Upcoming changes to dispute resolution: the new Australian Financial Complaints Authority

Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on facebook
Facebook

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is the proposed new dispute resolution body for the financial sector. Last week, the Government announced the latest step in the establishment of this new body with the appointment of a transition team for its establishment.

australian financial complaints authority

By Dr Drew Donnelly, Compliance Quarter

In today’s article, we summarise the proposals to date for overhauling external dispute resolution in financial firms.

Note, that it is proposed that ‘financial firms’ be defined broadly so that the new framework will affect and apply to a vast range of businesses including:

  • All Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees
  • credit providers
  • regulated superannuation funds
  • approved deposit funds
  • retirement savings account providers
  • and life policy funds and insurers.

The transitional arrangements

The focus for the newly appointed team is to ensure a smooth transition between the existing dispute resolution schemes, including the three existing dispute resolution bodies, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, into a new framework, including the establishment of Australian Financial Complaints Authority. This will be done in consultation with consumers, industry and the existing dispute resolution bodies.

When it comes into force on 1 July 2018, it is intended that the resulting framework will apply to all disputes between consumers and financial firms.

Matters that the transition team will advise the Government on include:

  • AFCA’s terms of reference
  • Governance and funding arrangements for AFCA
  • Recommendations on the authorisation process for AFCA
  • Transitional arrangements to settle ongoing disputes in the three existing schemes.

Why the new framework?

The Government commissioned an independent review of the existing system for external dispute resolution in financial services in response to complaints. The final report of the Review of the financial system external dispute resolution and complaints framework  identified several problems including:

  • Multiple external dispute resolution schemes meaning inconsistent outcomes for consumers with similar complaints
  • Multiple schemes meaning duplicated costs for industry and government
  • The monetary limits being too low to allow adequate redress for small businesses
  • Substantial delays in resolving superannuation complaints which might be helped by overhauling existing governance and accountability arrangements.

The exposure draft

In May, an exposure draft of the Bill that would establish this framework was released for public comment. Consultation is now closed and a finalised bill is yet to be introduced into Parliament.

The Bill does not establish the dispute resolution scheme itself, but a broad legislative framework that that would enable the Government to establish such a scheme.

Key features of the framework proposed in the exposure draft include:

  • A power of the responsible Minister to authorise a disputes resolution scheme with specified functions
  • Enhanced supervision powers for the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC), in relation to the scheme
  • new statutory powers in relation to the superannuation jurisdiction of the scheme including the power to join parties to a complaint and to obtain information.

For further information see the exposure draft and accompanying documentation.

More to explorer

notes on board

How to Manage Multiple Compliance Deadlines: A Case Study

Compliance managers in the energy sector are constantly juggling a large work load with competing deadlines. Managing time effectively is a core skill for compliance managers. In this article, we will present a hypothetical case study of a compliance manager in an energy retailer who has to juggle multiple compliance tasks and deadlines, and how they can use some strategies and tools to manage their workload and prioritise effectively. We will also share some insights and tips from Compliance Quarter,

laptop on table top

How to Avoid Compliance Risks by Effective Communication: A Case Study

Compliance managers in the energy sector face many challenges in ensuring that their businesses comply with the regulatory framework. One of the most common and frustrating situations is when their advice is ignored or overridden by senior management or other stakeholders, exposing the business to potential compliance risks and penalties. In this article, we will present a hypothetical case study of a compliance manager in an energy retailer who faced this scenario and how it affected the business outcomes. We

Contemporary design of multifamily living houses. Modern luxury apartments buildings.

Modernising Electricity Regulation: The AES Framework and Embedded Networks in Western Australia

Background The existing licensing framework overseeing the sale and supply of electricity in Western Australia (WA) has struggled to adapt to the rapid expansion of emerging and atypical electricity business models in recent years. To address this, in 2019, the then Minister for Energy commissioned Energy Policy WA to assess the regulatory framework in Western Australia. In 2020, Energy Policy WA initiated consultations on a proposed regulatory framework for various categories of ‘alternative electricity services’ called the Alternative Electricity Services

2 Comments

    Russell White

    27/03/2018

    Does this mean that we should wait for the AFCA to be up & running before bringing on any issue that has perhaps fallen thru the cracks? For clarification, does this mean that any issue that either remains unresolved or has previously been precluded by any other investigative authority at this time, will be able to be regenerated for resolution once the AFCA is an operating entity?

    Reply

    Graham HESLOP

    18/06/2018

    Compensation to victims. To date I am not aware of any legislation regarding compensation. I see ASIC can get a $900 million fine for Breaches by the Banks etc. When I complained to ASIC and FOS they did not want to know or help me. The fines and special agreements that both ASIC and FOS conspired with the Banks etc went to the Federal Government coffers. Consolidated Revenue!!!!! When it is up and running AFCA has to act on behalf of the Citizen. After all they are the ones who commit suicide and have their lives crushed by unconscionable behaviour. My submission is the same as that of Mr Entsch of compensation 3 time multiplier. The Financial Sector can pay for this. It could be set up using the Residential Tenancies Authority in Queensland model as outlined in its Annual Report.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *