Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give qualified, if you like, support to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. We do think there is a need for action here on certain unfair behaviours in the marketplace, and I'll come to the details, but particularly things like subscription traps and drip feed pricing. These things are potentially covered by these changes. On the Liberal and National side, we do support strong consumer protections and have always had a proud history of doing so. However, as I said, there are some qualifiers here that I'll go through this morning, because we think it's very important that changes like this are clearly made so that, of course, the courts can interpret them clearly but more importantly, perhaps, so that businesses know the environment they're operating in, especially small businesses, who don't have and shouldn't have to seek expensive legal advice every time they just want to go about their business.

As I said, there is an issue here that we are willing to work with the government on to see some change. As I indicated, the Liberal and National parties have long supported strong consumer protections in our law. We were strong advocates for somewhat of a predecessor to this, the unfair contract terms legislation that passed around 15 years ago in this place. Then, when we were in government, we moved to extend that to protect small businesses as well from the imposition of unfair contract terms. They were things like long-form contracts that hid terms and conditions in it and 'take it or leave it' type contract arrangements—things that would provide some protection for small businesses.

This bill here seeks to move further, quite substantial amendments, which would effectively see the prohibition of unfair conduct more fully—that is, unfair trading, not just unfair contract terms per se. The issue here that should be properly discussed and responded to, hopefully, by the government is exactly what is meant by 'unfair'. In a simple term, of course, we could all be against unfair practices. It would be hard to find someone who says they are for unfair practices. The issue, though, will always be that unfairness can at times be in the eye of the beholder. What is unfair to some person might not be unfair to someone else.

There are also a variety of different economic relationships in the marketplace involving people with different levels of power and authority, responsibility and accountability, and those things should be factored in as well. In particular, we need to keep in mind that imposing such new obligations is not free. Every new law or regulation that passes this place does impose a compliance cost on the businesses that are subject to it—and the consumers too, for that matter. They ultimately pay these prices. The estimates here are that these changes will impose a significant cost. We cannot avoid that or not factor that into our decisions here.

The estimates are that this will cost an extra $123 million per year in annual regulatory costs, and perhaps what's most important to us on this side is that $103 million, a good 80-odd per cent of that amount, will be imposed on small businesses alone. They'll pay the lion's share of these costs. I imagine the way these estimates have been worked out is that there's probably a fixed cost, an overhead cost, associated with complying with these laws, and there are many more small businesses than there are large businesses, so they disproportionately pay the cost of this. That's because small businesses themselves do not have their own in-house legal teams. They already have to deal with higher costs right now and a weakening economy, it would appear, thanks to the government's mismanagement there. Imposing another cost like this needs to be very carefully considered. That's why we will be arguing for, here, some relief for small businesses, given those costs, and also some greater clarity in and tightening of the definitions in this bill that deal with what is an unfair matter.

I have the reasonable hope that other senators will consider this amendment we will move, which is that we should delay the start date of these laws for small businesses—and we would define those, in terms of this act, as those with under $10 million in aggregated annual turnover. That is any business that is below that level—and, keep in mind, that's similar to the level the government has extended the capital gains tax concessions to, from $2 million to 10 million; it's something that government has used as well recently. We would delay the start date of these laws until 1 July 2030 to give small businesses a chance to become familiar with this law and to, hopefully, have some of this law explained further through our judicial system, the courts and the ACCC's interpretation, so that small businesses will come into the scheme at that point, after that four-year period, much better educated about what exactly they have to do to comply—and, therefore, that will, hopefully, lower that $100 million cost being estimated now. It would be a lower amount because all that law would be, hopefully, somewhat settled or at least a lot more clear to everybody. I think that's very reasonable.

The other point to make here is that, clearly, you would think what we're trying to deal here with is unfair conduct from larger businesses; that would be the typical issue people would have in the marketplace. As I highlighted earlier, and as the government has highlighted, one of the reasons the government is seeking to do this is to deal with issues like subscription traps, where you sign up for something—often online these days but it could be anything, like a gym—and you're locked into renewed payments with little or no knowledge, and it is often a very difficult process to extract yourself from such payments. It's becoming an increasing problem with a move to a subscription economy for everything like software to streaming. This has become a favourite tactic, but one that's really used by large businesses. It's not something you typically would see going into a coffee shop—getting locked into a coffee every morning or a haircut at a hairdresser's; it's really a problem for big business.

Likewise, there is drip price feeding, which is the general tactic of getting you to buy something upfront, but—again, usually online—it is not until you click through to the end that you notice you've got admin fees, shipping and postage and some other fees added on top, and the price is a good 50 per cent more than, or even double, what you thought it was when you first clicked through. Again, that tactic typically would be used by larger businesses. They're the harms, the mischief, that the government has identified for why we're doing this now. Given those harms are associated primarily with larger businesses, in our view it makes sense to start these new arrangements with a focus on those larger businesses, get the law bedded down, see if there are any teething issues—we can always come back and fix things if there are—and then see the scheme more widely apply across the economy, through this amendment we will move.

Even if that were not supported, we still, even for those larger businesses, have some issues with the exact definitions that have been used here to define 'unfair conduct'. The bill sets a number of tests to define what 'unfair' is, which is pretty typical in these types of laws. To determine that something is unfair or a breach of these new provisions, a good or service must be supplied in a way that 'manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts how a consumer makes a decision, and causes or is likely to cause detriment'. I just want to make a couple of points about these things. 'Manipulates a consumer' is a fairly broad term. I would think the ordinary use of the word 'manipulate' would include a level of deception or deviousness associated with the act. However, another meaning of the word 'manipulate' is simply to control, such as when you use it to say 'manipulate a car'—you're not necessarily doing it in a devious way; you're just influencing the direction of a car by turning the steering wheel or some such. So we just think that language needs to be tightened. I think the government means it in that former sense—that it's something that is manipulative and that is seeking to mislead or deceive people in an undue way—but we are proposing that, just to make it clear, we add the word 'unfairly' before 'manipulate'. Then the prohibition would only apply when a business unfairly manipulates a consumer. That way—drawing back to the actual title of this bill and the reason we're doing this, which is to stop unfair practices—what we're targeting in this case would be very clear.

Keep in mind that the second arm of that particular dot point says 'or unreasonably distort'—it's an 'or', not an 'and'—and 'unreasonable' is not attached to the word 'manipulate'. But, if we add 'unfairly' there, I think we will have a reasonable test here to make what we're actually trying to do in these laws clear.

