ASIC Corporations, Credit and Superannuation (Internal Dispute Resolution—Transitional) Instrument 2019/965

This instrument turns on a small set of legal and practical building blocks.

Definitions (s 4). The instrument defines key terms that determine its scope:

• “AFCA scheme” is defined as the external dispute resolution scheme for which an authorisation under Part 7.10A of the Corporations Act 2001 is in force. That ties the instrument’s AFCA references to authorised EDR schemes under that Part (see s 4).
• “Financial firm” is a central composite definition; it is an inclusive list that captures: a financial services licensee; a person to whom s 1017G of the Corporations Act applies; a credit licensee; an unlicensed carried over instrument lender; a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund or of an approved deposit fund; and an RSA provider (s 4). Each item in that list is expressed either in terms used in other Acts (for example “approved deposit fund” and “regulated superannuation fund” are linked to meanings in the SIS Act) or in terms specific to the credit or retirement instruments.
• “AS ISO 10002,2006” is defined as the Australian Standard titled Customer Satisfaction,Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations, as in force at 5 April 2006 (s 4). The instrument therefore locks the reference to the Standard to the version current on that date.

Approval of standards and requirements (s 5). ASIC “approves” particular pieces of the AS ISO Standard and certain requirements “in relation to an internal dispute resolution procedure”. The approval is selective: it does not adopt the entire Standard, and it identifies which clauses and concepts from AS ISO 10002,2006 are relevant (s 5(a)-(c)). It then imposes additional requirements about informing complainants of AFCA (s 5(d)-(e)).

Transitional application (s 6). The instrument expressly limits its application to complaints received before 5 October 2021 by a financial firm. The instrument’s title and s 6 make clear it is a transitional instrument intended to cover a particular temporal cohort of complaints.

Authority links to underlying statutes (s 3). The instrument is made under two provisions of the ASIC Act: subsection 11(4) for purposes of specific Corporations Act provisions (subparagraphs 912A(2)(a)(i) and 1017G(2)(a)(i)); and subsection 12A(6) for the purposes of named provisions in the RSA Act, the SIS Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (as notionally inserted by specified regulation and schedule). That indicates the instrument functions as ASIC’s approval under the ASIC Act to supply acceptable IDR content for the purpose of multiple statutory regimes.

Scope limitations. The instrument does not purport to be an exhaustive regulatory code for IDR; the approval covers the specific items listed in s 5 and the AFCA notice requirement. The instrument does not itself define procedural detail outside those approved elements, nor does it purport to amend the underlying Acts it references. The instrument is framed as an approval (s 5), not as a direct imposition of new statutory obligations attaching new criminal or civil sanctions within the instrument text itself.

Special category: unlicensed carried over instrument lender. That category appears both in the financial firm definition and in the AFCA-notice exception: for such lenders, the AFCA-notice requirement is narrower,applicable only if the lender is a member of the AFCA scheme (s 5(d)-(e); s 4).

Document anchoring. Where the instrument adopts part of an external standard it fixes the date of the Standard (5 April 2006), which is relevant to which version of the Standard is treated as authorised for the transitional cohort (s 4, s 5).

The instrument’s immediate legal target is the class of persons encompassed by the defined term “financial firm” (s 4). That definition is inclusive and expressed as a list, not as an open-ended category. The listed categories are:

• financial services licensees (defined in the instrument as “a person who holds an Australian financial services licence”) (s 4);
• persons to whom section 1017G of the Corporations Act applies (the instrument uses that statutory cross-reference directly in the definition) (s 4);
• credit licensees (defined as “a person who holds an Australian credit licence”) (s 4);
• unlicensed carried over instrument lenders (defined by reference to subsection 5(1) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 as notionally inserted by regulation 25E and Schedule 2 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010) (s 4);
• trustees of regulated superannuation funds or of approved deposit funds (the terms “regulated superannuation fund” and “approved deposit fund” are linked to their meanings in the SIS Act) (s 4;
• RSA providers, as defined in the RSA Act (s 4).

