Design Paper: an ‘opt-out’ data sharing model for joint accounts in the banking and energy sectors #176
Comments
CDR-API-Stream
changed the title
CDR-CX-Stream
added
Industry: All
JamesMBligh
added
the
Category: Design Paper
This new approach is to be applauded. The Design Paper and public consultation on Rules via GitHub will undoubtedly facilitate a richer and more dynamic conversation resulting in better outcomes for consumers 👏As both an active ADR and a DH, the team at Regional Australia Bank recognises the importance of contributing to this consultation. We will provide further feedback over the next 2 weeks, however if feedback is left late, the opportunity for important open discussion and debate will be limited. Therefore to kick things, and take full advantage of the time available, See below for some high-level initial thoughts and feedback. 1) Overall, the opt-out approach for JAs is most definitely supported and will undoubtedly remove undesirable friction in the consent authorisation process.
2) Assuming CDR rules will be amended so that data sharing is 'on' by default for JAs, we should consider different language to communicate this to consumers.
3) Assuming data sharing is 'defaulted to on', the in-flow election functionality becomes redundant and should be removed.
4) Q22 of the Design Paper refers to the current notification requirements. An overall principle to minimise these is encouraged.
5) Defaulting JA data sharing to 'on', removing in flow election functionality and simplifying messaging requirements will also reduce workload and complexity for DHs.
|
|
What exactly is the expectation of DHs who already have a joint account solution in play? If the expectation is that customers (presumably only those who have never changed the default 'do not share' setting) are advised in advance that their settings will be altered, how much notice is required and is there any guidance on the permitted form/s that such a notice may take? |
|
Thanks @RobHale-RAB and @Mekaal for providing these responses. We have shared them with the relevant teams and have a few points below: @Mekaal, in response to your query: The design paper proposes that data holders should be encouraged (but not be required) to notify consumers of the default CDR data sharing settings on their joint account (para 23). We weren’t anticipating a need for a notification period to apply before the default setting is changed (that is, for consumers that have not actively engaged with joint account data sharing settings for an account). We would welcome feedback on whether you think notification guidance would be useful and what this might look like. @RobHale-RAB, in response to your 4th point: We would welcome your views on how existing alerts and notifications might be reconsidered, including any specific notifications you had in mind and what alternative requirements or methods might look like. |
|
Fully concur with Rob Hale's comments. Data sharing defaulted to 'on' for JA's will prevent many 'pending consents'. Many customers are frustrated with the complexity involved in making elections to share their JA's. In our experience many just give up. For Q1 and Q2 raised, one difference between the banking and energy sectors for joint accounts is that in energy JA holders would also be concerned about the 'service' not just the financial aspects of the account. This would not change our views on the opt out, but some of the language used across sectors when making the rules. Not only financially focused. Also agree with making the in-flow election redundant. As much as possible all friction points should be removed. |
|
I still hear the word "both" being used during discussions on JAs. This language limits the thinking sphere, and excludes accounts with 3 or more account holders. I humbly suggest the word "all" be used and encouraged when talking about account holders for joint accounts. |
|
Thanks @TT-Frollo and @DrummerDaveF for your feedback. We have passed these points on to the relevant people. Based on feedback from a previous joint account workshop, the wireframes and CX standards now use generic references such as 'the other account holder(s)' or 'other account holders' to help support analysis and implementation for joint accounts with more than two account holders. We will relay this point to the policy and rules teams too. On terms to use for specific account holders, we have generally referred to the 'authorising account holder' - who has initiated the process of joint account data sharing - as 'Account Holder-A' (AH-A), and other account holders have been referred to as AH-B, AH-C, and so on. We will share this feedback with the policy and rules teams to support consistent referencing. For reference, the language in the above two points is used in the v3 rules wireframes (Miro | PDFs). |
|
Intuit welcomes this opportunity to provide feedback on this design paper. The design paper approach, in general, will help more fruitful discussions within the community. Intuit supports the ‘opt-out’ approach as outlined in the paper. This approach avoids the issues of:
We believe a fundamental principle behind a consent is that everything associated to a consent must be valid/true at time of consent. Allowing joint accounts that are not approved for sharing to be selected and included in a consent violates this principle. We fully applaud the recommendation of removing ‘in-flow’ consent as outlined earlier. There had been misconception that it is easy and simple for ADRs to deal with account(s) added into a consent at any time. While ADRs can easily use a Get Accounts API to know what accounts are available under a consent, it may not be so simple to actually use the data from a newly appeared account. ADRs may have multiple services or workflows to support the use of consumers’ data. To retroactively tie the correct workflow to the correct account(s) requires additional error handling/workflow. Some of that workflow may even require additional consumer interactions. If correct accounts are made available at time of consent, ADRs will know precisely the intent of the consumer and be able to establish the correct workflow and if additional interactions are required then consumers can immediately provide information making the whole process more efficient and pleasant for consumers. For complex joint accounts, Intuit supports Option 1: mirror current authorities on the data holder side to transact on complex joint accounts. As an ADR, our rational is we want to reduce customer frictions to provide services to them. However, we do not believe doing that at the risk of compromising existing authorities/securities that have been put in place on complex joint accounts. The consumers and data holders must already be familiar with existing practice and process. We don’t believe in introducing a new pattern of process/rules/authorities will be beneficial to the consumers. While there may seem to be friction for ADRs to obtain access to complex joint accounts under Option 1, we feel the need for DHs and consumers to understand new process/rules to share CDR data will actually be more of a hindrance for the adoption of CDR. The consideration on whether to adopt ‘co-approval’ or not under Option 1 really should look at what existing approval patterns are familiar to the consumers already. Let the consumers approve data sharing via this mechanism. CDR should avoid imposing another layer of approach or, worse, imposing something that contradicts current patterns. On the CX experience for Option 1, we support a design where all consumer accounts are visible by consumers during the authorization process. However, those accounts that are not eligible to be shared at the time, should not be selectable. This avoids customers consenting to share accounts that are not eligible for sharing. The ineligible accounts for sharing should have wording/information for consumers to guide them on the reason why they’re not sharable and/or where to seek changes to allow them to share such accounts. |
