ASIC names 22 AFSLs in lead generation review

Lead generation is a legitimate, commonplace commercial activity. Every industry in the country — real estate, accounting, law, insurance, mortgage broking — relies on it as a standard business practice. The idea that a regulator would publish a list of businesses engaged in it before completing a review into whether anything has actually gone wrong is, frankly, astonishing.
Let’s be clear: the Shield and First Guardian scandal involved serious misconduct that warranted serious regulatory action. Nobody is disputing that. But there is a world of difference between targeted enforcement against specific bad actors and publishing a broad list that tars every business engaged in lead generation with the same brush. ASIC appears to have conflated the two.
And here’s the contradiction ASIC needs to explain. They’ve published this list while simultaneously cautioning that inclusion “should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred, nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person or entity.” Really? They’ve published a named list on Moneysmart — the consumer-facing website specifically designed to guide Australians’ financial decisions — and they expect the public, the media, and the industry to treat it as anything other than a blacklist? ASIC knows precisely how this list will be read. That disclaimer isn’t there to protect the people on the list — it’s there to protect ASIC if anyone on the list decides to sue them. Which tells you everything you need to know: ASIC itself understands the damage this list will cause, and has moved to insulate itself from the consequences while doing it anyway.
The principled approach — the approach you’d expect from an impartial regulator — is straightforward: complete the review, establish the facts, identify where genuine contraventions have occurred, and then act accordingly. Name names when there’s a basis for naming names. That’s due process. What ASIC has done here is the opposite — shame first, investigate later.
It’s the kind of knee-jerk, heavy-handed conduct that is becoming an uncomfortable pattern for a regulator that is supposed to be impartial. There is an ideological contempt for the financial advice profession that underlies this type of action — conduct you might expect from CHOICE magazine or the Super Members Council, not from the nation’s corporate regulator. Businesses on this list that have done nothing wrong deserve better.