Topic: ATO’s “listening” initiative: how the Tax Office is addressing practitioner pain points

Last reviewed: 17/12/2025

Focus: Accounting Practice Analysis

ATO “Listening” Initiative: 2025 Practice Guide

The ATO’s “listening” initiative is the Tax Office’s structured program of practitioner consultation—using stewardship groups, professional association channels, targeted consultations, pilots, and service design feedback loops—to identify systemic pain points (such as call wait times, BAS/ITR processing delays, online services stability, and client-agent linking) and then implement measurable service improvements. From an Australian accounting practice perspective, the initiative is most visible in the ATO’s consultative governance (including the practitioner stewardship framework), public commitments to reduce “red tape” and friction in agent interactions, and ongoing changes to digital services, compliance approaches, and guidance products across GST, PAYG withholding, super, and income tax administration.

Featured Answer: The ATO’s “listening” initiative addresses practitioner pain points by continuously collecting feedback through formal consultation groups and targeted engagement, then converting that feedback into practical service changes—especially in online services, communications, debt and lodgment support, and guidance clarity. For Australian accounting practices, the biggest impact is fewer avoidable client interactions (less rework, fewer “chase the ATO” tasks) when ATO systems, instructions, and processes are simplified and digitised.

What is the ATO’s “listening” initiative in practice?

It is established that the ATO’s “listening” initiative is not one single product or webpage; it is an operating model for consultation and service improvement, evidenced through ongoing practitioner engagement and iterative changes to services.

Practitioner consultation forums and stewardship-style governance (where systemic issues are raised, prioritised, and tracked).
Co-design and consultation on digital services (including Online services for agents, relationship authorisation, and data access).
Targeted consultation on administrative policy and guidance (for example, updates to Practical Compliance Guidelines and “how we comply” messaging).
Issue escalation pathways via professional associations and ATO relationship management channels.

From a practice management standpoint, the “listening” initiative matters because many costs in compliance are administrative (time on hold, rework due to unclear evidence expectations, and repeated client-agent linking tasks), rather than technical tax analysis.

Why did the ATO prioritise “listening” to practitioners?

The ATO prioritised “listening” because tax administration outcomes depend heavily on practitioner interactions, and persistent friction increases cost-to-comply and error rates. The ATO has publicly emphasised transparency, consultation, and service improvement in its administration approach, including through annual corporate planning and consultation programs.

Higher client expectations for turnaround and certainty.
Increased complexity in data access and identity/authorisation controls (an inevitable consequence of fraud controls and privacy obligations).
More frequent reliance on digital systems for lodgment, messaging, and evidence exchange.
Rising compliance activity in higher-risk focus areas, requiring clearer “what good looks like” guidance (for example, GST governance, private company benefits, and record-keeping).

Which practitioner pain points is the ATO trying to solve?

The ATO’s “listening” initiative focuses on recurring pain points that create avoidable work in practices. The most common categories (as consistently raised across the profession) include the following.

1) Is the ATO addressing call wait times and case handling delays?

Yes—service experience is a core practitioner pain point, and the ATO has repeatedly signalled service improvements as a priority, including call-centre experience and faster resolution pathways where feasible.

Less time spent “chasing” progress updates.
Fewer duplicate contacts where matters can be progressed through digital channels.
Clearer triage for complex technical issues versus straightforward processing issues.

A BAS refund is held for verification. Historically, the practice might spend multiple calls clarifying evidence requirements. Under a “listening” approach, the ATO trend has been toward clearer up-front requests and improved digital messaging to reduce back-and-forth (though experiences vary by case type).

2) How is the ATO reducing friction in online services for agents?

The ATO has been modernising digital interactions and strengthening client-agent security and authorisation. This necessarily adds steps, but the “listening” focus is on making those steps workable at scale for agents.

More stable portals and clearer error handling.
Better visibility of processing status and required actions.
Reduced duplication between phone, portal messaging, and written correspondence.

