Financial services licence removals have hit a five-year high, insurance has been named an explicit 2026 enforcement priority, and consumer groups in the broker sector are now bypassing industry self-regulation to engage the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) directly. For insurance brokers, the regulatory environment has shifted materially.
The ASIC recorded 150 administrative enforcement outcomes in the 12 months to June 30, 2026, up from 105 in 2024-25, with financial services removals reaching their highest level in five years, according to data published by the regulator on August 10, 2026. The breakdown from ASIC’s annual reports shows 87 individuals and businesses were removed or restricted from providing financial services, 27 from credit services, and 36 individuals were disqualified from managing corporations. The financial services figure of 87 exceeds every prior year in the five-year data set, surpassing the previous high of 77 in 2022-23.
Of the 114 combined financial and credit outcomes, 61% of financial services cases and 89% of credit-related cases resulted in permanent banning orders or licence cancellations – 77 in total, comprising 31 individuals and 46 organisations. Of the 36 director disqualifications, 18 were for the maximum five-year period available under the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC chair Sarah Court explained the rationale for the administrative approach: “These administrative powers are critical levers that allow ASIC to act quickly and decisively to stop misconduct, protect consumers, investors, and small businesses, and efficiently remove unsuitable operators from the market. They can often be deployed more swiftly than or ahead of court action to help prevent further harm, drive behavioural change, and strengthen trust and confidence in Australia’s financial and corporate markets.”
The largest single driver of banning activity in 2025-26 was ASIC’s investigation into the collapse of the Shield Master Fund and the First Guardian Master Fund. ASIC banned 15 advisers linked to the two funds during the financial year and took further action against licensees, a director of a licensee, and a responsible manager. Around 11,000 Australians invested approximately $1.1 billion in Shield and First Guardian combined, according to ASIC. More than 40 people are continuing to investigate the collapse, and ASIC has elevated it to a dedicated enforcement priority for 2026, with 11 cases now underway in the Federal Court against 19 defendants.
The cases also highlight the risks for financial-services licensees and their authorised representatives when supervision and compliance systems fail. ASIC has found individual advisers involved in the Shield and First Guardian matters engaged in conduct including conflicted remuneration and misleading Statements of Advice, while it has separately alleged that Interprac failed to adequately oversee authorised representatives and maintain appropriate risk management systems. Under the Corporations Act, AFS licensees have obligations to take reasonable steps to ensure their representatives comply with financial services laws and maintain appropriate supervisory and risk management arrangements. Breaches of those obligations can expose licensees to regulatory action, including civil penalty proceedings and, in some circumstances, suspension or cancellation of an AFS licence.
The enforcement data is forward-looking as well as historical. ASIC announced in November 2025 that insurance complaints and claims handling would be among its new enforcement priorities for 2026, alongside private credit practices, financial reporting misconduct, and misleading pricing. Court told the ASIC annual forum: “With premiums ever-increasing, claims rising, and insurance becoming increasingly out of reach, we will continue our focus on this sector.” The regulator is pursuing active proceedings against several insurers, including Hollard Insurance over a home building claim that took more than three years to resolve, Choosi Pty Ltd for alleged failings in its comparison site practices, and RACQ over concerns related to misleading comparison pricing. ASIC also doubled the number of new investigations and nearly doubled the number of new matters filed in court in the preceding 12 months, indicating the administrative enforcement data reflects a broader intensification of regulatory activity.
The enforcement escalation is intersecting with a live governance dispute in the broker sector. Consumer groups including the Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL), the Owners Corporation Network (OCN), and the Unit Owners Association of Queensland (UOAQ) announced on July 16, 2026, that they would no longer engage with the National Insurance Brokers Association’s (NIBA) code consultation process, redirecting their efforts to ASIC and government directly.
The move follows compliance data that places the sector’s self-regulatory record under scrutiny. The Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee’s (IBCCC) 2025 Annual Data Report, released on June 16, 2026, documented 5,417 breaches of the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, affecting 14,842 clients, with complaints rising to 3,133. Remuneration-disclosure breaches rose from 42 in 2023 to 334 in 2024. A targeted strata review found all seven brokers examined in breach, with nine formal determinations issued and two referrals to ASIC. The IBCCC also identified a detection gap: of the six brokers that reported zero breaches in 2024, five subsequently reported breaches in their 2025 Annual Compliance Statement, indicating issues were present but had not previously been identified or reported.
NIBA CEO Richard Klipin has framed the profession’s response in terms of trust. “Codes are fundamentally about trust, and trust is built by being transparent with clients, treating them fairly, and pushing the profession to keep improving,” he said. NIBA cited its consumer research finding that 84% of clients trust their broker to act in their best interests and noted broker matters represented 0.8% of AFCA complaints in 2024-25 – figures the association has used to support its self-regulatory position.
However, the broker code’s voluntary, non-enforceable status means the statutory framework – not the code – is the operative protection for clients where breaches occur. With consumer groups now directing complaints to ASIC rather than NIBA, the question of whether voluntary self-regulation is sufficient is no longer academic.
