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

():  I rise to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, and I move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices;

(2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms;

(3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address;

(4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years;

(5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses;

(6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy;

(7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and

(8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakeholder consultation and consideration of its impact on small businesses".

I just want to read, before I go to my speech, some of the essence of what the amendment is—firstly, 'that the opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices'. The amendment also notes that Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. The amendment also says that the bill's broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices will create risks through significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years.

The amendment also says that, despite the government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $100 million per year; this will all be worn by small business. The amendment also mentions the additional compliance burdens that will fall on small businesses already under pressure from higher inflation, energy costs, rents, insurance et cetera and that these costs will eventually—obviously, if they're passed on to business—be passed onto everyday consumers in what is already a cost-of-living crisis. The amendment also says that the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny.

I often feel it in this chamber; there's an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are some things about this bill, which I will go into in a minute, where I think the intention is warranted and good. But, as I mentioned in the amendment, we're concerned that in this bill there will also be a new legal test about what is unfair trading. This will create a lot of uncertainty in the business sector, especially in the small business sector, around what will be considered fair or unfair trading, which I think will be a lawyer's picnic. We're not convinced that this is needed, given we already have the consumer laws. As the amendment mentions, there's $100 million a year in red tape that this is predicted to put onto small business. We know and you know, Deputy Speaker, the pressures that are already on small businesses. Of course, they will pass it onto consumers. While the coalition won't oppose this in the House, we are sceptical of this bill, which is why we want to refer it to a Senate inquiry.

If I can go into some of the targeted measures that I think have merit in this bill, one is drip pricing. We all know an example of this would be buying something online; you might start off at $12, and, by the time you've clicked 'buy', it's gone up to $24 because of costs that get added as you keep clicking, whether it be booking fees, service fees processing fees, handling fees or et cetera. I think there's some merit in the bill in that area. The other one is subscription traps. To subscribe to something is very easy; 'Just click here and subscribe,' and you're subscribed. But, if you try and get out of it, you've almost got to take your dead grandmother in to prove who you are. Those types of things have merit, and I think that is warranted.

But, again, I want to touch on the problem that we have with the general prohibition on unfair trading. Who will define what unfair trading is? What this bill will do is open up the question of what is unfair trading. If it's very broad, then a business may breach the law and not even necessarily know it's breaching the law until that is determined in a court. We think that will unreasonably distort decision-making and cause detriment to the small business, which will be financial but can also be non-financial. There'll be wasted time, stress, compliance costs, red tape costs and inconvenience. Who's going to decide what is unfair? When does normal marketing become manipulation? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? Again, the bill doesn't go into all of this. The courts and lawyers will decide this. This will be a lawyers picnic, and they'll be feasting on small businesses and, again, increasing costs.

Again, Labor have promised to cut red tape and to boost productivity. I would say that opening up this new general definition of what is unfair trading is doing exactly the opposite of both of those. This will lower productivity and increase red tape and red tape costs. Treasury estimates the bill will impose more than $123 million a year in regulatory costs. Why would we want to do that right now? Why do we want to have this new general definition of what unfair trading is—

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because we don't want consumers to be ripped off.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to 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.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

Sarah Witty (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about whether people can trust the prices they see, whether they can leave a subscription as easily as they joined it, whether businesses compete by offering a better product or by wearing people down through confusion, pressure and manipulation.

Australians are smart consumers. We compare prices, we budget carefully and we shop around, especially right now, but increasingly we are navigating markets that are designed to exhaust us. We click on what looks like a cheap ticket, and a few screens later the price has jumped. We sign up for a free trial in under a minute and then spend half an hour trying to cancel it. We try to compare products online, only to be flooded with countdown clocks, pop-ups, hidden charges and endless prompts, pushing us towards a decision. We all feel that frustration every single day, and what frustrates us even more is the sense that these practices are not accidental; they are designed that way. This bill says clearly, 'This is not good enough.'

