The ACCC has granted new interim authorisation for an expanded range of measures allowing participants in the gas and electricity markets to work together to help safeguard Australia’s energy supply during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On April 3, the ACCC granted interim authorisation to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), allowing energy market participants to co-operate on certain measures intended to maintain secure and reliable energy supplies while the pandemic continues.

AEMO had applied for approval for a broader range of conduct, which the ACCC required more time to consider.

The ACCC has now granted interim authorisation for an expanded set of measures, including allowing market participants to share information about the operation of critical facilities and any risks to their continued operation. AEMO is also able to notify the ACCC of further types of conduct it needs to undertake in order to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ACCC has expressly excluded any conduct relating to gas availability from this new interim authorisation because at this stage it is not persuaded about the need for coordinated conduct regarding gas.

Importantly, the new interim authorisation imposes the same strict conditions as the original interim authorisation, including that AEMO report regularly on any measures taken, a ban on any contracts that would outlast the ACCC’s authorisation period, and a requirement that parties to the authorisation continue to comply with other conditions of authorisation that apply to conduct occurring under this authorisation.

“It is essential that Australian businesses and households have access to reliable and efficient energy supplies during this difficult time. There is a clear need for co-operation between industry participants to prevent any disruption to these supplies,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“However, it is important to note that this co-operation cannot extend to making agreements about energy prices or to sharing confidential information about pricing or profits. It will also only take place during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“We are going to closely monitor the effect of these arrangements and assess when it is appropriate for this authorisation to be revoked,” Mr Sims said.

The need for co-operation in the energy sector during the pandemic was raised at last month’s COAG Energy Council. COAG’s newly formed Energy Coordination Mechanism, made up of government and industry leaders, will be kept informed about measures taken to secure energy supplies. The ACCC will also be informed of such measures through this authorisation.

More information is available on the ACCC public register at Australian Energy Market Operator.

Background

AEMO manages electricity and gas markets and systems across Australia to ensure a reliable, secure, affordable and sustainable energy system. Its members include government and industry participants.

Electricity industry participants that might qualify for the interim authorisation include electricity generators, retailers, network service providers, metering service providers, and many other industry specific service providers. Gas industry participants that might qualify include producers, traders, retailers, storage providers and many other industry specific service providers.

Notes to editors

ACCC authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.

The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation.

Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.

The ACCC today announced that Scott Gregson would assume the role of acting Chief Operating Officer effective from Monday 27 April 2020 following the retirement of Chief Operating Officer Rayne de Gruchy.

Ms de Gruchy joined the ACCC in 2010 and commenced in her current role in 2014, driving and shaping the ACCC’s culture to enhance its capabilities, performance and impact. She had announced her departure earlier this year and assisted Mr Gregson in the transition.

Ms de Gruchy was awarded the Public Service Medal in 2003 and was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2008 for her contribution to public administration.

Before joining the ACCC, she led the Australian Government Solicitor as its inaugural Chief Executive Officer from 1999 to 2010, creating a successful government business enterprise in Australian Government ownership.

A lawyer by profession, Ms de Gruchy also held other senior executive positions in the public sector, been a non-executive director of a public company and practised law as a banking and finance partner of the law firm now known as Herbert Smith Freehills.

“We will miss Rayne’s calm and measured guidance and advice, and wish her and her family well in her much deserved retirement,” Mr Sims said.

“We thank Rayne for her outstanding career of public service and the pivotal role she has played in her time at the ACCC. Indeed, the ACCC owes much of its governance, culture, flexible working practices and success to her,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

Mr Gregson spent most of his career in enforcement roles at the ACCC. His most recent role was as executive general manager of its Merger and Authorisation Review Division.

Recruitment for the permanent appointment for the COO position is expected to go ahead later in the year.

The Federal Court has ordered that STA Travel Pty Ltd (STA Travel) pay $14 million in penalties for making false or misleading claims when advertising its MultiFLEX Pass product.

STA Travel admitted that, between March 2014 and August 2019, it made misleading representations in MultiFLEX Pass advertising that consumers who bought the airfare add-on could change their flights without paying fees or charges.

“Consumers were misled into purchasing the MultiFLEX Pass on the representation that they would not have to pay anything further for date changes to their flights, when, in fact, STA often charged consumers hundreds of dollars for changing their flights” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

In many cases, STA Travel’s charges were not reflective of additional fees imposed by the airline. For example, in almost a quarter of cases where a customer was charged extra by STA Travel, the amount was more than double the additional airfare and tax imposed by the airline.

“In 12 per cent of cases, STA Travel charged MultiFLEX Pass customers to make a change to a flight although the airline itself had not charged STA Travel anything at all for the change,” Ms Court said.

“These penalties serve as a timely reminder to all travel businesses that they must not misrepresent the costs applicable when travel services are changed.”

The MultiFLEX Pass cost up to $149 to purchase upfront. Between 2015 and 2019, STA Travel estimates it sold on average approximately 16,000 MultiFLEX Passes per year.

STA Travel admitted liability and made joint submissions with the ACCC to the Federal Court. STA Travel will also contribute to the ACCC’s legal costs.

Notes to Editors

The ACCC initiated proceedings against STA Travel in March 2019 and the proceedings are unrelated to any COVID-19 issues.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ACCC is assessing the impacts on consumers and working with the travel industry more broadly. Given the circumstances, the ACCC is urging all businesses to treat customers fairly in these exceptional times.

More information on consumer rights during the COVID-19 pandemic can be found here: COVID-19 (coronavirus) information for consumers.

Background:

STA Travel is a national supplier of travel and tourism services. Its advertising targets students and young people and emphasises discounts and flexibility.

STA Travel promoted the MultiFLEX Pass via multiple channels including its website, brochures/flyers, in store posters, a YouTube video and in-store LCD screen displays.

STA Travel sold a range of MultiFLEX Passes to consumers, namely:

• the ONEFlex Pass, costing $49 and allowing one flight date change;
• the ‘3 Change Pass’ or ‘Multiflex Pass’, costing $99 and allowing three flight date changes; and
• the ‘Unlimited’ or ‘Ultimate’ change pass, costing $149 and allowing unlimited flight date changes.

An example of one of STA Travel’s misleading advertisements is below:

7-Eleven and its franchisees have been granted conditional interim authorisation to discuss potential temporary store closures or reduced trading hours in light of reduced customer demand because of COVID-19 restrictions.

7-Eleven owns and operates stores in competition with its franchisees in some areas and therefore discussions and agreements between them risk breaching the competition laws.

“We recognise that 7-Eleven and its franchisees are facing difficult trading conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and believe this co-operation could help the network and individual stores to remain viable,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“Importantly, franchisees are not required to temporarily close or reduce their store hours if they do not wish to. Our decision to grant interim authorisation does not force franchisees to agree to the terms offered by 7-Eleven.”

Franchisees that agree to close temporarily will receive an ex-gratia payment from 7-Eleven to cover certain unavoidable operational costs. For franchisees that agree to reduce their hours, the minimum guaranteed income that the franchisee receives from 7-Eleven would be pro-rata adjusted to reflect the temporary reduction in trading hours.

“Franchisees are strongly encouraged to seek independent legal and financial advice when considering whether to adopt these temporary measures,” Mr Sims said.

Interim authorisation is subject to a condition that requires 7-Eleven to notify the ACCC of arrangements reached with franchisees to provide some ACCC oversight.

“We are going to closely monitor the effect of these arrangements and when it is appropriate for this authorisation to be revoked,” Mr Sims said.

Having granted interim authorisation for the arrangements, the ACCC will seek feedback on 7-Eleven’s application for authorisation. 

Details on how to make a submission and more information, including the ACCC’s interim authorisation decision, is available at 7-Eleven Stores Pty Limited.

Background

Authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The Franchising Code of Conduct will continue to apply to franchisees that operate non-fuel stores and the Oil Code will continue to apply to franchisees that operate fuel stores. Both codes contain a dispute resolution process.

Dispute resolution services are provided by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (ASBFEO). More about resolving franchising disputes and oil code dispute resolution is available on the ACCC website.

Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.

Members of the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and other mining associations will be able to work together to manage critical services and supplies during the COVID 19 pandemic, after the ACCC granted interim authorisation for the arrangements today.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to shortages and supply chain disruptions for some critical services and supplies used by the mining sector.

