The Australian Attorney-General has released a Consultation Paper and Exposure Draft Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026 to modernise and strengthen Australia’s privacy laws as well as responding to emerging risks from new technologies, including artificial intelligence, wearable surveillance technologies (such as smart glasses and ear buds) and connected vehicles.

It is also intended to provide greater certainty for businesses and other regulated entities.

The paper canvasses a range of proposed reforms, including:
* amending the definition of personal information to cover information that ‘relates to’ an individual who is identified or reasonably identifiable, and a new definition of reasonably identifiable is introduced.
* making it clear that personal information is ‘collected’ when an entity includes it in a record or generally available publication, regardless of the source from which, or how, the information is obtained. The amendments also clarify when entities will be taken to collect sensitive information that is derived from other personal information, regardless of whether the entity makes a separate record of that sensitive information.
* introducing a definition of disclosure based on whether an entity makes personal information accessible to another person or body, including where personal information is transmitted or stored overseas.
* strengthening and clarifying requirements for data security and minimisation, and responses to data breaches
* introducing a right for individuals to request the erasure of personal information held by large digital platforms, and an exception where compliance is technically impossible or infeasible and
* supporting research and innovation by simplifying research exceptions and facilitating the handling of personal information for ethically approved human research.

Existing APPs 3, 4 and 6 would be replaced with a new framework for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. This framework is centred around a new test which permits the handling of personal information only where it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, with reference to a non-exhaustive list of factors. There are exceptions where a permitted general or health situation applies or the information handling is required or authorised by law.

Data breach notification
The proposed amendments provide that an entity must, within 72 hours of becoming aware of reasonable grounds to believe that an eligible data breach has occurred, give the Information Commissioner a statement that notifies the Commissioner of the eligible data breach and sets out required content.

The introduction of the 72-hour notification requirement would not alter the obligation for assessment of suspected eligible data breaches. An entity that has reasonable grounds to suspect that there may have been an eligible data breach but has not yet established reasonable grounds to believe that an eligible data breach has occurred, must continue to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the assessment is completed within 30 days.

The small business exemption has not been removed.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Business Exemption) Regulations 2026 have been registered to amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 by extending the existing exemption from responsible lending obligations for small business borrowers for 10 years from 4 October 2026.

The exemption provides that mixed purpose loans to a consumer (for example, where a small business operated by an individual applies for a single loan to be used for both personal and commercial purposes) are exempt from responsible lending requirements so long as there is a ‘genuine’ small business purpose component that is not minor or incidental.

Under the genuine purpose test, the lender need only establish that there is a genuine business purpose that is not minor or incidental to the overall purposes of the related credit provision.

For the purposes of the exemption, a small business meets the test in the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015 by having fewer than 100 employees or revenue of $5 million or less in the previous financial year.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1278 the Federal Court of Australia imposed a penalty of $3.5 million against Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd (trading as CashnGo) regarding its use of, and reliance on, unfair contract terms in more than 47,000 standard form small amount credit contracts (SACCs) with consumers.

CashnGo admitted that, after a consumer missed a repayment, its Default Term and Authority Terms allowed CashnGo’s automated systems to monitor a consumer’s bank account balance, repeatedly attempt to make withdrawals to recover the missed payment, as soon as funds became available, without prior notice of the timing, frequency or amount of the intended unscheduled withdrawal, and undertake the Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice without giving consumers the ability to opt out.

CashnGo admitted, and the Court ordered, that those terms are unfair.

Each Indemnity Term would compel a consumer to indemnify CashnGo for any penalties or costs incurred by CashnGo in litigation involving the exercise of its right to conduct the Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice. Further, consumers would be required to indemnify CashnGo even in respect of CashnGo’s conduct that was intentional, negligent or dishonest.

The Limitation of Liability Terms would prevent consumers from enforcing their rights including for intentional or negligent acts by CashnGo which cause loss and damage to consumers.

