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.

Petrol retailers should not use the current pandemic to further increase profits, which the latest ACCC petrol industry report shows have risen in recent years, and should pass on the full benefit of falling oil prices to motorists, the ACCC has said.

Weekly average international crude oil prices have decreased by around US$ 50 per barrel since the beginning of the year and this has largely flowed through to Australian wholesale petrol prices, which have decreased by around 50 cents per litre (cpl) in the same period.

Over the same period, seven-day rolling average petrol prices across the five largest cities (i.e. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth) have decreased by around 45 cpl. These cities have regular petrol price cycles, which makes it difficult to assess the exact flow through of falls in international crude oil and refined petrol prices in the short term.

“The drop in the crude oil price is good news for the Australian motorists. At this time the Australian economy needs all the assistance it can get, and lower world crude oil prices are one of the few positives from current world events,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“In the larger Australian capital cities, petrol retailers took too long to pass on the savings from the rapid drop in international oil prices, and this did not reflect well on them.”

In Hobart, Canberra and Darwin as well as many regional locations, retail prices have been much slower to come down and the extent of the falls has varied widely.

Fuel prices are generally higher in regional Australia due to a number of factors, including lower population and demand, meaning there are fewer petrol stations, which often leads to less competition. There are also higher costs for transport and storage of fuel, and less convenience sales which can support the operation costs of petrol retailers when fuel prices are low.

Price changes in regional centres can lag up to six weeks behind changes in the larger capital cities, because the turnover of stock is generally lower in the country. The reduction in demand for petrol due to current travel restrictions may have further exacerbated the lag.

“We have previously found that the lack of vigorous and effective competition in some regional locations was a major reason for higher prices in those locations,” Mr Sims said.

“Where there is competition, you tend to see lower prices. Giving your business to outlets that are pricing competitively sends a strong message to those that have high prices that they will lose your business. We recommend motorists compare prices on fuel price apps and websites, such as MotorMouth and the government schemes in NSW, WA and the NT, which also provide information on retail prices in regional locations.”

“Especially at this difficult time, retailers must not take advantage of the situation to increase their profits, but should pass on savings to motorists,” Mr Sims said.

“The ACCC’s role is to monitor the market closely, and we will continue to do this, particularly to keep the pressure on the petrol retailers at this time.”

New ACCC report shows retail profits increased over time

The latest ACCC petrol industry report reports on the revenues, costs and profits in the Australian petroleum industry up to June 2018. It includes financial results for the retail and wholesale sectors as well as for refining and across the total downstream industry.

Retail sector net profits across all fuel products, convenience store and non-fuel services were $616 million in 2017-18, the last year covered by this report.

The sector generated a record high $333 million in net profits on petrol products – regular unleaded petrol (RULP), premium unleaded petrol (PULP) and ethanol blended petrol (EBP). This equates to a record net profit of 3.0 cpl on petrol products, which was almost double the average in the period 2008-09 to 2013-14 of 1.6 cpl.

About 60 per cent of petrol net profits ($199 million) were made on premium fuels, which only accounted for about a third of petrol sales by volume.

“Much of the increase in net profits on petrol products was driven by sales of PULP, which has a significantly higher profit margin for retailers,” Mr Sims said.

Net profits on PULP 95 and PULP 98 were 5.8 cpl and 5.9 cpl respectively, while net profits on regular unleaded were 1.5 cpl in 2017-18.

PULP 95 and PULP 98 have become more expensive relative to the retail price of RULP. The annual average price differential between RULP and PULP 98, for instance, increased to 20.4 cpl in 2017-18, an increase of 3.9 cpl since 2009-10. Profits were also influenced by higher sales volumes of PULP (particularly PULP 98).

Retailers also earn substantial profits from convenience store sales. Convenience and other non-fuel sales contributed around 37 per cent of total retail sector net profits (or $226 million) in 2017-18, illustrating their importance to petrol retailers’ businesses as the profit margins on these products are significant.

“Petrol stations make most of their profits from convenience sales and premium fuel. The average net profits on regular unleaded, at about 1.5 cpl are only a small part of the price motorists pay,” Mr Sims said.

The annual average retail price of RULP in the five largest cities in 2017-18 was 134.5 cpl.

“Drivers who have the option, can save money by resisting the temptation of convenience foods at petrol stations and using regular unleaded petrol, although motorists should follow their car manufacturers’ advice,” Mr Sims said.

Net profits in 2017-18 were stronger for refining and across the total downstream industry

The number of refineries halved from eight in 2002-03 to four in 2017-18, significantly rationalising operations. The financial performance of the refining sector fluctuated over the same period.

