Welcome from CHOICE CEO
Peter Kell, CHOICE CEO, says:
Consumers can be – in fact already are – a powerful voice in holding corporations to account. During this congress we will hear stories from across the world of how consumers and consumer organisations are working to ensure that markets are fair, efficient and equitable.
And we will also hear about how there is much more to be done. The global consumer movement has selected four multinational companies that have failed to live up to reasonable standards of corporate responsibility. We need to highlight the ways in which corporate conduct fails to produce fair markets.
Companies now operate across borders as a matter of course, and consumer organisations must do the same. After all, as consumers we face the reality that product standards in other countries have a big impact on our choices, as shown by the recent recalls of Mattel toys from China.
And we are increasingly reminded that our consumption decisions have impacts on both the environment and working conditions of people around the world. This highlights the issue of sustainable consumption, and the fact that as consumers we also must be accountable for our actions in the marketplace.
Consumer trust in corporations has declined across both rich and poor countries. For example, on the issue of global warming research undertaken by Consumers International reveals that only 10% of consumers trust what companies tell them about their actions in response to this problem. A key reason is a lack of faith in the claims made about energy efficient and green products and services. Surely this indicates the urgent need, and opportunity, for nationally consistent verification of green claims and robust standards on energy intensive consumer products.
The web has opened opportunities to purchase goods and services across the world. Many of these opportunities have brought greater competition and greater choice to consumers. They’ve also opened up new ways to be ripped off. Interestingly, these new cross-border consumer opportunities have also exposed the inconsistencies in the way that corporations treat consumers in different countries.
This is where consumer organisations have to hold corporations to account. It is simply unacceptable for companies to apply decent standards in only one country or one region. In July this year 11 multinational food and drink companies announced they would adopt self-imposed limits on advertising to children under 12 in America. Coca Cola, Pepsi and Unilever are some of the companies in this group.
“Why, if these companies now admit to the harm they are causing, do so many not appear to be applying these measures to consumer advertising outside the US?” asked Consumers International.
This is the sort of question being put with increasing force to companies across all sectors of the economy.
The four areas of focus for this congress are:
What is interesting about all of these issues is that they affect consumers in Asia, Africa Europe, Latin America – across the world.
You can see this impact in the area of food promotion. Shrek has been the face of irresponsible fast food marketing to children across the globe. Hamburgers, chocolates and sugary breakfast cereals have carried the smiling ogre from the movie screen into the mouths of kids from Sydney to Shanghai. How can we confront the global advertising juggernaut built around these popular cartoon characters?
Yesterday Consumers International and CHOICE jointly released a media statement calling for an international code on junk food marketing to kids from the World Health Organisation. It pointed out that obesity is not just a problem in affluent countries like the UK, US and Australia. Less developed countries such as Mexico also have soaring rates of childhood obesity. I strongly support the call for a World Health Organisation code on the marketing of food to children.
How will we hold corporations to account?
So we will put pressure directly on individual companies to improve their practices. CHOICE recently took on Roche, the manufacturers of weight loss drug Xenical, to deal with inappropriate marketing and sales to young women of normal weight.
We will put pressure on industry sectors to clean up their act, treat consumers fairly across borders, and raise minimum standards. And we will work with governments, putting strong pressure on when necessary, if markets do not deliver fair results. At times regulation will be needed to protect consumers or to ensure competition works for consumers.
We will use the media to achieve these aims. We will work directly with consumers. We will lobby through traditional institutions such as WHO or WTO or our national governments. But we will also use innovative campaigns on the web and through eye-catching events.
In other words we will hold corporations to account through our campaigns, Some of these campaigns will be national, within our own countries. But if we are to be successful, our campaigns will increasingly be international through cooperation with each other and through Consumers International.
Holding corporations to account also requires us to work to improve our own accountability. Accountability also means that the consumer movement needs to be open and transparent about our aims, priorities and ways of working. So you will find today on CI’s website, and here at the Congress, a clear and coherent CI strategic plan and set of priorities. Importantly it was developed after consultation with members across the world – that’s part of the accountability process.
And we will also increasingly ensure that consumers also contribute to accountability through work on sustainable consumption and social responsibility. At CHOICE we now have a much clearer statement publicly available of how we are approaching sustainability and social responsibility on our website and in our annual report.
It’s an exciting time for the consumer movement. This congress in Sydney gives us a real focus for the work that we all do to improve the lives of consumers. I wish you all the best for the next two days.