The second leg of that test says that the good or service has to also—there's an 'and' there. In this part, there's an 'and'—'and causes or is likely to cause detriment'. Again, I just think that's a little bit broad. 'Detriment' there is obviously unrestricted, so it potentially means any detriment. We believe that, to engage and trigger laws of this nature, it would typically have to reach a threshold of pain, of difficulty, to merit the ACCC's or a court's being involved. So we are suggesting that the word 'material' be added before 'detriment' so that it would then read that the act 'causes or is likely to cause material detriment'. Again, I think this is fairly reasonable, and it is also standard practice in the Competition and Consumer Act.

Typically, where the Competition and Consumer Act prohibits certain behaviours, there is a qualifier, an adverb—it would be an adjective in this case—before the description of the harm. In section 46 of the act, which deals with the misuse of market power, the test is that the conduct has to 'substantially' lessen competition. So we don't ban any conduct that just lessens competition; some other thresholds have to be met before it falls foul of section 46. The key point I'm highlighting here is that the conduct has to substantially lessen competition.

Again, we just think—to be consistent with other parts of the act and with other parts of the law that have had longer standing and that, perhaps, have a greater basis in broader competition and consumer laws, like misuse-of-market-power provisions—there should be a qualifier, a threshold, a bar, that has to be jumped over before regulatory or legal action is required. I think it's very reasonable to say 'material' as well.

We think we've made some reasonable clarifications here, because we have to stay focused on what we're trying to do—that is, protect consumers. It's certainly not to benefit lawyers. If we make the language unclear and don't describe exactly what we mean, we create the risk of making a lawyers' picnic that will see this law bogged down in action, time and time again. It's not only that; it would come at a greater compliance cost, as I mentioned. In such a case, it would be greater than the $120 million estimate—a cost to our economy and a cost to our productivity. It would mean, almost necessarily, that you wouldn't get the consumer protections either. You won't actually get the benefits of what we're trying to do if it ends up in a morass of legal dispute because we haven't been clear with the language we've used here.

So we will move these amendments later in this debate, but, as I highlighted at the start, we do support the overall approach here. We will support this bill's going through, but we respectfully ask that we play our role, as we should in this chamber, of considering issues like this in a deliberative fashion. If other senators see merit in our amendments, I think it will strengthen this bill and give it a greater chance of succeeding.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of you here, and those up in the gallery, may well have experienced this. Signing up for something is easy; cancelling it, though, is another matter entirely. Do you remember the date when a free trial for an app or subscription is due to end? Do you read every privacy policy before you click 'accept'? Do you always read the terms and conditions? Have you ever gone to cancel a subscription only to find the process is far more complicated than necessary? Have you had to wade through multiple screens, move from an app to a desktop mode, find a hidden menu, call a phone number—maybe multiple times—or even attend somewhere in person before eventually giving up? I can tell you that I've had this personal experience myself, and I suspect most Australians have experienced at least one of these behaviours.

I think of myself as a careful consumer, and I like to think that I'm reasonably savvy. I compare products, shop around and don't generally enter contracts without reading them. But I know there have been times when I've clicked 'accept' without reading every single word, and I suspect most people have. I reckon that these experiences are becoming increasingly common. In fact, I'm dealing with one similar situation right now.

I won't name the organisation, but I am still paying $30 a month for a subscription I cannot log into. I've emailed multiple times. I've called several different numbers. I've been told multiple times I don't have an account with them. Yet, on the 18th day of every single month, there is a charge that is deducted from my bank account. I am seemingly making a monthly donation at this point in time. The bank won't do anything.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it a trade union?

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It is definitely not a trade union. I happily pay my subscription fees to those organisations. Right now, the only practical option that I have available to me, for this particular subscription, is to change my bank account and close it down. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I hope most Australians haven't had my experience, but I am sure that many Australians have. The landscape that consumers navigate now has changed dramatically. More and more of our purchases, subscriptions and services are delivered online. Digital platforms are a normal part of everyday life. They bring enormous convenience and opportunity, but they have also created new ways to exploit consumer attention, create confusion and ultimately cause harm. We are not blind to these behaviours, which is why the government is taking action.

Consumers are increasingly navigating systems designed to steer behaviour. The ACCC's digital platform services inquiry and the Consumer Policy Research Centre's Let me out report have shone a spotlight on the practices that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 seeks to address. From subscription traps to drip pricing, businesses are purposefully making it difficult for customers to understand their pricing or to cancel a service. The consumer watchdog said that consumers simply do not engage with privacy policies and, in many cases, have little practical option but to accept the terms and conditions in order to access a product or service. Frankly, this isn't surprising. According to the ACCC, it would take the average person nearly 46 hours every month to read every privacy policy that they encounter. The average privacy policy contains almost 7,000 words and takes around half an hour to read. The reality is that consumers cannot reasonably engage with that amount of information, no matter how diligent a consumer you might think you are.

That is where so-called dark patterns come in. These are practices designed to confuse users, make it difficult for them to express their genuine preferences or manipulate them into taking certain actions. They steer consumers towards outcomes that may not reflect what they actually want. Look, this isn't about punishing businesses for making their products attractive or persuading consumers to give them a go. Businesses have always advertised, and they have always competed for customers. The issue is when every click, every preference and every behaviour is analysed and used to create an environment designed to influence decisions in ways consumers may not fully understand, and, at that point, choice really stops being genuine.

Apps and platforms have learned that automatic renewals and friction fuelled cancellation processes boost revenue. They have learned that hiding menus, making certain options harder to find, changing the order in which choices are presented or requiring consumers to jump through multiple hoops can slow down or prevent cancellations altogether. Something that took one click to join can suddenly take an afternoon to leave—or, in my case, a never-ending story.

Australians are noticing. I chaired the inquiry into this legislation. Research before the committee found that three in four Australians with subscriptions have had some form of negative experience when trying to cancel. One in 10 have given up trying to cancel altogether and continue paying for a product or service that they no longer need or want, and I am one of those unlucky 10 per cent. Something that took one click to join can suddenly take an entire afternoon or much longer to leave. That is not retention based on value; it is retention based on friction and deception.

During the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, Ms Chandni Gupta, deputy chief executive officer and digital policy director of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, estimated that Australians are likely losing more than $1 billion—$1 billion!—every year to unfair trading practices. Personally, I would have thought a better business model would be earning trust and retaining customers because the product or service that a business provides is genuinely valuable, not because a business has made it more difficult than necessary to leave and is hoping customers forget, give up or become frustrated by the cancellation process.

