Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010. The bill completes the introduction of Australia’s first national consumer law, a development which is long overdue in this country and is now being delivered by the Rudd Labor government. The bill expands the definition of ‘consumer’ to include small businesses where the goods and services they purchase are less than the value of $40,000. It retains the exemption in the Trade Practices Act by which services provided by a qualified architect or engineer are exempt from the requirements, that they are fit for a purpose or achieve the result made known to them by the consumer. I imagine that has a fair bit to do with the fact that members of the profession are required to be registered and also are subject to their own indemnity provisions.

The bill also broadens the definition of ‘unsolicited consumer agreement’ to include consumers who are contacted indirectly in circumstances such as entering a competition or alternatively returning calls of a supplier where they have initiated the contact, but nevertheless treats them as being what they really are at the end of the day, consumers, when they receive the services or the product. It also provides protection for consumers in relation to unsafe products. It offers greater choice for consumers when deciding whether a contract of supply should be terminated because of rejected goods. At the same time, the bill clarifies the obligations for suppliers to refund moneys when goods and services have been rejected. The bill provides that the return of moneys in those circumstances extends only so far as the services have not at that stage been delivered.

Overall, the bill is a win for consumers and certainly for small business. That is something I know a little about. As I think most people in this place are aware, prior to coming into this place, I ran my own business and so I understand that small business is under constant pressure and is facing ever-changing circumstances. This bill will go a long way to address issues for small business and give a greater degree of clarity.

Small businesses are the backbone of our community, and my electorate of Werriwa alone has some 10,000 registered small businesses. Organisations such as the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and Industry, under the guidance of Harry Hunt as President, and the Cabramatta chamber of commerce, headed up by John Medich, cater well for small business communities in their locations. I know they do a powerful and good job in supporting local charities, community groups and community organisations and they always turn up to support local events. Importantly, they provide guidance, support and networking opportunities to allow local businesses to grow, to flourish and to further contribute to our local economy, particularly and most importantly through the provision of employment opportunity.

It is important for the government to continue to support small business, as it is the driver behind our local economy and very important in the way we go about addressing the global financial crisis. I am very pleased to say that this bill very much goes to the heart of that in the way it supports small business. The bill also supports consumers, particularly through those provisions for the national laws on product safety for consumer goods and services. I am certain that most members in this place would agree that consumers deserve protection from unsafe products or practices. The Australian consumer law completed by this bill allows the minister to take actions such as to ban products, to impose standards on their design in relation to construction or labelling and to order suppliers to recall a product or issue warning notices to the public. All these measures provide adequate protection for consumers for products that could harm them and certainly endanger health and safety.

The Australian consumer law also puts more responsibility on the supplier to notify the minister if they become aware that the product has been associated with the death, serious injury or illness of any person. These amendments should help put the minds of parents at ease, as we have seen a flourish of unsafe children’s products recalled over the last couple of years. Leaving aside toys and children’s equipment, these laws will apply to all areas covered consumer law. They will mandate these responsibilities, and that will be very good for consumers.

I would also like to commend the members of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on their work in this matter. I note that the bill contains recommendations that were moved by the coalition members of that committee, and those recommendations were embraced in a bipartisan way. Hence, I look forward to the opposition’s support of the passage of this bill through the House. I commend the bill.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Deregulation, Competition Policy and Sustainable Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010, which the previous speaker, the member for Werriwa, and the very capable shadow minister on our side, Mr Hartsuyker, outlined, comes to this chamber with the support of both sides of the parliament. That is not to say, though, that there are not still some reservations and some issues. The bill itself is several hundred pages long and introduces a range of provisions that have been canvassed for some time in the evolution of consumer and competition laws. It seems to be a step in the right direction. It is on that basis that I am pleased to lend my support to it, but I will add a few remarks about some of the provisions.

As my colleagues and the previous speaker, the member for Werriwa, have touched on, there are a number of amendments that the government has agreed to. Those amendments emerged from the analysis by coalition senators in the Senate inquiry process. A number of recommendations were made in terms of a definition of consumers that embraces small business. I obviously welcome that greatly and recognise that, when it comes to market power and the capacity to deal with contracts that are onerous, do not fulfil the spirit of competition, are not fit for purpose and involve unconscionable conduct, it is often hard to distinguish between a small business and a consumer. I find it remarkable though that the clarity that has been brought to this bill has not been carried over to the unfair contracts provision. For the life of me I cannot understand why the government’s commitment to include small business in the unfair contracts provisions of the laws has not been provided for. It is an enormous disappointment to the small business community that, although there is some protection here in the consumer space, in other areas to do with fairness of contracting the coverage and protection afforded to consumers does not extend to small business. We think that is a disappointment. The senators raised that point and sought to have it addressed. The government has gone some of the way, but I am sure that will be a subject of further debate in the time to come. I just flag that disappointment in the small business community.

On the issues around the amount that should be considered part of consumer goods and the allowance for small business: the fact that that has been provided for is quite encouraging. The recommendation from the Senate committee to carry forward the exemption from the trade practices law to cover architects and engineers is welcome. We think that was a sensible move. It is still not clear to the opposition why the recommendation around risk based reporting was not accepted. It seemed to be a practical and sensible response that put effort where it was justified and did not gum up normal business transactions with potentially repeated reporting of similar issues or incidents. This seems a strange position for the government to take. However, the ComLaw register identified 9,997 new or amended regulations introduced by the Rudd government up until the beginning of March this year and the repeal of only 52. It is hardly one in, one out. There is a tendency to embrace heavy intervention and heavy-handed regulation and perhaps that is the reason why this risk based reporting system has not been accepted and this desire for incident-by-incident based reporting has been maintained. The fog may clear on that. We do not know as we have not had a satisfactory explanation of why that is the case.

The changes to the section relating to carrying forward existing reporting schemes are a positive move, as are the changes to the section that appeared to create an obligation on business suppliers to report on competitors’ products. I am pleased that has been embraced by the government. There have been some changes to the unsolicited consumer agreement aspect, which are welcome. They relate to contact in relation to the supply of goods and services after contact details have been provided and the prominent purpose for providing those details was not necessarily the supply of goods and services, and also issues around missed calls and the like. I think they are all positive steps in the right direction and I congratulate the government for the steps it has taken. I look forward though to a serious examination of how this bill operates in reality.

