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

Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on 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

Autumn leaves falling with copy space on black background

Avoiding Compliance Atrophy: The Critical Role of Assurance Reviews for Growing Energy Retailers

As energy retailers expand their customer base and operations, ensuring ongoing compliance with regulatory obligations can become increasingly challenging. A key risk is “compliance atrophy” – where initially compliant documents, processes and systems slowly deteriorate and waste away over time if not regularly monitored and reviewed. What is compliance atrophy? Compliance atrophy is typically a result of documents, processes and systems being ‘updated’ or ‘reworded’ to reflect changes in focus for the business and input from other stakeholders including marketing

person holding debit card

AER payment difficulty framework review

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) is conducting a review of the consumer protections available under the National Energy Customer Framework (NECF) for those experiencing payment difficulties. On 14 May 2024, the AER released an issues paper for consultation. The review is driven by the commitment in Action 8 of the ‘Towards Energy Equity’ strategy in which the AER committed to considering whether improvements could be made to the NECF to ensure that consumers experiencing payment difficulties are identified early, engaged

Technicians installing photovoltaic solar panels on roof of house.

Compliance Quarter’s Submission to the AER’s Review of the Compliance Procedures and Guidelines

On 11 April 2024, Compliance Quarter put forward its submission on proposed changes to the AER Compliance Procedures and Guidelines. The AER is reviewing its Compliance procedures and guidelines, which set out the manner and form in which energy businesses in jurisdictions that have adopted the National Energy Retail Law must submit compliance information and data to the AER. We argue that there should be consideration of measures to incentivise early reporting of potential breaches. These may, for example, take the


    Russell White


    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?


    Graham HESLOP


    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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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