ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) Class Waiver 2025/513

The instrument relies on three core structural concepts from the Rules and adds one new definitional filter.

1. Cross-reference to the Rules’ capitalised terms. The instrument states that capitalised terms have the same meaning as in the Rules unless the contrary intention appears (s 4(1)). This embeds the Rules’ definitional ecosystem, including the meaning of “Outsourcing Arrangement”, “Service Provider”, “Business Continuity Plans”, “Critical Business Services”, “Market operator” and “Market Participant” by reference to the Rules’ Chapter 8A and 8B definitions (s 4(1); s 4(2)(a)-(b) cross-references). The waiver therefore cannot be understood in isolation; its operation depends on the Rule definitions it imports.

2. Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement. The instrument introduces “Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement” (s 4(2)). That term is defined narrowly: an arrangement is partially exempt only where it is an Outsourcing Arrangement solely because the Service Provider supplies Communications Services and/or Energy Services. The definition therefore creates a filter that limits the waiver to arrangements where communications and/or energy provision are the decisive factors for classifying the arrangement as outsourcing under the Rules.

3. Waived provisions are listed, not described. The waiver lists specific provisions of Chapter 8A and Chapter 8B that are disapplied for the defined type of arrangement (s 4, Market operator Waived Rules; s 4, Market Participant Waived Rules; s 5; s 6). The instrument does not restate the content of those provisions. Practically, this means legal and compliance teams must cross-reference the Rules to determine what requirements are being waived.

4. Preservation of other obligations. The instrument expressly retains the rest of the outsourcing framework in the Rules. Notes in s 5 and s 6 point to paragraph 8A.3.3(1)(e) and subrule 8A.3.3(2), and paragraph 8B.2.3(1)(e) and subrule 8B.2.3(2) as examples of obligations that continue to apply. Those cross-references indicate the waiver is partial and contextual, not a blanket removal of outsourcing obligations.

Other operational concepts defined in s 4 are technical: “Carriage Service”, “Communications Service” and “Energy Service”. The instrument treats “Business Continuity Plans”, “Critical Business Services” and “Outsourcing Arrangement” as having the meanings given by the Rules for market operators and market participants respectively (s 4(2)(a)-(b)). The instrument’s temporal boundaries are also a central concept: this is a time-limited class waiver that commences the day after registration (s 2) and is repealed on 30 July 2030 (s 7). The legal authority for the instrument is a delegated rule-making/waiver power in the Rules (s 3).

Mechanically, therefore, the main concepts are: (1) importing the Rules’ definitional architecture; (2) narrowly defining the class of outsourcing arrangements eligible for the waiver; (3) identifying which Rule provisions are waived by cross-reference; and (4) preserving other Rule obligations. Each of these concepts imposes concrete compliance tasks: cross-referencing, factual classification of arrangements, targeted record-keeping, and monitoring of the instrument’s limited duration.

The instrument identifies two principal classes of regulated entities: Market operators and Market Participants (s 4(2)(a)-(b); s 5; s 6). Those terms are defined in the Rules and are imported by s 4(1). The operative effect of the instrument is to change the compliance choices those entities may lawfully make where they have Outsourcing Arrangements that fall within the new “Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement” definition (s 4(2)).

• Market operators. A Market operator may, for an Outsourcing Arrangement that is “partially exempt” as defined, choose not to comply with the listed Market operator Waived Rules in relation to that arrangement (s 5). The instrument’s Note to s 5 emphasises that the Market operator must still comply with other Chapter 8A obligations in relation to the arrangement, citing paragraph 8A.3.3(1)(e) and subrule 8A.3.3(2) as examples.

• Market Participants. A Market Participant likewise may choose not to comply with the listed Market Participant Waived Rules in relation to any Outsourcing Arrangement that meets the Partially Exempt definition (s 6). The Note to s 6 emphasises continued obligations under Chapter 8B, citing paragraph 8B.2.3(1)(e) and subrule 8B.2.3(2).

Who decides. The instrument is made by a delegate of ASIC (signature block; s 3), exercised under the Rules’ subrule 1.2.1(1). Once in force, the decision to rely on the waiver , that is, to treat a Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement as exempt from the listed provisions , is made by the relevant Market operator or Market Participant responsible for the arrangement. The instrument does not create reporting obligations to ASIC about reliance on the waiver; it simply sets out that compliance with those listed Rule provisions is not required for qualifying arrangements. Any reporting or transparency obligations that apply remain those contained in the Rules or other law.