I should declare a pecuniary interest: my darling wife is involved with the Body Shop at Home program, which is an area of direct selling. She is not only vivacious and the light of my life but also an outstanding retailer, as was reflected in our own former retail business. She has carried those skills forward as we juggle the cost-of-living pressures that seem to have been so turbocharged by the Rudd Labor government. While I am representing the electorate she is doing a remarkable job of being a wonderful mother and also seeking to bring extra income into the house. I use the Body Shop as an example but this applies equally to a range of other direct-selling mechanisms. These are techniques of bringing goods and services to the market in a non-traditional manner—that is, not through a retail store. Avon, the Body Shop, Nutrimetics and all these guys are involved in arrangements that do not seem to have been accommodated well in the machinery of this bill.

As happened last weekend, if my wife were involved in a Body Shop party in Langwarrin and people were keen to purchase some of the products, this concept of a cooling-off period and an inability to accept payment within a certain period of time would ignore the nature of that transaction; it would just completely ignore that point. Even in relation to supply of the goods that have been purchased—you know, saying, ‘May I recommend to you, Sir, the vitamin C range from the Body Shop; I am sure that would combine very well with the climate in Tasmania’—if someone is buying some stuff through that mechanism they actually want it as soon as they can get it, yet there are some concerns that that sales channel is not well conceptualised within the framework of this bill.

These were issues raised at the Senate Economics Committee inquiry. They are issues that DSA, the Direct Selling Association of Australia, sought to have canvassed. They were frustrated about poor consultation about these things. They have not to this date received a formal response to their concerns, but these are still real issues. The aspect that they are concerned about where there are independent distributors involved is the prohibition of supply and payment for goods during the cooling-off period—a completely contrary concept to what people want; they want their stuff as soon as they can get it. There are also issues around point of sale documentation and even questions about the receipt of payment.

Many of these provisions just pick up stuff that is already in state and territory laws, and in respect of the payment and supply issues this has not been a good way to go. There is no jurisdiction that restricts supply of goods, so that pick-up of existing state and territory laws has not happened in this case, yet this concept is being introduced into the bill and there is no road testing or experience in the state and territory jurisdictions to point to how that may work. This will present some problems about payment options and the rescinding of contracts after cooling-off periods. The point I am making is that transactions are not always carried out in a comfortable, familiar way. Retailing is not only done in retail outlets; there are other retail channels for consumables that use a range of technologies, and we need to be mindful that these concepts have to be adaptable enough to take account of what the contemporary marketplace is.

Sales channels in many cases are built on personal relationships. This is an underpinning of the trust people have in the product and the provider. Technology and consumer demands are placing pressure on traditional business models, and that does not always mean that store selling is the way to go. There are new technologies and new modes of marketing and sales that need to be reflected in these laws. We do not know how well these laws will accommodate the changing face of commerce. I accept that there will be some road testing and I imagine that, whichever side of parliament occupies the government benches, we will need to revisit some of this stuff. Some of the concepts are new and, as I have just touched on in those examples, some of them are untested and there is no case history to point to how well they are going.

The issue that I would like to extend further into is new technologies. I was speaking with eBay just last week, and they are quite concerned about how these provisions may impact on their business model. They are providing and facilitating a marketing and distribution channel without taking any custodial or proprietary interest in the products that are being sold through that channel. But, to the extent to which warranty expectations are already a part of their business, with people purchasing online using the mechanisms available through eBay, finding that that experience is not quite what they wanted as customers and then going back to eBay to raise the points with eBay, they are saying, ‘These aren’t our products. We are not endorsing the products; we are just facilitating a transaction between parties.’

I suppose eBay’s concern is that with this belief that they are somehow embedded in that transaction and with the warranties that are being implied in this bill they will be caught up in that even more. Again, we do not know whether that issue will materialise or not. What I do understand is that about one-third of eBay customers are churned each year, and eBay’s research suggests that that often has much to do with people’s dissatisfaction with a transaction from a buyer or seller point of view. It is not the technology, the platform or the marketing process that eBay facilitates but the parties that make use of it, yet eBay comes within that experience and is often contacted by people looking for a remedy for a transaction that they were not happy with.

These are a couple of areas that we need to look for and where we need to look at how they evolve over time. We need to recognise that this is an effort to bring together quite a range of concepts in competition consumer protection. I am all for protection for consumers. The ‘fit for the purpose’ concepts that are being embraced in here are quite well understood and appreciated but, as I have touched on, some of the other mechanisms are unproven and do not represent best practice by states and territories because they have not road-tested some of these. In other areas I am talking about a change in the nature of commerce and saying that even the traditional tools might not have the utility and the flexibility to cope.

The coalition is supportive of the passage of this bill. I again flag a need for all of us in this parliament—for whoever is in government after the next election—to re-examine the practical reality that emerges from these new provisions. The sense that small business was promised much about unfair contracts and then, in other areas, treated as consumers for the purposes of some transactions but then not treated as consumers for the purposes of other contractual terms and protections that are available to consumers is very bemusing. It is something that has the small business community quite upset. It is a bit like the debate around good faith conduct, which apparently according to the government, is such an incredibly difficult concept to have operating in some areas of commerce. Franchising is a notable one, yet in this parliament this week two bills are being debated. Not only is good faith talked about; it is actually legislated. There is a bit of eclectic behaviour and corporate knowledge that seem to pop up in different parts of the government’s rhetoric but disappear in other parts. There is no coherence as to how these concepts are embraced in the laws being debated by this parliament.

