Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 relates to the component pricing requirement for the Australian Consumer Law. The bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to insert a regulation-making power to enable regulations to be made to exempt certain representations from the component pricing requirement of the Australian Consumer Law, which is schedule 2 of the CCA. The amendment will allow a regulation to be made to place restaurant and cafe menu surcharges for specific days outside component pricing requirement in the ACL. In May 2009, the Trade Practices Act was amended to stipulate that restaurants and cafes were required to incorporate any additional surcharges enterprises listed on menus. The ACCC advised:

No asterisks, no small print. You’ve got to have a separate menu with the prices clearly spelt out.

In other words, restaurateurs must pay inflated penalty rates. But, as they cannot make it known to the public that the inflated prices are down to the government forcing them to pay penalty rates, they must wear the disapproval of the public.

The proposal reflected in this bill was announced in the Australian government's response to the Productivity Commission's Annual review of regulatory burdens on business: business and consumer servicesresearch report 2010 on 13 September 2011. The amendment will enable regulations to be made that will reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses in the restaurant and cafe sector, as identified in the Productivity Commission report. The bill we debate today is not here because the government is the champion of red tape reduction. Today's debate is due to tenacious representation by industry, in particular from John Hart of Restaurant and Catering Australia. As articulated in the coalition's deregulation reform discussion paper of November last year, the Productivity Commission has estimated that reducing the burden of red tape could generate as much as $12 billion in extra gross domestic product each year. I am glad the government has finally gotten around to actioning this undertaking. I hope it signals that this government is finally waking up to the issues of red tape. The slowness of the government introducing even this small token towards red-tape reduction highlights that red-tape reduction is a low priority on its list. That is in stark contrast to the actions of the coalition.

I draw the attention of the House to a couple of examples of where restaurants have fallen foul of the ACCC over restaurant menus: Georges Bar and Grill, Brighton-Le-Sands and Steersons Steakhouse. In September 2010, the ACCC instituted proceedings against four cafes and restaurants for alleged breaches of the component-pricing law by failing to include Sunday and/or public holiday surcharges in their menu prices, involving the restaurants I have named. The ACCC alleged that traders breached section 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which requires businesses show a part of the price payable for a product or service and also provide a single total price for that product or service. The ACCC sought declarations, injunctions, civil penalties and costs. Although the ACCC now claims it was only doing what it felt it had to do, the officiousness displayed by the ACCC in driving media attention tells a much different story. The ACCC indicated this in its media release:

On 28 June 2010, the ACCC issued Infringement Notices to eight traders for having menus that it had reason to believe did not comply with component pricing laws on 20 June 2010. Four traders paid the Infringement Notice and no further action was taken. The court actions are against those who failed to pay the Notice.

The clear message was this: rollover and cop it, and you will endure no more hardship than continued red tape pressure; oppose it and defend your business from ridiculous red tape, and face the full force of the ACCC pursuing the maximum penalties available to it under the law. The traders which paid the infringement penalty notices included Belluci's here in Manuka, an excellent restaurant known to most members of the House and one of Canberra's best establishments, renowned for its great Italian food and its extensive wine list. But returning to the restaurant example in Brighton-Le-Sands where they in breach of the all-inclusive pricing laws with their menus, this bill finally deals with the matter they fought for and is a victory for the proprietor.

This bill needs to be passed so another public holiday does not go by and create some sense of confusion for business operators and consumers. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand so businesses and consumers are no longer confused on how the surcharge applies and businesses can apply it in the correct manner. I am glad the government has finally gotten around to actioning this undertaking. As the member for Wentworth said in this place the other day during the MPI, this government would put an 'arthritic snail to shame' such is the glacial pace in which it discharges its responsibilities. It is slow to act and the people who pay the price are business people. This government is all too quick with a flashy announcement and a immediate release but slow to follow through with legislation unless it is a bill that guarantees a newspaper headline.

The restaurant and catering sector have been waiting since September 2011 for the government to bring this legislation forward following the government's announcement—almost two years to follow through on fairly straightforward matters. At that time, I welcomed the announcement the government would be removing the burden on restaurants and cafes to provide separate menus on weekends and public holidays that incorporate service charges. This is a policy change that the coalition have been advocating for quite sometime, along with major tourism, catering and hospitality services peak bodies. Two years ago, my release said: 'Today's action is long overdue'. Two years and six months ago, the ACCC issued fines ranging from $6,000 to over $20,000 against restaurants that were non-compliant, with the commission arguing that it was compelled to do so under the law. As I said in my media release at the time, this is a government that burdens small business with bundles of red tape and then claims to be their champion when they remove it.