This legislation modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect the way Australians buy things now. We buy things online, through apps, through subscriptions and through digital platforms designed to shape our behaviour. Importantly, this bill recognises something we already know: there is a difference between persuasion and manipulation. Businesses should absolutely promote their products. Competition matters, advertising matters, innovation matters—but there is a line. When businesses deliberately create environments that confuse us, pressure us, hide information or trap us into spending money we did not intend to spend, governments have a responsibility to act.

Through this bill, the Albanese Labor government is stepping up in three ways: first, the general ban on unfair trading practices; second, the crackdown on subscription traps; and, third, the ban on drip pricing. Each of these reforms responds directly to experiences we are already having in our daily lives.

The first reform is a ban on unfair trading practices across the economy. This is significant reform. For too long there has been a gap in our consumer laws. There have been practices that clearly feel unfair to consumers—practices that distort decision-making and practices that cause harm—but those practices have not always met the threshold of misleading conduct or unconscionable conduct under existing laws. This bill closes that gap. It establishes a clearer principle: businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make decisions, in ways that cause harm. That matters enormously in a digital economy, because design is no longer neutral. Buttons matter, defaults matter, timers matter and the order in which information appears matters.

We know businesses can shape behaviour through design. Increasingly, small businesses are relying on behavioural pressure as part of their business model. This bill recognises that reality. Importantly, it is principles based. That means the law can evolve as markets evolve. Because technology changes quickly, digital platforms change quickly and consumer habits change quickly. If we rely only on narrow, piecemeal rules, the law will always lag behind. This approach creates a broad standard of fairness that can respond to harmful conduct as it emerges, and the bill gives practical guidance about what that looks like. It includes examples such as failing to disclose important information; presenting information in a way that is confusing or overwhelming; making it difficult for consumers to exercise legal rights; and using digital design features that place unreasonable pressure on people.

These are practices Australians encounter all the time. Most people listening to this debate would recognise them immediately. They are not abstract legal concepts; they are lived experiences—the app that keeps pushing 'buy now' warnings designed to create panic, the online forms that hide the cancellation button, the checkout screen where the final cost suddenly jumps.

Australians expect businesses to compete fairly. This bill makes that expectation enforceable. Importantly, this is not antibusiness legislation. Good businesses already operate fairly. Good businesses already communicate clearly. Good businesses already complete honestly. I've heard that directly from small-business advocates in Melbourne, including through conversations with business associations across the Melbourne electorate. Businesses doing the right thing should not be undercut by competitors relying on hidden fees, confusing terms or manipulative design to win consumers. Fair competition depends on fair rules, and fair rules create stronger markets.

The second major reform deals with subscription traps. Honestly, we have had enough of them. Subscriptions are now everywhere: streaming services, fitness apps, software, meal kits, news subscriptions and gaming services. Subscriptions can absolutely be convenient. Many businesses use them responsibility, but, too often, subscription systems are designed around one assumption, which is that we will forget—that we will miss a renewal or give up trying to cancel. That is where the problem starts.

Research shows Australians are wasting enormous amounts of money on subscriptions that they no longer want to use. We are not staying subscribed because we love the product. We are staying subscribed because leaving has become too difficult. That is not consumer loyalty. That is friction by design. This bill changes that. Businesses will have to clearly disclose key information before someone signs up. We must be told that we are entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it lasts, how renewals work and how we can cancel it. And that information must be prominent and easy to understand, not buried in pages of fine print, not hidden behind vague language and not scattered across multiple screens but simple, clear and visible. The bill also creates a framework for reminder notices. If a free trial is about to end, we will be told. If a renewal is approaching, we will be reminded. That sounds basic, but right now too many systems rely on silence.

That is why this bill also addresses cancellation. This part matters. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, it must be easy to do, and it must only require steps that are reasonably necessary. A contract that can be entered into in seconds should not have half an afternoon to escape. We all know exactly what that feels like when we can subscribe online instantly but to cancel suddenly we need to phone during business hours, navigate endless menus, answer retention questions or search through page after page, trying to find the right button. This is deliberate friction. This bill says, 'Enough.' Again, this reform supports good businesses too. Many businesses already make subscriptions simple and transparent. Those businesses should not be disadvantaged by competitors relying on confusion and exhaustion to keep customers paying.

The third major reform deals with drip pricing, and Australians know this one well. We see a product advertised at one price. We click through, invest time and fill in our details, and suddenly extra fees appear—booking fees, service fees and processing fees, one charge after another. By the final screen, the original price barely resembles the real one. That is drip pricing, and Australians are tired of it. This bill tackles that directly by requiring businesses to show mandatory fees upfront and at the same time the advertised price is displayed. Right now, too many of us only discover the true cost after we have already spent time working through the purchase process.

In Melbourne, people know exactly what that feels like. We are a city built around live music, comedy, theatre and major events, and too often a ticket that looked affordable at the start suddenly becomes much more expensive by the final check-out screens once booking fees and service charges are added on. This bill says that the full mandatory costs should be clear from the beginning. People should be able to decide what they can afford before they commit to buying a ticket, and supporting Melbourne's creative life should feel exciting, not frustrating. Importantly, this bill does not ban transaction fees. It bans hiding them. That distinction matters because transparency matters. Businesses that disclose the true price upfront should not be punished for doing the right thing.

These reforms form part of a much broader agenda from the Albanese Labor government to strengthen competition, improve productivity and create fairer markets, because stronger consumer protections and stronger competition go hand in hand. This government has already delivered the most significant overhaul of merger laws in 50 years. We have increased funding to the ACCC so it can take stronger action against misleading pricing practices. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and introduced penalties for companies that breach those laws. We are strengthening the unit-pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation so we can clearly see when products shrink while prices stay the same. We made the food and grocery code mandatory, backed by real penalties, and we have increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million. Penalties matter. If penalties are too weak, they simply become part of the business model. Strong consequences matter because fairness matters, and this agenda stretches right across the economy.

Through National Competition Policy reforms, the government is working with states and territories to remove barriers to stop new businesses entering the market. We are improving occupational licensing, supporting the right to repair, improving labour mobility and helping workers move more freely across jurisdictions. Stronger competition drives productivity, and stronger productivity supports living standards.

I also want to acknowledge the businesses that are already doing the right thing. Small businesses especially are already operating transparently and fairly. They are not the problem. In fact, many small businesses are hurt by unfair practices from larger competitors. This bill helps create a marketplace where businesses succeed because they offer better value and better service, not because they are better at hiding fees or trapping consumers.

Markets work best when people trust them—when prices are what they seem, when information is clear, when consumers can make genuine choices, when businesses compete fairly—and trust matters deeply right now. The people we represent are working hard. Families are budgeting carefully. Every dollar matters more. We should not have to fight hidden fees, confusing systems and manipulative design just to buy a concert ticket, cancel a trial or compare prices online.

This bill restores something simple but important: clarity. It gives people back time, back confidence, back agency, and it sends a clear message that in Australia fairness is not an option. This legislation modernises consumer protections for the economy our communities live in today, and it builds a marketplace where good businesses can thrive by doing the right thing. That matters for consumers, that matters for competition and that matters for trust in our economy.

Whether someone is buying groceries, signing up for a subscription or heading out to support Melbourne's live music and creative scene, they deserve transparency and fairness. People across our communities are all working hard for their money right now. They deserve markets that respect that effort: markets where prices are clear, where cancelling a service is simple, where businesses compete fairly and openly. That is what this bill moves us to do: a fairer marketplace, stronger consumer protections, better competition and an economy where trust matters again. That is good for consumers, good for honest businesses and good for Melbourne. I commend this bill to the House.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are under serious financial pressure. Across the country, households are finding that everyday expenses have become unaffordable. Grocery bills have risen sharply. Energy costs remain high. Insurance premiums continue to climb for homes, for cars, for health care. Renters are spending more and more of their income on their housing. Many Australians are deciding not where to put money but which essential expense they can now afford to delay. For some families, Australia's cost-of-living crisis means skipping medical or dental appointments to pay for groceries. For some pensioners, it means deciding whether or not they can afford to heat their homes through winter. For some younger Australians, it means trying to establish a degree of financial security in an economy in which stable employment no longer guarantees financial stability. It's in this context that Australian consumers are more vulnerable than ever.

When household budgets are already stretched, manipulative pricing tactics, unfair subscription arrangements and deceptive conduct can cause real harm. So it's entirely appropriate that this parliament should act where regulatory gaps in the Australian Consumer Law have allowed those practices to flourish. From the consultations on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill, it is clear that there is broad agreement across regulators, consumer advocates, academics and industry that there are significant gaps in our legislation, and, as the minister has pointed out, existing consumer protections have not kept pace with sophisticated methods of influencing consumer behaviour, particularly in digital markets where businesses can actively shape purchasing decisions. That's what this legislation seeks to address.

The bill introduces disclosure obligations for drip pricing, establishes clearer exit requirements for subscription contracts and creates a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. These are sensible reforms. They strengthen Australia's consumer protection framework, and I support them. But while I support the objectives and the policy intent of this bill, I cannot ignore the fact that submissions on the exposure draft to this legislation raised some very valid concerns which have not been reflected in the final drafting of this bill.

Firstly, the prohibition on unfair trading practices has been drafted very narrowly. The bill prohibits conduct only where it manipulates the consumer and causes detriment. While no-one wants prohibition so broad that it will capture ordinary commercial persuasion, many submissions to this bill cautioned that this threshold is so high that the prohibition will be difficult to enforce in practice.

Secondly, the bill addresses drip pricing by requiring transaction charges to be displayed prominently and in close proximity to the advertised base price. That is a sensible requirement, but the bill still does not require businesses to display a single total price upfront. Consumers are still expected to calculate the final cost themselves. This means that, despite this reform, the underlying commercial logic of drip pricing—which, after all, is attracting consumers with a low initial figure before progressively adding unavoidable costs—will remain largely intact.

Finally, the bill contains exit provisions to ensure that subscription cancellations are easier to find and straightforward, and that is genuinely meaningful. Signing up to something can take 30 seconds, but cancelling, as we've all experienced, can take a phone call, a waiting queue and sometimes several billing cycles. Ending that asymmetry for consumers is the right thing to do. However, the legislation also contains substantial exclusions. Leases, higher purchase agreements, childcare services, school tuition arrangements and any other additional contracts excluded by regulation will fall outside these consumer protections.

While the reforms contained in this bill are worthwhile, they're also cautious, limited and incomplete. Notably, this legislation won't commence until 1 July 2027. Every practice that this bill seeks to regulate will remain lawful for at least another 12 months before consumers receive the benefit of the protections that we should legislate this week. That is too long at a time when money for many families is as tight as it has ever been. I do welcome the minister's announcement that further legislation will be introduced later this year to extend aspects of these protections to small businesses and franchisees. Many small operators experience the same asymmetries of bargaining power and information as consumers do. I look forward to examining those reforms closely when they arrive.

The government has presented this bill as part of its response to the cost-of-living crisis. But the bill, in fact, does not materially alter the economic pressures that face Australian households. At most, it introduces important but very limited protections against some particularly exploitative commercial practices. The minister himself has described these practices as irritants, and they are. Drip pricing, manipulative interfaces and obstructive subscription cancellations do cause harm, but they're not the primary drivers of financial stresses in this country. A family paying a few extra dollars because a booking platform hid a service fee—that's frustrating. But if that family can't afford its power bills or if its grocery spend has increased by hundreds of dollars a month, or if it can't find a rental property within its budget, then it will not be materially helped by this legislation or by the government's wider competition agenda.

The minister has claimed that this bill forms part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the country. But that broader agenda is still avoiding confronting the central issue, which has been identified repeatedly in inquiries into essential sectors: the role of concentrated market power in driving poor consumer outcomes. Highly concentrated markets are less competitive. That can mean higher prices, weaker consumer choice and reduced pressure on firms to improve outcomes for customers.

We see this most clearly in Australia's supermarket duopoly. The ACCC's 2024 supermarket inquiry identified persisting concerns about market concentration, weak competition and inadequate price transparency. It recommended a range of reforms to improve transparency and to strengthen competition within that sector. The government has acted on some of those recommendations. The Food and Grocery Code of Conduct has been made mandatory. The government is consulting on stronger unit-pricing rules to address practices like shrinkflation. Additional ACCC funding has been provided to pursue misleading pricing practices, and, from 1 July of this year, new regulations relating to excessive supermarket pricing will come into effect. But these measures are still focused on price transparency rather than the underlying uncompetitive structure of a highly concentrated market.

The ACCC's inquiry pointed to the significant market power held by the two dominant supermarket chains. It noted that Coles and Woolworths account for two-thirds of supermarket sales in this country, and yet the government remains reluctant to pursue the reforms that would generally require it to confront entrenched market concentration. The Prime Minister has looked away from calls for stronger anticoncentration measures, including divestiture powers as a last-resort remedy against entrenched anticompetitive conduct. The supermarket industry, let's remember, is the area where the government has been most willing to act.

The government still has not addressed excessive concentration in our insurance markets. It hasn't addressed energy retail margins. It hasn't addressed the broader conditions that have allowed essential goods and services to become significantly less affordable while corporate profits in those sectors have remained consistently strong. We've seen this in the government's reluctance to adopt any general economy-wide prohibition on excessive pricing or price gouging.

Unlike the EU, the UK, Canada, South Africa, India and several states of the USA, Australia continues to rely on consumer protection provisions rather than direct price regulation, and we saw the consequence of this approach in recent months in which Australian fuel prices have outpaced international markets amid reports that more than 500 specific allegations of price gouging had taken place. In response to that global fuel crisis, the Prime Minister promised that the ACCC would take action against overcharging service stations, but, as Allan Fels, the former head of the ACCC, has noted, the commission actually has no real power to do anything about price gouging—a fact that was confirmed when I asked the Treasurer about that in this place.

Price gouging will only be illegal in relation to supermarkets going forward, and even that prohibition hasn't yet come into force. Encouragingly, the government has increased ACCC funding to pursue misleading pricing practices by $30 million, and that is welcome. The regulator has to be properly equipped to protect consumers and to enforce the law. But stronger enforcement against misleading pricing is not the same thing as addressing the underlying concentration of market power and price controls in essential sectors. A regulator can prosecute misleading discounts while the structural conditions that weaken competition and sustain high prices remain unchanged.

Australians deserve honesty about what the government is doing and about the scale of the problem that we are facing. When people are making choices between heating and eating, between renewing their insurance and paying their rent and between filling a prescription or filling a tooth and buying their groceries, they deserve more than this bill, and they deserve more than the other measures that this government has undertaken.

Presenting legislation like this as a major breakthrough for consumer protections risks understating how serious that crisis has actually become. The legislation mandates a ministerial review of the subscription contracts regime after two years, and I welcome that review. I expect that it will identify further shortcomings in both the scope and the enforcement of this legislation. I hope that the parliament approaches those findings then with greater ambition than it is showing today.

I support this bill because the protections that it introduces are preferable to the status quo. Consumers will be better protected with these reforms than they would be without them. But I will not join the government in presenting this legislation as meaningful, significant consumer protection legislation. This is modest reform, in a narrow area of consumer law. The problems it leaves unresolved are larger, more consequential and much more urgent than the problems that it addresses.

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, is about fairness. It's about making sure Australians get a fair go, because right now too many Australians feel like the deck is stacked against them. Families are doing everything they can to make ends meet—they are budgeting carefully, comparing prices and looking for value wherever they can find it—and what frustrates people the most is that, when they do the right thing, they still get caught out by hidden fees, confusing terms, automatic renewals or cancellation processes designed to wear them down. Australians are sick of the tricks and traps. And, frankly, of course they are.

This bill says very clearly: businesses should compete by offering better products and services, not by confusing people or manipulating them, or hiding the true cost until the last second. This is what this reform seeks to change, for people in communities like mine, in Maribyrnong—those who are working hard, every single day, to stay ahead of rising costs. A few dollars here and there might seem insignificant to some, but, for many people in my community, those extra dollars are crucial. The hidden booking fee, the subscription that quietly renews, the streaming service that is impossible to cancel, the gym membership that somehow takes three clicks to join but three phone calls to leave—all of these quickly make a dent in household budgets. Over time, these chip away not just at the bank balance but also at trust, because Australians expect fairness, they expect honesty and they expect that if you want to cancel something then you can actually cancel it without being dragged through a maze of obscure settings or impossible customer service channels.

This legislation modernises our consumer laws to reflect the reality of how Australians now live and transact. More and more of our economy now operates online, so the laws that regulate the modern economy must keep pace. From ordering takeaway to booking flights and from buying concert tickets to managing subscriptions, consumers are increasingly navigating digital systems designed to influence their decisions. Now, there's nothing wrong with businesses promoting their products and there is nothing wrong with advertising. This bill is not about stopping legitimate business activity, but it draws a line between persuasion and manipulation. It is about recognising that some business models now rely on confusion, pressure and friction as a source of profit. And that's just not good enough.

This bill introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. That means businesses will not be allowed to manipulate consumers or distort decision-making in ways that cause harm. Importantly, this is principle based reform, because markets and technology evolve quickly, and, if the law only prohibits a narrow list of behaviours, some businesses will simply invent new tricks around the edges. So this bill establishes a clear standard: all Australian consumers deserve to be treated fairly.

This bill also tackles two practices that Australians know all too well: subscription traps and drip pricing. Subscription traps are one of the most frustrating examples of unfair conduct in our modern economy. We all know a time where we've fallen into this trap. Many Australians sign up for a free trial because they want to watch the latest hit TV show or just want to use a service temporarily, then suddenly find, months later, the charges have been adding up, because the subscription quietly rolled over; or they try to cancel and discover that the process is deliberately difficult: most likely the cancellation button is hidden, or the website redirects endlessly, or the app says to use the desktop version, or the desktop version says to call customer support. Customer support usually says, 'Send an email,' and the cycle can go on and on. A contract that can be entered into in seconds then takes half a day to escape.

Thankfully, this bill fixes that. Businesses now will have to clearly disclose key terms upfront. They will need to tell consumers what they are signing up for, how much it costs, when it will be renewed and how to cancel. Cancellation pathways will need to be simple, straightforward and easy to find, and, importantly, consumers will receive reminders before trial periods end or renewals occur. These are basic standards of fairness, and I suspect most Australians will wonder why they didn't already exist.

This bill also cracks down on drip pricing. Like subscription traps, drip pricing is something we have all experienced. You can see one price advertised online, so naturally you click through, and then you spend some time filling out your details, but, at the end of the process, you're suddenly met with mandatory fees that have come out of nowhere—booking fees, service fees, processing fees, transaction fees. By the end, the price bears little resemblance to what was advertised in the beginning. None of that is transparent, and it undermines competition because businesses doing the right thing—businesses that disclose the full cost upfront—end up looking more expensive than competitors hiding charges until the very last moment. This bill restores fairness by requiring businesses to disclose mandatory transaction fees at the time that they are advertising the base price. Consumers deserve to know the real cost upfront, and good businesses deserve a level playing field.