Who benefits. The entities that directly reduce their compliance obligations are Market operators and Market Participants with Outsourcing Arrangements that are partially exempt by reason only of communications and/or energy services. Service Providers that supply communications or energy services to those entities may experience a change in their commercial relationship, in that some Rule-prescribed requirements (those listed as waived) need no longer be met by the buyer in respect of that arrangement.

Who bears costs. The instrument reduces certain compliance obligations for those qualifying Market operators and Market Participants (s 5; s 6). Conversely, it shifts the responsibility to ensure ongoing compliance with other obligations , including the retained obligations in Chapters 8A/8B , onto the same entities. The instrument therefore reallocates where compliance effort is focused, rather than eliminating regulatory oversight entirely.

Peripheral stakeholders. Third-party providers of non-communications and non-energy services are not within the waiver’s class by virtue of the Partially Exempt definition; an arrangement that would be an Outsourcing Arrangement for other reasons is not covered. Market users, counterparties, and end customers are not directly named in the instrument, but their interests may be affected indirectly because aspects of the outsourcing oversight regime are suspended for qualifying arrangements.

The instrument modifies duties and rights by removing the requirement to comply with nominated provisions of Chapters 8A and 8B in a circumscribed set of circumstances, while preserving other obligations.

Rights created by the instrument

• Disapplication right. A Market operator has the right not to comply with the listed Market operator Waived Rules in relation to a Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement (s 5). A Market Participant has the corresponding right not to comply with the listed Market Participant Waived Rules in relation to such an arrangement (s 6).

• Temporal scope right. The right to rely on the waiver exists only during the instrument’s operative period: from commencement (the day after registration, s 2) until repeal at the start of 30 July 2030 (s 7).

Duties preserved or remaining

• Continued obligations under the Rules. The instrument explicitly notes that market operators and market participants must still comply with other provisions of Chapters 8A and 8B in relation to the Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement (s 5 Note; s 6 Note). The instrument cites specific retained obligations as examples: paragraph 8A.3.3(1)(e) and subrule 8A.3.3(2) for market operators; paragraph 8B.2.3(1)(e) and subrule 8B.2.3(2) for market participants (s 5 Note; s 6 Note). Those references indicate the instrument was not intended to remove the overarching obligation to have adequate arrangements that ensure compliance with the Act and the Rules.

• Definitions and cross-reference duties. Because the instrument imports capitalised Rule definitions (s 4(1)), duties that arise from those definitions continue to apply where relevant. For example, obligations tied to the concept of an Outsourcing Arrangement, Service Provider, Business Continuity Plans, and Critical Business Services are operationally significant and retained to the extent they are not specifically waived.

Practical change in duties

• Narrow waiving of specific Rule provisions. The instrument removes a market operator’s or market participant’s duty to comply with specified subparagraphs and paragraphs of Rules 8A.3.3 and 8B.2.3 (as listed under “Market operator Waived Rules” and “Market Participant Waived Rules” in s 4). The instrument does not restate those Rules; parties must consult the Rules to identify the specific duties waived.

• Duty to classify arrangements. The instrument implicitly creates a duty on market operators and market participants to determine whether a given Outsourcing Arrangement meets the “Partially Exempt” test in the instrument’s s 4(2). That determination is essential to lawfully relying on the waiver, and it depends on the meaning of “Outsourcing Arrangement” and “Service Provider” in the Rules.

• Duty to monitor time limits. The arrangement-specific reliance on the waiver must stop or be reassessed on or before repeal, requiring duty-holders to monitor the instrument’s termination date (s 7).

No novel reporting or approval mechanism

• The instrument does not create any express approval mechanism, notification or registration requirement with ASIC for reliance on the waiver. It simply states the non-application of certain Rule provisions to qualifying arrangements (s 5; s 6). Any procedural duties that might exist under the Rules themselves (for example monitoring or notification duties) remain in force if not expressly waived.

Authority and delegative provenance

• The instrument is made by an ASIC delegate under subrule 1.2.1(1) of the Rules (s 3). That is the stated legal authority for the class waiver. The instrument’s validity therefore depends on the availability of that delegative power in the Rules.

In short, the instrument grants a narrow right to disapply listed Rule provisions for certain outsourcing cases, while preserving the broader obligation on market operators and participants to maintain adequate arrangements consistent with the Act and the Rules. It places the onus on regulated entities to classify arrangements correctly and to ensure other retained duties are complied with.

