Meeting date: 18 December 2023
1982
Act
Improving and Strengthening
the Consumer Care Guidelines
Prepared by: Michael Chapman - Policy Analyst, Retail & Network Markets
Information
Carolina Rodriguez - Principal Analyst, Retail & Network Markets
Andrew Millar – General Manager, Market Policy
Official
the
under
Released
Improving and Strengthening the Consumer Care Guidelines
1.
Purpose
1.1.
This paper:
(a) Provides an overview to the Board of the responses to the Authority’s public
consultation on options to update and strengthen the Consumer Care Guidelines
1982
(Guidelines).
(b) Provides an update to the Board on the 2022/23 Annual Alignment Statement Report
on retailers’ alignment with the Guidelines.
Act
(c) Seeks the Board’s approval of staff’s preferred option to develop mandatory minimum
standards for consumer care based on the Guidelines, and timeline for achieving this.
(d) Seeks the Board’s approval to publish a decision paper informing the public of the
Authority’s decision and next steps.
2.
Strategic alignment
2.1.
This paper aligns with our strategic ambitions of consumer centricity and trust and
Information
confidence, and it falls under the theme of consumer protection.
3.
Recommendations
3.1.
It is recommended the Board:
(a) agree that the Authority develops mandatory minimum standards for consumer care
Official
within the Code, which will be based on the Consumer Care Guidelines.
(b) note the forward work plan for 2024 outlined in this paper.
the
(c) note the summary of the 2022/23 Consumer Care Guidelines Annual Alignment
Statement Report (attached in the decision paper as Appendix C), and that alignment
results are currently being fact-checked with retailers.
(d) approve the publication of the summary of the 2022/23 Consumer Care Guidelines
under
Annual Alignment Statement Report (attached in the decision paper as Appendix C)
following the fact-checking exercise with retailers and on the basis that there are no
material changes as a result of the fact-checking exercise.
(e) delegate authority to the Chief Executive to finalise and publish the summary of the
2022/23 Consumer Care Guidelines Annual Alignment Statement Report, after taking
into account any comments from the Board and making any minor amendments
including following the fact-checking exercise.
Released
(f) note that staff will seek the Board’s approval again for the publication of the summary
of the 2022/23 Consumer Care Guidelines Annual Alignment Statement Report if there
are material changes following the fact-checking exercise which affects the analysis of
the report.
(g) approve the publication of the decision paper (attached as Appendix A).
(h) delegate authority to the Chief Executive to finalise and publish the decision paper
(attached as Appendix A) after taking into account any feedback from the Board and
making any minor amendments.
4.
Summary
4.1.
In September 2023, the Authority released a consultation paper titled Options to update and
strengthen the Consumer Care Guidelines.1 This paper sought feedback on options to
improve and strengthen the Consumer Care Guidelines (Guidelines)2 that were published in
1982
March 2021.
4.2.
The consultation paper stated that since the Guidelines’ publication, the Authority has a
Act
new, additional statutory objective to protect the interests of domestic consumers and small
businesses in relation to the supply of electricity to those consumers. When the Guidelines
were published in 2021 the Authority’s only statutory objective was to promote competition
in, reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of, the electricity industry for the long-term
benefit of consumers. This consultation on options to strengthen the Guidelines seeks to
deliver on the Authority’s additional objective.
4.3.
In addition to seeking formal written responses from stakeholders, efforts were made to
ensure appropriate direct engagement from consumers. This included running an online
survey which sought feedback on the most significant questions in the consultation paper.
Information
We received significant response to the consultation paper, including 126 written responses
and nearly 1000 survey responses.
4.4.
The overwhelming majority of submissions received were from consumers and consumer
advocacy groups, who universally argued in favour of mandating the Guidelines in their
entirety. Retailers and other industry-facing respondents were open to mandating the
Guidelines (either in part or in whole) but focussed their feedback on the need to address
Official
issues of interpretation and ambiguity within the Guidelines themselves.
4.5.
This paper provides the Board with an overview of the responses received to that
the
consultation, as well as an overview of the most recent report on retailers’ alignment with
the Guidelines.
4.6.
It also seeks the Board’s approval of a proposal to develop mandatory minimum standards
of consumer care in the Code based on the Guidelines - a proposal that was not considered
in the consultation paper. This proposal is similar to one of the options (option four – to
under
mandate the Guidelines) but includes an additional process for the Authority to address
feedback received in consultation around interpretation and ambiguity. This paper
discusses the reasons behind staff’s proposal to progress with this alternative option.
Released
1 The consultation paper can be found here: Options to update and strengthen the Consumer Care
Guidelines
2 The Consumer Care Guidelines can be found here: Consumer Care Guidelines v1.0 [iM ref: 1264060.78]
(ea.govt.nz)
5.
Background
5.1.
The Authority published Consumer Care Guidelines in March 2021, following robust
engagement across the sector. These were designed to support electricity retailers to
deliver a consistent and supportive minimum standard of care to all New Zealand domestic
consumers.
5.2.
The Authority decided that the Guidelines would be voluntary at the time of publication and
indicated that if voluntary guidelines did not satisfactorily deliver the Guidelines’ intended
outcomes, the Authority would consider mandating all or aspects of them in the future.
1982
5.3.
Our first review of retailers’ self-assessed alignment with the Guidelines for the period 1 July
2021 – 30 June 2022 (published in June 2023) which found that:
Act
(a) Five of the six large retail brands stated that they were fully aligned to the Guidelines.
(b) Six out of eight medium-sized retailers responded to the staff’s request to provide their
self-assessment of alignment with the Guidelines with four of those reporting full
alignment. The remaining two of the responding medium-sized retailers reported partial
alignment.
(c) Seventeen of the twenty-four small retailers provided a self-assessment, with 11 of
those 17 stating full alignment and the other small retailers who responded reporting
partial alignment.
Information
5.4.
Where non-alignment was reported a significant proportion of that non-alignment was
reported as being with Parts 7 (Disconnection) and 8 (MDCs). These parts of the Guidelines
are important for vulnerable customers and MDCs.
5.5.
Some of the medium and small retail brands did not provide a self-assessment, either
initially as provided in the Guidelines or in response to a follow-up email by the Authority.
Their alignment to the Guidelines was not assessed.
Official
5.6.
The review also noted that retail brands may have varying interpretations of the Guidelines
and what is an acceptable minimum standard of conduct, which could affect how they
the
reported their level of alignment.
5.7.
Consumer advocacy groups3 and the Energy Hardship Panel4 also consider that the
Guidelines, as currently drafted and implemented, are not effective in delivering adequate
protections to consumers and that retailers may not be following them.
under
5.8.
This variable alignment and consumer stakeholder feedback, alongside other issues such
as retailers interpreting the Guidelines’ recommendations differently, indicates that they are
not satisfactorily delivering their intended outcomes. Furthermore, the Authority now has an
explicit consumer protection objective and function.
5.9.
In response to those conclusions, the Authority decided to consult on work to update and
strengthen the Guidelines.
Released
3 A variety of organizations wrote an open letter to the Authority in June 2023 to advocate for the Guidelines
to be made mandatory. The letter can be found here: open letter 6.6.23 (anglicanadvocacy.org.nz)
4 The Energy Hardship panel recommended that “The Electricity Authority should review and consult on the
Guidelines that is then made into mandatory Consumer Care Mandatory Obligations for all retailers”. Refer to
recommendation CP1.
The most recent alignment report also informs our decision
5.10. The results of the 2022/23 Annual Alignment Statement Report shows much greater levels
of reported alignment with the Guidelines in comparison with the results from the 2021/22
report, particularly among large and medium retailers. Notably, the pool of small retailers we
requested self-alignment statements is bigger, due to changes to the qualification criteria.
5.11. However, in comparison to large and medium retailers, small retailers self-reported lower
levels of alignment with the Guidelines. In some instances, retailers who had previously
aligned with some parts of the Guidelines now indicated non-alignment.
1982
5.12. Further, some retailers identified in their alignment statements where they considered they
were aligned with a Part of the Guidelines but had achieved alignment through alternative
actions. Where this occurred, retailers provided commentary that their alternative actions
Act
addressed workability issues they identified with the Guidelines.
5.13. While on balance these results show an improvement in retailers’ alignment with the
Guidelines, ongoing non-alignment (especially amongst small retailers) suggest further
intervention is needed to ensure a consistent and supportive minimum standard of care to
all New Zealand domestic consumers. Intervention will also address the risk of harm to
consumers – particularly in areas where domestic consumer vulnerabilities commonly
surface.
5.14. Staff note that these results are subject to a fact-checking exercise with retailers. We intend
Information
for this to be completed before the end of 2023. Staff expect minimal changes (if any) to the
results, as they are self-reported assessments.
6.
The Authority released a consultation paper seeking views on
options to improve the Guidelines
Official
6.1.
The consultation paper was released on 4 September 2023, and sought feedback on
options to update and strengthen the Guidelines. The consultation period closed Monday 2
October 2023.
the
6.2.
The paper outlined the Authority’s view that the Guidelines could be strengthened and
presented four options the Authority was considering:
(a) Option One: Maintain the status quo.
under
(b) Option Two: Keep the Guidelines voluntary but clarify interpretation issues in some
areas.
(c) Option Three: Codify (i.e. make mandatory) parts two, six, seven, and eight of the
Guidelines - which provide key consumer welfare protections around financial difficulty,
disconnection, and medically dependent consumers.
(i) Includes pursuing wording adjustments to resolve interpretation issues as outlined
under option two.
Released
(d) Option Four: Codify parts one to nine of the Guidelines.
(i) Includes pursuing wording adjustments to resolve interpretation issues as outlined
under option two.
6.3.
The Authority outlined Option Three as its initial preferred option. It was the Authority’s
view that this option would protect the interests of domestic consumers facing financial
difficulty, disconnection, and medically dependent consumers. We also considered this
would minimise any potential negative impacts on competition, and efficiency –
considerations which align with the Authority’s statutory objective – as well as innovation.
6.4.
The consultation paper sought feedback from stakeholders on these options and the
Authority’s initial assessment of how best to achieve the Guidelines’ purpose and intended
outcomes.
1982
7.
There was significant response to the consultation paper
Act
7.1.
The Authority received 128 written submissions from respondents listed in Table One
below, including:
(a) One hundred consumers,
(b) Twelve consumer advocacy groups,
(c) One social agency,
(d) One disputes scheme,
(e) One electricity distributor,
Information
(f) Eleven electricity retailers,
(g) One research organisation,
(h) One electricity retailer association,
(i) One social enterprise.
7.2.
The Authority received eight submissions from school children, who articulated the
Official
importance of electricity to everyday life and the need for New Zealanders’ access to
electricity to be protected. We noted these submissions, but they were not included as part
of our formal submissions analysis (and do not feature in Table One below).
the
7.3.
We also received nearly 1000 substantive responses to the online questionnaire, primarily
from individual consumers.
Table One: List of submitters to the consultation paper by category
Category
Submitters
under
Consumer advocacy groups
Anglican Advocacy, Child Poverty Action
Group, Citizens Advice Bureau, Common
Grace Aotearoa, Community Law Centres
of Aotearoa, Consumer Advocacy Council,
Consumer NZ, Disabled Persons Assembly
NZ, Presbyterian Support New Zealand,
The Salvation Army, New Zealand Council
Released
of Christian Social Services, Electric United
Community Action Network
Social agencies
FinCap
Disputes scheme
Utilities Disputes Limited
Electricity distributor
Wellington Electricity
Electricity retailer
Contact Energy, Electric Kiwi, Electricity
Networks Aotearoa, Entrust, Genesis
Energy, Independent Retailers, Mercury,
Meridian Energy, Nova Energy, Octopus
Energy, Genesis
1982
Research organization
He Kāinga Oranga
Electricity retailer association
Electricity Retailers Association New
Zealand (ERANZ)
Act
Social Enterprise
Toast / Sustainability Trust
8.
Feedback revealed shortcomings with the existing options
8.1.
The consultation paper presented our desired policy objective as ensuring that the
Guidelines’ purpose and intended outcomes are consistently being delivered, in line with the
Authority’s statutory objectives. The Guidelines’ intended outcomes is to support electricity
Information
retailers to deliver a consistent and supportive minimum standard of care to all New
Zealand’s domestic consumers.
8.2.
After considering the feedback received, it became clear that that the options presented in
the options paper were not fully suitable solutions in their own right to achieving the desired
outcomes. In particular:
Official
(a) Option one – no submitters supported maintaining the status quo.
