Regulatory Radar

Businesses, advisers and other users that rely on bulk or routine searches of the companies register for due diligence, credit assessment, debt recovery or compliance purposes may wish to review the proposed access categories to assess whether their current search practices would remain available under the new settings. Entities that currently access director addresses or other personal information as part of standard processes could consider making a submission before the consultation closes on 12 October 2026 if the proposed restrictions would affect established workflows or systems that depend on current levels of register access.

Superannuation trustees could use this action as a basis to review website and member disclosure content, including asset allocation statements, time horizon assumptions and Member Outcomes Assessment Summaries, against the actual composition and management of each investment option. A periodic reconciliation process between disclosure teams and investment or portfolio management functions may help identify drift between published descriptions and underlying holdings before it becomes a compliance issue. Legal and compliance teams may also wish to confirm who is responsible for updating investment option disclosures when underlying asset allocations change.

Insurers offering cash settlements for home insurance claims may wish to review their quoting practices, including reliance on single quotes from preferred suppliers, against the expectations set out in this review. Insurers could also consider whether their processes for identifying and supporting vulnerable customers during the claims process are adequate, given ASIC's finding that most insurers reviewed fell short in this area. Disclosure provided to customers at the point a cash settlement is offered, including how clearly it explains what the settlement will and will not cover, may also warrant attention given the regulator's stated expectations.

Businesses operating in the areas the plan identifies, including buy now pay later, superannuation advice fee deductions, disaster-related insurance claims handling and AI use in customer-facing financial services, may wish to map their current products and controls against these named priorities to anticipate where ASIC attention is most likely to focus. This may be a useful input into internal risk registers or compliance monitoring plans for the year ahead.

Finance teams and directors of entities phasing into mandatory sustainability reporting could use the modules as an introductory resource for staff who are new to climate related financial disclosure concepts, before moving to more detailed guidance in Regulatory Guide 280. Boards preparing for their first sustainability report may wish to use the governance and risk management module in particular to structure early discussions about how climate related risks and opportunities are integrated into existing governance processes. Given ASIC has flagged specific areas for improvement in reports already lodged, preparers could cross check draft disclosures against those observations in addition to the educational material.

Businesses operating an existing employee share or incentive scheme could check whether the scheme was established under the superseded class orders referred to in RG 49, in which case the legacy guide remains relevant, or whether it should instead be assessed against the Division 1A framework introduced in 2022. Before issuing further offers under an existing scheme, it may be worth confirming which regime governs ongoing obligations, since relying on RG 49 alone could overlook requirements introduced by the 2022 reforms. Employers establishing a new scheme are likely to need to work primarily from the Division 1A provisions rather than the legacy guide.

Motor vehicle insurers and their distributors may find it useful to compare their current quote and renewal disclosure documents against the poorer and better practice examples set out in REP 838, particularly around explaining the factors behind premium changes and disclosing any difference in cost between instalment and annual payment. Given ASIC's comments on consumer disengagement at renewal, insurers may also wish to consider whether renewal communications give customers a genuine opportunity to understand and compare their options, noting that the report reflects ASIC's current regulatory expectations rather than a new binding disclosure standard.

Australian financial services and credit licensees could identify which, if any, of the eight instruments covered by CS 62 their current compliance arrangements rely on, for example relief relating to Financial Services Guides, superannuation dashboards or retail OTC derivative issuer financial requirements. Where a business has structured disclosure, notification or financial resource arrangements around one of these instruments, it may be worth diarising ASIC's final decision so that, if an instrument is allowed to lapse or amended beyond the proposed date change, alternative compliance arrangements can be put in place before the earlier self-repeal date would otherwise take effect.

General insurers issuing motor vehicle policies may wish to review quote and renewal documents to check whether the factors driving premium calculations and year-on-year changes are explained in terms a typical customer could understand, rather than only in generic language. It may also be worth confirming that instalment payment options clearly disclose the additional cost compared with paying annually, given ASIC identified this as a common gap.

Financial services and credit licensees, and company directors, may wish to review internal compliance and conduct monitoring given ASIC's stated intention to continue using administrative banning, licence cancellation and disqualification powers as a primary enforcement tool. Businesses engaging representatives, advisers or directors should consider checking ASIC's Banned and Disqualified Register as part of standard due diligence, particularly where an individual has had prior involvement with licensees or funds that have attracted regulatory attention such as the Shield or First Guardian funds referenced in this release.