The instrument itself does not create new civil or criminal penalties, nor does it prescribe a bespoke enforcement regime. It operates by modifying the set of Rule obligations that apply to a defined class of Outsourcing Arrangements; enforcement consequences therefore arise indirectly through the continued application of the Act, the Rules, and any enforcement powers that ASIC retains under those instruments.

Key enforcement mechanics to note from the instrument text

• Disapplication, not immunity. Sections 5 and 6 state that certain Rule provisions “do not have to be complied with” in relation to Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangements (s 5; s 6). The instrument does not state that compliance failures outside the waived provisions are lawful or that ASIC’s enforcement powers are limited accordingly. Market operators and participants remain subject to the Act and the Rules except as expressly waived (s 5 Note; s 6 Note).

• Continued application of remaining Rule obligations. The instrument’s notes explicitly preserve the operation of other Rules in Chapters 8A and 8B (s 5 Note; s 6 Note). Enforcement for breaches of those remaining obligations therefore continues under the normal legal framework of the Act and the Rules. Any civil penalties, administrative action, or enforcement powers that ASIC may exercise under the Act or the Rules will continue to apply to those retained obligations.

• No new sanctioning provisions in the instrument. The instrument does not specify sanctions, infringement notices, civil penalty provisions, or criminal offences. It does not constrain ASIC’s ability to enforce the Act or to ensure market integrity in other ways consistent with the Rules. Any enforcement action will therefore rely on the substantive law in the Act and the Rules rather than on the waiver instrument itself.

• Authority for the waiver. The instrument is made under subrule 1.2.1(1) of the Rules (s 3). If a question arises about the validity or scope of the waiver, enforcement action, or the legality of relying on the waiver, the legal basis and correct interpretation of that subrule will be relevant in any enforcement or judicial review context.

Practical enforcement considerations for regulated entities

• Burden of proof and documentation. Because the waiver depends on the factual categorisation of an Outsourcing Arrangement as “Partially Exempt” (s 4(2)), market operators and participants who rely on the waiver will need contemporaneous documentation demonstrating that the arrangement qualifies. If later challenged by ASIC or another party, the entity relying on the waiver will need to show the factual and legal basis for its classification.

• Risk of selective compliance disputes. The waiver disapplies particular provisions but preserves others. Disputes may arise over whether conduct falls within a waived provision or within a retained obligation in Chapters 8A/8B. Such disputes will be resolved by applying the Rules and by reference to the instrument’s text.

• Temporal enforcement window. The instrument is time-limited (s 7). Enforcement actions about conduct that occurred while the waiver was in force will be judged according to which Rule obligations applied at the time. Records should therefore show the date of reliance on the waiver for each arrangement.

The instrument therefore has an indirect enforcement effect by changing which Rule provisions can be enforced against market operators and participants in relation to qualifying Outsourcing Arrangements. It does not create or remove ASIC’s general enforcement powers related to the Act or to other Rules.

This instrument is expressly tied to and dependent on the ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) 2017. Its interaction with other legal instruments is therefore mediated through that relationship.

Primary interaction with the Rules

• Definitions and substantive content imported from the Rules. The instrument states that capitalised terms have the same meaning as in the Rules (s 4(1)). Consequently, the practical effect of the instrument is shaped by how the Rules define Outsourcing Arrangement, Service Provider, Business Continuity Plans, Critical Business Services, Market operator, and Market Participant. Compliance teams must therefore read the instrument together with the Rules because the instrument’s substantive reach depends on those definitions.

• Waiver of specific Rule provisions. The Market operator Waived Rules and Market Participant Waived Rules are parts of Chapters 8A and 8B of the Rules (s 4). The instrument does not amend the Rules; it modifies the legal obligations by class waiver. Any interaction with other Rule obligations must be assessed by cross-referencing the Rules.

Interaction with the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act, and other primary statute

• The instrument is framed as affecting compliance with the Rules, which themselves implement statutory obligations and regulatory architecture under the Corporations Act and statutes that govern ASIC’s powers. The instrument does not state that it affects the operation of the Corporations Act or other statutes directly. Market operators and participants must therefore ensure compliance with statutory duties under the Act regardless of the waiver where those duties are not solely implemented via the waived Rule provisions.

• The instrument’s notes emphasise that market operators and participants must have adequate arrangements to ensure compliance with the Act and the Rules in a way appropriate for the Outsourcing Arrangement (s 5 Note; s 6 Note citing paragraph 8A.3.3(1)(e) and subrule 8A.3.3(2); paragraph 8B.2.3(1)(e) and subrule 8B.2.3(2)). That wording ties the waiver explicitly to the continuing need to meet statutory duties.

