Treasury consultation questions cost/benefit of adviser ATO access
A Treasury consultation around giving financial advisers access to Australian Taxation Office (ATO) tax information has conceded it has benefits but has suggested that it comes with risks around cyber security, implementation costs and ‘pressured access’.
As well, the consultation paper has noted that many financial planning practices are small businesses which may not have the capability to adequately deal with cyber security risks and the storage of large amounts of sensitive information.
The consultation paper suggests a need for financial advisers to “meet baseline security standards suitable to handle sensitive information”. It asks whether the benefits outweigh the risks and costs associated with disclosing client superannuation information to financial advisers.
“Financial advisers are responsible for the accuracy of information provided by their clients. Streamlining financial advisers’ access to ATO-held client information provides the opportunity to utilise more complete, accurate and timely data which may reduce the cost of advice by lessening the administrative burden,” the discussion paper said.
“Historically, financial advisers have had a longstanding interest in having their own access to ATO systems, as early as 2017 when financial (tax) advisers were still managed and overseen by the TPB. Access to superannuation information is important since the introduction of the total superannuation balance and transfer balance cap because it affects what contribution and pension rules apply for an individual.”
“Financial advisers need to have accurate information so that they can ensure clients comply with these legislative requirements.”
“However, the proposal comes with risks around cyber security, implementation costs, unintended or pressured access, and does not assure timeliness of data,
it said.
“The size and sophistication of financial advice businesses – and their ability to manage cyber security risks and large amounts of sensitive information – varies widely. While there are some large firms, many financial advice businesses are small businesses who may lack the expertise and resourcing to provide a high level of data protection.”
“Giving financial advisers access to client information increases financial crime risks, which not only affects the retirement savings of members, but can disrupt business operations for an extended period. To reduce the risk of financial crime, financial advisers should be able to meet baseline security standards suitable to handle sensitive information.
“This is necessary to avoid leaving clients and financial advisers vulnerable to cyber-based attacks and data breaches, but is likely to require businesses to invest material amounts. While financial advisers already handle sensitive client information, providing a channel for advisers to access ATO-held data (including in a digital form) without any security uplift increases cyber security risks.”
A new platform would need to be developed and built to enable the ATO to provide limited client specific superannuation information once a client has authorised access for their financial adviser. This would be a significant cost to taxpayers for granting access to a relatively small cohort of financial advisers,” it said.
And all those one-man accounting practices as bastions of cyber security. What a ridiculous argument. I know tax agents who work from home with no staff, and they have access to the ATO portal but apparently an adviser’s office with admin staff is the security risk.
What a load of garbage. Firstly financial advisers hold and more sensitive information than accountants. Most accountants are also small business and have poorer cyber security.
We send tax pack information to accountants by secure links that only they can open. We have MFA on all client portals for investments, bank accounts etc.
We are struggling with larger organisations as we are asked to email client forms with sensitive information to the client service email but they don’t like our encrypted files with sensitive information.
Now I’m aware not all financial firms have our level of security yet but I can guarantee you the average financial firm has way better cyber security on average than the average accounting firm. I have seen little to no cyber security for ANY accounting firm and we deal with many of them.
The cost that’s driven into our business by this stubbornness MUST be passed onto customers yet people wonder why financial advice is so expensive.
Only a government can come up with system that provides information only to a group of people who are not allowed to provide advice on it and keep people out of the system who can provide advice. IDIOTS.
As usual a Canberra bureaucrat that would struggle to point to the direction of the sky when it to understanding reality. Go back to your Canberra bubble shut up and work for the people of Australia for just once in your life.
This report must surely have been written by the work experience kid.
The level of sophistication and oversight of even the smallest financial planning firm is far greater than a typical tax agent.
How shameful that those who control our destiny don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
More rubbish out of Treasury.
Financial advisers already run huge amounts of cybersecurity risk.
Meanwhile a single practitioner accountant working from home has access to the ATO portal.
Canberra is a cesspit.
Is the ATO serious, cyber security is their biggest concern? So are they telling us that 1-2 person accounting practices have better cyber security measures than planning practices? Please!
Absolutely ridiculous – we handle the most client information of any professional service and are acutely aware of cyber and online risks. We have insurances and training regularly to ensure we are kept up to date and active monitoring and supervision of client data. We are arguably the most responsible and accountable service providers for client information and I am quite sick of the lack of understanding of what an Adviser does, whether a 1 man band or large firm. We are professional businesses so stop with all the nonsense! If I have a Proda account for Services Australia and an ATO Business log in, I am sure I can handle the Tax Portal as well!
Canberra Pollies & Bureaucrats prove yet again they are a total freaking joke.
