMG said will engage an external third-party to undertake a "lessons-learned review" to assess the failings in handling the whistleblower and identify steps that could be taken to ensure such failings do not recur.

The government has also opened consultation on a review of corporate whistleblowing laws in Australia to ensure they are working to effectively protect whistleblowers.

The consultation considers financial incentives for whistleblowers. Currently, the regime does not include financial incentives or rewards for whistleblowers as it relies on perceived moral and civic obligations.

"Trust will only be rebuilt through sustained action and demonstrable change. We are determined to confront what went wrong, act transparently and ensure these failings are not repeated," Stavros said.

"The parliamentary committee's enquiries highlighted issues, including unethical behaviour by senior personnel and the human impact of KPMG's handling of the whistleblower. KPMG Australia is focused on ensuring those failings are understood, addressed and not repeated."

McWilliams appeared before the Southport Magistrates Court on June 22, facing 13 criminal charges, including allegations he dishonestly used investor funds and caused detriment to his company.

ASIC alleged the funds were intended to develop specialist disability accommodation for National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants in Queensland and Western Australia.

The regulator alleged between July 2021 and October 2023, McWilliams diverted more than $10 million raised for specific development projects towards unrelated investments and purchases.

According to ASIC, the funds were allegedly used to acquire an Aston Martin luxury vehicle, cryptocurrency assets, a pub in Whyalla, a stake in a Seychelles-based litigation funder and a luxury apartment in Surfers Paradise purchased for his wife.

ASIC further alleged McWilliams made a false or misleading statement that induced investors to participate in one of the developments

Receivers previously appointed to companies associated with McWilliams found more than $90 million had been raised from over 500 investors for specialist disability accommodation projects. Of the six developments linked to the charges, work commenced on only one project, and none were completed.

"ASIC alleges McWilliams, as company director, dishonestly used investor funds, and otherwise caused detriment to his company, totalling $10,138,587," the regulator said.

The investigation began in July 2024 after ASIC received information from Queensland's Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation, which suspected investor funds were being used for significant gambling activity at The Star casino.

If convicted, McWilliams faces a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.

The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Separate civil and contempt proceedings involving McWilliams, his wife Laura Fullarton and associated entities remain before the courts.

Justices Derrington, Halley, and McEvoy were hearing ASIC's appeal against a previous finding of the Federal Court that a "pre-existing condition" term used in a range of products issued by HCF Life was not an unfair contract term.

While the earlier finding that the term was liable to mislead the public remains intact, the Court upheld the finding that the term was not, in law, unfair.

"In the present case the pre-existing condition terms had a purpose consistent with the protection of the respondent's [HCF Life] legitimate interest in mitigating the risk of anti-selection behaviour by prospective insureds," the judgement read.

"While there were equally practicable alternatives to the pre-existing condition terms, those alternatives would not result in any significantly lesser burden on the consumer."

ASIC said it had brought the appeal to seek to clarify how the unfair contract terms regime applies to contract terms in insurance contracts that may be affected by other statutory protections. It was also concerned that the same term that was found to be liable to mislead the public was also found not to be unfair.

ASIC began civil proceedings against HCF Life in May 2023 alleging that its insurance policies contained the unfair contract term and could mislead the public.

Following that, HCF Life replaced the "pre-existing condition" term in its life insurance products. ASIC does not consider the replacement term is liable to mislead or is unfair.

In May 2025, the Federal Court penalised HCF Life $750,000 for including the pre-existing condition term in its policies, which the court found was liable to mislead the public.

"It is a matter of great concern that a trend appears to be developing where those drafting appeals, especially in regulatory enforcement proceedings, appear to feel unconstrained by how the matter was conducted at first instance," Judge Derrington said.

"Appeals by way of rehearing are not de novo proceedings. Rather, they are for the correction of error."

Justice Derrington acknowledged that raising new grounds on appeal can sometimes be appropriate but held that where a party deliberately ran its case at trial on a particular basis - one that founded the primary judge's determination - the scope to alter that basis on appeal must be limited.

The dispute centres on a proposed enterprise agreement that would deliver a 9.5% pay increase over three years, beginning with a 3.5% rise in the first year. According to the FSU, the RBA ended negotiations and moved directly to a staff ballot without the agreement of the union or its members.

The union is calling on the central bank to return to the bargaining table and negotiate a higher wage outcome more closely aligned with broader public and private sector pay claims.

FSU national secretary Julia Angrisano said the offer undervalues employees responsible for supporting one of Australia's most influential economic institutions.

"RBA staff are doing a very important and highly scrutinised job and don't deserve to see their wages fall backwards," Angrisano said.

"RBA executives rely on their workforce to provide high level support and advice, and they can't be expected to do it for peanuts," she said.

The union noted the proposed wage increases sit below the current consumer price index of 4.2% and compare unfavourably with wage claims being pursued elsewhere in the Australian Public Service, where workers are seeking increases of 15% over three years.

The FSU warned the proposal could exacerbate staff retention challenges particularly as finance sector employers continue to compete for experienced economists, analysists and policy professionals.

"The union has spoken to staff members who have told us they are eyeing off opportunities elsewhere as a direct result of the enterprise agreement that's been proposed," Angrisano said.

One employee, quoted anonymously by the union, said the offer lagged comparable agreements across the public sector and major banks while failing to reflect ongoing cost of living pressures.

Speaking with Financial Standard, a spokesperson for the RBA said: "The proposed increase recognises our people's contributions while balancing the RBA's responsibility to serve the Australian public.

"The offer considers economic conditions and benchmarking across the Australian Public Service and finance sector. Our industry and benchmarking research show that on a like for like comparison with other organisations, this is a fair and competitive offer."

Voting on the proposed enterprise agreement is scheduled to begin on June 30.

The regulator said the instruments, which are due to expire between September and October 2026, continue to operate effectively and remain a necessary part of Australia's financial markets framework.

ASIC proposes to remake the instruments for a further five years with only minor amendments, with no change to their practical effect.

The relief measures cover a range of market activities, including product disclosure obligations for certain exchange-traded derivatives, the recognition for securities transferred through New Zealand's settlement system, transfer arrangements for foreign companies quoted on the ASX, and disclosure requirements relating to securities lending.

Under the Legislation Act, legislative instruments automatically sunset after 10 years unless action is taken to preserve them.

Among the proposals is the remaking of relief that modifies product disclosure statement requirements for certain exchange-traded derivatives involving multiple issuers. The relief allows market participants, rather than intermediaries, to assume primary disclosure responsibilities.

ASIC also intends to preserve arrangements that recognise securities transferred through New Zealand's NZCDC Legal Title Transfer system, supporting cross-border market activity between Australia and New Zealand.

In addition, the regulator plants to continue relief relating to securities lending arrangements, which provides exemptions from certain substantial holding disclosure requirements under the Corporations Act.

The consultation forms part of ASIC's regular review of legislative instruments approaching sunset. While the regulator has flagged minor amendments, it's said the overall operation and effect of the instruments would remain unchanged.

Stakeholders have until 20 July 2026 to provide feedback proposal.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers is shifting the turnover threshold for small businesses to qualify for the 50% active asset CGT reduction from $2 million to $10 million.

This is estimated to capture some 2.7 million businesses or 98% of all existing firms.

"These measures build on the over $3.5 billion in new measures to support business risk taking and investment in the Budget, including two-year loss carry back, loss refundability for start-ups, expanded venture capital incentives, and making the instant asset write off permanent," Chalmers said.

Additionally, Treasury will introduce a targeted Innovative Business CGT Concession (IBCC), which will retain the existing 50% CGT discount for startups and their investors.

Start-ups must have annual turnover of under $50 million, be in operation for less than 10 years and shareholders must have held their shares for at least five years. The start-ups must also be engaged in "genuine innovative activity."

The concession will apply to founders, early-stage investors and employees who hold shares through employee share schemes and share option plans.

Shareholders would have the choice to calculate their CGT liability using the 50% discount without a minimum tax or using cost base indexation and the 30% minimum tax when they realise a capital gain.

For the IBCC, transitional arrangements would apply to shares issued by innovative start-ups before 1 July 2027.

Furthermore, for the minority of small businesses that use a discretionary trust, a new 30% minimum tax will apply.

Chalmers expects more than 90% of Australia's 2.7 million active small businesses will not be affected in any given year.

"Small businesses will be supported if they choose to restructure, primary production income (such as farming) is exempt, and other trusts (like fixed trusts) are also exempt," he said.

The consultation period ends on July 10.

Chalmers said the proposed changes "are all about providing more certainty for investors, more support for small businesses and more incentives for innovation."

"We flagged in the Budget that we would be doing this consultation, whether it's on start-ups or in other areas. We've said for some weeks that we're engaged with the small business community to make sure that we get that turnover threshold right," he told a radio interview.

As for shifting the turnover thresholds, Chalmers said these are considered to be "final".

"We'll seek to legislate that in the parliament in the next couple of weeks and it means - as I've said - 100% of active small businesses, 98% of all active businesses will get concessions and carve-outs, so we consider that to be a finished piece of work," he said.

On Budget night, Labor proposed replacing the 50% CGT discount with inflation-adjusted indexation to take back the CGT discount to the pre-1999 framework.

Apart from the announcement made yesterday, the new rules will apply from 1 July 2027 to individuals, trusts and partnerships.

Negative gearing reforms are also set to take effect on this date. Residential property will be limited to "new builds that genuinely add to housing supply."

Business Council chief executive Bran Black said changes to CGT "take some sting out of the tax bite for small businesses but the overall pain will remain for the broader economy when investment takes a hit" and the $10 million threshold is "a common sense and practical step"

On the IBCC, Tech Council of Australia chief executive Kate Cornick said this is "a constructive response that shows the government has listened to their concerns."

"Successful startups and scaleups create jobs and build the industries that underpin future prosperity for all Australians. To grow more innovative companies here, productive risk taking must be rewarded," she said.

Additionally, Treasury will no longer subject testamentary trust to the new minimum 30% tax regime.

The exemption is conditional on trusts being established for "genuine testamentary purposes." A testamentary trust is written into a will and comes into effect once someone dies.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese clarified that implementation details, including the details around integrity, will be included in further consultation.

The next next steps when it comes to exempting all types of testamentary trusts from the minimum tax, he said, will involve the release of a consultation paper on the trust legislation.