Refining net profits however recovered following several years of net losses after the Global Financial Crisis. Net profits reached $845 million in 2017-18, the highest since 2007-08. Overall profits for the total supply sector (which comprises refining, importing and transactions between refiners) were $1.19 billion in 2017-18.

Wholesale sector net profits were about $976 million in 2017-18 across all products and services. They have fluctuated over time but have been relatively consistent since 2008-09.

Net profits for the total downstream industry across all products and services were $2.78 billion (or 2.9 cpl), the highest recorded since 2007-08 and more than double the figure recorded for 2013-14 ($1.24 billion, or 1.4 cpl).

For petrol products, total industry net profits were $1.44 billion in 2017-18, or 4.2 cpl, the highest recorded by the ACCC. They were around double the profits on petrol products across the industry in 2013-14 ($723 million, or 2.0 cpl).

Notes to editors

On 16 December 2019, the Treasurer issued a new direction to the ACCC to monitor the prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of petroleum products in the petroleum industry in Australia. As part of this direction, the ACCC produces industry reports that focus on particular aspects of consumer interest in the fuel market in relation to prices, costs and profits.

This is the first industry report under the new direction. It reports on the revenues, costs and profits for the total downstream petroleum industry as well as for the following industry sectors: retail, wholesale, and total supply (which comprises refining, importing and transactions between refiners).

The focus of this report is to provide transparency around the financial performance and the profitability of the downstream petroleum industry. It presents results from analysis of this data.

The ACCC analysed the financial data of 11 companies:

• refiner–wholesalers – BP, Caltex, Mobil and Viva Energy
• independent wholesalers – Liberty, Puma Energy and United
• supermarket chains – Coles Express and Woolworths
• large independent retailers – 7-Eleven and On The Run.

The ACCC previously reported on financial results to the end of 2013-14.

This report includes data from 2002-03 to 2017-18 (the latest data analysed), but excludes results for 2014-15 and 2015-16, which was a period when the ACCC conducted other financial analysis of the industry as part of its regional market study reports.

All results in this report are in real terms in 2017-18 dollars.

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 ACCC has announced that it will not oppose Ventia’s proposed acquisition of Broadspectrum. Ventia is a 50/50 partnership between CIMIC Group Limited (ASX:CIM) and funds management firm Apollo Global Management, LLC.

Ventia and Broadspectrum are both providers of infrastructure services. The ACCC’s review focused on three types of infrastructure services: design and construction, operation and maintenance and facilities management.

The companies provide services to a wide range of industries, including industries that provide critical services to consumers such as electricity, telecommunications and water.

“We looked at this proposed acquisition closely to ensure strong competition remains in the supply of infrastructure services to industries with a direct impact on consumer prices,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.

“We contacted many customers of infrastructure services, and received consistent feedback that there is sufficient competition from alternative suppliers and that companies will continue to have a variety of options when contracting for infrastructure services.”

“Ventia and Broadspectrum generally offer differentiated services with minimal overlap in a number of industries including defence, justice, education, social housing, oil and gas, environmental consulting and real estate,” Mr Ridgeway said.

We are conscious of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on many businesses and transactions and, where possible, we will expedite reviews as we have done in this review.

Further information is available at Ventia Services Group Pty Ltd - Ferrovial Services Australia Pty Ltd (Broadspectrum).

Background

Ventia is a 50/50 partnership between CIMIC Group Limited and funds management firm Apollo Global Management, LLC. Ventia provides infrastructure services throughout a range of industries, including social infrastructure, transport and utilities. Ventia also supplies services for telecommunication infrastructure assets through its Visionstream subsidiary.

Broadspectrum provides infrastructure services across a range of industries, including defence, urban and social infrastructure, natural resources, transport, telecommunications and real estate. It also provides integrated property and facilities management services to 37 different Australian Government entities, including the ACCC.

Broadspectrum operates in its own name and through its subsidiary brands, including APP Corporation and Easternwell Group.

Design and construction services involve the planning, design and construction of capital assets. These services are inputs into the overall project delivery method used to take the project design from conception to construction, and handover to the customer.

Operation and maintenance services relate to existing infrastructure and include a combination of ongoing asset maintenance and repair, operational support and asset replacement.

Facilities management services relate to the maintenance of physical assets and their support processes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes to Editors

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Notes to editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further information at Home loan price inquiry

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ACCC has granted unconditional merger authorisation to Gumtree’s proposed acquisition of Cox Australia Media Solutions (Cox Media), allowing Gumtree Cars to be combined with Cox Media’s Carsguide and Autotrader sites.

