Supervision from the record

A licensee answers for the advice its authorised representatives give. Recent ASIC cases look at what a licensee could see and what it did about it, not only at the policies it had on file. For specialty insurance, the most reliable thing a licensee can see is the record the placement itself creates. That same record can also help an AR network grow.

About one in five Australian insurance brokers now works as an authorised representative (AR) under another firm’s licence. NIBA counts 99 networks with five or more ARs, holding 5,563 AR appointments between them, with the ten largest holding about 70%. Most of this piece is about what the law and the cases ask of those networks, and why the usual way of meeting it is under strain.

What the licensee answers for

Three provisions set the position.

• Liability. Under sections 917A to 917F of the Corporations Act, a licensee is responsible to clients for the conduct of its representatives, as if it were its own.
• Supervision. Under section 912A(1)(ca), a licensee must take reasonable steps to ensure its representatives comply with the financial services laws. It must also have adequate resources, risk management systems and training, and provide its services efficiently, honestly and fairly.
• Reporting. A licensee must report certain breaches to ASIC within 30 days of first knowing of them, or being reckless about them (ASIC Regulatory Guide 78). It must also respond to complaints within set timeframes (RG 271).

Its professional indemnity insurance has to cover claims arising from its representatives’ conduct (RG 126). So a weakness in supervision becomes a regulatory risk, a client risk and an insurance risk at once.

What the cases say

Most recent enforcement on supervising representatives involves financial advice or wholesale licensees rather than general insurance networks. The obligations tested are the same for every licensee with representatives. These are the cases we think matter most, newest first.

Two individual cases in broking show the other side of the problem. In July 2026 a South Australian court sentenced a former broker who diverted 89 client premium payments, about $414,000, and falsified bank statements and cancelled clients’ policies to hide it. In July 2025 ASIC permanently banned a former broker, a director of an AR, after a conviction connected to fraudulent insurance documents.

Five lessons for a network

1. Self-reporting is not supervision. Lanterne admitted it lacked the people to monitor and supervise its representatives, and Sanlam that it lacked processes to review their compliance. Industry commentary on both, including Insurance Business in July 2026, reads them as showing that pro-forma self-assessments and AR self-reporting are not enough on their own. ASIC’s releases list the failures without putting it in those words, but the point follows. A representative who is getting it wrong is the least reliable source of evidence about it.

2. Resources have to grow with the network. Both Lanterne and Sanlam fell short on compliance staff for the number of representatives they had. A network that adds ARs faster than it adds reviewers is building the same gap. The question is not whether a network has a compliance team, but whether the team’s method scales.

3. A licensee is expected to act on what it can see. ASIC’s case against Interprac is undecided. But its claim shows how ASIC frames supervision. It alleges that the licensee responded inadequately to significant inflows into the funds and to reports of payments to an adviser’s companies. It also alleges the licensee answered client complaints with template responses and imposed no meaningful consequences for failings that audits repeatedly identified. Data the licensee held, or could have held, is part of the test.

4. The licensee answers for its representatives’ systems. In RI Advice the incidents happened at the AR practices, not at the licensee. The licensee was still found to lack adequate risk management across its network. Client data held in many representatives’ inboxes and spreadsheets is the licensee’s exposure.

5. Money and documents need a record the AR does not control. A representative who diverts premium or issues a false certificate will not report it. As Insurance Business noted, a licensee usually cannot see an AR’s trust account. A record of quotes, binds and cancellations that comes from the market’s side gives the licensee something to check the AR’s own account against.

Why supervision after the event struggles in specialty lines

In most networks, the licensee sees a specialty placement through files the AR puts together, a sample reviewed some months later and an attestation once a year. The evidence that matters is rarely in one place. Which markets were approached, what each quoted, how the wordings differed, what was disclosed and why one quote was chosen are spread across emails, insurer portals and attachments.

Specialty lines add judgement at every step. A professional indemnity, cyber or management liability placement involves choosing markets, comparing wordings that differ, applying limits within an AR’s authority and explaining the choice to a client. When the licensee reviews it later, it is reviewing the AR’s account of that work, not the work.

This method grows in cost with every AR added, and it finds problems late. On the cases above, both are the risks a licensee most needs to manage.

Supervising from the record

When an AR places a risk on a platform, the platform can record the work as it happens. The licensee then supervises the record, not a summary of it.