"That's obviously not part of this first tranche before the Senate. Now, it's not unusual for there to be a number of pieces of legislation to give effect to major tax reforms and that's what people should expect on this occasion as well," he said.

Following a Federal Court hearing in Melbourne on June 18, Justice Bennett handed down the penalty and ordered HSBC to publish adverse publicity notices across its website, mobile app and in direct communications with affected customers.

ASIC said the judgement "is one of the first of its kind globally and reinforces the core responsibility of banks to protect their customers from scams."

The regulator launched legal proceedings in late 2024, alleging the bank failed to have suitable controls in place to prevent and detect unauthorised payments and did not investigate suspicious transactions. These took place between January 2020 and August 2024.

Of the $23 million lost ASIC was investigating, almost $16 million was lost in the six months from October 2023 to March 2024. Many of the scammers accessed victims' accounts by impersonating HSBC Australia staff. The bank took 144 days on average to investigate the issues.

ASIC held HSBC Australia against the ePayments Code, which regulates electronic payment facilities.

Justice Bennett found HSBC's failures in respect to the ePayments Code were widespread and systemic.

She also found HSBC's breaches to be serious, noting that while some scam controls were implemented, critical safeguards were not applied to the bank's internal payment system, where the majority of customer losses occurred.

ASIC chair Sarah Court commented: "Banks have been well on notice about the risks of scams for some time. They have now been given a clear message to have adequate controls and ensure their interactions with scam victims help - not hinder."

HSBC admitted it failed its obligations under the ePayments Code and did not apply rules in the code for determining when customers or the bank should bear the losses from scams. It also admitted it did not have adequate systems in place to help customers get back into their banking after they had been scammed.

Upon ASIC's investigation, HSBC established a remediation program that has paid some $21.5 million in compensation to date.

More remediation is expected before the end of July. The bank has since recovered and returned $6.5 million to customers.

"We apologise to our customers who were impacted by these events. We are pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve the proceedings with ASIC, which recognises our customer redress program and the significant enhancements made to our fraud and scam prevention, detection and response," a HSBC spokesperson said.

The ATO's annual Taxation Statistics report for 2023-24 showed postcode 3944, encompassing Portsea on Victoria's Morning Peninsula, recorded the nation's highest average taxable income at $321,988.

The result marks the first time a Victorian postcode has topped the national rankings, ending New South Wales' long-standing dominance.

Melbourne's affluent inner suburbs also featured prominently, with postcode 3142, covering Hawthorn and Toorak, ranking second nationally with an average taxable income of $277,708.

Sydney's traditional wealth enclaves remained well represented, with Bellevue Hill, Vaucluse, Rose Bay, Double Bay and Mosman all appearing in the top 10.

The report found average taxable incomes continued to rise across Australia, while total tax revenue collected by the ATO reached $630.9 billion during 2023-24. Individual income tax remained the largest source of revenue, accounting for $329.5 billion, or just over half of total collections.

Australians' wealth also continued to build through the superannuation system. The average superannuation account balance increased from $173,000 in 2022-23 to $183,000 in 2023-24.

Meanwhile, net capital gains reported by individuals rose to $40.6 billion from $37.8 billion a year earlier, with real estate remaining the largest contributor to capital gains.

The data also confirmed surgeons retained their position as Australia's highest-paid profession for the 15^th consecutive year. The 4280 surgeons who lodged tax returns reported an average taxable income of $519,998 during the financial year.

Work related expenses remained a significant feature of individual returns, with 10.7 million Australians claiming combined $31.6 billion in deductions, representing an average claim of $2,956.

Company tax collections also continued to strengthen, with net tax from companies increasing 3.3% to $145 billion, reflecting ongoing resilience across the corporate sector despite a more challenging economic environment.

According to ASIC, Newbound was found to have forged client signatures on service agreements and provided inaccurate file notes to "justify charging ongoing service fees" on at least three occasions.

As a result, ASIC determined Newbound is not a fit and proper person to participate in financial services and applied the ban on 1 May 2025. ASIC has also cancelled the AFSL and Australian credit licence (ACL) of Freedom Wealth Services, effective from the same day.

The ban will be lifted on 30 April 2035.

Newbound had lodged an application for a stay and confidentially orders, which was opposed and dismissed by the tribunal on June 16.

Newbound and Freedom Wealth Services have also appealed to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision, with a hearing date for a review on the decision not yet set.

Newbound was an authorised representative of Freedom Wealth Services until 17 June 2026, and a credit representative and the key person on its AFSL and ACL until 1 May 2025.

In the past, he was also an authorised representative of AMP Financial Planning between 16 August 2011 and 22 February 2021, a period when he was the sole director and financial planner of Logic Financial Services that was a corporate authorised representative of AMP Financial Planning.

The High Court of Australia has unanimously found that Earner was, in fact, a financial product, and Block Earner consequently required an Australian financial services licence (AFSL), overturning the Full Federal Court's previous decision in 2025.

The product was available between March and November 2022 with the aim to provide investors with fixed yield returns from digital assets.

The High Court found Earner was a financial product requiring an AFSL, as it was a facility through which an investor made a financial investment and confirmed it was sufficient investors' funds were used or intended to be used to generate a return for both the investor and the issuer, noting "any contention otherwise would ignore the commercial reality of any such financial investment."

The court also accepted ASIC's argument that Earner was a derivative as the amount returned to investors varied by reference to the value of the digital asset and exchange rates, ASIC said.

Block Earner does not have an AFSL but is an AUSTRAC-registered provider and was granted an Australian credit licence by ASIC last month.

Commenting, ASIC chair Sarah Court welcomed the decision to clarify when an offering is deemed as financial product.

"This reinforces ASIC's long-standing position that the definition of financial product is broad and technology neutral and so captures new and emerging products without the need to amend the legislation," Court said.

"Firms offering products that provide a return to consumers or involve the conversion of assets must carefully consider whether their offerings are financial products, and if so, ensure they are appropriately licensed or authorised before distributing them."

ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings against Block Earner in November 2022 over concerns on investor protection, and although Block Earner was found to have provided unlicensed financial services, the Federal Court decided not to issue any pecuniary penalty.

However, ASIC believed that Block Earner should pay a penalty of as much as $350,000 and escalated the matter to the High Court last May.

In response to the judgement, Block Earner co-founder and chief executive Charlie Karaboga acknowledged the decision and will continue to engage constructively on the regulatory process.

"However, it is important to highlight that this proceeding concerns a product that was voluntarily closed in 2022," he said.

"We continue to believe that legal clarity for Australia's digital asset sector should come through proper legislative reform, not retrospective litigation. It is unfortunate that such significant questions about the application of financial services law to digital assets have had to be tested through enforcement against a small, innovative Australian startup.

"We're excited about the future and remain committed to ongoing regulatory engagement and to contributing to the development of fair, forward-looking financial services laws in Australia."

There has been no finding of customer loss, dishonesty, or misconduct, Block Earner said.

The matter will now be returned to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

Penning a letter to super funds and insurers, APRA defined geopolitical risks as "the potential for adverse impacts on the financial system from international tension, including trade restrictions, sanctions, grey-zone activities and conflicts."

But unlike previous economic or market shocks, geopolitical shocks "can build gradually, escalate quickly and be transmitted through multiple channels simultaneously."

APRA cautioned a single geopolitical event could trigger a cascading impact across institutions.

This can impact offshore investments or operations and interrupt claims, administration or member services - ultimately undermining customer and market confidence.

"Entities therefore need to be able to identify interdependencies early, escalate issues quickly, make clear decisions under stress, and coordinate responses across business areas and with public sector partners," APRA said.

The prudential regulator also urged trustees to focus on emerging risks, including foreign interference and disinformation, as well as the operational implications of sanctions and shifting international policy settings. Technological developments, particularly in artificial intelligence, could further amplify geopolitical risks by accelerating cyber and information threats.

At the base level, APRA expects super funds to incorporate geopolitical risk into their enterprise risk management frameworks, governance structures, practices and culture.

They must also actively monitor the geopolitical environment to identify emerging threats and to ensure decision-making processes are agile and coordinated, particularly during crisis scenarios.

Operational resilience is another key focus. APRA expects super funds to demonstrate that geopolitically driven operational risks are identified, assessed and managed through robust controls, monitoring and remediation practices.

The regulator emphasised expectations should be applied proportionately, depending on an entity's size, complexity and business model.

However, boards remain ultimately accountable for ensuring their organisations are prepared to respond to an increasingly complex and interconnected risk environment.

APRA is working with the Council of Financial Regulators on system-wide resilience and public-private coordination on this initiative. APRA's 2026-27 Corporate Plan previously flagged the regulator will focus on lifting geopolitical risk readiness.

"Entities also need to act now through their own governance, risk management and crisis preparedness practices," APRA chair John Lonsdale said.

"Entities should remain adaptable in an operating environment in which geopolitical shocks are likely to be more frequent, more complex and more consequential. Where APRA identifies heightened exposure, weak governance, or inadequate crisis preparedness, we will take appropriate supervisory action to address these gaps."

"This gives shareholders a say before significant dilution. Shareholders are also given flexibility to increase this cap via their constituent documents or with shareholder approval," ASX said.

It said the capping is applicable on ASX 300 companies and will reduce significant dilution in public takeovers, while allowing shareholders to approve higher limits in advance if they choose.

ASX acting group executive of listings Gavin Skene said: "We have listened to the market and have heard loud and clear the market's support for more protections against share dilution in public takeovers and mergers."

He noted submissions also consistently said shareholders should have a vote on enduring changes to a company's listing status and ASX needed changes that delivered execution certainty and predictable, non-discretionary rules.

"With these revised settings, ASX has balanced shareholder protection and market integrity with transaction and execution certainty ensuring the ASX remains an internationally attractive listing venue that supports company growth and productivity," Skene said.

ASX has also proposed shareholder approval before delisting where the dual listed entity has a material Australian shareholder base. Existing protections remain where shareholders must vote if their shares cannot be readily tradeable on another exchange, it said.

It also proposes shareholder approval before a listed entity changes an ASX listing to an ASX foreign exempt listing (FEL).

ASX is seeking submissions on the exposure draft until July 29.

In October 2025, ASX sought feedback on whether shareholder approval should be updated for certain transactions that can have a significant impact on shareholders. It received 45 submissions from asset managers, industry bodies, law firms, investment banks and listed entities.