“We authorised this merger because we concluded it was not likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition, including in the supply of online automotive classifieds in Australia. Therefore it was not necessary to consider the public benefit limb of the authorisation test,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

Carsales is the leading provider of online automotive classified advertising in Australia and is a significant competitive constraint on Gumtree and Cox Media. Facebook Marketplace is also a growing competitor to Gumtree and Cox Media in the supply of online automotive classifieds services.

“Our investigation showed that Carsales and Facebook Marketplace are likely to continue to provide significant competition in online automotive classifieds after Gumtree acquires Cox Media,” Mr Sims said.

“We also found that Gumtree and Cox Media focus on different segments, with Gumtree focussing on private seller listings and Cox Media focussing on dealer listings.”

The ACCC also investigated the impact of the acquisition on the supply of online display advertising on digital automotive content providers.

The ACCC was satisfied that the acquisition is unlikely to result in a reduction of competition for supplying online display advertising to advertisers wishing to target potential car buyers.

“Many advertisers use third parties to place targeted advertisements to individual consumers based on browsing history data on a wide range of websites. Further, we found there are a range of other digital automotive content providers where direct advertisers could place automotive-related advertising, including Drive, Carsales, GoAuto and digital versions of automotive print publications,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC’s determination is available at Gumtree AU Pty Ltd proposed acquisition of Cox Australia Media Solutions Pty Ltd.

Background

Gumtree’s application is the second merger authorisation application following reforms in 2017 to the merger authorisation process, which reinstated the ACCC’s ability to consider applications for merger authorisation. Previously authorisation applications were made directly to the Australian Competition Tribunal.

Merger authorisation provides an alternative avenue for merger clearance to the informal merger review process, which is the most commonly used avenue used by merger parties. The authorisation process is public. If merger authorisation is granted, merger parties are exempt from the merger laws.

The ACCC may grant authorisation for a proposed merger if it is satisfied the merger is not likely to substantially lessen competition, or where the likely public benefits outweigh the likely public detriments.

Gumtree sought merger authorisation for its proposed acquisition of Cox Media. Gumtree (through Gumtree Cars) and Cox Media (through Carsguide/Autotrader) both offer online automotive classified advertising to private and dealer sellers in Australia. Gumtree and Cox both sell third parties display advertising space on their websites and mobile applications.

Gumtree is a subsidiary of eBay Classifieds Holding BV, whose ultimate parent company is eBay Inc. eBay operates a multi-category general classifieds website in Australia.

Cox Media is a subsidiary of Cox Automotive, which is 70 per cent owned by Cox Automotive International Sarl and 30 per cent owned by DealerMotive Ltd, a consortium of Australian dealer groups. Carsguide and Autotrader provide automotive editorial content and automotive classifieds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ACCC has granted conditional interim authorisation to allow the Australian Energy Council and wholesale and retail energy businesses to co-operate to provide financial relief to residential and business customers who may be financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This interim authorisation allows business in the electricity and gas markets to hold discussions, share information, and enter into arrangements for the purpose of providing financial relief and other measures to small, medium and large businesses, and to expand support under existing hardship programs for residential customers.

“We know the COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant economic impact on consumers and businesses in Australia, which is why we have granted this interim authorisation,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.  

“Energy is an essential service and this is an important opportunity to allow energy market participants to support consumers and businesses through the pandemic.”

Importantly, authorisation is only granted on the condition that any agreements between energy retailers are not materially inconsistent with the relevant applicable principles in the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Statement of Expectations of energy businesses: Protecting consumers and the market during COVID-19.

The Statement of Expectations sets out ten principles the AER expects businesses to adhere to during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the continued safe and reliable supply of energy to homes and businesses. This includes expectations about payment plans and hardship arrangements, no disconnections and deferring referrals to debt collection agencies for recovery actions.

“The AER’s Statement of Expectations provides important principles that should be adopted by energy retailers in their dealings with customers during the COVID19 pandemic, and we expect  any conduct under this authorisation to meet or exceed the expectations set out in these principles” Mr Sims said.

The AEC must also regularly update the ACCC and the AER about the information shared and the decisions made by retailers as part of the authorisation.

The ACCC and AER will also be invited to attend any meeting where the energy retailers discuss or agree on financial relief arrangements. This will provide important transparency and oversight of these discussions.

“We believe that allowing the AEC and energy businesses to work together will enable customer relief to be provided more quickly and efficiently than it would if the parties were to work on these measures independently,” Mr Sims said. 