For information about CHOICE’s campaigns see our campaigns page or sign up to our email newsletter CHOICE Campaigns Update.
Great conference so far but as Alan Fels commented, government services are a legitimate source of concern, so why is the theme just ‘holding corporations to account’? How about holding all suppliers/service providers to account?
Thanks Nigel. For the four key global campaigns that we’re working on at the 2007 Congress we have targeted the most powerful cross-border global players – multinational corporations. This is where we need to make an impact to improve outcomes for consumers. But of course consumer organisations also seek to hold governments to account right across the world, including in the areas of essential services and the protection of consumer rights.
Nigel and Peter –
Thank you for your comments above. I agree with Nigel that all suppliers and service providers must be held accountable – explicitly.
Where are the accountabilities of statutory authorities? How will take a responsible action in consumer protection and when?
As a concerned end-consumer of energy services in Victoria and an individual with a commitment to supporting best practices consumer initiatives, especially those that welcome voices reflecting real-world consumer feedback, I would like to publicly express dismay over the manner in which consumer protection appears to be compromised as a result of energy policies that may be considered to be driving unacceptable market behaviour.
End-users of bulk energy provision to heat centrally heated hot water tanks are apparently being exploited and imposed with contracts that properly belong to body corporate entities.
Water meters are apparently posing as gas meters with algorithms being adopted under State regulatory sanction. Embedded network contracts allow for several tiers of price-mark-up as the distribution chain lengthens by the addition of several middlemen.
Policy provisions of the Essential Services Commission Victoria (and similar in other states) that allow water meters to pose as gas meters where individual consumption of energy used to heat communal water tanks supplying heated water to renting tenants cannot be measured in accordance with proper trade measurement practices.
These provisions have given rise to alleged both procedural and substantive unconscionable conduct.
Gas does not pass through water meters. Electricity does not pass through water meters.
Water meters are unsuitable instruments for measurement of energy.
Gas is measured in megajoules (MJ). Electricity is measured in KW-h.
Any measurement that allows for water volume calculations or some other bizarre equivalent, to be part of the equation that calculates energy consumption is fundamentally flawed. These provisions to not uphold public interest, best practice standards or the spirit and intent of existing provisions. The provisions are as good as relying on an oil funnel to measure the weight of a bag of apples.
Energy retailers are licenced to sell gas and electricity not water products or heated water. In some cases where exemption granted non-licenced embedded network distributors are using similar methods without accountability through energy regulations (see for example Winters v Buttigeig VCAT 2004)
In the circumstances described there is an imbalance of power; the end-consumer has no provider choice; contractual status has been unilaterally and inappropriately imposed through misinterpretation of the intent of existing legislation regarding relevant customer and deemed contracts; demands were made to form an explicit contract under pain of threat of disconnection of hot water; the cost-recovery mechanism through s55 of the RTA imposes additional and unnecessary burdens on the end-consumer including filing fees through VCAT which would offset cost recovery, and in this case not readily achievable since the Complainant is unable to participant in legal proceedings without detriment.
I refer also to the report prepared by Professor Stephen Corones and Professor Sharon Christenson, both of the Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology and Ms Bridget Lewis, a Senior Research Assistant within the Faculty of Law. Its purpose was to assist the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into Australia’s consumer policy framework, including its administration and in accordance with the terms of Reference provided by the Treasurer.
Having briefly studied this commissioned report I note that the specific merits of the Victoria FTA as focused on procedural as well as substantive unfairness.
This allows the regulator to prescribe terms to be unfair and thereafter it is illegal to include them. This is a distinct advantage over the TPA provisions which focuses on procedural unfairness only.
However, in a case such as with provision of heating for communally heated water supplied to tenants occupying rented apartment blocks for example, the recourses are less clear, since the proper contract lies between the Owners’ Corporation and the energy supplier and not the tenant as end-consumer, notwithstanding the perceptions of the suppliers, provisions in the Energy Code, and provisions in the Codes and Guidelines sanctioned by the energy regulator. Such provisions have the effect of stripping end-consumers of their specific and general rights, but recourse is harder to achieve outside common law provisions which are prohibitively expensive and less readily accessible.
That statutory provisions exist at all that can have the effect of rendering inaccessible fundamental and enshrined consumer rights because of policies embraced by state regulators (in this case Essential Services Commission Victoria and Department of Primary Industries) is of great concern. I am in a position to elaborate on this view and provide substantial evidentiary material that consumer detriment has resulted and will not be addressed simply by harmonizing existing generic protections.
