This Schedule of Charges imposes two fixed fees for the provision of statistical information during the 2016-17 financial year. The first charge is $157,837 for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to receive from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) the statistical data specified in Attachment A. The second charge is $298,457 for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to receive the data specified in Attachment B. In both cases the amount is a single, upfront charge for the entire financial year. The person required to pay the charge is the recipient agency (RBA or ABS), and payment is due twenty-eight days after receipt of APRA’s invoice. The charge is not a fee for regulatory compliance imposed on financial sector entities; rather it is an internal cost‑recovery mechanism between three federal agencies. APRA, as the collector of the underlying data under its statutory reporting framework, is the entity that provides the aggregated statistical information to the RBA and the ABS and then bills them for the service. The schedule does not set a penalty for late payment, nor does it specify how the amount is calculated. The amounts appear to be fixed without reference to inflation or volume of data, suggesting they reflect a negotiated or estimated cost for the specific year. The schedule is narrow in operation: it covers only one financial year and only two specific sets of data attachments. It does not create any ongoing obligation beyond the 2016-17 year, nor does it impose any direct duty on financial sector entities to pay the charge. The effect is a transfer of public funds between Commonwealth agencies to compensate APRA for the administrative cost of extracting, collating, and forwarding the data to the other two agencies. The instrument does not state which Act or regulation gives it legal force, but it is almost certainly made under a power in the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 or a similar enabling provision that allows the Treasurer or APRA to set charges for its data‑provision services.

The central concept is a statutory charge for a specified service. The service is “provision to the RBA during the 2016‑17 financial year of the statistical information specified in Attachment A concerning financial sector entities”. The same wording applies to the ABS, substituting Attachment B. The attachments list the individual APRA reporting forms (identified by form codes such as ARF_320_0, RRF_320_0, SRF_110_1_A, etc.) that the recipient receives. These are the same forms that financial entities such as authorised deposit‑taking institutions (ADIs), registered financial corporations (RFCs), and other statistical reporters submit to APRA under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 and the associated reporting standards. The concept of “statistical information” is therefore confined to the completed data from those specific forms, not raw transaction data or any other analysis. The charge is defined as a fixed dollar figure, not a per‑form or per‑entity fee. The “person required to pay the charge” is the RBA and the ABS respectively. Both are agencies of the Australian Government. This means the financial burden ultimately falls on the taxpayer through consolidated revenue, not on the financial sector directly. However, the cost of APRA’s overall data collection system is itself funded by industry levies under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 and the APRA Act 1998, so there is an indirect link: APRA’s cost recovery from the RBA and ABS reduces the amount it needs to recover from regulated entities. The timing concept is precise: payment is due twenty‑eight days after APRA’s invoice. This creates a clear cut‑off, and if payment is not made, the debt would presumably be recoverable under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as a debt due to the Commonwealth. The schedule does not give any discretion to vary the amount or to waive the charge. It is a self‑executing determination for one year only. The absence of any indexation or adjustment mechanism means the amounts are fixed in nominal terms and were not updated for subsequent years. This is a one‑off instrument rather than an ongoing regulation.

The direct parties are three Commonwealth agencies: the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. APRA is the data provider and the invoicer. The RBA and ABS are the data recipients and the payers. The financial sector entities that submit the original data to APRA are not required to pay the charge, but they are indirectly affected because the reporting forms listed in Attachments A and B are the same forms they must complete. The compliance burden of populating those forms falls on authorised deposit‑taking institutions (banks, building societies, credit unions), registered financial corporations (including non‑ADI lenders, securitisation vehicles, and some investment firms), and other statistical reporters (such as life insurers and friendly societies that file the SRF forms). These entities have no legal involvement in the payment of the charge and no right to challenge its amount. The charge is internal to government. The practical effect on private sector entities is zero in terms of direct cost, but the existence of the charge suggests that APRA’s data provision service to the RBA and ABS is treated as a separable activity with a measurable cost. If the charge were not imposed, that cost would be absorbed into APRA’s general appropriations or industry levies, potentially shifting the burden. The instrument does not affect consumers, individual taxpayers, or any non‑regulated business. The geographic scope is nationwide because the reporting forms broken down by state and territory (e.g. ARF_392_0_1 for NSW, ARF_392_0_2 for VIC, etc.) cover the entire Australian financial system. The charge does not differentiate by entity size or type. It is a single lump sum for the whole year covering all the data that APRA provides under the two attachments. The instrument is now historical (2016‑17) and does not impose ongoing obligations, though similar charges may have been imposed in subsequent years under separate determinations.

