“Generally, costs are attributed to the industry subsector or subsectors where the regulatory effort is directed, based on the particular issues in the case. In the case of an unlicensed financial advice, ASIC’s enforcement costs will be borne, at least in part, by the relevant financial advice subsector, if the misconduct is primarily in the nature of the provision of financial advice,” an ASIC spokesperson told sister title ifa.

“ASIC’s role is to enforce the law, and this includes regulating the boundaries of permitted conduct.

“ASIC action in relation to unlicensed conduct in a sector is in the interests of the licensed participants in that sector because it maintains integrity and trust in the licensed sector and deters competition from unlicensed and unregulated competitors.”

In February, CPA Australia noted in a pre-budget submission to Treasury that the federal government had so far done little to reduce costs for businesses as the economy faced its greatest challenge since the 2008 financial crisis.

“The government should use the budget to announce the reduction or removal of various fees it imposes on business, especially small business. This will ultimately also benefit consumers who invariably pay for such fees,” the accounting body said.

“For example, the government should reduce or preferably remove fees imposed under ASIC’s industry funding model, including fees imposed on AFSL holders and SMSF auditors.

“Further, the government should remove duplicated fees where service providers provide advice or services that fall under multiple regulatory regimes, such as financial advisers paying fees to ASIC and the TPB.”