Whilst this change to the Australian Consumer Law is welcome, I urge the government to continue to find other ways to lift red tape on struggling restaurants and hotels. Restaurants are subject to costs and adverse policies that hamper their ability to grow and to hire more staff. A second week has been spent on menus for what is only a relatively minor issue when compared to other costs faced by the restaurant and catering industry. Ay far the most effective thing the government could do would be to drop its carbon tax. The restaurant and catering sector is one of the most exposed Australian industries under Labor's carbon tax plan. Restaurants and cafes stand to pay significantly more to run their dishwashing machines, ovens, lights, vacuum cleaners and office equipment should Labor's carbon legislation continue. Additional costs built into the cost of food inputs could see many restaurants and cafes around Australia close.

So it is appropriate that the House consider in the context of this bill the underlying reasons why Australian restaurants need to charge a surcharge on public holidays. There are many but it is particularly twofold: the high cost of labour, including especially the business cost of weekend penalty rates, and the fact that Australia does not have a tipping culture.

On 5 September 2012 ABC radio in Hobart broke the news that the now former tourism minister, the member for Batman, backed a penalty change push:

The Federal Tourism Minister hopes a review of awards by Fair Work Australia will ease wage pressures on the hospitality sector.

Martin Ferguson told delegates at a national hospitality conference in Hobart he has received many appeals from businesses struggling to pay weekend loadings and penalties.

He said weekend and public holiday ''penalty on penalty" issues were a major obstacle for the industry in challenging economic times.

The minister said it was important the penalty provisions were considered in Fair Work Australia's review which was expected to be completed by the end of the year.

This sort of practical, business minded approach by the member for Batman was the cause of plaudits given to him on both sides of this House upon his announcement that he would not contest the next election.

In relation to weekend penalty rates, which are one of the main reasons why restaurants have to put surcharges on their menus on Sundays and public holidays, the then tourism minister told ABC radio:

"That would go a long way to satisfying some of the difficulties that they've got at this particular point …

"I hope the bench of Fair Work Australia has given proper regard to the input of the tourism industry in this context because I understand that is the key issue to industry at this point in time."

As I said, the main reason why there is a surcharge needed on restaurant menus on Sundays and public holidays is the increased penalty rates that operations are faced with.

In the moments left to me, I will point to another reason why penalty rates need to be addressed. The tourism industry is a predominantly Friday, Saturday, Sunday and public holiday industry. That is when its peak operational periods occur. It is just strange that during that peak operational period the wage costs are so expensive. A lot of operators, particularly in rural and regional areas, shut down on Sundays and public holidays. There is no tourism pleasure in taking a trip away on an extended weekend where you travel on the Friday night to book into your accommodation and go out on Saturday to have your meal and then get up on the Sunday and have to go in search of a cafe or restaurant open, only amplified on the long weekend Monday. As I said, this does not happen so much in the cities as in rural and regional Australia. Tourism is all about the experience. If people go on a holiday weekend, in particular, and there is nowhere open for them to have their lunch or dinner or for entertainment then it is not a good experience and the reality is that people will not come back. They will also spread the word that the town, business or area is not open to business.

I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be a serious review by Fair Work Australia about how we can engage more Australians into work, and that includes the restaurant and catering industry. One of the ways of doing that is by addressing the issue of penalty rates for the tourism sector, which relies on people to stay open at an affordable rate on Sundays and public holidays. I commend this Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 to the House. It is just disappointing for the restaurant and catering industry in particular that it has taken so long—over two years—to get to this point and that penalties have had to be paid and people have struggled to stay in business.

Sitting suspended from 13:44 to 15:30

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to insert a regulations-making power to enable regulations—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Pr oceedings suspended from 15:37 to 15:52

I am speaking on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to insert a regulation making power to allow regulations to be made to exempt certain representations from the component pricing requirement in the Australian Consumer Law. This amendment will allow a regulation to be made to place restaurant and cafe menu surcharges for specific days outside the component pricing required by the Australian Consumer Law.

For the background to this amendment we have to go back to May 2009 when the Trade Practices Act was amended by this government to put in a clause which stipulated that restaurants and cafes were required to incorporate any additional surcharges into their listed prices on menus. As the ACCC advised at the time, no asterisks, no small print—you have got to have a separate menu with prices spelt out. The bill that this government brought in was clearly an overkill. It was just another example of the red tape this government has brought in which is strangling small business. At the time that regulation was brought in we already had a provision to deal with this, which was section 52 of the old Trade Practices Act. This section is a catchall section which provides that a person must not in trade or commerce engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. So if a business was using component advertising and prices that were misleading, we already had legislation in place that would have captured that activity. But this government thought it was necessary to bring in additional legislation, and now we see the unintended consequences and the damage and harm done to small business.

