Stay in the know
We’ll send you the latest insights and briefings tailored to your needs
The purpose of this guide is to provide a high-level overview of the implications for financial services providers seeking to do business in Australia. The application of Australian law to the provision of financial services is a highly technical subject and readers of this guide are encouraged to seek specialist advice on their circumstances as appropriate.
Products and services provided by financial service providers (including banks and other financial institutions) are subject to regulation under the financial services provisions of Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Chapter 7 applies to financial service providers that target customers located in Australia and may deem those financial service providers to be providing financial services in Australia, even if that financial service provider has no place of business in Australia.
Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act regulates the financial services industry in several ways including:
There are exemptions to the licensing and disclosure regimes as prescribed under regulations or legislative instruments that may be available to financial service providers. For example, certain foreign financial service providers are exempted from the licencing regime until 31 March 2024 under the ‘limited connection’ exemption or (if they have been approved by ASIC because they are regulated in a way which ASIC regards as ‘sufficiently equivalent’ to an AFSL) under the ‘passporting exemptions’ when they provide financial services to wholesale clients in Australia.
ASIC is a very active regulator with wide-ranging powers and is not afraid to litigate. ASIC also has a competition mandate. ASIC has a product intervention power (PIP) under Part 7.9A of the Corporations Act which allows ASIC to make a product intervention order when a financial or credit product has resulted, will result, or is likely to result in significant consumer detriment. This power allows ASIC to intervene in a wide range of ways and ASIC may, if necessary, ban financial or credit products when there is a risk of significant consumer detriment. An example of ASIC’s recent use of its PIP power includes its ban on the issue and distribution of binary options to retail clients which is in place until 1 October 2031.
In addition to ASIC, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) is the prudential regulator in Australia, with supervisory responsibilities in the banking, insurance and superannuation sectors. Any providers of banking, insurance and superannuation products will be dual-regulated in Australia by ASIC and APRA.
An entity that carries on 'banking business' in Australia must be an authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI) supervised by APRA. For the purposes of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) (as amended) (Banking Act), an entity carries on banking business if it:
Some particular aspects of banking business are also subject to regulation by ASIC, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).
A foreign bank wishing to establish a presence in Australia could either:
If approval as a foreign ADI is granted, the foreign ADI is primarily supervised by the relevant regulator in the foreign ADI’s home jurisdiction and is subject to lighter-touch supervision by APRA. Typically, however, APRA will impose constraints on a foreign ADI’s operations including:
Another approach open to a foreign bank is to establish a representative office in Australia. This may enable the foreign bank to maintain a presence in Australia so that it can receive enquiries about services which it provides offshore. A representative office in Australia may not conduct any form of banking business or activities related to the administration of banking business.
Finally, an overseas bank may conduct banking business with Australian counterparties from its offshore offices without a licence from APRA provided:
Use of the term 'bank' requires approval from APRA and is usually conditional on the applicant obtaining an authority to carry on a banking business or open a representative office.
An entity regulated as an ADI is subject to comprehensive supervision by APRA under a separate supervisory framework. ADIs are also subject to a suite of prudential standards relating to conduct, governance, oversight, risk and prudential requirements. In addition, there are ongoing obligations including reporting to APRA on ad hoc matters and breaches.
APRA is an active regulator with regulated entities but generally takes less public action than ASIC given its mandate of financial stability.
Generally speaking, an Australian credit licence will be required where a business provides credit to consumers which are individuals (or a unique Australian body type called a strata corporation) who are ordinarily resident in Australia where the credit is provided for:
This type of credit is subject to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (NCCPA) and the National Credit Code (NCC) (contained in the NCCPA). As well as obtaining an Australian Credit Licence, the credit provider is subject to a range of obligations:
Certain Australian credit products will also be subject to the DDO and PIP regimes, which are discussed above.
The NCC contains highly prescriptive requirements relating to the form and content of loan and security documentation, as well as statutory disclosures and notices which must be given. The NCC specifies mechanisms for enforcement of loans, prescribes a process for dealing with hardship cases, provides relief against terms of an arrangement which may be characterised as "unjust" and also provides for disputes to be dealt with by an approved external dispute resolution scheme, AFCA, which has jurisdiction to make decisions that are binding on the credit provider.
Currently ‘buy now pay later’ products can generally be structured to exist outside consumer credit regulation. However, the new Australian federal government has stated that it intends to amend the NCCPA to include buy now play later products.
Regulation of payment services in Australia is primarily directed at parties that hold value or effect transfers/payments on behalf of customers. Under the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 (Cth) (PSR Act), an entity that participates in a ‘designated payment system’ and which holds value for a customer must be an ADI or a purchased payment facility provider approved by APRA. For these purposes designated payment systems include, for example, VISA, MasterCard and American Express, as well as Australian domestic clearing and settlement services such as EFTPOS. To be a designated payment system the RBA must designate the payment system as such under the PSR Act.