Prove yet again they can lie and BS in so many ways and actually think it is believable.
Prove yet again they don’t give a dam about Real Advisers or Advice for the Australian population.
What muppets design a system where Accountants have access to the important Super info but mostly can’t advise on it and Advisers who need the info can’t access it ?
What muppets ?
Yep = Canberra Pollies and Bureaucrats have their heads planted so far up their butts they think their BS doesn’t stink.
Wow, maybe they should do the same paper for accountants. Identical risks for both I’d imagine. Yet one gets access, the other doesn’t. Makes sense
This is so bias and such a load of lies and drivel. The associations need to call this out. Many bookkeepers and tax agents are 1 man bands. Many fp firms have access to centrelink bank statements aml ID and more sensitive info. Such rubbish. Treasury cost this but not csolr. They want to drive advisers out clearly vote Liberal
Many accounting practices are small businesses. Just another kick in the guts for financial planners. For anyone considering it as a career please don’t do it.
The same Treasury and ATO that decided SMSFs can’t be audited by the same accounting firm that does the accounts. Or any other Australian accounting firm to be sent more than a couple of audits.
So what Treasury and the ATO did was force over 600,000 SMSF’s with every bit of SMSF client financial, personal, & investment detail to be sent offshore to 3rd world countries audit farms.
Yep Treasury and the ATO forced over a $$$ Trillion dollars, 1/3 of Australians retirement savings detailed info to be scattered globally.
Talk about Cyber Security risks.
Let’s see the Treasury consultation on this unbelievable Cyber security data dump.
What a load of nonsense! No more risk than accountants and advisers already have authorised access to sensitive data via other key govt agencies like Centrelink and non govt institutions like financial product manufacturers etc! Advisers typically hold a wider array of sensitive data on clients financial and personal details than accountants due to the nature of our advice. How anyone let alone Treasury can argue the people most in need of access to superannuation data to provide accurate, timely, critical advice to clients shouldn’t have access to it is classic Yes Minister absurdity!
“This would be a significant cost to taxpayers for granting access to a relatively small cohort of financial advisers”
By this, you mean basically every financial adviser who gives superannuation advice? Which is likely 10,000+ of the 16,000 or so who are registered?
How about instead of shutting the idea down by giving an excuse, you give it genuine due diligence and investigate how this could be feasible?
Does anyone know where this report can be accessed in full?
This is absolute rubbish. Is anyone in government actually interested in helping more Australians access affordable financial advice. It is a massive waste of financial advisers time having to either:
Name one thing the current federal government has done since coming to power that has made our job easier………
Not happening
There are a few corrupt Treasury Officials that simply don’t like Advisers because they rolled out of CSS and lost their life time pension, moving into an AMP Flexible Super with a 5% entry fee and we’ve being paying for it ever since. Now any staff left, went and got Advice from Dixon Advisory.
Have a long hard think about that.
If you don’t believe me than, seriously who writes legislation like Anniversary Dates and Qualified Advisers, not to mention FASEA. If you think I’m wrong name me one piece of legislation that has been good for Advice post 2012 that didn’t cost us an arm and a leg.
The only way to get this resolved is to pay them. Yes, we’ve moved to the Argentinian like public service , where corruption is rife.
Do I need to say anymore ?
Where is Milei when you need him?
Policy makers changed the superannuation system and introduced a whole new layer of complexity with Total Super Balance (TSB) and Pension Balan Transfer Caps (PBTC). This was their design, not ours.
To have legislated obligations on advisers to provide best interest advice to clints (which we did already!) and not give us the relevant tools to confirm the client caps is ludicrous.
If you don’t want to grant advisers access and the tools we need to do our jobs, then why not reverse this legislation targeted at filling Government coffers and remove the PBTC and TSB?
You can’t have it both ways. Deadset muppets.
As a professional in this industry, it’s comforting to know that Treasury trusts us enough to help Centrelink facilitate better client outcomes, comply with AML/CTF legislation (including the fancy new Green ID protocols), and assist clients directly with Centrelink applications—but apparently, allowing us access to the ATO portal is a bridge too far.
Instead, we’re expected to rely on accountants—who often send sensitive information unencrypted, no less—to provide what we need. Because that’s clearly a more secure and efficient process.
It’s baffling that after years of demonstrating our competence, professionalism, and commitment to acting in clients’ best interests, we’re still treated like we can’t be trusted. How about this: before publishing policies that dismiss the realities of our profession, try asking the average adviser who’s actually on the ground working with clients.
It might just save everyone a lot of time and effort or the work experience kid a lot of their effort
PS. CPT Hot Mess it’s still back to you… post election.