Existing policies appear to be flawed and require urgent intervention in the public interest. There are at least 26,000 Victorian consumers affected by current policies, and the same provisions appear to exist in South Australia and Queensland also.
Retailers are licenced to sell gas and electricity not value added products including heated water. Residential tenants are paying for water, both hot and cold under standard tenancy terms. The existence of water meters does not justify imposition of charges for water heated or otherwise unless water efficiency devices are fitted.
Any collusive arrangement between energy supplier, landlord and regulators or policy makers does not justify what is happening to those receiving bulk energy that cannot be measured. Water meters are posing as gas meters. Common practice does not make for just or fair practice. The existing arrangements are entirely unsuitable.
Though ostensibly apparently such provisions were intended to cushion end-consumers against price shocks, the proper contract lies under contractual law between suppliers and Owners Corporation entities so this argument is flawed.
The intent of trade measurement provisions has not been met in the formulation of statutory energy guidelines. Current provisions inadequately protect end-consumers.
Cost-recovery recourses through RTA provisions as pragmatic solutions against unfair practices are not suitable. Neither does such a recourse address the underlying systemic issues or contractual matters, leaving the end-consumer to carry unjust and unfair contractual obligations.
Unacceptable market conduct appears to have been made possible by existing statutory public policy provisions under guidelines authored by the Essential Services Commission. Full details available upon request
Quick update: CHOICE has a new CEO. Those of you who attended the CI Congress would no doubt already know Nick Stace, who recently gave the Ruby Hutchinson Memorial Lecture 2009, “Our time has come: why consumer groups are more relevant now than ever before.”
Dear Nick
Welcome as CHOICE’s new CEO
I have just read your published speech at this year’s Ruby Memorial Lecture – which you are yet to deliver!
I am very pleased that you empathize with the consumer voice and the frustrations faced by many individuals and consumer organizations endeavouring to stand up for the consumer perspective and not be silenced by the numerous methods that may be used to stifle public opinion.
I too have wondered what may have become of public expectation potentially as a powerful modifier when major changes are contemplated to outdated laws.
I have questioned whether public expectations of a consumer-driven society misplaced.
What can we expect in the 21st century? Surely we cannot be going backwards.
Yet I have direct experience of voicing concerns about tokenism in public consultation processes, and have given serious thought to the disturbing reflections in Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison’s “Silencing Dissent”
From David Tenant’s published views I have learned much about what it means to be a consumer advocate.
Thank you for saying:
“We must understanding but not speak the language of Government and industry, work with but never be captured by any interest other than the consumer”
Thank you for recognizing that change is needed.
Consumers are indeed more demanding and sophisticated – and they should not be deterred by the many attempts to trivialize their concerns, ignore their pleas for public policy to be more responsive, and for industry to recognize the value of forming harmonious consumer partnership and delivering best practice in the deliver of goods and services.
I am delighted that CHOICE so actively influenced unit pricing and grocery choice options.
I remain concerned about service delivery and exploitation in the utility arena and intend to again formally bring my ongoing concerns to the attention of CHOICE. I hope to engage with CHOICE on specific areas on concern regarding compromised consumer protection in the utilities area.
Electricity and gas are goods (commodities) whilst their ongoing supply are regarded as services. Consumer protection in this area is sub-optimal and has been neglected for decades.
I have in vain to date tried to bring attention to practices and policies that undermine enshrined consumer rights in relation to utilities, calling particular attention to certain public policies that appear to be actively enhancing unacceptable conduct by service providers of utilities.
Before you joined CHOICE I had written at considerable length to Peter Kell and to Gordon Renouf and have been actively involved in the consumer policy debate in response to various consultations undertaken by the AEMC (2007); MCE SCO National Energy Efficiency Consultation (NFEE2) (2007); the Productivity Commission (subdr242parts1-5,
(2008); MCE arenas (2008-2010); Essential Services Commission Victoria (2008-2009; CCAC Review of Implied and Statutory Warranty (2009); Commonwealth Treasury Unconscionable Conduct Issues Paper (2009); and pending publication National Energy Consumer Framework Second Exposure Draft (2010), outlining the National Energy Consumer Laws and Rules, from which the consumer focus has disappeared even in relation to naming conventions.