I congratulate the shadow minister and acknowledge that he has been accommodating and collaborative. I have also found him to be thus with regard to the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill, which will be debated later. I think it reflects the season of trying to get stuff through this chamber and over to the other place as a non-controversial bill that will see its passage before the winter recess, because we might not be back for this parliament. When we are back next time it may be another parliament. On that note, I wish you well—but not too much luck—Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom. I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010. The primary purpose of this bill is to make sure that the government carries through its proposal to create a seamless national market with respect to consumer law in this country. We are incorporating the fair trading and consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 into the Australian Consumer Law. We are creating a national legislative framework for statutory consumer guarantees for the Australian community, a national legislative scheme for consumer product safety and an infringement notice regime with respect to the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. We are changing the name of the Trade Practices Act to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. That is the broad scope of this piece of legislation. It had its genesis in August 2008 with the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. It was an agreement that was reached in terms of a formal intergovernmental agreement on national consumer law on 2 July 2009.

We in this government have done a lot to support the nearly two million small businesses. Approximately four million Australians work in small business. In fact, they are the lifeblood and the mainstay of the Blair community in South-East Queensland, which I have the honour and privilege to represent in this place. We have provided the small business tax break; the tax adjustment to provide cash flow in the year 2009-10; the $42 billion through the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, which has created tens of thousands of jobs in my electorate; and the BER funding, which creates, on average, about 200 jobs on each project in the Blair electorate. We have been systematic in our cutting of red tape.

We have delivered training places and productivity places and we have built trade training centres. I look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister coming to my electorate of Blair in the next month to open the Ipswich Trade Training Centre. It is a wonderful initiative by St Edmund’s College, with the support of Ipswich Grammar School and Ipswich Girls Grammar School, two of the oldest schools in Queensland. Indeed, Ipswich Grammar School is the oldest high school in Queensland. I look forward to that event.

We have encouraged apprenticeships and we have the wonderful Apprentice Kickstart program. In the Ipswich West Morton community we have seen a reversal in the decline of apprenticeships and we now have a significant increase. The Jobs Expo in Ipswich is, again, a wonderful initiative. Hundreds of jobs have been created in our community.

I also think that the research and development tax credit has been an important part of supporting small business. There has been much other support. We have tremendous proposals for small business, such as the tax break, the instant write-off of assets valued at up to $5,000 and the head start on company tax rate deduction. From 1 July 2012, 720,000 small businesses will receive the reduction of two per cent, two years ahead of schedule. People involved in small business will also benefit through Registering Business Names Made Easy and the superannuation guarantee. That will help not just employees but employers as well.

The genesis of the eradication of the dingo fence in consumer law was a long time ago and this legislation has been a long time coming. In the late 19th century there were a number of decisions in the UK and also in Australia that dealt with issues such as fitness for purpose and quality of merchandise with respect to the sale of goods. In fact, the sale of goods legislation that we have seen operate for decades across the various states and territories of this country was in part legislated in the late 19th century, as well as the early 20th century. We have old legislation which has operated for decades with respect to our economy, consumer law and corporations law.

Under section 51 of the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth has the power to deal with corporations. In fact, that was the lever by which the Howard government leveraged the Work Choices legislation through the parliament. It was a shame that they did that, that is for sure. It was a shame that the High Court decided five to two in favour of the Howard government in that case. Good on the dissenting judges, as far as I am concerned.

I know that Garfield Barwick had certain views with respect to consumer law, back in the Menzies days. I know there were certain advocates during the 23 long years from 1949 to 1972 that those opposite, with apathy, sat upon consumer law and did nothing,. It took the Whitlam government in 1974 to bring in the trade practices legislation, to bring in the kinds of concepts that we believe are important to help consumers and small businesses across the country. Prior to that, sadly, we had to rely upon judicial activism on concepts such as unconscionability. But it was the Whitlam government and subsequent Labor governments which supported small businesses with respect to trade practices legislation in this country.

These are concepts that we hold dear and believe are important. Take, for example, section 52 of the Trade Practices Act—the broad prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct, which is being retained in the Australian Consumer Law without any change. That is a particularly important aspect which has been litigated upon and which has provided the benchmark, the aspiration and also the warning sign for many businesses. Many cases have been avoided by correspondence between companies and lawyers to warn people of that. Without that, businesses would have suffered.

We amend this legislation by schedule. The general provisions with respect to deceptive and misleading conduct are in there. The unfair contract provisions are in there. The misleading or deceptive conduct issues are in there. There are criminal sanctions in there. There are prohibitions against unfair conduct. There is a national legislative scheme for statutory consumer guarantees. For a long time we have had to rely upon the myriad and mystery of state government legislation with respect to this particular area. We have brought this thing together to reduce regulation and to bring certainty to consumer law in this country.

A national unfair contracts term law which will apply from business to consumer contracts is a very important initiative. We are pleased that those opposite will support us in this regard. It has been said many times that Australia’s 22 million residents face more internal regulatory obstacles and practices than the more than 500 million residents of Europe. The government is absolutely committed to getting rid of overlapping, inconsistent regulation to bring in a national approach because companies do not just exist within a single state or a single territory, they exist across the states and internationally. Our economy benefits from those small and medium-sized businesses which operate in that way.

The trade practices legislation and the legislation now before this chamber are important ways to equalise the balance between small and big businesses. The legislation allows the lever and the opportunity for small businesses—which are often bullied by the bluster of big businesses—to say the legislation and the Trade Practices Act support small businesses. When this new national consumer law is in place it will also protect small businesses across the economy. The bill enables the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to impose infringement notices for specified contraventions of the Australian consumer law. This is another aspect in helping small business. I think the change in name also modernises the way we think about small business, competition and consumers. It means that we are taking the view that consumers are the first priority in the economy.

This entire area of the law is being brought into a national framework with the cooperation of the states and territories. Sadly, the Australian Constitution at times provides an obstacle and a barrier for constitutional change—in fact it is more than 30 years since we had a successful referendum in this country. But at times we are pleased that we are able to get agreement from the broad Australian community on matters like that. We have seen that in defamation law, corporations law and family law. Here we are seeing it in consumer law. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It is every bit as important as the Trade Practices Act and probably more important. This is the sort of legislation that I wish was in the chamber below because this is very important legislation not just for big business and small business but also for consumers and the Australian community generally. I commend the legislation to the House.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010. This is a bill which aims to streamline and unify existing consumer law for the benefit of consumers and business. This is an important area of reform that affects how market participants behave and interact and ensures that Australians are able to conduct business, purchase and trade with confidence in the knowledge that there are strong provisions that prosecute unjust conduct.

