The current legislative framework assigns regulatory duties to the ACCC, but ASFA argues that ASIC’s existing familiarity with the superannuation landscape positions it as a more suitable choice. This preference highlights a strategic proposal to extend the scam prevention framework more effectively across the superannuation sector by leveraging ASIC's expertise.

ASFA emphasized the potential benefits of relying on ASIC, explaining, “Consideration should be given to whether ASIC may be a more appropriate SPF regulator for the superannuation sector than the ACCC under clause 58EB, if the scheme is extended to superannuation, given their extensive familiarity with our sector. This may avoid regulator duplication and the overextension of ACCC resourcing.”

Furthermore, the legislative flexibility allows for a shift in regulatory powers. The ACCC holds default status under clause 58EB, but alterations can be made by the Commission itself or via the Minister, according to clause 58ED. Clause 58FH also recognizes the possibility of ASIC taking on a more expansive role where deemed necessary.

The ASFA’s stance aligns with its broader support of extending the scam prevention framework to encompass superannuation while emphasizing the continued involvement of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) as a vital arbitration option. This is due to AFCA's established position within the superannuation domain.

In addressing the proposed penalty measures, ASFA highlighted concerns over the provision's magnitude, which outlines significant financial penalties and includes:

  • $52,715,850, equating to 159,745 penalty units each worth $330
  • Threefold the total value derived from any contraventions
  • 30% of the body corporate’s adjusted turnover during the violation period

ASFA recommended reassessment of these rules, proposing, “Given the significant and indeterminate nature of these civil penalty provisions, consideration should be given to whether a single maximum penalty should be provided for, with lesser penalties to be proportionately adjudicated via judicial discretion.”

This perspective, originally discussed in an article by Mike Taylor on January 28, 2025, reflects a thoughtful approach to centralized regulatory practices, aiming to optimize resources and enhance protections within Australia's superannuation sector.