Effective resolution of digital platform complaints is one step closer, with Treasury seeking feedback on the ACCC’s latest proposals for how to implement a new ombuds scheme.
It seems likely that two models shape up as contenders. The first features a new ombud backed by the ACCC with powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. The second sees the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) doing the job, backed by ACMA with powers under a new Act.
Odds are Treasury backs the first of these, but at CMT we’re opting for the second! Here’s why.
We’ve mentioned before that the ACCC is conducting a five year Digital Platform Services Inquiry that runs until 2025 and which includes a series of consultations and reports along the way. We made a submission to Interim Report No.5 in April last year. Interest in Report No.5 ramped up after Treasury issued its own consultation paper seeking feedback on the ACCC’s recommendations. Among these is the proposal for a Digital Platforms Ombuds Scheme – and that’s where we come in.
As you might recall, we conducted research and issued a report last year sketching out options for an external complaints scheme for digital platforms. In the report, we noted some obstacles to the effective operation of a new scheme as a result of all the existing regulators and agencies with responsibility for some aspect of digital platforms. But then we held a roundtable in December which featured the TIO, Cynthia Gebert, and speakers from eSafety, Meta and ACCAN as well as my colleague Karen Lee. The ACCC, ACMA and several other agencies and platforms were also present.
The roundtable helped us to develop our thinking on this topic, which Karen and I have now refined in a submission to Treasury. We know the ACCC would do a good job as the regulator dealing with enforcement and systemic issues, and it already administers the Australian Consumer Law. But the TIO has been operating a comparable industry-funded dispute scheme for many years and ACMA has direct experience supervising dispute resolution schemes and in enforcing telecommunications-specific consumer protection rules and industry standards. That’s the first reason.
The second concerns the longer-term environment for communications regulation. Conferring scheme oversight on ACMA might have the benefit of allowing it to develop a more holistic view of communications matters at a time when it is soon to be given powers for disinformation on digital platforms and Australian content on streaming services. In the future, ACMA’s jurisdiction may need to further evolve as more regulation may be required in relation to messaging and related services.
We would hope that in the future, the platform complaints role and the enduring functions from the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Services Act would form the building blocks for a new Communications Act. This would need a wider review of ACMA’s existing powers to enable it to play a more substantial role in the digital platform environment. Making ACMA the regulator overseeing platform complaints could help start this process of review and refurbishment.
Derek Wilding, CMT Co-Director