The interim authorisation will help ensure Australia’s mining industry continues to operate safely and efficiently, by allowing members that have been notified to the ACCC to co-ordinate on the sourcing, purchase and distribution of crucial supplies and services such as health and safety equipment, logistics, equipment maintenance and consumables like fuel and explosives.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on global manufacturing and supply chains, which has created challenges for those sectors, such as mining, that are still operating and still in need of crucial equipment and services,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“To help address these challenges, we have authorised mining companies to co-ordinate on a limited range of activities to help ensure they can continue to operate safely and efficiently.”

The authorisation only applies to activities relating to these critical services and supplies. It will, for example, allow companies to share inventories and manage demand for these critical services and supplies, coordinate deliveries, and share details of potential suppliers of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as N95 masks needed to work in underground mines.

“Importantly, the approval does not allow mining companies to coordinate on the terms, conditions or prices in supply contracts,” Mr Sims said.

“We are going to closely monitor the effect of these arrangements and when it is appropriate for this authorisation to be revoked.”

The authorisation applies to members of the MCA and seven other mining associations. The ACCC must be notified in advance of any arrangements made under the authorisation.

The ACCC will now seek feedback on interim authorisation, as well as the application for final authorisation, which is sought for a period of 12 months from the date of authorisation. More information, including the ACCC’s statement of reasons, a list of associations included, and the supplies and services covered by the authorisation, is available at Minerals Council of Australia.

Background

The Minerals Council of Australia’s membership includes many of Australia’s biggest mining companies. It has 51 full member companies and 29 associate member companies including mining service providers, state chambers, energy and transport companies and consultancy firms.

Notes to editors

ACCC authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.

The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation.

Broadly, the ACCC may grant a final authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.

Maintaining profits was a major consideration for the big four banks as they weighed whether to reduce mortgage rates in line with Reserve Bank of Australia cash rate cuts during 2019, the ACCC has found.

The ACCC’s Home Loan Price Inquiry interim report, released today, shows that the big four banks considered various factors as they decided whether to pass on the RBA’s June, July and October 2019 rate cuts. But recovering profits was central to their decisions to not always fully pass through the lower rates to mortgage customers.

“The banks were attempting to shore up their profitability during a period of low interest rates,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“It was their strong preference, after the RBA’s cuts, not to further reduce the rates customers were earning on some deposit products as they approached zero per cent.”

“The banks’ reluctance to cut these deposit rates led them to anticipate lower profits, which they aimed to recover by not always fully passing through cash rate cuts to their mortgage customers,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC’s analysis also found that the big four banks benefitted from a sustained decrease in their funding costs during much of 2019. While headline rates for owner-occupier home loans with principal and interest repayments fell overall during 2018 and 2019, the banks’ funding costs fell even more over the same period.

“We recognise that much has changed in the economic and funding environment since last year. The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted priorities and the banks are playing an important role in supporting the economy,” Mr Sims said.

“However, the inquiry findings shed an important light on bank decision making and raise questions about whether the banks could, at the time, have passed on a higher proportion of those RBA cash rate cuts to their mortgage customers.”

The ACCC’s Home Loan Price Inquiry interim report also shows that although average interest rates charged by the big four banks on home loans fell during 2019, a lack of price transparency and higher interest rates for existing loans continued to cost customers.

The interim report examines home loan prices charged by the big four banks between 1 January 2019 and 31 October 2019. It found that home loan pricing practices continue to make it difficult for consumers to compare different mortgage products.

Headline rates did not accurately reflect the price most big four bank customers actually paid for their home loans, because the overwhelming majority of customers received discounts, including opaque discretionary discounts.

“Given the economic disruption, uncertainty and job losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, many consumers may not be inclined to shop around and ask for discounts from their banks right now,” Mr Sims said.

“However, our analysis shows how that even a small further reduction in interest rates could potentially save thousands of dollars over the life of a mortgage. Consumers should consider this carefully when it is time to re-engage with their lender.”

For example, a customer with an average-sized new, owner-occupier, principal and interest mortgage of $386,000 could save about $5000 on interest payments in the first year if they went from having no discount to receiving the big four banks’ average discount of 128 basis points.

At the end of September, customers with new owner-occupier loans with principal and interest repayments were paying, on average, 26 basis points less than customers with existing loans. The difference was usually even more significant for customers with older loans.

The ACCC’s final report, scheduled for release later this year, will consider barriers to consumers switching to alternative home loan suppliers.