|
Regarding the recently published ‘Opt-out’ joint account data sharing model CDR rules and standards design paper (April 2020), does this include consideration for the proposed extension from read-only to “action initiation” and “payment initiation” (Future Direction of the Consumer Data Right, Farrell, 2020), particularly in regard to complex joint accounts within the banking sector? |
|
Teachers Mutual Bank limited appreciates the new approach of public consultation prior to finalisation of rules. Addition of a Design paper provides an opportunity for participants to deep dive into the requirements and its implications before its defined in set ways. CX mock-ups assist in getting everyone on the same page. Mock-ups are also a good way to subconsciously guide consistent agreed upon customer experience via all CDR participants to its customers. With respect to this consultation, our general sense is that the opt-out approach is preferential. One key observation from us, is that under the proposed opt-out method, either account holder can veto the provision of the data. This does not solve the inherent member experience challenge. A more seamless process would involve recognising that the data on a joint account is held both jointly and severally, and therefore either party can authorise the sharing of the data. This would mirror the general operation principles that apply to banking joint ownership structures today. Open Banking should follow the same principle. We do not feel “opt out” is the right term to relay the message. This goes against “Consent to share data” motto of Open Banking. Although customers can “opt out”, their data is essentially being shared without their consent until they take action to opt out. Doing nothing = providing consent? Can send the wrong message to customers about Open Banking. This aligns to Rob Hale’s comments regarding the negative connotations of “opt out”. We will need to consider the messaging to consumers carefully. In terms of the specific questions posed by the paper:
|
|
@CDR-CX-Stream, in reference to your follow-up question: I think one of the learnings so far for us all here is to be cautious in creating rules on the basis of an assumed model of adoption. Q22 in the Design Paper appears to assume that all JAHs would find notifications of other account holders' sharing activities useful. We don't actually know this yet, and consumers can't reasonably be expected to provide an opinion, given that they have not yet experienced this process at any meaningful scale. A suggested approach is therefore to make rules based on an MVP for notifications and controls, and wait for ADR and DH feedback on how consumers are reacting. It will be easier, less expensive, and faster, to augment existing processes with future iterations of rules, than to remove functionality baked into participant systems (that may have required third party commercial contracting to achieve). It feels as though this approach would also align well with a CDR objective of building consumer trust and confidence, whereas removing things could be viewed negatively and create confusion. In simple terms, an MVP for consent notification, might be to only provide a confirmation receipt from the ADR and the DH, and only provide this to the account holder that gave the authorisation. A guiding principle to support determination of the right volume of confirmation messaging might be to ask, "what is the minimum interaction that a consumer would reasonably expect in order to confirm their authorised action has been carried out?". |
|
@anzbankau raises a good point in comment #176 (comment) It would indeed be desirable to have a common set of transaction preferences across all channels. Of course this is not the status quo in banking today, and probably for good reason. When transferring funds to a new payee or via a new channel, or where a transaction value exceeds a predetermined threshold, consumers are used to being challenged for further authentication, perhaps by entering a OTP via hard/soft token, SMS, Google/Microsoft Authenticator etc. It seems appropriate for CDR behaviour to be consistent with this, and consider different control mechanisms for read v write access. If CDR controls are 'scenario dynamic' then that feels reasonable, provided the burden of those controls (on the consumer) is proportional to the risk and significance of the action being initiated. Authorising an ADR to view an account balance should have less need for interaction, than making a large financial payment to a third party with whom no prior transaction has been made. It is suggested that, for the time being, we focus on data sharing controls, and address action initiation in future iterations once consumer feedback and participant learnings are established. |
|
@anzbankau and @RobHale-RAB both raise good points in regard to implications for future access initiation rules. Preferences that the consumer understands and are aligned as far as possible to their existing understanding is preferable. Of course CDR is new and so a step by step approach is useful starting with read access. Write access will need further consideration and we should not hold up establishing read access into the community until all conditions have been addressed. Banking is changing with CDR and it will take some time to get right for the consumer, so agree with the MVP approach @RobHale-RAB has put forward and his comments on transaction action considerations. Frollo also suggests that, for the time being, we focus on data sharing controls, and address action initiation in future iterations once consumer feedback and participant learnings are established. |
|
