ACCC & DSB | CDR Implementation Call Agenda & Meeting Notes | 7th of December 2023

CDR Implementation Call Banner

Agenda & Meeting Notes

When: Weekly every Thursday at 3pm-4:30pm AEDT
Location: Microsoft Teams
Meeting Details: Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting
Meeting ID: 446 019 435 001
Passcode: BU6uFg
Download Teams | Join on the web
Join with a video conferencing device
[email protected]
Video Conference ID: 133 133 341 4
Alternate VTC instructions Or call in (audio only)
+61 2 9161 1229,,715805177# Australia, Sydney Phone Conference ID: 715 805 177# Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options

Agenda

Introductions
Updates
CDR Stream updates
Presentation
Q&A
Any other business

Introductions

5 min will be allowed for participants to join the call.

Acknowledgement of Country

We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the various lands on which we work today and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people participating in this call.

We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging, and recognise and celebrate the diversity of Aboriginal peoples and their ongoing cultures and connections to the lands and waters of Australia.

House Keeping

Recording

The Consumer Data Right Implementation Calls are recorded for note taking purposes. All recordings are kept securely, as are the transcripts which may be made from them. No identifying material shall be provided without the participant's consent. Participants may [email protected] should they have any further questions or wish to have any material redacted from the record.

Community Guidelines

By participating in the Consumer Data Right Implementation Call you agree to the Community Guidelines. These guidelines intend to provide a safe and constructive space for members to discuss implementation topics with other participants and members of the ACCC and Data Standards Body.

Updates

⭐ indicates change from last week.

Type	Topic	Update
Standards	Version 1.28.0	Published: 10th November 2023 Change log
Standards	Version 1.29.0 will contain Maintenance Iteration 17 Changes and others	Team is working through the changes. No ETA yet.
Maintenance	Maintenance Iteration 17 Working Groups Completed	All agendas and meeting minutes
Maintenance ⭐	Maintenance Iteration 18 planned to commence February 2024	Invitations to come
DSB Newsletter	To subscribe to DSB Newsletter	Link here
DSB Newsletter ⭐	1st of December 2023	View in browser here
Consultation	Decision Proposal 229 - CDR Participant Representation	Placeholder: no close date Link to consultation
Consultation	Noting Paper 280: The CX of Authentication Uplift	No Close Date Link to consultation
Consultation	Noting Paper 307 - LCCD Consultation Approach	No Close Date Link to consultation Video
Consultation	Noting Paper 308 - Categories of Standards	No Close Date Link to consultation
Consultation	Decision Proposal 318 - Non-Bank Lending Standards	Feedback Closes: 8th of December 2023 Link to consultation
Consultation	Noting Paper 323 - NFR Workshops	Link to consultation
Consultation	Decision Proposal 335 - NFR Working Group	Link to consultation
Consultation	Decision Proposal 338 - Updates to Banking Products and Accounts - Binding Standards	Feedback Closes: 15th of December 2023 Link to consultation
Engineering	Survey on the DSB Engineering Tooling and platforms	Closes: 8th of December 2023 5-10min survey Click here to have your say
Guidance ⭐	The Competition and Consumer (Consumer Data Right) Amendment Rules (No. 1) 2023 introduced new rules applying to a CDR business consumer. A “CDR business consumer” is defined as a CDR consumer that an accredited person has taken reasonable steps to confirm either is not an individual or has an active ABN. The ACCC has published new guidance on the functionalities available to CDR business consumers, and how CDR participants should deal with these consumers under the CDR Rules.	Link to CDR.gov.au
2023 Close	Remaining CDR Implementation Calls for 2023: -7th December -14th December	Thank you for an awesome year!
2024 Commence	2024 Series Kicks off 18th of January 2024	Invitations to come

CDR Stream Updates

Provides a weekly update on the activities of each CDR stream and their work.

Organisation	Stream	Member
ACCC	Register and Accreditation Application Platform	Eva
ACCC	Conformance Test Suite & Participant Tooling	Christian
DSB	Consumer Experience	Michael
DSB	Register	James

Presentation

None this week.

Q&A

Questions on Notice

Questions will be received by the community via Microsoft Teams chat before the questions are opened to the floor. Participants can submit questions outside of the CDR Implementation Call to the CDR Support Portal.

In regards to topics for questions, we ask the participants on the call to consider the Community Guidelines when posing questions to the subject matter experts.

