Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

In continuing my remarks on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 I'll pick up where I left off last night. I was making the point that gift cards are not always redeemed. Perhaps it's because there is not, at the time, an appropriate gift in the store that the holder of the gift card wants to purchase. On other occasions it may be that the time elapses unintentionally and the gift card is never used. There are also occasions whereby the gift card is redeemed but not to its full value; there might be a small amount left over. Again, time elapses and that small amount is never taken up by the holder of the card. Whatever the case, we know there are gift cards that are never cashed in and that the value of those cards, ultimately, is lost.

I raised this concern only a couple of months ago, in this place, when I spoke of lost gift cards that were issued by Toys R Us. Toys R Us went into liquidation, and the stores closed. The holders of those cards lost their gift cards because the stores closed. Holders of gift cards, in the weeks leading up to the closure of those stores, were even told by the administrator that if they wanted to cash in their gift cards they could only do so if they purchased an equivalent amount of new product from the store. This was adding a condition that was not part of what would have been the understanding of the person who purchased the gift card. That was of serious concern to me because it effectively said to people who had a gift card, 'You have a gift card, but from now on the terms and conditions under which you can use it have changed dramatically.'

I made the point at the time that I also believed that, given that that was the case, it was not good enough to simply say to those people who had lost the value of those gift cards because the store went into liquidation that they were unsecured creditors to an entity that might not have any credit when all the financials had been sorted out. It might have been also appropriate that, in the issuing of gift cards, the funds that the stores take in from those gift cards should be put into a separate account perhaps a trust account or something similar that was therefore secured and always available for those people who had purchased gift cards. I make that suggestion on the basis that I still have concerns about the holders of gift cards losing the value when a business closes down or, even worse, goes into bankruptcy, because under those circumstances the value is lost, and there is no product ever issued. I believe that we could perhaps do a little better.

The other matter relating to the gift cards is this. As other speakers have noted—and I made the comments myself earlier in this discussion—both New South Wales and South Australia have now enacted legislation to ensure that there is a three-year time limit on gift cards. I think that that's appropriate and sensible. However, we now have legislation in South Australia and New South Wales, and we're about to have legislation in the federal parliament. That means we will have national legislation and state legislation. That immediately begs the question: which legislation supersedes the other when a breach of the conditions and perhaps the three-year time limit occurs? I don't know. I'd hate to think that, because there might be two sets of legislation, one at national and one at state level, there'll also be buck-passing between the two as to who is responsible for ensuring that the intent of this legislation is carried through at the time. It would seem to me that, from a consumer's point of view, they wouldn't necessarily know where to go.

Indeed, if we have national legislation, will that supersede and make obsolete the state legislation? I really don't know. My understanding of the legislation that went through in New South Wales and South Australia is that it is very, very similar to what is being proposed under this bill. Given that, it would seem to me that we might reach a point where there is duplication. Indeed, that even begs the question: can a person be prosecuted for a breach under both state and national legislation and therefore incur two sets of penalties? Again, those are matters on which I would be interested in getting a response from the minister.

Lastly, I make this point. As a result of the issuing of gift cards and the community concerns that have been raised, and now the legislation in New South Wales and South Australia, I note that many of the stores, particularly in the retail sector, and others, have already moved to a three-year time limit on their cards. Indeed, there's no restriction on the limit extending further than three years, and some stores in fact leave their gift cards open ended, which I think is a good thing to do. But I notice that many of the stores are already moving in that direction and many of the businesses across Australia are already moving in that direction, clearly in anticipation that, if they didn't, they would be forced to anyway. Nevertheless, I think that that is a good thing.

I think this legislation is very much a step in the right direction. It will close off many of the loopholes relating to the issuing of gift cards. Of course, it doesn't close all of them off, because, as we know, there are some types of cards—for example, a gift voucher that might be issued by a local business to a community organisation as part of a raffle or something like that—that I understand are not covered by this legislation, and nor should they be. There will be exemptions to the general term of gift cards when it comes to being protected by this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. I guess time will tell just how effective it will be.

See this speech in context