1 / 38

WELS REVIEW Stakeholder Forums Brisbane 14 February 2012 Sydney 16 February 2012

WELS REVIEW Stakeholder Forums Brisbane 14 February 2012 Sydney 16 February 2012 Melbourne 17 February 2012. Plan for the Forum. Tea and coffee on arrival Background – why we are here Changes to the fee structure/transition What is a model? Changes to registration arrangements

Download Presentation

WELS REVIEW Stakeholder Forums Brisbane 14 February 2012 Sydney 16 February 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. WELS REVIEW • Stakeholder Forums • Brisbane 14 February 2012 • Sydney 16 February 2012 • Melbourne 17 February 2012

  2. Plan for the Forum • Tea and coffee on arrival • Background – why we are here • Changes to the fee structure/transition • What is a model? • Changes to registration arrangements • Compliance & Enforcement • Advertising • Grandfathering • Other Discussion over lunch as required

  3. Session 1 Our tools hard copies available now www.waterrating.gov.au/ hard copies available at the end of the day Consultation paper FAQ paper This presentation Discussion today Formal feedback by 29 February

  4. THEMES for the day • Where the consultation paper asks for an opinion – options are genuinely open e.g. flow controllers, advertising etc. • Where the consultation paper doesn't ask for an opinion – options are constrained by ministers’ decisions, e.g. 80% cost recovery. • WELS staff to talk as little as possible, we’d like discussion and dialogue with you. • Written feedback after this session encouraged for clarity and, if necessary, confidentiality.

  5. Session 1 How we got here 2009-10 2010-11 • Independent Review 2010 • Lots of good things noted • Lots of improvements suggested • Scheme underfunded

  6. Session 1 Underfunding reasons • Size: many times bigger than expected • Free additions to FoM: registration effort with no revenue • Inflation: ($1500 then = $1200 now) • 5 year registration: ‘out of sight, out of mind?’

  7. Session 1 Decision by State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers (SCEW) 30 November 2011 • Strategic Plan 2012-15 approved • Joint government response approved • 80% set as industry cost recovery level We have the ‘what’ Consultations now are about the ‘how’!

  8. Session 1 Timeline from here Parliamentary Sittings 2012

  9. Session 2 Registration changes 1 Registrations are to be annual, regardless of what fee structure is finally adopted. • Keep database current and relevant • Increased flexibility • May assist cash flows and forecasting; vital when fees are major component of income • Option to pay for more than 1 year

  10. Session 2 Registration Changes 2 • WELS running costs 11% next year • Requires new interface with improved database to make registration quicker and easier • Automated form filling, uploading pre-populated data • Re-registration by self-certification • Risk based audits • All products to be registered, so they can be identified in database. Unique identifier. • No additions/free registrations. Maximum of 15 items/application (options 2,3 and 4) • Products that are identical, except for brand, must be registered under each brand

  11. Session 3 Fee options • ‘BaU’ (except fees are annual) - $3400 • Fee/application of $700, a maximum of 15 products in same product category with same: • Brand • Star rating • Covered by same test report(s) or declaration • Label 3. Fee/ application of $630, a maximum of 15 products in same product sub-category [table 4.2, pg 12] with same: • Brand • Star rating • Covered by same test report(s) or declaration • Label 4. Every product/model pays a fee of $80

  12. Annual fee comparison Amounts in (red) are if fee crediting is applied

  13. How fee crediting would work I • When the new scheme starts, existing registrations will have periods of < 5 years, < 4 years, < 3 years etc to run • Why not let them run their course? • Any registrants who registered after ~2008 could ‘wait out’ the scheme • Won’t meet cost-recovery target • Unfair for new registrants (would carry almost all costs) • Would require higher fees all ‘round • If you remain registered under the ‘old scheme’, do new provisions apply to you? • Accordingly new fees need to be paid from ‘Day 1’ Crediting Amounts Registered 5 years ago - $0 Registered 4 years ago - $300 Registered 3 years ago - $600 Registered 2 years ago - $900 Registered 1 years ago - $1200 Registered Registered 1 years ago - $1,2003333

  14. How fee crediting would work II Existing Scheme New Scheme 5 years ago Credit $0 4 years ago Credit$300 3 years ago Credit $600 2 years ago Credit $900 1 year ago Credit $1,200

  15. How fee crediting would work III • We estimate if crediting of fees proceeds approx $1.0m is involved • This is a cost to the scheme, because previous history of underfunding means no spare money in the scheme

