Treasury has confirmed that a $47.3m special levy will apply in the 2025-26 financial year to meet higher-than-expected CSLR claims, with advisers in the frame to pay more than 20% of it.
The increased call on the CSLR follows failures linked to the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds, where high-pressure lead-generation tactics allegedly pushed consumers to shift superannuation into higher-risk, low-quality investment schemes.
Daniel Mulino, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, said these cases underscore the need for targeted reforms across the advice and investment ecosystem. Meanwhile, unplanned-for compensation claims are being made to the CLSR scheme by consumers.
the largest allocation of 22% to financial advisers is unfair and unsustainable
FAAA CEO Sarah Abood said: “We acknowledge that Minister Mulino has decided to spread the CSLR Special Levy for 2025/26 across all 23 retail-facing subsectors. However, the largest allocation of 22% to financial advisers is unfair and unsustainable.”
She said advisers who face paying the largest share of the levy had nothing to do with the alleged misconduct that gave rise to the need for consumer compensation.
“In that context, spreading the levy based on capacity to pay is the most just of the many unjust possible options,” she said.
“However, by choosing the ASIC funding levy as the basis for allocation, rather than spreading the impact on the basis of capacity to pay, the Minister has imposed an unsustainable additional financial burden on advisers.”
Abood said advisers will collectively need to find an additional $10.4m, on top of the $20m they have already paid in CSLR levies this year. In total, they will pay $30.4m this year, 45% of the total levy of $67.3m.
Using ASIC’s adviser numbers of 15,041, that’s an extra $700 for each adviser – taking the total cost this year to more than $2,000 each.
“This takes no account of the likely substantial decline in adviser numbers at the end of this year,” said Abood.
“We call on the Minister to reconsider this unjust additional levy that threatens the very viability of our profession.”
