AUSTRALIAN ENERGY REGULATOR

RESPONSE TO ISSUES PAPER

EXEMPT SELLING REGIME

MADELEINE KINGSTON

OPEN SUBMISSION[footnoteRef:1] [1: Intended also for Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC), ASIC (in view of possible gaps in corporations law and illustration of continuing alleged market distortion); Australian Energy Market Commission [AEMC]; AEMO; National Measurement Institute; NSW Fair Trading; NSW Department of Industry and Investment; Consumer Affairs Victoria [CAV]; all other State Fair Trading Offices; jurisdictional Tenancy Unions including Tenants Union Victoria; State Parliamentary Offices; Department of Energy and Resources South Australia; Department of Energy Queensland; others including the Senate Select Fuel and Energy Committee]

January 2013

Available to be freely quoted with appropriate citation

Contact details to be retained on submission please.

Enquiries about this submission may be directed to:

Madeleine Kingston (03) 9017-3127 or email mkin2711@bigpond.net.au

AER Revised Guideline Exempt Selling Regime (Retail Exemptions) November 2012

Madeleine Kingston Private Stakeholder, January 2013

Open Submission with appendices including case studies

Page 622 of 623

Victoria Australia

(03) 9017-3127

21 January 2013

Sarah Proudfoot

General Retail Markets Division

Australian Energy Regulator

GPO Box 520

Melbourne VIC 3001

By email: AerInquiry@aer.gov.au

Dear Ms Proudfoot

AER Approach to Exempt Selling Re-Drafted Exempt Selling Guideline November 2012[footnoteRef:2]/[footnoteRef:3] [2: May I say upfront and transparently, if you are relying for guidance and support from the Victorian ESC, and/or policy maker Department of Primary Industries Victoria , as national if not world-class models, please think again. That is, please] [3: A good indication of the rationale for caution re the policy positions of the Department of Primary Industries Victoria [DPI] and companion economic regulator Essential Services Commission Victoria [ESC] may be the findings of the former Victorian Auditor-General Des Pearson regarding the misguided and premature decision by the DPI regarding the smart-meter roll-outhttp://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports__publications/reports_by_year/2009-10/20091111_amid.aspxlast viewed 21 January 2012]

I respond to the final consultation in a limited way and for extending the deadline for response. I note that the response from CUAC is the only other consumer response to date. I apologize for the delay:

because of late notification prior to the holiday period in an email that had no subject line providing details of a Revised Exempt Selling Guideline with far-reaching implications;

other commitments;

because consumers generally are not taken too seriously by policy-makers, regulators and/or so-called independent bodies fulfilling public roles

because individual stakeholders such as myself may as well not exist as they have the least chance of being heard no matter how much effort they make to present either informed or uninformed opinion and whatever they may do to substantiate inputs

I hope that negotiated extension of deadline means that the submission will be accepted, published openly and considered.

I propose to continue to canvass my views one way or another since I firmly believe that the entire Exempt Selling Regime, even in revised form represents a move to open up the floodgates, so to speak for a dysfunctional market that cannot be good for a well-functioning confident market that includes meeting consumer needs and enshrined rights.

I am submitting a 624 page Main submission structured in a similar way to my previous submission to the Exempt Selling Regime Issues Paper, adding a few new sections and updating others.

I am also resubmitting as attachments the same batch of Appendices (1-14 including several case studies and ask that these be published separately in one batch to make access more manageable given the length of the Main Submission.

As I was I was unable to locate online important documents relating to the ESCs Small Scale Liencing Review in 2006, and in particular the response by the then Minister regarding the Order in Council 2002 used for purposes never intended by Government

Therefore as I had secured copies of both the Order and the letter from the Minister dated 21 March 2006, I am separately send these as discrete additional documents numbered Appendix 9A and 9B respectively so as not to disrupt the numbering of previous appendices resubmitted

The supporting data is meaningful and I will be disappointed if it is not published in addition to the Main Much of this material is already familiar to the AER, MCE, Productivity Commission, Treasury, Senate Select Committees and other numerous State and Federal Bodies, Ministers and Not-For-Profit entities (NFPs; NGOs).

