Key Highlights

•  Treasury consulted on proposals to improve regulators' visibility of the managed investment scheme sector through enhanced data collection.

•  The SMSF Association argued reporting burdens should fall on the entities that generate and hold the data, not on SMSF trustees.

•  The consultation has closed with no decisions announced, and no new reporting obligation applies to SMSF trustees.

Collapses of managed investment schemes promoted to everyday investors have prompted a policy response in Canberra, and SMSFs are in the frame. Treasury has consulted on proposals to improve regulators' visibility of the managed investment scheme sector through enhanced data collection, announced by Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Daniel Mulino on 23 September 2026.

The SMSF Association has responded with a clear message: protect investors, but do not shift reporting burdens onto SMSF trustees simply because their funds are an identifiable source of money.

What the SMSF Association said

The association argued that SMSF trustees are investors in managed investment schemes and, as consumers, should not be required to hold or provide information that other entities should hold. It said the compliance burden should fall on the entities that generate, hold and can reliably report the data, such as responsible entities, platforms, Australian financial services licensees and other regulated intermediaries.

The association also said:

  • data about the source of an investment, such as an SMSF, should be kept separate from the distribution pathway, such as a platform or adviser, because they are different data points;
  • new reporting obligations should not be imposed on SMSF trustees merely because SMSFs are an identifiable source of scheme investment;
  • data collection should target demonstrated supervisory needs and lead to timely action when material risks are found; and
  • consumer harm can arise across a chain that includes lead generation, financial advice, super switching, platforms and the underlying scheme.

The association said the goal should be greater protection against misconduct and product failure without treating the SMSF structure itself as a source of risk.

What Treasury has proposed

The minister's 23 September media release says the managed investment scheme sector now includes thousands of schemes and around $3 trillion invested across registered and unregistered schemes. The consultation paper outlines three proposals: enhancing the information collected when a scheme is registered, introducing a recurring data collection for registered schemes, and improving visibility of the unregistered scheme sector. It also seeks views on rationalising existing data collections to reduce compliance burden over time. Submissions closed on 23 October 2026.

The release does not mention SMSFs specifically. The SMSF Association's concern is about how any new data requirements might be designed and who would carry the reporting load.

Why this is on the policy agenda

The consultation sits within a wider set of consumer protection measures for super fund members. On 19 October 2026, SMSF Association chief executive Peter Burgess questioned aspects of other proposed reforms, including a requirement for uniquely identifiable SMSF bank accounts, noting that many SMSFs have more than one account, and greater ATO visibility of performance for low-balance funds.

The policy concern is how risks build up before investors are harmed. The SMSF Association's submission acknowledges that harm can occur at any point in a chain that runs from lead generation and advice through to super switching, platforms and the underlying scheme, while arguing that SMSF trustees are generally the people harmed rather than the cause.

What it means for trustees now

At this stage the consultation has closed but no decisions have been announced, and no new reporting obligation applies to SMSF trustees. Trustees should not assume any particular outcome until Treasury and the government announce final decisions.

The more immediate lesson is about due diligence. Whatever data regulators eventually collect, SMSF trustees remain responsible for their own investment decisions. Before investing in any unlisted managed investment scheme, trustees can ask:

  • Who is the responsible entity, and does it hold an Australian financial services licence?
  • Is there a current product disclosure statement and target market determination, and does the fund fit the target market?
  • How is the scheme valued, how often, and by whom?
  • How easily can the investment be redeemed, and what happens if redemptions are frozen?
  • How did the opportunity come to the trustee's attention, and is anyone being paid for the referral?

Fit with the investment strategy

SMSF trustees must also consider whether an investment fits the fund's investment strategy, including diversification, liquidity and members' circumstances. A concentrated position in a single illiquid scheme may be hard to justify, particularly where members are close to or in retirement and need cash to pay pensions. Recording the reasons for the decision helps both the trustee and the auditor.

Hypothetical example

A hypothetical trustee couple receive an unsolicited call offering a fixed 9 per cent return from a property development scheme, with help to roll their super into a new SMSF. Before proceeding, they check the responsible entity's licence, read the disclosure documents, consider liquidity against their pension needs and seek independent advice. They decide the investment does not suit their strategy.

Takeaway

Treasury's managed investment scheme data proposals are aimed at earlier detection of risk, and the SMSF Association wants the burden to sit with product issuers and intermediaries rather than trustees. Whatever the outcome, trustees remain the first line of defence: careful due diligence and a documented investment strategy are still essential.