Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aussie idea of a 'fair go' may be one of those phrases that you hear all the time, but it really does capture something important about who we are as Australians. At its core, it's about making sure that everyone is treated fairly and gets a decent shot. It applies on an individual level and also on a societal level. You can see it in how we value fair access to health care and to education. And right now, when so many Aussies are doing it tough, we also need a fair go at the check-out. I don't just mean on price; I'm talking about the need for consumers to be treated fairly and the need for business to play by the same transparent rules. At a time when commerce is rapidly changing and at a time of global economic uncertainty, this is more important than ever.

A generation ago, shopping looked very different from what it looks like today. For a start, you had to physically go to the shops and drive into the carpark. You had to get your trolley, walk it down the aisles, pick out what you wanted, go to the check-out and pay in cash. Transactions were pretty simple. You checked out those goods, you paid the price once and you walked away with an item. These days, though, it is, of course, possible to never set foot in a store or a shop. Shopping online offers us convenience and accessibility; we can shop from anywhere at any time. The landscape and the technology have changed. That's just one difference with how we shop, though. Another is in the price. Often, the true cost of your purchase is only revealed at that last click, and the payment might never actually stop.

Drip pricing is the name given to additional fees, things like booking charges and service costs, which are added as the transaction progresses. Consumers lured by what might at first seem like a good deal can find that the product is significantly more expensive than originally advertised by the time the actual purchase is made. Drip pricing also makes it harder to compare prices. While once you'd go from shop to shop to find the best deal, it's now much harder to make an informed comparison on price when not all the costs are advertised upfront. You don't know all the costs when you choose to buy.

I spoke to a local, a young bloke named Tim in my local area. He just finished high school last year, and we met at the Lounge in the suburb of Runcorn on Brisbane's south side. Tim told me a story about a long-awaited holiday. It was a holiday he was going on with his friends, and it was his first real time buying something for a trip that he wouldn't be going on with his parents. The ticket seemed cheap, but, as he went to pay, those extra charges added up.

Another major change is the popularity of subscriptions. This is something that impacted Tim as well. Consumers are increasingly signing up to ongoing services, such as streaming platforms, apps and software, which automatically renew. For Tim's generation, these things should not be the norm. Tim needs to know, particularly at one of the most financially vulnerable points in his life, that, as a consumer, he is protected and he isn't taken advantage of. All you need to do is scroll through your phone—whether you've got Spotify, Netflix, Disney Plus, Stan or so many others—to know that this is a challenging problem, and it's getting bigger and bigger every day. It's easier for the number of subscriptions you have to accumulate over time, and, over time, you might not even notice the payments leaving your bank account. And when you do want to cancel, in many cases, it's a complicated process. It shouldn't be a complicated process.

Despite the entire subscription process being online, you might have to make a phone call to realise your cancellation. There can be multiple steps that can be deliberately confusing. What the assistant minister described as a labyrinth of cancellation paths is real, and it's affecting everyday Australians every day. That's why the Albanese Labor government has introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. It brings consumer law in line with how Australians now buy, compare and subscribe. As technology changes and as norms for payments change, we must change with them. We have to keep up to date lest everyday Australians cop the brunt of not having regulatory frameworks that address the real way in which Australians pay for things and in which they shop.

This bill squarely targets unfair trading practices and is part of the government's commitment to improve protections for consumers. It has three key areas of focus. Firstly, the bill introduces a ban on unfair trading practices by establishing a broad principles based rule that targets conduct which manipulates consumers. This includes mechanisms that distort the environment in which consumers make decisions leading to harm. This measure will capture a wide range of behaviours designed to influence choices in ways that are misleading and in ways that are exploitative to everyday consumers. It's intended to set a clear and consistent standard of fair conduct across all sectors, enhancing fair competition and indeed boosting consumer confidence in the system itself.

The bill sets out practical guidance by including a non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of conduct that could breach these new laws. This includes preventing or hindering customers from exercising their legal rights or accessing remedies, failing to provide important information and presenting key details in ways that are confusing, unclear, overly complex, ambiguous, poorly timed or just plain overwhelming. It also covers situations where the overall environment, such as the design of digital interfaces, places undue pressure on consumers or makes it difficult for them to make or act on decisions. You know what this looks like. It's the countdown timer that increases the urgency to click the buy button. We watch it on our computers. Tick, tick, tick—better press buy right now. Or there's the pop-up that tells you that there's only one item left to purchase, and you'd better hurry up because your time is running out to click that button and pay. These aren't helpful. These are deliberately designed to swindle consumers. The bill's intention is not to limit genuine promotion or standard advertising. Instead, the focus is on addressing mechanisms that cross that line from persuasion into manipulation, harming consumers and negatively affecting fair competition. When you cross that line, you need to know that the law in this country is coming for you.

The second focus of the bill is on banning drip-pricing practices. Businesses will have to present the total cost upfront, including any unavoidable fees or charges. Now, Tim, in my local community, learnt that the hard way, and others shouldn't have to. By ensuring that any additional costs are clearly and transparently disclosed upfront, consumers will have a better understanding of the real price, allowing them to make more informed decisions from the outset, because, after all, transparent pricing is essential for markets to function effectively. When costs are hidden or revealed incrementally, genuine competition is weakened. We know how important competition is for markets and for our economy, because competition is a core driver of quality; competition is a core driver of getting prices down. These reforms help restore a level playing field, ensuring that businesses that are open and transparent are not placed at a disadvantage compared to those that conceal true price until that very final step.

Finally, the bill will add transparency to subscription purchases by requiring businesses to clearly provide essential information before customers sign up—not after; not in the tiny print; not locked away behind seven screens; before they make the purchase. Customers will also receive reminders and notifications at key points during that subscription. This means that you'll be notified when your free trial is ending, or when your renewal is coming up, giving you the time to decide if you want to continue or if you want to opt out. And, in the case of opting out, businesses will have to ensure that it's easier to cancel a subscription. That means it will be easier to find cancellation information on the website or the app, it will be simpler to complete and it will only require steps that are reasonably necessary for the consumer. These obligations will apply both to consumer subscriptions and to standard form subscription contracts used by small businesses.

At its core, the reform recognises one very basic principle: if a contract can be entered into quickly, it should be just as easy to exit it. That is what makes sense. That is what is fair. And that is the obligation that businesses should have to their customers and to consumers more broadly.

The amendments will come into effect from 1 July 2027, giving businesses sufficient time to understand their new responsibilities and to update their practices. To support this transition, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will provide detailed guidance on how the new laws will operate in practice. In addition, the first two years of the subscription provisions will be reviewed to ensure the reforms are protecting consumers in the intended way.

I mentioned small businesses just now. While this bill is focused on strengthening consumer safeguards, unfair trading practices are not limited to individuals. Small businesses and franchises often face similar challenges when dealing with their larger counterparts, and they deserve fairness as well. The government has started consultation on extending these unfair trading practice protections to small businesses, including those operating with franchising arrangements. The government will also work closely with the Assistant Treasurer and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to explore potential alignment within the financial services sector.

I'm lucky enough to have my office in the heart of the Brisbane seat of Moreton, in a place called Sunnybank. If you took a rock and you threw it as far as you could and you drew a circle around that, you'd find so many of these small businesses, vulnerable to big players. Some of them are in hospitality, some are in retail, some are in manufacturing—all sorts of different sectors. But, just like consumers, they deserve protections when it comes to the changing technological landscape.

This bill is part of the Albanese Labor government's drive to support consumers, to increase transparency in the marketplace and to boost competition. It's all part of this government's No. 1 priority area: supporting Australians with the cost of living. Stronger competition plays a critical role in this and helps to deliver better outcomes for households.

Labor has already seen some of the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that major mergers are properly assessed and that anticompetitive acquisitions do not proceed without scrutiny. We've provided an additional $30 million in funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, strengthening its ability to take action on misleading pricing practices, particularly in sectors such as supermarkets.

Further reforms are improving fairness and accountability across the market. The government has outlawed unfair contract terms, with regulators now empowered to seek penalties for breaches. Work is also underway to strengthen the unit-pricing code. These amendments have a myriad of benefits for consumers, especially at a time when cost of living is at its toughest.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Small businesses are struggling under Labor's homegrown inflation crisis and their energy crisis where $275 in energy savings never materialised. Now add to that the fuel supply crisis, which isn't just hitting direct fuel purchases but also hitting small businesses and farmers who struggle with the knock-on effect on fuel as part of their business inputs.

We are also seeing eye-watering increases in the cost of trade goods, like PVC pipe, which is up 35 per cent in the last month alone. Copper is up seven per cent in the last month and up 37 per cent over the last year. We have record insolvencies in small business—40,000 on Labor's watch since taking office and 15,000 in the last 12 months alone. About 27 per cent of insolvencies are in the construction sector, the largest single sector for insolvencies. It's little wonder we are struggling to build more homes.

In this witches' brew of Labor's homegrown crises for small business, what is the Albanese government's solution? You guessed it—more red tape in more consumer laws. Let's be up front about what this will cost small business. Treasury estimates the bill will impose $123.2 million a year in regulatory costs. The general prohibition measure alone, which I will talk about in a moment, accounts for $93.82 million a year in extra compliance costs. More than 1.5 million small businesses are expected to be affected by the general prohibition alone.

This bill creates a broad new general prohibition, which I referred to earlier, with $93 million extra cost on small business, Treasury estimates, from this single provision on unfair trading. So what is it? Proposed section 28B provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer that manipulates the consumer or unreasonably distorts the environment in which the consumer makes or is likely to make a decision and causes or is likely to cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to the consumer. On face value, this government's salesman-in-chief, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and gaslighter-in-chief, the Prime Minister, would fail that test alone. Manipulating Australians? Tick. Unreasonably distorting the environment in which they make decisions? Tick. Causing detriment, financial or otherwise? Tick. But it gets worse.

Supposedly, according to the explanatory memorandum, 'detriment' could include wasted time, frustration or diminished consumer choice. Do Labor waste our time? Do they cause frustration? Have they diminished consumer choice?

This Labor government is imposing on small business thresholds on manipulation, distortion and adverse impacts that they themselves cannot uphold. This Labor government can go out into the marketplace 97 times saying, 'You'll get a $275 energy bill discount,' and not deliver—and that's okay, apparently. This is a prime minister who says 'nobody worse off, nobody held back', yet last night's budget picked winners. And some Australians will be worse off— particularly those in the regions, those with savings and older Australians. How would the 'nobody worse off, nobody held back' slogan stand up on the unfair trade practices test? This is a government that cannot practise what it preaches.