But at least I will give them some credit. On this occasion they have learned the error of their ways and they are fixing this problem, this mess they have created. First, it should never have been brought in. Even if there were any examples where we see advertising of cheap fare for holidays where the component pricing was built as a little surcharge down the bottom, it was longstanding and it was an uncontroversial practice within the hospitality industry for the percentage surcharge on public holidays, weekends and other special occasions. What they did was have all these small businesses that were doing the right thing and had been doing the right thing find they were in breach of the law even though they were not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

What did we see as a result? We saw the ACCC, with not a great record of doing the right thing by small business, going after a series of small businesses. In September 2010 the ACCC said it had instituted proceedings against four cafes and restaurants alleging that they had breached the Trade Practices Act. This attack on small business was severely criticised for the Restaurant and Catering Association's John Hart. He said at the time:

Our board is absolutely furious with the way this has been dealt with. There is much more anti-competitive behaviour and yet so many bigger players get away totally unscathed. Because they will not pick a fight with them—

referring to the ACCC—

they go after the smaller players.

That appears to be exactly what happened. One of the small business owners that the ACCC went after for engaging in this terrible activity against the laws that this Labor government brought in said:

There was no warning and it has not been publicised. It was not publicised through our association. No-one called and we did not receive any correspondence. All we received was an infringement notice and they expect us to pay it now without any warning.

This is just another example of how small businesses have been unfairly treated under this government.

What is also interesting is that at the very same time as the ACCC was going after these small businesses, these small cafe owners that were committing this hideous crime of putting on the bottom of their menus a 10 per cent surcharge on public holidays—like they have probably been doing for a long time, probably for generations—the ACCC was letting some of our largest corporations get away with some of the most egregious acts. In fact one of our largest supermarket chains, at exactly the same time that ACCC was proceeding these, had large signs up in their stores saying 'low prices that you can count on'. They were engaging in the most aggressive examples of geographic price discrimination, charging 100 per cent higher prices in one store than they were in stores a few kilometres away. Where those prices were higher, they had these big signs up to assure the consumer 'trust us, these are low prices that you can count on'. The ACCC decided to take no action on that yet would go after these small businesses. That is the mess this government has caused.

That is not all we have seen from the ACCC. The ACCC may very well argue that it has to enforce the law that has been legislated by this parliament. That is a fairly legitimate argument. But if that is the case, why has the ACCC not brought one single case on what is known as the 'Birdsville amendment' to amend our laws on predatory pricing since it was legislated at the end of the Howard-Costello government? Not one single case has been brought on. The ACCC was prepared to not look at that law and not to legislate and prosecute on that law but to go after these poor small businesses. Thankfully, this amendment will fix this problem.

There are many reasons that small businesses, cafes and restaurants might legitimately want to put a surcharge on their price. It could be for the extra costs of employing staff on the weekends, which is sometimes a legitimate cost, but what about a carbon tax surcharge? Restaurants can put on the bottom of their menu 'additional surcharge for carbon tax'.

We know the carbon tax is only $23 at the moment. We know in about three short weeks the carbon tax goes up. It increases next year as well and then we morph to the ETS. We have seen the Treasury projections and this government hopes that under its plans the carbon tax, which is now $23 a tonne, will go to $350 a tonne. What costs will this add to small business? Small business may well have to have a 100 per cent surcharge because of the increased electricity prices when the carbon tax reaches $350 a tonne.

Another surcharge small business might want to put on is a Labor debt repayment surcharge—because somebody is going to have to repay that debt. We know from information released a few days ago in Senate estimates that the Christmas present that this government will leave under the tree for every Australian will be a debt of $290 billion. This government will leave this debt as a Christmas present under the tree. When we look through the budget papers we remember that over this year and over the next four years, clearly detailed in budget papers, the interest payments on that debt will be 34½ billion dollars.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have all been very generous in allowing the member to engage in a wide-ranging discussion. But he is now going well and truly beyond matters of relevance to this bill.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Hughes that this is about the Competition Consumer Amendment Bill 2013. Please stick with this bill.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill enables restaurants and cafes to apply a surcharge on to their menus. I am going through some of the best possible things that small businesses, restaurants and cafes the surcharges may have to apply.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member should be very careful. The sort of guidance he is seeking to provide to small businesses is verging on encouraging them to engage in conduct that is actually prohibited under Australian consumer law. He should stick to the matters that are the subject of this bill, which relate to surcharges for cafes and restaurants.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes has the call.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member makes a reasonable point, which I would like to comment on. They have often scared business about putting their prices up. Small businesses operate in a very competitive environment, especially cafes and restaurants. If they put their prices up they will lose customers. So no small business wants to put surcharges on the menu because they know that risks customers going to other businesses. It is a very competitive environment, but we cannot have the minister coming in here and creating a false impression that small businesses are able to increase their prices as long as they can justify it and it is not misleading. It gets back to the point of this bill. The mistake was the original bill that this bill is amending. We had a catch-all provision under the old section 52 and it was not necessary.

