Blame bad advice says SMSF Association

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

19 June 2026

The SMSF Association has made a plea not to make SMSFs collateral damage in any reworking of the legislative and regulatory regime resulting from the Capital Gains Tax changes and the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian funds.

The Association is claiming that the blame lies with inappropriate and often unlicensed advice, not the inherent structure of Self-Managed Superannuation Funds.

The SMSF Association’s defence has been prompted by evidence given to the recent Senate Economic Committee inquiry into capital gains tax and negative gearing reforms suggesting that SMSFs should be subject to additional restrictions.

The association said that during the inquiry concerns were raised that the carve-out of superannuation funds from the proposed changes could encourage greater investment in property through SMSFs, potentially exposing investors  to property spruikers and high-pressure sales tactics.

SMSF Association’s chief executive, Peter Burgess said the Association strongly supports reforms to clamp down on  high-pressure lead generation activity and to close regulatory gaps that allow consumers to be funnelled into unsuitable financial arrangements.

“This unscrupulous behaviour has no place in our financial services ecosystem and needs to be the clear focus of reform”.

However, it’s important to recognise and to call out that the SMSF structure is not the issue here. It’s the conflicted, inappropriate, and often unlicensed advice that’s provided to the SMSF trustees that is the ultimate cause of consumer harm.

“Treating SMSFs as the problem mischaracterises the issue and risks directing reform away from the conduct that causes the harm – it can lead to wrong conclusions and wrong solutions.”

“Imposing new standards or investment restrictions on SMSFs in response to these concerns could have broader consequences.

There is a real risk that blunt policy responses introduce permanent constraints on trustee choice, without improving consumer outcomes. Targeting the wrong lever rarely delivers the right result.”

“The focus should be on those who exploit consumers through aggressive marketing, lead generation schemes, and poor advice practices.”

Burgess noted that in its recent submission to Treasury, the Association called for stronger measures to restrict unsolicited lead generation and consumer steering practices.

The Association also proposed several new measures to strengthen licensing, oversight and accountability across the advice and property promotion sectors and enhance enforcement against unlicensed operators and those facilitating consumer harm.

“If policymakers are concerned about an increased risk of property spruiking activity, then the solution needs to target this conduct directly, not to limit the structures Australians use to manage their retirement savings,” Burgess said.