It is important to note that the coalition has a strong record of reform when it comes to the Trade Practices Act. During our time in government we proceeded with a number of areas of significant reform. We increased penalties for breaches of the competition law; we introduced new merger processes; we allowed for the notification of collective bargaining for small businesses; we ensured that there was an extension of the application of prohibitions regarding the misuse of market power for unconscionable conduct in business; we provided guidance for predatory pricing; and, finally, we also introduced reform of component pricing.

The coalition began the process of unifying Australia’s consumer laws and creating a clearer and simpler framework for protecting consumers. In 1997 it was the coalition government that commissioned the Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia’s consumer policy framework to investigate the ways in which the law could better empower consumers and harmonise state and federal provisions. This was the first substantial review of Australia’s consumer laws since 1984. Our main priority was to reduce as much as possible the burden on consumers and businesses created by unnecessary duplication, uncertainty and complexity. At the same time we recognised the need for an evolving body of law that accounted for new consumer products, new technologies and changing business practices.

We wanted the process to be driven by evidence and by an analysis of business and consumer behaviour. We wanted to create a flexible set of laws that allowed business to operate freely while prosecuting those firms that engaged in unjust conduct through deception, unfair pricing or unsafe products. We were conscious of the need to ensure that consumers were effectively protected without creating extra burdens and compromising the facilitation of trade. We knew that complex regulations like those that currently existed required a significant amount of centralised knowledge and expertise on behalf of businesses which gives a competitive advantage to larger firms with greater economies of scale. To prevent the conglomeration of firm activity and to ensure the optimal level of competition in the marketplace it is important that harmonisation of consumer law take place to provide the best benefits to consumers and business, especially small business.

Currently, the complex framework of different and disparate laws and regulations requires improvement. The coalition is delighted that the government has taken the opportunity to carry on our work and take the necessary steps towards a more unified set of consumer laws. The coordination of policy across jurisdictions remains an unfinished business in Australia. The current division of responsibility between federal and state governments is something that requires direct attention. The inconsistencies and duplications that currently exist create confusion for business and consumers. It is often difficult for market participants to know how the different state and federal provisions interact, and the subtle differences that may exist between two sets of laws mean that businesses have difficulty in ascertaining which laws apply to them and how, and individuals are likewise uncertain of their rights as consumers.

This bill will address a number of serious breaches in conduct, from misleading and deceptive conduct to a failure to render services with due care and skill. Misleading and deceptive conduct is an opportunistic attempt to cheat consumers whose expectations of a product have been falsely and deliberately formed by the seller. Misinformation about a product not only erodes confidence in the marketplace but is an unjust act that requires strict penalties. Similarly, unconscionable conduct requires penalties commensurate with the serious breach of faith it creates with consumers. The strengthening of civil penalties in relation to these protections is something the coalition supports.

Consumer protections have also been strengthened with the general prohibition on the making of false or misleading representations. The broadening of the definition of ‘misconduct’ is something the coalition again supports. In government the coalition also commissioned an inquiry into Australia’s product safety laws to identify areas of reform. The purpose of this inquiry was to establish how the law could best deal with potential product safety hazards with a focus on prevention as opposed to retrospective action after consumer safety had been affected. Again, we were conscious of the need to unify product safety legislation to promote more efficient outcomes in trade and to ensure that consumer choice, diversity of product range and innovation were not unnecessarily affected.

We are happy to see the government continue in the coalition’s footsteps by addressing the fragmentation in legislation in this area. The coalition began the process of establishing a national approach to consumer laws through the cooperation of the state governments. It is good to see that this process is well underway with the states agreeing that the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for issuing permanent product bans and standards.

The coalition had a number of concerns about this bill and subsequently submitted recommendations to the government that would improve the objectives of the law and create a fairer and more equitable arrangement for consumers and business. A number of these recommendations have already been detailed by my colleagues and I do not propose to detail them again. We commend the government for accepting the majority of our recommendations. The only recommendation that the government failed to incorporate into its policy was the implementation of a risk based reporting system rather than an incident based system. This is something we will continue to monitor as the law takes effect. I endorse this bill and thank the government for proceeding with the good work that we the coalition commenced.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010 will mean that all consumers will have the same rights, all businesses will have the same obligations and, for the first time, all regulators around Australia will have the same powers to enforce consumer laws. As the minister indicated when introducing this bill, it is the most far-reaching reform in this area since the introduction of the Trade Practices Act in 1974 by the then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, which in turn was one of the defining pieces of legislation under the Whitlam government. The Murphy legislation dealt with monopoly, with anti-competitive and restrictive practices. Earlier acts, one dating back as far as 1906 and influenced by the American antitrust act, and another in 1965, had done that but they had fallen into disuse because of constitutional problems. The TPA also dealt for the first time with consumer protection.

The Murphy legislation was introduced into the lower house by Minister Kep Enderby on 25 October 1973 and he described its purpose with precision:

Restrictive trade practices have long been rife in Australia. Most of them are undesirable and have served the interests of the parties engaged in them, irrespective of whether those interests coincide with the interests of Australians generally. These practices cause prices to be maintained at artificially high levels. They enable particular enterprises or groups of enterprises to attain positions of economic dominance which are then susceptible to abuse; they interfere with the interplay of competitive forces which are the foundation of any market economy; they allow discriminatory action against small businesses, exploitation of consumers and feather bedding of industries.

In consumer transactions unfair practices are widespread. The existing law is still largely founded on the principle known as caveat emptor, meaning that the buyer beware. That principle was far more appropriate for transactions conducted in village markets than for modern consumer oriented transactions of today. 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, the untrained consumer is often no match for the businessman who attempts to persuade the consumer to buy goods or services on terms and conditions suitable only to the vendor. The consumer needs protection of the law and this bill will provide such protection.