Courts have held that detriment can include feelings of distress or embarrassment. So a business acting in a way that causes distress in the eye of the beholder, the consumer, could breach these laws. Seriously? If your spicy McChicken burger is a little spicier than you expected, is that a detriment? Well—not for some. But—really? This will be a lawyers' picnic. It will play through the courts for decades to come and create great uncertainty for business and consumers alike.

A clear winner of the uncertainty this general provision creates will be the biggest businesses that can afford the biggest legal and compliance teams or advice from big law firms. I get that the Treasury would want a broadly drafted law. But forgive me for not accepting the Labor government position to just trust them to apply a broadly drafted law narrowly and responsibly.

A question a Senate inquiry might ask stakeholders is whether they specifically wanted a broad general prohibition, as this government has put forward. Consumer stakeholders may have wanted action taken, but did they want a government sledgehammer to smash small businesses with? Make no mistake, small business will suffer under this bill. At last check, 75 per cent of small-business owners were taking home less than the average wage. That's $1,000 a week or $52,000 a year. That was according to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman in 2023. At that time, incidentally, 43 per cent of small businesses were failing to make a profit. Now these same small-business owners will lose more sleep at night wondering if they will be taken to the ACCC or to court for causing an emotional detriment to their customers. More small businesses will fold, and big business will muscle in. Maybe that's Labor's agenda: collapse small business and the big boys will move in.

Well, that's how it plays out usually in the cities—franchises and the like. But in regional Australia what happens is the small business closes, landlords can't rent out the commercial premises, and the town becomes a ghost town. That's the real impact of adding yet another straw of regulation during terrible business conditions. Small-business owners will throw up their hands and simply give up.

We can't afford to lose more small businesses in regional Australia. Huge numbers—over half, in one recent survey—were already considering closing their doors. The big businesses that can afford to pay for the big law firms to advise them on this new law—will they wear it? No, I don't think so. Red-tape costs are passed down to customers. In an attempt to protect consumers, compliance costs will be fed down in increased prices for consumers during Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis. Will small businesses be able to use this general prohibition in their dealings with larger businesses, as the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman called for in the consultation phase back in December 2024? I am just trying to get a sense of how wide and hardhitting this general prohibition will actually be.

Another piece from the Labor playbook here is the very thin veneer of public consultation. The exposure draft of this bill went out for consultation for only two weeks. That's why this bill should go to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. A Senate inquiry should test whether the general prohibition is too broad, whether the definition of 'detriment' is too wide and whether small businesses should be exempted or given more time. It should give stakeholders more than two weeks to make their views on this law known. Nobody has a problem with protecting consumers, but the pathway there isn't a lawyers picnic—unless, like Labor, you have some business mates you want to look after by obliterating small business. Where are the exemptions or delayed phase-ins for small businesses?

This is a bill that needs a lot more work and a lot of scrutiny in the Senate. I commend the shadow minister, the member for Page, and the coalition ministry team for the important work they have done on holding this government accountable for a badly drafted law that imposes crippling costs on businesses, particularly small businesses, when they can least afford it.

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

I support this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, because it's an important piece of legislation to make transacting out there in the real world better and fairer for consumers. We have a simple, unwritten rule here in Australia that underpins our entire society, and that's the fair go. It's a concept that says: if you work hard you get ahead, and if you spend your hard-earned money you get what you pay for. We know that's under pressure right now, and it's important for every government to make sure they take steps to enshrine the fair go into everything that we do. No matter what you're buying, whether it be a coffee, petrol at the bowser—I think we'll need to update that saying to 'electricity from an EV charger'—or a room in a hotel, you deserve to be treated with basic honesty. For too long there's been a great gaping hole in our laws, a gap that's allowed some businesses to exploit, manipulate and trap Australians when they transact in basic, everyday transactions. Today this legislation seeks to plug that hole.

Our laws right now are very good at catching a bold faced lie. If you buy a table online and the business ships you a photo of a table, that's misleading and deceptive conduct, and businesses will rightly be pulled up. But what this bill does is tackle two big problems that currently exist in our competition and consumer laws: subscription traps and drip pricing, and I'll go into those a little bit later. These things happen to exist because of the deliberate and manipulative practices of some of these online businesses in particular—the subtle user-interface and user-experience design that's meant to mislead customers into paying more for an item than its initially advertised for, the overly complicated menus when trying to unsubscribe from a subscription service, or even the discrepancy between how easy it is to sign up to a service and how hard it is to unsubscribe from that same service. This is unfair, and we believe it needs to be addressed with good, targeted regulation.

We need to move from a 'whack a mole' approach, where we're fixing things case by case, to preventing this from occurring in the first place, and that's what this bill does. It tells businesses in no uncertain terms: if your profit margins rely on trickery or your revenue relies on nuisance, then your business model will no longer stack up. The reform sets a clear and consistent standard of fair conduct across all sectors, improving consumer confidence and protections whilst also encouraging healthy competition.

We've all been there. We've subscribed to that seven-day free trial—which is meant to be free, but they still ask you for your credit card details even though it's meant to be free, so you've got to put them in. Then life happens. You forget. You're dealing with an emergency. Your kids need help with their schoolwork, or you have to drive around town to take them to sport. Then suddenly money's taken from your account. Then comes the real nightmare: going through that same process to try and cancel, which is a lot harder than you think. Signing up is easy—one click here, one click there. With Apple Pay, your credit card details go straight through, even though it's a free trial. But trying to cancel? That's an entirely different story. Sometimes you try calling, but it's an international number that's only open in the small hours. You try to cancel online, and then you have to navigate through a maze of menus and screens with different variations of, 'Are you sure?' Then they try and upsell you into staying for longer.

This bill says to everyone, including small businesses: 'Enough. We deserve to be treated fairly here and, if it takes seconds to enter a subscription, it shouldn't take a diary appointment and an hour to cancel.' Australians deserve transparency for cost, duration and renewal. They all must be upfront and prominent. We deserve reminders. We live in a very technologically advanced world. It's not hard for a company to send a 'free trial is ending' prompt or just not to grab credit card details in the first place. The good news is there are some businesses doing great work here. They're already doing this. What this bill seeks to do is bring everyone else up to that standard that Australians expect—that fair go that I mentioned at the start of my speech.

This bill also outlaws drip pricing. There's nothing more frustrating than booking a hotel room, a concert ticket or a movie ticket for an advertised price of $100, only to find that it's $130 by the time you reach the checkout. Where did these extra costs come from? Booking fees, admin fees, service fees—fees on fees. This is what drip pricing is, where mandatory transaction or service fees are excluded from the price Australians see and they only become evident right at the end of the purchase process, when you're already hooked in. When prices aren't upfront, competition fails. The businesses that are doing the right thing and showing the all-in price look more expensive than the ones hiding those fees and extra costs until later in the checkout process. This bill will mandate that all mandatory fees must be shown alongside the base price from the very beginning. What you see should be what you pay—no surprise hidden fees, no admin fees, no gotchas right at the final click. This bill is clear. This does not stop advertising for small business. It doesn't stop legitimate persuasion or upselling. It stops manipulation and deception.

For a long time, some big corporations viewed Australian Consumer Law fines as just the cost of doing business, a small tax on their path to more profits each and every year. Penalties matter, so we need to disincentivise these dodgy practices from engaging in this behaviour fully. We need them not to think it's just a cost of business. So, within this bill, maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act will increase as well, from $10 million to $100 million, so that they ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for unfair and deceptive conduct. This bill sends a message: if you choose to manipulate Australians, if you choose to trap them in subscriptions they don't want, you'll face tougher penalties that'll hit the business's bottom line.

Some of you may know that I used to run a small business, and from that I know that these unfair practices don't just hurt individuals; they hurt small-business owners, particularly franchisors, who are often hit with massive fees as part of their franchise. It's like David and Goliath. I'm pleased to say that the government will be consulting this month on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses as well. What we're after here is a level playing field that will help local mum-and-dad shops compete with global giants, because that's what they deserve—a fair go.

In Bennelong, as it is across the country, people are feeling the pinch of the cost of living. This bill is one piece of a much larger puzzle to protect consumers from unfair business practices and dodgy fees. It's part of a lot of reforms we've done since coming to government. We've done merger reform—the biggest overhaul in 50 years—to stop anticompetitive takeovers. We've had a supermarket price gouging crackdown, increasing ACCC funding by $30 million to target price gouging. We've attacked shrinkflation by strengthening the unit pricing code so that you know whether you're getting less for more. And we've made the food and grocery code mandatory to protect our farmers from the big squeeze by the big supermarket duopoly. Every dollar saved from a zombie subscription and every hidden fee made outlawed by this bill is a dollar that stays in a family's budget to save or spend on their loved ones or themselves or invest in their future.

These changes have been carefully considered. They're pragmatic and they're methodical. We want to get this right because progressive reform like this is hard to come by. The digital economy has fast outpaced our laws, and this bill is the government's signal to say, 'We're catching up.' If this bill is passed, these changes are due to commence on 1 July 2027, giving businesses time to adjust their systems and their coding and rewrite their websites.

This bill seeks to protect Australians at the checkout. It rewards honest businesses and puts power back in the hands of Australian people, restoring that fair go at the supermarket and at the checkout. It ensures that Australians don't fall into subscription traps and get charged random amounts just before they forget to cancel that subscription at the end of a seven-day trial. And it ensures that, when an Australian clicks buy, they don't get landed with an extra 10 or 20 bucks in additional fees. It's time to end these traps. It's time to end these tricks. I commend the bill to the House.

Carol Berry (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last month, I joined the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Andrew Leigh, in the Mural Hall where he announced that the Albanese Labor government would introduce new laws to ban unfair trading practices. I wanted to attend that media conference and to speak on this bill today because I know these practices can cause frustration and even harm to consumers across the country, including in my electorate of Whitlam.