These practices are not limited to subscriptions. Another common example, as mentioned by Senator Canavan, is drip pricing. Many Australians will have experienced this when booking flights or holidays. You see a fare that looks really cheap and attractive. You start the booking process, and then a fee appears and then another one and then another one. By the end of the transaction there might be four or five additional charges, and the fare no longer looks nearly as appealing as it did at the start. These are called junk fees. They distort comparison and they trap customers. You can abandon the purchase and start again to compare prices, but there is a good chance that you won't, and that is exactly what these businesses are relying on. Or it might be an app that appears free when you first download it only for key features to become paid add-ons once you are already signed up and have invested in the service. These practices are often stacked up on top of one another to wear consumers down. At best, they are frustrating. At worst, they can cause real serious financial harm.

A fair market depends on clear prices. When prices are not transparent, competition does not work properly. Even the most careful consumer cannot accurately compare products or services and make informed choices in that sort of environment. These are not problems that can be solved by longer terms and conditions. When entire interfaces are engineered to minimise comprehension, adding more fine print, this does not fix the problem. At a certain point, fairness requires a clear rule rather than a longer disclaimer. The result is an environment in which consumers are no longer simply making decisions. They are being steered.

The problem is that many of these practices feel unfair to consumers, yet they are not always clearly captured by existing consumer laws. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee heard that, while some conduct may be unfair, harmful and manipulative, it is not always adequately addressed by existing provisions of the Australian Consumer Law or captured by the high threshold required to establish unconscionable conduct. Witnesses were overwhelmingly supportive of introducing a general prohibition to ensure that sophisticated commercial practices, particularly those involving digital choice architecture, do not fall outside the reach of our consumer protections. I'd like to thank all of those who made submissions and appeared before the committee. Their evidence really has helped demonstrate why these reforms are necessary.

Australia is not acting alone. Comparable jurisdictions around the world are recognising the same problem and responding in similar ways. Europe, India and the United States have all moved to strengthen consumer protections against practices that make cancelling more difficult than subscribing. One example was the United States Federal Trade Commission's complaint against Amazon in 2023 concerning alleged use of dark patterns to encourage consumers to subscribe to Amazon Prime. Just yesterday, the ACCC announced proceedings against Amazon Australia. The ACCC alleges that Amazon Prime introduced advertisements in July 2024 and required consumers to pay an additional $2.99 a month if they wished to continue receiving an ad-free service. As ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said, consumers were effectively left with no choice but to pay more for the product they already had. This is where the bill comes in.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 strengthens the Australian Consumer Law in three important ways. It introduces a general prohibition on unfair trading practices, it addresses subscription traps and it strengthens protections against drip pricing. Together, these reforms ensure consumers are treated fairly and that honest businesses, including small businesses, are not disadvantaged by competitors who rely on tricks, complexity and confusion rather than genuine value and service.

The bill requires businesses to clearly disclose, when a consumer is entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews and, very importantly, how it can be cancelled. That information must be provided prominently and in a way that is easy to understand. Cancellation must be straightforward. It must be easy to find, it must be easy to do and it must involve only those steps that are reasonably necessary. Importantly, these rules apply not only to consumers but also to standard form subscription contracts entered into by small businesses.

The bill also tackles drip pricing by requiring businesses to disclose all mandatory transaction-based charges at the same time they display the advertised price. With this bill ensuring mandatory fees and charges are clearly visible upfront, consumers will be able to see the true cost of a product or service before making a decision. That means better comparisons, better information and better decisions, and it also means businesses that are already doing the right thing will no longer be disadvantaged by competitors who hide costs until the final stage of a transaction.

To support the implementation of this bill, the ACCC will also develop guidance materials on the operation of the new laws. The government will also undertake a review in the first two years of operation of the subscription provisions to ensure that the protections are working as intended.

This bill focuses on consumer protections, but we know unfair trading practices do not affect only individuals. Small businesses and franchisees often face many of the same vulnerabilities when dealing with large suppliers. The government has already consulted on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those operating within franchising arrangements. These issues matter because consumer protection is ultimately about fairness and transparency. Australians should be protected from misleading conduct and manipulative practices, because competition and fairer markets are essential to addressing cost-of-living pressures.

This bill forms part of the Albanese government's broader agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers. As per the evidence, this bill in particular may save consumers up to $1 billion—money back in their pockets—by saving them from these unfair subscription traps.

We have increased funding for the ACCC by more than $30 million, enabling stronger action against misleading pricing practices, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer-facing markets. We have outlawed unfair contract terms and, for the first time, given the ACCC and ASIC the power to seek penalties against companies that breach those laws. We are strengthening the Unit Pricing Code and cracking down on shrinkflation so consumers can see when product sizes have been reduced, even if the sticker price remains unchanged. We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by significant penalties to prevent supermarkets from unfairly using their market power against suppliers and farmers. We've increased the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act from $10 million to $100 million, because consumer law only works if there are meaningful consequences for businesses that breach it.

Together, these reforms strengthen competition, boost productivity and contribute to a fairer marketplace. Australians should not need extraordinary persistence, endless spare time or specialist knowledge to exercise basic consumer rights. They deserve genuine choice, transparency and a fair go.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will support the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 because it does improve protections for consumers, but I have to say this is a classic Labor piece of legislation: do the bare minimum necessary to address an issue and leave a whole bunch of reforms that should urgently be implemented on the table, leave them behind and kick them off into the never-never. I listened closely to Senator Darmanin's speech and I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Senator Darmanin said—but, goodness me, there's an elephant in the room here, colleagues, isn't there? It's a giant elephant that nobody wants to talk about.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure you will!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, you are, as you often are, right, because the Greens will talk about the elephant in the room, and that is that these reforms that do protect consumers do not cover the financial services sector. A little later on I will explain for everyone listening exactly why Labor has chosen not to cover the financial services sector in this legislation, but, before I get there, I want to be clear that this bill implements an important reform that consumer organisations, including the Consumer Policy Research Centre and the Consumer Action Law Centre, along with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have long advocated for—and that is to ban businesses from engaging in unfair trading practices. I congratulate and thank those organisations and many other folks in this country who have advocated tirelessly for these reforms over a long period of time.

