The Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill adds a new statutory regime for independent reviews of approved dispute resolution schemes. The Minister can require reviews, set how they are carried out, appoint reviewers, and require scheme operators to provide assistance and pay reviewers’ fees; scheme operators must respond to review reports and publish both the report and their response.
The bill also broadens the regulation-making power to prescribe board and chairperson membership standards (skills, disqualifications, and independence), tightens annual reporting to capture review outcomes, and inserts a provision that preserves the legal validity of appointments and board acts even if regulators’ membership rules are not strictly followed. These changes strengthen ministerial oversight and transparency while raising governance and cost implications for scheme operators and their members.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lets the Minister require independent reviews of approved dispute resolution schemes at least once every five years, specifies what a review notice may contain (terms, reviewer, fees, timings), and requires scheme operators to assist and to pay any agreed fees. It also empowers regulations to set board membership requirements and disqualifications, expands annual reporting content, and creates a rule that appointments and board acts remain valid despite regulatory non‑compliance.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are approved external dispute resolution scheme operators (the persons responsible for schemes), their boards and chairs, and the financial service providers that use or fund those schemes. It also affects independent reviewers, compliance and legal teams that prepare responses, and the Minister’s policy and oversight functions.
Why It Matters
This is a governance and accountability package: it gives the Crown clearer levers to audit scheme performance and to require structural safeguards for independence, while creating explicit payment and publication obligations. For compliance officers and providers, it reshapes oversight expectations, potential costs, and public transparency around dispute-resolution performance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of the bill is a new independent-review power. The Minister can give written notice requiring one or more approved dispute resolution schemes to undergo an independent review, and may specify the reviewer, terms of reference, timing, report format, and how review fees and expenses are to be calculated and allocated among scheme operators.
The Minister must consult each person responsible for a scheme before issuing such a notice, and must ensure every approved scheme is reviewed at least once every five years.
Scheme operators must cooperate with reviewers: they must give reasonable assistance and must not obstruct the review. The bill makes any fee or expense payable to a reviewer recoverable as a debt in court, so reviewers have a clear remedy if fees are unpaid.
After completing a review, the reviewer must deliver the report to the Minister and to each relevant scheme operator; the operator then has to respond in writing within three months, setting out how it has addressed or plans to address recommendations.Publication and reporting requirements raise transparency. Scheme operators must publish the reviewer’s report and their written response on a publicly available website within five working days of sending the response to the Minister.
The annual-report obligation is adjusted to require that reporting capture complaints data, any review reports received during the year, and any prescribed information. The Minister can also request further information related to the operator’s response to a review, and the operator must supply that information within the time and manner the Minister specifies.On governance, the bill expands the regulation head of power so regulations can prescribe board and chairperson membership requirements — including skills, grounds for disqualification, and independence safeguards (for example, limits on representation of industry participants).
Parliament also inserted an administrative safeguard: a new section says that appointments and acts of boards stay valid even if those regulatory membership requirements were not complied with. Finally, the Schedule includes a transitional rule that certain changes removing earlier rules about independent reviews do not need the usual notification or consultation steps.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister must ensure each approved dispute resolution scheme is independently reviewed at least once every five years.
A review notice may set the reviewer, terms of reference, timing, report form, and require scheme operators to pay reviewers’ fees and expenses.
Scheme operators must respond in writing to a reviewer’s report within three months and publish both the report and their response on a public website within five working days of providing the response to the Minister.
Regulations may prescribe required knowledge, skills, disqualifications, and independence rules for scheme boards, chairs, and deputies; but the bill also inserts a provision that validates appointments and board acts even if those regulatory requirements were not followed.
The Schedule prevents certain changes that remove prior independent‑review rules from being subject to the usual notification and consultation requirements (sections 65 and 66).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Minister‑ordered independent reviews, cooperation, and response duties
These new sections give the Minister an express power to require independent reviews of approved dispute resolution schemes and to set the mechanics of those reviews (who reviews, when, scope and reporting). They impose operational duties on scheme operators to assist reviewers and not obstruct reviews, make fee liability explicit, and require operators to respond publicly and to the Minister within set deadlines. Practically, this converts ad hoc scrutiny into a scheduled oversight mechanism with enforceable cooperation and publication requirements.
Annual reporting strengthened to include review outcomes
The annual report duty now specifically requires scheme operators to include complaints statistics, any independent review report received during the year, and any further information the regulations prescribe. That change integrates review outputs into regular public reporting and creates a paper trail linking operational metrics to governance responses.
