A parliamentary report supports bringing crypto platforms into Australia’s financial services regime, but warns key details remain unresolved.
An Australian Senate committee has endorsed a bill that would bring cryptocurrency platforms and custody providers under the country’s existing financial services framework, marking a further step in the country’s efforts to formalise oversight of digital assets.
The proposed Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 would create a licensing and compliance regime for digital token managers by amending the Companies Act and the ASIC Act.
The legislation aims to align crypto market infrastructure more closely with traditional financial services regulation, placing exchanges, custodians and other service providers under the supervision of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
According to the committee’s report, the bill is intended to “establish a framework for the regulation of digital asset platforms and related service providers”, bringing them within the scope of Australia’s existing financial services regime.
The proposed regime would introduce licensing requirements for firms dealing in digital assets, alongside obligations relating to custody, transaction execution and operational standards. It also sets out definitions for digital tokens and the concept of control, reflecting an attempt to map decentralised asset structures onto established regulatory principles.
The report notes that this includes a framework based on “factual control” of digital assets, rather than traditional ownership constructs.
While the committee endorsed the bill in principle, the report repeatedly highlights concerns that significant elements of the framework remain undefined. Much of the operational detail is expected to be determined through secondary legislation and regulatory guidance, leaving industry participants without a complete picture of how compliance would work in practice.
The report states that the legislation “provides a high-level framework, with many of the substantive obligations to be set out in future rules or regulations”, a structure that drew scrutiny during the inquiry.
Not everyone is on board
Submissions to the committee reflected a degree of support for the introduction of a regulatory regime, particularly in light of global developments in digital asset oversight. However, stakeholders also raised concerns about uncertainty, with calls for clearer guidance on licensing requirements, compliance expectations and supervisory processes.
The report notes that industry participants “expressed support for appropriate regulation but emphasised the need for clarity and certainty in the proposed framework”, particularly given the pace of change in digital finance.
The committee’s findings place the proposed legislation within a broader international context, where jurisdictions including the European Union, the UK and parts of Asia have already advanced frameworks for cryptoassets and related services. The report observes Australia’s progress has been uneven, noting that earlier reform momentum has “stalled” in recent years.
Who should do what?
Alongside technical considerations, the report contains pointed commentary on the role of government in shaping the regulatory agenda. It highlights concerns that regulators may be operating without sufficient strategic direction, stating that key policy tools have not been updated and that this has implications for how frameworks such as the digital assets bill are implemented.
Under the proposed model, ASIC would play a central role in translating the legislative framework into operational requirements. This includes setting standards for custody arrangements, defining how platforms manage client assets, and overseeing compliance with licensing conditions. The report indicates that much of the regime’s effectiveness will depend on how these responsibilities are exercised in practice.
The legislation also reflects a broader trend in financial regulation, where emerging technologies are increasingly being brought within existing legal structures rather than governed through entirely new regimes. By extending the current financial services framework to cover digital assets, policymakers appear to be seeking continuity with established supervisory approaches.
However, the report acknowledges this approach introduces complexity, particularly given the structural differences between traditional financial instruments and decentralised digital tokens. It notes that further refinement may be required once the framework is operational, recommending that the regime be subject to a formal review after implementation.
Specifically, the committee recommends a statutory review after two years to assess how the framework is functioning and to identify any gaps or unintended consequences.