The Court ordered that the Default and Authority terms are void from 14 September 2026 in all SACCs current consumer contracts. The Court also ordered that from 14 September 2026, CashnGo introduce replacement terms into its contracts, which will allow consumers to opt out of CashnGo’s Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice.

CashnGo also admitted, and the Court held, that its Limitation of Liability terms and Indemnity terms were unfair, and the Court declared those terms void from the start of all SACCs entered into with consumers from 20 April 2022, which means those terms should be treated as having never formed part of the contracts.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

Treasury has released a draft Treasury Laws Amendment (Banning Unfair Non-Competes) Bill 2026 to ban non‑compete clauses for Australian workers under $190,100 per year (the Fair Work Act high‑income threshold).

The Bill will amend the Competition and Consumer Act to cover arrangements between businesses that prevent or restrict the hiring of staff (‘no-poach’ agreements) or fix, control or cap remuneration and other employment conditions (‘wage-fixing’ agreements).

The amendments also introduce narrow exemptions for no-poach and wage-fixing agreements in limited circumstances, including joint ventures, secondments, labour-hire arrangements and professional sporting leagues, where specific conditions are satisfied.

The Government will also consult on:

* a ban of co‑worker non‑solicitation clauses;
* a ban on no‑poach and wage‑fixing arrangements;
* a ban on cascading restraint of trade clauses; and
* appropriate exemptions and safeguards to protect legitimate business interests.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

Treasury has published a new Financial Innovation Strategy that will support a coordinated whole-of-government approach to financial innovation, starting with changes to the ASIC Regulatory Sandbox and the Consumer Data Right.

The Government has announced that ASIC will be authorised to modernise the sandbox framework to better support testing and adoption.

They will repeal the existing Enhanced Regulatory Sandbox legislative framework and replace it with a more flexible model administered through ASIC’s existing powers.

They have identified a growing role for targeted sandboxes in strategically important areas such as AI, tokenised assets, digital money and digital financial market infrastructure.

They will establish a Digital Financial Market Infrastructure (DFMI) sandbox to provide a regulator-supported environment to trial innovative market models and infrastructure.

It will enable participants to assess how these models interact with existing trading, clearing and settlement arrangements, and identify whether adjustments to regulatory settings may be needed to facilitate innovation while maintaining market integrity and stability.

The Government will improve the Consumer Data Right so it is easier to use and better targeted to high-value use cases.

This includes changes to how business consumers nominate representatives to share data, expanding third-party disclosures, implementing a minimum threshold in the banking sector and continuing the rollout of the CDR to the non-bank lending sector.

Treasury, jointly with the ATO, is developing a business case to explore whether taxpayers could share ATO-held tax data through the CDR.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

The Cash Distribution Framework Bill 2026 has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent.

UPDATE: The Act received Royal Assent on 26 August 2026.

The bill establishes a framework to regulate cash distribution services in Australia, including an oversight framework for service agreements and access agreements and powers for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to set service-level standards.

It focuses primarily on the cash-in-transit sector, which has become concentrated around one dominant provider.

Cash distribution services include cash access facilities, cash storage and processing, cash transport and cash access support.

The main elements of the Bill include:
* the Reserve Bank of Australia can designate an entity that has a significant role in the cash distribution system. The designated entity is then subject to the regulatory framework.
* the ACCC can oversee pricing and other terms in agreements covering critical cash distribution services and access to facilities, and to set service-level standards to support access to cash.
* the Reserve Bank crisis readiness and resolution powers enable the RBA to step in if a designated provider becomes financially unviable, helping to ensure cash distribution does not stop.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

In In the matter of Fiducian Investment Management Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 959 the Supreme Court of NSW declared that Fiducian Investment Management Services Limited (FIMS), contravened section 12DF of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (ASIC Act) and section 601FC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), by making false or misleading statements in relation to investments in the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund (DSA Fund) and by failing to monitor its investment managers.

Penalties totalling $7.3m were imposed on Fiducian.

FIMS is the holder of Australian Financial Services Licence and the Responsible Entity for a suite of registered managed investment schemes.