(b) Option two – Consumer respondents were universally against options that did not
the
mandate that Guidelines. Retailer respondents demonstrated to us that amending the
wording of the Guidelines would be a significantly more substantial undertaking than
originally anticipated. This is due to a vast number of issues raised in submissions with
the current Guidelines, and these being more complex than simply amending the
wording to address issues of interpretation (as presented in the options paper).
under
(c) Option three – Consumer respondents (and some retailers) questioned the suitability
of option three for providing comprehensive protections for consumers. While the
options proposed to be mandated (two, six, seven and eight) are the parts that would
prevent the greatest harm, many submitters raised that this undermines the whole
Guidelines as a whole given their interdependent nature.
(d) Option four – Retailer respondents raised several workability issues with option four
as presented in the options paper. Issues raised included the inability of certain existing
clauses to be monitored and enforced, ambiguities in the existing Guidelines that would
Released
make them difficult to implement as Code obligations, and the additional costs this
would impose on consumers.
9.
Analysis of options
Option two – voluntary with amended wording
9.1.
Option two proposed to keep the Guidelines voluntary but amend their wording to address
issues noted by stakeholders about varying interpretations of parts of the Guidelines.
Examples given in the consultation paper included:
(a) The definition of a ‘severe weather event’
(b) When a disconnection could be interpreted as endangering the wellbeing of the
1982
customer or any customer at the premises (clauses 66(c), and 73(a)(i))
(c) What ‘reasonable’ means in various parts of the Guidelines
Act
(d) Any other wording raised by stakeholders through this consultation that needs
clarification but does not significantly amend or extend the Guidelines.
9.2.
However, retailers outlined substantial challenges with the Guidelines including clarity,
workability, and concerns of cost-effectiveness. The need to eliminate ambiguities,
inconsistencies, and anomalies emerged as a common concern.
9.3.
The extent of the issues raised is potentially greater than resolving “varying interpretation
issues” as initially outlined under option two. It would be difficult for the Authority to justify
exploring many of the issues with the Guidelines raised by respondents under option two as
Information
many are beyond the scope of “interpretation”. As option two forms part of options three and
four, this difficulty extends to those options as well.
Staff do not recommend progressing option two
9.4.
Option two would keep the Guidelines voluntary, which would mean the issue of
inconsistent consumer outcomes due to varying interpretation of the Guidelines would
remain.
Official
9.5.
Further, this option would only afford the Authority the opportunity to address smaller issues
of ambiguity rather than address the larger issues raised by respondents. Given the range
the
and substance of issues raised by stakeholders with the Guidelines, and the scope of these
being beyond that proposed by option two, staff consider that option two would not achieve
the desired outcomes.
9.6.
For example, retailers raised issues with:
under
(a) highly prescriptive and rigid requirements for customers in arrears being excessive and
inflexible, leading to higher costs and/or inefficiencies for industry (that will be passed
on to consumers) as well as removing the ability for a retailer to tailor their approach to
working with a consumer based on individual circumstances.
(b) requirements for retailers to consider financial mentoring when examining a credit
history resulting in the retailer making judgement calls that are well beyond their
expertise and could involve consumers needing to provide highly personal information.
Released
(c) requirements for retailers to represent pricing plans available by competing
organisations raising considerable risks of mis-representing other organisations pricing
(and being better achieved by directing consumers to PowerSwitch).
(d) regulatory obligations being placed on consumers being inappropriate, such as
requiring a medically dependent consumer to create an individual emergency response
plan to use during any electricity outages.
9.7.
Staff have concluded it is important that these concerns are adequately addressed as part
of any option chosen to improve or strengthen the Guidelines. Industry participants have
also stressed the importance of a collaborative approach to resolving these complexities
and creating a comprehensive solution.
Progressing option two risks going against the feedback received
1982
9.8.
Progressing option two (or option one – the status quo) would be ignoring the substantial
feedback received to the consultation by consumers, consumer advocacy groups, and
retailers with the issues raised by keeping the Guidelines voluntary. Some retailers
Act
expressed concern that voluntary compliance will result in some retailers incurring costs to
align while others do not – and the effects this could have on competition.
9.9.
Consumer advocacy groups and consumer submitters demonstrated a strong desire for the
Guidelines to be mandated. The Authority received over a thousand submissions in favour
of mandating the Guidelines.