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

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 on the ACCC public register.

Background

The Australian Energy Council is an industry organisation representing 23 major electricity and downstream natural gas businesses operating in the wholesale and retail energy markets.

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 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 ACCC has welcomed the announcement that Flight Centre will stop charging customers hundreds of dollars in cancellation fees in order to get a refund for travel cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Flight Centre will refund thousands of customers who, from 13 March, were charged $300 per person to get a refund for a cancelled international flight or $50 for a domestic flight.

This policy will also apply to cancellations fees charged by Aunt Betty, Travel Associates, Student Universe, Universal Traveller and Jetescape Travel (trading as Byojet Travel), which are part of the Flight Centre group.

Flight Centre’s decision follows weeks of pressure from the ACCC for Flight Centre to improve its treatment of customers during COVID-19 travel restrictions.  

The ACCC said its next step would have been court action if Flight Centre did not change its position. This announcement will provide faster relief for consumers than would have been likely to have resulted from any court action. 

The ACCC has received a large number of complaints about Flight Centre’s cancellation fees from consumers via its Infocentre, website, and social media channels.

“This is a very welcome move made by Flight Centre for thousands of customers impacted by COVID-19 travel cancellations,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“We are continuing to discuss issues in relation to refunds and cancellations with the travel sector, and encourage travel providers to treat consumers fairly in these exceptional circumstances.” 

“While we know some consumers are very concerned about getting a refund or credit for their cancelled travel plans, we do ask people to be mindful of the significant impact that this pandemic has had on the travel industry.” 

The ACCC has received more than 6000 complaints from consumers dissatisfied with travel companies’ refund policies and cancellation fees, with thousands more contacting their local state or territory fair trading agencies seeking assistance resolving individual disputes. 

While a consumer’s right to a refund during this period will depend on the terms and conditions of the contract entered into with travel provider, the ACCC says many businesses are struggling to process the high number of cancellations.

“We ask consumers to remain patient and be mindful of the significant pressures on businesses at this time and, where possible, contact the business by email or website, rather than by phone,” Mr Sims said.

“These are very complex issues and may take smaller businesses more time to respond.”

For more information on consumer rights and obligations of businesses during COVID-19 please visit accc.gov.au

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Takata fast facts

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

Notes to editors:

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is dramatically changing the global economic landscape and causing severe disruption to Australian small businesses, ACCC Chair Rod Sims said today.

“Many small businesses are doing it tough, and are being forced to restrict their hours, lay off staff and, for too many, close their doors,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims was speaking via Zoom at an event organised by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI).

“We know the COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant economic impact across Australia, which is why we are taking measures to help consumers and small to medium sized businesses,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said the ACCC’s immediate response to the pandemic has focused in two broad areas of work:

• authorisation of crisis collaboration between competitors, particularly in relation to hardship polices, and
• the establishment of the ACCC’s COVID-19 Taskforce to tackle immediate harmful consumer and small business problems arising from the crisis.

Mr Sims said the ACCC has already granted interim authorisation allowing retailers to collectively bargain with landlords about rent relief during the pandemic.

“We see a clear public benefit in allowing retailers to work together in negotiations with landlords and help tenants who are experiencing financial hardship,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said a conditional authorisation had also been granted to allow the Australian Energy Council and wholesale and retail energy businesses to provide financial relief to business customers financially impacted by the current crisis.

“Energy is an essential service and it is important energy market participants support businesses through the pandemic,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said there may be further benefits to energy users flowing from the crisis.

“One rare positive to come from this pandemic is that wholesale electricity and gas prices are falling significantly. These falls need to be passed on to businesses that rely on energy,” Mr Sims said.

“As Australia comes out of this crisis we will need our energy prices to fall significantly if we are to have the recovery we need.”

Mr Sims said the ACCC’s COVID-19 Taskforce is rapidly responding to the thousands of phone calls, emails and social media reports from impacted businesses.

“We are already engaging with some large businesses about allegations they are deliberately choosing not to pay their suppliers, or demanding large discounts off goods already delivered, and also delaying payments significantly, and that they should cease the conduct immediately,” Mr Sims said.

“We are looking into concerns that many small grocery or convenience stores are missing out on supplies that now seem readily available to the large supermarkets. We need to maintain strong competition in the retail sector to ensure economic recovery once the pandemic subsides.”

The Full Court of the Federal Court has today delivered its judgment on the ACCC’s appeal in relation to proceedings brought to stop Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal in Brisbane by Aurizon (ASX: AZJ).