The regulator expects all participants including boards, auditors, responsible entities, trustees and chief investment officers, to assess current private credit practices against ASIC's ten principles and lift standards where needed.

Late last year, ASIC's deep dive in the sector found fund managers downplay the risks of their products and flout basic disclosures of the state of their investments. It said while some are doing the right things by investors, many are not doing so on a "material" basis.

ASIC said its message is straightforward: participants should use this reporting cycle to challenge assumptions, refresh valuations, and lift practices in line with its published principles.

ASIC recently also conducted a survey into the sector from March 26 to May 14, collecting responses from 22 managers covering 52 funds and around $76 billion in assets under management.

While it noted the survey is only a snapshot of the local market conditions, it flagged credit deterioration emerging unevenly with pockets of higher defaults, impairments, and loan amendments.

It found while most funds continue to manage liquidity adequately, buffers are tightening and macroeconomic pressures, including inflation, rising costs and supply disruptions are affecting borrower performance.

While redemption requests are contained, higher activity is being observed in some funds investing in global private credit managers.

ASIC's broader work on the sector also indicates valuations lagging economic reality and weaker borrower conditions may expose pressure in property development through cost escalation, project delays, soft presales, unsold stock, and weaker refinancing conditions.

It noted some portfolio concentration to a single developer group or related assets can increase risk where the underlying project performance changes and market conditions tighten.

ASIC said products described as stable or low risk may perform very differently in current conditions, particularly where there is higher concentration to construction lending, capitalised interest.

"For these reasons, refreshing June 30 valuations are an immediate point of action in private credit and across private markets investments generally. If valuations do not reflect current conditions and incorporate verified accurate information, there is a higher risk of misinformation and poor investor outcomes," ASIC said.

"ASIC expects participants to challenge assumptions and refresh valuations to ensure they are based on realistic and supportable inputs... Market participants should not wait for formal defaults before reassessing asset values and related risks."

ASIC noted in the United States and Europe weaker market conditions are already driving rising defaults, valuation uncertainty and redemption pressures.

It said while Australia's market has acknowledged structural differences, including greater exposure to real asset-backed loans in construction and property, those differences are not a defence against risk.

"Retail investor and superannuation exposure is increasing, and recent isolated incidents have highlighted how Australian retail investors can be exposed to offshore redemption constraints and liquidity pressures through local feeder funds," ASIC said.

"There are inherent linkages between the international and domestic markets as with all global financial markets."

ASIC highlighted meeting these obligations cannot be outsourced.

"Participants must ensure that all those in their funds management value chain-from origination through to audit-are meeting their responsibilities to support participants' obligations," ASIC said.

The regulator updated a list first published in February, which identified 44 entities linked to lead generation, referral arrangements and advice businesses that acquire leads. The latest update brings the total number of names entities to 63.

ASIC stressed that inclusion on the list should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing or a breach of law. However, it said consumers should exercise caution when dealing with businesses that use lead generation practices and exhibit high-risk characteristics.

"ASIC is putting participants on notice and will consider taking enforcement action where we detect evidence of contraventions of the law," the regulator said.

The review forms part of ASIC's broader efforts to address high-risk superannuation switching conduct, particularly where consumers are pressured into changing funds through unsolicited calls, social media advertisements or offers of free superannuation "health checks".

ASIC warned lead generators which mislead consumers, employ high pressure sales tactics or provide financial services without a licence risk breaching the law. Licensed financial advisers and businesses that engage such operators may also face regulatory scrutiny.

The regulator encouraged consumers to be wary of claims that their current fund is underperforming, promises of high returns, offers to locate lost super for free and situations where unlicensed individuals appear to be involved in the advice process.

The newly names entities include lead generation businesses such as Advisorlink, Australian Superannuation Resources, Data4u and Grow Your Super Australia.

This is alongside advice firms and corporate authorised representatives that have acquired leads, including Lunaris Wealth, Solara Wealth and Wise Investments Direct.

ASIC said superannuation trustees should review the warning signs identified in its report against their own data to help detect potentially harmful switching behaviour.

The regulator is continuing its review of advice licensees that use lead generation business models and intends to publish further findings later this year.

Presenting a keynote address at the Digital Economy Conference in Sydney this morning, ASIC senior executive leader, fintech Rhys Bollen explained that regulatory certainty for tokenisation and digital assets is not at a binary state, but a "sufficient" degree of guidance already exists for related entities to adhere to.

That includes the passage of the Digital Asset Framework Bill earlier this year, which requires digital asset platforms (DAPs) and tokenised custody platforms (TCPs) to acquire an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) and oblige with consumer protection requirements.

Bollen said 23 firms that contain crypto-related activities have since obtained their licence to operate, with more expected to apply before the effective date of the bill in April 2027.

"If you're looking for regulatory certainty, it's not a binary state. It's not a yes/no; it's on a spectrum," he said.

"We would suggest that we have regulatory certainty today, or at least sufficient.

"We don't have perfect regulatory certainty; we don't in other sectors either as that's not a realistic state of affairs."

Further, Bollen said ASIC is providing an extension of an additional three-month period for certain businesses, following the Digital Economy Council of Australia's (DECA) submission suggested to widen its no-action period.

"It was raised with us that others may wish to bring themselves into the regime by becoming a corporate authorised representative.... we're going to reissue the no-action letter, including a couple of other scenarios and methods by which a firm can bring themselves into compliance," Bollen explained.

Additionally, to further enhance and support ASIC's roadmap to regulating the digital economy, Bollen is calling for the industry to participate the Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox program, which allows fintechs to test innovative financial products and services like AI-driven advice and payment tools.

ASIC is already working with eight firms on pilot programs, but Bollen is encouraging more businesses to engage with the regulator for better innovation across the financial markets.

"We're exploring further initiatives to allow financial market innovation across areas of infrastructure and tokenisation, and we'll continue to work with the bank and with DFCRC," he added.

ASIC is now collecting and publishing website addresses for Australian financial services (AFS) licensees through its Professional Registers Search (PRS), allowing consumers to verify whether a website belongs to a licensed financial services provider before engaging with it.

The move comes as scammers increasingly replicate the names, license numbers and websites of legitimate financial firms to create convincing fake websites and fraudulent investment and advertisements.

ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland said the initiative would make it easier for Australians to distinguish genuine financial services providers from scammers.

"As the website addresses of more AFS licensees are collected, Australians will be able to more easily distinguish a genuine financial services website from a scam or imposter website by checking against website addresses listed on ASIC's register," said Kirkland.

"It will also support businesses, including digital and social media platforms, to strengthen verification processes for financial services advertising," he said.

More than 6500 AFS licensees have been invited to submit their website details since the initiative launched in May, with ASIC aiming to add the majority of licensee websites to the register in coming months.

Kirkland said ASIC could consider using compulsory powers if necessary to achieve a complete register.

The initiative forms part of ASIC's broader anti-scam strategy and comes amid persistent scam activity. New data from Scamwatch and ReportCyber showed Australians lodged a combines 60,657 scam reports in the first quarter of 2026, with reported losses reaching $248.3 million.

ASIC said approximately one in five new investor alerts published through its Moneysmart service since late 2023 have involved the impersonation of an ASIC licensee, authorised representative or registered company.

Consumers can search the PRS using a firm's name, ABN, ACN or AFS licence number and compare website details before investing. ASIC is also encouraging businesses targeted by impersonation scams to utilise new online resources designs to support scam prevention and response efforts.

ASIC described the court action as one of the most serious cases of financial services misconduct it has pursued.

Justice Michael Wigney ordered penalties of $156.7 million against Union Standard, $114.1 million against Maxi EFX Global AU, which traded as EuropeFX and $29.4 million against BrightAU Capital, trading as TradeFred.

The case centred on systemic unconscionable conduct between 2018 and 2020 that resulted in customers of EuropeFX and TradeFred losing more than $83 million.

ASIC chair Sarah Court said the outcome represented the largest penalties ever secured in connection with an AISC matter.

"These record penalties reflect the egregious nature of CFD issuer misconduct in this case," Court said.

"Union Standard, EuropeFX and TradeFred operated business models that deliberately targeted inexperienced and vulnerable people using aggressive sales tactics to pressure them to trade in highly risky CFD products," she said.

The court previously found EuropeFX and TradeFred derived most of their revenue from client losses, incentivised account managers to encourage larger deposits, made misleading representations about potential profits, and pressured customers to fund trading through superannuation accounts and credit cards.

Justice Wigney described EuropeFX's conduct as "unquestionable egregious, deliberate and flagrant", adding that the firm "systematically exploited many vulnerable and financially naïve and gullible customers for its own financial gain".

"I find it difficult in this case to envisage a more serious case of contravening conduct," he said.

The judgment also marks the first time a civil penalty has been imposed on a financial services licensee for failing to ensure services were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly by marketing CFDs to customers in China despite the risk of breaching local laws.

In addition to the penalties, EuropeFX was permanently restrained from providing financial services, ordered to publish adverse publicity notices and directed to refund customers' net deposits.

Court said the decision reinforced that Australian financial services licensees remain fully accountable for misconduct conducted under their licences.

"Entities that profit from their client's losses will face serious consequences," she said.

The penalty orders have been stayed until July 13 pending further proceedings.

Mrs Agrawal and Mr Agrawal were the directors of the entity, which collectively controlled 27 companies used for the funding, acquisition and development of property in Sydney's west, ASIC said.

Mr Agrawal was previously a financial adviser under Akumin Financial Planning and was active from April 2010 to November 2020.

Between 30 June and 4 August 2023, 16 Mansa Group companies were placed into voluntary administration or liquidation and up to 151 investors in Mansa Sons, the Mansa Group treasury company, have reported losing almost $34.5 million in the collapse.

Additionally, between 2017 and 2023, Mr Agrawal removed directors and shareholders of corporations within the Mansa Group without their knowledge.

He also applied for and obtained loans from third party lenders to the value of over $20 million on that basis with the use of false documents and used the loans for the benefit of other corporations which he controlled, ASIC found.

ASIC secured travel constraints for the pair in March 2024, and Mr Agrawal was subsequently sentenced in November 2025 to a total term of three years and three months imprisonment.

Although ASIC acknowledged that Mr Agrawal was the "controlling mind" of the Mansa Group, Mrs Agrawal showed a disregard for the law and proper management of the eight failed companies for which she was a director which currently owe at least $76 million to some 272 unsecured creditors.

