The Australian Attorney-General has announced that the Government will strengthen Australia’s modern slavery laws with a new criminal offence where companies with an annual consolidated revenue over $100 million fail to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains.

This offence will be in addition to current reporting obligations.

There will be a defence available if a company can demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery.
The Government also intends to introduce civil penalties and associated enforcement powers to address non-compliance with existing obligations under the Modern Slavery Act.

Background.

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 Reserve Bank of Australia has provided some answers to frequently asked questions regarding the removal of card payment surcharges from 1 October 2026 for designated card networks. Background.

The changes will allow the designated card networks to impose a ban on surcharging for credit, debit and prepaid card payments on their networks.

The three designated card networks, eftpos, Mastercard and Visa, have each decided to introduce ‘no-surcharge’ rules from 1 October 2026.

American Express has also decided to remove surcharging from 1 October 2026. American Express is not currently subject to formal regulation by the RBA.

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 Prime Minister has announced that the Government will establish an Office of Artificial Intelligence within his department to co-ordinate the design of new Australian Standards for AI.

The standards will deal with national security as well as copyright and artist protection, large AI data centres, workplace issues, and the impact of AI in schools.

They will create a legal obligation for large-scale data centres to underwrite new power supply and be net-generators of energy, not net-users.

The Government aims to introduce legislation to Parliament early in 2027.

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.

While the Corporations Act mandates self-reporting of breaches of Australian Financial Services Licence conditions, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has also published a Guideline which recognises that incentivising companies to self-report, cooperate and remediate by offering alternative resolutions to investigations, other than a criminal prosecution, is consistent with the AFP’s Investigation Doctrine, contemporary international standards and efficient and effective use of public resources.

The Australian Federal Police Guideline explains and develops the principles associated with achieving an optimal investigation outcome for corporations that provide genuine, proactive and fulsome cooperation in an AFP investigation, including through self-reporting.

This Guideline is primarily directed towards investigations involving allegations of foreign bribery and related offending, however, the principles involved may also be applied in other AFP investigations involving cooperating corporations
.
In summary, where a corporation has engaged in alleged criminal misconduct, but has:
* genuinely cooperated in an investigation, and
* demonstrated that it would not be in the public interest to refer the corporation for prosecution,
the investigation team will likely determine that the optimal investigation outcome is a non-conviction based (civil) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) resolution unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Financial service providers must have an Investigations Procedure to follow when they are the subject of an ASIC or AFP Investigation, including how to respond to a search warrant.

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 has published its financial reporting, audit and sustainability focus areas for FY2026–2027.

While ASIC will maintain its focus on listed and unlisted companies and responsible superannuation entities, it will also include a selection of managed investment schemes in its audits.

ASIC also published its early observations on the first sustainability reports prepared under Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to assist other reporting entities as they prepare their own disclosures.

ASIC’s review of sustainability reports focused on whether users are being provided with high-quality and decision-useful information that complies with the Corporations Act and Australian Sustainability Reporting Standard AASB S2 Climate-related Disclosures.

In general, it has seen an increase in the quantity and quality of climate-related financial information in the market compared to previous voluntary climate-related disclosures.

ASIC particularly commends reports that use tables, diagrams and other visual aids to present information.

However, ASIC has identified opportunities to strengthen the quality of reporting.

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 Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2026] FCA 832, the Federal Court of Australia ordered Mercer Super to pay penalties totalling $10.3 million for systemic failures to report investigations into significant member services issues to ASIC, including an investigation into insurance premiums continuing to be charged after members had died, and only refunded later.

The penalties related to :
(a) $4,062,500 in respect of Mercer Super’s contravention of sections 912A(1)(a) and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act (failure to provide services efficiently, honestly and fairly) ;
(b) $5,300,000 in respect of Mercer Super’s 15 contraventions of sections 912DAA(1) and 912DAA(7) relating to failures to report investigations; and
(c) $937,500 in respect of Mercer Super’s three contraventions of section 1308(5) relating to reporting materially false or misleading information.

Mercer Super was also ordered to pay ASIC’s costs in the agreed amount of $1,200,000.

The Court found that between October 2021 and September 2024, Mercer Super’s systems for complying with the Corporations Act’s reportable situations regime were inadequate and breached sections 912DAA(1) and 912DAA(7) of the Corporations Act.

