The levy-funded Compensation Scheme of Last Resort will need $198.1 million this financial year to pay eligible claims – more than previously estimated.

Last November, the scheme calculated it would require $137.5 million for FY27, much more than it collects in levies from four financial services subsectors: personal financial advice, credit providers, credit intermediaries and securities dealers.

The CLSR had said it expected to make a higher levy estimate and would ask for a special charge to cover the funding gap.

Now it says: “The initial FY27 levy estimate published in November 2025 excluded any impacts of Shield and First Guardian Master Funds due to limited available information.

“Since November 2025, details have emerged relating to the potential size and scale of compensation required from the CSLR in relation to Shield and First Guardian Master Fund failures; consequently, the revised estimate now incorporates an allowance for claims relating to these products.”

The personal advice sector needs about $190.3 million, according to the CSLR’s revised estimates, up from $126.9 million in November.

“As the expected amount for the personal financial advice subsector exceeds the subsector cap of $20 million, the CSLR is seeking a special levy for the FY27 period.”

In December, the federal government imposed a $47.3 million special levy for FY26 – the first time a special charge was ordered since the scheme started on April 2 2024.

The general insurance sector was ordered to contribute despite the scheme not covering non-life claims.

On the CSLR’s revised estimates, an Insurance Council of Australia spokesperson said: “The regulatory settings need to be right to prevent harm in the first place rather than simply penalising everyone else when things go wrong.

“The Insurance Council supports appropriate redress for consumers harmed by misconduct. That redress should be paid by the sector responsible, not by other highly regulated sectors that do not have the same problems.

“Levies on general insurers are ultimately paid by policyholders through their premiums. It is counterintuitive to add further costs to insurance customers at a time when affordability is under significant pressure.”