In disqualifying Mrs Agrawal, ASIC relied on supplementary reports lodged by liquidator Simon Cathro of Cathro & Partners.

Mrs Agrawal is disqualified from managing corporations until 9 June 2031 and reserves the right to seek a review by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

She was the director of United Capital Australia; Mansa Sons; Dawn Enterprise; Patidar Group; SKTM Investments; SKTM Capital; TKA Investments; and TVESA Investments between 2010 and 2023.

According to ASX's announcement in February 2022, the Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS) replacement project was "progressing well" to go live on the scheduled date of April 2023. However, a month later the ASX U-turned from the initial announcement, disclosing there was a strong likelihood the project would be delayed.

In November the same year, ASX paused the project and derecognised approximately $245-$255 million of its own project costs. Further, the project was internally classified 'red', indicating significant unresolved issues or risks, ASIC said.

A year later, ASX announced a new CHESS replacement solution would be delivered in two releases, with clearing services in Release 1 and settlement and subregister services in Release 2. Release 1 went live on 20 April 2026.

ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against ASX in August 2024, alleging it made the now admitted misleading statements.

By admission, ASX acknowledged it contravened sections 12DA and 12DB(1)(a) and (e) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

As a result, both parties will ask the court to impose a penalty of $20.5 million, and order ASX to pay $3 million towards ASIC's costs.

Commenting, ASIC chair Sarah Court said ASX's statement risked undermining confidence in Australia's financial markets.

"ASX has admitted to making a misleading statement in relation to critical market infrastructure at the centre of Australia's financial system," Court said.

"These admissions concern the accuracy of disclosures to the market about a significant and complex project that carried real consequences for confidence, planning, and investment across the market.

"Accurate and timely disclosures are fundamental to maintaining trust in Australia's financial markets, particularly from entities that operate core market infrastructure."

ASX chair David Clarke apologised for the shortfall in this matter and recognised the magnitude of the misleading statements.

"When we stopped the CHESS project in November 2022 to reassess our whole approach, that tested market confidence in ASX and called into question the nature of statements previously made," Clarke said.

"As the market operator and a steward of critical market infrastructure, our words matter. I am sorry ASX fell short. We recognise the impact this has on trust and confidence, and we take responsibility for the lessons that must be learned from that experience."

He added that the project is now on "firmer footing" and highlighted the decision to settle the matter reflects the desire to focus on future developments.

"We will continue the reset across the group, informed by the findings of the ASIC Inquiry report delivered earlier this year," he said.

Interim chief executive Darren Yip said CHESS remains a "critical priority", and the successful delivery of Release 1 is a step in the right direction.

"Since go-live of Release 1, CHESS has continued to perform strongly, consistently processing elevated trading volumes during periods of heightened global market volatility - underscoring its resilience and scalability," Yip said.

"The significant investments we are making in our technology modernisation program remain a core focus for ASX."

The amount will be provisioned in FY25 as a non-recurring significant item, ASX confirmed.

Since these events, ASIC has obtained commitments from ASX to strengthen oversight, governance and delivery of the CHESS replacement program.

The UK's corporate and financial watchdog commenced civil proceedings against Woodford and W4.0.

The FCA alleges Woodford and W4.0 are "providing regulated investment advice and making financial promotions through the subscription-based platform, www.w4pz.comLink is external, without authorisation."

"In the FCA's view, the activity breaches sections 19 and 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)," the regulator said.

It is seeking an injunction against Woodford and the platform W4.0 to cease "carrying on the potentially unlawful activities."

On W4.0's website, a disclaimer states: "We exist to explain active investment strategies - with full transparency - so you can see what's inside, why it's there, and the thinking behind it."

"We are not regulated by the FCA or any other regulatory body, and we do not provide financial advice. That's deliberate. If you are looking for advice or for someone to manage your money, W4.0 is not the community for you."

Woodford launched W4.0 about 18 months ago. Woodford said he created W4.0 as a platform "to make my investment thinking and strategies directly accessible to individual investors."

"Through W4.0, I share four core strategies that reflect how I manage money: long-term, valuation-driven and focused on fundamental analysis rather than market noise," he said.

According to LinkedIn, W4.0 is "a new kind of investment platform" for "long-term investors who want clarity, confidence, and control."

"We give you direct access to research-led investment strategies, with full transparency and personal control. You see exactly which companies are in each strategy, why they're there, how they've performed, and when they change. You can even customise them to suit your own preferences. No funds. No intermediaries. Just the insight, tools and transparency you need to invest with confidence," the profile page states.

W4.0 is the trading name of W Four Point Zero FZE LLC and is registered in the United Arab Emirates.

Woodford is the former 'YouTube fundie' who ran the now-defunct Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF).

WEIF fell into a liquidity crunch in 2019 after investing in mostly illiquid assets.

Last year, the FCA fined Woodford and his defunct company more than £45 million ($94m) after finding between July 2018 and June 2019, the two parties made unreasonable and inappropriate investment decisions.

Woodford was fined £5.89 million ($12.1m) and banned from being employed in senior manager roles and managing funds for retail investors. Woodford Investment Management (WIM) was slapped with a £40 million fine ($82.1m).

The ban, which took effect of June 3, prevents Duffy from providing financial services, controlling a financial services business, or performing any function involved in the operation of such a business.

ASIC said its decision followed a hearing before an ASIC delegate and was based on findings that Duffy failed to disclose and manage actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest and demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity in responses given during examinations conducted under the ASIC Act.

"In the context of financial services, to be a fit and proper person means that a person conducts themselves with honesty, integrity and sound judgement," ASIC said.

The regulator found that during examinations in October 2021 and July 2022 relating to the affairs of Brite Advisors, Duffy failed to disclose his employment with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

According to ASIC, the omission indicated a lack of "integrity, honesty and sound judgement". Duffy was employed by AFCA from April 2021 until July 2025 and also failed to disclose his relationship with Brite Advisors to AFCA.

Duffy held several roles with Brite Advisors over a number of years, including responsible manager from July 2017, authorised representative from December 2020 to April 2025, financial adviser from December 2020 to December 2021, and consultant between July 2022 and October 2023.

The banning order marks the latest regulatory action linked to the failed advice firm. Brite Advisors was placed into liquidation in February 2024, and ASIC cancelled the firm's Australian financial services license in April 2025.

Duffy's ban has been recorded on ASIC'S banned and disqualified register. He retains the right to seek a review of ASIC's decisions through the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The regulator said the findings reflected concerns about Duffy's ability to meet the standards of conduct expected of individuals operating within Australia's financial services industry.

The government recently consulted on prescribing certain lead generation activities as a type of financial service, where those activities influence consumer decision making in relation to financial products or services.

Treasury said it would also target specific actions of lead generators that are problematic, being the advertising to attract consumers and cold calling.

Former ASIC chair Joe Longo has said the most effective way to tackle unscrupulous actors in lead generation activity would be to stop it at the source and ban all unlicensed communications.

CALI chief executive Christine Cupitt said a blanket ban would reduce customer choice and restrict Australians' access to life insurance.

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

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

Cupitt added 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," 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, CALI said.

"The government should not cut off safe, regulated pathways that help Australians access life insurance," she said.

"Australians need easier access to life insurance, not more barriers."

The industry body, however, noted exemptions should apply where lead generation is undertaken for the sole purpose of promoting, referring or facilitating access to a life insurance product 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," Cupitt said.

ASIC chair Sarah Court, attending the first parliamentary committee after taking over the role, said the investigation is continuing and the regulator's first focus has been on protecting investor funds and taking freezing actions.

Early last year, ASIC froze the assets of the First Guardian Master Fund and its responsible entity Falcon Capital nearly one year after investors were locked out from accessing their funds. ASIC first started its investigation into First Guardian in early 2024.

"We've taken a more interventionist and aggressive stance on these collapses than I think we've done in any other matter. We've stood up around 50-60 people who are working almost around the clock on these issues, and investigations of this nature that involve the dispersion of funds and monies both internationally and to various places domestically, they do take time," Court said.

"As I said, our first priority here was to make sure that we recovered money for investors. I appreciate, investors will very much want to see people behind this held to account. What we were conscious about doing was making sure that we returned money to them, and we have made progress in that. We would absolutely like to do more."

ASIC currently has 14 proceedings in the Federal Court against 26 defendants relating to these issues. This includes recent action against Equity Trustees for allegedly failing to meet its trustee obligations and not act in members' best financial interests when onboarding the First Guardian Master Fund.

"This is the second action we have taken against Equity Trustees and the fifth against a super trustee as part of our investigations. It means that ASIC has now commenced proceedings against every super trustee that made Shield or First Guardian available on its platform. This work to date has resulted in the return to investors of more than $400 million," Court said.

The consultation also considers financial incentives for whistleblowers. Currently the regime does not include financial incentives or rewards for whistleblowers as it relies on perceived moral and civic obligations.

"Overall, whistleblowing poses risks to psychological and physical health, finances, and job security, which may deter potential whistleblowers in coming forward," the consultation said.

However, Treasury also noted financial incentives may result in a larger number of low-value disclosures which would further tie up limited regulator resources.

Assistant treasurer Daniel Mulino said the review will investigate whether the current laws are working as intended, identify any ongoing concerns, and, where appropriate, recommend further improvement.

This comes on the back of KPMG Australia admitting to falling short in its treatment of a recent whistleblower and the investigation into the allegations.

As a result, KPMG chief executive Andrew Yates and chief operating officer Eileen Hoggett resigned from their positions, taking accountability for not meeting the firm's expectations, those of the whistleblower and the broader community.

A parliamentary investigation into the whistleblower allegations is currently being led by Senator Deborah O'Neill.

O'Neill has detailed some of the allegations against KPMG by the whistleblower including misappropriation of confidential Lendlease board papers which were used by KPMG to pursue major audit tenders including Westpac and Dexus. She also mentioned serious concerns regarding independence and integrity during the pursuit of the Macquarie audit contract.

"Whistleblowers play an important role in uncovering misconduct and wrongdoing in the tax and corporate sectors," Mulino said.

"They need protection to feel supported in coming forward on issues which may otherwise go undetected."

The terms of reference include consideration of whistleblowers' access to justice, and the effectiveness of the regimes in incentivising whistleblowing and disincentivising misconduct, Mulino added.

