In this edition, we cover new voluntary guidance on climate-related transition planning and what it signals for boards, ASIC’s Corporate Plan 2026–27 and the appointment of provisional liquidators to 12 companies following persistent failures to comply with financial reporting obligations.
In Risk Radar, we cover the joint warning from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that awareness of frontier AI risk must now be converted into tested action, and what regulators’ expectations mean for boards.
Governance
Treasury releases guidance for organisations undertaking climate transition planning.
On 24 August 2026, the Commonwealth Treasury published voluntary guidance on climate-related transition planning, which provides general information in the form of principles, supporting resources and illustrative examples that may assist organisations in undertaking their internal reviews. The development of a climate transition plan is not mandatory (unlike climate-related financial disclosure for certain organisations), although if an organisation is subject to sustainability reporting obligations and has developed a climate transition plan, it may be required to disclose certain information about that plan.
For boards, their role in climate transition planning commences with setting or approving strategic ambitions to align any plans with business strategy. Boards should also establish governance arrangements and monitor progress and accountability (which may involve board oversight and delegation to committees and management). Effective governance and reporting arrangements promote compliance with directors’ duties and allow for climate transition planning and relevant key performance indicators to adapt as strategic ambitions are set or reset.
Regulatory
ASIC’s new corporate plan promises less friction for compliant businesses and closer scrutiny of AI.
On 26 August 2026, ASIC released its Corporate Plan 2026–27, which sets out ASIC’s priorities for 2026–27 and beyond. Key priorities identified by ASIC are the protection of consumers and small businesses, support for responsible innovation, reduction of unnecessary regulatory burden and strengthening confidence in the financial system. ASIC Chair, Ms Sarah Court, framed strong regulation and economic growth as complementary rather than competing objectives.
Among other things, ASIC has outlined a focus on consumer harms arising from the impact of AI use and scams, as well as a focus on improving access to and quality of registry data. The quality of financial reporting (including climate-related financial disclosure) remains an ongoing enforcement priority, with ASIC noting that it will adopt a risk-based and data driven approach to surveillance. ASIC has also committed to enhancing the usability and clarity of its guidance, improving its digital service offering and working more closely with other regulators on data collection, to simplify and modernise regulation.
Legal
Persistent statutory non-compliance prompts Court to appoint provisional liquidator to 12 companies, pending the final hearing of winding-up applications.
On 21 August 2026, ASIC announced that the New South Wales Supreme Court had appointed provisional liquidators to 12 companies, pending the determination of proceedings to wind up those companies. Mr Christopher Edwards, an accountant and former solicitor, was a director and the ultimate owner of each of the 12 companies. The companies owned real estate and had raised approximately $182 million from investors.
The companies had failed to comply with their financial obligations for several years and ASIC submitted that investor returns were funded from incoming investments or borrowings, rather than the companies’ own earnings. Justice Nixon found serious concerns regarding the management of the companies and their financial record keeping. Mr Edwards and each of the companies proffered undertakings to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of applications to wind up the companies. However, the Court found that the undertakings were insufficient and the Court could have no confidence that Mr Edwards or the companies would comply with them, given the adverse regulatory findings that had been made against Mr Edwards.
Directors are reminded that failure to comply with financial reporting obligations under the Corporations Act is a strict liability offence. Organisations must have proper accounting systems in place and should expect financial reporting compliance to be an ongoing focus of scrutiny by ASIC.
Risk Radar
APRA and ASIC set out expectations on managing frontier AI risk.
On 27 August 2026, APRA and ASIC jointly urged financial market entities to move from gaining awareness of risks linked to frontier AI to taking decisive action. This follows APRA calling on banks, insurers and superannuation trustees to ensure their information security practices are up to date, and ASIC publishing an open letter to industry similarly requesting that licensees and market participants strengthen their cyber resilience measures. As previously discussed in a G+T insight, frontier AI is amplifying cyber threats and compounding technology and operational risk at unprecedented speed, scale and sophistication. The central issue for boards is whether they can decide, act and recover when incidents strike faster, spread wider and cut across more interdependencies than before.
In June and July 2026, APRA and ASIC undertook roundtable discussions across industry, comprising over 380 entities and 600 attendees, to understand how entities are responding to frontier AI risks. Those discussions reinforced that in respect of cyber systems that affect critical operations, organisations should test backup and recovery arrangements, have strong identity controls and be able to effectively monitor and remediate technological vulnerabilities.
However, boards should be aware that weaknesses in governance and decision-making can be just as damaging as technical failures in cybersecurity, given the limited time available to resolve competing priorities once a crisis begins. Boards should test escalation triggers and pathways, have clear decision-making authority in the event of a crisis and undergo crisis exercises to test decision-making under pressure. Roundtable participants noted that decisions relating to risk appetite, escalation authority, supplier reliance, recovery priorities, communication strategies and resilience investment must be made by boards well ahead of a crisis.
APRA and ASIC described the roundtable as a whole-of-government response to an urgent threat, signalling that frontier AI preparedness is a priority area of regulatory scrutiny and organisations must act promptly to ensure they can demonstrate robust incident response, business continuity and disaster recovery plans.