Further information at Home loan price inquiry

Background

On 14 October 2019, the Treasurer, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, issued a direction to the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into the market for the supply of home loans. The specific matters the ACCC was directed to take into account included:

• prices charged for home loans since 1 January 2019, including:
  • the difference between advertised interest rates and interest rates paid by customers
  • the difference between interest rates paid by new and existing customers
  • home loan suppliers’ pricing decisions following changes in the RBA’s target for the cash rate, including the extent to which changes were due to suppliers’ cost of funds and the timing of the suppliers’ announcements
• impediments to consumers refinancing to alternative home loan suppliers.

The interim report focuses on the first issue regarding the prices charged for home loans between 1 January 2019 and 31 October 2019 by the big four banks, which account for close to 80 per cent (by value) of home loans held by authorised deposit-taking institutions in Australia. The final report will consider the second issue, impediments to consumer switching.

The big four banks are Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, and Westpac Banking Corporation.

In preparing the interim report, the ACCC used its compulsory information gathering powers to obtain information and documents from the big four banks, and supplemented its analysis with data supplied by the RBA and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. 

The findings in the report reinforce and build on those in the ACCC’s earlier Residential Mortgage Price Inquiry.

Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd (Bob Jane) has given the ACCC a court-enforceable undertaking to comply with its obligations under the Franchising Code of Conduct in relation to renewal and extension of franchising agreements.

The ACCC was concerned that Bob Jane failed to comply with its obligations under the Code relating to end of term and renewal of agreements. In particular, Bob Jane failed to notify some franchisees whether it intended to renew or extend their franchise agreements at least six months before the expiry of their agreements.

The ACCC was also concerned that it extended the term of certain franchise agreements without first providing required documentation to franchisees and obtaining a written statement that the franchisees had received, read and had an opportunity to understand certain documentation.

“Under the Franchising Code, franchisors must notify franchisees in writing whether they intend to extend or renew the agreement prior to the expiry of the agreement,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.

“This is an important obligation as it allows franchisees to make informed decisions about the future direction of their business.”

“Franchisors must ensure they comply with their obligations under the Code. We took this action because we were concerned that Bob Jane failed to meet a number of its obligations,” Mr Keogh said.

Bob Jane has acknowledged that its conduct was likely to have contravened the Franchising Code of Conduct and section 51ACB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. 

As part of the undertaking, Bob Jane has agreed not to terminate any franchise agreements operating under interim arrangements without providing six months’ written notice.

As required by the Code, it will also obtain written notice from franchisees that they have received, read and had a reasonable opportunity to understand disclosure documents and the Code before entering into, renewing, transferring or extending the term or scope of franchise agreements.

Bob Jane has also undertaken to implement and maintain a compliance program for three years.

“Ensuring small businesses receive the protections of competition and consumer laws, with a focus on the Franchising Code, is a current compliance and enforcement priority for the ACCC,” Mr Keogh said. 

“Franchisors often have a stronger bargaining position in their dealings with franchisees, and we will continue to investigate and take action against franchisors where we believe there has been a potential breach of the Code.”

A copy of the undertaking can be found at Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd.

Background

Bob Jane, trading as Bob Jane T-Marts, operates a national network of franchised and company-owned tyre retail stores supplying tyres for a wide range of vehicles, and tyre and car maintenance-related services.

The Franchising Code of Conduct is a mandatory industry code across Australia that regulates the conduct of franchising participants towards each other. The ACCC regulates the Code and investigates alleged breaches.

In 2019, a Franchising Taskforce was established to provide advice to the Government to inform the Government’s response to the recommendations made to the Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into franchising. 

On 11 November 2019, the Taskforce released a Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for public consultation setting out identified problems with the franchising sector and possible options for government action.

The ACCC’s submission outlines the ACCC’s view that serious consideration should be given to a different regulatory model to address the fundamental concerns that persist in the franchising sector, rather than the incremental changes to the Code currently being considered by the Franchising Taskforce.

The ACCC’s submission in response the RIS can be found on the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources website.

More information for the franchising sector can be found on the ACCC’s website.

Nearly 200,000 vehicles fitted with potentially deadly airbags are still on the roads, and more than 8,000 of these are considered so dangerous they should not be driven at all, according to the latest ACCC figures on the compulsory recall of Takata airbags.