Hey Everyone Sorry to be so late to the party - and hopefully our comments are received on time. First - this is a great initiative and we welcome / appreciate capturing feedback this way. In regards to the initiative concerning the improvement of joint account holders, this is a HUGE step in the right direction. The adoption, and ability for a consumer to have a great "first-time" experience when setting a CDR consent is probably one of the most important factors that will lead to its success. Hence why it is so important, when designing a solution to ensure that each experience will lead to a successful outcome. In the current rules, this is definitely not the case, because an individual can get all the way to account selection only to determine that their accounts are not visible. It's also worthwhile noting how painful this experience can be for a Fintech as well... Considering the limited capital / resources they have to prove out their business model, grow and scale - they finally convince someone to download their app (yay!), ask them to register (yay x 2), ask them to connect their accounts (deep breath - "hope they trust me"), finally they decide to connect (yay x 100) only to find out that their account is not there - the consumer cancels the flow, closes the app and never bothers again :-( The one concern we have always held with the current approach is this disconnect, or dishonour of not respecting the rules concerning the data sharing arrangement as held with the data holder (or "bank"). The concept of introducing additional configuration options that enable a person to toggle joint-account data sharing on / off via open-banking is counter to what happens when the same joint-account individuals / parties see when they log-in to their banking portal (where they see everything). We believe that this simply introduces too much complexity, and further has the ability to break the ADRs app e.g. one joint account holder uses a budgeting app to track spending, the other joint account holder goes into banking settings and turns off sharing - budgeting app can no longer see data and the app is broken... Furthermore, the ability for an individual to control whether another shared account holder can access / use 3rd party services is also a form a control which could be a counter argument as to why the sharing opt-in model was first introduced. If an individuals accounts are all joint-accounts then the other ja parties can effectively refuse to enable sharing - thus preventing an individual from engaging and using other financial services. This form of control can effectively reduce an individuals right to manage their finances. As a summary, our recommendations are as follows:
We believe by adhering to existing permissions, it will reduce cognitive complexity and will create a more transparent experience when consumers use a range of apps that interpret and rely on their data. Answers to Questions
|
|
NAB welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to improve customer experience for data sharing. We have carefully considered the problem statement and options listed in the paper which aim to reduce the perceived friction for the customer for CDR data sharing. However, after detailed analysis of each of the options, NAB does not support the ‘Opt-out’ approach and other options for complex joint accounts, as each option comes with an impact which may or may not help to achieve desired outcome. We believe that the Opt-out approach undermines the key principles of the CDR system, which has the customer and their fully informed consent at its core. There are privacy risks associated with an ‘opt out’ approach because consumer control and privacy is diminished if data sharing is set as a default. For example, if the opt out approach is taken this will allow one party to in effect unilaterally decide that data is shared as a default position built into the Rules. In cases where there is vulnerability there is a risk that this may lead to adverse outcomes for individuals. The Consultation Paper notes that “the rules provide that a consumer can only ever share their own customer data; customer data of the other account holder(s) is never sharable data (clause 3.2(3)(b)).” However, it seems to us that if an opt-out model is adopted Data Holders will be faced with a situation where they will be required to share a non-authorising account holder’s personal and potentially sensitive information (within transaction data) without their consent in contravention of the Rules and potentially in breach of privacy laws. After reviewing all options, the following is our feedback: Option 1: (mirror current authorities to transact on complex joint accounts). Option 2: require ‘opt-in’ for complex joint accounts Option 3: apply the ‘opt-out’ setting to complex joint accounts Implementation Considerations:
Enhanced CDR Participant Communication However we are seeking clarification on the problem statement that Enhanced CDR Participant Communication is looking to address eg. what use cases would ADRs use the enhanced information for. Our understanding is that ADRs are facing several problems: We are unclear how ADRs would make use of the different statuses proposed in the paper: “it is awaiting approval” or “has not been approved” or “has been set to ‘off’ (when a consumer opts out of data sharing on the joint account entirely)” or “has been stopped for a specific data sharing arrangement (when a consumer removes an ‘approval’)”? All of these effect the same outcome – the ADR is not able to get a complete set of account data. From a technical implementation perspective, we believe that some enhanced data could be provided by DHs through error handling (ie. when ADR calls Get APIs, DH returns an appropriate error response). Furthermore, we believe ADR’s should pull status information from DHs (rather than DHs pushing updates to the ADR). We believe that a pull solution by the ADR is a more robust solution (avoids the challenges with DH having to retry in the case of errors) and it aligns to same pattern of ADR’s calling other DH endpoints. NAB believes that we should not be developing bespoke CDR technical solutions but rather, we should align with the upstream technical standards, both current and emerging. |
|
Thank you to the ACCC rules team for opening this up for consultation. With CDR having been live for almost a year, we are now able to provide feedback with some practical, real-world experience behind us. These are my personal comments after being involved with both DR & DH implementations. Default setting for an ‘opt-out’ approach
Although an 'opt-out' approach is superior to an 'opt-in' approach, going a step further to simply align CDR data access with everyday digital access with no CDR-specific access options would have even more benefits. If consumers can log into Internet banking or their energy portal, download statements and share them with whoever they want with no additional restrictions, what benefits are gained by adding other layers of access controls and notifications in CDR? What problems are trying to be solved with such additional layers??? Complex joint accounts Again, keeping things simple and in line with existing expectations on digital data access is the way to go. We are talking about data sharing at present, not payment initiation. Anyone with existing access to their data through digital channels should expect that they have the same access to share that data via CDR, regardless of their authority to transact. As stated in other consultations, any form of 'co-approval' introduces sufficient friction and delays that effectively make once-off consents pointless, even with the 24 hour once-off window. Option 3 nullifies this problem. Additionally, introducing an avenue to restrict data sharing through a 'co-approval' model has the potential for one JA holder to effect control over the other JA holder. Probably not something we want to be introducing. 'Opt-out' settings There is acknowledgement of the effort and expense already outlaid by some data holders (including RAB) in the implementation of JA rules as they currently stand and that my position on 'opt-out' setting functionality would result in that effort and expense being thrown away. Granted this doesn't seem an ideal situation. I feel that in the interest of driving towards a functioning CDR ecosystem and a digital economy more broadly, we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture and we should objectively recognise the sunk-cost fallacy at play. The cumulative costs of maintaining an opt-out feature will, eventually, be more than the initial outlay. Also, despite 7 months of JAs I suspect numbers of JA consents are still relatively low. So lets save the bigger of the costs by cutting the opt-out feature lose sooner rather than later. Notification requirements As it is always easier to introduce features than it is to remove them, I suggest we refrain from introducing potentially unnecessary complexity by way of notifications until we recognise an explicit need/requirement. If we must, then limit it to a notification to the consent initiator of ongoing consents only (i.e. not once-off consents; they're over in a flash). Implementation considerations |
|
The following feedback was sent via email to [email protected] in addition to be posted here on behalf of Momentum Energy:
The first half of this feedback referenced the Peer to Peer Energy model and is submitted there. |
|
@Abhinavraje Risk to vulnerable consumers is often brought up as an argument to tighten controls and introduce friction in CDR. However there is a flip side to that approach where if CDR is usable, efficient and simple it can provide invaluable opportunities for vulnerable consumers to escape their situations. The UK's open banking has produced some great examples with use-cases that help build financial resilience, access credit scores, access financial assistance, debt management/advice services, affordability calculators, etc... It is these sorts of opportunities that come to mind when I think of the having the consumer at the core of CDR. It would be unfortunate if we were to forego such potential opportunities. |
|
@charteredaccountantsanz @cpaaustralia Representing over 200,000 professional accountants in Australia we support a single, sector wide, definition of a joint account and a single approach to action requests to share data from a joint account that mirrors existing authorities to transact on that account. Question 1: Do you prefer the definition of joint accounts in the rules, or would you prefer a sector-wide definition? Question 7: Do you agree that an ‘opt-out’ approach is preferred over the current ‘opt-in’ approach? Question 11: Which option do you support for complex joint accounts and why? With the view that a joint account is an account with more than one account holder we support Option 1 – mirror current authorities to transact on all joint accounts. |
|
AGL appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the issues raised in the ‘Opt-out’ joint account data sharing model paper (Opt-out paper). Whilst this paper is largely directed to the banking sector, we acknowledge Treasury’s preference that a model be developed which is workable from an economy wide perspective. As an overarching comment, we do not consider that the joint account rules will have extensibility from the banking sector to the energy sector due to different account management practices and the fact that joint accounts are not commonly available in the energy sector. We provide the following comments regarding the application of joint accounts in the energy sector and a broad overview of the manner in which accounts are established: 4. Joint accounts in a cross-sectoral context
|
|
Hi All, Joint Accounts in a cross-sectoral contextJoint Account concept may not be appropriate for energy sector Joint Account : Where there is a Joint Account arrangement, the current CDR Rules provide that both Joint Account Holders must agree to or opt-in to the same disclosure option to allow for sharing of Joint Account data. The disclosure options are:
We submit that the above current definition of Joint Account, and the entire concept of Joint Account does not fit the energy sector for the following reasons. 1. Consumers view energy and banking services differently - Consumers view their electricity accounts differently than they do their banking and other accounts with financial institutions; therefore, it is to be expected that multiple Account Holder arrangements will differ. i.e. It is a matter of convenience that partners living at a premises or a business may set up multiple Account Holder arrangements with their Energy Retailer, but most often will only enter into a Joint Account arrangement for their banking or financial services with a higher degree of care and ongoing attention (often visiting their bank to sign paperwork etc). 2. Granting account permissions and data sharing are different decisions - Another reason why the Joint Account concept does not translate well to the energy sector and possibly other sectors is to consider the different contexts in which account authority or permissions are being granted. A customer (Primary Account Holder) may be comfortable granting permissions to allow another person to manage their energy service and pay their bills, but they may not be comfortable in allowing that other person to share CDR data including sharing data in a way that could allow that other person to see it. i.e. managing an energy service and data sharing are different decisions. There are risks around assuming that being comfortable with the first means a customer is comfortable with mirroring those arrangements for the second. These risks are exacerbated if an opt-out approach is adopted for Joint Accounts as it means the mirroring approach applies as default unless the customer opts out. 3. The concept of independent authority is key - Energy Retailers may allow for multiple people to be connected to an account as “Additional Account Holders”; however, equating these Additional Account Holders to Joint Account Holders which have independent authority is overly simplistic and disregards key differences. We consider the idea of subordinate versus equivalent or independent authority is a key criterion in determining whether the Joint Account Holder concept is relevant to new sectors. In EnergyAustralia’s example, as the FR Account Holder is ultimately subordinate and does not have independent authority (i.e. their authority depends on the Primary Account Holder), we would suggest that the Joint Account Holder concept does not apply to EnergyAustralia’s account arrangements. We contend that the Secondary User concept could be a more appropriate mechanism to allow multiple people to share data under the CDR in a way that aligns to the structure of multiple Account Holder arrangements in the energy sector. 4. Financial responsibility – The Paper suggests that the idea of financial responsibility may be a criterion to help define Joint Account Holders. Specifically, financial responsibility may have greater relevance when considering how Joint Accounts may be applied for sector-wide rules. We disagree with this view as a financial responsible person linked to an account may not reside at the premises and physically consume electricity at that premises, and therefore much of the CDR energy data (such as Metering Data or consumption data) does not link to that person. Allowing a financially responsible person who does not reside at the same premises as the Primary Account Holder to be a Joint Account Holder and potentially share CDR data for that premises would not be appropriate. This is an issue which might not exist in banking – where there is no separate physical aspect of the service. 5. The size of the problem - Lastly, we highlight that Treasury should consider the scale of the Joint Account Holder issue in sectors other than banking. Unlike the banking sector where we understand a very high proportion of bank accounts are Joint Accounts, the proportion of multiple Account Holders in the energy sector is significantly lower. Only around 13% of EnergyAustralia’s electricity accounts have both a Primary Account Holder and a FR Account Holder. Therefore, setting up Joint Accounts for the energy sector (and granting access to multiple people linked to an account) will be much less frequently used compared to the banking sector. Further, and as alluded to above, Additional Account Holders can be made eligible to share data via the Secondary User mechanism (where that mechanism applies). The secondary user mechanism is in the CDR Rules today and has the benefit of setting up the secondary user instruction to share data as a different decision (resolving issue 2 above). For completeness, a summary of our levels of Additional Account Holders is provided in the Attachment. Default setting: Opt-Out approachAs detailed above, we do not consider that the Joint Account Holder arrangements under the CDR Rules should apply to the energy sector. However, should Treasury take a different view and extend Joint Account arrangements to the energy sector, our view is that the Opt-Out approach carries significant risks for customers and is not consistent with good customer experience. We note previous CX research and ACCC views to support this view below. The Consumer Data Standards: Consent Flow Phase 2 CX Stream 1 Report June 2019 states:
When first considering Joint Accounts, the ACCC considered an approach aligned with Opt-Out, where each Joint Account Holder would be notified of any data transfer arrangements and given the ability to terminate any data sharing arrangements initiated by any other Joint Account Holders. The ACCC moved away from this approach in the first version of the CDR rules. The ACCC said in their CDR Rules outline:
Taking into account these strong previous views, we urge Treasury to conduct more customer research to ensure that customers are satisfied that an Opt-Out approach will provide sufficient control and oversight over data sharing by other Account Holders. The Paper refers to concerns about customer friction, but these concerns seem to have been raised by Accredited Data Recipients (ADRs) and not customers. We also note that an alternative explanation as to why Joint Account Holders do not complete the disclosure option journey might be that they do not want to share Joint Account data and therefore they disengage, and that it is not due to reasons of customers experiencing friction in using the process. Another reason to retain an Opt-In approach is that it is another safeguard which may protect vulnerable customers, particularly customers at risk of family violence (physical or financial harm or abuse perpetrated by other Joint Account Holders). The Paper seeks feedback on additional protections for vulnerable customers. One key additional protection for vulnerable customers is to limit the data that can be shared through the CDR for Joint Accounts so that it excludes personal data i.e. data about an Account Holder’s contact details (including address) and potentially data that could expose patterns of a customer’s whereabouts (Metering Data). This approach was followed in the banking sector and would also be effective for the energy sector. Complex Joint AccountsWe do not think that the concept of complex Joint Accounts (Account Holder requiring multiple approvals before a transaction can occur) is applicable to the energy sector. The Paper seems to characterise “simple” accounts in the energy sector as arrangements which allow Joint Account Holders to independently add permissions for an additional person without approval from the other Account Holder (p 8). We consider this is a mischaracterisation – the relevant function should not be adding permissions of Additional Account Holders but being able to do actions in relation to the energy service. Focussing on the energy service would be more analogous to the approach for banking, where simple account means being able to transfer funds from the bank account without additional approval. Based on this re-definition of simple vs complex accounts to be where Additional Account Holders can or cannot do actions in relation to the energy service without further approval, we are not aware of any complex accounts in the energy sector. We submit that there is no initial need to accommodate complex accounts in the CDR Rules for the energy sector and should a need arise in the future Treasury can address it then. It is also not clear how prevalent complex accounts are in the banking sector either. Canstar acknowledges that there are generally two types of joint bank accounts:
Canstar observes that as a rule of thumb, Westpac says most accounts are typically “Either to sign” – i.e. simple and not complex accounts. Enhanced CDR Participant CommunicationThe Paper states that community feedback has suggested that issues relating to disclosure delays and denials can be mitigated with enhanced communication between Data Holders and ADRs. Basically, status updates are expected to assist ADRs in deciding when to proceed with collecting data based on the status update. We need more detail about these communications. It is unclear how the status updates will benefit the ADR and how they may benefit the customer. For example, how may the updates be used by the ADR in their interactions with the customer? If there are no clear benefits to the customer then we question whether implementing the status alerts would be worthwhile. We also question whether the status alerts would be voluntary or mandatory. AttachmentFor completeness, we have set out the different roles that people can have in relation to an account.
