Operators of dispute resolution schemes may have to improve the standard of their reporting, focus more on systemic issues in their jurisdictions and ensure that they take account of changing technology when they provide consumer access.These are among the issues raised in a review of the Australian government's best practice guide for dispute resolution schemes, "Benchmarks for Industry-based Customer Dispute Resolution Schemes".The Government has commissioned the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council to review the benchmarks, which were released in 1997.In an issues paper published this week, the CCAAC said that, since 1997, changes in technology and dispute resolution methods, as well as an increasing number and diversity of schemes, mean there is value in re-examining the benchmarks.The benchmarks provide principles and best practice guidelines for schemes such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit Ombudsman Service. In the financial services industry, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's regulatory guide for external dispute resolution schemes aligns with the benchmarks.The benchmarks cover accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness.The underlying premise of the benchmarks is that confident and empowered consumers are an important part of a dynamic economy, and that effective dispute resolution is an important contributor to that empowerment.On the issue of accessibility, the issues paper suggests that there may be opportunities for more targeted guidance in light of advancements in technology. Technology has changed the way customers interact with industry schemes.It cautions that schemes need to maintain their presence across a variety of platforms so as to deal with consumers who have special needs.The issues paper says independence remains an important best practice benchmark. However, some industry schemes may look to achieve it through governance arrangements that differ from those described in the benchmark. It asks whether the benchmark should be changed to reflect this.On fairness, the issues paper says the benchmark does not provide specific detail as to how determinations should be reached. It asks whether this gap should be addressed, but also points out that "what is fair and reasonable with respect to good industry practice may vary between industries."Schemes meet their accountability benchmark by reporting on their activities regularly. The issues paper says these reports tend to be either qualitative or quantitative. It has some reservations about schemes that provide only quantitative reports.It says: "Quantitative reports alone may not wholly explain how an industry scheme has operated to fulfill its terms of reference."The efficiency benchmark may be adjusted to encourage schemes to improve efficiency by focusing resources on identifying systemic issues for rectification.The issues paper also asks whether the CCAAC or some other body should develop implementation guidance which would offer a practical interpretation of the benchmarks.The CCAAC has called for responses to the issues paper by May 24.