"Corporate, financial and tax crime can be challenging to detect, and exposing wrongdoing often comes at great personal and financial risk," Mulino said.

"A strong whistleblowing regime mitigates those risks with legal protections, while also promoting fair and competitive markets by exposing businesses that may be gaining an unfair advantage."

Andrew Corner's five-week trial, which culminated on March 30, resulted in the jury being unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

ASIC took action on Corner in 2023, alleging he possessed inside information in late 2017 when he procured two private companies to sell 1.7 million shares in the now-defunct video marketing technology company, which was listed on the ASX. The total value came to more than $5 million.

The information he allegedly possessed related to a funding arrangement between Big Un subsidiary, Big Review TV and First Class Capital.

The CDPP said it decided not to proceed with a re-trial having regard to the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.

The Prosecution Policy provides a two-stage test that must be satisfied before a prosecution is commenced or continued: there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case, and it must be evident from the facts of the case, and all the surrounding circumstances, that the prosecution would be in the public interest.

Following the CDPP's decision, ASIC said it considers the matter finalised.

Big Un's former chief executive Richard Evans (formerly Evertz) pleaded guilty to one count of communicating inside information at the Sydney District Court in April.

ASIC said Evans communicated inside information about Big Un to a shareholder in early 2017, when he ought to reasonably have known the shareholder would likely trade Big Un shares and options.

The inside information concerned the number of customers who had been onboarded to purchase Big Un's promotional TV Show package at a cost of $12,000, together with a $20 million funding arrangement with Finstro, a product of Sydney-based financier First Class Capital, which allowed customers to make this purchase on deferred payment terms.

The sentencing hearing is set for August 21.

Big Un debuted on the ASX via a backdoor listing after acquiring Republic Gold in 2014 and was picked as a top-performing stock in 2017.

Its shares were suspended from trading in February 2018 after information about Big Un's funding arrangement with First Class Capital was released. Big Un went into liquidation in 2019.

Longo said ASIC had become a "modern, confident and ambitious regulator" during his five-year tenure, pointing to a sharp increase in enforcement activity and penalties.

Longo said ASIC had more than doubled the number of formal investigations undertaken annually and quadrupled the value of penalties secured since 2020. The regulator has already obtained approximately $484 million in penalties this financial year, excluding matters still awaiting court approval.

Highlighting major enforcement actions, he cited penalties against ANZ, Westpac and proceedings involving AustralianSuper, Cbus and the ASX as evidence of ASIC's willingness to pursue large institutions and systematic misconduct.

However, Longo warned ASIC's ability to sustain its current enforcement program could be undermined by the declining balance of its Enforcement Special Account (ESA), which funds significant litigation matters.

"Absent replenishment, this will impede ASIC's ability to maintain its current enforcement program," he said, noting the regulator is engaging with Treasury and the government on the issue.

Longo also called for greater resourcing across the broader enforcement system, arguing that increased criminal referrals would place additional pressure on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Looking ahead, he identified maintaining public trust, balancing enforcement with regulatory reform, reducing regulatory complexity and adapting to technological change as key priorities for the regulator.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerged as a major focus, with Longo describing technology as both a challenge and an opportunity for ASIC. He said the regulator must remain "institutionally engaged and curious" about emerging technologies or risk becoming "irrelevant".

To strengthen its capabilities, ASIC is trialling advanced supercomputing infrastructure in partnership with research institutions to improve its ability to detect misconduct and identify risks earlier.

Longo will be succeeded by current deputy chair Sarah Court, who appeared alongside him at the hearing and will take over leadership of the regulator as ASIC enters its next phase.

The whistleblower had raised two matters on client documents being inappropriately shared internally as well as an inappropriate remark in a team setting regarding the sharing of the client information.

As a consequence, KPMG chief executive Andrew Yates along with the national managing partner of audit and assurance Julian McPherson have resigned from their positions on May 29.

While the board has appointed Stan Stavros as interim chief executive of KPMG Australia, the consulting giant said the national managing partner of audit and assurance will be announced shortly.

"I have been committed to a speak-up culture in our firm, it is clear that in this case we have let ourselves down and I take accountability," Yates said.

A parliamentary investigation into the whistleblower allegations is currently being led by Senator Deborah O'Neill.

Speaking at the Senate Chamber on March 24, O'Neill detailed some of the allegations against KPMG by whistleblower including misappropriation of confidential Lendlease board papers which were used by KPMG to pursue major audit tenders including Westpac and Dexus. She also mentioned serious concerns regarding independence and integrity during the pursuit of the Macquarie audit contract.

KPMG said the initial internal investigation, that did not substantiate the allegations raised by the whistleblower, was not conducted with the necessary rigour required.

This prompted further allegations from the whistleblower which then resulted in the appointment of an external legal firm to review the internal investigation.

The external legal review supported the internal investigation which led the whistleblower to further raise the matter with certain independent members of the KPMG Australia board.

At that point, the board appointed Allens to conduct a further external legal investigation, which KPMG said remains ongoing.

The board identified that KPMG Australia fell short in managing the whistleblower and their concerns, the rigour of the investigations and action by leadership regarding the allegations raised.

KPMG chair Martin Sheppard said: "We acknowledge we have work to do to rebuild trust. That's why we are not asking anyone to take our word for it, and we are inviting scrutiny and challenge on our remedial actions."

Sheppard added along with Allens, the firm has appointed Principia Advisory, a global specialist in ethical culture, to undertake an external review of the underlying speak up culture, including the policies and processes that support this.

"We apologise unreservedly to the whistleblower. We commit to learning from this process to ensure we create an environment where it is safe and easy to surface concerns that will be acted upon," Sheppard said.

"KPMG apologises to the clients whose information was not handled with the care and respect they expect from us. We also apologise to our people - as these matters do not reflect on the contribution they make to KPMG and our clients."

He added KPMG will publish the findings of the Principia review and move swiftly to act upon their recommendations.

"We are reinforcing and strengthening the controls that protect client confidentiality, and we will set out for our clients the specific steps we are taking to keep their information protected. For each of our audit clients we will confirm that any conduct matters do not impact the quality of their audits," he said.

Speaking at a discussion panel at last Thursday, AFCA senior ombudsman Nicholas Battaerd said based on the latest AFCA data, approximately 65% of complaints received voted in favour of advice firms. Incidentally, the remaining 35% of cases result in a determination against the advice practice.

"Our job is to be impartial and to take each case on its merits and apply the rules," Battaerd said.

"Excluding insolvent firms for last year... we find in a financial firm's favour 65% of the time, so nearly two thirds of the time we're voting against the complaint. It represents the fact that even for cases that made their way to AFCA, two thirds of the time, the licensees are doing the right thing.

"That doesn't demonstrate any sort of bias."

Additionally, he highlighted the importance of providing additional information, including documents like file notes, in a complaint process.

Although many advisers are reluctant to share them as they are sometimes not receivable or recorded in the Statement of Advice, he said doing so can enhance the ombudsman's understanding to fast-track the process and develop an outcome that may be acceptable for all parties involved.

"Case managers will make a call, whether they think it's something that can be resolved between the parties; they're empowered to try and negotiate it down," he said, noting the more details and information provided, the easier it is for AFCA to do its job.

Often, case managers set up conciliation meetings. This process in many instances, Battaerd said, is enough for the complainant and advice firm to come to an agreement.

But if the negotiation failed to close on an agreed basis, he said, the case manager will provide a preliminary assessment to the related firm or adviser, which will trigger an intermittent termination should they reject AFCA's recommendation.

Burgess attended a roundtable hosted by minister for financial services Daniel Mulino last Friday, discussing the ongoing sustainability of the CSLR.

Burgess stressed the need for reform to be directed at the source of harm remains critical as issues are not member choice, SMSFs or switching itself.

"They are misconduct, conflicted incentives, poor product governance, weak supervision, and failures to enforce existing obligations," he said.

In response to Treasury's proposal on how the CSLR applies for SMSFs, the association "strongly" rejects the denial of SMSF investors' access to the scheme or predicate that access on payment of a levy.

"This is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of the CSLR as a last-resort consumer safeguard," Burgess argued.

"It also ignores the fact that SMSF investors are eligible because they are a retail client who has paid for financial advice from a licensed financial adviser to invest in a regulated retail financial product, and as a result have fallen victim to poor advice and/or product failure."

Burgess also said the government should share CSLR funding responsibility, a suggestion echoed by the Council of Australian Life Insurers.

"It is unreasonable to expect that the cost should fall solely on compliant participants or targeted groups of consumers where systemic gaps, delayed intervention or insufficient enforcement have contributed to large-scale losses occur," he said.

Additionally, he believes the MIS sector needs to be added as a subsector for the CSLR to fund the primary levy, reflecting its role in large-scale consumer losses.

"There is no justification or reasoning to segment the subsector by risk, as this is inconsistent with how it is applied to current leviable subsectors," Burgess said.

"It is not credible or fair to consider levying SMSF investors while continuing to exclude this sector whose product failures have materially contributed to current CSLR funding pressures."

Ultimately, Burgess said the government must reform the policies to better protect consumers and strengthen accountability across the distribution and product chain.

Speaking at the Tech Council of Australia's Future of Innovation in Australia's Financial Markets event in Sydney, Longo said ASIC was actively considering ways to improve its regulatory sandbox framework to help start-ups and emerging fintech businesses navigate licensing requirements with greater certainty.

"The way to do this is we need to work with Treasury, other regulators and the industry to get a good result," Longo said, adding that ASIC wanted businesses to move "from innovation to licensing in a more confident way".

Longo acknowledged navigating regulatory grey areas remained difficult for early-stage businesses, particularly as emerging technologies evolve faster than frameworks.

"One specific idea that I've actually mentioned publicly... is to be able to say to a start-up or an entity that has an idea and give them a person at the regulator that they can deal with throughout the journey," he said.

"I think that would give start-ups confidence... and on the ASIC side... there's someone who understands that business and who's trying to deliver agency to it," said Longo.

The discussion highlighted growing pressure on regulators and financial institutions alike to balance innovation with consumer protection and operational resilience.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia group executive Stuart Munro described the current pace of technological development as "an exceptional moment in history", pointing to the explosive adoption of generative AI globally.

"If you look at... Anthropic, for example... from December 23 to December 25, they grew 100x," said Munro.

"We've never seen growth that fast before of companies that sort of size and scale," he said.

