The bill passed its third reading by voice vote; no party or individual counts were recorded. According to the bill’s stated purpose, consumers need trustworthy ways to resolve disputes with financial service providers, while oversight and governance of the approved dispute-resolution schemes need greater consistency. The bill aims to strengthen oversight of approved financial dispute-resolution schemes and support their independent, effective operation for consumers. The bill requires each approved scheme to undergo a Minister-directed independent review at least every five years. Scheme operators must assist and fund reviews, respond publicly to recommendations, and report annually; regulations may also set board governance and independence requirements.
AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.
Latest voting result
May 28, 2026
Third reading: PassedVoice vote
Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.
Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.
Arguments raised in Parliament
AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.
Arguments for
The bill gives the Minister oversight of scheme reviews and powers to set minimum board-governance requirements, which is claimed to make reviews more independent and effective for consumers.
Requiring more consistent independent reviews and reporting is claimed to improve transparency and comparability, enabling consumers to judge scheme performance.
Regulations focused on the independence of the board as a whole can limit industry dominance while retaining industry expertise, producing boards with a workable mix of skills and perspectives.
Regular Minister-directed reviews are claimed to replace variable scheme-commissioned reviews with more robust, consistent, genuinely independent scrutiny without duplicate processes.
Keeping four schemes forces consumers, especially where a lender has failed or changed schemes, to identify the applicable provider and navigate differing rules, creating barriers to obtaining redress.
The lack of consolidation consumes financial mentors’ time and resources, with mentors reportedly spending up to 20 hours a week helping one client resolve a dispute.
Giving the Minister discretion to appoint reviewers and set review terms risks political influence and instability, potentially undermining consumers’ confidence that dispute resolution is independent and fair.
The bill leaves the $250,000 dispute-value cap unchanged, which is claimed to leave consumers with disputes between $250,000 and $400,000 uncertain whether they must use the High Court.
Although consolidation may reduce complexity, the Minister argued that reducing four schemes to one is significant structural reform outside this bill’s policy intent, while the select committee will monitor the issue over 12 months.
The bill’s collective-board-independence approach deliberately avoids excluding industry representatives altogether, seeking consumer confidence without depriving schemes of relevant industry knowledge.
Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill
Version published October 20, 2025 00:00.
Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. 4 Section 52 amended (Mandatory considerations for approval) After section 52(1)(c), insert: ca whether the requirements prescribed under section 79(1)(caa) (if any) are complied with: 5 Section 56 amended (Withdrawal of approval) In section 56(1)(a), after requirement , insert (for example, a requirement under section 79(1)(caa) ) . Repeal section 56(1)(e)(iii). In section 56(1)(g), replace section 67 with section 67, 67D(1), 67F, or 70 . 6 Section 63 amended (Rules about approved dispute resolution scheme) Repeal section 63(1)(q). 7 New sections 67B to 67F and cross-heading inserted After section 67A, insert: Independent review 67B Independent reviews of schemes 1 The Minister may require that an independent review of 1 or more approved dispute resolutio…
Read full bill text
Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill
The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:
1 Title
This Act is the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 2025 .
2 Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.
3 Principal Act
This Act amends the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008.
4 Section 52 amended (Mandatory considerations for approval)
After section 52(1)(c), insert: ca whether the requirements prescribed under section 79(1)(caa) (if any) are complied with:
5 Section 56 amended (Withdrawal of approval)
In section 56(1)(a), after requirement , insert (for example, a requirement under section 79(1)(caa) ) .
Repeal section 56(1)(e)(iii).
In section 56(1)(g), replace section 67 with section 67, 67D(1), 67F, or 70 .
6 Section 63 amended (Rules about approved dispute resolution scheme)
Repeal section 63(1)(q).