Because definitions refer to other Acts and regulatory instruments for the meaning of certain terms, the instrument’s reach depends on whether an entity meets those external definitions. The instrument does not itself set out the content of those external meanings, it simply imports them by reference.

Temporal delimitation. The instrument applies only to complaints received by a financial firm before 5 October 2021 (s 6). That means an entity in the “financial firm” class is affected under this instrument only with respect to complaints in that temporal cohort. Complaints received on or after 5 October 2021 are outside the instrument’s stated application (s 6).

AFCA membership status matters for a sub-class. The requirement to include adequate measures for informing complainants about the availability and accessibility of the AFCA scheme is general, but an exception applies for the specific class “unlicensed carried over instrument lender”: they are exempt from the AFCA-notice requirement unless they are members of AFCA (s 5(d)-(e)). Thus, whether a particular financial firm must include the AFCA-notice measures depends both on the firm’s category and on its membership of AFCA (for the unlicensed carried over instrument lender subclass).

ASIC as decision-maker and approver. Although the obligations fall on the financial firms as the entities operating IDR procedures, ASIC is the statutory decision-maker that issues this approval instrument under powers in the ASIC Act for the stated purposes (s 3). That makes ASIC the central administrative actor for the approval and its temporal and content scope.

Secondary affected parties. Complainants (consumers, members, borrowers, account holders, etc.) are affected indirectly: the instrument determines what standards and minimum elements the IDR procedures for complaints received before 5 October 2021 are to meet, including information that must be provided to complainants about AFCA availability (s 5). External dispute resolution (EDR) providers, especially the AFCA scheme, are also implicated because the instrument requires, in most cases, that complainants be informed of AFCA (s 5(d)-(e)).

Who is not captured. Entities that do not fall within the “financial firm” definition are not governed by this instrument’s approvals and requirements. For complaints received on or after 5 October 2021, the instrument does not apply (s 6). The instrument also does not itself reach into other non‑financial regulators or sectors beyond the list in s 4.

The instrument primarily operates as ASIC’s approval of certain standards and as a specification of minimum elements acceptable for an internal dispute resolution procedure for the transitional complaint cohort. The operative duties and rights in the instrument are therefore procedural and limited in scope.

ASIC’s approval (s 5). ASIC approves the standards and requirements enumerated in s 5 “in relation to an internal dispute resolution procedure”. The practical implication is that the items listed in s 5 constitute approved content that can be relied on as meeting the approval element for the purposes identified in the instrument’s authority clause (s 3). The instrument itself uses the verb “approves” rather than “requires”, but the approval is expressed to be for the purposes of particular statutory provisions in the Corporations Act, the RSA Act, the SIS Act and the Credit Act (see s 3), which suggests that compliance with the approved elements will form part of how a financial firm demonstrates satisfaction of those statutory IDR obligations.

Required coverage of the AS ISO Standard items (s 5(a)-(c)). The instrument prescribes that the IDR procedure be consistent with certain aspects of AS ISO 10002,2006:

• it must cover a “complaint” as defined in the Standard (s 5(a));
• it must include the “Guiding principles” contained in section 4 of the Standard (s 5(b)); and
• it must adopt specified operational sections: section 5.1 (Commitment), 6.4 (Resources), 8.1 (Collection of Information), and 8.2 (Analysis and evaluation of complaints) (s 5(c)(i)-(iv)).

Those items impose procedural architecture on an IDR procedure: definition of what counts as a complaint; principles that guide handling; and operational commitments (resourcing, data collection and analysis). The instrument does not itself set out the content of those clauses of AS ISO 10002,2006; it fixes the reference to the version as in force on 5 April 2006 (s 4).

AFCA information duty (s 5(d)-(e)). The instrument requires, generally, that an IDR procedure include “adequate measures for informing complainants about the availability and accessibility of the AFCA scheme” (s 5(d)). For the special class of unlicensed carried over instrument lenders, that duty only applies if the lender is a member of the AFCA scheme (s 5(e)). Thus the duty is both substantive and conditional: substantive because firms must include adequate measures to inform complainants about AFCA; conditional in one category.

Temporal scope of duties (s 6). These duties apply only in relation to complaints received before 5 October 2021 (s 6). That is the instrument’s explicit limiting provision.

