Check Your Vote All bills

Parliament bill

Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill

Royal assent · Introduced by Hon Cameron Brewer · National Party

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:55
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:55
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

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: Passed Voice vote

Decision recorded by voice vote; no individual or party counts were recorded.

View the vote in Hansard

Earlier votes (1)

May 28, 2026

Second reading: Passed Voice vote

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.

Arguments against

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.

Nuance and qualifications

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.

Bill text

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 Clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, the debate on “Tile”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. May I start by reiterating my thanks to officials who have attended on a Saturday. It is going above and beyond and we appreciate that advice that has been made available to the Minister. There are a number of questions to the Minister which were not canvassed in the committee stage and it has been helpful to have a well-informed Minister to answer those. I want to suggest to the Minister that the appropriate title for this bill, which we support, is the “Financial Service Providers (Retention of Four Resolution Schemes) Amendment Bill”. The reason I raised that as the appropriate title is that, since 2016, the Government has undertaken two reviews under Governments of both stripes—blue and red—and has prioritised the needs of the consumers who are dealing with these dispute resolution schemes, sometimes in the most vulnerable situations in their lives: when they have lost their home, when they have lost their car, when they ha…
Read full Hansard debate
Committee of the whole House Clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, the debate on “Tile”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. May I start by reiterating my thanks to officials who have attended on a Saturday. It is going above and beyond and we appreciate that advice that has been made available to the Minister. There are a number of questions to the Minister which were not canvassed in the committee stage and it has been helpful to have a well-informed Minister to answer those. I want to suggest to the Minister that the appropriate title for this bill, which we support, is the “Financial Service Providers (Retention of Four Resolution Schemes) Amendment Bill”. The reason I raised that as the appropriate title is that, since 2016, the Government has undertaken two reviews under Governments of both stripes—blue and red—and has prioritised the needs of the consumers who are dealing with these dispute resolution schemes, sometimes in the most vulnerable situations in their lives: when they have lost their home, when they have lost their car, when they have come to the point in their credit where they cannot repay their loans and are considering bankruptcy. These are important moments, and so having a dispute resolution scheme that is clear and easy and simple to be able to access at the beginning, and then can follow through with clear consumer targets, is the goal. We have known that since 2016 and we know that, certainly, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) important and useful work in 2022, and yet, we have continued to retain these schemes. And that may be the policy decision now, but it would be appropriate to call it that if we know that we are retaining these four schemes, to the detriment of consumers. We should accept that this bill was an opportunity to make that change and we haven’t taken it here. It is also important to, then, have an understanding that we have made some changes which wouldn’t be required if there was one scheme—or perhaps two—because some of the changes which have been required allow for those four schemes to inter-operate to some extent. We have introduced some changes at the committee stage, which represented a new level of sort of probity at the governance level and inability for governance to act somewhat independently, but not fully independently, in the sense of not having overlapping financial arrangements between each other. That is an important thing for the House to understand as well when we talk about what is important for the Minister to do, because he himself has pointed to, in this committee stage, the need for him to respond to the select committee that asked him to continue to monitor this and monitor these schemes. Monitoring the schemes, Minister, in my view, means that you should be constantly looking for consumer credit trends and the ability of the schemes to continue to respond to changing needs. Things like buy now, pay later were not the issue that they are now in 2022, when it was reviewed, and certainly not in 2016. We will see more of this, more changing behaviour from consumers, and certainly more need for dispute resolution at the level of small credit. Small credit, in the type of small loans that are being offered through buy now, pay later services, might be as low as $5 allows for things like groceries, essentials, and petrol. Those things, if breached, can cost the consumer $50 or $68, depending on the provider, and those are things that are likely to continue to change the way that consumers deal with issues when they arise. So, calling the scheme what it is, which is essentially acknowledging that MBIE made a suite of recommendations—a range of recommendations—and that the Government has proceeded on one, but not the rest, is the important thing, Now, I heard the previous Minister for this portfolio, who took the paper to Cabinet in 2024, heckle me before that this was a vexatious call. It is not a vexatious call to really understand what the trade-offs were, Minister, when you took the paper to Cabinet and the trade-off was that this work that MBIE had set out—a suite of options to continue to improve the consumer experience—were not taken. That is something that the committee saw in this bill as important to highlight with the current Minister and the Minister in the chair as important work for him to proceed with. That is why the title should be amended, because we should be coming back—we should be coming back, Minister—and we should need a differently titled bill. The next bill that you bring to the House should be “Financial Service Providers (Following Advice of MBIE in a Cross-Party Manner) Amendment Bill”. The next bill can be pointing to a future where consumers have a straight and streamlined approach to their financial disputes. That is not necessarily what has been delivered here, and yet this progress is good. Minister. There are plenty of things in here which we should be pleased with, and we continue to support in a cross-partisan way, but we can build on this cross-partisanship from here. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Hon Member: What about the Minister? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry. We’ll go to the Minister first. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (17:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now on to this title and commencement debate, as you have foreseen, but I just wanted to—because I don’t think we can add much more to it—set some context because I won’t need to get on my feet again. This is the name of a bill that came in under the Helen Clark Government of 2008. Four administrations of both colours have kept the name of this bill. As far as commencement, commencement will take effect upon Royal assent—that’s standard as well. So there’s nothing to see here, and frankly, nothing to debate. Let’s get on with it. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know you’re quick and you are to the point. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, I just have two short questions for the Minister: one for clause 1 and one for clause 2. I want to start with clause 2 on commencement. Yes, the commencement day is the day after Royal assent, which is when this bill will come into effect, however, that’s not the same thing as when the details of this particular bill are going to take the effect. So, I just want to check, in terms of the related secondary legislation as well as the sections we saw on independent review, if the Minister has any plan on when that is going to take effect, particularly when we’re looking at the secondary legislation under clause 11, amending section 79. I think that is an important question to ask and we have waited until title and commencement to ask that question of the Minister. In terms of the title. I want to just push back on the Minister and what he said, because this particular bill itself was introduced last year, and I doubt that Helen Clark introduced it last year. The Minister may be referring to the principal Act, which was under the Labour Government, unless this bill was, in fact, introduced into the House in 2000 in the Helen Clark administration, in which case I will correct my response. But I want to check with the Minister because, in terms of the title, one of the things that we have found with this particular bill is that the title of this bill, which is soon to be an Act, and the title of the principal Act are virtually the same. Both of them are “Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution)”; one is the amended Act 2025; one is the Act 2008. When people are looking up this particular bill, that can be a source of confusion. We have asked those kind of questions in this House previously, because those two things are two separate Acts. Has the Minister considered potentially changing “Registration and Dispute Resolution” to simply “Independent Review and Other Matters”? I think, in that case, it will provide clarity on the difference between this Amendment Act and the Principal Act of 2008. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:38): 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. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 45. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Preservation of Multiple Financial Dispute Resolution Providers that Mainly Assist Banks” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill. The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill. Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Streamlining of Four Financial Dispute Resolution Schemes” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill. Members, we have 36 remaining tabled amendments to clause 1. I will put the question on five of these amendments to test the will of the committee. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Adjustment to Existing Financial Dispute Resolution Schemes” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Keeping the Four Financial Dispute Resolution Schemes” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Minimisation of Duplication in Financial Dispute Resolution Services” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Marginal Adjustments to Financial Dispute Resolution Schemes” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Georgie Dansey’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Registration and Dispute Resolution” with “Maintaining of Duplication in Financial Dispute Resolution Services” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The will of the committee having been tested, the remaining 31 tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Clause 1 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 to insert “90th” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to insert “75th” 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. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “day” with “180 days” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Documents and supporting material