9.10. Further, where retailers expressed support for mandating the Guidelines, they also
emphasised the need for direct consultation to work through the issues they raised. This
was a necessary step for them to support any attempt at mandating the Guidelines as
Information
presented in options three and four.
Option three – codify parts of high importance
9.11. Option three proposed to codify parts two, six, seven, and eight of the Guidelines. These
parts contained recommendations for retailers to take specific actions for:
(a) communicating information about a consumer care policy.
Official
(b) when a customer anticipates payment difficulties, is having payment difficulties, and/or
is in payment arrears. the
(c) progressing to disconnection and/or reconnection.
(d) protecting medically dependent consumers.
Option three was originally the Authority’s preferred option, but staff now consider that this
is option will not lead to the best outcomes
under
9.12. Option three was initially the Authority’s preferred option, as we believed making these parts
mandatory would effectively mitigate harm to domestic consumers while minimising
negative impacts on innovation, competition, and efficiency. There was also a consideration
of speed to address any outstanding risk for vulnerable consumers who may not be
protected by the Guidelines, should their retailer not be aligned.
9.13. Staff have changed their view on the need to consider timing as a key criterion for choosing
an option. This is because the results of the most recent alignment report have shown that
Released
most consumers (circa 90%) are with retailers who are fully aligned with the Guidelines.
This significantly reduces the risks of a vulnerable consumer not being protected by the
existing Guidelines.
9.14. Additionally, retailers and consumer advocacy groups have repeatedly urged for a
comprehensive and clear resolution to updating the Guidelines rather that an interim
solution that may have adverse effects for both retailers and consumers.
Staff do not recommend progressing with option three
9.15. After reflecting on the submissions received the Authority now agrees with the majority of
submitters that having some parts of the Guidelines mandatory, and others voluntary, will
create significant issues. Some parts of the Guidelines proposed to remain voluntary
contain important foundational processes that are essential for realising the desired
1982
outcomes of the parts to be mandated, and their consistent implementation.
9.16. In essence, staff consider there is a need for a more nuanced approach that recognises the
interdependence of the Guidelines and the importance of a cohesive and comprehensive
Act
regulatory framework, while avoiding impacts on innovation, competition and efficiency.
9.17. Responses to the consultation paper show a desire for a comprehensive and coherent
regulatory framework for consumer protection from all groups – both consumers and
retailers.
Progressing option three risks undermining the Guidelines as a whole
9.18. Option three could inadvertently undermine the progress made by some retailers who have
implemented the entire suite of Guidelines. A segmented approach might create perverse
incentives leading retailers and new entrants to prioritise compliance with mandatory parts
Information
while overlooking voluntary components. This also extends to mandating select parts of the
Guidelines in the short term with a view to mandating the whole in the long-term.
Option four – codify all relevant parts
9.19. Option four proposes to codify parts one to nine of the Guidelines. This option was favoured
by consumers and consumer advocacy groups, who expressed concerns that the voluntary
Official
nature of the Guidelines results in harm to consumers due to inconsistent adherence to
them from retailers.
the
9.20. Consumer advocacy groups expressed that the key benefits of mandatory Guidelines will:
(a) reduce variability in outcomes, ensuring a consistent and reliable quality of service and
safety for vulnerable consumers
(b) allow the Authority to enforce compliance with the Guidelines as they will be Code
obligations.
under
9.21. While stakeholders in general supported mandating the Guidelines, some (particularly those
from industry) expressed that an adequate option requires a more nuanced approach that
improves clarity, coherence, consistency, and enforceability.
9.22. Retailers opposed option four, citing the lack of clarity that would be caused by mandating
the Guidelines in their current form. Retailers stressed the need for significant changes for
workability.
Released
There are significant shortcomings with progressing option four
9.23. Progressing option four and mandating the current Guidelines could lead to a variety of
issues, particularly with regards to inconsistent implementation. It could also have adverse
impacts on innovation and cost to consumers due to higher compliance costs.
9.24. Based on the feedback received, staff believe the Guidelines need to be thoroughly
examined to address the various issues raised in submissions before they can be made
mandatory. As noted above, retailers provided the Authority with a large number of issues
with the Guidelines.
