AI Agents for Australian Mortgage Brokers: The File
An AI phone agent can work a mortgage broker’s file — enquiry triage, document chasing, bookings, status updates — but it cannot form the best-interests judgement. Section 158LA of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 puts that on the licensee, carries a civil penalty of 5,000 penalty units, and has applied since 1 January 2021.
- The duty is personal. s 158LA (licensees), s 158LE (credit representatives) — 5,000 penalty units each.
- “Credit assistance” is defined. s 8 catches suggesting or assisting a consumer to apply for a particular contract with a particular credit provider.
- ASIC RG 273.21: evidence of compliance “will come predominantly from the broker’s records”.
- Audio counts. RG 273.167 lists audio recordings, file notes of conversations and call scripts as acceptable records.
- Credit reporting is its own regime. Privacy Act s 6H(1): while a broker is acting as a credit provider’s agent on an application, it is a credit provider — Part IIIA, not just the APPs.
- Hardship is an escalation. National Credit Code s 72(1) lets a debtor give a hardship notice “orally or in writing”.
What the best interests duty actually says
Part 3-5A was inserted after the Hayne Royal Commission. Section 158LA is one sentence: “The licensee must act in the best interests of the consumer in relation to the credit assistance.” Section 158LB adds the conflict priority rule: where the licensee knows or reasonably ought to know of a conflict, it “must give priority to the consumer’s interests when providing the credit assistance”. Sections 158LE and 158LF mirror both for credit representatives; 158LE(2) and 158LF(2) require the licensee to “take reasonable steps to ensure” the representative complies. Section 15B defines who is caught.
ASIC’s guidance is Regulatory Guide 273 (issued 24 June 2020; no later version listed on the ASIC page, checked 4 September 2026). On delegation, RG 273.18: “it is the sole responsibility of the broker to ensure the recommendation is in the consumer’s best interests.”
ASIC expects the evidence to come from the broker’s records
RG 273.21: “We expect that evidence of compliance with the best interests obligations will come predominantly from the broker’s records.” RG 273.165 lists what those include, among them “relevant conversations with the consumer” and the options and recommendation with reasons.
RG 273.167 confirms records “do not have to be paper based”, listing “file notes, including records of conversations”, “audio recordings” and “call scripts”. RG 273.169 adds a timing point: “Just drafting notes and creating records at the end of the process may not be as effective as taking a contemporaneous approach.” RG 273.176: “The use of technology may be helpful in demonstrating that a licensee has taken reasonable steps to ensure compliance by their representatives.”
The defensible claim is narrow: an agent improves the record, not the recommendation. The consent and recording wording sits in front of all of it.
Responsible lending: an agent collects, a person concludes
Section 115 prohibits credit assistance unless, within 90 days beforehand, the licensee made a preliminary assessment under s 116 plus the inquiries and verification in s 117. Section 117(1) requires “reasonable inquiries about the consumer’s requirements and objectives”, “reasonable inquiries about the consumer’s financial situation”, and “reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s financial situation”.
An agent can gather objectives, timelines, employment type, existing facilities and outstanding documents. What it cannot do is form the s 118 unsuitability view — that the consumer could not comply, or only with substantial hardship. Under s 120(1) the consumer can request the written assessment within seven years of the credit assistance quote.
Conflicted remuneration reaches the script
Division 4 of Part 3-5A bans conflicted remuneration in circumstances prescribed by the regulations — s 158N defines it as any benefit that “could reasonably be expected to influence the credit assistance provided to consumers”, and ss 158NB–158NF ban accepting and giving it. On the separate conflict priority rule, RG 273.157 says “product recommendation or aggregator software should not have in-built credit provider or product bias.” An agent’s prompt or lead routing that steers toward a panel lender is a systems problem, not a wording one.
Credit reporting sits outside the Australian Privacy Principles
Under Privacy Act 1988 s 6H(1), an entity “acting as an agent of a credit provider” performing a task reasonably necessary “in processing an application for credit made to the principal” is a credit provider while so acting. A broker is not automatically the lender’s agent, so this turns on the arrangement in each case. “Organisation” in s 6C excludes a small business operator, but ss 6G(1)(b) and 6H(1) both read “organisation or small business operator”, so the A$3 million turnover threshold in s 6D does not by itself keep a broker outside Part IIIA. Section 21G(1) then bars using or disclosing credit eligibility information except in listed circumstances — 2,000 penalty units. Section 21G(6) adds a record duty: the provider “must make a written note of that use or disclosure”, 500 penalty units. And under s 21G(7), where a credit provider is an APP entity, “Australian Privacy Principles 6, 7 and 8 do not apply to the provider in relation to credit eligibility information.” The Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2025 (F2025L00385, registered 25 March 2025, in force when checked 4 September 2026) adds s 22(1): credit providers must “maintain adequate records that evidence their compliance with Part IIIA of the Act, the Regulations and this CR Code”. More in our Privacy Act review notes.
