The Easier Side Has One Hard Number
The clearest service promise is the reduction in ASIC’s target for routine Australian Financial Services and credit licence applications. For complete applications received from 1 July 2026, the regulator aims to finalise 80% within 120 days. The previous target was 150 days. ASIC says productivity work allows it to cut that window by one month.
That does not create a 120-day statutory guarantee. Applications ASIC classifies as complex are excluded, and the clock starts only when the regulator considers the submission complete. The distinction matters to brokers, fintech firms and credit providers because requests for missing material can leave the commercially important elapsed time longer than the published measure.
ASIC is also promising simpler guidance and legislative instruments, improved digital services and closer coordination with other regulators on data collection. Its longer-term RegistryConnect programme is intended to replace aged registry technology. The agency operates more than 30 registers, handles over 559,000 contact-centre inquiries a year and collected A$1.7 billion in registry fees and charges in 2025–26, making operational efficiency an industry cost issue as well as an administrative one.
Harder to Avoid Means Faster Triage and More Cases
On enforcement, ASIC plans to refer at least 70% of assessed misconduct reports within 60 days, take no more than 50 days to open a formal investigation after accepting a referral, and reach a first action or finalisation within 12 months of opening an investigation. It also targets at least 30 new civil proceedings, 25 referrals to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and on-time completion of 80% of thematic surveillance work.
The numbers should be read against a high base. Courts ordered a record A$830 million in civil penalties in 2025–26, while ASIC-linked remediation, refunds and compensation reached A$643.5 million. The regulator opened more than 250 investigations and filed 32 civil proceedings during that period, according to its official enforcement results. A closer account of the cases behind those totals shows how CFDs, banking failures, scams and digital assets drove ASIC’s A$830 million penalty year.
The new minimum of 30 civil cases is therefore slightly below the 32 proceedings filed last year. It is a floor, not evidence that the regulator intends to accelerate case numbers. The 12-month measure also counts either a first enforcement step or closure, including a decision that evidence does not support further action. It tests the speed of decision-making, not the eventual quality or success of a case. That distinction should temper any claim that the plan guarantees tougher outcomes.
AI Sits on Both Sides of the Regulator
Artificial intelligence appears in the plan as a supervised risk, a market-abuse tool and part of ASIC’s own operating system. The regulator says it will examine how banks use AI in customer-facing services, assess potential harm to consumers and investors, and respond to AI-enabled manipulation, deepfakes and misinformation that threaten market integrity.
The emphasis follows a rapid increase in online fraud disruption. ASIC removed more than 19,400 scam websites, advertisements and phishing links in the 2026 financial year, 182% more than a year earlier. The operational challenge is that generative AI can help criminals produce replacement sites, fake reports, reviews and deepfake endorsements faster than individual pages can be removed. The mechanism behind that rise is detailed in an analysis of how AI-backed scam networks can manufacture an apparent trail of independent verification.
ASIC’s response includes continued takedowns, international information sharing, the Moneysmart Investor Alert List and participation in Australia’s Scams Prevention Framework. One specific anti-impersonation step is to add licensees’ website addresses to public registers, giving users a way to compare a site with the official record instead of relying on a copied licence number.
At the same time, ASIC plans to expand its own data, intelligence and AI capability. The corporate plan refers to an AI governance and assurance framework, an internal AI Board, staff training and a multi-year technology-debt programme. That creates the same accountability test ASIC is setting for banks: using automated tools to improve speed without weakening responsibility for decisions.
CFDs, BNPL and Insurance Are Immediate Consumer Tests
For the retail trading sector, the plan confirms that leveraged derivatives remain an active policy area. ASIC intends to consult on the future of its CFD product intervention order and the financial requirements applying to retail over-the-counter derivative issuers, both of which are due to expire in 2027. The latter consultation has already put a five-year extension on the table, which would keep Australia’s CFD capital rules in force until 2032.
Supervision is continuing alongside that policy work. A 52-issuer review led to refunds for tens of thousands of CFD clients and changes to onboarding, reporting and product-governance controls. ASIC has since used licensing powers where it found unresolved failures, including the five-month suspension of GFA Capital Markets over client-money, reporting and compliance issues.
The consumer programme is wider than leveraged trading. ASIC will examine debt collection by lenders and debt buyers, compliance under the new buy now pay later regime, life-insurance service failures and the conduct of insurance claims intermediaries in disaster-affected communities. It will also continue scrutiny of how online brokers offer short-dated options, futures and fractional shares after a nine-firm review found weaknesses in onboarding, product governance and disclosure. The review’s implications for brokers and investors are set out in ASIC’s warning on options, futures and fractional shares.
Private Markets and ASX Stay Under Scrutiny
ASIC’s fifth strategic priority covers confidence in public and private markets. Planned work includes stronger supervision of managed investment schemes, examination of wholesale private-credit liquidity and credit-risk management, and scrutiny of private-equity valuations. The regulator also wants to assess controls around institutional portfolio trading, error accounts and suspense accounts.
The challenge is to improve oversight without imposing public-market rules mechanically on private structures. Valuations can be less frequent, liquidity terms differ and investors may receive less continuous information. ASIC’s focus on liquidity, credit risk and valuation identifies the points at which those differences can turn into losses or misleading portfolio values.
Market infrastructure remains another test. ASIC says it will supervise remediation at ASX and continue work on cyber resilience, while also seeking to simplify public-market fundraising and support responsible digital-finance innovation. This is the practical tension behind Chair Sarah Court’s statement that strong regulation and economic growth are not opposing objectives: intervention has to reduce preventable harm without making compliant funding, licensing and product development unnecessarily slow.
The Plan Will Be Judged on Process, Not the Slogan
ASIC expects a A$688 million budget for 2026–27, up 7% from the prior year, including a A$672 million departmental operating appropriation. It estimates fees and levies of A$397 million, equal to 62% of appropriations. Businesses funding much of the system now have a shorter published licensing target against which to measure service, while consumers have timelines and minimum case numbers against which to assess enforcement throughput.
The useful part of the plan is that several promises can be tested. ASIC can report whether 80% of routine licences were finalised within 120 days, whether referrals moved within 60 days, whether investigations started within 50 days and whether the civil and criminal referral floors were met. Those measures should make delays easier to identify.
They do not establish whether the right cases were chosen, whether closed investigations should have continued or whether faster licences produced better decisions. Nor does a higher case count by itself measure deterrence or consumer recovery. ASIC’s 2026–27 plan is therefore best understood as a service-and-enforcement scorecard: its value will depend on whether shorter processes coexist with sound decisions, meaningful remediation and action against misconduct that causes the greatest harm.