Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

Labor are interjecting. They obviously think increased regulatory costs are good. That's great. I'm glad that Labor are interjecting that they think increased regulatory costs are good, because that will be passed on to the consumer. If you think an increase in the cost of living is good for the consumer right now, good on you—I take that interjection from those opposite. I'm sure that the Labor interjector thinks that, for the 1.5 million small businesses that are going to be affected, it's good for them to have more governance, red tape and regulatory costs, and I note that.

Again, this will be especially harsh on small business. Obviously big business will have problems with it as well, but often they will have in-house compliance departments and in-house lawyers. Small business just doesn't have those resources. This means that small businesses, trying to get ahead and trying to make a living, will just have more things that they need to worry about when they go home, more forms that they need to deal with.

This bill needs a Senate inquiry, and one of the reasons we think it needs to be referred to the Senate is that, as I note in my amendment, we already have strong consumer laws in this country. We're not operating in a vacuum here. There are already protections for consumers, as there should be. We already prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct. We prohibit unconscionable conduct. We have unfair-contract-terms protections. I don't think the government has explained exactly what gap the new general prohibition in this bill will fill. Again, the measures deserve proper and serious scrutiny.

I also note that the exposure draft consultation was only open for two weeks, but that's not surprising anymore, with this government that campaigned on increased transparency. Allowing two weeks of consultation for an exposure draft is just normal practice for them.

I encourage the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to test whether the general prohibition is too broad, whether the detriment goes too far, whether the bill overlaps with the general consumer protection laws we already have and whether small business needs more protection. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Senate committee recommends. Maybe there can be small-business protections and carve-outs, given they don't have the resources here.

I'll end by saying that the coalition supports protecting consumers—obviously, we need to do that—but we do not support vague new laws that punish small business and enrich lawyers. The road to ruin can often be paved with good intention. We need to make sure that these laws do not do that. We don't want a law that puts $100 million of red tape on small businesses for no real gain, and I look forward to this bill receiving proper scrutiny through a Senate inquiry.

See this speech in context