Answer provided

Ticket #	Question	Answer
2125 Part 2	Thanks for coming back on this one. However, now I am confused. I asked the below question before this was answered in an implementation call. Item 2136 at https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards/wiki/ACCC-&-DSB-%7C-CDR-Implementation-Call-Agenda-&-Meeting-Notes-%7C-19th-of-October-2023 seems to be saying the opposite of what you are describing below. Does it mean we get to choose which approach to take?	After some internal discussions on this and I can confirm that my response is our position. The intention of the rejection metric in the abandonmentByStage is to simply indicate that the customer got through all stages and then declined to authorise.
2153	We don’t show the effective interest rate (e.g. 3.8%) in our Internet Banking due to the risk of confusion but customers do see the accrued interest amount in their transaction details. It is our preference to align the digital channel and CDR experience and show the tiered rates and interest earned without the blended rate (e.g. 3.8%). Can we align these sources based on the following guidance ?	There is no discretion to align to the digital channel as some have indicated. The explicit guidance the DSB have provided should be considered the requirement for complying with the standards. If this constitute an unreconcilable problem then a change request should be raised to change the standards.
2163	"Following on from discussions initiated with AEMO this morning, can we get a sense of how DH's should manage ADR expectations should we encounter failures or poor performance relating the NFR discussion https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-maintenance/issues/604"	The NFR working group will be setup with the first meeting occurring in the New Year and this issue will be one of the first issues to be addressed. I have spoken to AEMO and they are not seeing evidence that this is a significant problem in their traffic at the moment and we are not hearing significant noise from the ADR community so our approach will be to resolve this issue via the NFR Working Group and subsequent consultation.
2170	I recognise that a thorough reading of the property descriptions for abandonmentsByStage makes it pretty clear, particularly: - abandonmentsByStage: Customer abandonment count per stage of the consent flow. Note that the aggregated abandonment count for all stages for a period should equal the count in abandonedConsentFlowCount for the same period (ie. each abandoned consent should assigned to one, and only one, stage) - >> pre[Stages prior to the final creation of the consent]... - >> rejected: The number of authorisations where the customer actively rejected the authorisation rather than abandoning the process But perhaps something like the following would help when the 'rejected' property is read in isolation: - >> rejected: The number of authorisations where the customer actively rejected the authorisation ++at the final stage of the consent process++ rather than abandoning the process ++at an earlier stage++ I'm happy to raise a DP or an item in the holistic feedback DP for this of course. Just let me know.	Your suggestion for clarification is a good one and a change request would be appreciated. We are updating the metrics guidance article to also clarify this. For clarity, yes the rejection stage should be used to indicate that the customer got to the end, did everything, and then cancelled.
2181	Can you please let me know when is the Future Obligation Date to support 7 year business consents?	There is no FDO for this obligation as it arises from the rules. I believe (but this should be checked) that the rules stated the commencement date was 1 December 2023. It should be noted that the consent types that can be set for 7 years for a business consumer do not include collection consents which are the ones set via the data holder consent authorisation process. I am not aware of any technical changes on behalf of a data holder to meet this obligation.
2192	Metrics v4 Response Can you please confirm if for the ResponseMetricsListV4 if the "authorisations" field is optional or mandatory? We were under the impression that the field was optional, however looking at the current standards it is defined as mandatory.	Apologies, this was an error when the standards were published. They accidentally did not reflect the decision of the chair. The authorisations metric is mandatory.
2198	An participant has questioned the sign we are presenting the attribute - lastDebitAmount from BankingDirectDebit. I do not think the standards are definitive on this. Can we please be provided with guidance here? The risk is that without the standards being prescriptive that DHs implement differently here.	The expectation would be that lastDebitAmount values are provided as positive, with the direction of the transaction being qualified by the name of the field.
1883	Can I please seek further clarification in relation to the below response relating to Secondary User instructions? In relation to the second query, a secondary user instruction previously given by an account holder would not be affected if the account holder is no longer eligible under rule 1.10B. The secondary user instruction would remain current unless withdrawn by the account holder (see rules 1.13(1)(e) and 1.15(5)). The response indicates a Secondary User Instruction will remain current even though the Account Holder is no longer an eligible CDR Consumer. Does this mean: 1. The Secondary User can still share data on behalf of that Account Holder even though the Account Holder themselves is no longer eligible to do so? a. I assume this is not the case as the account becomes ineligible with the Account Holder ineligibility. b. If the Secondary User Instruction remains active but all the accounts for the now ineligible Data Holder are now ineligible then the Instruction itself has no sharing availability/relevance? 2. Is an Account Holder still required to have access to the online Secondary User Instruction facility even if they become ineligible? a. The comment that “The secondary user instruction would remain current unless withdrawn by the account holder” would suggest this is the case otherwise withdrawal would not be possible. b. Given the Account Holder is ineligible none of their accounts will be eligible and so the only option available to the Account Owner would be to withdraw a Secondary User Instruction to be withdrawn as it wouldn’t make sense to create Secondary User Instructions for ineligible accounts? We see potential issues for Data Holders where Secondary User Instructions remain active even when an Account Holder is unlikely to become eligible again in the future – for example the Account Holder closes accounts and/or transfers to another institution, no longer has an open account with online access or are deceased. Rather than allowing for the automated closure of Secondary User Instructions created by now ineligible Account Holders it appears this requirement will result in a need for manual processes to undertake database cleansing for this scenario or SU instructions hanging around indefinitely. While not anticipated as a common occurrence, data integrity issues such as these can accumulate overheads for a Data Holder when manual reviews and processes are required.	Your query raises complex issues which requires liaison with Treasury and the Data Standards Body. In short, the policy position is that where an account holder is no longer eligible under rule 1.10B of the CDR Rules, secondary users would no longer be able to authorise data sharing for the relevant accounts. Treasury is further considering whether the CDR Rules need to be amended to clarify the policy position on the impact on secondary users where the account holder is no longer eligible.