• The placement file is a by-product. Every market approached, every quote, the wording comparison, the disclosures given, the client report and the reason for the choice are captured as the AR works. The AR does not assemble it, and nobody edits it afterwards; corrections are added as new entries.
• Rules run on every placement. A limit above an AR’s authority is referred to the licensee before advice is given. A missing disclosure is flagged before a report is issued. A choice without a recorded reason, or a sudden concentration of business with one market, raises an exception for the compliance team.
• Review is weighted by risk. Files are drawn for review by each AR’s risk band, new ARs are reviewed more closely, and the draw itself is logged so the method can be shown.
• Registers are linked to files. Complaints, breaches and conflicts sit against the placements they concern, with response and reporting dates worked out.
• Attestations confirm facts the licensee already holds. The AR confirms or corrects what the platform recorded, instead of writing its own report.

Because this evidence comes from the work, it grows with the network without a matching rise in reviewers. It does not replace the compliance team’s judgement. It gives that judgement better material, sooner. Placements made off the platform still need the licensee’s existing process.

The same record grows the network

NIBA’s October 2026 research, produced with Community Broker Network, found that compliance frameworks are now standard across networks and no longer set them apart. Brokers choose networks for culture, support and the tools they could not afford to build alone. A platform that does the supervision also does several things a network can sell to its ARs and its markets.

• Tools for ARs. One submission to every market that wants the risk, quotes side by side, a client report built from the record, renewal and cross-sell rounds across a book, and client acquisition through industry funnels and association schemes the licensee signs off.
• Placement share as it happens. Which markets the network’s ARs approach, which quote and which win the business, by class.
• Partner terms on evidence. Service levels, appetite and brokerage agreed with preferred markets, and reviewed against those figures.
• Feedback on markets. After each placement the AR scores each market it dealt with from 0 to 10, using the Net Promoter Score method, and says what drove the score. A market sees only its own combined score for each class, once there are enough ratings from enough ARs.
• Data the network can sell. Large broking groups already charge insurers for data and placement services. A network can do the same with partner, feedback, benchmarking and targeting packs, priced the same for every market.

These carry conflicts, and they need rules stated in advance. A preferred market is flagged beside its quote, never hidden from ARs or moved up the list, and the client report states the arrangement. Data pack prices do not depend on premium placed or preferred status. Benchmarks are aggregated across several markets so that no market sees another’s pricing, and the arrangements should be checked against competition law and recorded in the conflicts register.

Professional indemnity

When a network’s PI insurance renews, insurers ask how it supervises its representatives. A network that can show complete placement files, disclosures checked before reports are issued, referral rules that stop placements outside authority, and exceptions worked with a dated note has a better answer than one relying on attestations. That may help its broker present the risk. It does not decide the premium; the insurer does.

Questions for a licensee

A network can test its own position with six questions.

1. For any specialty placement last quarter, can you show every market approached, every quote and the reason for the choice, without asking the AR?
2. How much of your supervision evidence was written by the representative being supervised?
3. Which of your ARs grew fastest last quarter, in which class, and with which market?
4. How long after a missing disclosure would you find out?
5. If a client’s policy were cancelled without the client knowing, what record would show it?
6. When your number of ARs rises, does your compliance team’s method scale, or only its headcount?

Where Cuttleflow sits

We have built a demonstration of a network portal on the Cuttleflow Marketplace, under a fictional network’s name. It shows supervision from the placement record, and the placement share, market feedback and data packs that come from the same record. It is available to AR licensees on request. The Cuttleflow Marketplace is not yet open for live business, and each class opens only when its conditions, including licensing advice, are met.

Sources

1. ASIC sues Interprac over alleged Shield and First Guardian licensee failures, ASIC media release 25-274MR, 13 November 2025, with case updates to July 2026
2. Sanlam admits to inadequate oversight of authorised representatives, ASIC media release 24-290MR, 23 December 2024
3. ASIC action results in $1.25 million court-imposed penalty against AFSL licensee-for-hire firm, ASIC media release 24-071MR, 11 April 2024
4. AFS licensees on notice: cyber risks are taken seriously by ASIC and the courts, Sparke Helmore, May 2022
5. Sentencing exposes supervision gap in authorised representative networks, Insurance Business, 14 July 2026
6. Fraud case ends broker’s career in permanent ASIC ban, Insurance Business, July 2025
7. Brokers now choosing networks for culture over compliance, NIBA research reveals, Insurance Business, 23 October 2026
8. Top 20 AR networks report examines key issues, Insurance News, 24 August 2026
9. The AR advantage, Insurance News magazine, August 2026

This piece summarises public court documents, ASIC releases and industry reporting as at 10 November 2026. It is general information, not legal advice. The Interprac matter has not been decided, and ASIC’s claims in it are allegations. Cuttleflow Pty Limited trading as Cuttleflow Systems is a software provider. It does not hold an Australian financial services licence and does not issue, arrange or advise on insurance.

Cuttleflow Systems · Perspective 28 · 33°53′S · 151°16′E · Sydney