Munro noted financial services had become one of the largest adopters of AI technologies outside the technology sector itself, while regulatory clarity around stablecoins and digital assets was also beginning to improve globally.

Meanwhile, payments infrastructure firm Zepto highlighted the operational burden facing fintech challengers attempting to innovate in heavily regulated markets.

Zepto chief business resilience officer Mariana Paun said Zepto spent seven months approximately $1.5 million building foundational security and governance systems before launching products.

"For us, a sandbox, for example would have been quite important because we have to make that investment even before we got any certainty on the product," Paun said.

Longo stressed that trust would ultimately determine whether emerging technologies succeed commercially.

"It's not good enough if the products are brilliant and amazing if people don't trust them," he said.

"So, we want to move fast but we've got to move in a way that brings people along and builds trust," Longo said.

Speaking at the All Actuaries Summit 2026, Magill called this a structural shift with TPD being asked to solve an issue it was never built to address.

CALI data showed mental health claims now account for one in three claims paid and these claims for people in their 30s have risen by more than 700% over the past decade.

"These are adaptive problems: moments when the world has changed, where the old settings no longer fit, and there is no textbook solution waiting on the shelf," she said.

"Progress now requires more than technical skill. It calls for a change in perspective, creativity, agility and coordination across disciplines."

She added APRA does not intend to intervene at the current stage by prescribing product definitions or applying capital adjustments.

"This is a more complex challenge and does not have a single, straightforward solution," Magill said.

However, she said APRA will continue to diagnose the issues through thematic reviews, bring all relevant parties to the table and engage in discussions with government and other agencies on where there may be constraints and where change may be needed.

APRA is working closely with CALI to facilitate engagement between insurers and trustees to address sustainability, she added.

At a recent roundtable with ASIC, Magill said several themes were consistently raised on the case for earlier intervention in a person's disability journey, to provide support sooner and improve long-term outcomes.

APRA also found the label of TPD, and lump sum benefits do not always deliver good outcomes for individuals, particularly for claimants with episodic conditions.

"APRA recognises that there are genuine constraints around product design. The industry has highlighted legislative restrictions where APRA does not hold the levers. We cannot change those settings, but we can help facilitate dialogue with government where needed," she said.

"We also recognise that change toward sustainable product design does not happen in isolation. It requires support from distribution partners."

She added in a challenge like this, actuaries play a critical role in identifying pressure points and building sustainable solutions.

"You are the voice of risk within your organisation, and you can often see these pressures building before they become obvious in reported results," she said.

"Across product design, pricing and reserving, you bring a clear view of both the liability side of the balance sheet and the interests of policyholders. That puts you in a distinct position to balance commercial objectives with community interest."

Under the proposal, the instruments will be extended for a further five years beyond their current expiry date of 1 October 2026, with ASIC stating the measures continue to form a "necessary and useful" part of the legislative framework governing managed investment schemes.

The regulator said the proposed remakes would largely preserve the existing settings, with only minor amendments aimed at improving clarity and consistency across the instruments.

The legislative instruments cover a broad range of arrangements, including services apartment schemes, property rental schemes, charitable investment fundraising, school enrolment deposits, horse racing syndicates and attribution managed investment trusts (AMITs).

ASIC is also proposing to remove transitional provisions that no longer considered necessary, including relief tied to the implementation of the AMIT tax regime.

The regulator said the AMIT-related transitional relief was originally to assist responsible entities adapting to the taxation framework for managed investment trusts.

Among the instruments under review, the Horse Scheme Instrument provides conditional relief for promoters and managers for small-scale horse racing syndicates from the requirement to register as managed investment schemes, while also establishing co-regulatory arrangements between ASIC and racing bodies across Australian states and territories.

Meanwhile, the Charitable Investment Fundraising Instrument grants conditional relief to charitable investment fundraisers from certain fundraising, debenture and managed investment scheme provisions under the Corporations Act.

ASIC said the proposed remakes are intended to maintain regulatory certainty for operators relying on the relief arrangements, while ensuring the framework remains fit for the purpose.

Industry stakeholders have been invited to provide feedback on the proposal, including specific questions relating to the Horse Schemes Instrument, with submissions due by 24 June 2026.

The consultation comes as ASIC continues to broaden efforts to streamline and modernise elements of the financial services regulatory framework whilst balancing investor protections and market integrity.

The Federal Court found the bank failed 277 customers facing financial troubles by not providing a written response to their online hardship notices during the relevant period.

Westpac should have responded to hardship notices within 21 days as required by law.

The Federal Court handed down the pecuniary penalty yesterday, finding the bank "failed to do all things necessary to ensure that the credit activities authorised by the credit licence were engaged in efficiently, honestly and fairly." It also "failed to comply with consumer credit law."

Customers, who were struggling to meet repayments on home loans, credit cards, personal loans and car loans, contacted the bank on financial hardship grounds between 2017 to 2023 via subsidiaries St George Bank, Bank SA and Bank of Melbourne.

Westpac blamed the oversight on "technology failure".

On the contrary, Justice McEvoy said, "while the contraventions were not suggested to be deliberate and arose instead from inadequate systems and operational failures, I have accepted that they were grossly negligent."

"A particularly serious aspect of Westpac's contraventions is that they caused a number of customers to have adverse credit information recorded on their credit files, and debts to be sold to third-party debt purchasers who then engaged actively in conduct to pursue those debts," the judge said.

"These circumstances add an additional layer of harm, and significance, to Westpac's conduct."

Furthermore, Justice McEvoy rejected Westpac's suggestion that $10 million was an appropriate penalty, saying it "would be little more than derisory in the circumstances and therefore wholly inappropriate."

"I am satisfied also that there are several other circumstances that justify a significant penalty. Westpac's size, the level of its profits and its market position are relevant to a consideration of what may be considered as an acceptable cost of doing business," Justice McEvoy added.

Westpac made admissions of contravention in the proceeding and paid more than $1.7 million in remediation to affected customers, including refunds of fees and interest and compensation for non-financial loss.

ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court commented Westpac failed the very customers who needed help when they needed it most.

"These were customers who were asking for some breathing room for a range of reasons including domestic abuse, natural disasters, serious illness or the loss of their job. Instead of providing a safety net for these customers, Westpac's systemic failures let them slip through the cracks," she said.

Westpac has since committed to funding and implementing new technology systems and processes for receiving and responding to online hardship notices.

"Westpac acknowledges the court's decision. We again apologise to any customers who were affected. We are deeply sorry we let them down," a Westpac spokesperson said.

"We self-reported these issues in 2022 and 2023 and to put things right, we've completed a remediation program including refunds of fees and charges, debt waivers and payments for non-financial loss.

"Over the period in question Westpac received approximately 695,000 requests for hardship assistance. We take our obligations seriously and have taken action to ensure we help our customers when they need it most."

Forrest's non-parole period of three years remained unchanged, and he will be eligible for parole on 23 January 2029.

Forrest was initially sentenced to six years' imprisonment on 23 January 2026. He appealed his sentence and, following his appeal, Forrest's total effective sentence has been reduced by nine months.

Forrest has also been ordered to pay to the Commonwealth the amount of $309,571.84.

The court allowed the appeal on the grounds the sentencing judge erred in finding that Forrest's false denials when initially interviewed by ASIC affected the assessment of the objective seriousness of his offending, rather than limiting this consideration to remorse and the weight to be given to his plea, ASIC said.

Despite the identified error, the court emphasised Forrest's offending remained serious, involving premeditation, planning, a significant breach of trust and a high degree of sophistication, justifying a substantial custodial sentence.

"These offences are unquestionably serious. It is a significant example of offences of this nature," the court held.

The court also held that general deterrence was a primary sentencing consideration in the matter.

The matter and appeal were prosecuted by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (CDPP), following a referral and six-month investigation from ASIC.

In August 2024, Forrest secretly accessed the computer of the chair of Regal Partners without permission and photographed confidential takeover documents.

He then traded and procured others to trade in Platinum shares before leaking details of the takeover to the media, making over $300,000 profit for himself, ASIC said.

In line with its 2025 enforcement priorities, ASIC established a dedicated insider trading team in late September 2024 to swiftly progress insider trading investigations and increase the number of criminal briefs referred to the CDPP.

ATO deputy commissioner Emmer Rosenzweig said more than half of employees are still playing superannuation quarterly rather than alongside wages, despite the incoming reforms requiring contributions to be paid on payday.

The changes are designed to reduce unpaid super, which the ATO estimates currently totals around $6 billion owed to Australian workers.

"We understand Payday Super makes changes to obligations and processes for business which is why it's so important to act early," Rosenzweig said.

Under the reforms, employers will need to process super contribution significantly more frequently while also preparing for the closure of the ATO's Small Business Superannuation Clearing House on June 30.

The ATO said it would adopt a "reasonable and practical" compliance approach during the first year or implementation, focusing enforcement efforts on employers deliberately avoiding obligations rather than businesses making genuine attempts to comply.

The regulator also pointed to operations benefits from more frequent payments, with some small businesses reporting improved cash flow management and simpler payroll processes after shifting away from quarterly contributions.

As businesses prepare for the transition, financial services providers are expanding payroll and superannuation solutions aimed at easing the administrative burden.

Colonial First State (CFS) said it has broadened partnerships and digital capabilities ahead of the reforms, including integrating it's FirstChoice Employer Super with MYOB, Employment Hero, and Reckon.

The firm is also relaunching Essential Super for business to Commonwealth Bank business customers in June, including a clearing house payment facility designed to help employers manage contributions to multiple super funds through a single transaction.

Recent research cited by CFS found 62% of small businesses that do not currently pay super on payday expect the reforms to increase administrative effort, while more than a quarter remain unaware the changes are coming.

New research commissioned by ASIC and conducted by the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre found fintech and regtech innovation is reshaping global financial markets, with AI now being integrated into functions including credit underwriting, claims processing, portfolio management and disclosure.

ASIC chair Joe Longo said Australia's financial system had a long history of innovation and remained globally competitive in areas such as payments infrastructure and buy now pay later services.

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

The report forms part of ASIC's broader push to support responsible innovation while maintaining consumer protections and market integrity, as regulators globally grapple with the rapid adoption of AI and digital finance technologies.

Longo said innovation had the potential to improve productivity across the financial system, strengthen economic growth and improve consumer outcomes, but warned innovation must occur "safely and responsibly".