In addition, a significant number of vehicles fitted with a different type of faulty Takata airbag are yet to be remedied. These vehicles, which are fitted with Takata NADI airbags, are considered so dangerous that manufacturers are offering to buy back the vehicles or to provide a loan vehicle until replacement parts are available. We are aware that there have been two deaths and two injuries in Australia resulting from misdeployments of Takata NADI airbags. 

Motorists are being urged to check now if their vehicles are fitted with these recalled Takata airbags, as car dealerships are still operating and providing replacement airbags free of charge. 

“Even during this pandemic, replacing faulty airbags is an essential and potentially life-saving task, especially as vehicles may be being used by essential workers and care-givers,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.

“It will also be more important than ever that as more people start to use their cars again, they check that their airbags are safe. Affected Takata airbags can misdeploy and send sharp metal fragments into the vehicle at high speed, and cause serious injury or death to its occupants.”

“Drivers should check online or with their dealer or manufacturer whether their vehicles are subject to this compulsory recall or the voluntary recall of Takata NADI airbags, and never ignore a notice of recall from your car’s manufacturer,” Ms Rickard said.

Globally there have been 29 deaths and over 320 serious injuries reported, including one death and one serious injury in Australia relating to airbags affected by the compulsory recall.

Over four million airbags in more than three million vehicles in Australia were originally affected by the Takata compulsory recall due to these potentially deadly airbags.

More than 88 per cent of airbags have now been rectified, and about six per cent have been reported by suppliers as written-off, stolen, unregistered, exported or modified and unable to be replaced.

Figures from the ACCC’s latest quarterly update on the compulsory recall show that about five per cent (over 228,000) of faulty airbags remain in more than 196,000 vehicles.

In particular, motorists are in danger if they have a critical vehicle containing an airbag that poses a heightened risk of causing injury or death. There still more than 8,000 of these vehicles remaining on the roads, and drivers can check the Product Safety Australia website if their vehicle is affected.

“Vehicles with critical airbags should not be driven. Please contact your dealer to arrange for your vehicle to be towed to the place of repair free of charge so you do not have to drive it,” Ms Rickard said.

The ACCC is also conscious of the impact COVID-19 is having on Australian consumers and businesses.

“We understand dealerships are still operating and are offering the services outlined in the compulsory and voluntary recall notices. Both the ACCC and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications will be closely monitoring any changes to these arrangements,” Ms Rickard said.

Consumers can also search for vehicles affected by the Takata compulsory recall by entering their number plate and state or territory at: IsMyAirbagSafe.com.au or by texting 'Takata' to 0487 AIRBAG (247224).

A list of vehicle manufacturer helplines and contact details is available at: Vehicle manufacturer helplines & contact details.

Takata fast facts

• In total about 3.62 million airbag inflators (88.1%) have now been rectified in about 2.64 million vehicles.
• This excludes 259,025 airbag inflators (6.3%) in 216,138 vehicles reported by suppliers as unrepairable (written off, scrapped, stolen, or modified and unable to have the airbag replaced). 
• There remains 228,764 airbag inflators (5.6%) in 196,299 vehicles outstanding for replacement.
• As at 31 March 2020, there are 1,895 vehicles with critical-alpha airbags and 6,471 vehicles with critical non-alpha airbags outstanding for replacement.
• Vehicles with critical airbags should not be driven, and drivers are entitled to have their vehicles towed to the dealership to have the airbag replaced for free. 

Notes to editors:

• The Takata airbag recall is the world’s largest automotive recall, affecting an estimated 100 million vehicles globally.
• It is the most significant compulsory recall in Australia’s history, with over four million affected Takata airbag inflators and involving more than three million vehicle recalls.
• Takata airbags affected by the compulsory recall use a chemical called phase-stabilised ammonium nitrate (PSAN). The ACCC’s investigation concluded that certain types of Takata PSAN airbags have a design defect. The defect may cause the airbag to deploy with too much explosive force so that sharp metal fragments shoot out and hit vehicle occupants, potentially injuring or killing them.
• In addition to the compulsory recall of vehicles fitted with Takata PSAN airbags, eight vehicle manufacturers have also issued voluntary recalls for some vehicles manufactured between 1996 and 2000, which may have been fitted with a different type of faulty Takata airbag, being a NADI airbag.