9.25. However, as discussed above, the scope of any changes to the Guidelines proposed by
option two (and thereby included in option four) is too narrow for the Authority to include in
this process. This is particularly true if the conclusion of any further analysis is that some
clauses of the Guidelines should be removed and/or significantly altered.
1982
Staff recommend progression an alternative to option four (discussed below)
9.26. In light of the above, staff believe that it is imperative to explore a fit for purpose alternative
that better achieves our stated policy objective than the options consulted on in the
Act
consultation paper.
9.27. This alternative will maintain the principle of option four but will include a greater
examination of the existing Guidelines to address issues greater than purely those of
interpretation and clarity.
9.28. Pursuing an alternative also allows us to address the various concerns raised by
stakeholders as a part of the process of mandating the Guidelines, offering a practical and
efficient solution that includes the views of both consumers and retailers.
Information
10. Staff recommend that the Authority develops mandatory
minimum standards for consumer protection
10.1. Staff consider the best approach forward is to develop a set of mandatory minimum
standards for consumer protection (the Standards) within the Code, based on the
Guidelines.
Official
10.2. These Standards will aim to address stakeholders’ concerns and create workable, practical,
and enforceable standards that ensure consistency of outcomes for consumers without
the
creating unnecessary costs or ambiguity. Staff believe that this approach will ensure the
Authority sets clear service standards for retailers, while also facilitating effective monitoring
and enforcement.
The Standards will be based on the Guidelines
10.3. While this is a new approach, it is strongly informed by the consultation options. The
under
Guidelines will form a foundation of the new standards, which will be refined through the
experiences of consumers and insights provided by retailers who have implemented the
Guidelines.
This approach will allow the Authority to address the issues raised in consultation
10.4. This approach will require staff to rigorously analyse the Guidelines in light of the feedback
received in submissions. This will build on our earlier analysis of the Guidelines and will
allow us to engage with industry groups to inform the design of the Standards.
Released
10.5. Staff believe that this approach will best achieve the desired policy objectives and update
the Guidelines in line with the Authority’s statutory objectives – particularly the additional
objective. This option will also ensure the Authority’s addresses the views of both consumer
facing and industry facing stakeholders, which is likely to have the effect of creating shared
commitment across the Board to enhance consumer protections.
Staff believe any risks of extending timeframes are mitigated by the benefits from this
approach
10.6. Our proposed alternative approach to option four will occur in a similar timeframe, or just
slightly longer, to what was anticipated for option four. This does extend the timeframe for
the creation of Code amendments beyond that which was anticipated for option three (the
Authority’s previous preferred option).
10.7. Staff believe any potential consumer harm due to extended timeframes are mitigated by the
findings of the 2022/23 alignment report – which showed that the vast majority of domestic
consumers are with retailers that consider themselves to be fully aligned with the
Guidelines.
10.8. Of particular note was the specific improvements with alignment for disconnections and
medically dependent consumers. These findings indicate that the risk of vulnerable
consumers being with a retailer who is not aligned (and therefore at risk of harm) is low.
10.9. Further, engaging in a robust and targeted consultation with industry stakeholders in early
2024 to address the feedback received will reduce the likelihood that retailers will provide
additional feedback when the Authority consults on the proposed Code amendments, which
would extend timelines later in 2024. Staff also believe that engaging early with
stakeholders will reduce the time retailers need to implement the standards.
10.10. Further, investing time to address the issues raised by stakeholders in consultation in early
2024 eliminates the risk that these issues are raised again in future. Conducting a thorough
analysis of the Guidelines at this stage of the process will allow Authority staff to focus
future resources on addressing areas outside the scope of this consultation – discussed
below.
s9(2)(h)
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
s9(2)(h)
mation Act 1982
der the Officia
11. Respondents also raised several other issues that go beyond
the current scope of the Guidelines
11.1. In the consultation paper, the Authority also asked respondents to identify issues that fall
outside of the current Guidelines that they would like to see us consult on in a further issues
paper (question five).
Release
11.2. Many of these considerations are outside the scope for the Authority to consider with
regards to the objectives of this consultation. Should the Board agree to the alternative
option, the Authority will consider these issues after developing mandatory minimum
standards.
11.3. These issues included:
(a) Processes and fees for disconnection and reconnection
(b) The Guidelines’ approach to pre-pay plans
(c) Improving the Authority’s collection and publication of information.