Australians are fortunate to have many options when they decide to make purchases or subscribe to services. They can do this in person, in a shop or online through their laptop. Most businesses do the right thing; however, too many use practices that can pressure, trick, confuse or trap consumers. Australians increasingly make purchases or sign up for subscriptions online. While online transactions can make consumers' lives easier, there are also serious downsides. Consumers may be pressured into making a purchase because a countdown timer warns them that only a few of their chosen items are left in stock, when actually there are still plenty available. They find what looks like a bargain when they get to the checkout and discover a fee or a charge has been added to their purchase at the last minute, and it's no longer of such good value. Or they find that, although they were able to subscribe to a service online, they are unable to unsubscribe without making a phone call to a person who is then very difficult to connect with. Many aspects of an online purchase may seem benign, but this is not always the case. Smart businesses understand the significance of every button, prompt, colour, timer and default setting. Each of these is adjustable, and every click is measurable. The online world is optimised for engagement, retention and revenue.

More than half of reported consumer problems now occur in relation to online purchases. One in 10 people say that an online provider has manipulated their choices, while more than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in the transaction. That is why this bill is needed. It amends the Competition and Consumer Act to reflect the realities of how Australians buy, compare and subscribe in today's world. It responds to concerns that certain harmful business practices, particularly in digital and subscription based markets, may not be adequately addressed by Australia's existing consumer law prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms. And it explicitly targets conduct that manipulates consumers or distorts the conditions under which transactional decisions are made, including through what is known as dark patterns. 'Dark patterns' is a term used to describe design techniques that are crafted to influence behaviour in ways that benefit businesses at the expense of consumer understanding. These techniques exploit well known cognitive biases, including loss aversion, optimism bias, inattention and fatigue.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill delivers three important reforms. It introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices, it stops drip pricing, and it ends subscription traps. Its key features include ensuring that businesses disclose key terms up front, give reminders before free trials end, make cancellation simple and show all mandatory fees clearly before consumers buy.

The first major reform in this bill is the introduction of an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. Remarkably, this prohibition does not currently exist in Australia. The bill stipulates that businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make or are likely to make decisions in circumstances that cause or are likely to cause detriment. This principles based test captures conduct that does not neatly fall within the existing prohibitions on misleading conduct or unconscionability but which nevertheless exploits behavioural biases, overwhelms consumers with complexity or structures choices in a way that leads people towards decisions they would not otherwise make.

The bill helpfully includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of practices that may contravene this new prohibition. These include impeding a consumer's ability to engage legal rights or seek legal remedies; failing to disclose material information to the consumer; disclosing material information to the consumer in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming; and creating an environment, including by using design elements in digital interfaces, that places unreasonable pressure on a consumer or that obstructs the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision.

These examples are provided to help businesses understand where the line is drawn without restricting ordinary, legitimate commercial behaviour. It's important to note that this general prohibition is not about stopping businesses from promoting their products, nor is it about stopping advertising. It's about dealing with conduct that crosses the line from persuasion into manipulation—conduct that harms consumers and undermines fair competition.

Another major focus of this bill is drip pricing. This term describes the practice of displaying a low upfront price and then, after the consumer has progressed through several steps of the online process and often not until they've reached the final checkout stage, suddenly adding mandatory transaction or service charges. By that stage, many consumers have invested a significant amount of time comparing options, and they are mentally committed to the purchase. When the final price appears, they are reluctant to walk away from the transaction.

Drip pricing is intensely frustrating. The price originally seemed reasonable, even a great deal, but then new fees appear at the very last step. This technique is used by businesses because it taps into well understood behavioural tendencies. People anchor on the first price they see, and, once they've invested effort in reaching the final stage of the transaction, they are less inclined to abandon it, even when new information would have changed their initial decision. This bill requires businesses to disclose mandatory transaction based charges at the same time that they display the base price. There should be no artificially low headline prices and no last minute surprises. By ensuring any per-transaction fees and charges are clearly displayed, the new laws will make consumers aware of the real price of a product or service, enabling them to make purchasing decisions that are more informed. It's important to note that the bill does not prohibit transaction fees; it just prohibits hiding them. It will also ensure that businesses that do the right thing are not disadvantaged by competitors that conceal the true cost until the final step.

The third major area of reform in this bill addresses another great source of consumer frustration: subscription traps. Subscription services have become an increasingly common way for Australians to pay for products and services, and this model often works well for both businesses and consumers. However, problems arise when the subscription is structured so that joining is swift and effortless while leaving involves added frictions or becomes confusing or emotionally loaded. That imbalance is what turns an ordinary subscription into a subscription trap. Too often, subscriptions are designed to capitalise on the assumption that consumers will forget to cancel free trials, will not notice renewals, or will struggle to find the cancellation pathway.

The Consumer Policy Research Centre found that three in four Australians have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. One in three felt pressured to continue their subscription, and one in 10 gave up trying to cancel and kept paying for a service they no longer wanted or needed. Some even resorted to cancelling their credit card or a bank account just to get rid of the recurring subscriptions. The estimated detriment from spending on unwanted subscriptions by Australian consumers is an extraordinary $971 million per year. This bill directly addresses these problems with subscriptions. It stipulates that businesses must clearly disclose to a consumer that is entering a subscription what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be ended. This information must be provided prominently and in a way that is easy to understand.

The bill also establishes a framework for reminder notices, ensuring that consumers receive timely, sensible prompts when a trial period is ending or a renewal is approaching. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, and it must require only the steps that are reasonably necessary.

I note the amendments in this bill will not commence until 1 July 2027, which is just over a year away. This will allow businesses time to understand the new obligations and adjust their practices accordingly. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will develop guidance materials on the operation of the new laws, and the government will undertake a review of the first two years of operation of the subscription provisions to ensure the protections are working as intended.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring strong protections for Australian consumers, and this bill is part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the economy. Strong consumer laws ensure Australians are treated fairly and protected against misleading conduct, unsafe products and unfair practices. Stronger competition is also essential to easing cost-of-living pressures. The Albanese government has legislated the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that large mergers are properly assessed before proceeding and that anticompetitive acquisitions do not escape scrutiny.

We've increased funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than $30 million, enabling stronger action against misleading pricing tactics, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer-facing markets. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and, for the first time, have given the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the power to seek penalties against companies that breach these laws.

We are strengthening the unit pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Australians will be able to see clearly when the contents of a product have been reduced, even if the sticker price remains the same. We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by strong penalties that prevent supermarkets from using their market power to unfairly squeeze suppliers and farmers.

Penalties matter, and that is why we have increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million. Stronger sanctions ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for conduct that undermines fairness and that breaches of consumer law cannot be dismissed as a mere cost of doing business.

Across the labour market, Labor's reforms to non-compete clauses and other restrictive practices will help improve job mobility and productivity, and the right to repair is being extended to agricultural machinery, ensuring that farmers have a genuine choice in how they service their equipment.

Through a revitalised National Competition Policy supported by the $900 million National Productivity Fund, the federal government is working with states and territories to remove planning and zoning barriers that make it difficult for new entrants to compete. Together, the Albanese government's range of reforms is strengthening competition, enhancing productivity and contributing to a fairer marketplace.

It's important to note that unfair trading practices don't only affect individuals. Small businesses and franchisees often face the same vulnerabilities when dealing with larger suppliers. That is why this government is consulting on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those in franchising.

In conclusion, I support this bill because banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing and cleaning up subscriptions will strengthen protections for Australian consumers and support better functioning markets. These reforms will help make Australia a market where good businesses thrive by doing the right thing. They will also restore confidence that online markets can work on straightforward terms where prices are what they seem and leaving a service is as simple as joining it. They will protect consumers not only from outright deception but also from the kinds of subtle, cumulative influences that can undermine genuine choice. For all these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This bill is designed to complement existing Australian consumer law legislation, increase consumer trust in the marketplace and encourage fairer trading amongst businesses. The bill operates to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including the Australian Consumer Law, which is set out in schedule 2 to that act, with a lens on improving protections against current unfair trading practices and emerging unfair trading practices. It does so by introducing a general prohibition on unfair trading practices towards consumers, strengthening protections against drip pricing by requiring transparency of transaction based charges and introducing protections against subscription practices that are detrimental to consumers and small business.

What do unfair trading practices actually look like? They relate to how businesses promote, sell and deliver products and services, how contract terms operate and how businesses take payments from consumers. It's things like accepting payments for products and services that a business does not intend to supply; using coercion or undue harassment against consumers; or exploiting known facts, circumstances or statements made by a consumer to coerce them into buying something or signing up to something or to enforce a debt. It's also unfair contract terms. It's making false or misleading statements about a product or service. It's a pyramid scheme. It's a referral scheme which does not result in discounts or other benefits to consumers despite a promise to do so. And it's unconscionable conduct, which is hard to define but which may involve behaviour so harsh that it goes against good conscience.

Under consumer law, businesses are prohibited from acting unconscionably towards consumers or other businesses, and this is something that is more than just unfairness. It is something that makes the circumstances especially harsh. It is, for example, where a business knowingly targets consumers who are experiencing a vulnerability, such as people who are going through something difficult, like the death of a loved one, domestic or family violence, homelessness, or the impact of a natural disaster; who are sick and have disabilities; who are too young to make informed decisions; who have difficulties reading and writing; who live in remote areas; who do not speak English as their first language; who are uncomfortable with using what is now considered very basic technology, such as the internet or smartphones; and who clearly have difficulties understanding and using basic financial skills.

By and large, Australian businesses would never dream of engaging in unconscionable conduct or any of the other unfair trading practices I have described. Australian private enterprise is the engine room of our economy, providing investment capital, innovation, secure employment and opportunities for thousands of people and, most importantly, providing the products, goods and services that we all need. We can't afford to paralyse business. Private enterprise must be provided with the right settings to grow, to increase revenue and to make money. If they can't do that consistently, then they can't supply products and services. The private sector in this country is an indispensable force for sustainable development because it operates to spark the innovation we need, to improve productivity and to improve the economic efficiency we need. And, as I said—this is worth repeating—it creates the jobs and growth needed to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity.

All of that being said, business must operate in a way that is fair to the consumer, and I'm confident there would be very few businesses that would argue against that proposition. I suggested earlier that most Australian businesses would never dream of participating in unfair trading practices like unconscionable conduct or misleading and deceptive conduct, but there is some conduct, which falls far short of these thresholds but that may take place, sometimes inadvertently, that is unfair to the consumer.

Just as we need private enterprise to prosper and to produce the products and services we need, we also need a fair marketplace that encourages consumer participation. If consumers are not getting a fair go or are being taken advantage of, then either they won't participate in certain marketplaces or they will make choices that they otherwise wouldn't if the trading and market conditions were fair.