I want to add to that the Greens have consistently pushed for this reform. In fact, when we established and chaired the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, which reported in May 2024, that report included the banning of unfair trading practices as one of the many recommendations that we made in order to bring a little bit of much-needed regulation to bear against the supermarket duopoly in this country made up of Coles and Woolworths. Currently Australian Consumer Law does prohibit misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct, but many people, including the organisations I mentioned earlier and our regulators, have been saying for years that the threshold is too high and fails to capture business behaviour that does harm people and exploit people and rip people off but doesn't meet the high test under our existing laws. That omission leaves people exposed to harm without recourse. While the Greens welcome this reform, as I said, we're very disappointed that it stops short of applying the new provisions to the financial services sector and, therefore, doesn't cover the entirety of the Australian economy.

The ACCC and ASIC and consumer organisations have consistently said over a long period of time that unfair trading practices must be banned in the financial services sector—and not just banned in the financial services sector but banned at the same time as they are banned under consumer law. This should not just be a provision that is inserted into consumer law. It should also be inserted into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act. But, instead of listening to the experts, and instead of listening to the regulators in this country, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, the Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh, stated in his speech when he introduced this legislation that the government will 'consider' whether extending unfair trading provisions to the financial services sector is 'necessary'—so there is no commitment to actually do it. The government is thinking about it. That is not good enough. There is no commitment to do it and no timeframe.

Senator Darmanin's speech was absolutely spot-on about the traps that people find themselves in, and she referred to a subscription service trap that she herself is stuck in. I say to Senator Darmanin on behalf of the Greens, and I say to the Labor Party and, in fact, to all colleagues in this chamber: if it's good enough to help people get out of subscription traps, why is it not good enough to help people who are trapped in a particular financial arrangement with a financial services company? Why is it not good enough to help those people who can't get out and who are trapped in an arrangement with a financial services company? We are leaving them at the mercy of rapacious financial services companies because this government is in thrall to the big banking corporations and the big financial services companies in Australia.

I want to quote from the Deputy Chair of the ACCC, Ms Lowe, during the inquiry into this bill:

The lack of harmonisation between the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act on unfair trading poses the risk that consumers and small businesses will be left exposed to harm and markets functioning suboptimally. Inconsistent protections … lead to regulatory gaps that unscrupulous providers can take advantage of or that businesses can simply fail to fall within … and thereby escape regulation.

I want to particularly remind my colleagues in the coalition on the opposition side of this chamber that many small businesses are stuck in traps where they can't get out of arrangements they've got with unscrupulous financial services sector providers. Ms Lowe also indicated it can be difficult to determine whether some products and services are indeed a financial product or whether they are not, or whether they are a combination of financial services product and non-financial services product. That confusion and that lack of clarity will likely impede effective regulatory action.

In a speech to the Australasian Consumer Law Roundtable in 2024, ASIC Commissioner Mr Kirkland advocated for a ban on unfair trading practices to apply to the financial sector at the same time it is applied to the rest of the economy. He argued that limiting the ban to consumer law creates regulatory gaps and leaves consumers exposed to harm. For example, the new laws will apply to businesses trapping consumers in an unwanted subscription, as we heard from Senator Darmanin, but not to businesses making it difficult for companies to either switch to a different financial product or withdraw from an arrangement with a financial services company. Importantly, Mr Kirkland argued:

… the harm that can be created by unfair trading practices in financial services is commonly far greater than in other areas of the economy.

So you've got both regulators in this country, the ACCC and ASIC, calling on the government not to allow a gaping hole in the consumer protection framework in this country that will expose people to harm. Wouldn't you think the government would listen to them? No. Entirely predictably, Labor is caving to its big corporate donors. Labor is caving to its corporate masters in the financial services sector, including the giant banking corporations who run so much of Labor's policy.

Who can forget the handshake I had with former assistant minister Jones to apply significant financial penalties for dodgy bank executives? Who can forget the head of the ABA, Ms Bligh, a former Labor Queensland premier, calling up Prime Minister Albanese overnight and giving him his riding orders to instruct Minister Jones to backflip on the agreement that he and I had made in his office only a matter of a day or two earlier? And who can forget Labor going to bat for the top end of town, for dodgy bank executives who fail to take appropriate action to ensure rigour and probity in these giant banking corporations that they run? Here we are again—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

They denied they had an agreement with you as well, Nick.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes; as Senator Scarr says, they denied they had an agreement. But I've been in politics for a long time, and I know what a handshake is. And I know exactly the agreement that former minister Jones and I made. Again, it's Labor in cahoots with the big banks to protect the profits of giant banking corporations, who also happen to significantly donate to Labor Party election coffers, I might add, through the institutionalised bribery of political donations. Once again, it is the consumers, the people who have to have accounts with the big banks, who are exposed to harms because Labor will not side with everyday Australians—because Labor is siding with the big banking corporations, who are also significant political donors to the Labor Party.

People should not be able to be ripped off by financial services sector organisations, including the big banking corporations. So it's fine and it's good that Labor is putting in place protections in the consumer law, but it is completely unacceptable that Labor is leaving a gaping hole in these regulations that the big banks are going to be able to drive a truck through. That is why the Greens are seeking to amend this bill to apply these provisions to the financial services sector. We're also moving an amendment to include lead generation as an example of behaviour that would constitute an unfair trading practice, to ensure that predatory behaviour—lead generation—is captured.

That amendment, and in fact our other amendment as well, is particularly important in the context of the collapse of managed investment schemes First Guardian and Shield, which has cost around 12,000 Australians over $1 billion in lost retirement savings. At Senate estimates in October last year, the Chair of ASIC, Ms Court, indicated that a ban on unfair trading practices in the financial services sector may have assisted ASIC in its investigation and prosecution of the complex web of actors involved in the collapse of First Guardian and Shield. Wouldn't you think the government would want to be doing everything it could to give our regulators the tools they need to either prevent things like First Guardian and Shield happening again or to properly be able to investigate them if, heaven forbid, they do happen again? But no. Labor again has left a gaping hole, because Labor is here for big corporations and not for ordinary Australians.

Well, that's not the way the Greens roll. We don't take donations from big banking corporations or, for that matter, from big corporations at all, so they have no influence over our policies. That is why we're coming in here today demanding that Labor act to apply these provisions—which we welcome being applied across much of the economy—to the financial services sector. When our amendments are moved in the committee stages, this will be Labor's test. If they support the Greens amendments, they'll be able to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'We are backing everyday Australians in, over the profits of the big banking corporations and the other financial services sector behemoths that exist in this country.' But if Labor fail—and I predict they will not support the Greens amendments—that will be living, breathing proof that the Labor Party have been captured by corporate Australia, that the Labor Party are in thrall to the big banking corporations and that the Labor Party are puppets to the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, ANZ and the other massive corporate giants that operate in the financial services sector in Australia. We will also, I indicate, be moving amendments on behalf of Senator Payman which also favour consumers.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports strong consumer protections because Australians should not be misled. They shouldn't be ripped off, and bad businesses need to be held to account. Law created in this place must be unambiguous and workable in the real world. That matters. These are issues that we need to address, though, with the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026.

The coalition's amendments that we will be moving are simple yet substantial. These amendments would make this bill clearer, better targeted and more workable for businesses that will be impacted by these changes. They are practical. They preserve the consumer protection objective of the bill. Importantly, they reduce further uncertainty in what is already a period of great uncertainty for businesses. Those amendments, I believe, will improve this bill. The coalition amendments insert words like 'unfairly' before 'manipulate' in reference to the offence. They insert the word 'material' before 'detriment', and, importantly, they delay the start for small businesses under $10 million aggregate annual turnover until 1 July 2030 to reduce the $100 million a year compliance costs on small businesses.

Labor could and should accept these amendments. It is Labor policies and economic mismanagement that has actually contributed to small business insolvencies being at record levels in this country, where real household disposable income is down, energy costs are up, never-ending compliance costs are piling up and businesses that are already stretched to their limits are being tested again. Who on earth would want to run a business under Labor? Let me tell you who would. They are Australians with aspiration, Australians who deserve a fair go, Australians willing to have a crack. Labor should care about them.

Everywhere, business owners are telling me the same thing: the cost and complexity of running a business has never been higher and the government support that they get to reduce it has never been lower. Small businesses are this country's employers. They create jobs. The owner of a small cafe in Mount Barker, the family hardware store in the Barossa, the independent travel agent in the Adelaide Hills—these are the people who will bear the compliance burden of this legislation while their larger competitors absorb it through legal departments. They'll just move on.

This bill creates a broad new general prohibition on unfair trading. The problem is: who decides what is unfair? That question matters more than anything else. This bill, unfortunately, does not answer it. To answer it, the bill says that practices that manipulate consumers or distort their decision-making and then lead to a detriment, including non-financial detriments like wasted time, are unfair. This in effect is Labor now legislating against wasted time. This legislation actually lays the table for what will be a lawyers' picnic. Labor promised they would cut red tape and boost productivity, but they did not do the work to make that happen.

The reality is that this bill results in an estimated $123 million per year in annual regulatory costs, with $103 million of that falling on 1.5 million small businesses. In South Australia, you don't have to go far. Just walk down the streets of rural towns on the Yorke Peninsula or on the Eyre Peninsula. Store after store has closed down. You see the same in suburban Adelaide and in the city of Adelaide. It's becoming much worse. They don't need more costs. What they need are less costs.

CPA Australia told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that Labor's new capital gains tax would result in $500 million of compliance costs for taxpayers each year, plus an additional $800 million in the first year alone, because people will need to re-evaluate their assets—more costs, more businesses that have to comply. Labor was so far off when it claimed the cost to businesses in that little exercise would be $88 million a year. That's a far cry from what the experts said it would cost. In truth, the real cost is eight times what Labor said. Labor is clueless. It has no solutions and it didn't do the work.

In contrast, the coalition's focus is rewarding hard work, boosting small-business investment and allowing small businesses to immediately write off assets costing up to $50,000, not $20,000. The coalition's tax-back guarantee will ensure hardworking Australians keep more of what they earn and will deliver an automatic tax cut that gets bigger every year—stopping inflation by pushing workers to pay more tax when they are no better off is bracket creep; Labor loves bracket creep—and that is what backing small businesses and backing hardworking Australians actually looks like. The reality is businesses will pass costs that are passed onto them by this legislation to consumers. A small business that spends $20,000 a year managing compliance requirements is a small business that doesn't employ more staff, doesn't upgrade its equipment and doesn't invest in its own future. There are impacts from red tape. There are impacts from greater compliance when you haven't actually measured the value return not just to the business and not just to ordinary Australians but also to us, in here, when we make legislation.

The coalition is open to targeted reforms on drip pricing and subscription traps. Cancelling a subscription should not be harder than signing up. Consumers should know when a free trial becomes a paid subscription. The option to opt out should be clear and accessible. Consumers should know when a temporary discount ends, they should know how to cancel the subscription, and it should be simple and clear—without being run around in circles. Consumers across Australia know that frustration well, so elements in this bill are great, and the coalition supports consumer protections that make those things less of the experience of a consumer.

But here is what's not sensible and what this parliament should be asking loudly. While subscription traps on streaming services are rightly covered by this new law, guess what? Union memberships will not be. For many unions, you can sign up on a simple website form, but if you want to leave there are mandatory waiting periods and requirements to sign special letters. That sounds exactly like the kind of trap this very bill is meant to prevent. So what we see here is a classic case of this government applying new rules to everyone else but refusing to apply them to their union masters. Again, we see it. It cannot be a rule for one and not for another. The Labor government must come clean on why they are exempting unions from this. Why don't you tell voters it's because they are your masters? That's what you should be telling them: the truth. But we don't hear that often from the other side.

We heard repeatedly across Senate estimates and the Senate inquiry into this legislation that people want better protections. Labor rushed this bill, did not consult the industries or stakeholders affected and failed to provide modelling for its impacts in the same way it failed to provide modelling and proper consultation on its so-called budget tax reform bill. No modelling—just a catchy bill, with a bit of a connection to the content of that heading of the bill, and some headlines, with nothing sitting beneath it that substantiates exactly what they're doing. 'Don't worry about the detail; we'll sort that out later.' That's Labor's way. We've seen that over and over again. We want to know how many consumers will and won't be protected under existing law, and what is the measurable benefit? If this government cannot answer those questions, because it didn't bother to find out before it introduced this bill, then consumers and businesses should be disappointed.