That is a long quote but it shows that the Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, knew what he was doing, and at the time he pronounced the old principle of caveat emptor to be dead.

The Prime Minister at the time, Gough Whitlam, was well aware of the significance of the new legislation. I saw something in his book about his own government recently. He said:

The Act was far more than an amended version of earlier legislation. The approach to restrictive trade practices was completely changed, making the practices illegal by force of the legislation itself. The Trade Practices Commission was established to administer the provisions of the Act and these now included offences concerning monopolisation, exclusive dealing, price discrimination, restraints of trade by agreement or arrangement, anti-competitive mergers and consumer protection. The latter was covered under part V of the Act concerned.

He goes on to give some further details. He concludes this passage in the book The Whitlam Government with these words:

Businessmen recovered from their hysteria long before the Liberals in the Federal parliament.

Some form of intervention in markets has existed since the earliest times to protect consumers from fraud, through weights and measures regulations and, from the late 19th century, through sale of goods legislation, which sought to ensure fairness by implying conditions into consumer contracts. In the 1930s the emergence of the tort of negligence provided consumers with some form of legal protection against careless manufacturers who caused them harm. During the 20th century, but especially since the Second World War, as the mass market exploded, a consumer movement, led at first by women’s groups, began to develop. It was able for the first time to advocate a broad consumer interest in the market and to provide the kind of knowledge that would allow buyers to make informed choices about the fitness of products that they were purchasing.

The Australian Consumers Association was established in 1959, and with it the magazine Choice, and that was critical to a movement that developed some real political influence. A most useful article in the Treasury’s Economic Roundup entitled ‘Harnessing the demand side: Australia’s consumer policy’, by Hally-Burton, Shirodkar, Winckler and Writer, reminded me that it was the Labor MPs Barry Jones and Barry Cohen who brought Ralph Nader to Australia in 1969, amid great fanfare, to raise consciousness of consumer product safety. Those two Labor MPs both became ministers for consumer affairs later.

Consumer protection legislation was introduced at around this time in New South Wales, and then in other state jurisdictions, to set up consumer credit arrangements and to provide consumer protection and also some anticompetitive protections, like the prohibition of collusive tendering and bidding. The states were not, therefore, at first sympathetic to Murphy’s Trade Practices Act, seeing consumer protection as their established business. Later, however, they agreed to adopt so-called mirror legislation to reflect the consumer provisions in part V of the Trade Practices Act. Commonwealth and state agreements about the administration of consumer law were put in place. They brought some benefits, but the system was nevertheless clumsy and incomplete. To quote the Productivity Commission, the framework established:

… leads to variable outcomes for consumers, added costs for businesses and a lack of responsiveness in policy making.

There were:

… gaps and inconsistencies in the policy and enforcement tool kit and weaknesses in redress mechanisms for consumers.

Dr Steven Kennedy of the Treasury has pointed out that Australia’s general consumer laws consist of 13 acts covering the same broad subject matter, including two national laws in the form of the consumer provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the ASIC Act 2001, eight state and territory fair trading acts, plus, in three jurisdictions, another three laws dealing with generic protection for consumers, and some general consumer provisions in another eight state and territory laws about the sale of goods. Every jurisdiction has also got a number of sector-specific consumer protection laws. The bill before us, together with the previous consumer bill now in the Senate, replaces almost all of that.

Probably the most influential review of the Trade Practices Act was the Hilmer committee inquiry into national competition policy, published in 1993, which led in turn to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states on the need for microeconomic reform of government trading entities and the professions and to the establishment by the Hawke government of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to replace the Trade Practices Commission—although that body, the TPA, was generally seen to have had many successes.

Issues of fairness and of economic efficiency have always been present in some form in consumer law policy. They existed together in the Trade Practices Act. However, Hilmer was quite explicit, perhaps more so than policymakers had previously been, that the protection of consumers and the development of more efficient markets through competition were complementary policy ideas. The National Competition Policy was not just about elimination of barriers to competition; it was about enhancing consumer welfare by making markets more efficient.

The bill before us represents a part of what has been an exemplary process of national cooperative action to harmonise laws and to coordinate enforcement. The Council of Australian Governments agreed to the creation of the Australian Consumer Law in October 2008 upon the recommendation of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, which was in turn based upon a powerful report by the Productivity Commission.

In recent years, initiatives to harmonise state and Commonwealth laws across the board, but especially those affecting commerce, have gathered pace to match the rapid emergence of a national market. That need is generally recognised by ministers. The Productivity Commission was told by groups as diverse as the consumer journal Choice, the consumer credit legal centres, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and the Australian Retailers Association that Australia’s policy framework had failed to reflect the fact that our market is now national in character.

The need to establish institutional arrangements that reflect the national market is beyond argument, and the need is met with this bill. It should be acknowledged that the bill has been drafted on the basis of the best practices in place across all jurisdictions. The bill includes general consumer protections mostly based on the Trade Practices Act provisions concerning misleading and deceptive conduct. The broad prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act establishes the norm for business conduct in the marketplace and it has been retained. The bill includes provisions prohibiting unconscionable conduct and the minister has indicated that, in a later bill, the government will make further amendments to these provisions in response to an inquiry by the Senate Economics Committee. Prohibitions on specific conduct that is a generally accepted as being unfair include making false or misleading representations concerning a variety of situations in commerce, employment and land transactions. Similarly, there is a prohibition on unsolicited dealing, on participation in pyramid schemes and on referral selling where a benefit associated with the referral is contingent upon another event.

The bill creates a national legislative scheme for consumer guarantees to replace state legislation concerning implied conditions and warranties in consumer transactions, and that has been based upon the successful New Zealand legislation. The bill introduces a national consumer safety system for consumer goods and product related services to replace existing provisions in both the Trade Practices Act and state consumer laws. The Commonwealth will have the power to make standards. All ministers will be able to impose interim safety bans in their own jurisdiction but only the Commonwealth will be able to make a ban permanent and apply nationally.