This is particularly important given the rapid and significant shift to the online marketplace. We're now almost on autopilot. People enter their credit card details into online platforms to purchase goods or sign up to services because they are there and it is easy. The ease of access to the consumer marketplace that the online world provides and the online world's prolific reach mean that it's more important than ever to act to ensure fairness for the consumer.

This bill does three things to make the marketplace fairer to the average consumer. Firstly, it introduces a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. The bill does this by introducing the new part 2-4, with new section 28B(1) prohibiting a person from engaging in unfair trading practices—a defined term—in trade or commerce. In practical terms, this provides that a person engages in unfair trading practices if, and only if, in connection with the supply of goods or services to a consumer or an offer to supply goods or services to a consumer, the person engages in conduct that does or is likely to do either or both of the following: firstly, 'manipulate the consumer' or, secondly, 'unreasonably distort the environment in which the consumer makes, or is likely to make, a decision' and that 'causes, or is likely to cause, detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to the consumer'. In this context, a supply or offer to supply may occur in an online setting, such as on an app or a website, or an offline setting, which means your traditional in-store retail setting. The prohibition is intended to be flexible and capable of adapting with evolving commercial practices and rapid technological advances. Offers of supply are intended to include the promotion, advertising or marketing of a relevant good and service.

A non-exhaustive list of unfair trading practices in the context of this general prohibition is included in the bill. This includes frustrating a consumer's ability to exercise legal rights or seek legal remedies; failing to disclose material information to the consumer; disclosing material information to the consumer but in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming; and creating an environment, including by using design elements in online platforms, that places unreasonable pressure on a consumer or that obstructs the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision.

This list is designed to assist businesses to understand the parameters of what may qualify as a contravention. The list can't be absolutely exhaustive, because of the unique nature of businesses, the uniqueness of consumers and the incredible breadth of products and services available in the marketplace, particularly online. Each matter will necessarily need to be considered on its own facts, but the non-exhaustive examples in the bill are intended to help businesses understand where the line in the sand is, without impeding legitimate commercial action, like promotion and advertising, which every business is entitled to do.

Secondly, this bill addresses drip pricing. This is a practice where a consumer buys a service at what appears to be a fair and reasonable price and then experiences price creep, where new, previously unexpected fees start to come in. We've all bought a ticket to a concert, to a show, to live sport or to a movie and then experienced an inexplicable and proportionally large booking fee being tacked on at the very end of the transaction. You still want the ticket, so you pay the booking fee. The proposal in this bill is simply that businesses disclose these mandatory transaction-based charges, like a booking fee, at the same time as they display the base price. The consumer can then decide earlier in the process whether they wish to proceed with the transaction, knowing they will be paying a booking fee and what the amount of the booking fee is. This reform does not prohibit businesses from charging a booking fee, recognising that there are legitimate reasons to do so. All it does is ask businesses to be upfront about these costs. This is entirely reasonable and allows consumers to make informed decisions early on in the transaction.

Thirdly, this bill addresses subscription traps. Subscriptions to streaming services, newspapers, gyms, style guides, blogs and software services are often designed on the assumption that the consumer will forget to cancel free trials, will simply shrug off renewals or will find it so difficult to cancel that they'll just roll on. I recently had an experience like this. I consider myself to be a reasonably unfashionable person. Having recently had a birthday, taking me firmly into mid-40s territory, I decided to sign up to a style app which promised to help me find the right colours and the right styles for my body shape—which is inverted triangle, for those playing along at home—and transform me into a modern, youthful style fashionista. Fantastic!

Predictably, the app was not a revelation, presenting me with suggestions like jeans and white T-shirts. It turns out I was already stylish and there was no further room for improvement. So I rolled my eyes, chastised myself for actually signing up to this thing and then proceeded to try and cancel, before I got trapped in the endless renewal cycle. Cancelling was quite the exercise. I just wanted out, but I kept being presented with offers, promises and alternatives on a webpage that was clearly designed to make it hard for me to find and activate the cancel button. I had to trawl through the app. I had to go to the settings on my phone. I had to get a couple of codes, and then I had to click on a link in an email that was eventually sent to me. I'm all for businesses promoting their products, but why couldn't I just press a button and cancel? It took me longer to cancel than it did to be told that I look good in white t-shirts.

This bill addresses these issues by requiring businesses to clearly disclose that a customer is entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be cancelled, with cancellations required to be straightforward, easy to find and comprised of only reasonably necessary steps. Reminder notices reminding consumers that a renewal is approaching or that a payment is coming up will also be required.

This bill is a principled, proportionate and timely response to real harms and frustrations being experienced by the Australian consumer. It does not paralyse business. On the contrary, it recognises the right of a business to grow, to innovate, to make money and to increase productivity but within a marketplace that is fair to the Australian consumer in the rapidly changing way we do business. I commend the bill to the House.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This legislation is an important milestone in our nation's journey towards a fairer and more transparent market. At its core, this is a bill about the basic integrity of the daily interactions between Australians and the businesses they rely on. It is about the fundamental principle of fairness in the everyday decisions Australians make when they buy a ticket online, compare prices, start a free trial, sign up to a service or try to cancel something they no longer use. In all of those moments, Australians should be able to rely on a basic standard of honesty and clarity. They should not have to navigate a maze of fine print. They should not need to reach the final step of a digital checkout, only to be hit with extra compulsory fees that were never disclosed at the start. And they should not have to battle a deliberately confusing website just to stop paying for a service they no longer want.

These experiences are familiar to too many Australians. A person sees one price advertised, but, by the time they reach the checkout, the final amount is higher. Someone signs up to a free trial and later realises they have been rolled into an ongoing payment. Someone tries to cancel a subscription, but, instead of a clear and simple process, they are sent through page after page of hurdles, offers and endless questions. For many people, this is not just frustrating; it costs money, it wastes precious time, and it fundamentally damages trust.

In my electorate of Holt, families are already watching every single dollar. They are comparing grocery prices, managing rent or mortgage payments, checking bills and doing everything possible to make the household budget stretch until the next payday. When budgets are tight, a few dollars in a hidden fee, another monthly charge for a service they try to cancel or an automatic renewal they were not properly reminded of isn't just an annoyance; it's a financial hit. Those costs add up for students, for families, for pensioners and for our small businesses.

This is why this bill is so necessary. The Albanese Labor government is amending Australian Consumer Law to introduce an economy-wide prohibition of unfair trading practices. In simple terms, businesses will not be allowed to manipulate customers or unreasonably distort the environment in which they make decisions. We are not saying businesses shouldn't be successful. On the contrary, we want Australian businesses to thrive. We want them to advertise freely, promote their products and compete fiercely, but that competition must be based on the things that actually matter—price, quality, service and value—not on who's the best at tricking a customer, who can hide their fees the longest or who can make their cancellation button the hardest to find. This bill draws a firm line between clever marketing and predatory manipulation. Australian Consumer Law has served us well, but the world has changed. The way we shop, compare and subscribe today is vastly different from 20 years ago. This bill modernises our legal framework so it can respond to the harmful conduct of today and remain flexible enough to deal with the emerging tactics of tomorrow.

Let's look specifically at the subscription economy. Subscriptions are now a staple of modern life. We subscribe to news, music, fitness apps, meal kits and software. When these models are clear and fair, they provide great convenience. Many businesses already do the right thing. They send reminders, they make the price obvious, and they make it easy to leave. Those businesses have nothing to fear from this bill. In fact, they will benefit from a marketplace where their honest practices aren't being undercut by dishonest competitors. However, the Consumer Policy Research Centre has provided us with some sobering statistics. Three in four Australians with subscriptions have had a negative cancellation experience. One in 10 has literally given up on trying to cancel a service because it was too difficult, continuing to pay for something they don't want. This is not the market working; this is a subscription trap. This bill breaks those traps. It mandates that businesses clearly disclose the total cost, the renewal frequency and the cancellation process right at the start. It also introduces a click-to-cancel expectation. If you can sign up with one click, you should be able to leave with equal ease.

The bill also addresses the deceptive practice of drip pricing. This occurs when a consumer sees an attractive price at the start of the transaction, but mandatory charges appear later in the process. It might be a service fee, a booking fee, a processing fee or a transaction fee. The problem is not that a business charges a fee; the problem is when that fee is compulsory but not shown clearly upfront. By the time the consumer sees the real total, they may have already spent time choosing a product, entering details, selecting a seat or organising the booking. Many people then go ahead because they feel they have already invested the time. This is not a fair way to compare prices. This bill requires mandatory transaction based charges to be displayed alongside the base price from the very beginning. This ensures that the price you see in the search results is the price you actually pay. It allows for genuine price comparison, which is the engine of a competitive economy.

I want to address those who might claim this is an interventionist or antibusiness measure. In reality, this bill is pro good business. In my community of Holt, I see local cafe owners, family run trades and small retailers who work incredibly hard to build a reputation. They know that trust is their most valuable asset. They are upfront with their prices, they stand by their service and they work hard for every single customer. Those businesses should not be undercut by companies that rely on tricks, pressure or confusion. A strong marketplace should reward honesty, value and service. This is why consumer protection and competition policy go together. When people trust the market, they are more confident to compare, switch and try new providers. When people feel trapped or misled, they become cautious. They become less likely to switch and less likely to engage, and good businesses miss out.

This bill does not stand alone. It is a critical piece of the Albanese Labor government's broader agenda to ease cost-of-living pressures and make the Australian economy work for people, not the other way around. We have already strengthened penalties for anticompetitive conduct, ensuring that breaking the law is no longer just a cost of doing business; we have acted on unfair contract terms, protecting small businesses and consumers from 'take it or leave it' contracts that are already heavily weighted against them; we have tackled shrinkflation and unit pricing, ensuring that, when the packet gets smaller, the consumer knows exactly what they are paying for; and we have made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, ensuring our farmers and suppliers get a fair deal from the major supermarkets. This bill is the next logical step in that journey.

The bill also takes a practical approach to implementation. The reforms will commence from 1 July 2027, giving businesses time to understand their obligations and to adjust their practices. The ACCC will provide guidance on how the new laws will operate. The government will review the subscription provisions after the first two years to make sure the protections are working as intended. That is the right approach. It gives consumers stronger protection and gives businesses time and certainty.

We are also looking into the future. We know that small businesses and franchisees often find themselves on the receiving end of unfair trading practices from larger entities. That is why the government will consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those in franchising. We will also consider possible alignment in the financial services sector carefully and properly so consumers do not fall through the regulatory gaps.