Rights implicit in the instrument. The instrument provides a firm-level right to rely on the approved Standard elements as forming acceptable content for an IDR procedure for the specified complaint cohort. Where ASIC approval is required or relevant under the underlying Acts (as the authority clause indicates), adherence to the approved elements in s 5 will be a defence or evidence of compliance with the statutory IDR requirement, to the extent those Acts look to ASIC’s approvals. The instrument does not specify remedial rights for complainants, nor does it create a private right of action; it is an approval instrument and is silent on private enforcement remedies.

No new criminal or civil penalties in the instrument. The instrument does not itself create offences, fines or administrative penalties; it is an approval statement. Any enforcement or penalties would derive from the underlying statutes referenced in the authority clause, not from this instrument’s text. The instrument therefore operates as a content standard rather than as a sanctions-providing instrument.

Recordkeeping and operational duties implied. By approving parts of the Standard that include “Collection of Information” and “Analysis and evaluation of complaints” (s 5(c)(iii)-(iv)), the instrument imports an expectation that IDR procedures will include data-collection and analysis mechanisms. That implies a practical duty on financial firms to gather and evaluate complaints data for the transitional cohort in a manner consistent with those approved clauses.

ASIC’s decision power. The instrument is made by ASIC under the ASIC Act for specific statutory purposes (s 3); ASIC is therefore the administrative actor deciding what is approved. The instrument gives ASIC the capacity to specify which standards are acceptable for IDR procedures for the transitional set of complaints.

This instrument is an approval instrument and does not itself specify criminal offences, civil penalties or administrative monetary penalties. The text contains no penalty provisions; it is framed as an approval of standards and requirements for internal dispute resolution procedures and an identification of the cohort of complaints to which the approvals apply (see ss 5-6). Consequently, from the instrument alone the following points follow.

No express sanctions in the instrument. The instrument does not create express offences, and it does not set out enforcement powers or monetary penalties within its schedule. It contains procedural approvals and content requirements but no standalone enforcement clause.

Enforcement would arise under the underlying statutes. The instrument is made under the ASIC Act for the purposes of specific provisions of the Corporations Act, the RSA Act, the SIS Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (see s 3). Those underlying statutory provisions (which the instrument cites as the purposes for which it is made) are the likely loci for enforcement, sanctions, licensing conditions, or regulatory action where IDR obligations are breached. The instrument itself, however, does not describe or codify those enforcement mechanisms. Practitioners must look to the underlying Acts cited in s 3 to determine applicable enforcement regimes and penalties.

Compliance evidence. ASIC’s approval of the specific AS ISO 10002,2006 items (s 5) provides a standard against which a financial firm’s IDR procedure can be measured. Failure to adopt the approved elements in relation to the transitional complaints may be relevant evidence in an enforcement action under the relevant statutory scheme, to the extent those schemes require IDR procedures and recognise ASIC approvals. The instrument does not say this expressly; it follows from the instrument being made under the ASIC Act “for the purposes of” the listed provisions (s 3).

ASIC’s administrative leverage. Although the instrument contains no sanctions, ASIC retains regulatory tools in the ASIC Act and the other Acts to require compliance with statutory IDR obligations. This instrument’s approval clarifies what ASIC considers acceptable content for IDR procedures for the transitional cohort; that clarification may strengthen ASIC’s position when assessing compliance under the underlying Acts, but the instrument itself does not set out the enforcement tools ASIC may employ.

Practical enforcement considerations for firms. Because the instrument requires particular content elements (s 5) and applies to complaints received before 5 October 2021 (s 6), firms should expect that regulatory scrutiny of historic complaints may take their adopted IDR practices against the approved elements. Firms that have not implemented the approved elements where applicable may face regulatory action under the relevant statutory provisions, although any specific penalty or enforcement pathway must be traced to those underlying statutes rather than to the instrument itself.

The instrument is expressly linked to multiple Acts by its authority clause and by its definitions. The interaction operates in the following ways.

