ASIC's growth mandate carries an impact question, with consumer and market integrity protections intact

ASIC's new growth mandate is not a lighter regulatory standard. In its opening statement to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on 4 September 2026, ASIC said the Government recently issued it with a new Statement of Expectations. The statement gives ASIC a clear mandate to support strong and sustainable economic growth while maintaining important consumer and market integrity protections. It also asks ASIC to consider carefully the regulatory impact of its work, particularly on small businesses and new market entrants. ASIC's opening statement

That combination is the important point. The statement does not announce a lower standard for regulatory compliance. It asks ASIC to consider impact while retaining the protections it identifies.

The reasonable prediction

Suppose a small business hears that ASIC has been given a mandate to support economic growth and consider the regulatory impact of its work. It would be reasonable to predict simpler requirements, greater tolerance or a lower burden for that business.

That prediction goes beyond what ASIC said.

ASIC's statement says that strong regulation and economic growth are not opposing objectives. It explains that a well‑regulated financial system gives consumers and investors confidence that the system is fair. It also says that when the rules of the game are clear, responsible businesses have confidence to invest, compete and innovate.

The official position is therefore a combination, not a trade‑off. Economic growth is part of ASIC's mandate, but consumer and market integrity protections remain part of the same instruction.

Keep the scope precise

The wording also matters for financial advice businesses. ASIC refers to small businesses and new market entrants. It does not refer specifically to smaller licensees.

A licensee that is a small business, or a new market entrant, may consider how the statement bears on its own circumstances. That is an application of the statement, not a new entitlement stated by ASIC. The opening statement does not establish a special standard for a particular type of licensee, or a process through which a firm can require ASIC to accept a different approach.

Terms such as proportionality, risk based and workable may be useful labels in a firm's own analysis. They should not be presented as terms used by ASIC in this statement, or as rights or tests created by it. The source supports a narrower proposition: ASIC has been asked to consider carefully the regulatory impact of its work, particularly on small businesses and new market entrants.

A disciplined way to use the statement

For practice leaders, the useful response is to separate the burden from the protection involved.

A business reviewing a regulatory process could ask:

• What consumer or market integrity protection the process is intended to support.
• What regulatory impact it creates for the business.
• Whether the concern is the substance of the requirement, uncertainty about what is expected, duplication or internal capability.

Those are recommended questions for the business, not a checklist ASIC has prescribed. They can help prevent every regulatory cost being described as a reason for a lower standard. They can also distinguish a request for clarity from an argument that a protection should not apply.

If a business chooses to raise a concern, it should describe this as its own analysis of regulatory impact. It should not suggest that the Statement of Expectations guarantees a particular outcome, creates a right to challenge a rule or requires ASIC to accept an alternative process. The opening statement does not say those things.

For advice practices, that leaves room for a more precise discussion of regulatory burden, but not an assumption of softer treatment. The Government's Statement of Expectations places the impact on small businesses and new market entrants in ASIC's field of consideration. ASIC's own explanation keeps the boundary clear: strong regulation and economic growth are not opposing objectives, and consumer and market integrity protections remain intact.