  16. What is a model? I Why identify each model? Principles • WELS is to provide consumer information • All models and variants should be in the database and be easily found in that database, with a unique identifier • Number of models must be predictable so as to set an accurate fee • Simplicity – ‘rules to register’ are easy to understand and administer

  17. Session 3 What is a model? II • Options 2, 3 and 4 require clarity on this issue Starting point • To be on one application (2&3) all items have: • Same star rating • Same performance • Same brand • Covered by same test report(s), or declaration

  18. Session 3 What is a model? III • Taps, for example, have many variations that don't effect water consumption or overall performance • Handle style and length • Finish etc • Does this mean each of all such possible combinations is a separate model? • For entry in database? – yes – for consumer information and compliance • Pay for each possible combination? – Still under discussion

  19. Session 3 A tap example • The ‘Wombat’ tap range comes in: • chrome and white finishes • 7 spout types (some will effect performance)* • 8 handle types • There are 2 (finishes) x 7 (spouts) x 8 (handles), or 112 combinations • These 112 combinations, in groups of 15, could = 8 applications • If finish (for example) doesn’t count as a variant = 4 applications, etc

  20. Session 3 Examples of minimum annual fees

  21. Session 3 Example of rebranding and effect on fees

  22. Session 3 Consolidating Registrations- aligning expiry dates - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

  23. Session 4 Compliance and Enforcement WELSCompliance@environment.gov.au

  24. Session 4 Early Approach • WELS compliance focus in early years of the scheme was on information and education visits • Appropriate at that time Maturing Scheme

  25. Session 4 Current Approach Since 2010, Compliance action: • Structured program of inspections - Australia wide • Dedicated teams of compliance inspectors • More than 500 inspections have been conducted covering all States and Territories Enforcement action: • Several warrants exercised and 14 EUs in place. • Use of EUs reflects strong emphasis on supporting suppliers to achieve compliance Offences carry criminal penalties • Penalties include: Infringement notices, prosecutions and injunctions

  26. Session 4 Future Approach • Compliance Inspections will focus on broader range of suppliers including: • Wholesalers/distributors • Internet sales • Developers e.g. Multi unit sites, display housing • Criminal penalties will remain • Civil penalties will be introduced • Lower burden of proof • Efficient and more cost effective • Proof of registration when a product is supplied Other compliance responses: • Orders requiring new corrected labels, suspension and deregistration of products, directed audits. • Requirement to notify downstream suppliers of the registration and providing evidence of registration.

  27. Session 4 Check Testing 2010-11 Proficiency testing • Round robin for showers and lavatory equipment • Testing is now completed and review of report underway Design of a formal check testing for showers and lavatory equipment • Developing procedures and statistical validity criteria for check testing • Will be similar to Equipment Energy Efficiency program (E3) • WELS to pay for first screen test • For adverse results, registrant can either accept result or pay for follow up check testing in an approved facility Other Check Testing • Implementation of formal check testing for showers and lavatory equipment • Proficiency testing and check testing of other products will be considered

  28. Session 5 Advertising

  29. Session 5 Current Advertising Requirements • In Annex B.1 of AS/NZS 6400, not in legislation • Degree of confusion – all in one place?

  30. Session 5 WELS Review Recommendation 7.6 of Independent Review Advertising not be required to display WELS information. Joint Governments’ Response Not agreed – benefits seen in advertising 

  31. Session 5 What is being considered - Clarify through legislation, not the Standard - Increased compliance activities - Particular focus on “point of sale” information, including online

  32. Session 6 Grandfathering

  33. Session 6 Current Grandfathering Provisions • Requires improvement • Provides a fixed 12-month period to move stock when a Standard changes • Triggers fee holiday if re-registration is due in that 12 months

  34. Session 6 WELS Review/Joint Government Response • Agreed that time to clear stock is appropriate when a Standard changes

  35. Session 6 What is being considered • Indefinite grandfathering to clear stock • However, ‘grandfathered’ stock must remain WELS registered under the ‘old’ Standard • Hence, no fee holiday • Minister can determine date of ‘no further supply’

  36. Session 6 What about when a registration is not renewed? • Still an offence to supply an unregistered product • Proof of registration is required when you supply a product • Evidence of registration right through supply chain

  37. Session 6 Other • Mandatory registration for flow controllers? • Extending period for holding of evidentiary material? • Publicising breaches of the WELS Act?

  38. Session 6 Other • Any ‘person’ rather than a ‘manufacturer’ to apply for WELS registration? • Clarification of supply • WELS future merger with E3 and WaterMark? • Removing Gazettal requirement

More Related