Treasury's payments modernisation reforms: what payment service providers must do now
The current framework for regulating payments will be repealed and replaced with a modernised, technology neutral, activity-based regime focused on what entities do. This contrasts with our current framework which is built around the non-cash payment facility financial product in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and purchased payment facilities in the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 (Cth).
The reforms introduce new types of financial products - SVFs, tokenised SVFs, and payment instruments - and three new categories of financial services - payment initiation, facilitation, and technology/enablement services. The key regulatory question shifts from whether an entity provides services in relation to a particular type of product to whether it performs one of the following regulated payment functions:1
| Term | What is covered? |
|---|---|
| Payment product | |
| Stored value facility | A facility under which funds are held and can be redeemed including by making a non-cash funds transfer (i.e. a payment). e.g., digital wallet facilities which store value, prepaid cards |
| Tokenised stored value facility | SVF where each right to redeem is in a token denominated in a single currency and can be exercised by a person possessing that token. e.g., stablecoin issuers |
| Payment instrument | A facility that provides the terms on which a person can use a method to make a non-cash funds transfer. Many products which are currently non-cash payment facilities will be payment instruments. e.g., debit cards |
| Payment service | |
| Payment initiation service | Activities undertaken by a provider that has the effect of initiating a non-cash funds transfer by another, and the provider is not the payee, payer, or issuer of the payment instrument or facility from which funds are transferred. e.g., services for merchants to direct debit a customer's account |
| Payment facilitation service | A service where funds are transferred to a provider on the basis that the funds will be further transferred in accordance with the instructions for the non-cash funds transfer. e.g., merchant acquiring services, remittance services. Note this can be provided by one PSP to another |
| Payment technology and enablement service | A service where the provider: (i) verifies the payer’s identity; (ii) transmits an instruction for the making or receiving of the transfer or transfers; or (iii) transmits any information necessary for producing such an instruction, e.g., payment gateways, digital wallet services where virtual cards can be added to a wallet application held by the customer and then used to make payments |
In short, any entity that touches a payment flow in a meaningful way should consider how it might be in-scope, regardless of whether it has traditionally been considered a financial services provider.
Many PSPs that are currently unlicensed or that operate as authorised representatives would need to obtain an AFSL. These entities will be supervised by ASIC and will need to comply with all relevant obligations. The regulatory burden for smaller or lower-risk entities can be managed by relying on an authorised representative. However, this carries its own compliance obligations and limitations, including reliance on the licensee's compliance framework and potential restrictions on the scope of authorised activities.
In addition, SVF providers who hold more than the proposed minimum amount of AUD 200 million,2 and designated payment facilitation service providers, must register with APRA under a new prudential framework . Unlike the current PPF framework this will not be a form of ADI. Mid-tier SVF providers and growing payment platforms will need to continually assess whether they fall within APRA's supervisory perimeter.
The reforms clarify the respective roles of ASIC (as conduct regulator and licensor), APRA (as prudential regulator for designated payment facilitation service providers and major SVF providers), and the RBA (retaining its oversight of the payments system and designation powers under the PSRA). From an enforcement perspective, ASIC will have the power to take action against unlicensed entities and those in breach of their licence conditions, including through civil penalties, enforceable undertakings, and licence suspension or cancellation. The tripartite model places a premium on effective regulatory coordination, and entities subject to dual or triple oversight (e.g., by both ASIC and APRA, ASIC and the RBA, or ASIC, APRA and the RBA) should anticipate the need for robust internal governance and reporting frameworks.
Providers of SVFs will be subject to specific obligations, including:
The voluntary ePayments Code will be replaced by a mandatory code by Ministerial legislative instrument. A code may cover ADIs, APRA regulated PSPs, any participant in a payment system under the PSRA, or any entity acting on their behalf. A code could cover some entities who are not otherwise regulated, if the proposal is enacted without change.
An ePayments Code could include provisions relating to unauthorised transactions, terms and conditions on which services are offered, external dispute resolution, error resolution, and disclosure requirements. This is intended to ensure a baseline level of consumer protection applies across the same class of PSP rather than only those who voluntarily subscribe to the ePayments Code.
The reforms adopt a broad, activities-based approach, meaning that many entities performing a regulated payment function will be captured. See above for a high level view of who is captured.
The draft legislation and regulations contemplate retaining many existing exemptions. Key exemptions and exclusions include intra-group arrangements, low-value SVF which hold less than $10 million and no more than $1,000 per person, loyalty schemes, gift facilities and prepaid mobile facilities.
This differs from earlier proposals which considered replacing many of these with a 'limited-purpose' exemption. However, the precise scope of these carve-outs remains subject to consultation.
Entities should assess whether any of their activities fall within an exemption before assuming they are in or out of scope.
Although the reforms are still subject to consultation, the core architecture of the new regime is settled. Waiting for full regulatory certainty before acting would be a significant strategic risk. Any entity that touches a payment flow in a meaningful way should take proactive steps to understand the potential impact of the reforms on their business:
This publication is a joint publication from Ashurst Australia and Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd, which are part of the Ashurst Group.
The Ashurst Group comprises Ashurst LLP, Ashurst Australia and their respective affiliates (including independent local partnerships, companies or other entities) which are authorised to use the name "Ashurst" or describe themselves as being affiliated with Ashurst. Some members of the Ashurst Group are limited liability entities.
Ashurst Australia (ABN 75 304 286 095) is a general partnership constituted under the laws of the Australian Capital Territory.
Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd is a proprietary company registered in Australia and trading under ABN 74 996 309 133.
The services provided by Ashurst Risk Advisory Pty Ltd do not constitute legal services or legal advice, and are not provided by Australian legal practitioners in that capacity. The laws and regulations which govern the provision of legal services in the relevant jurisdiction do not apply to the provision of non-legal services.
For more information about the Ashurst Group, which Ashurst Group entity operates in a particular country and the services offered, please visit www.ashurst.com.
This material is current as at 16 April 2026 but does not take into account any developments to the law after that date. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and in practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to, and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is general in nature, and does not take into account and is not intended to apply to any specific issues or circumstances. Readers should take independent legal advice. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from Ashurst. While we use reasonable skill and care in the preparation of this material, we accept no liability for use of and reliance upon it by any person.