We will support this bill, but, in the interests of small business and Australians, the government and the crossbench should accept our amendments. Labor's hallmark is more legislation, more bureaucracy and more power concentrated in the hands of government, and bills that protect and preserve the union movement. The coalition will instead stand for consumers, small businesses, clear laws and common sense, so the economy can thrive and provide a benefit to all Australians, including small-business owners and workers who deserve a government that backs them—not one that buries them in red tape and walks away and protects its union masters, not one who gives the unions special treatment at the expense of all others. That's not the way you preserve a fair go. That's not the way you leave no-one behind. None of that applies when you apply legislation to businesses and don't apply it to the unions.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. This scenario should be familiar to all Australians. You want to buy an airline ticket, you start off with one price and then you're prompted, as you're going through the payment system, as to whether you want extra leg room or whether you want extra baggage allowance—or maybe you want to hire a car or perhaps you want to choose between a sandwich or noodles. By the time you get to the end of it, you realise the final cost is way higher than you were first led to believe. Meanwhile, you've got dinner going in the kitchen, you're nursing a headache because you haven't slept—frankly, I don't know anyone who sleeps well in this country; I certainly don't, and no-one sleeps well or gets a good night's sleep because we're all perpetually exhausted—and you've got your child tugging at you, needing help with their homework. No-one has time for this.

Then there's another scenario. You're a young person. You've signed up to a gym. You decide maybe six months down the track that you want to cancel the gym membership, except it is almost impossible to do so.

Here's another scenario. You have subscribed to a newspaper magazine because you want to stay abreast of current affairs. You decide you want to cancel the subscription because circumstances have changed; you've decided to find something else. You click through various pages on the site. You can't find where to cancel the subscription; it isn't a single button. In the end, you send an email—goodness knows where this email goes; it disappears off into the aether. Then you decide, 'Alright, I'm going to try the 1800 number.' You ring this number and you get a call centre in another country. You speak to the person. They then say to you: 'We're going to issue you a email. Can you send another email back to confirm,' et cetera—and so it goes. This stuff drives Australians crazy, undermines their confidence in business and drains their hip pockets. We are calling time on this nonsense.

This bill introduces measures to basically ban unfair trading practices. The level of harm is significant. Every year, more than five million Australians say they have been caught up in at least one unfair trading practice—things like sneaky fees and confusing and pressure based sales pitches. It comes with a cost; Australians are losing around $5 billion a year to these kinds of sneaky, underhand tactics, at a time when the cost of living is a real issue for millions of Australians. But it's not just consumers who cop it; it's also small businesses. Roughly one-third of small businesses report being hit with unfair behaviour from suppliers or digital platforms, like sudden changes in their contracts or unclear fees.

With regard to drip pricing, it shows up in around 40 per cent of online purchases, including travel, ticketing and other digital services. And who is affected? Older people are particularly vulnerable; they are less digitally literate, so they tend to be fair game. One in five people over the age of 65 said they have been pressured into buying something they didn't really want. It turns out that consumers on lower incomes are also targeted by these sorts of tactics, especially in essential services like energy, credit and telco plans—but so are young people. Young people between the ages of 18 and 29 say that they have experienced at least one unfair digital practice in the past year; that's three in four young people in that age group. Why? Because they are new entrants into the payment system. They've come straight out of school. They're less experienced and less savvy. But this makes them learn these lessons the hard way. We are calling time on this nonsense.

Australia is catching up now with the rest of the world, with other peer countries like Singapore, the UK and Japan and with the EU having banned these unfair trading practices that seek to manipulate, coerce, pressure or exploit consumers. This legislation ensures that the law can address harmful conduct, both now and as markets evolve, without relying on ongoing piecemeal amendments. It sets across all sectors clear, consistent standards of fair conduct which are designed to improve consumer confidence and encourage healthy competition. Competition is the consumer's best friend. It ensures that consumers are protected not only from outright deception but also from the kinds of subtle, cumulative influences that can undermine genuine choice.

Support for stronger protections is huge. Around 84 per cent of Australians say that they want tougher rules against unfair trading practices. This bill will help give Australians the confidence that they need that they aren't being short-changed at the check-out or when they are using these services. Indeed, CHOICE lauded these laws. They said:

For too long, big businesses have raced each other to the bottom when it comes to unfair practices. Particularly when so many people are doing it tough, this important reform will help remove some of the worst tricks and traps designed to get people to spend more than they should. Businesses should compete on price and quality, not the most effective ways to manipulate or distort the decisions consumers make.

We agree.

This bill forms part of our wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across this country. The 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.

Just this morning I read that the ACCC has banned Coles from opening a supermarket in Western Australia because of competition reasons. This is clear evidence that these changes to competition laws are working. We actually increased funding to the ACCC by about $30 million to enable them to deal with this kind of enforcement work. We are also cracking down on shrinkflation so that we can clearly see when products shrink while prices stay the same. I cannot believe how we've been gamed at the check-out, honestly. We have made the food and grocery code mandatory, backed by real penalties that have gone up from $10 million to $100 million. Penalties matter. They act as a deterrent to this kind of dodgy and underhand behaviour.

Through national competition policy reforms, the government is working with states and territories to remove barriers that stop new businesses entering the market. We want new entrants to enter the market. We talk about the haves and the have-nots. There's another battle that's being played out, and it's the fight between new entrants and incumbents. The incumbents will do everything they can to keep new entrants out. But that is really bad for the economy, it is really bad for competition and it's bad for consumers. This bill will help address some of that. This bill gives consumers something that they have been missing for a long time, and that is confidence—confidence that they can shop, book a service, enter a subscription or compare prices without being pushed into choices they did not intend to make; confidence that regulators can act when conduct is unfair, not only when it is technically misleading; and confidence that honest businesses will not be undercut by those who profit from this kind of confusion. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation supports strong consumer protections. We welcome the parts of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 that provide clear legislative rules for business and outlaw subscription traps and drip pricing. As we've already heard, there are few things more frustrating than trying to find the unsubscribe button when it's hidden under three different menus, then needing to email someone else and, by the time you get there, paying for another month or going to buy something online where the price seems reasonable but, by the time you get through the check-out and they've added a booking fee, a delivery fee, a ticket fee and a service surcharge, finding it's three times the price. These practices add nothing to the consumer experience and are deliberately designed to frustrate people into paying for something they may no longer want. These parts of the bill are positive reform for consumers, and, as such, we will be supporting the bill.

However, One Nation has concerns about the broader powers handed down as part of this bill. This bill confers upon the ACCC broad powers to be able to stop unfair trading practices, with very loose definitions as to what that entails. Who decides what is unfair? Unlike the new laws in this bill that address drip pricing and subscription traps, this is a broad provision that does not identify a known issue; rather, it looks to the ACCC to assess business practices and outlaw them as they see fit. This is poor legislation, and it contributes to business uncertainty. It is part of the wider trend that we see from this government, where legislation is done by delegation to bureaucracy.