One thing I particularly support about this legislation is that it recognises that consumer harm is not always dramatic or obvious. Sometimes harm is cumulative. These practices drain money, but they also drain time. Markets work best when people feel confident participating in them. When consumers trust that prices are genuine, they are more willing to compare products, switch providers and engage in the market. That drives competition, that drives productivity, and ultimately that benefits our entire economy.

This reform is therefore not antibusiness. It is, in fact, pro-competition. It supports the many businesses already doing the right thing, and there are many in my electorate. Maribyrnong is home to thousands of hardworking small businesses—cafes, restaurants, retailers, tradespeople, creative businesses and service providers—all of whom build customer loyalty through honesty and good service. They should not be undercut by businesses relying on manipulation or hidden costs. They deserve a marketplace where fairness is rewarded.

This bill forms part of our government's broader agenda to strengthen competition and deliver real cost-of-living relief for Australians. We want to see markets that are fairer and more competitive so Australian consumers can get better prices and more choice. That is why our government has delivered the most significant overhaul of merger laws in half a century; it is why we have made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, have strengthened penalties for unfair contract terms and are cracking down on shrinkflation; and it is why we have increased penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million, because breaches of consumer law should not ever become simply a cost of doing business. There must be real consequences, and this legislation delivers those consequences. Businesses that engage in unfair trading practices will face significant penalties.

I also want to acknowledge that these reforms are especially important for vulnerable consumers: senior Australians, young people navigating subscriptions for the first time, people with limited digital literacy and, of course, busy parents juggling work and caring responsibilities. These groups are often the most exposed to manipulative practices because they have the least time, the least flexibility or the least ability to navigate intentionally confusing systems. In an electorate like mine, there are many households who are already under financial pressure. Every dollar counts. A hidden fee is money that could have gone towards groceries, petrol, rent or school supplies. That is why this legislation will have a significant impact, because Australians should not need a law degree or an IT qualification just to cancel a subscription or understand the true cost of something online.

This government is also taking a sensible and balanced approach to implementation. The reforms will commence from 1 July 2027 to ensure businesses have time to understand their obligations and adapt their systems. Guidance will be developed by the ACCC, and the government will review the operation of the subscription provisions after two years to ensure the laws are working as intended.

Importantly, this reform is not the end of the conversation. This government will also consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including franchisees, because small businesses can also be vulnerable to unfair conduct from larger players, and that has big impacts across communities where small businesses play such a vital role in our local economies.

Australians believe in a fair go. It is one of the defining values of our country. People understand the importance of competition. They understand that businesses need to make a profit, but they believe in the fair go. They believe that people should know what they are paying for, that all businesses should be upfront and that companies should not profit by deliberately confusing or trapping consumers. This legislation reflects those values. It says clearly that markets should reward innovation, service and transparency, not tricks, traps and hidden charges. It outlines that consumers deserve genuine choice, and it levels the playing field for good businesses doing the right thing.

This is practical reform that responds to our ever-evolving modern economy, and it is reform that will make a real difference to Australians trying to get ahead and challenging this cost-of-living period. For families in my community and right across the country, these laws will help restore confidence that the system works fairly and removes the frustrations that many feel. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are already paying more for just about everything. Groceries are up. Power bills are up. Insurance is up. Fuel is up. Interest rates are biting. The average Australian family with a mortgage is now paying, after tax, $29,000 a year more on their mortgage than they were paying under the last coalition government. Right now, small businesses across Australia are under enormous pressure just trying to keep their doors open. That is certainly what I'm hearing around the Sunshine Coast and everywhere else I go around the country. From the cafe owner in Caloundra trying to manage rising wages and energy costs, to the tradie in Palmwoods battling fuel prices and supply costs, to tourism operators, retailers, family businesses and local manufacturers right across the seat of Fisher, they are all saying the same thing: Canberra—this place, this House—just keeps making their lives harder and making it harder to do business.

Australians absolutely deserve strong consumer protections. Consumers should not be misled. They should not be trapped in subscriptions that they cannot cancel. They should not be hit with hidden fees halfway through a purchase, and we've all experienced it. Businesses deliberately doing the wrong thing should absolutely be held accountable. The coalition supports that principle very strongly. But consumer law must also be practical, it must be proportionate and, critically, it must be clear enough for honest businesses to understand exactly what is expected of them before they can comply with it. That is a fundamental tenet of our justice system.

That is where this bill raises serious concerns, because, while the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 contains some targeted reforms addressing genuine consumer frustrations, it also introduces a broad and uncertain new prohibition on so-called unfair trading practices that risks creating massive legal uncertainty for Australian businesses. Let me be clear. The coalition will not oppose this bill in this House. However, we will move a second reading amendment and support referring this legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for proper scrutiny, because legislation of this size and consequence deserves proper consultation, proper scrutiny and clear legal drafting, not rushed lawmaking, which we continue to see under this chaotic Labor government. That makes for bad laws.

This bill contains three major components. Firstly, it creates a broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices. Secondly, it introduces new rules around drip pricing and mandatory transaction based charges. Thirdly, it introduces new obligations for subscription contracts, including cancellation processes and disclosure requirements. Let me say this very clearly. Australians are rightly frustrated by subscription traps. They are frustrated when signing up online takes 30 seconds but cancelling becomes an impossible maze involving hidden forms, endless emails, phone calls or mandatory waiting periods. Australians are also frustrated when they see one advertised price at the beginning of a transaction only to discover compulsory fees suddenly appearing at the check-out. Consumers deserve transparency. Consumers deserve honesty. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying before they commit their money. That is why the coalition is more open to the targeted reforms dealing with drip pricing and subscription contracts. Those are real issues. Those are identifiable problems, and targeted reforms addressing specific conduct are always preferable to broad and vague legal overreach.

But the major concerns in this legislation are not those targeted reforms. The major concern is the sweeping new general prohibition on—and in parenthesis—unfair trading. The bill prohibits conduct that may manipulate consumers, distort consumer decision-making or cause detriment, including non-financial detriment such as stress, inconvenience or wasted time. That is where the real uncertainty begins. While those words may sound reasonable at first glance, they are extraordinarily broad in practice. What constitutes manipulation? When does ordinary marketing become unlawful pressure? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? When does persuasive advertising suddenly become unfair conduct? The bill does not properly answer those questions. Instead, those questions will be answered over years through litigation, court decisions, regulator interpretation and legal disputes.

This legislation in its current form is a lawyer's picnic, and in the meantime Australian businesses will be left guessing. Uncertainty creates risk. Risk creates compliance costs, and compliance costs ultimately get passed onto consumers. This bill will become a lawyer's picnic because when laws are vague it is lawyers, regulators and courts who end up deciding years later what parliament supposedly intended. That is not good lawmaking. That uncertainty may not concern large multinational corporations with armies of lawyers and compliance departments, but it absolutely concerns small businesses. It concerns the family retailer on the Sunshine Coast. It concerns the local cafe owner already battling Labor's cost-of-living crisis. It concerns the tradie employing a handful of apprentices and subbies. It concerns local tourism operators trying to survive in an economy where confidence is already weakening. Those businesses do not have endless legal resources. They do not have compliance teams sitting in corporate head offices. They simply want clear rules, practical regulation and the ability to focus on running their businesses instead of hiring lawyers to interpret vague legislation.

Australia already has very strong consumer protection laws. The Australian Consumer Law already prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. It already prohibits unconscionable conduct. It already prohibits unfair contract terms and a range of specific unfair practices. So the obvious question becomes this: what specific conduct currently escapes the law that justifies such a dramatic expansion?

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.