113 National energy retail objective (cf NEL s7; NGL s23).
The objective of the proposed national retail and policy principles are described under Part 1, Division 3 (113) cited from the National Energy Law s7, and the National Gas Law s23)
These are described as follows:
(1) The objective of this Law is to promote efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, energy services for the long term interests of consumers of energy with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy.
(2) The national energy retail objective should not be taken to prevent or restrict the development and application of consumer protections for hardship customers and other small customers, including the development, approval and application of customer hardship policies.
The National Gas and National Electricity Laws also include a clause regarding the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system.
The proposed national energy retail provisions appear styled National Energy Law and Rules appear to fail to meet the single national objective with regard to price, security and reliability of supply.
As identified by CALV (2009) and other consumer representatives in their response to the NECF 1st Exposure Draft, the title and slant of the proposed Laws and Rules is focused on industry instead of consumers reflect a process and procedural focus with “industry needs heavily prioritized” rather than a consumer protection one.
By contrast, as also pointed out by CALV and others, the new national generic law is to by styled Australian Consumer Law (previously TPA) and is more focused on achieving improved protection for consumers and alerting industry to the consequences of failing to embrace those principles.
As currently named the legislation and ancillary documents I support and echo CALV’s covering letter in their response to NECF1, which states that
“given the Framework is ultimately a consumer law, it should make adequate consumer protections front and centre, not a secondary consideration to retailer and distributor demands.”
Passing mention of generic laws, though without acknowledgement of possible changes regarding unconscionable conduct, or new statutory and implied warranty provisions for example, indicates small regard for the central issues that should be embraced in any consumer protection Framework. I agree that this is one of many fundamental flaws in the proposed regulations.
It is a myth than achievement of alleged economic efficiency will ultimately lead to protection of the “long-term interests of consumers” or of the single national objective.
I cannot see that the single national objective in the Framework, NGL and NEL has been met, especially in relation to selected groups entirely neglected within the proposed consumer protection framework for energy (NECF2).
The NECF2 Package in all its components does in fact appear to restrict the single objective and policy principles identified above, which are reflected those contained within the existing gas and electricity acts.
The devil is always in the detail. The NECF2 Package, appear to reflect pseudo-generic energy laws and rules fail to recognize this in practice, thus rendering the provisions less like energy-specific consumer protections than a cursory attempt to adhere to public policy expectations of industry-specific regulation. The focus is on process issues involving distributors, retailers and exempt sellers of utilities, with the new introduction of an exemption framework for gas also, previously rejected by the MCE as being a viable option because of safety issues.
It is not my view that the scanty consumer protection allowed within the NECF2 Package, poor consumer complaint and redress options, and omission altogether of several groups of consumers from the proposed Framework’s parameters reflects either best practice regulation, inclusiveness of all Australians, clarity or due regard to comparative law. The Package appears to be more process-focused than reflecting real consumer protection.
In addition I refer to inconsistency between all of these similar objectives and those of the national consumer policy objective are discussed with particular reference to the address by Dr. Steven Kennedy (2009) (see bibliography)
“In considering consumer policy, this approach is reflected in the national consumer policy objective: ‘To improve consumer wellbeing through consumer empowerment and protection, fostering effective competition and enabling the confident participation of consumers in markets in which both consumers and suppliers trade fairly.”
As an end-user of utilities I do not see the NECF2 package as having achieved the degree of empowerment required to foster effective competition in the manner described above.
Competition is not end in itself and this is something frequently when economic efficiency models dictate how laws and subsidiary regulations are formed.
Elsewhere, and in numerous other public submissions I have referred to Gavin Dufty’s (2004) analysis of the Essential Services Commission’s philosophies as presented by John Tamblyn (2003) World Congress on Energy Regulation, and concerns about the creation of residual markets when universal service obligations are shifted to consumers.
We are yet to see in place a well-function CSO model that will meet the needs of all consumers who have a right not only to participate in contribution towards competition, but also to guaranteed protection and redress options. These rights should not be excluded from availability to all Australians, no matter what the nature is of their minority statu8s in numbers or for other reasons.
Yet this package altogether excludes from both effective participation in fostering competition and from affordable and accessible redress options including through the jurisdictional complaints schemes known as Ombudsmen, in some cases with such limitations on their charters and jurisdictions, and with so many self-confesed conflicts of interest as to be of no value at all to certain groups of end-consumers of utilities. The exclusive focus on hardship (in the case of electricity representing 5% f the NEM) without focusing on other sectors of the community, including medium to large businesses means that the NECF2 Package fails on numerous counts in meting national consumer objectives and objectives under industry-specific laws.