Issuers, underwriters and advisers planning an initial public offering or other securities offer requiring a disclosure document could track the outcome of this consultation before finalising pre-lodgement communications strategies for an upcoming raise. In the meantime, marketing and investor relations teams may wish to review existing protocols for responding to market speculation against the current section 734 restrictions, since the proposed relief has not yet been made. Once ASIC finalises its position, equity capital markets teams are likely to need to update internal communication and compliance protocols to reflect the new instrument.

Corporate groups that rely on a deed of cross guarantee to obtain financial reporting relief for wholly owned subsidiaries may wish to check whether any group entities depend on the current instrument, and to watch for the finalised ASIC Corporations (Wholly-owned Companies) Instrument 2026/XX and its commencement for financial years ending on or after 1 January 2027. Groups should also note the government's broader intention to replace the deed of cross guarantee framework with a simplified statutory regime for group reporting relief, which may affect longer term reporting structures.

Banks offering mortgage offset accounts may wish to reconcile what their marketing and product disclosure materials promise against how their systems actually link, monitor and report offset balances, particularly for manual processes around establishing or amending an offset arrangement after loan origination. Given ASIC's finding that failures are often detected only through customer complaint or regulatory inquiry, it may be worth testing whether existing monitoring would actually surface an unlinked or mismanaged offset account before it causes measurable customer harm.

Listed entities, their company secretaries and substantial holders could begin reviewing substantial holding monitoring processes and notice templates ahead of the 4 December 2026 commencement, particularly where the business or its major shareholders hold economic exposure to listed securities through equity derivatives rather than direct shareholdings. Investor relations and compliance teams may wish to confirm that share registry and market surveillance arrangements are capable of capturing the new categories of disclosable interest, and that any standing substantial holder notification templates used by funds or custodians are updated to reflect the new Substantial Holding Notice before it takes effect.

Investment banks, brokers and other participants preparing or distributing sell-side research or investor education reports in connection with capital raisings may wish to review their internal policies against the proposed simplified RG 264 once ASIC finalises the updated guide. Firms involved in preparing investor education reports could also consider their current practices around presenting valuation information and the role of corporate advisory teams in fact checking drafts, given ASIC flagged these as areas of continuing interest even though no change to the underlying principles is proposed.

Operators of small-scale trading or matching platforms could check their actual or projected transaction values against the new 2.5 million dollar threshold in remade Instrument 2026/756, since platforms within that threshold remain exempt from holding an Australian market licence while those exceeding it would need to reassess their licensing position. Businesses that previously relied on the earlier 1.5 million dollar threshold and have since grown may want to confirm the exemption still applies to their current activity levels, and those approaching the new threshold may wish to monitor transaction volumes going forward to avoid inadvertently losing the relief.

Audit firms and individual registered company auditors could use this letter as a prompt to review current documentation of independence assessments and conflict of interest management for ongoing audit engagements, particularly ahead of the 2026 to 2027 surveillance cycle referenced by ASIC. It may be worth checking that processes for identifying and managing relationships that could compromise, or appear to compromise, objectivity are properly recorded rather than relying on informal practice. Firms could also review Report 817 against their own independence policies to identify any gaps before the next reporting cycle.

Businesses that rely on qualified accountant certificates to treat investors as wholesale clients or sophisticated investors for disclosure or licensing purposes should confirm the remade instrument has been registered before 1 October 2026, to avoid any gap in the availability of that classification. Professional bodies whose members currently qualify as qualified accountants under the existing instrument may wish to check that their accreditation remains recognised under the remade version once it is made.

Platform operators may wish to review their disclosure documents, Financial Services Guides and account reporting arrangements against the consolidated instrument, particularly the replacement of quarterly reporting with electronic access to account information. Advisers who recommend platforms to clients could consider whether current due diligence processes reference the superseded 2023 instruments and need updating to cite the 2026 instrument instead. Once ASIC updates Regulatory Guide 148 to reflect the new instrument, it may be worth revisiting internal compliance manuals and client disclosure templates to ensure consistency with the revised guidance.

Advisers assisting distressed small and medium enterprises with restructuring options may find the data pack in Report 836 useful when explaining to clients the likelihood of a deed of company arrangement proceeding and being accepted by creditors, based on the size of the company's liabilities. The reported dividend outcomes for unsecured creditors and the typical duration of a voluntary administration may also be relevant when advising creditors on realistic expectations for recovery and timing in a restructuring, or when comparing voluntary administration against other insolvency options for a particular client.