Authority and purpose linkages (s 3). The instrument is made under the ASIC Act for the purposes of specified provisions in other Acts:

• subsection 11(4) of the ASIC Act for the purposes of subparagraphs 912A(2)(a)(i) and 1017G(2)(a)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001; and
• subsection 12A(6) of the ASIC Act for the purposes of paragraph 47(1)(b) of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, paragraph 101(1)(b) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and specified subparagraphs of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 as notionally inserted by regulation 25E and Schedule 2 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 (s 3).

That construction signals that ASIC’s approval is intended to supply content for internal dispute resolution requirements mandated or referenced in those statutory provisions. To understand the full legal effect of the approvals, one must read this instrument together with the relevant statutory provisions it was made for. The instrument does not itself restate the substantive content of those provisions.

Definitions import other statutory meanings (s 4). Several definitions explicitly reference external Acts:

• “approved deposit fund” and “regulated superannuation fund” are linked to the SIS Act;
• “RSA provider” links to the RSA Act;
• “unlicensed carried over instrument lender” is linked to a definition provided by a specified subsection of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act as notionally inserted by regulation and schedule.

These cross-references mean that an entity’s position under this instrument depends on whether that entity meets the external statutory definitions. The instrument therefore interacts with the substantive regulatory frameworks of superannuation, retirement savings accounts, credit law and corporations law by relying on their definitional scaffolding.

AFCA and Part 7.10A of the Corporations Act (s 4, s 5). The instrument defines “AFCA scheme” by reference to authorisation under Part 7.10A of the Corporations Act (s 4) and requires IDR procedures (subject to the narrow exception for unlicensed carried over instrument lenders) to include measures informing complainants about AFCA availability and accessibility (s 5(d)-(e)). That links an internal process requirement to an external dispute resolution mechanism authorised under the Corporations Act, and therefore to the broader EDR architecture set up by the Corporations Act.

Temporal interaction. Because this instrument is transitional and applies only to complaints received before 5 October 2021 (s 6), it interacts with subsequent instruments or statutory requirements that may have changed IDR content requirements for complaints received on or after that date. The instrument therefore sits in a temporal chain of regulatory instruments; compliance for different complaint cohorts may be governed by different instruments or standards.

No substitution of substantive statutory duties. The instrument approves particular elements of a standard for IDR procedures but does not purport to replace the substantive duties or compliance regimes in the underlying Acts. It should be read as an ASIC-approved statement of acceptable procedural content for the transitional cohort, to be applied in the context of the existing statutory obligations in the cited Acts.

Regulatory evidence and compliance assessment. In regulatory processes under the cited statutes, adherence to the approved elements in this instrument will be relevant evidence of compliance with IDR obligations. Conversely, absence of those elements in relation to the transitional cohort could indicate non-compliance with statutory IDR requirements where the relevant statute requires an approved standard or where ASIC’s approval is the touchstone for compliance. The instrument itself does not spell out those evidentiary or enforcement mechanisms; it supplies the approved content.

Interaction with standards law. The instrument locks the reference to AS ISO 10002,2006 “as in force as at 5 April 2006” (s 4). That means later revisions of the Standard are not automatically incorporated by the instrument’s terms. The instrument therefore interacts with standards uptake by fixing the version of the standard that is treated as approved for the transitional cohort.

The compilation endnotes record the registration and commencement dates and the fact of amendment. The instrument’s administrative history as provided in the compilation is:

• Instrument 2019/965 was registered on 26 September 2019 and commenced on 27 September 2019 (Endnote 1 table).
• A subsequent instrument, 2020/99, was registered on 26 June 2020 and commenced on 27 June 2020; this compilation is stated to be as in force on 27 June 2020 and to include any commenced amendment affecting the legislative instrument to that date (Endnote 1 table; compilation header).

Endnote 2 provides a short amendment history table using the compilation abbreviations. The table shows how particular provisions were affected by instrument 2020/99. The entries in Endnote 2 read:

• Section 1: am. 2020/99;
• Section 2: rep. s48D LA (that is, section 2 was repealed under the Legislation Act 2003, presumably by operation of a legislative mechanism recorded as s48D LA);
• Subsection 3(b): rs. 2020/99 (meaning subsection 3(b) was repealed and substituted by 2020/99);
• Section 4: am. 2020/99;
• Section 6: rs. 2020/99 (meaning section 6 was repealed and substituted by 2020/99).