Minister’s power to request follow‑up information
The Minister can request further information in connection with an operator’s response to a review, and the operator must supply the information within the time and manner the Minister specifies. This gives the Minister a follow‑up enforcement tool beyond publication — effectively a bespoke information‑gathering power tailored to each review’s findings.
Regulations may set board membership and independence rules
Regulations may now prescribe membership criteria for boards and chairs — specifying required skills, disqualification grounds, and measures to ensure reasonable independence from industry participants (including numerical limits on board members who represent industry). The bill contemplates both individual member requirements and collective board requirements, creating a mechanism for statutory minimum governance standards to be implemented by regulation rather than being hard‑coded in the Act.
Validity of appointments and acts despite regulatory non‑compliance
Section 79AAA preserves the validity of board appointments and board acts even if regulations under section 79(1)(caa) were not complied with. The provision prevents technical non‑compliance with membership regulations from invalidating past decisions or exposing the scheme to legal challenge on that basis, but it also weakens the immediate legal bite of the new regulatory membership standards.
Limitation on notification/consultation for removing certain rules
The Schedule adds a transitional/interpretive clause saying that specified procedural consultation rules (sections 65 and 66) do not apply to changes that remove rules about independent reviews (specifically rule content tied to the now‑repealed section 63(1)(q)). That allows administrators to strip older review provisions from scheme rules without conducting the usual notification or consideration steps, accelerating any cleanup of redundant provisions.
Technical edits linking approval and withdrawal powers to new requirements
Several existing approval and withdrawal provisions are tweaked so that the regulator can take compliance with any new prescribed requirements (for example, board membership rules) into account when approving or withdrawing scheme status. The bill also removes one preexisting rule reference and cleans up cross‑references to reflect the new review and reporting framework, tightening the statutory connections between governance standards and scheme approval.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Complainants and consumers — will gain greater transparency because reviewers’ reports and scheme responses must be published, and annual reports must include review outcomes and complaints data, making scheme performance easier to monitor publicly.
- The Minister and policy regulators — receive a formal, statutory review tool (including appointment power and follow‑up information powers) to scrutinise scheme effectiveness and to set expectations for governance and independence.
- Independent reviewers and professional advisers — obtain a clearer market for paid review work, with fees enforceable as debts, creating commercial opportunities for governance and dispute‑resolution specialists.
- Market participants seeking consistent standards — financial service providers and industry bodies get clearer, centrally set expectations about scheme governance and independence, which may reduce regulatory uncertainty about acceptable scheme structures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Approved dispute resolution scheme operators — face direct costs for independent reviews, must devote staff time to assist reviewers, produce public responses, and may need to change board composition to meet new regulatory rules.
- Financial service providers (scheme members) — may see higher membership or operating costs if scheme operators pass review and governance costs through to users or increase subscription/levy rates to fund compliance.
- Board members and small scheme operators — could lose representation or be disqualified under new membership and independence rules, and smaller operators may struggle to meet governance standards without administrative support.
- Compliance, legal, and communications teams — within schemes and member firms will bear recurring workloads to prepare for reviews, respond to follow‑up requests, and manage public publishing obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between stronger ministerial oversight and predictable, enforceable governance standards on one hand, and protecting scheme continuity and limiting legal disruption on the other — the bill creates oversight tools and prescriptive regulatory options but simultaneously insulates existing appointments and board acts from being invalidated for non‑compliance, reducing the immediate force of those tools.
The bill tightens oversight while building in protective language that blunts the immediate enforceability of some governance rules. The regulation head of power lets Ministers require independence and disqualification standards, but section 79AAA says appointments and board acts are still valid even if those regulations were not observed — a pragmatic choice to avoid legal disruption, but one that reduces immediate leverage to force governance change.
That creates a two‑step enforcement reality: policy levers exist, but legal remedies for non‑compliance are limited.
Cost allocation and procedural design are also open questions. The Minister may prescribe how fees are apportioned among scheme operators, and the bill makes fees recoverable as debts, but it does not set limits on fees or a dispute mechanism about fee fairness.
The Minister appoints reviewers and can specify terms of reference, which strengthens accountability but raises the risk of perceived politicisation of review scope if terms are overly prescriptive. Finally, the Schedule’s carve‑out that allows certain removal of old review rules without notification reduces procedural friction but could be used to quietly erase legacy transparency protections if not carefully managed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.