The Court also found that Mercer Super failed to report seven reportable investigations to ASIC at all and it reported another investigation late. In relation to the investigation that was reported late to ASIC, the Court found that Mercer Super breached section 1308(5) by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure the reports to ASIC were accurate and provided false or misleading information which understated the number of members impacted by the incident being investigated.

The investigations that Mercer Super either failed to report on time or did not report at all included investigations concerning:

* failure to update member accounts which led to higher fees and less favourable insurance policies applying to members
failure to allocate $64 million in member funds in a timely manner, and
* failure to provide death and total and permanent disability insurance cover for eligible members.

The Court declared that Mercer Super consequently contravened sections 912A(1)(a) and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act by failing to do all things necessary to ensure the financial services covered by its AFSL were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.

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 Insurance Council of Australia has published a new draft General Insurance Code of Practice (2026 Code) for consultation.

The Code will apply to all retail general insurance products, including home contents, building, car, pet and travel insurance and some commercial insurance for small business.  

It covers a range of wholesale products, including small business and commercial insurance, and farm and primary industry.  

Changes include:

* pending ASIC approval, the Code will be legally enforceable in consumer insurance contracts;
* home and motor claims will be automatically accepted after 12 months where no decision has been made, subject to defined exceptions;
* new supporting guidance on dealing with vulnerable customers;
* the definition of family violence now covers family and domestic violence, including financial abuse and coercion, and with key protections becoming contractually enforceable insurer obligations; and
* guidance addressing mental health will become contractually enforceable.

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.

New obligations requiring non-bank lenders to begin sharing product reference data such as interest rates, fees, charges and eligibility criteria through the Consumer Data Right (CDR) commenced on 13 July 2026.

Consented consumer data sharing for non-bank lenders will be phased in from 9 November 2026, depending on the size of the provider.

Lenders with over $10 billion in loans and leases commence sharing on November 9, 2026.

Lenders with at least 1,000 customers and over $1 billion in loans/leases commence sharing on May 10, 2027.

Background

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 has published a report on its review of eight lenders from the motor vehicle finance (car loans) sector.

It focused on consumer outcomes, including for consumers in regional and remote locations and First Nations consumers. It found significant indicators of consumer harm.

ASIC’s recommendations included that the lenders should:
* better articulate their products, including key features and respective target markets via published target market determinations (TMDs);
* address problematic sales practices (e.g. high-pressure sales tactics and overriding consumer objections to certain types of finance);
* implement better governance frameworks to ensure adequate oversight of intermediary brokers and dealers;
* improve distribution conditions, given the market’s overwhelming reliance on distributors, including outlining how lenders will monitor compliance with those conditions;
* develop stronger product review triggers and risk frameworks, including using available harm indicators and internal data to ensure their products reach the right target market; and
* improve hardship policies and practices, such as enhanced communications on voluntary surrender and time‑to‑sell arrangements, so consumers can be aware of these options.

Legislative obligations which apply to car loans include:
* the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 which applies to consumer credit, such as secured car loans: and
* the design and distribution obligations within the Corporations Act 2001, which require financial service product issuers, such as lenders and relevant product distributors, to take a consumer-centric approach to the design and distribution of financial products, along with stated conditions for distribution and triggers for product review.

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 has responded to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report on bank closures in regional Australia. Background.

The response addresses the 8 recommendations from the committee’s report.

The government agrees with the following 2 recommendations in principle:
* “that the Australian Government commission the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to explore the barriers to customers switching banks, with a view to allowing those that open and/or maintain branches in regional, rural and remote
towns to attract more business”; and
*”that the Australian Government works closely with the banks and Australia Post, to require all major banks to have agreements with Bank@Post and to harmonise the terms of Bank@Post agreements to improve fairness and sustainability. Specifically, agreements should include increased deposit limits to support small businesses, provisions to facilitate identification verification, and to handle issues around temporary account closures or multiple signatory requirements. Major banks that do not put in place agreements with Bank@Post to deliver financial services should pay an increased supplementary levy.”

The Government says it has secured new and updated agreements between all four major banks, Macquarie Bank and Australia Post for Bank@Post since the publication of the report.

The Government does not support the Committee’s recommendation that the Australian Government commission an expert panel to investigate the feasibility of establishing a publicly owned bank.

It has noted the 5 other recommendations.

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.