The endnote also supplies a key for abbreviations used: “ad.” = added or inserted, “am.” = amended, “LA” = Legislation Act 2003, “rep.” = repealed, “rs.” = repealed and substituted. Using that key, the Endnote 2 entries indicate that the instrument underwent amendment by instrument 2020/99 affecting the named provisions. The compilation itself reflects these amendments as at 27 June 2020.

What changed substantively. The compilation text before the amendment is not reproduced in the instrument file provided, so this compilation does not permit a clause‑by‑clause redline against the original. The endnotes show which sections were amended, substituted or repealed, but do not provide the prior wording. From the endnotes one can infer that:

• the instrument’s body now contains an amended s 1 and s 4, a substituted s 3(b) and s 6, and that s 2 was repealed under the Legislation Act, as recorded. The precise textual changes are recorded by the amending instrument 2020/99 itself, which is identified in the endnotes.

Commencement dates. The original instrument commenced 27 September 2019 and the amending instrument 2020/99 commenced 27 June 2020 (Endnote 1). The present compilation includes the amending instrument up to that date and is labelled Compilation No. 1.

Practical reading for users. For regulatory compliance purposes, users should note that the instrument as compiled here reflects the current text as of 27 June 2020 and that key operative provisions , the definitions and s 6 (application/transitional provision) , were the subject of the 2020/99 amendment. This means that the instrument’s current scope and the specific operative dates should be determined from the compiled text (which this compilation provides) rather than from the original 2019 text.

The instrument’s compilation and endnotes supplied do not record any litigation concerning the instrument. The body of the instrument contains no references to cases, and the endnotes list only instrument history and amendment history. Consequently, there is no litigation history recorded in this text to cite.

What that absence means for practitioners. From the compiled instrument alone, there is no reported adjudicated authority interpreting the instrument’s clauses or testing its application in litigation. Therefore:

• there are no judicial decisions cited in this compilation that interpret what constitutes “adequate measures” for informing complainants about AFCA under s 5(d)-(e), or what the approved clauses from AS ISO 10002,2006 mean in particular disputed contexts;
• there is no reported case law clarifying how the instrument interacts with the cited statutory provisions (for example, subparagraphs 912A(2)(a)(i) or 1017G(2)(a)(i) of the Corporations Act) in enforcement or licensing proceedings; and
• there are no reported judicial rulings resolving disputes over whether a particular entity counted as a “financial firm” under the instrument’s definition.

Implications. In the absence of litigation recorded in this instrument, the approved content in s 5 and the instrument’s application in s 6 remain matters of administrative prescription rather than subject to judicially established interpretation within this compilation. Legal advisers and compliance teams therefore must plan on applying the instrument’s text directly and should, if necessary, seek clarification from ASIC or anticipate that any contested points would be resolved by reference to the primary legislation cited in the authority clause and by standard administrative law review processes, rather than by litigated precedent under this instrument.

Where to look for future decisions. Any decisions on the interpretation or enforcement of IDR standards that involve the instrument’s approvals would most likely appear in cases or regulatory actions that are recorded elsewhere, for example in proceedings under the Corporations Act, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, the Retirement Savings Account Act or the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. The compilation does not include records of such proceedings.

Several practical traps for compliance and interpretation arise directly from the instrument’s language and structure. The following points outline stickier issues for practitioners and compliance officers that are grounded in the instrument text.

Temporal limitation is absolute. The instrument applies only “in relation to a complaint received before 5 October 2021 by a financial firm” (s 6). That boundary is precise. Firms must therefore distinguish complaints by receipt date with rigour. A failure to segment complaints into the pre‑5 October 2021 cohort versus subsequent complaints could lead to applying the wrong standard to a complaint and producing incorrect compliance evidence. The instrument provides no grace for complaints received on or after that date.