The good news is that I am re-submitting much of what has already been submitted to the earlier Exempt Selling (Retail Exemptions) Consultation (Issues Paper),

Please publish my entire submission and appendices transparently including such contact details as are provided.

Thank you for inviting me to participate and again apologies for lateness.

Sincerely

Madeleine Kingston

DISCLAIMERS

Subject to appropriate acknowledgement and citation, I place no restrictions on dissemination of this material with the disclaimers herewith. This material, including all appendices have been prepared as a public document to inform policy-makers, regulators and the general public and hopefully to stimulate debate and discussion about reforms in a climate where regulatory burden and consumer protection issues are being re-examined. Its central aim is to provide a selection of collated views of stakeholders.

The material has been prepared in honesty and in good faith, expressing frank opinion and perceptions without malice about perceived systemic regulatory deficiencies and shortfalls, market conduct and poor stakeholder consultative processes, with disclaimers about any inadvertent factual or other inaccuracies. Perhaps I should go a step further and take a leaf from the wording of disclaimers adopted by CRA in their various reports[footnoteRef:4] and add that [4: 9 See for example the CRA commissioned Report to the AEMCs Review of the effectiveness of competition in the gas and electricity retail markets in Victoria 2008. This report was analyzed in my 2007 2-part submission to the AEMCs Victorian review of retail energy competition]

I shall have and accept no liability for any statements opinions information or matters (expressed or implied) arising out of contained in or derived from this document and its companion submissions and appendices) or any omissions from this document or any other written or oral communication transmitted or made available to any other party in relation to the subject matter of this document.

The major case study material presented as one of the attachments has been deidentified but represents actual case examples of consumer detriments, some seen to be driven by existing policies on the brink being carried into the National Energy Law and Rules at Second Exposure Draft stage with significant implications for generic laws and for general and industry-specific consumer protections. Implementation is expected by September 2010 when the Bill is introduced into Parliament. In that particular matter I acted as a nominated third party representative and am able to testify through direct experience my endeavours to have the matter fairly and appropriately handled by numerous bodies fulfilling a public role

Other case studies referred to have also been deidentified and reproduced or discussed with the prior consent in principle by organizations original reporting and publishing. Every endeavour has been made to acknowledge as accurately as I can the numerous citations included from material accessible from the public domain.

As to perceptions and opinions expressed by a private citizen, and those referred to from public domain documents, these too are expressed in honesty, good faith and without malice or vexatious intent, but reflect genuine concerns about policy and regulatory provision and complaints and redress mechanisms.

Madeleine Kingston

CONTENTS

Covering letter[footnoteRef:5]/[footnoteRef:6]/[footnoteRef:7] [5: Please also refer to submissions to AEMC ERC0092 Draft Decision Metering Data Service Provision and Clarification of Metrology Procedures dated 1 and 3 July, and previous correspondence 16 and 27 April 2010 respectively in the same matter all published on the AEMC website direct links footnote refersPlease also refer to submissions to AEMC ERC0092 Draft Decision Metering Data Service Provision and Clarification of Metrology Procedures dated 1 and 3 July, and previous correspondence 16 and 27 April 2010 respectively in the same matter all published on the AEMC website direct links footnote refers] [6: Madeleine Kingston Main submission 1st July AEMC rule change ERC0092Madeleine Kingston appendices 1-15 July AEMC - ERC0092Madeleine Kingston addendum submission 3rd July AEMC-0092] [7: See emailed communications from AEMC dated 23 April and 5 May 2010 respectively, the first advising that the AEMC wished to regard correspondence of 16 April as belated response to initial consultation phase; the second advising that the AEMC would regard the correspondence of both 16 and 27 April along with responses to Draft Report]

1-2

Disclaimers

3

Contents

4-9

Annotated List of Appendices (revised section)

10-12