The instrument creates one primary duty: the RBA and the ABS must each pay the stated charge to APRA within twenty‑eight days of receiving APRA’s invoice. This is a statutory debt obligation. The duty is unconditional - there is no condition precedent such as verification of data accuracy or completeness. The only trigger is APRA issuing an invoice. APRA has the right to issue that invoice and to receive payment. The RBA and ABS have no express right to dispute the amount or to seek a refund for non‑provision of data. If APRA fails to provide the data, the paying agencies might have a right to withhold payment under common law or equitable principles, but the schedule does not address that. The duty to pay arises simply from the provision of the service. There is no duty imposed on financial sector entities under this schedule. Their duties arise under the underlying reporting standards and the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001, not under this charge determination. The RBA and ABS do not owe any duty to the financial entities; they are merely recipients of the data. The instrument does not confer any right on any private person to enforce payment or to challenge the charge. The only enforcement mechanism would be a government agency suing another government agency for debt, which is unlikely in practice. The schedule does not impose any obligation to maintain confidentiality or security of the data, though that would be covered by other legislation. The right to set the charge amount itself is not detailed - it appears to have been predetermined, possibly by a Minister or by an agreement between the agencies. There is no provision for variation or annual adjustment. The instrument does not state that the charge must be paid before the data is provided; the timing is after receipt of invoice, which could be after provision of data. This means the paying agencies have a window to review the invoice and potentially withhold payment if the service was not satisfactory, but only if common law principles apply. In summary, the duties and rights are minimal and straightforward: pay within 28 days of invoice, or be in default of a statutory debt.

The schedule itself contains no penalty provision for late or non‑payment. It does not specify interest, late fees, or any criminal penalty. Enforcement would therefore rely on general Commonwealth debt recovery mechanisms under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997. Under the PGPA Act, any amount due to the Commonwealth (or here, due to APRA as a Commonwealth agency) is a debt recoverable by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. APRA could theoretically issue a formal demand and, if unpaid, commence proceedings in the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (as APRA is based in Canberra). In practice, such inter‑agency litigation is extremely rare because disputes are resolved through administrative negotiation or escalation to the Treasurer. There is no provision for automatic set‑off against other payments between the agencies. The absence of an express penalty means the only consequence of late payment is that the debt remains outstanding and may accrue interest under the PGPA Act if a payment is overdue. The PGPA Act allows for interest on late payments but only if the Secretary or Chief Executive imposes it by determination. That determination is not referenced here. For financial sector entities, non‑compliance with the underlying reporting forms (the data that APRA collects) carries separate penalties under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001, including civil penalties of up to 200 penalty units for a body corporate. However, those penalties are not triggered by this schedule. The schedule’s enforcement gap means that if the RBA or ABS simply refused to pay, APRA’s only recourse would be to seek a political or ministerial intervention, or to reduce or cut off data provision. The schedule does not give APRA a right to suspend data supply for non‑payment. Therefore, the enforcement mechanism is weak and relies on inter‑agency cooperation. For a compliance professional, the key takeaway is that the schedule imposes no direct enforcement risk on private sector clients; it is an internal government cost‑sharing arrangement.