Selective adoption of AS ISO 10002,2006. ASIC approves only specific items of the Standard: the Standard’s definition of “complaint” (s 5(a)), the Guiding principles in section 4 (s 5(b)), and specific operational sections (s 5(c)). Firms should not assume the whole Standard is approved. Implementing administrative frameworks that simply assert compliance with “AS ISO 10002,2006” without mapping to the approved clauses will not, on the instrument’s terms, show alignment with ASIC’s approval.

Version lock. The instrument fixes the Standard to the version “as in force as at 5 April 2006” (s 4). If firms adopt a later revision of AS ISO 10002, the instrument does not automatically approve that later revision for the transitional cohort. Firms relying on a newer version must map the elements back to the 2006 clauses approved by ASIC for complaints before 5 October 2021.

Ambiguity over “adequate measures”. The instrument requires “adequate measures for informing complainants about the availability and accessibility of the AFCA scheme” (s 5(d)). “Adequate” is an open standard and the instrument does not define minimum content, timing, or format. Practitioners must decide what constitutes adequacy and document their reasoning. Absent guidance in this instrument or reported litigation, adequacy will be fact-specific and may rest on external expectations or ASIC guidance not contained in this text.

Exception for unlicensed carried over instrument lenders. The AFCA-notice duty does not apply to an unlicensed carried over instrument lender unless that lender is a member of AFCA (s 5(d)-(e)). That conditional rule requires firms to confirm both category status and AFCA membership. Misclassification or failure to track membership status could lead to inconsistent practices across comparable entities.

Dependence on external definitions. Key definitions (for example, “approved deposit fund”, “regulated superannuation fund”, “RSA provider”, “unlicensed carried over instrument lender”) are imported by reference to other legislation (s 4). Practitioners must consult those other statutes to determine whether an entity fits the instrument’s definitions; treating these terms as self-explanatory risks misapplication.

No penalty language here. Because the instrument does not state penalties or enforcement mechanisms, some firms might misread it as non-binding. That would be a mistake. The instrument is made under the ASIC Act for purposes of specific statutory provisions (s 3). Accordingly, non‑adoption of the approved elements may be material evidence in a regulatory proceeding under the relevant statute, even though the instrument itself does not specify sanctions.

Potential mismatches between internal IDR documents and practice. The instrument approves procedural elements but will be applied against actual practice in any compliance or enforcement assessment. Firms that have written procedures matching s 5 but do not implement them in practice expose themselves to regulatory censure. The instrument’s emphasis on “resources” and “collection and analysis of information” (s 5(c)(ii)-(iv)) highlights a need for practice to match policy.

Record-keeping expectations. Because s 5 approves the “Collection of Information” and “Analysis and evaluation of complaints” clauses of the Standard, firms should expect to be examined for records and analysis demonstrating those activities. Inadequate records from the transitional cohort could complicate a firm’s ability to show compliance for complaints in scope.

Cross-jurisdictional operational complexity. The list of entities in the “financial firm” definition cuts across licensing regimes (financial services licences, credit licences, superannuation trustees, RSA providers). Organisations operating in multiple regulated capacities must ensure consistent IDR processes in relation to the transitional cohort; inconsistent application across business lines may lead to fragmented compliance evidence.

Amendment history and version control. The endnotes show the instrument was amended by instrument 2020/99 (Endnote 2). Practitioners must ensure they refer to the compiled, current text (as of 27 June 2020 in this compilation) when assessing obligations; reliance on an earlier unamended copy could produce misapplication, particularly because s 6 was replaced under the amendment (Endnote 2).

Compliance with this instrument for the transitional cohort requires firms to map their internal dispute resolution procedures and practices to the specific approvals and requirements set out in the instrument. The following practical steps, grounded in the instrument provisions, set out a compliance checklist.

1. Determine whether the entity is a “financial firm” under the instrument (s 4).

   • Confirm whether the entity is a financial services licensee, a credit licensee, a trustee of a regulated superannuation fund or approved deposit fund, an RSA provider, a person to whom s 1017G of the Corporations Act applies, or an unlicensed carried over instrument lender.
   • Where definitions are imported from other Acts (SIS Act, RSA Act, National Consumer Credit Protection Act), extract the relevant statutory definitions from those Acts to confirm categorisation.