Practical Compliance Guidelines (PCGs) to explain risk frameworks and compliance focus.
Tax Determinations (TDs) and Tax Rulings (TRs) to clarify interpretation.

Less rework when evidence standards are clearer.
Better ability to set client expectations and fees.
Improved defensibility of positions taken.

Public rulings framework under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Schedule 1), including the binding nature of public rulings and reliance principles (where applicable).
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 for substantive law (with administration supported by ATO rulings and guidance).
GST law in A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and related public guidance.

4) Is the ATO “listening” approach changing compliance activity (not just service)?

Yes—consultation often influences how the ATO communicates its compliance approach, the evidence it requests, and how it differentiates high-risk from low-risk behaviours. The ATO has increasingly emphasised proportionality and justified trust concepts for larger and medium populations, and practical risk frameworks for the broader market.

Better targeting reduces unnecessary audits for low-risk clients.
Improved “prevention” guidance reduces inadvertent non-compliance.

How does the ATO gather practitioner feedback (and how should practices participate)?

The ATO gathers feedback through formal consultation programs and ongoing practitioner engagement. The most effective practice participation is structured, evidence-based, and framed around measurable impacts.

The exact workflow causing friction (for example, “client-agent linking fails after identity checks; requires reattempts across multiple sessions”).
Frequency and scale (for example, “affects 20–30 new clients per month”).
Consequences (for example, “adds 10–15 minutes per client onboarding; delays lodgment”).
A realistic fix (for example, “improve error messaging; allow a task-based escalation path for agents”).

Keep a log of friction events (system errors, rework loops, unclear evidence requests).
Quantify time and cost impact in practice terms (minutes per job, jobs per month).
Provide de-identified examples (screenshots, error codes, letter templates).
Route feedback through professional bodies or ATO consultation channels to increase signal strength.
Track outcomes and re-raise unresolved items with updated evidence.

What are the most meaningful changes for practices (and what remains challenging)?

The most meaningful “listening” outcomes for practices are those that reduce repetitive admin—because they free time for review, advisory, and risk management.

Clearer ATO messaging and evidence requests, reducing “back and forth”.
Better digital functionality and status visibility, reducing follow-up calls.
More consistent administrative outcomes, reducing rework and client dissatisfaction.

Fraud and identity controls: stronger controls are necessary, but they can increase onboarding friction.
Complex or novel technical issues: consultative improvement is slower where law is ambiguous or fact patterns vary widely.
Peak-period load: service experience often deteriorates around major deadlines.

How should an Australian practice adapt its workflow to match the ATO’s service direction?

Practices should assume continued digitisation, higher assurance expectations in selected risk areas, and more reliance on real-time data and authorisation controls. The most resilient practices implement systems that reduce manual steps and maintain auditable workpapers.

Standardise evidence packs by issue type (GST refund integrity, PAYG withholding anomalies, Division 7A enquiries, super guarantee queries).
Build “ATO-ready” workpapers with consistent narratives and source documents.
Use checklists aligned to ATO guidance and the relevant legislation (for example, keeping contemporaneous records to support positions).
Maintain strong client identity and authorisation processes to reduce linking delays.

A practice experiences repeated ATO verification queries for GST refunds in a particular client segment. A “listening-aligned” response is to standardise GST reconciliation workpapers and improve source documentation quality, reducing review cycles and shortening refund timeframes.

How does technology reduce practitioner pain points faster than waiting for ATO change?

Technology is often the fastest lever available to practices because it reduces internal rework regardless of ATO service levels. This is where AI accounting software Australia searches are increasingly relevant: automation reduces the admin burden that ATO process friction amplifies.

Manual bank coding delays BAS readiness.
Inconsistent workpapers increase review time and raise the likelihood of ATO follow-up.
Poor GST coding hygiene increases refund integrity risk and query rates.