Additional Account Holders can be assigned varying levels of authority and responsibility. The below categories are an example only of EnergyAustralia’s main arrangements.
|
|
Origin appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the ‘opt out’ joint account data sharing model Design Paper. Origin has provided a detailed response to the Design Paper to Treasury. • Joint account as defined in the CDR rules suggests that each account holder has the same level of authority on the account and have provided consent to act on each other’s behalf in relation to the account. We do not believe that this definition will transfer to the energy sector. • There is no industry standard for setting up accounts in the energy sector. • Our account set process is to generally to establish a primary account holder who has financial responsibility for the account and has full authorisation over the details of the account. Additional account holders or authorised representatives are included on accounts; however, they do not have the same level of authorisation on the account. • It would seem that our additional account holders more align with ‘secondary users’ in the CDR rules and not ‘joint account holders’. However, we need to work through what information an additional account holder could obtain access to. The additional account holder would not provide any of the primary account details, direct debit details or concession information. If the additional account holder did not provide this information, should they be entitled to receive primary account holder details? • Another key difference with the ‘secondary user’ requirements in the CDR rules is that additional account holders do not have online access to accounts. The primary account has the online access, and the secondary user will only have online access if the primary account holder has shared log in details for the account. • Given the set-up of accounts, the CDR scheme should be limited to primary account holders in energy. • We do not support an “Opt out” approach. A fundamental consumer protection in energy is the concept of explicit informed consent. This means that a customer must actively provide consent before a retailer can make changes to their plan or whether information on their account is shared. We believe this principle must be preserved under CDR regime. • “Opt in’ approach is our preferred approach. It recognises the set-up of the account and that there are joint authorisations required on the account. It provides for data security and ensures that only data that has been consented to, is released. • We have specific concerns on how domestic or family violence accounts will be dealt with within the scheme framework. These are a category of accounts which should be withheld from the CDR regime given the potential risks of data being received by a party not authorised to receive it. Under Victorian legislation (managed by ESC), retailers are not to share details of a family domestic violence accounts with anyone without the consent of the customer. Hence, we have explicit checklist including extra password to follow when a customer identifies themselves as family domestic violence victims. DSB and Treasury should consult with the ESC with regards to this issue if it is intended to include domestic violence accounts within scope. • With complex accounts, the simplest and consumer focussed approach would be to allow the primary account holder to determine who is entitled to consent to the release of information. Specific technical comments on the wireframes for the Joint Accounts are set out below - • Design Paper Point 21 (p7) –
Question: If there is a joint account and account holder 1 initiates the CDR process and authorises DH, will the data be shared immediately (assuming the default opt-in on behalf of account holder 2? Is there a proposal to delay the sharing of data to allow account holder 2 to object if they do not want the data shared? How will the notification occur to account holder 2? There is a potential for data to be shared and account holder can only object after the fact. •
We believe DV accounts should be excluded from CDR to protect the consumer – this is particularly important to energy. Please see above – there is an explicit provision in Victoria that we are not to share any details on the account without explicit consent and additional password provisions. • In flow 1.3, any joint account arrangement should not include individual family domestic violence accounts or other sensitive customers. As stated above, these accounts should be excluded. Also in flow 1.3 , is it suggesting that the other account will not be notified? |
|
Thanks all for providing submissions and ongoing commentary. The below follow up queries will help us correctly interpret these comments: @spikejump @anzbankau
@damircuca |
|
Westpac welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on design paper #176 (an ‘opt-out’ data sharing model for joint accounts in the banking and energy sectors). We support the intent of reducing friction for consumers, however, any trade-offs should be carefully considered including completion of a detailed privacy impact assessment. Our concerns with the current proposal are as follows:
With regard to the complex joint account options, our feedback is as follows:
In terms of implementation considerations, we note that all options require additional build work. We agree with NAB that there is significant technical work to align transaction authority and data sharing authority. An opt out model may also require update to product terms and conditions which will further add to implementation timeframes. Coupled with the already significant build work underway for the current compliance milestones, we would recommend that any change be considered for 2022 H2. |
|
The Commonwealth Bank (‘CBA’) appreciates the opportunity to make this submission in response to the Treasury’s An ‘opt-out’ data sharing model for joint accounts in the banking and energy sectors design paper, published 30 April 2021. We welcome the introduction of a design paper approach, which allows for discussion of concepts and policy issues during the design stage, prior to draft Rules and Standards being issued for formal consultation. The Consumer Data Right (‘CDR’) is a reform that has the potential to drive significant economic benefits for consumers for decades to come. As one of the first organisations to be delivering the CDR for our customers, and as the first major bank to become an Accredited Data Recipient (‘ADR’), CBA is committed to building trust in the regime and maximising its benefit for all Australians. CBA re-affirms its view that for Open Banking to deliver positive outcomes and increase benefits to consumers, the Rules, Standards, and implementation approach must prioritise data security and customer privacy rights. The primary consideration of the CDR regime must be ensuring that consumer trust and confidence in the regime is not reduced through a weakening of the consumer protection mechanisms in the CDR framework. This means ensuring:
Responses to specific questions raised in the design paper:
CBA is not supportive of an ‘opt-out’ approach for joint accounts. An ‘opt-out’ approach does not align with the objective of the CDR regime, which is to give consumers more control over their data (which includes personal information). The CDR is a right for consumers to determine what data is shared, on what terms, and with whom. This is achieved by requiring the consumer’s consent for the collection and use of their CDR data, and ensuring that their consent is voluntary, express, informed, specific as to purpose, time limited, and easily withdrawn. An ’opt-out’ model for joint account holders would effectively take away that control, as it will result in data being shared without the prior consent of certain consumers. Further, transacting on an account is inherently different than data sharing – currency is fungible and recoverable; data is not. Transaction data reveals rich information about a person’s location, their preferences, associations, who they are with, their income and liabilities. This data is inherently personal, and may include sensitive information under the Privacy Act 1988. In our experience, it would be out of line with customer expectations for this data to be shared without their explicit consent. As such, it is our view that the current opt-in approach must prevail as it ensures that data sharing can only occur on a joint account once all account holders are informed, have consented and enabled the account for data sharing. It is our view that the proposed ‘opt-out’ approach is contrary to global privacy and data security trends which would compromise the interoperability of the CDR, and is not aligned with recent recommendations by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’) and Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (‘OAIC’) on consent, including: a) The ACCC’s recommendation on strengthening consent requirements and pro-consumer defaults in the recently published Digital Platforms Inquiry Final Report, which statedi:
In December 2020, the ACCC reiterated this recommendation in their submissionii to the Review of the Privacy Act 1988 (‘Privacy Act Review’). The ACCC also noted that allowing consumers to have meaningful control over their data is ‘integral to maintaining the consumer trust necessary to continue the economic and social benefits of personal data flows’.iii b) The OAIC’s recommendations in their submission to the Privacy Act Review that consent should be defined to ‘require a clear affirmative act that is freely given, specific, current, unambiguous and informed’.iv We hold concerns about the implications for customer financial security and wellbeing if an opt-out approach is taken in the CDR. Further, we hold concerns about the implications of an ‘opt-out’ approach for consumers experiencing vulnerability, and encourage further consultation with consumer advocacy groups on the design of any proposed changes to the current ‘opt-in’ approach and consent model.
CBA is firmly of the view that the current opt-in approach should be retained for all joint accounts, whether ‘simple’ or ‘complex’, for the reasons outlined above. The current opt-in approach ensures that data sharing can only occur on a joint account once all account holders are informed, have consented and enabled the account for data sharing.
CBA supports retaining the current ‘opt-in’ approach and ‘in flow election’ requirements. CX research conducted by CBA has shown that in-flow election provides an improved user experience that will significantly aid consumer uptake of joint account data sharing. Additional comments, clarifications:
i ACCC, Digital Platforms Inquiry – Final Report, Recommendation 16(c), p35 (available at https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20Platforms%20Inquiry%20-%20Final%20report%20-%20part%201.pdf) |
|
People’s Choice welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes to managing data sharing through the CDR regime for joint accounts. People’s Choice agrees that a default ‘opt-out’ approach in relation to joint accounts is preferred over the current ‘opt-in’ approach in the CDR rules. We believe that this approach will reduce friction for sharing data and improve consumer experience and participation within the CDR eco-system. The ‘opt-out’ approach will also simplify the rules and processes for providing authorisations in relation to joint accounts and the use of appropriate notifications will ensure joint account holders are adequately notified and kept advised of data sharing arrangements. Further, the CDR rules relating to the data minimisation principle and the deletion and de-identification of CDR data by accredited data recipients also provide additional protections for joint account holders, including during any period before an ‘opt-out’ right is exercised. In relation to ‘complex joint accounts’, People’s Choice supports Option 3 which would mean the same ‘opt-out’ approach is taken across standard and complex joint accounts. By aligning the approach between standard and complex joint accounts so that both follow the same ‘opt-out’ approach, we believe there will be less confusion within our member base as all joint account types are treated consistently. This simplicity in rules will lead to a better understanding and acceptance of the CDR regime by consumers. In People’s Choice’s opinion, the approvals or authorisations required to perform transactions on a joint account do not need to be the same as the approvals or authorisations required to share data relating to the joint account through the CDR regime. Performing transactions and sharing data are separate matters and should be treated as such. Currently (outside of the CDR regime), each account holder on a joint account has the right to be provided with information relating to the joint account independent of other joint account holders, irrespective of the operating instructions on the account (i.e. even if the account is set to ‘all to sign’). This will continue to be the case outside of the CDR regime and any joint account holder will continue to be able to access information about