This bill reflects a very Australian expectation: be upfront, be fair and do not make life harder than it needs to be. Australians are not asking for special treatment; they're asking for the basics. They want prices they can trust, they want subscription terms they can understand, they want the freedom to leave a service when it no longer serves them and they want to know that, when a business makes a promise, it will keep it. This bill gives that expectation the force of law. It gives the people of Holt and people right across our country back their time, more clarity and better protection for their hard-earned money. It is fair, it is practical and it is absolutely needed.

I acknowledge the work of the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, in bringing this bill before the House. This is practical, considered reform shaped by the evidence and the real experiences of Australian consumers. I commend this bill to the House.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. In doing so, I too commend the work of the assistant minister in the lead-up to and preparation of this bill and also for the way that he has handled this bill through the parliament and through the Labor Party processes as well. I don't think the community could ask for a better assistant minister at this time than the assistant minister we have. He's somebody who lives and breathes this sort of work. It's a privilege to be able to serve in this parliament alongside him. I also pay due credit to the leader of our economic team and my neighbour, the Treasurer, who is leading an economic policy focused on the cost of living. The competition policy sits very much within that general approach to tackling the cost of living.

The measures in this bill are about improving competition for our economy, which sits not only within this government's mission but also within the Labor Party's historic mission. We're now 52 years on from the introduction of the Trade Practices Act, which was introduced by another great reforming government, the Whitlam Labor government, and by another great reforming Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy.

The Trade Practices Act 1974, on which this work is built, sat squarely then in the government's approach to tackling inflation and the cost of living, just as ours does today. In fact, it gave me an opportunity while preparing for this speech to look at what Lionel Murphy said at the time. It's interesting that history rhymes, as the saying goes. He said:

The Bill … is especially important because of its relevance to inflation. The purpose of many restrictive practices is to maintain prices at levels higher than would otherwise prevail. This contributes to the inflationary trend.

He went on to say:

Consumer protection also assists in the fight against inflation. It is the consumer who has to bear the burden of higher prices and of unfair methods of dealing.

I half quoted Mark Twain's quote that history may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes—and just as it was with the Trade Practices Bill in 1974, so it is with the mutterings we hear from the opposition. Are they supporting this bill? Are they not supporting this bill? I'm not 100 per cent clear on what their position is, and that's because I don't think they're 100 per cent clear on what their position is. There is a rhyme from history here as well. In introducing this bill back in 1973, Lionel Murphy said:

Regrettably Opposition senators refused to debate that Bill—

because—

… there had been insufficient time to consider its provisions.

Some things are just hard to get out of your DNA when you're a political party. It ultimately tries to parade itself these days as looking after the battler, but it has always been the party for the big corporations and big businesses. It is only the Labor Party that has stood up for small businesses, stood up for consumers and stood up for farmers. When you look at the results the opposition got in Farrer, I'm not sure they're drawing the right lessons. They would certainly do well to do a little bit of private introspection rather than trying to litigate that in public. This is in the DNA of those opposite. They were defending an act in 1974—just as they're equivocating about supporting this one—that Lionel Murphy described as having been proved to be one of the most ineffectual pieces of legislation ever passed by that parliament. Even in 1974, that would have had some stiff competition. He said:

In consumer transactions unfair practices are widespread. The existing law is still founded on the principle known as caveat emptor—meaning 'let the buyer beware'. That principle may have been appropriate for transactions conducted in village markets. It has ceased to be appropriate as a general rule. Now the marketing of goods and services is conducted on an organised basis and by trained business executives.

As insightful as and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, I don't think even he could have been quite as—

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you talking about the same bloke that was convicted for perverting the course of justice?

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I think the member is casting aspersions on former members that are outrageous, and I would ask that they be withdrawn.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You refuse to withdraw? Will you withdraw?

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not withdraw. It is a fact,

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I'll continue. I understand there's no standing order to deal with that sort of outrageous personal attack—on somebody who is deceased, mind you.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just because he's dead doesn't mean it's not true.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, member for Forde—will you just pause there for a moment? I would like to request that when I call the House to order that is respected by members in this chamber. Thank you very much. You may proceed.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that, as insightful and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, and as somebody that really had at heart such a passion for defending the individual rights that Australians are entitled to, when he talked about marketing of goods and services being conducted on an organised basis by trained business executives, even he couldn't have thought about what those trained business executives would be like today. They manipulate not only vulnerable consumers; the best of us have all struggled to find that greyed-out unsubscribe button; we've all been attracted by the light and the colour. We've all had our hesitation measured. There are an infinite number of permutations and combinations that the latest market shysters are able to use to manipulate our behaviour. In 1974, they could not have conceived of quite what it would be like. We are no longer in a village market. We are no longer even in just a sophisticated street market. We are well and truly in a new world, and this bill goes some of the way to addressing the inequity that exists between consumers and those that are effectively wielding that power and have that responsibility.

Of course, though, it sits within that general approach that this government has taken to fixing many of the problems that we were left with by the inaction of the previous government. We kicked in an extra $30 million for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to enable stronger action against misleading and pricing tactics in the supermarket and other retail sectors. Again, the ACCC cops a fair bit of criticism. Perhaps some of it is justified, but a lot of it is because it was completely underfunded by the previous government. I think the ACCC has done some amazing things when it comes to protecting consumers. One of them has to be hitting Optus for six. Optus copped a $100 million fine for selling expensive and, really, unwanted plans to vulnerable people, and Optus didn't even bother to check whether it was actually covering them in the areas that they lived. Optus copped a $100 million fine for selling these plans to people with learning disabilities—people that were obviously disabled. One person, an obviously disabled and vulnerable person, had been talked into it by the shop staff and was too embarrassed to say no at the time. But, even when his representative—and he was lucky to have a representative, mind you—went into the store to try and get a refund, that guy was refused. The ACCC did some fantastic work getting that $100 million fine. This government is the only party which really takes the enforcement actions of the ACCC seriously by funding it.

We've also outlawed unfair contract terms. For the first time, we've given the ACCC and ASIC the power not only to help people have those terms voided in contracts but to take action and have serious penalties imposed for inflicting those sorts of unfair terms. Going back to 1974, it was actually a practice of some people in contracts to have, as a term, that this contract will not operate under Australian law. That actually needed to be outlawed. But there are plenty of unfair contract terms in there today, such as the supplier can adjust the terms whenever it likes. How can that possibly be fair?

I'm reminded of one young woman who had a gym membership. She moved 90 minutes away from the gym. It was easy for her to sign up online, but, when she tried to unsign online, she was told she couldn't. She rang up. She was told she would need to come in. And so she needed to make a three-hour round trip in order to have the contract terminated. It was only because she was persistent and knowledgeable to the extent that she was able to actually show them the law that the gym backed down.

We're strengthening the unit-pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Even now, while the supermarkets know that this is on the government's agenda, they're asking for it, really, with their outrageous behaviour. There was an example in February where they're selling a packet of five bananas as a unit. It costs twice as much as the bananas that are next to it, which are bought by weight. Woolworths say it's for the convenience of the consumer because they can just grab it. For the privilege of being able to take it off, Woolies think they can just charge them twice and get away with it, without displaying clearly that they're paying twice as much as they would be if they picked up five bananas by themselves.

We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by strong penalties. Again, the other side talk about representing farmers. I used to be a station hand—I worked for these people. I know the heart and soul that these people put into their farms. They're not Gordon Gekko dealing with international companies or huge companies like Woolworths. These people have no bargaining power. Through this code, which used to be voluntary—it took this government to make it mandatory—we've allowed for people to be anonymous when making their complaints to encourage whistleblowers to come forward, to restore some balance back into what is an otherwise thoroughly unequal situation.

Across the labour market, this government has introduced reforms to non-compete clauses. Believe it or not, there are employment contracts out there now where a laundromat worker is not able to work in another laundromat in the town. In order to get a job, a young engineer, straight out of university, has to sign a non-compete clause to say that he can't work as an engineer in another firm. These are not only things which are unfair on the individual. Courts generally, from what I understand, strike out those ridiculous terms. But sometimes you have to go to court, and sometimes it's possible for the employer to actually put an injunction on you going to somewhere else that you then have to fight. Even though these terms are basically completely unfair, it puts the onus on the worker to do it.

This sits within the history of the Labor Party. From 1974 to now, it has taken Labor governments to try and level the field for consumers, try and level the field for small businesses and try to level the field for farmers. That's why the history of the Labor Party, I think, is going to continue into the future, while the history of the Liberal and National parties is somewhat in doubt.

Ash Ambihaipahar (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. At its core, this particular bill is about making our payment systems and our marketplaces fairer for everyday Australians. It's about making sure people can buy what they need without being misled, trapped, pressured or ripped off.

In Barton, when I think about trust in the marketplace, I think about our grandparents. We all have stereotypes of our grandparents—maybe it's Nonna and her insistence on stuffing you full of plates of pasta and homemade salami, or Papou, who's insisting you go check the lamb on the spit that's been there since six in the morning; or maybe it's Nainai, who's using Tiger Balm to treat everything; or maybe it's your Ammappa, who might actually warn you about eating too much durian, because it's a heaty food.

One thing that unites these grandparents, even if they live in different suburbs, speak different languages or adhere to different religions or cultures, is that they all insist on paying in cash. Cash is king. Cash is something people understand. It's simple. It's physical. You hand it over in person. You look someone in the eye before you part with your money, and, if someone is ripping you off, Nonna knows. More than that, our grandparents often knew the person they were buying from. They shopped on their local high street, where stores were owned and run by the person you sat next to at church, the person who coached your kid's soccer team or the person who lived across the road. If someone was going to rip you off, chances were you knew about it already. The gossip mill had already armed you well to take on the local grifter.

Now, I know this might sound like a little bit of a nostalgic trip here, but the local marketplace, built on closeness and trust, is becoming less common. Modern families are not always engaging with their high streets in the same way. Life is busy. Shopping online is often quicker, easier and more efficient. When we move from the local high street to the virtual high street, we lose some of those old protections. We lose the closeness. We lose the personal relationship. We lose the ability to judge a business by the way it treats people in our community.