An important part of writing clear and precise legislation is that it first sets the obligations of constituents and businesses but also limits the actions that are available to government to intervene. Setting clear rules to the game means both parties can reasonably predict how the other will act and provides them with regulatory certainty. Simply legislating that a regulator will set the rules provides no certainty. It drives up the risk of legal challenges and limits businesses' ability to take risks. It's lazy legislation and poor governance. It is a result of ministers and politicians who have not taken the time to understand the issues or the current legislation and come up with a solution.

There may be limited circumstances where this flexibility is required, but what we are seeing in this parliament is a repetitive pattern of abdication of responsibility. We've seen it with the powers being handed to the eSafety Commissioner to enforce the government's internet censorship regime, and, since that isn't working, we're about to see further powers handed down to give the commissioner even more sweeping powers—judge, jury and executioner—instead of the government legislating clearly and providing certainty to businesses and consumers.

We have seen this with the 20 per cent gas reservation, a half-cocked, rushed piece of legislation so poorly thought through that it has to rely on a huge range of ministerial discretions to make it work. How can a business make long-term decisions about its investments if, at any moment, the government can change the rules midgame? One year, you might be eligible for a domestic supply exemption; the next, you are required to reserve a full 20 per cent of your gas supply, which you didn't expect. This is what kills industry. It's what kills investment and innovation. Look at the EPBC reforms. Once again, there are no hard and fast rules. Rather, the responsibility has been handed down to a regulator, and they have been told to set the rules as they see fit.

As I have said, the rule of law is in place not just to set the rules for constituents and businesses but to limit the government and provide predictability. This pattern of legislating by handing power to the various bureaucracies must stop. It is the responsibility of government to set the rules of the game and to make those rules definitive and easy to follow. We are constantly hearing from the uniparty that One Nation is not fit to lead, but here we have another lazy government which, instead of coming to terms with the issues at hand, is expanding the bureaucracy by handing ever-increasing powers to public servants. This is not what you were elected for. This government came to this place promising to cut red tape and to get business moving. Instead, all they have done is tie this country up in regulations.

The uncertainty faced by business is bad for industry, bad for jobs and bad for the country. Worse, in the case of this legislation, there is no clear need for these general prohibition provisions. The ACCC already has substantial powers under the existing legislation to address harmful conduct. If you have identified an issue, as is the case for drip pricing and subscription traps, fix them, but do not push your responsibilities as legislators onto unelected bureaucrats. This is an issue that we will continue to highlight. One Nation will always stand for stronger consumer protections, but we will stand against subjecting businesses to the whims of bureaucracy.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whitten should take his own advice with respect to unfair trading practices and stop spewing this rubbish that there's actually a uniparty in this place. I can remember actually standing in this place and calling for greater powers to deregister the trade unions engaging in corrupt practices. Senator Whitten wasn't here but comes from the building industry, and One Nation voted against that enhanced control, that ability to deregister trade unions engaging in corrupt practices repeatedly. One Nation stood with the government. They stood with the government when that legislation was introduced under the Morrison government. So, whilst we're talking about unfair trading practices, maybe we should talk about unfair political representations like the one you just made, Senator Whitten. Having said that, I did agree with much of what you said in relation to delegation of executives, but I reject this rubbish about there being a uniparty. I've consistently voted against legislation put up by the Labor government in accordance with Liberal values. Whilst I've been in this place for the last seven years, I've consistently voted for Liberal values. So I reject this rubbish, this propaganda, this misleading political rhetoric about there being a uniparty. It's nonsense. It's rubbish.

Now I'd like to move to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. First, Senator Darmanin, we must catch up. You must tell me about who this subscription service is. I promise to give you the benefit of my 25 years in the legal industry at no cost to come up with strategies in which we can hold them to account. But I would say to you that perhaps we do need to make public the names of these businesses that are engaging in this sort of unfair practice in relation to subscriptions. So I do sympathise with you, and I noted how prudent you are when you enter into these arrangements. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My beautiful wife Louise would say I'm a 'rusher-innerer'. I suspect my credit card statement is full of subscriptions I don't even know I have and which I need to purge. But thank you for that contribution.

Senator McKim, I wasn't aware, I must say, of the nuances in relation to—well, it's more than a nuance. You referred to it as the elephant in the room in terms of these laws not applying to financial services products. I think you made a number of very relevant points, and I know that you've got a longstanding commitment in relation to prosecuting these issues. Due to changes in terms of my responsibilities over the last six months, I've now rejoined the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and it's certainly something I'll be looking into further, including the comments you referred to that were made by Commissioner Kirkland, who I've got a great deal of respect for. So thank you for that contribution.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the economics committee in terms of the preparation of the report. Looking into this from somewhat of a standing start, I thought it was an excellent report. I thought that both positions of all stakeholders were weighed appropriately and reflected in the content of the report. So, as a former chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, good job.

I want to make three points in relation to this legislation. The first is that one of this Senate's main roles is to act as a house of review. What does that mean? That means, when a piece of legislation comes to the Senate, we should all try and work collaboratively to improve the legislation, to make sure that the legislation doesn't have unintended consequences, and to make sure that the legislation is reasonable and proportionate and doesn't place disproportionate burdens on individuals or on small businesses, as Senator Canavan referred to. In that process, we must always remember that it's easy for us to pass laws in this place that other people have to actually abide by and implement in their day-to-day lives. We heard from Senator Liddle that the regulatory impact of this law is estimated at about $123 million for one year. That's $123 million that business in particular, including small business at over $100 million, will have to find to comply with this legislation. So, if there is a way we can reduce that regulatory burden, I would argue that we should try and identify that way and work together to pursue that course.

In that respect, the coalition has put forward a number of what I believe are sensible amendments, and I want to speak to those amendments. Whenever we're imposing additional legal obligations on anyone in this country, we need to ask ourselves the question as to whether or not the obligations which we're imposing are clear and easily understood. In this case, I think the obligations around subscriptions and with respect to drip pricing, which are specifically defined in the legislation, meet that requirement—I have absolutely no problem with those at all and I fully support them. I do have some concerns with respect to clause 28B of the bill, which refers to unfair trading practices towards consumers and introduces a more general obligation. When you have general obligations, you've got to ask yourself the question: what does that mean in practice? In this case, in paragraphs (a) and (b), the text of the bill refers to 'conduct that':

(a) does or is likely to do either or both of the following:

(i) manipulate the consumer—

just hold onto that phrase—

(ii) unreasonably distort the environment in which the consumer makes, or is likely to make, a decision; and

(b) causes or is likely to cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to the consumer.