the joint account without the consent or authorisation of the other joint account holders outside of the CDR regime irrespective of the rules and requirements that apply within the CDR regime. If the ‘opt-out’ approach is introduced, we think that the CDR rules need to be clear about what the effect of a joint account holder opting out is. From the consultation paper and the current CDR rules, we understand that the effect of a consumer opting out would be that the ‘pre-approval option’ would cease to apply to the joint account and no data sharing from the account would be possible because no disclosure option would apply to the account. If this is correct, we do not see why an opt-out model necessarily means that the current ‘co-approval’ option in the CDR rules needs to be removed as suggested in the consultation paper as the ‘co-approval’ option could still be made available so that joint account holders who want to opt-out of the ‘pre-approval’ option still have the option of data sharing through the CDR regime with the approval of all joint account holders. If the ‘co-approval option’ is retained, we think it should remain optional for data holders to implement so that data holders can choose whether or not to provide it as an option to joint account holders. The final approach to data sharing on joint accounts is an important decision which warrants careful consideration to reduce any costly rework and we appreciate the opportunity to be involved in this process. |
CDR-CX-Stream
added
Status: Feedback Period Closed
|
Thank you to those who provided feedback on our CDR rules and standards design papers. Consultation on these papers closed yesterday. Feedback received on these papers will inform the development of draft rules and standards, which will be the subject of formal consultation in the coming months. As part of the consultation discussions, there has been a number of queries about the deferral of the joint account requirements and ‘direct to consumer’ obligations that would have applied from November 2021 (Treasury announcement). Treasury has responded to these queries with additional information, which is available on the CDR Support Portal. This consultation is now labelled as feedback closed but we will leave this thread open in case there are any clarifications or responses to the feedback given by the DSB above. |
|
The following feedback was received prior to cut off on the 26th of May 2021 and via email to [email protected]. The ABA has requested the feedback to be posted here. 210526 - ABA Treasury CDR opt-out proposal for joint accounts.pdf |
|
@CDR-CX-Stream with respect to your question in comment
The "principle", here being the consumers, while providing consent via the full end-to-end flow, will be presented with the authorisation screens from DHs. The DHs must know at that point in time whether an account can be shared or not. Knowing that fact, DHs can show non-sharable accounts but do not allow them to be selected. This essentially ensures when a consent is provided then whatever that's authorised for sharing can be shared and thereby ensure the consent is truly valid at the time of consent. For those accounts that are not sharable, DHs can provide messaging to customers to inform them of the co-approval process or where to seek help to enable sharing of those accounts. The consumers may then need to rally all JA holders to approve the sharing and come back to initiate the consent flow again at a later time. The non-sharable accounts don't have to be limited to JAs, eg., accounts that are locked due to potential fraud can be one as well. The point is only sharable accounts should be allowed to be included in a consent flow at time of consent to keep the integrity of the consent. |
ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
CDR-API-Stream
added
Status: No Decision Taken
The following public consultation for an opt-out data-sharing model for joint accounts, is open for feedback.
We invite all participants in the Consumer Data Right to submit their feedback below as part of this GitHub consultation.
The date of closure of consultation is: 26th of May 2021
Link to the consultation: https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2021-168954
Context
This consultation is opened in support of the recent announcement from the Treasury, which proposes design options around rules and standards to implement a peer-to-peer model for the energy sector and on an opt-out data sharing model for joint accounts.
Feedback received on these papers will inform the development of draft rules and standards which will be the subject of formal consultation in the coming months.
In response to concerns that joint account rules could limit engagement with the Consumer Data Right, Treasury is considering proposals to support an opt-out approach, while maintaining the high security and privacy protections provided for in the Consumer Data Right. The implications of this change in direction are the subject of this consultation.
Design Paper
A design paper is a new consultation approach being trialled that intends to provide an opportunity for simultaneous consultation on the rules, policy, standards and guidelines for a change to the Consumer Data Right. In the past we have worked together to solve implementation questions and challenges by first defining Rules and Standards and then requesting comment. A design paper lets participants comment on the implications of proposed Rules and Standards, before they are defined. Where applicable, a design paper will also include consumer experience mock-ups to demonstrate the implementation and how that may affect existing participant's systems.
Providing Feedback
A design paper will elicit feedback to be consumed by multiple teams. Feedback on the standards can be provided here and the DSB will respond directly as per usual. Rules and policy feedback can also be provided here and the DSB will seek to clarify this feedback and then provide it to the appropriate team for consideration.
To assist the feedback process. We ask that you use the numbered reference assigned to each of the paragraphs in the design paper.
Feedback can also be provided via email to [email protected] or to [email protected]. As per usual practice email submissions will be made public unless a request is included to keep the submission private. While we appreciate that some submissions may need to be private the fact that they will not be available for community discussion necessarily means we will not be able to give them the same consideration as public feedback.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: