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 has granted interim authorisation allowing retailers to collectively bargain with landlords about rent relief during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The interim authorisation, granted to the Australian Retailers Association and its current and future members, will also allow retailers to share information relevant to the negotiations including in relation to requests by landlords for certain information as part of considering and negotiating support to be provided in the context of COVID-19.

“We see a clear public benefit in allowing retailers to work together in the negotiations with landlords as it will help those tenants who are experiencing financial hardship during this pandemic to reach a fair outcome,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“We need to maintain strong competition in the retail sector and supporting these businesses will help with economic recovery once the pandemic subsides.”

The authorisation is voluntary and temporary, and does not include individual tenants exchanging information about the amount of their rent or any rent incentives they were previously granted. 

It is planned that the proposed co-operation will have regard to the proposed mandatory Code of Conduct which sets out the good faith leasing principles applicable between landlords and small and medium shopping centre tenants.

“As with all of the temporary arrangements that industries are looking to implement as a means to deal with the COVID-19 issues they are facing, we will keep under consideration when they are no longer necessary,” Mr Sims said.

Having granted interim authorisation for the arrangements, the ACCC will now seek feedback on 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 interim authorisation decision, is available at Australian Retailers Association.

Background

The Australian Retailers Association is Australia’s largest retail industry association and provides advice, education and advocacy for its approximately 7,500 members.

On 3 April 2020 the ACCC granted interim authorisation allowing shopping centres to co-operate to support retail tenants financially impacted by COVID-19.

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.

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.

Three-month exemptions have been granted to financial services providers required to share product reference data by 1 July 2020, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The temporary exemptions under the Consumer Data Right, until 1 October, will apply to non-major ADIs, including non-major banks, building societies and credit unions, and extend to non-primary brand products offered by the major banks.

The major banks have been sharing product reference data since July 2019.

Product reference data refers to information about a bank’s rates, fees and features of banking products. 

This data can be used by businesses, such as comparison sites, to compare products in the market.

“The ACCC is granting these exemptions as an acknowledgement of the intense resource requirements of the industry as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular non-major banks that may not be able to prioritise this at this time,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

“We understand that financial providers are dedicating many resources at present to support their customers, however we do encourage providers to share product reference information on a voluntary basis if they are in a position to do so,” Ms Court said.

Further consultation on Consumer Data Right Rules

A revised draft of the Consumer Data Right Rules have also been published today.

The proposed amendments to the Rules include:

1. clarifications on the types of accounts in scope for sharing consumer banking data
2. new rules on the function of the Accreditation Register and Registrar
3. rules relating to the use of the Consumer Data Right logo.

The proposed amendments following this consultation will come into effect from July 2020.

A copy of the draft revised Rules is available here: ACCC consultation on proposed amendments to the Competition and Consumer (CDR) Rules 2020

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.