Interaction with telecommunications and energy regulation

• The instrument’s definition of “Communications Service” and “Carriage Service” reflect technical concepts that may also be regulated by telecommunications law and energy law. The instrument does not alter any obligations market operators or Service Providers may have under telecommunications or energy regulatory regimes. It is limited to the application of selected outsourcing-related Rule provisions. Entities must therefore remain compliant with sector-specific regulation even if the listing of Rule provisions is waived for an Outsourcing Arrangement.

Administrative law and judicial review

• The instrument is a legislative instrument made under the Rules’ delegated authority (s 3). Its validity and proper exercise could in principle be the subject of judicial review proceedings challenging the delegate’s use of the power in subrule 1.2.1(1), although the instrument contains no express limitation on such challenges. The instrument itself contains no litigation history or indication of prior review.

Temporal and regulatory sequencing interactions

• Commencement and repeal dates (s 2; s 7) mean the waiver’s interaction with ongoing compliance projects, contracts, and regulatory obligations is time-bound. Entities must manage transitional questions where arrangements straddle the instrument’s commencement or repeal dates.

In sum, the instrument interacts primarily with the Rules into which it is integrated by reference. It does not change statutory duties that sit outside the Rules, and it does not purport to alter sectoral regulation for telecommunications or energy. Entities must conduct a two-step analysis: first determine whether an arrangement is an Outsourcing Arrangement and whether it meets the Partially Exempt definition under the Rules as imported; second, determine which Rule provisions are waived and which remain binding.

The instrument records its making date and provides a fixed repeal date; it does not record prior amendments or revisions. The text contains the following relevant timestamps and provenance statements:

• Date of making. The instrument bears the date 14 August 2025 in the signature block (instrument heading and signature).

• Commencement. The instrument commences on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation (s 2). The register link is noted in the instrument (s 2 Note). No earlier commencement variation is provided.

• Legal authority. The instrument is made under subrule 1.2.1(1) of the ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) 2017 (s 3). The instrument does not itself amend the Rules; it exercises a delegated waiver power conferred by the Rules.

• Repeal. The instrument is repealed at the start of 30 July 2030 (s 7). That is an express, non-discretionary termination date written into the instrument; the waiver therefore has a defined lifespan.

• No recorded amendments. The instrument as provided does not contain any schedule of amendments, revocations, or prior versions. It is presented as a standalone legislative instrument with a single operative text made on the date shown. There are no saving or transitional amendments listed in the instrument text.

What this means for record-keeping and project planning

• Fixed lifespan. The repeal date imposes a finite operational window. Entities planning to rely on the waiver should track the calendar date to ensure that any change in compliance approach or contract terms is reassessed before the instrument sunsets (s 7).

• Single instrument provenance. Because the instrument does not include amendment provisions, any later changes will require the making of a new instrument, amendment of the Rule power, or other legislative action. There is nothing in the instrument itself indicating staged roll-out, extension mechanisms, or automatic renewals.

• Cross-reference dependency. Future amendments to the Rules may affect the meaning of the terms imported by s 4(1). When the Rules change, the interpretation of what arrangements qualify for the waiver could change without modifying the waiver text. Entities should track amendments to the Rules themselves in parallel with the instrument’s lifespan.

• No transitional savings beyond the instrument’s text. The instrument contains no express transitional provisions beyond its commencement and repeal. Any transitional arrangements or guidance will therefore need to be sought from ASIC or inferred from the Rules and general administrative practice.

In short, the instrument has a clear single-date making, a simple commencement rule, and a fixed statutory expiry date. It does not show an amendment history within the text provided.

The instrument text contains no litigation history, case citations, or references to judicial determinations. It does not name any cases or summarise precedent. The document is a self-contained class waiver; it does not report prior disputes, court rulings, or tribunal decisions bearing on its validity or interpretation.

Points for practitioners to note (derived from the instrument’s silence)

• No precedent recorded in the instrument. Because the instrument does not cite any case law or prior determinations, there is no instrument-internal indication of how the waiver has been interpreted by courts or administrative bodies. Interpretation will therefore rely on standard statutory construction principles and the text of the Rules as they interact with the instrument.

• Potential for future disputes. The instrument’s practical operation depends on factual classification of Outsourcing Arrangements and the meaning of the waived Rule provisions. Those issues are common subjects of regulatory dispute. While no litigation history exists in the instrument, market operators, participants, or service providers could, in future, litigate questions such as whether an arrangement is an Outsourcing Arrangement for reasons beyond communications and energy services or whether specific conduct falls within a waived Rule provision.