Going through each of those clauses, the first is 'manipulate the consumer'. What does that mean? I did what, presumably, many people would do when trying to interpret a bill, and that's look at the Oxford dictionary for the definition of 'manipulate'. That definition includes conduct which is unfair, but it also includes conduct which isn't necessarily unfair but tries to influence someone. Obviously, a marketing campaign which is engaged in by a business is seeking to influence people to buy a product or service, so the question is: when does that manipulation cross that line from influence into unfairness? In order to make that clear, given that the Oxford dictionary definition of manipulate includes both 'influence' and 'unfair actions', the coalition is suggesting—and Senator Canavan has put forward an amendment—that the word 'unfairly' be inserted into the bill before the word 'manipulate'. That makes sense to me. In circumstances where the general, plain, clear English meaning of the word 'manipulate' covers both unfair conduct and conduct which is not unfair, I think we should include 'unfairly' as an adverb in relation to 'manipulate'.

The second amendment proposed by the coalition is in relation to this concept of 'causes or is likely to cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to the consumer'. Again, I think there's good argument that there needs to be some sort of materiality test inserted in that regard. In this case, adding the words 'material detriment', again, as is generally proposed in the amendment, is a way to address that issue so that we're only talking about detriment that reaches a certain materiality standard with respect to the conduct. Those are two sensible amendments, and they would actually assuage the general concern that the general provision is a bit too general and needs to be tightened. I genuinely think that would improve the law.

The second point I want to make is in relation to small business. Senator Whitten referred to the regulatory impost on small business, and I agree with him with respect to those comments. All of us need to be alive to the fact, especially in today's environment, that small businesses are struggling out there. Small businesses are struggling. They're just holding on in many circumstances, and the last thing they need is an additional regulatory impost of over $100 million to try and address these issues, because they don't have a back office who can give them legal advice in relation to how they should abide by the laws. They don't have that back office to give them advice.

We heard examples of conduct engaged in by Amazon. Amazon's at one end of the spectrum. They're big enough to look after themselves, and they should be held accountable. But the other end of the spectrum is the small business just trying to survive, and I have a lot of sympathy for those small businesses. As I said before, it's easy for this place to impose additional obligations on those small businesses because we don't have to pay the cost. Senator Canavan's amendment with respect to delaying the imposition of these obligations on small business until a date in the future has a lot of merit. One of the reasons it has a lot of merit is it will give time for there to be certainty with respect to what this provision means.

People have referred to lawyers' picnics. I've been to a few picnics myself. I love a good picnic, and I've attended some picnics in all sorts of capacities, including as a lawyer. I agree that there will be a lot of litigation in relation to this. I've got no doubt about it. There will be millions of dollars spent on litigation in relation to this provision and what it actually means. To the extent that it's possible, it is sensible to try and protect small business from being dragged into that litigation as our legal system tries to work out what 'manipulate' means and to delay the imposition of these provisions onto small business. That makes a lot of sense. I commend Senator Canavan in relation to putting forward that amendment.

The last point I want to make through you, Acting Deputy President, is—and I don't think it's been touched upon by any of the speakers—one of the issues that I was glad that Senator Darmanin and her committee raised: recommendation 3. Hopefully, some members of the ACCC are listening to this, and I commend the work they've done in this regard. That recommendation relates to the provision of guidance by the ACCC to businesses as to what these new provisions mean in practice, and that is really important for small business in particular. Actually define, through the use of examples, what these provisions are intended to capture.

I know there are some examples listed in the legislation, but I think it would be very, very useful for the ACCC to provide some detailed guidance, especially for the benefit of small business, as to what falls within the domain of acceptable conduct under 28B and what crosses that threshold and becomes an unfair trading practice. I request that the ACCC have a look at that, consider that and provide that guidance. I'll put on notice that I'll certainly be pursuing that through Senate estimates to ensure that appropriate action is taken by the ACCC to communicate with all those stakeholders who will be required to comply with the provisions in this legislation.

In closing, again I'd like to commend all members of the department who were involved in this process. There has been extensive consultation, which gives considerable comfort. The opposition has proposed some reasonable amendments which I think should be considered and which are logical and coherent. I'm happy to say, subject to a few reservations, I'm happy to support the bill.

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—at the request of Senator Whitten, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the protections under this bill to guard consumers against unfair trading practices in relation to drip pricing and subscription traps are good, prescriptive reforms,

(ii) the broad prohibition powers in this bill around unspecified "unfair trading practices" risk creating an uncertain regulatory environment for businesses in Australia and continue a troubling trend by this Government in delegating sweeping powers to regulatory bodies, rather than providing prescriptive rules that industry can follow; and

(b) calls on the Government to commit to preparing complete legislation that limits red-tape and regulatory uncertainty, as opposed to rushing legislation that requires delegated powers to regulatory authorities or excessive ministerial directions".

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the senators who have contributed to this debate. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 amends the Australian Consumer Law by introducing a general prohibition on unfair trading practices alongside targeted reforms to address subscription traps and drip pricing.

I want to thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill and all of the stakeholders who contributed to the inquiry. The committee made five recommendations, including that the Senate pass the bill.

Recommendation 1 seeks that the government consider whether further clarification of section 28B is needed. The government notes this recommendation. The formulation is intentional. It captures harmful and emerging conduct while preserving flexibility, with courts providing clarity over time.

Recommendation 2 suggests expanding the examples in subsection 28B(6). The government notes this recommendation to the 'grey list' plays an important role but is designed to remain illustrative, ensuring the framework stays adaptable as practices evolve. The government will monitor whether additional examples are needed over time.

Recommendation 3 encourages additional ACCC guidance. The government supports this recommendation and has provided funding for guidance and education to assist businesses, particularly small businesses, to comply.

Recommendation 4 relates to financial services. The government notes this recommendation too and is taking a staged approach—first consulting on extending protections to small business and franchisees and then considering application to financial services, to ensure reforms are appropriately tailored to that complex sector.

These reforms will not only protect consumers but also promote better functioning markets where good and honest businesses are not undercut by competitors who rely on tracks, manipulation and unnecessary complexity. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Bell be agreed to.