Consumers will be able to recover losses for damage suffered as a result of goods or services being supplied contrary to a safety ban. The Commonwealth will be able to make national information standards. The bill creates a national statutory liability scheme to enable consumers to recover losses for damage suffered as the result of a defect. It provides for—and this is especially important—a national approach to enforcement, better allowing regulators to deal with unprincipled operators. A full suite of remedies is available to allow flexible and appropriate levels of action and enforcement: criminal offence provisions for specific contravention but also, among others, civil pecuniary penalties, injunctions, compensation orders, orders seeking redress and adverse publicity orders.

I see with some sadness that the intention of the bill is also to change the name of the Trade Practices Act to the Competition and Consumer Act. A lot of people are comfortable and familiar with the old name, and some of us will feel a little uncomfortable with the new name. However, I suppose the government is entitled to do this. After all, the most important historical changes to legislation in this area have all been Labor initiatives.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very much welcome and endorse the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010. The catalyst for the reforms in this package of measures was the decision by the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, in 2006 to ask the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into Australia’s consumer protection framework. Clearly, the Treasurer’s focus was the inefficiency caused for both Australian consumers and Australian businesses in having to be aware of and comply with the patchwork of complex and inconsistent laws across Australia’s many jurisdictions.

When the Productivity Commission reported on this issue in 2008 it confirmed the increased costs which the existing arrangements imposed on business and the uncertainty which they imposed on consumers. It recommended the introduction of a national scheme and estimated that such a scheme would provide a net gain to the community of between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion per annum. Later in 2008 both the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs and the Council of Australian Governments endorsed reform.

I look at this legislation with particular interest, drawing upon my experience, prior to entering parliament, as a senior executive in a large telecommunications company responsible for the legal and regulatory functions of that company. At that company, Optus, which serves around seven million customers on a daily basis, there is a need to deal with the legal and regulatory obligations imposed upon the company by both national law and state and territory law. The matrix of obligations is a complex one and complying with it involves the application of very extensive resources. I know well from my responsibilities over that period that significant costs and frustrations are imposed upon business and consumers through having to deal with multiple sets of inconsistent laws seeking to regulate the same activities. The efficiency benefits of standardising the law nationally are very considerable. In the case of large businesses with standard form contracts, which are used to serve millions of customers all around Australia in the six states and two territories, the cost consequences of having different laws are significant and the benefits to be secured, if the law is standardised, are equally significant.

To give one example, it was frequently a requirement when a customer was connecting and taking a product from the company that the customer service representative, after interacting with the customer on the phone, would then play a recording to the customer or read out key standard terms giving effect to the legal and regulatory obligations on the company, ensuring that the customer was fully informed of the key aspects of the contract that he or she was about to enter into.

When you consider the hundreds of thousands of customer interactions which occur every year there are substantial cost savings if even a 30-second reduction in that customer interaction can be achieved and, conversely, there are substantial cost burdens if that customer interaction is extended by a further 30 seconds, especially when multiplied by the hundreds of thousands of interactions that occur.

There was a specific instance some years ago of the confusion caused by the inconsistent requirements of multiple jurisdictions when the Victorian government introduced a new law dealing with unfair terms in contracts. At that point telecommunications companies were subject to not only the requirements in the Trade Practices Act but also the requirements in the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code, which is registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and has the force of law under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act.

The standard form contracts used by all the major telecommunications companies had been carefully developed to achieve compliance with the obligations imposed on those companies under the Trade Practices Act and under the industry-specific code. Unfortunately, the legislation introduced by the Victorian government was at odds with the existing arrangements. Therefore, telecommunications companies offering national services were required to negotiate with Consumer Affairs Victoria regarding the application of the new Victorian laws and the expectation of that particular department that standard form contracts would be changed to meet obligations applicable in Victoria.

To give just one example of the ways in which the expectations of Consumer Affairs Victoria as to the application of the Victorian legislation caused difficulty and confusion for a national company, there was a specific issue faced by Optus, which, unlike Telstra, does not have identical and uniform fixed line networks across Australia. Instead, the company serves several hundred thousand Australian households in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane using the HFC, or hybrid fibre coaxial, network, which offers broadband and other services. Elsewhere in Australia the company uses different networks, including reselling Telstra services in some places and using something called the unconditioned local loop service in other places. The consequence of this is that Optus—and this is true of other telecommunications companies as well—is not able to offer the same service in every location. This became a point of considerable discussion between that company and the consumer affairs department in Victoria, which took the view that if a customer disconnected from the network and moved to a new location then the customer should be provided with identical terms, even if the customer was moving to a location where Optus did not have the HFC network operational and was therefore physically unable to deliver the same services that it had previously delivered to the customer in his or her previous location.

I raise this issue not to canvass the merits of it one more time but because it is a good example of the costs that are imposed on business in dealing with multiple inconsistent regulatory requirements covering the same area—in this case, the protection of consumers from matters such as unfair terms and unconscionable terms—when a national company is required to operate under regimes which are not always consistent. I am disappointed to have to record that the attitude of the officials of Consumers Affairs Victoria was in no way sympathetic to the difficulties faced by a national company. It was clear that they regarded that as being wholly outside their remit and not something that concerned them at all.

It is therefore, I think, very encouraging that we have now policy going in a different direction and that we are seeing the introduction of a national regime which addresses the difficulties of the kind that I have talked about, difficulties that were well summed up in a paper published in 2008 by the Business Council of Australia, which stated:

… doing business across Australia is made unnecessarily confusing, complex and costly by the inability of governments to make adequate progress in harmonising and rationalising existing regulation.

I have given a very good example of the way that difficulty applied in one particular industry. Standardisation therefore is a very desirable goal and one that I very much support.

I do think it is important that, to the extent that this legislation should also involve any extension of existing consumer protection arrangements, those are properly justified in accordance with standard cost-benefit methodology. In that regard I note that, in a couple of areas at least, the bills as originally presented tended to overreach, although I would acknowledge that the government has generally been receptive to amendments proposed by the coalition to rectify such overreach.