Design and distribution obligations do reach brokers
We checked rather than assumed; the answer is yes. ASIC RG 274 (published 10 September 2024) at RG 274.20(c) says the obligations cover “credit facilities under the ASIC Act, such as credit contracts regulated under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009”, and RG 274.28(a) records that the Corporations Regulations extend “regulated persons” to “credit licensees and credit representatives within the meaning of the National Credit Act (see reg 7.8A.02(4))”. So a broker is a regulated person for a credit facility: Corporations Act s 994E(3) requires reasonable steps toward distribution consistent with the target market determination, s 994F(3) requires records of distribution information including complaint numbers, and s 994F(6) requires reporting a significant dealing inconsistent with the TMD to the person who made the determination within 10 business days.
Hardship: escalate immediately, every time
Section 72(1) of the National Credit Code (Schedule 1 to the National Credit Act) lets a debtor who considers they cannot meet their obligations give the credit provider a hardship notice “orally or in writing”. Section 72(5) then sets the clock — generally 21 days after the notice, or 21 days after information requested under s 72(2) arrives.
A broker is not usually the credit provider, so a distressed call to a broking office is not automatically a s 72 notice. That is no reason to let an autonomous agent handle it. A borrower in financial distress is the one caller who should be routed to a person on the same call, without a script, with the escalation logged; design that handoff deliberately. The calls themselves also sit under the ACMA Do Not Call regime.
Workflow, record, obligation: the decision table
This table is our reading of the provisions cited in it, not advice about your licence — confirm each line with your compliance adviser.
| Workflow step | Agent-suitable, on our reading? | What must be recorded | Provision cited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inbound enquiry triage | Yes, with disclosure | Time, channel, consent basis, what was asked and answered | s 117(1)(a); RG 273.165(e) |
| Capturing requirements and objectives | Yes — collect, never conclude | Verbatim objectives, timestamped at the call | s 117(1)(a); RG 273.169 |
| Chasing income and expense documents | Chase yes; a person verifies | Document, date, source, verification step | s 117(1)(b)–(c) |
| Comparing products or naming a lender | No | n/a — this is credit assistance | s 8(a); s 158LA |
| Presenting options and a recommendation | No | Options, recommendation, reasons | RG 273.165(g); RG 273.171–172 |
| Appointment booking and reminders | Yes | Bookings, reschedules, no-shows, attempt log | RG 273.165(e); DNCR rules |
| Status updates on a live application | Yes, factual only | What was told to the consumer, and when | RG 273.165(d)–(e) |
| Re-engaging stale leads | Yes to invite; no to suggest a named contract | Consent basis, DNCR wash, script version used | s 8(a); s 115(1) |
| Hardship or distress signals | No — escalate on the same call | Time detected, who took over, what the consumer said | National Credit Code s 72(1) |
| Post-settlement check-in | Yes | Consent, outcome, any complaint raised | Corporations Act s 994F(3) |
Zian AI is an autonomous sales-agent platform — phone, SMS, email and WhatsApp — built for the top of that table. SmartReach AI™ orchestrates message, channel and timing by country, industry and profile; PrecisionPitch AI™ split-tests scripts against real success outcomes. Zian has been running outbound acquisition since 2017 and has set 50,769+ qualified sales appointments. Zian holds no Australian credit licence and no finance-industry certification — everything below the “naming a lender” line stays with your licensee, as in other regulated verticals.
Frequently asked questions
Can an AI phone agent provide credit assistance?
Not without the licensee owning it. Section 8 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 defines credit assistance as suggesting that a consumer apply for, or assisting them to apply for, a particular credit contract with a particular credit provider — or suggesting they remain in one. An agent that names a lender and pushes toward an application is doing regulated work.
Does the best interests duty apply to my software vendor?
No. Sections 158LA and 158LE bind the licensee and the credit representative; 158LE(2) requires the licensee to “take reasonable steps to ensure” they comply. RG 273.179(d) expects licensees to “ensure that appropriate records are kept, which demonstrate the mortgage broker’s compliance”. A vendor can supply the evidence; it cannot absorb the obligation.
What records does ASIC expect if calls are handled by an agent?
The same ones as any other call, kept better. RG 273.167 of RG 273 lists “file notes, including records of conversations”, “audio recordings” and “call scripts” among acceptable record forms. RG 273.168 sets no fixed retention period, saying it “may vary depending on factors such as the loan term, the interest-only period and whether the consumer refinances”.
Can an AI agent take a hardship notice?
It should not try. A notice under s 72(1) of the National Credit Code may be given “orally or in writing”, and it goes to the credit provider — so a broker’s inbound line is usually not the right destination. Route any distress signal to a person immediately and record the escalation.
Does Zian hold an Australian credit licence?
No. Zian is a sales-agent platform. It is not an Australian credit licensee, not a credit assistance provider, and holds no finance-industry certification. Nothing here is legal or credit advice — it is a summary of what the Act, RG 273 and RG 274 say, and you should confirm your position with your compliance adviser.
Zian is in partnership-application beta, with no self-serve signup — if you run a broking group or an aggregator, Apply For Partnership.