• Administrative-review risk. The instrument was made under a delegate power (s 3). If a party considers the delegate exceeded power in making the waiver, the appropriate remedy might be judicial review rather than interpreting an omission within the instrument. The instrument does not itself identify any such challenges.

Because the instrument contains no litigation history, practitioners should not assume settled judicial construction; reliance on the waiver should be supported by clear documentary evidence and contemporaneous decision-making to minimise future dispute risk.

This instrument is narrowly drafted but contains several practical pitfalls that arise from its cross-references, definitional filter, and temporal scope. The following are concrete mechanisms and operational pitfalls to watch for; each statement is anchored to the instrument text.

1. The waiver applies only where the Outsourcing Arrangement is an Outsourcing Arrangement solely because of communications and/or energy services. The definition of “Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement” requires that the arrangement is an Outsourcing Arrangement only because the Service Provider provides Communications Services and/or Energy Services (s 4(2)). Gotcha: if the same arrangement would be an Outsourcing Arrangement for other services provided by the Service Provider, the arrangement does not qualify. Entities must test counterfactual scenarios (would the arrangement be outsourcing absent the comms/energy element?) and document the analysis.

2. The instrument does not restate the waived Rule obligations. It lists the Market operator Waived Rules and Market Participant Waived Rules by citation (s 4). Gotcha: practitioners must cross-reference the Rules to identify the content of the waived obligations. Assuming what is waived without checking the Rules risks compliance errors.

3. Continued duties remain. The instrument’s Notes reiterate that other provisions of Chapters 8A and 8B continue to apply (s 5 Note; s 6 Note). Gotcha: a party cannot treat the waiver as a carte blanche to reduce outsourcing oversight generally. The specific retained references , paragraph 8A.3.3(1)(e) and subrule 8A.3.3(2); paragraph 8B.2.3(1)(e) and subrule 8B.2.3(2) , are examples of continuing duties, so these must be addressed even when parts of the Rules are waived.

4. Reliance requires factual and legal classification. The waiver depends on the factual categorisation of the arrangement and the Rule definitions of Outsourcing Arrangement and Service Provider (s 4(1); s 4(2)). Gotcha: inconsistent or ad hoc classification without supporting records will expose entities to dispute risk if ASIC or others challenge the reliance.

5. No express notification or approval mechanism in the instrument. The instrument does not require market operators or participants to notify ASIC or seek approval before relying on the waiver (s 5; s 6). Gotcha: absence of notification does not mean absence of scrutiny. Entities should maintain records showing why they relied on the waiver in case of later enquiries.

6. Interaction with other regulatory regimes. The instrument’s carve-out concerns communications and energy services as reasons for outsourcing status (s 4(2)). Gotcha: sectoral regulatory obligations in telecommunications or energy law are not altered by this instrument. Complying with those regimes remains necessary even where some Rule provisions are waived.

7. Temporal end-point and transitional planning. The instrument expires at the start of 30 July 2030 (s 7). Gotcha: arrangements that are structured around the waiver will need reassessment before this date. Contracts and compliance programmes must account for the need either to revert to full Rule compliance or to change service delivery arrangements.

8. Dependency on the Rules. Because s 4(1) imports definitions from the Rules, changes to the Rules over time may alter whether an arrangement qualifies for the waiver even without amending the waiver instrument itself. Gotcha: regulatory change tracking must include the Rules in addition to the waiver.

9. The instrument does not create new standards for Business Continuity Plans or Critical Business Services; it imports the Rules’ meanings instead (s 4(2)). Gotcha: to design an appropriate BCM or continuity response while relying on the waiver, the business must consult the Rules to learn what is waived and what is retained.

10. No clarity on the effect of mixed-service arrangements. The instrument’s narrow “only because” language may generate borderline cases where the Service Provider supplies a mix of comms/energy and other services. Gotcha: when arrangements bundle services, the entity must unbundle the legal character for the purposes of the waiver, document the analysis, and be prepared to justify it.

Each of these “gotchas” follows directly from the instrument’s text and structure: the narrow definitional filter (s 4(2)), the listing-by-citation approach to waivers (s 4), the notes preserving other obligations (s 5 Note; s 6 Note), the lack of procedural obligations in the instrument (s 5; s 6), and the fixed repeal date (s 7).