These new, virtual high streets are often not grounded in trust or community. Sometimes they are faceless, shady storefronts that just happen to be selling the exact product or service you need. Sometimes they're a huge multinational company whose only face is a logo. Either way, it's much harder for an everyday consumer to know who they are dealing with when the whole interaction happens behind a screen. When you are trying to buy something quickly—when you're rushing between work, school pick-up, dinner and everything else—how are you meant to actually know whether the site is trustworthy? Many of these virtual storefronts build their business models around the absence of trust. They use traps. They use algorithms. They design systems to extract as much money from a buyer as possible. They do not care about the quality of service. They do not care about the product. They do not care about the person on the other end of the transaction. It is a profit model.

But that's not the whole story, because there are so many small businesses on our local high streets that have built an online presence. There are so many of them in my electorate of Barton. I think of Self Raised in Carlton and Bexley North, Greek Cargo in Earlwood and LA Donuts—Frida, you're a genius!—operating in Beverly Hills. I can say that these businesses are not engaging in traps used by nameless, faceless online businesses. They're using online tools to reach more customers, support their staff and keep their bricks-and-mortar stores alive. They're still trying to provide the best quality local service they can. They are still part of our neighbourhoods. They still know their customers. They still care about their reputation, because their reputation is built right here in our community. Without them, our local jobs and our local character will suffer. It would not be the Barton our grandparents grew up in and would not be the Barton we want to pass on.

So, yes, this bill is about stronger consumer protections, but it's also something much bigger. It's about rewarding the good local businesses that do the right thing. It's about standing up to the unfair practices that punish consumers and undercut honest businesses. And it's about keeping alive the neighbourhoods our grandparents built and the neighbourhoods we still want to live in today.

One of the central features of this legislation is the creation of a new economy-wide safeguard against unfair business conduct. At its heart, this reform recognises a very simple principle: Australians should be able to make purchasing decisions freely, transparently and without being manipulated through unfair tactics. This bill introduces a flexible, overarching standard that prevents businesses from engaging in conduct that unfairly influences or pressures consumers in ways that are likely to result in harm. It acknowledges that, while businesses are entitled to market their products and compete strongly, there must be clear limits on practices that intentionally exploit confusion, vulnerability or imbalance in information.

This legislation is not designed to stop ordinary advertising or legitimate sales strategies. Businesses will continue to innovate, compete and promote their services. Healthy competition remains a critical part of a strong economy. However, there's a clear distinction between persuasive marketing and conduct that deliberately steers consumers into decisions they might not otherwise make through pressure, obstruction or deception. Increasingly, consumers interact with businesses through digital platforms and online interfaces that are carefully designed to shape behaviour. While many businesses use these tools responsibly, some practices are specifically engineered to frustrate the cancellation process, overwhelm consumers with excessive information, conceal important details or create urgency that pressures individuals into rushed decisions. This bill seeks to address those harmful behaviours.

This bill also addresses the growing use of digital design features that create unreasonable pressure or deliberately obstruct consumers from making informed choices. These tactics can include complicated cancellation pathways, repeated prompts designed to completely wear consumers down or interfaces structured to discourage people from changing their minds. Importantly, this reform has been designed with the future in mind. Markets, technology and consumer behaviour continue to evolve rapidly, particularly in the digital economy.

A principles based framework allows the law to remain relevant as new forms of unfair conduct emerge, rather than relying on parliament to constantly and continuously amend legislation in response to every new tactic or technology. This approach creates a stronger and more adaptable consumer protection system while also giving businesses greater clarity about the standards expected of them. Ultimately, these changes are about strengthening confidence in the marketplace, supporting fair competition, and ensuring Australians can engage in the economy, knowing that they're being treated honestly and fairly.

Australians are increasingly relying on subscription based services in their daily lives, from streaming platforms and fitness apps to software services and delivery memberships. Subscription models have become deeply embedded in the modern economy, and many of these services provide genuine convenience and value to customers. However, there is growing concern about the way some businesses structure their arrangements to make cancellation very difficult and ongoing charges easy to overlook. Too often, consumers are drawn into arrangements through free trials or heavily promoted introductory offers, only to later discover that ending the subscription is unnecessarily complicated. In some cases, businesses rely on consumers forgetting renewal dates, missing important notices or becoming frustrated by confusing cancellation processes. And while signing up may take only moments, cancelling can involve navigating multiple web pages, repeated prompts, hidden settings or lengthy customer service interactions. That imbalance is precisely what this legislation seeks to address.

This bill introduces stronger safeguards to ensure subscription agreements are fair, transparent and easy for consumers to understand from the outset. Businesses will be required to provide clear and accessible information before a consumer enters a subscription arrangement, including details about pricing, billing frequency, renewal terms, the duration of any trial period and the steps required to cancel the service. The reforms also place significant emphasis on the cancellation process itself, and consumers should not face unreasonable barriers when trying to end a service they no longer wish to use. Businesses will need to ensure cancellation pathways are visible, practical and proportionate. If a person can subscribe online quickly and easily, there should be a similarly straightforward process to discontinue the arrangement.

In addition to these measures, further regulations approaching on 1 July 2027 will introduce a reminder requirement for businesses. Consumers will receive a clearer notification before free trials expire or before automatic renewals occur, and these reminders are intended to give individuals fair opportunity to reassess whether they still wish to continue with the service before getting the additional charge. These protections will extend beyond individual consumers to also cover small businesses who are entering into standard-form subscription contracts. This is an important inclusion because small businesses can face many of the same challenges as ordinary consumers, particularly when dealing with larger corporations and complex contractual systems. They too deserve transparency and fair treatment. Importantly, these reforms also support businesses that are already doing the right thing. Many companies already communicate clearly with customers, provide fair notice of renewals and make cancellations simple and accessible. Those businesses should not be placed at a disadvantage against competitors using confusing or restrictive practices to retain customers unfairly.

This legislation also takes important steps to address the issue of hidden fees and misleading pricing practices that have become increasingly common in today's marketplace, particularly on online transactions. Australians deserve to know the true cost of a product or service before they commit to making a purchase, yet too often consumers are presented with an advertised price that appears attractive at first instance only to discover additional compulsory charges later at the check-out process. By the time these extra costs are revealed, consumers may have already invested a considerable amount of time entering personal details, comparing options or progressing through multiple stages of transactions. This practice is commonly referred to as drip pricing, which undermines transparency and weakens confidence in the market. It creates a situation where the initial advertised price does not accurately reflect what a consumer would actually pay. Instead, mandatory booking fees, processing charges, service costs or other unavoidable additions are gradually introduced throughout the purchasing process, making that final, substantial amount much higher than originally expected.

Clear and accurate pricing is fundamental to a fair and competitive economy. Consumers can only make informed decisions when they have access to genuine and complete information. If important costs are concealed or delayed, it becomes far more difficult for individuals to properly compare products and services across the market. The reforms in this bill will require businesses to present all mandatory transactions related to charges at the same time the advertised price is displayed. In other words, consumers will see the true price upfront rather than being confronted with unexpected additions at the end of the process. This does not prevent businesses from charging legitimate fees, nor does it interfere with their ability to structure prices appropriately. What it does is require honesty and transparency about the total unavoidable cost a consumer can expect to pay.

Like I said earlier, it is about keeping alive the neighbourhoods our grandparents built and the neighbourhoods we still want to live in today. Australians should not need to navigate hidden traps, confusing interfaces or concealed fees simply to participate in everyday economy and commerce. Consumers deserve transparency. They deserve fairness. Businesses that do the right thing deserve a marketplace where integrity is rewarded rather than undermined. That is why this bill is about restoring and reinforcing trust in fair competition and trust that Australians will be treated honestly when they spend their hard-earned money. That is good for consumers, good for businesses and good for the Australian economy.

Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most Australians know what it feels like to keep a close eye on the household budget and make careful choices about where every dollar goes. We know that today in Griffith there is a parent comparing the cost of school shoes, groceries and sports fees before payday; a student looking for a cheaper phone plan between shifts; an older Australian checking direct debits on a fixed income; and a small-business owner reviewing every subscription service charge and renewal notice. People in my community and across Australia are doing the sensible thing—comparing prices, reading the details, considering their choices and trying to make good decisions for themselves, their families and their companies.

But all too often the companies and systems they're dealing with aren't equally as fair. A price that seems okay at first becomes more expensive at the final stage of the payment, a free trial unexpectedly turns into a paid subscription and cancelling something that should be easy becomes complicated, with run-around tactics, repeated prompts and pointless difficulties. These aren't just annoying; they are costing people money, time, effort and faith. When people are already dealing with work, family, bills, appointments and everything else, they shouldn't have to spend their free time battling systems that are deliberately designed to try and exhaust them.

That is why this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, is important. It restores fairness to everyday purchases by ensuring people know the true price before committing, understand the conditions of something before they agree to it and can leave a service without being endlessly redirected. It also supports the many businesses that already are honest and respectful to customers. Australians shouldn't have to be experts in the small print to be able to be treated well.

By amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, this bill strengthens our Australian consumer law by banning unfair trading practices generally, with specific changes for unfair subscriptions and improved protections against drip pricing and similar charges that appear during a transaction. Fundamentally, this bill is about stopping unfair things that manipulate people's choices, distort what they decide and really harm them. This harm isn't only financial; it also includes wasted time, frustration and lost confidence from being forced through systems that aren't meant to be fair for consumers.

This is an overdue and necessary update to our consumer protection laws. For a long time, the Australian consumer law has correctly protected us from misleading information and unfair contracts. Those protections are important, but in today's digital age consumers face a different environment. Sometimes it's about what isn't said upfront on a website, sometimes it's a fee that only shows up at the very end of a purchasing process, sometimes it's a website's design that subtly pushes, pressures or prevents people in ways they don't even realise and sometimes it's where a cancellation option technically exists but is so difficult to find that people often find they just give up trying. I've actually had constituents mention to me in passing that they have found it easier to cancel their credit card and get a new one issued than to actually work out how to unsubscribe from some services.

This bill acknowledges that a consumer's choice can be undermined even without a direct lie. It acknowledges that people can be pushed into decisions that aren't in their favour by difficulties, confusion, being overloaded with information, pressure and, let's be frank, tiredness. These changes will stop business methods that depend on confusion, tricks in the design, unnecessary difficulties or people just being exhausted. They establish a standard that is both clear and fair and one that good businesses should be able to meet.