In addition, the failure to properly consider the implications of comparative law, and provisions under other schemes and within the common law has created more not less confusion and potential for conflict, expensive complaints and redress and ultimately possible class actions in the open courts. Tow of these are already in progress in connection with the bizarre and inappropriate “bulk hot water policies” which three jurisdictions have been allowed to retain, apparently with so little understanding of or regard for the fundamentals of contractual laws, trade measurement best practice and a host of other provisions. Failure in this Package to ensure protection for all consumers of utilities, including those in temporary residence may be interpreted as irresponsible.
Likewise the small scale licencing or exempt regime is fraught with gaps that will create residual markets and exclusions from proper protection that the NECF2 Package has failed to address.
I deal with a selection of these issues in this submission though not in the depth deserved. As mentioned failure to comment on some aspects of these issues or to omit mention altogether of other matters does not represent endorsement, but merely time constraint.
I have reminded the Ministerial Council on Energy’s Retail Policy Working Group and Network Policy Working Group that the Australian Consumer Law in the words of Dr. Stephen Kennedy (2009) that the new Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
“…will introduce nationally consistent rules for business and trading practices, product safety obligations and the conduct of business-to-consumer transactions, including consumer contracts. These rules will apply to all businesses, and will apply throughout Australia.”
The ACL will include under a single national law for consumer protection and fair trading; national unfair contract terms law; a national product safety regulatory system ad further reforms designed to enhance the operation of law which draw on best practice in existing state and territory.
There is also the question of the National Measurement Institute role which it will more comprehensively assume in July 2010 when revised regulations will take enforcement effect, though remaining utility exemptions are yet to be effected, and could be the subject of further provisions. I discuss some metrology matters in more depth elsewhere.
In the meantime I will say up front how disappointing it is that due care has not been taken to ensure that regulatory overlap and conflict with other schemes and with the common law, and even conflict, inconsistency, duplication within energy provisions, existing and proposed, to say nothing of retention of some of the policies and provisions that represent the worst examples of regulatory practice and regulation instead of the best. Mere harmonization on a model jurisdiction basis will not resolve these problems.
Energy infrastructure market failure and compromised consumer protection have been recurring themes for decades – the opportunity exists now to get things right in a climate of massive regulatory reform. What a pity to have to be governed by political and other pressures. Not that I am suggesting either than extensive consultation has not been undertaken, whilst reserving comment on the quality of that consultation, which many believe to have represented no more than tokenism.
RIS processes have failed to give reasons for not addressing certain concerns, and in other cases last minute inclusion of major changes (such as occurred between the NECF1 and NECF2 packages) has meant that neither industry nor consumers were consulted early enough of given a proper opportunity to study and respond to the hundreds of pages of proposed regulation, to say nothing of all the submissions, policy documents and commissioned reports that needed also to be taken into account.
In this case I raise the issue of failed guarantee of the security of supply of essential services on the basis of both the provisions and the philosophical approach of such bodies as the Essential Services Commission.
A confusing hybrid model of energy-specific consumer protection has been proposed that on the one hand upholds certain national principles and on the other deliberately sacrifices the application of those laws to particular end-consumer groups of utilities.
This violates the fundamental issues of parity and equity and consistency, such that all Australians may expect to be equally treated. The concept of national provisions may need to be re-examined in the light of the extraordinary gaps to consumer protections encompassed by energy-specific proposed laws and rules.
In my response to the NECF2 Package (pending publication) I have raised questions of failure to ensure security and reliability of supply of essential goods and services (gas and electricity) in situations loosely referred to as embedded, though there is no such thing as an embedded gas network – no networks even exist for gas and where water is provided in an unregulated market also in a monopoly market where no choices can be exercised. (refer to the bizarre bulk hot water arrangements” adopted in three jurisdictions where end-consumers of a heated water product are unjustly considered contractually obligated for sale and supply of energy though none is delivered through flow of energy.
What these groups receive is a heated water product from which the heating component cannot be separated or calculated by legally traceable means. This is the equivalent of trying to weigh a bag of applies in an oil funnel. Such a practice would never be tolerated in a grocery store – so why for essential goods and services like utilities?
Other issues briefly explored include equity and parity issues, absence of retailer choice and effective contribution to competition for certain classes of end-consumers of utilities; weak exempt selling regime; lack of clarity and appropriate detail; absence of consumer.