This schedule interacts most directly with the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 (FSCODA). Under FSCODA, APRA is empowered to determine reporting standards (s 13) and to require entities to submit data. The data collected becomes the statistical information that APRA then provides to the RBA and ABS. The schedule is likely made under s 9 of FSCODA, which allows the Minister to make determinations imposing charges for services provided by APRA. In absence of such a determination, APRA could not charge other agencies for data provision. The schedule also interacts with the Reserve Bank Act 1959, which gives the RBA functions related to monetary policy, financial stability, and the payments system. The RBA uses the statistical information (e.g. housing finance data, off‑balance sheet exposures) to analyse credit aggregates and financial stability. The schedule does not affect the RBA’s statutory functions but places a price on the data it receives. Similarly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 and the Census and Statistics Act 1905 govern the ABS’s collection and publication of statistics. The ABS receives the data listed in Attachment B to incorporate into national accounts, balance of payments, and financial statistics. The schedule ensures that the ABS pays APRA for this customised data feed rather than relying on the ABS’s own collection powers. The schedule also interacts with the APRA Act 1998, which governs APRA’s funding. APRA is funded partly by industry levies and partly by appropriations. The receipt of these charges from the RBA and ABS offsets APRA’s costs and reduces the amount it requires from levy‑payers. Therefore, the schedule indirectly affects the calculation of industry levies under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 and the Financial Sector (Shareholder Obligations) Act 2001. There is also interaction with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 regarding the handling of public money. APRA must account for the charges as revenue and it must invoice and collect them in accordance with the PGPA framework. The schedule does not override any other law; it adds a specific charging obligation on top of the existing data‑sharing arrangements.

This schedule appears to be a standalone instrument covering only the 2016‑17 financial year. The source text provides no amendment history. It is possible that similar schedules were made for earlier or later years, but this particular instrument is not an amendment to a parent Act. It was likely made as a legislative instrument under the Legislation Act 2003 and would have been registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. If it was amended, that would appear as a separate amending instrument. The schedule’s fixed term (one year) means it expired at the end of the 2016‑17 financial year. It has no ongoing effect. For subsequent years, a new determination would have been required. The user has not provided any subsequent instruments. The absence of amendment history suggests the schedule was made in its final form and not altered. The amounts ($157,837 and $298,457) are not indexed and appear to be negotiated figures, possibly derived from APRA’s estimate of the cost to extract, validate, and transfer the specified forms. Without amendment, the charge remains as originally set. Analysts should note that this is a snapshot of a single year. Any comparison across years would require locating the equivalent instrument for each year. The lack of amendment also suggests that the schedule was not subject to post‑enactment review or change during its life. It was a one‑off charge for a one‑year provision.

The source text does not mention any litigation, and no publicly known case law directly concerns this specific schedule of charges. Because the charges are between government agencies, it is highly unlikely that a court has been asked to adjudicate on its validity or enforceability. The only potential for litigation would be if a private party sought to challenge the underlying data collection or the reasonableness of the charge as a cost component of levies. However, the charge is not imposed on private parties, so standing would be difficult to establish. Australian administrative law might allow a financial entity to challenge a reporting standard or a levy determination, but the schedule itself is not challengeable by the banking industry because it imposes no duty on them. Federal Court decisions under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 are rare. Cases that have been brought usually relate to the scope of APRA’s data gathering power or to penalties for non‑submission. This schedule is a ministerial determination, and it could theoretically be challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires the enabling Act if the Act does not authorise charges of this type. No such challenge is known. The lack of litigation history confirms the instrument’s low profile. Practitioners should not expect any precedent to exist. If a dispute arose, it would likely be settled through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or through ministerial intervention rather than court proceedings. The schedule is a small piece of the federal budget machinery, not a source of controversy.