There are some exceptions to the requirement to become a regulated purchase payment facility provider, including storing value which can be used to pay no more than 50 persons, or storing value that does not exceed AUD $10 million. This provides some relief for smaller businesses during a start-up phase.
In practice, providers of payment services generally enter into an alliance arrangement with an ADI through which value is stored with the ADI for the benefit of the provider's customers. Another approach is for the payment service provider to obtain a bank guarantee from an ADI in favour of the payment service provider’s customers. Once APRA has determined that the payment service provider is of a sufficient size, it will generally require it to become an approved purchased payment facility provider.
In addition to compliance with the PSR Act, payment service providers will need to consider the application of other regulatory regimes including whether the product being offered constitutes:
Australia also has an e-Payments Code, which is a voluntary code of practice that regulates electronic payments (including ATM, EFTPOS, debit and credit card transactions, online payments, internet and mobile banking and BPAY). Banks, credit unions, building societies and other providers of electronic payment facilities to consumers may elect to subscribe to this Code.
The e-Payments Code:
Although not a strict legal requirement, ASIC expects that a holder of an AFSL will comply with the e-Payments Code as a matter of good licensing practice, where the Code is relevant to any of the AFSL holder’s products. Subscribers to the e-Payments Code must warrant that they will comply with the Code in the terms and conditions they give consumers, and consumers may raise a complaint for a breach of the Code to the subscriber.
The e-Payments Code has recently been updated by ASIC, with changes due to commence on 2 June 2023 addressing:
The regulation of insurance in Australia is differentiated between general insurance, life insurance and private health insurance, particularly from a prudential perspective. For the purposes of Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act (and certain consumer protections in the ASIC Act), general insurance and life insurance products are deemed to be financial products, with few exceptions. Importantly, private health insurance products are not financial products and are regulated under a separate regime.
Engaging in any of the following in relation to general insurance and life insurance products are regulated financial services:
In addition to the licensing, disclosure, conduct and reporting obligations in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, the other key legislative obligations that apply to general insurers and life insurers are:
The Insurance Contracts Act provides a range of important protections for general and life insurance policyholders. These include various restrictions on the exercise of an insurer’s rights that would otherwise be available at common law, such as the ability to cancel or avoid a contract of insurance based on an insured’s non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and the ability for the insurer to rely on pre-existing condition exclusions. The Insurance Contracts Act also implies a duty of utmost good faith into all contracts of insurance. Additionally, the unfair contract terms regime under the ASIC Act applies to contracts of insurance.
General insurers and life insurers are dual-regulated by ASIC and APRA. They are required to hold an AFSL issued by ASIC and be a registered insurer with APRA. There are also voluntary quasi-regulatory regimes that operate in general and life insurance industry, including:
While these codes do not generally have the force of law, in some cases, sanctions may be imposed by a relevant industry body for non-compliance.
In terms of regulatory and judicial trends, there is a continuing movement towards greater policyholder protection and accountability for consumer harm. The last 24 months has been transformational for the Australian insurance sector as it implemented the single largest program of regulatory reform it has ever experienced, with reforms spanning licensing, claims handling, product design and terms, and distribution. Further reform is also expected. For example, the current Banking Executive Accountability Regime under the Banking Act has been proposed to extend to all APRA-regulated entities, including general, life and private health insurers.
The superannuation sector is heavily regulated in Australia. Like the insurance sector, superannuation trustees are dual-regulated by ASIC and APRA. All superannuation trustees are required to hold an AFSL issued by ASIC and a Registrable Superannuation Entity (RSE) licence, which is issued by APRA.
An interest in a regulated superannuation fund is a financial product under Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act. Engaging in any of the following in relation to superannuation products are regulated financial services:
In addition to Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, regulated superannuation funds are regulated by a specific consumer protection and prudential regime in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (SIS Act). The SIS Act operates in conjunction with an extensive regime of taxation law, that regulates (among other things) taxation and contributions limits in superannuation. At a high level, the SIS Act provides:
Self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) are private superannuation funds and are also regulated under the SIS Act. However, SMSF trustees are supervised by the Australian Taxation Office rather than APRA, and they are not required to hold an RSE licence under the SIS Act.
The Australian superannuation sector continues to be in a state of upheaval and receive political attention. The Federal Government is reviewing various reforms implemented by the sector, including the scope of the Your Future Your Super reforms. In addition, the Government is undertaking a review into the quality of financial advice, which will impact how financial advice is provided to superannuation fund members. Similar to the insurance sector, it has also moved to extend the Banking Executive Accountability Regime to superannuation trustees under the proposed Financial Accountability Regime, thereby further enhancing the accountability obligations that apply to superannuation trustees and their directors, officers and senior executives.
The regulation of digital assets in Australia is currently under review with a view to providing certainty on their regulatory status. At present, the classification of digital assets requires an analysis of the features of each digital asset to determine if it meets the definition of a financial product.
The new Australian federal government has recently announced its policy position in relation to digital asset regulation. Treasury has stated that it will prioritise a ‘token mapping’ exercise during 2022, to help create standardised terminology for digital assets, which will inform regulation. The exercise was initially due to be finalised by the end of 2022, but now, a consultation paper will be issued by the end of 2022, with the work to continue in 2023. Further, Treasury has stated it will progress work on a licensing framework, review innovative organisational structures, look at custody obligations for third party custodians of digital assets and provide additional consumer safeguards.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is Australia’s external dispute resolution scheme that assists consumers and small businesses to resolve complaints with financial firms. Most financial firms are required to have a dispute resolution system that consists of:
Membership to AFCA is open to any entity that is required under Commonwealth legislation or Instruments to be a member of an external dispute resolution (EDR) scheme. Additionally, entities in the financial services and superannuation industries and other related industries may elect to join AFCA even if they do not have a requirement to do so.
AFCA generally determines complaints relating to:
AFCA may provide several types of remedies including awarding compensation for loss suffered by the customer. The AFCA Rules set out who is eligible to make a complaint to AFCA and what kinds of complaints it can deal with, however, if both the consumer and financial firm consent, AFCA may be able to hear complaints that are outside of its jurisdiction. For most superannuation complaints, AFCA’s determination is binding immediately on the making of the determination, and if the determination is to vary or substitute a trustee decision, unless otherwise ordered by AFCA, the determination comes into effect from the day the original decision was in effect. AFCA’s decisions for non-superannuation complaints are binding if the consumer accepts AFCA’s decision, and if a compensation cap applies, the consumer waives the excess of their claim.
AFCA itself is subject to several obligations. For instance, AFCA is required to refer and report contraventions to appropriate authorities, including reporting serious contraventions to ASIC. Similarly, AFCA is also required to refer possible systemic issues which it has identified as arising from complaints made under the scheme to one or more of the regulators.
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act
Under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 (Cth) (FSCODA), an entity which is a foreign corporation, a trading corporation formed in Australia, or a financial corporation (but not an ADI) and carries on business in Australia and has assets from the provision of finance which exceeds AUD $50 million must register with APRA.
A registered entity has an obligation to report monthly and quarterly to APRA. Reporting obligations include relevant assets of related companies (whether or not they are themselves registered), which would not otherwise be reported. In practice, APRA usually only requires quarterly reporting once the assets of a registered entity from the provision of finance exceed AUD $250 million.
The purpose of FSCODA is to enable APRA to collect data about the level of indebtedness in Australia. This informs monetary policy set by the RBA and enables the Australian Bureau of Statistics to publish accurate information about Australia's indebtedness, for the purposes of ensuring transparency within the market for the benefit of investors.
Since early 2018, under the Banking Act, APRA has possessed the power to impose prudential standards on entities that are registered financial corporations under FSCODA. To date, APRA has not exercised this power.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act
An entity providing financial services may be providing a 'designated service' for the purposes of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act). The AML/CTF Act was introduced to meet Australia's international treaty obligations established by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Its broader objectives include detecting, deterring and disrupting money-laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) activity and other serious financial crime.
If an entity provides designated services for the purposes of the AML/CTF Act and meets a ‘geographical link’ test, it will be considered a 'reporting entity' and become subject to regulation by AUSTRAC. If an entity is subject to the AML/CTF Act, it must:
AUSTRAC is an active regulator and the legislation at present prescribes a maximum civil penalty of AUD $22.2 million for each breach of the AML/CTF Act.
The AML/CTF Act currently applies to digital currency exchange providers if they have a geographical link to Australia, and therefore captures crypto asset secondary service providers who meet the definition of digital currency exchange providers.
Financial Transaction Reports Act
The Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth) (FTR Act) operates alongside the AML/CTF Act and imposes a number of obligations on cash dealers, including an obligation to report suspect transactions, cash transactions of AUD $10,000 or more or the foreign currency equivalent, and international funds transfer instructions to AUSTRAC. For these purposes a cash dealer is widely defined and is not limited to parties which are in fact dealing with currency. For example, any AFSL holder is a cash dealer. It also requires the verification of the identity of persons who are signatories to accounts, and prohibits accounts being opened or operated in a false name. However, because the obligations specified in the FTR Act have largely been replaced by obligations under the AML/CTF Act, the FTR Act now mostly only affects solicitors, and motor vehicle dealers who act as insurers or insurance intermediaries.
Last updated 01/01/2023
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only and may not be current as at the date of accessing this publication. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
© Herbert Smith Freehills 2024
We’ll send you the latest insights and briefings tailored to your needs