The instrument requires careful cross-referencing with the ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) 2017. Compliance work should focus on classification, documentation, retention of obligations, and calendar management. The steps below are practical, concrete and grounded in the instrument’s provisions.

1. Identify and catalogue Outsourcing Arrangements under the Rules. Because the instrument imports capitalised terms from the Rules (s 4(1)), the first compliance step is to identify all Outsourcing Arrangements as defined in the Rules. Prepare an inventory cross-referenced to the Rules’ definition of “Outsourcing Arrangement”, and note which Service Providers supply communications or energy services.

2. Apply the “Partially Exempt” test. For each Outsourcing Arrangement, answer and document the counterfactual: would the arrangement be an Outsourcing Arrangement absent the Service Provider’s supply of Communications Services and/or Energy Services? The instrument defines a Partially Exempt Outsourcing Arrangement as one that is an Outsourcing Arrangement only because the Service Provider provides one or both of those services (s 4(2)). Record the factual basis and legal reasoning supporting the conclusion.

3. Map waived provisions against each arrangement. For arrangements that meet the Partially Exempt test, identify which Market operator Waived Rules or Market Participant Waived Rules would otherwise apply by cross-referencing the list in s 4 with the Rules themselves. The instrument lists the exact Rule citations that are disapplied; the content and compliance implications must be reviewed in the Rules.

4. Maintain compliance with retained obligations. Do not assume the waiver allows reduction of all outsourcing oversight. The instrument’s notes make this explicit: other provisions of Chapters 8A and 8B remain applicable (s 5 Note; s 6 Note), and the instrument cites paragraph 8A.3.3(1)(e), subrule 8A.3.3(2), paragraph 8B.2.3(1)(e), and subrule 8B.2.3(2) as examples. Ensure those retained Rule obligations are complied with and document how they continue to be met.

5. Preserve documentary evidence. For each arrangement where the waiver is relied upon, keep contemporaneous documentation that shows: the arrangement’s scope, the services supplied by the Service Provider, the reason why the arrangement is an Outsourcing Arrangement only because of communications/energy services, the mapping to waived Rule provisions, and records showing compliance with retained obligations. This evidence will be central if ASIC queries the reliance.

6. Update contracts and SLAs where necessary. If contractual terms or service-level agreements reference Rule-mandated oversight that is now waived for the relevant arrangement, document whether contractual amendments are required. Any change to contractual risk allocation should be recorded; however the instrument does not substitute for contractual commitments.

7. Monitor changes to the Rules. Because the instrument imports the Rules’ definitions (s 4(1)), any amendments to the Rules may change whether an arrangement qualifies for the waiver. Set up a regulatory-change tracking process to monitor Chapter 8A and 8B amendments and reassess affected arrangements if the Rules change.

8. Plan for the repeal date. The waiver expires at the start of 30 July 2030 (s 7). Create a calendar trigger well before that date to reassess arrangements, implement any required compliance changes, and, if necessary, renegotiate contracts or migrate services so that full Rule compliance can be restored if the waiver is not renewed. Maintain audit trails showing the date of reliance on the waiver for each arrangement.

9. Consider operational and sectoral regulatory obligations separately. The waiver addresses only specified outsourcing rules in the ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) 2017. Telecommunications or energy regulatory obligations applicable to the communications or energy Service Provider remain in force. Confirm compliance with sectoral regulatory regimes independently of reliance on this waiver.

10. Governance and sign-off. Establish governance processes for decisions to rely on the waiver, including legal review and senior management sign-off. Because the instrument grants the right not to comply with specified Rule provisions (s 5; s 6), but preserves other obligations and the Act, an internal decision record should be maintained for audit and regulatory review.

11. Prepare a compliance FAQ and training. Given the narrow scope and the risk of misclassification, produce guidance for procurement, operations, legal, continuity planning, and IT teams summarising when the waiver applies and the steps required to document reliance.

12. Be ready to justify the approach to ASIC. Although the instrument does not require notification, ASIC retains its enforcement powers under the Act and the Rules. If ASIC raises questions, the entity relying on the waiver should be able to produce the classification analysis, contract documentation, and evidence of compliance with retained obligations.

This compliance checklist flows directly from the instrument’s mechanics: the importation of Rules’ terms (s 4(1)), the narrow Partially Exempt definition (s 4(2)), the explicit lists of waived Rule provisions (s 4), the retained obligations highlighted in the Notes (s 5 Note; s 6 Note), and the instrument’s commencement and repeal dates (s 2; s 7).