Bill
Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017
passed, as at 2018-03-05. Treasury portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Treasury
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2017-09-14
- second reading — 2017-09-14
- second reading — 2017-12-05
- second reading — 2017-12-06
- second reading — 2017-12-06
- committee — 2017-12-06
- third reading — 2017-12-06
- third reading — 2017-12-06
- introduced — 2017-12-07
- second reading — 2018-02-13
- other — 2018-02-13
- second reading — 2018-02-13
- second reading — 2018-02-13
- other — 2018-02-14
- third reading — 2018-02-14
- passed — 2018-02-14
- royal assent — 2018-03-05
Divisions
- The majority voted in favour of keeping the following parts of the bill unchanged: division 3 in item 2, and items (5) to (10), (12), (15) to (30), (42), (43), (45), (46) and (52) to (57) of schedule 1, and schedule 3. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that those parts "*stand as printed.*" This division was put after NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor) [proposed](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1) to oppose these parts. While opposing those parts, and introducing a series of other amendments, Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1): > *Our position is clear: we think that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [SCT] should be maintained in its current position. The complaints tribunal, as I've indicated, has operated for some time. The very fact that the government has tried to replicate the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in the AFCA bill demonstrates that the current powers, protections and structures for the SCT are appropriate. In May this year, the draft legislation tried to copy and paste a few of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions into the new AFCA [Australian Financial Complaints Authority]. In September this year, the final legislation introduced, copied and pasted, more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions in the new AFCA. Now, after the Senate inquiry and after Labor senators exposed serious flaws, the government has circulated amendments to copy even more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal provisions into the new AFCA. The ad hoc process of grafting features of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal onto the AFCA has been a tacit admission by the government that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is a far superior model for resolving superannuation disputes than the private AFCA body.* — 2017-12-06, Senate: negative, ayes 31, noes 32
- The majority voted in favour of keeping the following parts of the bill unchanged: division 3 in item 2, and items (5) to (10), (12), (15) to (30), (42), (43), (45), (46) and (52) to (57) of schedule 1, and schedule 3. In parliamentary jargon, they voted that those parts "*stand as printed.*" This division was put after NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor) [proposed](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1) to oppose these parts. Note that this is the [second time](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-12-06/1) this vote took place. While opposing those parts, and introducing a series of other amendments, Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-12-06.29.1): > *Our position is clear: we think that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [SCT] should be maintained in its current position. The complaints tribunal, as I've indicated, has operated for some time. The very fact that the government has tried to replicate the powers of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal in the AFCA bill demonstrates that the current powers, protections and structures for the SCT are appropriate. In May this year, the draft legislation tried to copy and paste a few of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions into the new AFCA [Australian Financial Complaints Authority]. In September this year, the final legislation introduced, copied and pasted, more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's statutory provisions in the new AFCA. Now, after the Senate inquiry and after Labor senators exposed serious flaws, the government has circulated amendments to copy even more of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal provisions into the new AFCA. The ad hoc process of grafting features of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal onto the AFCA has been a tacit admission by the government that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is a far superio — 2017-12-06, Senate: affirmative, ayes 33, noes 32
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2017-09-14.
This bill would create a new external dispute resolution framework called the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) for the financial system.
AFCA would replace existing dispute resolution schemes and give consumers a single place to resolve complaints about financial products and services.
The bill requires a review of AFCA and the internal dispute resolution framework 18 months after AFCA starts receiving complaints.
- Establishes the Australian Financial Complaints Authority as a single external dispute resolution scheme for financial firms.
- Requires financial firms to report their internal dispute resolution activities to ASIC and allows ASIC to publish that information.
- Provides for a review of the AFCA scheme and the internal dispute resolution framework 18 months after AFCA begins receiving complaints.
Consumers and financial firms that provide products and services.
Sources
em
em supp
em revised
billhome
frl act