One of the clearest examples of why this reform is needed is subscription traps. Subscriptions are now a huge part of life for both families and small businesses—streaming, music, meal boxes, fitness, kids' learning software, cloud storage, news and so much more. Small businesses use them daily for accounting, wages, booking, point of sale, website hosting, email, rosters and delivery. They're useful and flexible and can be good value. But all too often these subscriptions depend on people forgetting, missing a renewal date or finding it hard to cancel. Someone might start a free trial intending to cancel if it's not suitable. But then they forget the reminder, the trial finishes and the money is taken. For some households, this might be a small annoying charge. For others, it could be the difference between being okay financially and going over budget. For a small business it could mean paying for software, booking, delivery, wages or marketing they're not using at a time when every expense is important.

Then comes the second frustration—trying to cancel. I know every single member in this chamber here this evening has had this frustration. Something that may have taken seconds to sign up for shouldn't take half an afternoon to stop. People shouldn't have to search through many account pages, be shown lots of warnings and offers to stay, or have to phone during work hours when they signed up quite simply online. If you can join with a few clicks, you should be able to leave with a few clicks too. You should be told exactly when a free trial ends, when you'll be charged, how your subscription will automatically renew and, crucially, how to cancel it without being endlessly passed around different departments.

The Consumer Policy Research Centre, the CPRC, has been looking closely at the problems caused by these subscription traps, and their research shows that three in four Australians who have subscriptions have had a bad experience trying to get rid of one. Half of those people spent longer than they intended simply cancelling, one in three felt pressured to keep it and one in 10 just gave up and continued paying for something they didn't even want.

The latest estimates are that these traps are costing Australians around $46 million each year, which is a national price tag for the little, sneaky, irritating and unexpected charges many of us see on our bills. These numbers, of course, represent real people. Think of the parent, up late after the kids are in bed, hunting for the cancel button or the student who signed up for a trial during an exam period and missed the renewal date. Consider the older Australian unsure if a pop-up is actually telling them something or attempting to frighten them into remaining a subscriber. People who are busy, careful with their money and tired are being made to deal with deliberately confusing systems.

The CPRC's research also shows us that 90 per cent of Australians would use the same company again if cancelling were fast and simple. That's a key point in this discussion, as treating people decently isn't against what businesses should do; it's simply good for business. People remember how they're treated when they finish with a company—whether their time was valued, the details were clear and the processes were honest. This bill makes companies reveal all the important details of a subscription at the time of signing up, send reminders at specific points during the subscription and make sure there's a really easy, obvious way to cancel.

This bill also tackles drip pricing, which is a familiar frustration for many Australians. You find a price online, it looks okay, you begin to buy and you fill in your details. You choose your date, seat, room, delivery method or ticket. Then, right at the end of the payment process, hidden additional costs are added to the cart: transaction fees, booking fees, service fees and processing fees. The final cost is now significantly different to the price you were initially shown. At this stage, you might feel you've come too far to stop. You've spent time comparing and filling in your details. You may be buying something with a deadline—tickets for your children, travel for a family event—or making plans around work and child care. The true price should have been stated at the very beginning. Transparent pricing is vital for proper competition.

If prices aren't clear to begin with, people can't compare them properly, and, if people can't compare them properly, the market doesn't function as it should. This bill makes it harder to use drip pricing and other charges added at the transaction stage by requiring all transaction based charges to be shown with the original price if they can be calculated at that point or an explanation of how the charge will be worked out if it can't be worked out in advance. Because of this, Australians will be in a better position to see the full cost earlier on, make a proper comparison, decide if they want to go ahead and make a choice with more confidence and all of the information.

This change is also about helping good businesses. Small businesses in our communities work hard for every customer. They understand that how people see them matters and that trust is built up over time through being fair with prices, communicating clearly and offering respectful service. They don't want to be forced into using underhanded tactics simply because others are. Being upfront shouldn't mean they lose out to competitors who use hidden fees, confusing websites or extra steps to make things difficult.

This bill creates a more equal playing field. It says that businesses should win customers by offering better products, better service and better value, not by making it harder for people to work out what they're actually buying. This is good for customers, good for businesses, good for competition and good for how much we achieve as a country. When people are confident in the marketplace, they're more willing to be involved; when they can compare easily, the best businesses can get customers on their own merits; and when unfair practices are discouraged, businesses have a greater reason to come up with new ideas to improve and to compete fairly.

This bill is not about stopping businesses from advertising, promoting their products or competing strongly. Businesses should absolutely be able to explain why their product is good value, why their service is useful and why a customer might choose them, but there is a difference between persuasion and manipulation. There is a difference between encouraging a customer and trapping a customer. There is a difference between making a sale and designing a process that makes it harder for someone to make a free and informed choice. This bill deals with conduct that crosses that line. These new rules are backed by real consequences, because a right is only meaningful if it can be enforced.

This bill aligns penalties for contraventions of these new unfair trading subscription and drip-pricing provisions with the existing civil penalty settings under the Australian Consumer Law. That sends a clear message: consumer harm cannot be treated as a cost of doing business, and fairness cannot be optional. We have also taken a sensible approach to implementation, with these changes coming into effect on 1 July next year, giving businesses the appropriate time to understand their obligations and to adjust their practices. This bill also provides for a review of the new measures within two years of commencement, which will help ensure the protections are operating as intended. That is a balanced approach and gives businesses time to prepare while making the direction clear.

While this bill focuses mainly on consumer protections, unfair trading practices can affect small businesses and franchisees too. Many small businesses deal with larger suppliers, platforms, landlords and franchisors. They can face information imbalances, bargaining pressures and systems that are difficult to challenge. That is why consultation on extending protections to small businesses is important. We have already commenced targeted consultations on extending protection from unfair trading practices to small businesses and franchisees and are considering whether further steps are appropriate in the financial services sector. Small businesses are integral to my community of Griffith. They sponsor our local sports teams, they support our school raffles, they employ locals, and they know their customers by name. They deserve fair treatment too, and the principle should remain at the centre of these ongoing consultations.

Seventeen leading consumer groups welcomed the introduction of this bill. The Consumer Policy Research Centre has described a ban on unfair business practices as the missing part of Australian consumer law. CHOICE has put the competition point clearly: businesses should compete on price and quality, not by manipulating or distorting the choices that people make. The Consumer Action Law Centre has said these reforms have the potential to transform the consumer experience away from harm and towards real fairness. That support is important because these organisations see the real-world consequences of unfair practices. They hear from people who are dealing with financial stress, confusing contracts, hidden fees, high-pressure sales tactics and systems that make it harder to act in their own interests.

These reforms are about treating people fairly in the ordinary decisions they make every day. They recognise the time people spend comparing prices, checking terms and managing household budgets, especially when the cost of living is already stretching families and small businesses. When someone compares prices, they should be able to trust that the first price they see is not hiding mandatory fees. When they sign up for a trial, they should be clearly told when it ends, what it will cost and how they can cancel, and, when they decide a service is no longer right for them, they should be able to leave without being sent in circles. That standard is good for customers, but it is also good for the many businesses that are already doing the right thing.

A business that's upfront about its practices and its prices and that's clear about its terms and respectful of its customers should not be disadvantaged by competitors who rely on confusion and on hidden costs. Most people are simply trying to make good decisions for themselves and for their families. They are trying to manage their money, support their children, keep their small businesses running and get through the week with a little less stress and a little more certainty. Our consumer laws should support them in that.

This bill introduces an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices. It tackles those subscription traps. It tackles drip pricing, and it strengthens consumer protections for the way Australians buy, compare and subscribe today. People in our community are working hard. They are budgeting carefully, and they're making thoughtful choices every day. Our consumer laws should meet them with the same honesty and the same fairness.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Madonna Jarrett (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Labor government is serious about protecting Australians so they can keep more of what they earn, and we know Australian households are feeling the pinch when it comes to cost of living. Many families across my electorate in Brisbane are watching what they spend. They might not buy that extra coffee one week. But, importantly, they're comparing prices before they put their money down. That's why I was proud to join the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury to announce that the Labor government is cracking down on unfair trading practices. Australians should be able to trust that their markets are fair, transparent and not stacked against them. We know that many businesses are doing the right thing. However, some businesses are not. They're playing tricky games and trying to deceive their customers, all to drive up their own profits. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 will crack down on this sort of dodgy behaviour by banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing and putting an end to subscription traps. We're putting a stop to business tactics that rely on confusion, design tricks, needless friction or sheer consumer exhaustion.

The way Australians buy and subscribe really has changed significantly, particularly in the past 15 years or so, and today people make decisions about goods and services through a variety of pathways: browsing the aisles of a local store, searching online for the best deal, or entering subscription arrangements—many of which renew automatically. Increasingly, the experience of choosing, purchasing and managing services spans multiple channels, reflecting a more complex but interconnected marketplace. Now, these changes are positive; they've given Australians more choice and convenience. But they've also created conditions in which certain business practices can pressure, confuse or trap consumers.

Australians are hardworking and fair-minded, and we expect businesses to be fair-minded too. We encourage businesses to compete and to innovate, and that's a good thing. But, when innovation is designed to deceive or trick consumers, governments must draw the line.

In the lead-up to the bill, evidence was presented to the government that suggested that deception and trickery are not isolated incidents. In fact, more than half of reported consumer problems now occur from online purchases. One in 10 people say that online providers have manipulated their choices, while more than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in a transaction. Online, nothing is accidental: where the button sits, what the screen suggests and how hard it is to cancel—they can all nudge people into making decisions that they might not otherwise have made. This is all by design. As I said, nothing is accidental.

This bill is designed to address these issues—issues that consumers have told the government that they are frustrated by. They're issues and challenges that people in my community come and see me about.

The bill modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect how Australians buy today, how they compare prices and how they subscribe. It protects consumers not only from outright deception but also from subtle, cumulative influences that erode informed decision-making and, therefore, genuine choice.

The bill does three things. The first is a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. The bill introduces a principles based test to address unfair trading practices. Practices that don't fall neatly within existing prohibitions on misleading conduct and which are unethical and unreasonable could fall within this principle.

The bill sets out something fairly straightforward. It says that businesses must not manipulate consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make, or are likely to make, decisions, in circumstances that cause or are likely to cause detriment. The test captures exploitative behaviour and biases that aim to overwhelm consumers with complexity or structures of choices in a way that leads people to decisions that they would not otherwise make. Think how many times you've been online and you've seen: 'Sale ends in five minutes,' or, 'Only three items left. Buy now!'

