Regulatory Radar

Insurers and brokers arranging liability cover for construction or similar projects with multiple layers of insurance may wish to review how difference in conditions and other insurance clauses are drafted and how courts are likely to construe them where wording refers to named insureds but is intended to apply more broadly. Where a client is insured under more than one policy for the same risk, it may be worth checking whether the policies are intended to operate concurrently or sequentially, and whether that intention is clearly reflected in the drafting, before a contribution dispute arises following a claim.

For market participants and brokers, the practical relevance includes mapping existing systems and procedures to the revised definitions and requirements before commencement. Technology inventories, supervision procedures and documentation of client instructions may be useful starting points, particularly where automated functionality is supplied by an external provider. A label such as “order-routing software” does not by itself establish whether all of the system’s functions fall outside the trading-algorithm definition.

For insurers, brokers and distribution partners, the practical issue is whether an exemption already relied on continues to apply under the amended timeframe. Product classifications, distribution arrangements and the relevant statutory conditions may be worth considering together; the wording of this amendment alone is not sufficient to confirm eligibility.

Life insurers have until commencement on 8 October 2026 to align underwriting questionnaires, agent and adviser scripts, and data-retention practices with the prohibition on using adverse genetic test results. Relevant documents to check include underwriting manuals, medical evidence request forms and any automated underwriting rules that reference genetic or family medical history. Because contraventions attract strict liability offences and civil penalties captured by the infringement notice scheme, compliance teams may also wish to confirm that staff training and complaint-handling procedures reflect the new restriction before the commencement date.

This matter is a reminder that funding arrangements described as notes or debt instruments can still amount to an unregistered managed investment scheme if investor money is pooled and returns depend on a common enterprise. Businesses structuring property or development funding through promissory or convertible notes could review whether registration, disclosure or licensing obligations under the Corporations Act apply, particularly where funds are pooled from multiple investors and security arrangements are not formally registered. Advisers to issuers of similar instruments may also wish to check record keeping and the accuracy of representations made to investors about security over underlying assets, given these were specific concerns raised in the proceeding.

Fund managers and advisers accepting wholesale client certificates may wish to confirm that their onboarding checklists cite the current instrument, ASIC Corporations (Qualified Accountant) Instrument 2026/734, rather than the superseded 2016 version, given the repeal that accompanies the remake. Accountants issuing certificates can check that their professional body membership category still falls within the declared classes, since the list of eligible foreign bodies has been updated in its naming.

Superannuation trustees handling disputed withdrawal or access claims from elderly members may want to consider how such claims are triaged where capacity or authority is uncertain. Law practices more broadly may wish to review identity and authority verification steps for instructions received through an intermediary, adviser or family member acting on behalf of an older or vulnerable client, and to document the basis on which instructions were taken. This decision does not establish new obligations but illustrates how closely a court may scrutinise the circumstances in which a vulnerable client came to commence a proceeding.

Operators and promoters of unregistered or informally structured investment funds may wish to review whether their activities fall within the Australian financial services licensing regime, including any related exemptions relied upon. It may also be worth revisiting related-party investment policies, disclosure to investors about related-party dealings, and the financial reporting arrangements that would allow early identification of solvency concerns. Advisers acting for unitholders in similar structures might consider what evidence would support protective relief, noting the Court did not require proof of exceptional circumstances before appointing receivers in this matter.

Superannuation trustees could begin mapping the revised SRS 607.0, SRS 611.1 and SRS 101.0 requirements against the data they currently hold, to identify where new collection or system work would be needed well before the expected late 2027 start of data collection. Given the streamlined data requirements and new reporting practice guide, trustees that found the earlier draft burdensome may want to revisit their original concerns and consider a submission by 9 October 2026 if issues remain. Boards and risk committees may also wish to track how retirement phase reporting obligations interact with existing retirement income strategy and member outcomes assessment requirements.

Comparison sites, aggregators and marketplaces that advertise the ability to compare a range of products may wish to audit current marketing claims, including website copy, television and social media advertising and advertorial content, against the actual panel of suppliers compared. Where a service only ever compares products issued by one supplier or a closely related group, claims using words such as range, choice or compare may warrant review before the Court determines penalty in this matter. Commission structures and distribution arrangements between the comparison service and underlying product issuers are also worth checking for consistency with current disclosure obligations.

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.

Authorised deposit-taking institutions and other APRA-regulated entities could use this matter as a prompt to independently validate the calculation logic, data lineage and system controls behind key prudential metrics such as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio, rather than relying solely on the metric's reported output. Boards and risk committees may wish to confirm that internal audit or an equivalent independent function periodically tests whether prudential reporting reflects the underlying methodology set out in the relevant prudential standard. Entities that identify a similar miscalculation may want to consider their own notification obligations to APRA promptly, consistent with the approach ING Australia is reported to have taken.

Entities covered by the Financial Accountability Regime may wish to review their current accountability maps and register submissions against the two proposed changes, particularly where key functions or direct report information is currently compiled as part of a wider governance or org-design process rather than specifically for FAR reporting. Given the short consultation window closing 2 October 2026, entities with a view on the practical effect of either change may wish to consider lodging a submission before that date.

Banks, telecommunications providers and digital platforms that are designated or likely to be designated under the Scams Prevention Framework could review the proposed Scam Rules against their existing internal dispute resolution processes, particularly the proposed complaint handling, information sharing and compensation provisions. Entities that hold dual membership as both financial firms and regulated entities may want to confirm how the Financial Firm Rules and the new Scam Rules will interact for complaints spanning both jurisdictions. Businesses preparing for the 31 March 2027 commencement could begin mapping staff training and complaint escalation pathways against the proposed timetable.

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.

Superannuation trustees may wish to review the methodology paper to understand how the Comprehensive Product Performance Package metrics and the legislated performance test are calculated, and to consider modelling their own products against that methodology ahead of future publication cycles. Trustees whose products have previously been identified as underperforming, or whose products are approaching repeated test failure, may want to assess what remediation steps APRA would expect to see documented, given its stated intention to apply heightened supervisory scrutiny where pockets of underperformance persist.

Lenders, purchasers and their advisers considering a claim against a Queensland valuer who is a member of the Australian Property Institute Valuers Limited may wish to check whether the professional standards scheme cap applies to the conduct in question and whether the valuer held the insurance required under the scheme at the relevant time. Because the specific monetary cap and conditions of the 2026 notice have not been independently verified for this briefing, it would be prudent to review the scheme document and notice directly before relying on any liability limit when advising on a potential claim.

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.

Banks, insurers and superannuation trustees regulated by APRA may wish to compare their annual risk and compliance plan against the priorities set out in the 2026-27 Corporate Plan, particularly the stated focus on cyber resilience, geopolitical risk and the use of frontier artificial intelligence. Boards and risk committees could use the Plan to anticipate the likely focus of supervisory engagement and thematic reviews over the next 12 to 18 months, and to identify any gaps between current risk management practices and the pace of change APRA has flagged as expected of regulated institutions.

Superannuation trustees, particularly platform trustees with extensive investment menus, may wish to begin assessing whether their current investment governance capability, including onboarding, monitoring and offboarding processes and management of conflicts, is proportionate to the complexity of the options they offer. Trustees could also consider member level diversification practices and oversight arrangements ahead of APRA's consultation on detailed reform proposals. Businesses providing investment options through platforms may want to monitor the consultation for potential capital or governance requirements that could affect product availability or commercial arrangements with trustees.