Your browser is not supported

Our website does not support the browser you are using. For a better browsing experience update to a compatible browser like the latest browsers from Chrome, Firefox and Safari.

Exchange Settlement Account System (ESAS) access review

We are reviewing our current ESAS (Exchange Settlement Account System) access policy and criteria.

About the consultation

We asked for feedback on the ESAS access Risk Assessment Framework (RAF) proposed to form part of our revised ESAS access policy and criteria.

An important part of how we apply the access policy is assessing risks that may be introduced into the system by the ESAS applicant. We would use the RAF to evaluate the risks that an ESAS applicant may pose to the system if they were accepted to become an account holder. The draft framework considers CPMI-IOSCO's Principles for Financial Market Infrastructure (PFMI) in capturing the risks relevant for a systemically important payment system such as ESAS.  

Read the consultation paper (PDF, 890 KB) 

What we asked for feedback on

  1. Do you have any feedback on how we have described our objectives for ESAS?
  2. Do you have any feedback on our considerations for opening up ESAS? 
  3. Please review the RAF and provide your views on the following:

-Do you consider that there are any substantive risks that are not included in the RAF that should be included in order to safeguard the continued operation of ESAS?

-Do you consider that any of the risks set out in the draft RAF have been misrepresented?

-Is there any further feedback you would like to provide with regards to the draft RAF?  

You can find more information in the consultation paper. 

Read our privacy statement

All information in submissions will be made public unless you indicate you would like all or part of your submission to remain confidential. Respondents who would like part of their submission to remain confidential should provide both a confidential and public version of their submission. Apart from redactions of the information to be withheld (blacking out of text) the two versions should be identical. Respondents should ensure that redacted information is not able to be recovered electronically from the document (the redacted version may be published as received).

Respondents who request that all or part of their submission be treated as confidential should provide reasons why this information should be withheld if a request is made for it under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). These reasons should refer to the grounds for withholding information under the OIA. If an OIA request for redacted information is made the Reserve Bank will make its own assessment of what must be released taking into account the respondent’s views.

The Reserve Bank may also publish an anonymised summary of the submissions received in respect of this consultation.