7 New sections 67B to 67F and cross-heading inserted
After section 67A, insert: Independent review 67B Independent reviews of schemes 1 The Minister may require that an independent review of 1 or more approved dispute resolution schemes be carried out by giving a written notice to the persons responsible for those schemes. 2 The notice may provide for the manner in which the review must be carried out, including providing for any of the following matters: a when and how the review must be carried out: b the reviewer: c the terms of reference for the review: d requirements for the form and content of the report on the review and for when the report must be given to the Minister: e requirements for the persons responsible for the schemes to pay fees and expenses to the reviewer (including providing for how those fees and expenses are to be ascertained and for the share of each of those persons). 3 The Minister may appoint as the reviewer any person who, in the Minister’s opinion, has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to carry out the review. 4 The appointment must be made by written notice to the reviewer. 5 The Minister must ensure that each approved dispute resolution scheme is reviewed under this section at least once every 5 years. 6 In this section and sections 67D and 67E , reviewer means the person appointed under subsection (3) . 67C Minister must consult person responsible for scheme The Minister must consult the person responsible for a scheme before giving them a notice under section 67B . 67D Reasonable assistance and payment of fees and expenses 1 The person responsible for a scheme— a must give all reasonable assistance to the reviewer to enable the review to be carried out; and b must not hinder, obstruct, or delay the reviewer in carrying out the review. 2 The person responsible for a scheme must pay any fee or expense in accordance with a requirement under section 67B(2)(e) . 3 Any amount of a fee or an expense payable to a reviewer is recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the reviewer. 67E Report on review The reviewer must, as soon as practicable after completing a report on a review, give a copy of the report to the Minister and to each person responsible for a scheme to which the review relates. 67F Person responsible for scheme must respond to report 1 The person responsible for a scheme must, within 3 months after receiving a copy of the report under section 67E , give a written notice to the Minister setting out how they have addressed, or intend to address, the recommendations contained in the report (including reasons for that response). 2 The person responsible for a scheme must, within 5 working days after giving the notice to the Minister, publish the following on an internet Internet site that is publicly available (at all reasonable times): a the notice; and b the report received under section 67E .
8 Section 68 replaced (Annual report)
Replace section 68 with: 68 Annual report 1 The person responsible for an approved dispute resolution scheme must supply to the Minister, within 3 months after the end of the financial year applying to the scheme, an annual report about the scheme’s operation in relation to that financial year. 2 The report must include— a information about complaints received during the financial year; and b information about any independent review under section 67B if a report on the review was received under section 67E during the financial year; and c the information about the scheme that is prescribed by the regulations (if any).
9 Section 69 amended (Person responsible for approved dispute resolution scheme must supply further information on Minister’s request)
After section 69(1)(b), insert: c any further information requested by the Minister in connection with a notice given under section 67F .
After section 69(1), insert: 1A The person responsible for an approved dispute resolution scheme must supply the requested information within the time and in the manner specified by the Minister.
10 Section 70 amended (Annual report and information requested by Minister to be publicly available)
In the heading to section 70, delete and information requested by Minister .
11 Section 79 amended (Regulations under this Part)
After section 79(1)(c), insert: caa prescribing requirements for the membership of the board or other governing body of the person responsible for an approved dispute resolution scheme, for its chairperson, and for any deputy or acting chairperson, including prescribing any of the following (which may be specified for 1 or more members or for the board or other governing body as a group) : i requirements for the knowledge, skills, and experience of members ( see subsection (1BA) ) : ii grounds for disqualifying a person from being a member ( see subsection (1BA) ) : iii requirements to ensure that members, and the board or other governing body, are reasonably independent of any financial service provider or group of financial service providers (for example, to prevent a member from representing, or promoting the interests or views of, any industry participants): iii requirements to ensure that the board or other governing body is reasonably independent of any financial service provider or group of financial service providers (for example, limits on the number or proportion of members of the board or governing body who may represent, or promote the interests or views of, any industry participants):
Repeal section 79(1)(e).
After section 79(1B), insert: 1BA The matters referred to in subsection (1)(caa)(i) and (ii) may be specified for 1 or more members or for the board or other governing body as a group.
In section 79(1C), replace (1)(ca) with (1) (caa) , (ca), .
12 New section 79AAA inserted (Validity of appointments and acts not affected by failure to comply with regulations)
After section 79, insert: 79AAA Validity of appointments and acts not affected by failure to comply with regulations 1 The validity of the following is not affected by any failure to comply with a requirement prescribed under section 79(1)(caa) : a the appointment of a person as a member, chairperson, or deputy or acting chairperson of a board: b the acts of a board: c the acts of a person as a member, chairperson, or deputy or acting chairperson of a board. 2 In this section, board means the board or other governing body of the person responsible for an approved dispute resolution scheme.
13 Schedule 1AA amended
In Schedule 1AA,— a insert the Part set out in the Schedule of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments.
New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA
3 Provision relating to Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Act 2025 5 Changes to remove rules about independent reviews do not need to be notified or considered Sections 65 and 66 do not apply to any of the following changes to the rules about a dispute resolution scheme: a a change to remove rules that provide for, or set out, matters for the purposes of section 63(1)(q) (as in force before its repeal): b a change that is consequential on a change referred to in paragraph (a) .