2. Segregate complaints by receipt date (s 6).

   • Identify all complaints received by the firm and catalogue the receipt date for each complaint.
   • Isolate complaints received before 5 October 2021; the instrument applies only to those complaints. Complaints received on or after that date fall outside the instrument’s scope and must be treated under whatever standards apply to those cohorts.

3. Map IDR procedures to the approved AS ISO 10002,2006 elements (s 4, s 5(a)-(c)).

   • Ensure the IDR procedure covers a “complaint” as defined in AS ISO 10002,2006 (s 5(a)); obtain and retain a copy of the Standard as in force at 5 April 2006 for reference (s 4).
   • Document how the IDR procedure incorporates the “Guiding principles” in section 4 of AS ISO 10002,2006 (s 5(b)). This should be explicit in policy documents.
   • Implement and document compliance with the operational sections specified: Commitment (section 5.1), Resources (section 6.4), Collection of Information (section 8.1), and Analysis and evaluation of complaints (section 8.2) (s 5(c)). Focus on concrete measures: demonstrable senior commitment, resourcing allocations, data collection processes, and analysis frameworks.

4. Implement the AFCA information requirement (s 5(d)-(e)).

   • For most financial firms, include “adequate measures” in the IDR procedure to inform complainants of the availability and accessibility of the AFCA scheme. Translate “adequate measures” into concrete steps: standard communications, timing of notices (for example initial response or final response letters), accessibility statements, and contact details of AFCA.
   • For unlicensed carried over instrument lenders, determine AFCA membership status. If a lender is a member of AFCA, implement the same “adequate measures” as above; if not a member, the AFCA-notice requirement in s 5(e) does not apply.

5. Maintain records and evidence of implementation.

   • Retain copies of the IDR procedure and evidence of its application to each complaint in scope (complaints received before 5 October 2021).
   • Keep records demonstrating collection and analysis of complaints data for the transitional period, consistent with the approved clauses in s 5(c)(iii)-(iv).
   • Document training, resource allocation and senior-level commitment to IDR processes to demonstrate compliance with “Commitment” and “Resources” clauses approved in s 5(c)(i)-(ii).

6. Version control and standard reference.

   • Keep a copy of AS ISO 10002,2006 as in force at 5 April 2006, and ensure that any internal references to the Standard note the version date aligning with the instrument (s 4). If you adopt later versions in other parts of the business, maintain a mapping demonstrating how the later content aligns with the 2006 clauses approved by the instrument for the transitional cohort.

7. Review documentation and internal controls.

   • Conduct a documented review or internal audit to verify that each complaint in scope was handled under an IDR procedure that aligns with the approved elements.
   • Where gaps are identified, prepare remedial action plans and contemporaneous documentation showing corrective measures taken.

8. Prepare for regulatory scrutiny.

   • Because ASIC made the approval for purposes of particular statutory provisions (s 3), be prepared to show the approved content and implementation evidence in any regulatory inquiry or enforcement action under the relevant Acts.
   • Ensure the compliance function can explain how the IDR process satisfies the approved “Guiding principles”, “Commitment”, “Resources”, and the data collection and analysis elements.

9. Document AFCA membership and communication practice.

   • Maintain records of AFCA membership status, including the dates of any membership changes, to demonstrate whether the unlicensed carried over instrument lender exception applies in particular cases.
   • Keep templates and transcripts of communications used to inform complainants about AFCA availability and accessibility.

10. Keep an eye on the instrument’s amendment history and external guidance.

• Use the compiled version as the operative text for compliance (the compilation as in force 27 June 2020 contains the amendments effected by instrument 2020/99). Consult the instrument history and endnotes to ensure you rely on the current wording (Endnotes 1-2).
• Where ASIC issues guidance, FAQs, or further instruments affecting IDR standards or the temporal application, update practices accordingly.

By following these steps, a financial firm can align its IDR procedures and records with the limited but specific approvals and requirements set out in this instrument, document its practices for the transitional cohort of complaints, and create evidence to show conformity with the approved items should ASIC or another regulator seek to verify compliance.