The ACCC had appealed the 2019 judgment of the Federal Court which held that the acquisition would not be likely to substantially lessen competition due to an undertaking that Pacific National had offered the Court.

While the ACCC was successful in relation to a number of legal issues, the Full Court found there was insufficient evidence to establish that the acquisition was likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition, and dismissed the ACCC’s appeal.

Although the majority of the Full Court agreed with the ACCC’s position on the meaning of ‘likely’, the case hinged on the ACCC establishing the likelihood of another player seeking to enter the market in the next five to ten years. The Full Court considered that the prospect of new entry was no more than speculative.

“This was a particularly important case for Australia’s merger laws, and the outcome demonstrates the real difficulty of applying the substantial lessening of competition provisions in the legislation,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

The result of the Full Court’s decision is that Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal may proceed, without the access undertaking accepted by the trial judge.

“This is also a sad day for the economy, because the ACCC’s view is that the prospects of competition in rail freight have been significantly diminished and the impacts of this will be with us for more than a decade,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC’s case was that Pacific National’s ownership of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would allow it to effectively prevent access to new entrants, entrenching Pacific National’s position as the dominant rail freight carrier on the east coast.

“We will now carefully consider the Full Court’s judgment. The ACCC will continue to consider what changes are needed to make Australia’s merger laws work in the way they need to, to safeguard the economy from highly concentrated markets,” Mr Sims said.

Notes to editors

The term ‘intermodal’ freight is used to describe the carriage of general freight usually in a container using two or more modes of transportation, such as truck and rail. ‘Intermodal rail linehaul’ refers to the rail leg of the movement of intermodal freight. ‘Steel rail linehaul’ refers to similar services that are provided in respect of steel products.

An intermodal terminal, such as the Acacia Ridge Terminal, comprises infrastructure with a connection to a rail line where containers can be transferred between transportation modes.

Background

The ACCC commenced proceedings on 18 July 2018 alleging that Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal from Aurizon would have the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in breach of section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The ACCC was concerned that the acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would deter a new entrant from providing interstate linehaul services in competition with Pacific National.

The ACCC had commenced a public investigation of Aurizon’s proposed exit plans, including the proposed acquisitions by Pacific National of the Acacia Ridge Terminal and Queensland intermodal business on 27 October 2017. The ACCC issued a statement of issues on 15 March 2018.

The Federal Court dismissed the ACCC’s proceedings on 15 May 2019. The trial judge found that, with Pacific National’s undertaking offered to the Court, the acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would not be likely to substantially lessen competition.

The ACCC lodged an appeal on 27 June 2019. The appeal, and cross appeals by Pacific National and Aurizon, were heard before the Full Court of the Federal Court from 17 – 20 February 2020.

Commissioner Cristina Cifuentes will leave the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on 3 July 2020 after more than seven years in the role, which she held concurrently with nine years as a board member of the Australian Energy Regulator.

Ms Cifuentes was appointed as a Commissioner of the ACCC in May 2013 for a five-year term and then reappointed in 2018.

“Cristina has been one of Australia’s leading infrastructure regulators for a long time and has made an outstanding contribution to the ACCC and AER, and played a large role on the international stage in relation to a wide range of regulatory issues,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“Perhaps even without even realising it, Australians have benefited immensely from Cristina’s extraordinary breadth of experience and knowledge, particularly in the energy, transport, telecommunications and finance sectors.”

“Cristina’s experience and mix of skills has been invaluable in shaping many of the ACCC’s key decisions.”

During her time at the ACCC, Ms Cifuentes chaired the ACCC’s Communications and Infrastructure committees, which oversee the ACCC’s regulatory role in key infrastructure in areas such as fuel, telecommunications, wheat ports, rail, and water.

Mr Sims says Ms Cifuentes’ contribution will be greatly missed by many across the ACCC and AER.

“Cristina has also been a champion for women and people from cultural and linguistically diverse communities within the ACCC and AER and a mentor to many,” Mr Sims said.

“All of us at the ACCC and AER wish Cristina the very best for her future endeavours both professionally and personally,” Mr Sims said.

Ms Cifuentes will also step down from her roles as an Associate Member of the Australian Communications and Media Authority and as Australia’s delegate to the OECD Network of Economic Regulators.

Background:

Before joining the ACCC, Ms Cifuentes held a number of directorships, including with the Hunter Water Corporation, First State Super Trustee Corporation and NSW T Corp. Her career has spanned both the public and private sectors, including positions at the Reserve Bank of Australia, the New South Wales Treasury and the Australian Securities Commission. She was a tribunal member of the NSW IPART between 1997 and 2006.