I have expressed concerns about conflict and overlap with other regulatory schemes and common law (with a particular focus on unfair substantive terms in contractual arrangements; on metrology considerations, especially under NMI provisions as the sole metrology authority; on residential tenancy and Owners’ Corporation and building code implications, technical, safety, servicing and licencing matters and building code issues. Though some of these issues are not part of the NECF2 Package brief, they need to be taken into consideration for the scheme to work.
Whilst not all of these issues can be directly addressed by the MCE, the policy and drafting of the proposed Package needs to reflect awareness of these matters, and to cross-refer, as well as to consult with other regulatory schemes. Other issues under comparative law and ancillary provisions.
The implications of pending decisions by the Treasury regarding unconscionable conduct provisions and any possible directive to include in Codes Guidelines and by other means non-exhaustive lists of unconscionable conduct, which may be thought appropriate to extend also to small businesses including franchises.
There are pending possible recommendations of the Treasury (2009) in relation to inclusion within multiple ancillary provisions, including within Codes and Guidelines, of a non-exhaustive lists of unconscionable conduct behaviour or circumstances. The advice of an expert panel has been sought on this issue, who are also considering whether generic laws should cover the needs of small businesses. Any changes that result from Treasury recommendations will impact on final inclusions in the proposed NECF2 Package, to be rubber-stamped through Parliament in September this year.
I have mentioned the implications of failing to explicitly to remind industry participants that they must abide by all laws, not just those that are energy specific.
I have discussed implications of failing to cross reference energy provisions to other provisions and clarify where the over-riding decision lies (for example metrology is the province of the NMI as the sole authority and expert body in such matters. Recognition of this is not reflected in either wholesale or retail provisions.
I have referred to the implications of failing to consider jurisdictional differences with regard to Owners Corporation provisions (see Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic), with these provisions being superior and worthy of emulation in other States and of consideration in national provisions.
There are implications in failing to consider tenancy provisions, also operating discrepantly in various jurisdictions, with Queensland provisions being weakest.
I have referred to the perennial issues of conflict and overlap with other schemes and the common law, and within energy provisions state and federal, existing and proposed, calling particular attention within that submission once again to issues raised many times over in many arenas, including the MCE, with no effect.
Also the subject of focus are conflict and overlap with the spirit and intent of pending revisions to existing laws, which include National Measurement Provisions upholding the concept of legal traceability of trade measurement, and generic laws under the proposed Australian Consumer Law. appropriately clarify matters where indisputable conflict, overlap and inconsistency exists, and where unfair substantive provisions are included in policy provisions adopted by jurisdictions.
Omissions and commissions within the NECF2 operational parameters represent significant flaws in the design of the package. In certain areas an interpretation could be placed that direct disregard and disrespect for the provisions of other schemes may have characterized adoption of certain provisions or failure to more.
This is particularly noticeable with regard to trade measurement and metrology issues at least with regard to intent and spirit; to substantive unfair contract terms in the suggestion model terms and contracts within the Package – which has many gaps and fails in particular to consider the impacts of certain jurisdictional policies that will concurrently operate (see for example BHW provisions.
There are gaps in the deemed contractual arrangements in the tripartite governance model adopted for certain classes of consumers and within the exempt licensing framework with particular focus on comparative law matters.
The deemed provisions in particular appear to have been misinterpreted in outlining the details of the tripartite governance model adopted by NECF2.
I have concerns about the proposed exempt selling regime; shortfalls and access to complaints schemes, retail contestability and exempt seller compliance issues.
There are numerous gaps in the consumer protection through compromised complaints and other redress for all Australians, and especially those on deemed contracts and part of exempt selling frameworks, noting the differences between the gas and electricity markets and the absence of networks for gas.
There are issues with compromised complaints and redress options for end-consumers and businesses of all sizes, and complete absence of complaints options for certain classes of consumers.
There are extraordinary jurisdictional limitations under certain charters and constitutions, coupled with self-confessed conflicts of interest by certain industry-specific complaints schemes.
I favour a more robust consumer protection framework that is freer from statutory regulatory control and industry funding and influence. Perhaps one day this will be achieved.
In the meantime, consumer protection is unsatisfactory especially for certain arenas such as energy.
I hope that CHOICE will find opportunities to advocate for better protections for consumers of utilities as consumer needs and expectations in the 21st century seek a better deal for all goods and services for all Australians – without any exceptions..
Again, welcome on board Nick!
Kind regards
Madeleine Kingston
Individual stakeholder