ASIC said its regulatory simplification agenda would remain central to balancing innovation with oversight, with the regulation and industry engagement through initiative including its ASIC Innovation Hub and Digital Finance Advisory Panel.

The findings come as Australia's startup ecosystem continues to attract growing investor attention. According to ASIC, Australian startups raised more than $5 million in venture capital funding in 2025, making it the country's third strongest year on record a placing Australia behind only France and Germany in growth since 2018.

ASIC also highlighted Australia's strong track record in producing unicorn companies relative to venture capital investment levels.

The regulator said the research would help inform future engagement with industry and ongoing work around structural changes reshaping financial markets, including digital assets and tokenised finance.

The eighth edition of the Systemic Issues Insight Report, which accounts for the complaints received and processed in the first half of FY26, noted that financial services businesses have introduced sound frameworks but failed to provide consistent outcomes for vulnerable consumers.

These included inconsistent application of hardship and vulnerability processes, misstatements and missing information on template communications, and the continued collection or enforcement activity when it "should have stopped".

"In some cases, quality assurance processes did not identify where staff were not following the organisation's own policies," AFCA said.

"A number of the matters involved consumers experiencing financial hardship, bereavement, serious illness or other vulnerability. In these circumstances, operational failures such as delays, administrative errors or rigid system processes may have amplified consequences where systems were not sufficiently responsive to individual circumstances."

Based on the ombudsman's investigation, these matters occured during individual interactions, but actions conducted by the firms were "not consistently" adjusted to their frameworks in response. AFCA said it highlights the importance of systems across customer touchpoints and enable appropriate escalation or flexibility where required.

"Taken together, the matters reviewed this period suggest that the effectiveness of consumer protection frameworks increasingly depends on how operational systems, oversight mechanisms and responses to vulnerability function in practice," AFCA said.

AFCA presented what appropriate practices would look like to avoid the issues.

Some of those metrics included clearer operational control for consistent implementation of policies across the business, constant monitoring and review of the appropriacy of its frameworks, and the identification and report of processes that are not operating as intended.

AFCA said escalation that enables emerging issues to be identified and addressed early will also benefit businesses to improve their operation on this front.

Meanwhile, over the six months to December end, AFCA has secured $1.9 million in refunds and financial remediation for affected customers. While that is almost half of what AFCA achieved in the second half of FY25 ($3.4 million), the number of complaints has also dropped significantly from 342,194 to 182,658.

In its latest System Risk Outlook, the prudential regulator said Australia's financial system remained resilient and well positioned to withstand "severe but plausible" shocks. This includes a deep global recession, higher funding costs and major operational disruptions.

However, APRA warned heightened uncertainty globally required stronger vigilance and more robust risk management practices across regulated entities.

APRA chair John Lonsdale said strong capital positions, liquidity buffers and prudential safeguards meant the financial system could continue supporting households and businesses even if economic conditions deteriorated.

"Sustaining that resilience, however, will require ongoing investment in strong risk management across the system," Lonsdale said.

APRA identified AI governance, cybersecurity and geopolitical volatility as key areas of supervisory focus, noting AI adoption in banking, insurance and superannuation was accelerating faster than many organisations' ability to manage associated risks.

The regulator said increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, including those enabled by advanced AI models, were adding to operational risk concerns. APRA recently reinforced its expectations around AI governance and risk management in a letter to the industry.

The report also highlighted growing international risk in private credit markets. While Australia's domestic private credit sector remains relatively small, APRA said local institutions could face spillover risks through offshore exposures and interconnected markets.

The heightened focus on operational resilience follows APRA's recent finalisation of targeted amendments to prudential standard CPS 230 Operational Risk Management, which comes to effect 1 July 2026.

The amendments introduce limited exemptions from certain contractual obligations for arrangements with non-traditional service providers where strict compliance is not practical, including government agencies, payment system operator's and financial market infrastructure providers.

APRA said the changes were designed to respond to industry feedback while preserving the core objectives of operational risk management.

Despite the exemptions, the regulator stressed entities remain responsible for actively managing operational risks tied to outsourced third-party service arrangements.

APRA said it would continue assessing how regulated entities are preparing for downside scenarios linked to overseas conflicts, market volatility and technology driven risks, while pushing further improvements in cyber resilience and governance standards.

This comes after the regulator also launched separate proceedings against Equity Trustees in August 2025, alleging failures in due diligence concerning the Shield Master Fund which oversaw around $160 million of retirement savings into Shield through its fund.

ASIC said over $65 million was invested in First Guardian between June 2023 and March 2024 by around 2700 members of NQ Super & Pension, a division of the AMG Superannuation Fund for which Equity Trustees was the trustee.

ASIC alleges Equity Trustees did not obtain critical information before onboarding First Guardian such as its constitution, audited financial accounts or an audit of its compliance plan. Further, ASIC alleges that Equity Trustees allowed its members to invest 100% of their funds in First Guardian despite evidence it was or may have been illiquid.

ASIC is also seeking compensation for members for losses resulting from the alleged failures by Equity Trustees in relation to First Guardian, as well as declarations and civil penalties.

ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said the latest action is part of ASIC's 2026 enforcement priority into the collapse of First Guardian and related funds.

"We allege that a prudent superannuation trustee in Equity Trustees' position would not have approved the First Guardian classes as investment options based on the information it had available," Court said.

"Superannuation trustees play a critical role helping their members save for retirement, but we allege Equity Trustees failed to put the interests of their members first."

In response to ASIC's fresh action, Equity Trustees said it intends to defend the proceedings.

"We have previously advised the market that ETSL has exposure to the First Guardian Master Fund and the ETSL board intends to defend the allegations," Equity Trustees managing director Mick O'Brien said.

"As with the Shield Master Fund, we believe ETSL acted in line with its fiduciary duties and obligations under the Corporations Act and Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. We believe that First Guardian is primarily a case of alleged and widespread fraud, and that the focus should be on those parties.

"The actions by regulators and government to expose the misconduct of now-banned financial advisers and allegedly fraudulent promoters, responsible entities and investment managers are commendable, as are the initiatives to strengthen consumer protections."

O'Brien added Equity Trustees is assisting the liquidators of First Guardian to achieve the best possible returns for members.

"ETSL also fully understands the deeply distressing circumstances for those affected and continues to provide members' access to counselling, wellbeing support and information," O'Brien added.

In all, ASIC alleges Equity Trustees failed to exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence as a prudent superannuation trustee would in onboarding the different classes of First Guardian; failed to act in the best financial interests of members when performing its duties and exercising its powers in relation to First Guardian; and failed to do all things necessary to ensure the financial services covered by its Australian financial services licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.

"This is the second action we've taken against Equity Trustees and the fifth against a super trustee as part of our First Guardian and Shield Master Fund investigations, Court said.

"ASIC has now commenced proceedings against every super trustee that made available Shield or First Guardian. More than $420 million has been repaid to thousands of investors through ASIC's work to date. We currently have more than 26 matters under investigation or before the Federal Court and we expect further action to follow."

Following ASIC launching its initial proceedings against Equity Trustees last year, it determined to make an application to the government under Part 23 of the SIS Act for help in making First Guardian and Shield investors whole.

"Part 23 of the SIS Act is designed for exactly these purposes, and we look forward to the various authorities prioritising action which establishes that such a fraud occurred," said at the time.

In February this year Equity Trustees placed its superannuation arm under review as it continues to face scrutiny over the Shield and First Guardian failures.

ASIC said for the next six months it will prioritise working with APRA and other regulators to streamline and consolidate data requests and support the government's law reform, promoting productivity.

Heading into 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," ASIC chair Joe Longo said.

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

This comes as ASIC also released Report 830, Regulatory simplification progress report, which outlines the work the regulator has already done, including expanding its digital services capability, streamlining its website, and simplifying regulatory guidance.

Longo said the outcomes highlighted in Report 830 show the organisations 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," 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 has also 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.

It also 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, and modernised digital services, which it said has 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.

Providing more details about how the government is approaching new regulation around MISs, which received a nearly $18 million funding boost on Budget night, Mulino said introducing "sensible guardrails" would not impede the contribution of MISs to the capital markets and economy.

The government's dedicated $10.3 million to MIS regulation, split across four years, will increase ASIC's data oversight capability to the structures.

The funding boosts comes off the back of the large-scale Shield and First Guardian Master Fund collapses - MIS structures that housed and put at risk about $1 billion of investor money.

An additional $7.6 million was committed to ASIC, Treasury and the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board to strengthen governance requirements for MISs, with $1.4 million per year to be ongoing.

"This is to help ensure that regulators have the data they need to better identify concerning these structures," he said.

"This, for example, puts ASIC in a better position to identify high-risk MISs [and] understand the risk profile of MISs, if it could firstly then have a better sense of looking into flows of retail investors into those MISs, it would allow a much more targeted approach by assets, so that it could examine flows of investors much more quickly than is currently possible, so that they can prevent large collapses happening before there are thousands of investors affected."

Mulino noted regulators potentially closely looking at flows into certain types of MISs where "certain red flags arise."

"It also gives the possibility of regulation of retail investors in that context in a way that might be differentiated from very low-risk MISs," he said.

Another review of MISs that recently concluded sought to improve ASIC's oversight of the structures.

Treasury proposed a new MIS regulatory framework will have stricter compliance plan requirements, such as a detailed description of the nature of the MIS and its investment strategy, and information outlining how significant risks will be identified, monitored and managed.

At the conference, Mulino said: "Managed investment schemes, clearly play a critical role in our system, as a collective investment vehicle, they play a critical role in capital markets. They can, in some contexts, though, be problematic for retail investors, either where a MIS is not particularly transparent or clear for a retail investor in the asset composition, or where it doesn't have sufficient diversification."

The assistant treasurer reiterated he is ultimately looking at pressing reforms in the financial services sector, including the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR), Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) and financial adviser education pathways, as a broad piece of work.

"What happened soon after I came into this role is that we saw the Shield and First Guardian collapses, which raised issues around consumer protection in that context, but also then raised related issues around the sustainability of the CSLR, the burden of the CSLR on different sectors, and so ultimately a lot of these issues required attention simultaneously, and what I and the government and the department have tried to do is to examine those issues in a holistic way," he said.

"It's critical that we think about whether regulation is fit for purpose very much with the mind to not over regulating, and that goes back to the point that I touched on earlier, that we are very focused on the regulatory design being appropriate and fit for purpose."