This bill, as I have mentioned, is the second of a package of three and deals with implementing a national consumer law regime in relation to such matters as misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, unfair practices, consumer transactions, statutory consumer guarantees, a standard consumer product safety law and product related services.

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, having reviewed the legislation, made a number of sensible recommendations, with the support of coalition senators, and the consequence has been the need for some amendments to this bill. It is unfortunate that aspects of the consultation process have been rather rushed, and regrettably this does appear to be a consistent feature of the way the present government approaches the legislative process. Happily, on this occasion the coalition has been able to identify some of the errors which occurred and suggest corrective measures, which have in large part—not entirely but in large part—been accepted.

One of the specific issues that we pointed out is that, under the law as it presently stands, any goods purchased below a certain value, which is currently set at $40,000, are taken to be consumer goods regardless of the purpose for which they are purchased. The consequence of that is that the present law affords protection to small businesses, which in many cases will be purchasing goods below that value. The bill as drafted proposed to change this and impose an additional requirement that, for the legislative protections to apply, the goods must be purchased for a personal, household or domestic purpose. I am pleased to note that the government has accepted the coalition’s suggestion that the status quo on this point should be maintained.

We have also raised concerns about the way in which an exemption which presently applies to architects and engineers was proposed to be removed in the bill that was before the House. There was inadequate consultation about this removal. We are pleased that the government has now accepted the point made by the coalition that the exemption which it was proposing to remove should in fact be retained.

The coalition also raised concerns about product reporting, particularly the incident based nature of the approach which is proposed in the legislation. We proposed an alternative, that being a risk based approach, and we continue to believe that that would be a superior approach. We acknowledge, however, that the government has to some extent taken account of the arguments raised by the coalition and has agreed to make changes to the incident based approach to appropriately narrow its scope.

One issue that has been discussed in the process of the legislation moving through the House is the question of the existence of industry-specific regimes, and this brings me back to the topic that I addressed when I was speaking earlier. In the telecommunications industry, there is a set of industry-specific consumer regulations, and there are other industries—such as the banking industry with the Banking and Financial Services Ombudsman—which have similar industry-specific consumer protections.

I note that clause 65 of the bill would allow for the creation of regulations to exempt gas, electricity and telecommunications from the ‘fitness for purpose’ provisions. As I understand it, this is designed to recognise the existence of industry-specific regulation. Members of the telecommunications industry have raised a question about the interaction of the new legislation with existing industry-specific regulation, and there is certainly a serious policy question to be asked. If we are purporting to cover the field with universally applicable consumer regulation, it does raise a question as to the appropriateness of existing industry-specific regulation. Conversely, to the extent that there is industry-specific regulation which deals with the particular complexities of products and services delivered by particular industries—and, again, I gave an example of that earlier—there may well be a logic for the proposal to allow for exemptions. I note that the chair’s report from the Senate committee expresses some caution on this point, stating:

The Committee recommends caution in applying exemptions to telecommunications services, in particular telephone services, to remote areas and other types of connection problems in the ordinary course of business.

I would suggest that the policy in this area has not been fully developed and there is a need to more carefully consider the appropriate interaction of uniform consumer legislation which is designed to cover the field and the needs of specific industries such as telecommunications and banking. That involves asking whether the existing industry-specific regulation remains appropriate. If it is concluded that it does remain appropriate, it certainly raises the question of whether sufficient care has been given to address any inconsistencies between the industry-specific regime and the uniform legislation designed to cover the field.

In closing, I think it is important that we acknowledge the role of the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the role of the coalition government in initiating a process which is designed to deliver greater efficiencies for business, particularly business which operates on a nationwide basis, while at the same time protecting consumers and offering appropriate and widely available consumer protections, recognising the well-understood case that consumers engaging in contracting with businesses of any kind need to ensure that their rights are protected and any imbalance in bargaining power is not taken advantage of. I believe that to move to a uniform approach nationally rather than the previous approach, under which the legislation of states and territories in some ways conflicted with federal legislation and under which there were troubling inconsistencies in regulation covering the same territory, is a sensible move which will achieve greater efficiency for business and, therefore, economic advantages while at the same time maintaining the protections for consumers, which are very important in ensuring confidence on the part of consumers in engaging with suppliers of goods and services which they acquire on a day-to-day basis.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010. I would like to start off by congratulating all of those involved in the moulding of these new laws and the reformation of existing laws in such a way as to make producing, selling and buying easier and more straightforward throughout Australia for the consumer. This bill is the second half of a package of legislation put to this parliament by the government in the formation of a single national law on consumer protection. It comprises elements of 17 existing laws around the country. It is 17 bits and pieces of legislation from the states, territories and Commonwealth which have been rolled up into one national Australian consumer law. Further to the work of the government in the drafting of the bill, we have had the input from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and additional recommendations that have been made by the coalition senators.

The government has taken on these positive, very constructive contributions, and it is pleased that they are to be reflected in the final Australian consumer law. I am pleased that the opposition senators have expressed a favourable predisposition towards the intent of this bill and that they have recommended that it be passed by the parliament. This is, of course, for a very good reason. The Productivity Commission has stated that streamlining these myriad laws into one consistent Australian consumer law applied universally throughout Australia will save our economy some $4.5 billion a year in compliance costs and waste minimisation. That is almost $5 billion simply from getting the whole country on the same page using the same legislation: the Australian consumer law. This is just one element of a highly significant remodelling of the Australian business landscape that this Labor government has undertaken and is making terrific progress in achieving.

The remodelling is the removal of barriers to business activity across our country, the removal of the myriad details which businesses have previously had to wade through and the removal of compliance costs of these obstructions which have been characteristic of doing business in Australia since colonial times. This pro-business, pro-consumer, commonsense government has been consolidating myriad laws around the country, laws which are typically the same in terms of purpose and desired outcomes within respective jurisdictions but still cost unnecessary additional time and unnecessary energy in compliance. Myriad laws affecting the practice of doing business in Australia are being consolidated. They are being morphed into one single, national, universal Australian law which removes the unnecessary additional costs to interstate businesses and creates a smooth and more cost-effective, business-friendly service in which to work and achieve.