There is a wider consumer-care work program to address additional issues
11.4. While the Authority will prioritise progressing the outcome of this consultation, staff note that
there are several ongoing work programmes at the Authority that may address some of 1982
these issues. These include:
(a) Improving the Authority’s collection of retail data.
Act
(b) Designing an updated registration form and emergency response plan to assist
medically dependent consumers.
(c) Options to support consumer plan comparison and switching.
11.5. Staff consider there is merit in allowing the above work programs to progress before
revisiting some of these issues as part of this review of the Guidelines, as they may address
some of the issues raised by respondents.
12. Next steps
Information
12.1. Should the Board agree to the creation of mandatory minimum standards in the Code, staff
will release a decision paper (attached as Appendix A) informing stakeholders of the
Authority’s decision. A communications plan in being prepared, and high-level engagement
points will be discussed with the Board.
12.2. Authority staff will then undertake a work plan for 2024 for the creation of these mandatory
Official
standards. This plan will be communicated to the industry as soon as possible so that the
necessary engagement required with various stakeholders can be arranged. This
commitment to public communication and stakeholder consultation is included in the
the
decision paper.
12.3. They key milestones of the forward workplan are outlined in table 2 below. Staff note that
this timeline is in-line with that presented in the consultation paper for option four, this being
code changes in place by in the second half of 2024.
under
12.4. As noted above, Staff consider that progressing an alternative to option four along this
timeframe will allow the Authority to comprehensively strengthen the protections for
consumers provided by the Guidelines (through the creation of the Standards), that also
addresses the feedback provided by respondents. This can be completed by the second
half of 2024, and staff consider this to be an acceptable timeframe given the alleviation of
the risk of harm provided by the results of the most recent alignment review.
12.5. Addressing issues outside of the scope of this consultation – previously referred to as
“phase two” of the review of the Guidelines – will be conducted in the second half of 2024
Released
as indicated in the table below.
Table 2: Key milestones for the creation of mandatory minimum standards for consumer care
Milestone
Description
Estimated
timeframe
Analysis of the Staff will conduct a rigorous analysis of the existing Guidelines January -
Guidelines
to decide which clauses will be codified, which will be altered,
February
and which may be discarded.
2024
1982
Stakeholder
Staff will engage with the sector to discuss the various issues
March – April
engagement
raised by respondents, and to discuss the workability of
2024
mandatory minimum standards in the Code, building on the
Act
consultation to date.
This will include workshop sessions to provide a platform for
both industry groups and consumer advocacy groups to
contribute. We are not proposing a further consultation paper.
Code drafting
Following the engagement phase, staff will draft code
Completed
process
amendments that reflect the refined Guidelines and
by August
stakeholders’ view and insights.
2024
This will involve translating the identified standards into
Information
actionable and enforceable provisions within the Code.
Cost-benefit
Staff propose that a comprehensive and external cost-benefit
September
analysis
analysis will be needed to evaluate the relative benefits or
2024
costs of the minimum standards for both retailers and
consumers.
Official
This will ensure the regulatory framework achieves its
objective efficiently.
Public
Codifying minimum standards would require us to first draft
September –
the
consultation
Code amendments. After Code amendments are drafted, we
October 2024
process
are then required to follow the consultation process for
proposed amendments set out in section 39 of the Act and the
Consultation Charter. This would include:
under
Publicising a draft of the proposed amendment
Preparing and publishing a regulatory statement
(containing a statement of the objectives of the
proposed amendment, evaluation of costs and benefits,
and evaluation of alternative means of achieving the
amendments’ objectives).
Consulting on the proposed amendment and regulatory
statement.
Released
Monitoring and Establish effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to Q3 – Q4
enforcement
implement the Guidelines effectively.
2024
Address
As discussed above, respondents raised several additional
Q3 - Q4 2024
additional/other issues with the Guidelines that lay outside the scope of this
issues raised
consultation.
Staff propose that these issues can be addressed following the
conclusion of this process, noting that there are additional
ongoing workstreams that may address some of these issues
in the new year.
1982
13. Attachments
Act
13.1. The following appendices are attached:
Appendix A
Decision paper for public release
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Appendix A Decision paper – Updating and strengthening the
Consumer Care Guidelines
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