To provide practical guidance, the bill includes a non-exhaustive, indicative list of examples of practices that may contravene the new prohibition. These include impeding a consumer's ability to exercise legal rights or seek legal remedies; failing to disclose material information to a consumer, or maybe even just disclosing material information to a consumer in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear or unintelligible—maybe it's ambiguous, but ultimately it may be overwhelming. This could be something as simple as a car dealer forgetting to tell a buyer that a car had been involved in a flood, or, in other examples, creating an environment—including by using design elements in digital interfaces, where these sorts of designs place unreasonable pressures on a consumer or obstruct the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision. A great example would be a travel website with a timer that says: 'Only five minutes to go. Book now to get this price.' The examples will help businesses understand where the line is drawn, without restricting ordinary, legitimate, commercial practices.

The second main element of the bill is addressing drip pricing. We've heard a bit today in this chamber about what this means, but I think everyone can relate to what I'm about to say. Have you ever tried to book a hotel, a flight or a concert ticket and the price you thought you were paying suddenly changes when you go to the checkout and click that final button? You take a closer look and you see that the company has added a booking fee here and there or a service charge on top of that. That's called drip pricing, and we're cracking down on it. Australians should be able to see the real price upfront in order to make a properly informed purchase. In one example from my electorate, a concert ticket promoted for $109.90 rose to $117 once a compulsory charge of $7, plus a service fee, was added to the last stage of the process. By then the consumer had already invested the time and attention and felt locked in to completing the purchase.

This bill requires businesses to disclose mandatory transaction-based charges at the same time as they display the base price. That means no last-minute surprises, no artificially low headline prices, increasing only after the consumer has invested the time and attention, and no business models that rely on consumers being reluctant to abandon a purchase late in the process. Just to be clear, this bill doesn't prohibit transaction fees; it prohibits hiding them. It ensures that businesses doing the right thing are not disadvantaged by competitors who conceal the true cost until the final step.

The third element of this reform is ending subscription traps. Everyone across this country, I'm sure, can relate to this. You sign up to a subscription. You decide you don't need it any more. You jump on the website looking for the subscription cancellation button. Sometimes you can't find it; sometimes you can. You click the button and it takes you to another screen. Maybe it asks you if you want to keep your subscription at a cheaper rate. You might click no. It takes you to another screen and asks you to explain why you're leaving the subscription et cetera. You click on the button and then it asks you to email the company to cancel the subscription, and on it goes. This tactic is called shutdown subscription trap, and we are putting a stop to it too. Businesses use confusion, dark patterns and consumer fatigue to keep people paying, and they won't be able to keep doing that.

Subscriptions are now a regular part of household budgeting. I'm sure we've all got them. Subscriptions provide access to news, fitness, entertainment software and many other services. According to research from the Consumer Policy Research Centre, three in four Australians have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. Nearly half have spent more time than they intended trying to exit a service. One in three have felt pressured to stay. One in 10 Australians have given up trying to cancel and just kept paying for a service they no longer wanted. Some people have been so frustrated by unwanted subscriptions that they've chosen to cancel the credit card or the bank account, just to get rid of the recurring subscription.

These unwanted subscriptions cost Australian consumers an estimated $971 million a year, and this bill addresses these problems directly. When a customer is entering a subscription, businesses must clearly disclose what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and how it can be ended. The bill also establishes reminder notices. It's hard enough to keep track of what's going on in our lives generally, let alone a subscription that we might have signed up to five years ago, so consumers will get timely prompts when a trial ends or when a renewal is approaching. Cancellation must be easy to find and require only steps that are reasonably necessary. If you can sign up in seconds, you should be able to cancel just as easily. Many reputable businesses already meet this standard, but this bill makes it universal.

The bill is part of a broader agenda to strengthen competition, boost transparency and support consumers and businesses across the economy. We've legislated the biggest overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring major mergers are properly assessed and anticompetitive acquisitions can't slip through. We've boosted funding to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than $30 million to strengthen action on misleading pricing, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer-facing markets. We've outlawed unfair contract terms and, for the first time, empowered the regulators—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—to seek penalties for breaches. We're strengthening the Unit Pricing Code and cracking down on shrinkflation so consumers can see when products get smaller without getting cheaper.

Under the former government, the supermarket food and grocery code was merely voluntary, without penalties for wrongdoing. Under Labor, the food and grocery code is mandatory, backed by strong penalties that prevent supermarkets from using their market power to unfairly squeeze farmers and other suppliers. We know penalties make a big difference to behaviour; that's why the government has increased maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $50 million in 2022, and last month up to $100 million. Stronger sanctions ensure that breaches of consumer law can't be dismissed as a mere cost of doing business. They change behaviour, and they ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for conduct that undermines fairness.

Additionally, through a reformed National Competition Policy supported by a $900 million National Productivity Fund, the government is working with the states and territories to remove commercial and industrial planning and zoning barriers that make it harder for new entrants to compete. We're progressing reforms to create a single national market for goods, streamlining standards, improving heavy vehicle productivity and improving occupational licensing so that workers can move more freely across jurisdictions. We're also supporting health and care professionals to work their full scope of practice. Together, these reforms really strengthen competition and dynamism in our markets. They boost productivity and contribute to a fairer marketplace.

This bill focuses on consumer protections, but unfair trading practices don't only affect individuals. Small businesses and franchises often face the same vulnerabilities when dealing with larger suppliers. The government will consult on extending unfairness protections to small businesses, including those in franchising. That work is underway. In presenting this bill, we reaffirm a basic principle: markets work best when they're fair, when consumers are treated with respect rather than worn down, when innovation in business is used for the right purpose and when transparency is rewarded and hidden fees are not.

The reforms in this bill—banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing and cleaning up subscriptions—will help Australians make properly informed purchase decisions. It'll help them manage their household budgets, not to mention saving them time and frustration. They will also help businesses across our economies. This bill is about fairness, and it's about doing the right thing. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members who have contributed to this debate: the members for Page, Melbourne, Kooyong, Fisher, Maribyrnong, Mallee, Holt, Moreton, Griffith, Whitlam, Sturt, Forde, Barton, Bennelong, Hasluck and Brisbane. The breadth of the contributions really reflects the passion that so many members feel about cracking down on unfair trading practices, subscription traps and drip pricing. It reflects that energy, particularly on this side of the House, directed towards making the Australian economy more productive, more competitive and more dynamic.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 strengthens the Australian Consumer Law in three important ways: by banning unfair trading practices, by addressing subscription traps and by strengthening drip pricing protections. Together, the bill ensures that consumers are treated fairly and that honest businesses, including small businesses, aren't disadvantaged by competitors who rely on tricks and complexity rather than value and service.

Some in this debate have questioned whether these reforms are necessary, but the evidence before us is clear and consistent. Years of research, consultation and enforcement experience show that there are gaps in the current law. Certain practices may not be clearly misleading and may fall short of the high bar of unconscionability, yet they still distort decision-making and cause real detriment to consumers. These are practices that quietly pressure, confuse or obstruct consumers, often through design, ensuring deception.

For Australians, that harm is experienced in very practical ways: time wasted navigating complex processes, fees revealed late in a transaction, subscriptions that are easy to sign up to but difficult to exit and a growing sense that markets are structured to wear them down. Over time, that erodes trust, and, when trust falls, competition and productivity fall as well.

That assessment is not contested among those who see these markets up close. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission supports this bill, informed by its enforcement expertise and its work across consumer-facing markets. On the day the bill was introduced, 17 consumer organisations welcomed it, including national consumer advocates, financial counsellors, legal services and community organisations. They were the Consumer Policy Research Centre, the Consumer Action Law Centre, CHOICE, the Financial Rights Legal Centre, Mob Strong Debt Help, the Consumer Credit Legal Service, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, the Consumers' Federation of Australia, Energy Consumers Australia, Financial Counselling Australia, Financial Counselling Victoria, the Justice and Equity Centre, National Seniors Australia, Way Forward, West Justice, AMES Australia and the Western Australia Consumer Advocacy Network. The sheer breadth of support reflects a shared conclusion: these reforms respond to persistent, well-documented problems in everyday transactions.

The bill responds in a careful, proportionate, balanced way. These prohibitions don't ban advertising. They don't ban fees, subscriptions or innovation. They do not tell businesses how to market their products. They simply ensure that key information isn't obscured, that cancellation isn't obstructed and that competition takes place on its merits.

As set out in the decision impact statement, this package of reforms covering the general prohibition on unfair trading practices, subscription protections and strengthened drip pricing rules is expected to deliver net benefits to consumers and the economy by targeting conduct that causes the greatest harm while keeping compliance costs proportionate and manageable for business.

This bill is about drawing a clear line between fair competition and unfair manipulation. Most Australian businesses, especially many small businesses, already operate this way. For them, the changes will be modest. Good businesses shouldn't pay a price for doing the right thing.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will play an important role in implementation. It'll provide practical guidance so businesses understand their obligations clearly and early. The intention isn't to catch businesses out; it's to set clear expectations supported by clear guidance so firms can comply with confidence. That certainty benefits everyone, firms and consumers alike.

These reforms sit within a broader competition and consumer agenda. Our government has delivered the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in half a century. We're strengthening the unit pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation so Australians can clearly see when product sizes fall and prices don't. We've increased funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to tackle misleading pricing and unfair practices. We've raised the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million—when we reached office—to $100 million or three times the benefit gained by the breach or 30 per cent of turnover. This ensures breaches can no longer be dismissed by businesses as a mere cost of doing business.

Our government is scrapping non-compete clauses for workers earning under $183,000 to make it easier for people to move to a better job. We're revitalising national competition policy, backed by the $900 million National Productivity Fund to break down commercial and industrial planning and zoning barriers, to deliver more houses by removing barriers to the uptake of modern methods of construction and to build a more seamless national market for workers and goods.

I thank stakeholders, including business, industry groups, consumer advocates and legal academics, for their engagement.

Lastly, I want to thank again all those involved in the development of this bill, including officials from the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The expertise and care shown by officials across the Australian Public Service have ensured these reforms are robust and balanced.

Australians shouldn't need a magnifying glass, a law degree and the patience of a saint to buy an everyday product or cancel a subscription. Markets work best when business success comes from offering a better deal, not designing a better trap. This bill helps ensure that, in Australia, firms prosper by serving consumers, not by outsmarting them.

I commend the bill to the House.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Page be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.