A seamless national economy is the target, establishing Australia as a place with one set of laws under which to conduct business. There are 27 areas of regulatory reform on which the government, with the states and territories, has been working to unify our national economy, 27 reforms to reduce waste and better enable people to get on with the job they do best, professional accreditation, an environmental assessment, occupational health and safety approvals, rail safety, unifying trustee corporations, mortgage broking and margin lending laws, and development and construction. The list goes on, with 27 areas of regulatory reform which I expect the opposition cannot help but support.

Consumer protection has always been a hot topic. Something like one in four phone calls to my electorate office deals with consumer issues. I receive in the electorate of Hindmarsh many calls which are connected to consumer protection. Whether the matter deals with telcos or with banks, a new vehicle or some other transaction, the constituents in my electorate know that they should be able to have an expectation that contracts do not deceive or manipulate and that contracts entered into give them what they understand they have requested and agreed to. It is very simple: what they have requested and what they agreed to, no more and no less. There is an overwhelming belief in the notion of fairness across South Australia, my home state, and I am sure that in the rest of the country people expect a fair deal. Often, regrettably, a fair deal is difficult to realise. I applaud the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon. Lindsay Tanner, and the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, the Hon. Craig Emerson—the good doctor—for their ongoing work in this area, and of course the work of Chris Bowen also. People understand that simplicity and fairness in the realm of government can be a deceptively tall order, but the benefits extend beyond consumer contentment. As I have already reminded the House, some $4.5 billion worth of productivity increases will stem from this Australian consumer law alone.

Those opposite know how low Australian workplace productivity improvements had sunk over the previous decade. From the best practice productivity increases of 2.5 per cent to 3.3 per cent per year in the 1990s, the previous administration presided over the loss of so much of that competitive edge and advantage which businesses had racked up under the Hawke-Keating government. We were becoming slower, sloppier and consequently poorer as a nation and as a workforce, and throughout most of the life of the Howard government our competitiveness, our job security and our pay packets were becoming comparatively smaller year by year. There is absolutely no doubt that this is unsustainable and has to be corrected—that is self-evident. That it has fallen on a reformist Labor government to correct this dissent and decay is no surprise. If there is going to be substantial reform in this country aimed at doing better, working smarter for the greater reward or establishing the mechanisms for the public desire to save, invest and provide for our future, it is typically a Labor government that will deliver.

Reworking the business landscape to reduce the compliance costs of doing business across state borders—that is one thing. Reworking the health landscape to improve efficiencies for and accountability to the Australian public—only Labor is capable of that. Reducing company tax, for example, from 30 per cent to 28 per cent in the short term—yet another of Labor’s pro-business, especially pro-small-business, policies—is only being supported by Labor. Having greater incentives for new investment in job creation, reworking the mining taxation system to tax profits instead of activity, to tax the most profitable more and the least profitable less—should we hope for anything less in that segment of our taxation system?

The opposition’s great push was for the regressive GST, taxing those with the least capacity to pay the greatest proportion of their disposable income. Now, again, they are proposing a schismatic shift. They are saying we should keep taxing those who do not make a profit and lower the tax paid by those who make the biggest profits of all. In the public debate whirling around us over taxation, we have proposed government action to improve businesses’ capacity to survive and prosper. Those who oppose for the sake of it want to slug the poorest mining companies—those at most risk of shedding jobs and wasting plant and equipment, most at risk of going belly up and contributing nothing to our national economy—the same as the biggest mining companies with the biggest profits in the world.

That is what the Liberals do and that is what the opposition have been doing. They skew the system to protect the biggest businesses of all and forget the rest, forget the entrepreneurs, forget the start-ups, forget the new ventures, forget the new ideas and industry spin-offs, and forget the job creation. Typically, when it comes to economic reform and making the Australian business landscape fairer and more productive, they simply do not care. But I am pleased that, on this occasion, there has been a lack of obstruction for the sake of it and a collaborative effort where both sides of parliament have contributed meaningfully.

I commend this bill to the House. I commend this government to consumers around the nation. And I welcome the improvements to fairness, clear contracts, consumer protection and a seamless national economy that are just some of the results of this Labor government’s action in bringing the Trade Practices Act into the 21st century.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I want to take this opportunity to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010. This represents the final step at the Commonwealth level to implement the most significant reforms in consumer laws in more than 30 years since the passage of the Trade Practices Act. This important reform of the Council of Australian Governments will bring about benefits of up to $4.5 billion a year for Australian consumers and businesses. The government, with the cooperation of our state and territory colleagues, Labor and Liberal, is on track to create a single national consumer law by 1 January 2011.

On 18 March 2010 the bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The committee received more than 40 submissions from stakeholders and members of the public. I thank the committee for its deliberations on this bill. On 21 May 2010 the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The committee and coalition members also made a number of other recommendations. The government has considered these recommendations and, after constructive discussions with the opposition, will move amendments in the Senate to address their concerns.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the shadow minister for consumer affairs, the member for Cowper, and the shadow minister for competition policy, the member for Dunkley, who is here in the chamber with us this evening, for their very constructive approach to the development of this legislation. I found the report of the Senate economics committee to be a valuable contribution. We have implemented a large number of the recommendations of the coalition members of that committee because they were developed with a constructive approach to seek to improve the law, and I thank the Senate economics committee and the coalition for their constructive approach to that. Often we have arguments about policy matters. Sometimes that is not so visible when we reach agreement, but it is very important because this is a major reform and a very important day as this legislation moves through the House of Representatives and towards the Senate. I understand it will be non-controversial legislation. Again, I thank the member for Cowper and the member for Dunkley for their contribution to that particular status of the bill, which gives it the maximum chance of passing during this session.

I want to also thank my colleagues on the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs for their hard work on the Australian Consumer Law over the past year, particularly at the meeting on 4 December 2009 which agreed to the content of this bill. I look forward to the start of next year, when all Australian consumers can enjoy the benefits of consistent rights, wherever they may be, and all Australian businesses can reap the benefits of a simplified, single national consumer law. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.