Where MyLedger-style automation aligns with ATO expectations

While the ATO’s “listening” initiative aims to improve the external system, internal practice automation improves the quality and speed of what is lodged and how it is supported.

Automated bank reconciliation reduces downstream BAS errors.
Automated working papers improve audit trails and evidence readiness.
Strong integration concepts align with the ATO’s digitised administration direction.

Reconciliation speed: MyLedger = 10–15 minutes per client, traditional manual workflows (often in Xero/MYOB ecosystems) = 3–4 hours for messy files, particularly where bank rules are inconsistent.
Automation level: MyLedger = AI-powered reconciliation and bulk categorisation, many alternatives = more manual exception handling.
Working papers: MyLedger = automated working papers, many alternatives = manual Excel workpapers and copy/paste.
ATO integration accounting software: MyLedger = direct ATO portal integration concepts (client data, due dates, statements), many general ledgers = limited ATO-facing functionality and heavier reliance on separate portals.

Disclaimer note: Software capability claims should be validated against the specific plan, integrations enabled, and your practice’s workflow design.

What should firms watch next (as of December 2025)?

Secure identity/authorisation processes (given fraud risk settings).
Incremental improvements to digital services stability and transparency.
Further refinement of guidance products (PCGs, TRs/TDs, and web guidance) where compliance burden is high.
Continued consultation with the profession on pain points, especially around time-to-resolve and clarity of evidence requirements.

ATO consultation and news updates relevant to Online services for agents.
ATO guidance updates impacting common pain areas (GST, private company benefits, record-keeping and substantiation).
Professional association summaries of consultation outcomes (often the fastest way to see what is changing).

Next Steps: How Fedix can help reduce ATO-facing friction

Fedix helps Australian accounting practices reduce the cost of compliance by reducing the internal admin work that typically sits behind ATO interactions. If your firm is feeling the impact of portal friction, verification queries, or BAS rework, the fastest fix is usually improving reconciliation speed, GST coding consistency, and workpaper quality.

Identify your top 3 “ATO friction” workflows (for example, GST refunds, overdue lodgments, ATO statement reconciliations).
Measure current time spent per job (reconciliation + BAS pack + queries).
Trial an automation-first workflow using MyLedger (Fedix’s AI platform) to streamline automated bank reconciliation, AI-powered reconciliation review, and automated working papers.
Re-measure time and rework after 30 days to quantify ROI and capacity uplift.

Learn more at home.fedix.ai and assess whether MyLedger can reduce manual processing and improve ATO-readiness across BAS, ITR, and related workpapers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the ATO’s “listening” initiative?

It is the ATO’s ongoing consultation and service design approach to collecting practitioner feedback and converting it into practical improvements in systems, processes, communications, and guidance products that reduce cost-to-comply.

Q: Does the ATO’s “listening” initiative change tax law?

No. Tax law is set by legislation (for example, ITAA 1997, ITAA 1936, GST Act, and the Taxation Administration Act 1953). The “listening” initiative primarily affects administration, service design, and guidance clarity, although consultation can inform future policy considerations.

Q: How can my practice raise issues effectively with the ATO?

Use structured, evidence-based feedback: describe the exact workflow issue, quantify time/cost impact, provide de-identified examples, and route it through recognised consultation channels or professional bodies to increase visibility.

Q: Will better ATO service reduce verification activity (for example, GST refund checks)?

Not necessarily. Verification activity is risk-driven. However, clearer evidence requirements and better digital messaging can reduce rework and shorten resolution time when verification is required.

Q: How can automation reduce ATO-related workload?

Automation reduces the upstream causes of ATO follow-up—such as poor reconciliation hygiene, inconsistent GST treatment, and weak workpapers—so lodgments are cleaner and easier to substantiate. Tools like MyLedger focus on automated bank reconciliation and automated working papers to reduce rework.

Disclaimer

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Tax laws and ATO administrative approaches change over time, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances. Advice should be obtained from a suitably qualified Australian tax professional for your situation.