Several traps warrant attention. First, the schedule covers only the 2016‑17 financial year. Any practitioner who references it as a current obligation is mistaken. The amounts are historical and do not apply to any later year. For compliance work, you must locate the corresponding charge determination for the relevant year. Second, the charge is payable by the RBA and ABS, not by the reporting financial entities. However, a financial entity that sees these form codes (e.g. ARF_320_0) in its reporting obligations might assume the charge is somehow passed on to it. It is not. The entity’s compliance burden is the cost of completing and submitting the forms, not this charge. Third, the payment timing “twenty‑eight days after receipt of APRA’s invoice” means the paying agencies cannot be held in breach before the invoice is issued. APRA must issue an invoice to trigger the obligation. If APRA fails to invoice, the charge is not payable. This creates a potential administrative loophole. Fourth, the schedule does not specify whether the charge is inclusive or exclusive of GST. Under A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, supply between government agencies may be input‑taxed or subject to GST depending on the nature of the supply. The absence of a GST clause could cause confusion in accounting. Fifth, the attachments list forms that are themselves subject to change. The form codes (ARF, RRF, SRF, WRF, GRF) correspond to APRA’s reporting standards, which are updated periodically. The schedule references only the forms as they existed in 2016‑17; if a form was superseded, the data provision might have been affected. Sixth, the schedule does not contain a severability clause, but this is unlikely to be an issue. Seventh, the amounts are fixed in nominal dollars; no indexation means the real cost to the RBA and ABS eroded over the year. Finally, the schedule does not confer any right on the paying agencies to verify the accuracy of the data they receive before paying. They must pay on invoice, then possibly dispute later. This is a classic “pay now, argue later” structure that favours APRA.

Compliance obligations under this schedule fall almost entirely on government agencies, not on private sector entities. APRA must provide the statistical information to the RBA and ABS in the form of the completed data for the listed forms. APRA must also issue an invoice to the RBA and to the ABS for the respective amounts. The invoice must be issued after the provision of the data (or at some point during the year) and must specify the amount due and the 28‑day payment period. The RBA and ABS must arrange for payment to be made within 28 days of receiving that invoice. They should ensure that their internal payment systems can process the invoice within that timeframe and that they maintain sufficient appropriation or cash reserves. For financial sector entities (the actual data submitters), compliance involves accurately completing and submitting the forms listed in Attachments A and B to APRA by the statutory due dates under the relevant reporting standards. Those standards are contained in APRA’s Reporting Standards made under the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001. The forms cover off‑balance sheet exposures, financial position, debt securities, housing finance by state, business finance, lease finance, personal finance, derivatives, repos, and for life insurers and friendly societies, selected disclosures of investments and financial position. The entity must ensure that the data submitted is correct and timely. Non‑compliance with the form‑filing obligations can attract civil penalties. The compliance burden for a large bank is substantial, involving multiple data feeds and reconciliations across branches. For smaller registered financial corporations, the number of forms may be fewer (e.g. the RRF forms). For insurance entities, the SRF and GRF forms apply. The entity should maintain a register of all forms it is required to submit, cross‑reference them against APRA’s reporting standards, and ensure head office staff understand that these forms feed into the statistical information that APRA provides to the RBA and ABS under this charge schedule. There is no direct compliance action a private entity needs to take regarding the charge itself. The entity does not need to track whether APRA has invoiced the RBA or whether payment has been made. However, directors and CFOs should be aware that the cost of APRA’s data collection ultimately influences the industry levy they pay. If APRA’s charges to other agencies reduce its levy requirements, that is a small benefit. In practice, compliance with this schedule is simply an administrative matter for APRA’s statistical division, the RBA’s information services, and the ABS’s macroeconomic accounts branch. For most readers, the useful compliance step is to ensure their own reporting to APRA for the forms in the attachments is accurate, because that is the data being transferred under this scheme. A compliance checklist for the financial entity would include: identify all applicable form codes from Attachments A and B; verify the current version of each reporting standard; set up automated data extraction; test submissions in APRA’s reporting portal; and maintain records for audit.