Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At its core, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 is about something simple: honesty. It's about the honest treatment of consumers, honest prices presented up front and honest processes that allow Australians to organise their lives and their buying decisions easily and without tearing their hair out. In today's digital economy, the issue is not just about what things cost; it's about whether people are being dealt with honestly during the process. In communities like mine in Hasluck, that matters deeply. Hasluck people are not making abstract economic decisions. They're making real decisions under real time and money pressures.

When I'm out in my community—in Midland, in Ellenbrook, in Bassendean—people consistently raise the same issues: the cost of living, housing affordability, health, education and jobs. The reality is that many households are doing it tough. The great majority of residents in Hasluck are managing mortgages or rent, and those pressures continue to rise.

What does this mean in practice? It means families are sitting at the kitchen table going through every expense. It means people are carefully checking their bank statements. It means people are making deliberate choices about what they can and what they can't afford. In that environment, every dollar matters and every decision matters.

People in Ellenbrook, Midland and Bassendean want to know honestly and upfront what something will cost, and they don't want to be led up the digital garden path for an hour to find out what something will really cost or to cancel a subscription. This legislation deals with hidden costs and drip pricing. Australians expect something very simple: the price they see should be the price they pay. But too often that's not what is happening. The ACCC has warned that customers can be lured into purchases they would not otherwise have made when businesses display only part of the price up front and reveal the total cost only towards the end of the purchasing process. We've all been annoyed by this. It is the opposite of honesty and transparency. It is confusion.

People in the Swan Valley, in Guildford, in Noranda, right now, booking flights or event tickets online or making purchases will often be finding that additional fees only appear at the very final stage, after they've already invested considerable time and effort into the process. We often feel locked up, having invested so much energy and time into the process already. There are only so many minutes in the day. As Minister Leigh said, it's often at the very last click. Consumer advocate CHOICE notes that 'having new charges thrown in right before you're prompted to pay has become an everyday annoyance in the consumer marketplace'.

Of course, it is online, so it's not just happening here. In the United Kingdom and the United States regulators are already taking action against these practices, requiring businesses to show the full price up front and penalising those who hide their fees until the final step. This bill ensures that Australian consumers are given that same clarity.

The same problem exists with subscription services, and here the issue is not just pricing; it is control. It's about whether consumers can leave and leave easily when they choose to. When people in Ellenbrook, Dayton or Hazelmere sign up to services online, they expect the process to be simple, and it often is. But cancelling is too often a completely different story, with multiple steps and unclear pathways and sometimes no obvious exit at all. Sometimes payments continue after cancellation should have been acknowledged and processed, and it can be hard to chase up those small amounts of money, so a lot of the time people just don't bother. A contract that can be entered into in seconds should not take hours of effort to exit.

Again, we are seeing action internationally. In the United Kingdom, new laws will require clear information, reminder notices and simple cancellation processes. The UK consumer group Which stated that 'subscription traps can be costly and wreak havoc on finances that are already under strain'. In the European Union, consumers already have rights to clear subscription terms and cooling-off periods. In the United States, regulators are taking enforcement action against systems that are designed to make cancelling difficult. And, in Singapore, authorities have taken court action against businesses that enrolled consumers into subscriptions without proper consent. The principle is clear: joining should be easy, and leaving should be just as easy.

This bill isn't just about fairness for consumers; it also creates a fairer playing field for businesses. Why should honest businesses in Morley and Midland—businesses who do the right thing—have to compete against online businesses that use nefarious means to trick consumers, when competitors appear cheaper simply because they don't disclose the full cost upfront? This bill says to the honest people running businesses in my electorate and all around the country: we have your back, we will take action and we will make it fairer for everyone.

A modern economy requires modern protections. Our marketplace has changed, and it continues to change. Commerce is increasingly digital. Decisions are made quickly, and businesses design systems that shape how consumers behave. People in my electorate are being rushed into decisions online through countdowns, prompts and pressures to act quickly. They are often faced with confusing choices and add-ons during transactions that make it difficult to understand what they are agreeing to. For those of my generation and older who didn't grow up as digital natives, it's harder still.

Around the world, governments and regulators are recognising this shift and the need to take action. In the United States, there is action against these so-called dark patterns. The Federal Trade Commission in the US concluded that companies are using digital design to trick or manipulate consumers into buying products or giving up their privacy. In Europe, a directive aims to achieve a high level of consumer protection by curbing unfair business practices. In the United Kingdom, too, new laws reflect that same principle. This bill brings those protections into Australian law.

These reforms set a clear standard: businesses must not mislead through omission, manipulate through design or trap consumers through complexity. That standard is not radical; it is what Australians expect, and it is what other advanced economies are increasingly requiring. When markets are fair, people can trust them; when prices are clear, competition works; and, when consumers are respected, the economy works better for everyone.

In Hasluck, people are doing the hard work—balancing budgets, making decisions and managing rising costs—and they deserve a system that is honest with them. This bill helps to deliver that. It reflects a growing international recognition that fairness must extend to the way choices are designed, not just the words on the page. It addresses real harm, it supports honest businesses and it restores fairness to the marketplace.

In closing, I will echo CHOICE, which stated:

The days of being mistreated by businesses nearly every time we transact online may finally be coming to an end.

I thank the minister for his efforts, and I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context