The DSA Fund was operated and managed by FIMS using the “Manage-the-Manager” investment system.

Each of the underlying investments of the DSA Fund had specified “investment screens”, being a set of investment rules or filters applied by the underlying manager to determine which companies or shares were aligned with the specific environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards or objectives of that fund.

The underlying investments did not exclude investments in shares or companies that derived revenue wholly or substantially from fossil fuels.

Each version of the DSA Fund PDS stated “Fiducian constantly monitors the Fund’s underlying investment managers to ensure that they maintain their investment styles and processes”.

FIMS admitted that by making statements about the DSA Fund’s ESG investments, and by failing to withdraw or qualify those statements, FIMS represented that, amongst other things, the DSA Fund would only make investments, amongst other things, in companies that were considered to be positive for society and the environment.

FIMS also admitted it represented that the portfolio exposure of the DSA Fund (including exposure through any underlying investments) would be monitored to ensure that such exposure was in accordance with the ESG Statements; and the investment managers making investments on behalf of the DSA Fund (including through the underlying investments) would be constantly monitored to ensure that they maintained their investment styles and processes.

FIMS accepted that it did not provide any specific training to staff in relation to ESG or ethical investing.

The trial judge said that penalty of $5 million in relation to the contravention of s 601FC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act, and a penalty of $2.3 million in relation to the contraventions of s 12DF(1) of the ASIC Act, was appropriate, as it took into account the extent of FIMS’s failures over a period of several years, and in particular its failure to discharge its duties to act with care and diligence, and also took into account FIMS’s contrition and co-operation, as well as the steps which it has taken to improve its systems and processes.u

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has published two new Approach papers for insurance complaints and updated another one, setting out how it assesses compensation for non-financial loss.

AFCA’s Approach to general insurance claims handling provides practical insight into how AFCA assesses claims handling obligations and remedies in general insurance complaints.

Claims handling is the most complained about issue in general insurance complaints at AFCA.

AFCA’s Approach to uninsured motorist complaints clarifies AFCA’s jurisdiction and how liability is assessed in uninsured motorist complaints.

AFCA has also updated its Approach to non-financial loss.

It includes a table that sets out how AFCA assesses the severity and duration of harm when considering compensation for non-financial loss.

It contains case studies covering scams, financial hardship, insurance, privacy, and family violence complaints.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

ASIC Corporations (Amendment and Repeal) Instrument 2026/675 has repealed ASIC Corporations (Uncontactable Members) Instrument 2016/187 as the relief contained in that instrument is no longer required, given changes to the Corporations Act 2001 introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023.

Under section 110JA of the Corporations Act, relief is now provided from the requirement to send certain documents, including annual reports, if a member is uncontactable.

In section 110F(4A), situations where there is no current address for sending documents in an elected manner are addressed.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.

The Australian Government is consulting on changes to improve the efficiency of climate-related financial disclosures (“sustainability reporting”).

Reforms announced in the Budget 2026-27 include raising the monetary thresholds prescribed for determining whether a proprietary company is ‘large’:
to $100 million revenue (from $50 million); and
to $50 million in assets (from $25 million).

This will have the effect of relieving smaller Group 3 entities (between the current thresholds and the proposed increase) from mandatory sustainability reporting.

The main proposals include:
* changing assurance rules to reduce compliance costs;
* providing clearer guidance on key terms and concepts; and
* reducing the burden of information requests across supply chains.

The changes being considered will not impact those reporting for the 2026-27 financial year.

ASIC has released a series of sustainability reporting videos, completing the package of educational materials to help companies understand foundational concepts behind the sustainability reporting requirements.

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures commenced on 1 January 2025, requiring Australia’s largest entities to report on their climate-related risks and opportunities.

The legislation requires Australia’s largest listed and unlisted reporting entities to prepare an annual sustainability report in accordance with Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act 2001.

Reporting entities are being phased into reporting requirements in three groups.

Table 2 in ASIC RG 280 sets out the phasing in of reporting requirements.

If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.

Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email: djacobson@brightlaw.com.au
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.