Financial Standard is the official media partner of the 2026 SIAA Conference.

In early observations released ahead of the 30 June 2026 reporting season, ASIC said the overall standard of climate related reporting has improved significantly compared to previous voluntary disclosures, with the new mandatory framework delivering greater consistency, comparability and depth of information for investors.

The regulator reviewed a subset of sustainability reports lodged by Group One entities, the first cohort required to comply with mandatory climate reporting obligations under Chapter 2M of the corporations Act and AASB S2 Climate related Disclosures.

As of 6 May 2026, ASIC had received 259 sustainability reports tied to the December 2025 reporting period, including 34 from listed entities and 225 from unlisted groups. Mining related business construction and manufacturing firms, financial services groups, oil and gas companies and energy providers accounted for the largest share of lodgements.

While ASIC welcomed the effort made by reporting entities, it identified several areas where disclosures fell short of regulators expectations.

The regulator said some entities included disclaimers either within or near sustainability reports stating investors should not rely on the disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of certain disclosures. ASIC warned such statements conflict with the statutory objectives of the regime and risk misleading users.

ASIC also identified instances where companies previously impacted by extreme weather events had not adequately disclosed similar climate related risks or mitigation strategies in forward looking sustainability reporting, despite those risks already appearing in financial statements or ASX announcements.

The regulator further pointed to inconsistent disclosure of assumptions, judgment calls and estimation uncertainty, warning that investors should not be left to infer why particular methodologies or proportionality mechanisms were adopted under ASSB S2.

ASIC also observed varied interpretations of what constitutes a "climate related target", particularly regarding legally mandated emissions obligations such as the Safeguard Mechanism.

Looking ahead, ASIC said its 2026 to 2027 surveillance program will focus on financial reporting areas involving significant judgement, including revenue recognition, asset impairment and financial instrument valuations, while also reviewing decommissioning and site restoration provisions.

ASIC Commissioner Kate O'Rourke said high quality reporting remained critical to market transparency and informed investment decisions.

"Our surveillance programs reinforce the importance of high-quality reporting and audit," O'Rourke said.

"Reliable financial information is critical to transparency in Australia's capital markets and informed investment decisions by investors."

It comes as the government is providing $17.8 million over four years from FY27 to strengthen governance requirements, supervision and enforcement in relation to managed investment schemes.

Additionally, the Office of the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Treasury will receive $7.6 million over four years from 2026-27 (and $1.4 million per year ongoing) consulting publicly on new data collection powers in relation to managed investment schemes.

ASIC will partially meet the cost of this measure through cost recovery.

It comes as the government launched a review to focus on governance and oversight of registered MISs used by retail investors following the collapses of First Guardian and Shield Master Funds, where over $1 billion of retirement savings were lost.

The Super Members Council (SMC) welcomed the decision and highlighted the need for more consumer safety in super following the devastating collapses.

"Overall, this is a steady as she goes budget for super, with a handful of modest but important new investments to boost oversight of investment schemes like those in the Shield and First Guardian collapses," SMC chief executive Misha Schubert said.

"It's also crucial that the government fast-track long-promised reforms to help Australians to get more safe guidance and advice from their own super fund - those tools are crucial to keep consumers safe from predatory social media clickbait ads like those that targeted the Shield and First Guardian victims."

She also urged the government to swiftly act on other measures and reforms, including the super performance test and ATO's target to facilitate unpaid super, which is costing Australians close to $6 billion per year.

The consultation for the performance test commenced last week, which was well-received by the industry.

"The new payday super laws from 1 July will mean that for the first time, the ATO will soon have real-time visibility on which workers have been unpaid or underpaid super every single pay cycle. The government must set the ATO bold targets to swiftly recover that money owed to everyday working Australians," she added.

Meanwhile, the government will also provide $86.3 million over four years from July 1 to deliver Phase 2 of the Counter Fraud Strategy, which includes a focus on live monitoring for "high-risk" super changes.

The funding for the strategy will also extend to an ongoing fund per year of $9.7 million from 2030-31.

The proposal will enhance the ATO's ability to detect and prevent fraud in real time and provide additional fraud protections for individuals, including the live monitoring for high-risk super changes.

Existing powers will also be expanded to include jointly held assets in circumstances where such arrangements are being used to frustrate recovery actions.

The ATO will undertake additional targeted compliance activities over the two years from 2026/27 to further address fraud in the system, including in relation to the research and development tax incentive, which will increase receipts by $217.8 million and increase payments by $72.9 million over the five years from FY26.

The ATO will partially meet the cost of this measure from within existing resources.

The AGCG said its priority was to complete the revised the principles by the end of 2026.

"This advice would build on the extensive work and consultation undertaken by the previous ASX Corporate Governance Council," it said.

In the latest meeting, the AGCG retained the existing eight principles, stating that each principle is important and highlights the "critical aspect of the 'if not, why not' framework'".

"The explanatory material has also been revised and is designed to help entities, rather than create additional obligations," the communique read.

A consultation on the principles will take place in mid-July, which will include a mix of public forums, industry consultations and roadshows, along with written submissions, the AGCG said.

Further, across corporate governance, the AGCG discussed the frequency of director elections and concluded that, at this point in time, "there is not a compelling case to introduce a recommendation dealing with director elections."

It also suggested an improved remuneration structure for non-executive directors, noting they can play an important role to appropriately reward long-term value creation, while preserving independence.

"The AGCG will continue to assess evolving practice, including through ongoing engagement with market participants and regulators," it said.

They will next meet on 8 July 2026.

The AGCG was assembled in November 2025 following concerns around the governance and operational aspects of ASX over recent years, it is currently chaired by former Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe.

The group also welcomed seven new members in the beginning of the year, including AustralianSuper chief investment officer Mark Delaney, former APRA executive Helen Rowell, and TelstraSuper's Dominique d'Avrincourt, along with governance professionals including Pru Bennett, Tim Paine, Peter Torre and Nicola Wakefield Evans.

From July, access to ASFA InPractice's (AIP) co-design working groups will be available to all ASFA member funds as part of their membership, in a change from the previous opt-in model, ASFA said.

The service is designed to bridge the gap between regulatory intent and operations for superannuation practitioners, funds, administrators and regulators by translating policy into sector guidance standards, governance approaches, operational processes, and data and technology requirements.

The revamped service will help related entities manage major regulatory transformations - like the one currently underway with Payday Super - from the early stages of policymaking through to practical implementation.

"ASFA has spotted a missing piece in how funds and service providers work through the complex and costly work of implementing regulatory change. AIP will complete the sector's policy-to-practice puzzle," ASFA chief executive Mary Delahunty said.

"AIP has long supported important work like SuperStream, the Division 296 tax regulations and Payday Super. But the message from funds and administrators is clear: more support is needed through the regulatory change lifecycle, and that is why we're investing more in AIP over the coming year."

She also said working groups bring together a "non-competitive" community of practitioners to co-design and standardise approaches to regulatory compliance, as they can escalate implementation matters to regulators including ATO and APRA to seek clarity.

"By opening AIP to all member funds, we are extending the benefit of co-designing implementation work, reducing cost and duplication for funds and ultimately improving outcomes for every single member of an APRA-regulated super fund," Delahunty said.

"Regulatory change does not finish when legislation or guidance is published. That's where the most complex and costly work begins.

"We're excited to be able to support the super system with the full policy-to-practice lifecycle, to deliver more value for our member funds and service providers and ultimately, more value for super fund members."

"We have over $45 billion in initiatives. But not just that, we passed the EPBC Act, we froze the National Construction Code, but there are other levers. And when we held the national Economic Roundtable, this was an issue where there were unanimous calls for the Government to have a good look at this," Mulino said.

Mulino also signalled the government is prepared to use additional tax levers to address housing affordability and intergeneration inequity.

Despite the reforms having been touched on by the government, Mulino stopped short of confirming specific details that will appear in the Budget.

However, Mulino indicated the government has broadened its focus beyond housing supply alone, arguing tax settings had become an increasingly prominent part of the national affordability debate.

"Housing is a first order issue in this community," Mulino said, pointing to rising concerns around intergenerational fairness and the growing difficulty younger Australians face entering the property market.

Mulino also defended the government's policy development process, saying extensive consultation had taken place through last year's Economic Reform Roundtable, which brought together tax experts, business groups, unions and community leaders.

He said one of the clearest outcomes from those discussions was widespread agreement that existing policy settings were failing younger Australians.

While refusing to disclose modelling or confirm whether the proposed measures would lower house prices, Mulino repeatedly stressed the government remained focused on supply side reforms, including more than $45 billion in housing initiatives, changes to environmental approvals and the freezing of National Construction Code.

Mulino framed the Budget around three core themes; intergenerational fairness, productivity and economic resilience. This suggested tax reform would play a role in achieving those objectives.

The Budget is expected to provide further detail on the governments approach when Treasurer Jim Chalmers hands down the measures tonight.

ASIC has accused him of serious incompetence and irresponsibility, a disregard for the law, and a lack of fairness, professionalism and trustworthiness.

ASIC said Giumelli contravened the law by operating unregistered managed investment schemes (MIS) and carrying on a financial services business without an Australian financial services license (AFSL) for eight years. He invested the finances raised across 27 projects.

Between November 2024 and August 2025, Giumelli was an authorised representative of Wicklow Fund Services. He has also been an authorised representative of Wholesale Securities since October 2025.

ASIC said Giumelli has not complied with financial services laws, and that it had reason to believe that he is not adequately trained or competent and is likely to contravene financial services laws.

Giumelli's ban took effect on May 6 and he has been recorded under ASIC's banned and disqualified register.

He is banned for life from providing any financial services, performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business and controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business.

ASIC said Giumelli has the right to appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of its decision.

ASIC data shows the corporate watchdog received 9686 reports of misconduct and raised 13,036 issues in the six months to December 2025.

Financial services and retail investor issues totalled 44%, relating to credit issues, general licence obligations, unregistered managed investment schemes, unlicensed provision of financial services conduct, and other conduct related to advice, insurance, and misleading and deceptive or unconscionable behaviour.

Treasury has also opened a review into the $2 trillion MIS sector off the back of the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund collapses.

A new MIS regulatory framework will have stricter compliance plan requirements, such as a detailed description of the nature of the MIS and its investment strategy, and information outlining how significant risks will be identified, monitored and managed.