Hansard
May 28, 2026
Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Committee of the whole House
· Full day report
Committee of the whole House Part 2 Amendment to Schedule 1AA, and Schedule CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 13, “Amendment to Schedule 1AA”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:21): Madam Chair, thank you. I want to bring the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to a couple of questions about why this rules provision doesn’t include the changes that he intends to make. This is a relatively unusual way of drafting a regulatory change: either you could leave the change in regulations to the regulation maker or you could complete the changes to regulations as you envision them to be and include that in the primary legislation set out to change the regulation. What this purports to do is to exclude the effect of two particular rules from any other rules, and then any consequential changes are also legal. That is an unusual way of doing it, because it means that anyone reading the provisions can’t tell what they will actually say when the rule changes have been made. We are Parliament are being asked to verify that without that happening. I want to ask the Ministe…
Read full Hansard debate
Committee of the whole House
Part 2 Amendment to Schedule 1AA, and Schedule
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 13, “Amendment to Schedule 1AA”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:21): Madam Chair, thank you. I want to bring the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to a couple of questions about why this rules provision doesn’t include the changes that he intends to make.
This is a relatively unusual way of drafting a regulatory change: either you could leave the change in regulations to the regulation maker or you could complete the changes to regulations as you envision them to be and include that in the primary legislation set out to change the regulation. What this purports to do is to exclude the effect of two particular rules from any other rules, and then any consequential changes are also legal. That is an unusual way of doing it, because it means that anyone reading the provisions can’t tell what they will actually say when the rule changes have been made. We are Parliament are being asked to verify that without that happening. I want to ask the Minister whether he has in mind what the rules will look like when those changes are made. Has he seen that? Can we rest assured by him that he has considered how the rules will operate?
Secondly, I just want to ask him why the regulations weren’t able to be amended and included in this part in the normal way so that the primary legislation could have empowered that—just on the general principle that the regulations should be known and knowable. Even if they do apply only to these four schemes, these four schemes have thousands of people they represent.
Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (17:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to outline this once, because, as we know, this is the size of Part 2—exhibit A, Part 2. I think I only need to stand up once and then we rule a line under it.
This is a transitional provision. We’re looking at amending Schedule 1AA here. This is a limited transitional measure to enable schemes to move from scheme rules related to shifting to Minister directed independent review without necessary process or delay. This is an administrative tidy up to support the transition to the new review framework. It’s narrow. It’s time limited. Let’s get on with it.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ response to this, but I also want to, I guess, remind him and also the committee that, when we debated the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill, that was a one-page bill that repealed 300 pages of primary legislation. I guess, in this particular case, while this section is small, the repercussions could potentially be quite significant, which is what the previous speaker, Arena Williams, was referring to. In this case, we’re look at the Schedule, particularly Part 3, clause 5(a). This is to do with what has already been repealed: section 63(1)(q).
My understanding, when we were looking at sections 65 and 66 of the primary legislation, is around notifications when it comes to the change of rules, as well as the criteria for the change of rules itself. Would it be correct, then, to assume that, with the repeal of section 63(1)(q), it is exempted, if changes are made as a result of that, from both the reporting requirement and the changes requirement? If the Minister wouldn’t mind—again, I do not see this in the select committee report, as well, so I don’t know if this is something that officials provided as a part of that. How many rules will this potentially have the possibility of capturing, with the repeal of section 63(1)(q)?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take one more question from Arena Williams, and it had better be a good one!
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:25): OK, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs if this is the place for the insertion of a new part into the Schedule that would introduce a review from the Regulations Review Committee. The reason I ask that here is that there are rule changes here that are not specified in the primary legislation and are also rules that are anticipated. These are changes that anticipate a rule change that Parliament can’t see, so I am asking him to consider my amendment that would enable the Regulations Review Committee to review this—it’s well within its jurisdiction to review this; it is the correct committee to do so—and then to report to the House within a year.
There are other pieces of legislation that delegate that authority to the Regulations Review Committee. I am thinking here of the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Act orders, which the Minister will be familiar with, but other legislation does that too. It’s not an unusual provision. The reason I ask it is because regulation should be explicitly empowered by primary legislation. This does it backwards: it explicitly empowers the change, but it doesn’t say what the change is. We should have something, either him or the Regulations Review Committee, to check that the actual changes in the regulations reflect the initial legislation This is a good place to put it. It is also a place where you could put it and apply it to Part 1, and he has considered my amendments around that topic.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (17:27): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re now on to the Schedule, with no debate. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to the Schedule, to new clause 5(a) of Schedule 1AA, to insert “and section 63(1)(h)” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.