I am happy to leave my comments there. The coalition is pleased to support this amendment because it undoes one of the most disastrous policies of this government we have seen. I am sure that after September 14 there will be many other examples as we start to undo the damage that this government has done.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all have small businesses in our electorate. My electorate is a regional electorate. There is a concern. I have recently been to hotels in regional Victoria where they all had a surcharge on Sunday. You walk past to the next one and on Sunday there is a surcharge there too. I do not think any of these people would know they are breaking the law. They are just trying to survive on a Sunday.

This bill goes a long way to sort that out. I think it was an unintended consequence. In our approach to every piece of legislation we need to look at unintended consequences. Having said that, I still have a problem with the difficulties regional restaurants and tourism operators have with Sunday and public holiday penalty rates.

Last Sunday morning I was watching what was happening in the breakfast restaurant Bronwyn and I were in and it was very clear that the family was working. There might have been one staff member there when there is normally five. It is a very busy place. They do a great job. I will not name them because they are not in my electorate. Clearly, the whole family was working on Sunday because it is just too expensive for them to pay staff on Sunday mornings. It is interesting that when the family is there the babies are there because there is nobody left to babysit so they have to bring their kids into the restaurant, which made it more pleasurable for me to see these beautiful young children of the owners of the restaurant in the morning in that place. But I think if they had their way they would rather they were not there on Sunday morning. They would rather that they were able to employ their staff on a Sunday morning. Because of the politics of the day, really, nobody is saying anything about these issues, except they affect real people on a daily basis wherever I go.

I had a delegation come to my office. That does not happen very often. A delegation of restaurateurs and tourism operators came to me to ask, 'Do you understand, Russell?' Having been in small business nearly all of my life except for the last few years, I said, 'Yes, I do understand the cost of wages. I am a person who laid awake at night wondering how I was going to pay them on a Thursday sometimes. There have been tight times over the years. I understand how these people were feeling. They were saying, 'We're working flat out. We want this to succeed. We give people work on the weekends, but we only open in the country areas on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and, if it is a long weekend, Monday.'

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:10 to 16:32

As I was saying before the division, since the year 1934, small business and medium-sized business have been good to my family through generations of pub owners, grocers, mercers, drapers, hardware merchants, general store owners and others. For all those generations, small business has been good to our family, and I am a product of those generations. Having said that, over the time that we are in this House we all have an obligation, everyone of us, to look to small businesses. Why? Because, at the business's largest point, I had 40 people in my employ and those 40 people were family to me, and I wanted to do the best for my family and the best for their families I could possibly do.

In conclusion, we have a responsibility to make sure every small business entrepreneur can do the best they can with the opportunities that they are given. Small business has been good to me; I want to be good to small business; and I want this government, and any future government, to be good to small business.

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

The purpose of the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 is—remarkably, under the present government—to reduce in a minor way the regulatory burden which applies to a small category of small businesses. You will appreciate the incredulity and, at the same time, the sense of relief with which we on this side respond to this unexpected, but nevertheless welcome, recognition by the government of the importance of reducing the regulatory burden wherever possible.

The particular effect of this bill is in relation to the restaurant and café businesses. Anybody who has ever been to a restaurant or café, and happily that is just about everybody, would recognise that these are very tough businesses to run. The hours are long and unsociable. When everybody else is relaxing and enjoying some convivial time with family and friends, you as the restaurant or café owner or proprietor or staff member, are hard at work. It is a very, very competitive business. New restaurants and cafes open all the time. Restaurants and cafes are all too frequently going out of business.

It is a business where the margins are very slim indeed. The pressures on people who run a hospitality business—a restaurant, a café or similar such businesses—are extraordinary. The standard of food, wine, catering, service, and hospitality that we in modern Australia have come to expect and take for granted from the restaurant industry, the café industry or the catering industry is truly extraordinary.

I want to take a moment before I turn to the substantive provisions of this bill to express my appreciation and admiration for the small business people who every day open their café or their restaurant and carry out another day's work in providing excellent service to their customers, in creating a convivial environment where people can, in the time-honoured phrase, eat, drink and be merry and in offering a standard of food and wine which no other nation can equal. I put it to you Madam Deputy Speaker that no other Australian ever has the experience of going to another country and saying, 'Gee, their food's a lot better than ours.' No Australian ever has that experience. No Australian ever has the experience of going to another country and saying, 'Gee, their food's fresher than ours, isn't it? Gee, the quality we're experiencing of this fruit and these vegetables is better than we are used to at home.'

The quality that we have in the restaurant and catering sector is absolutely extraordinary and we do not often enough take the time to acknowledge the excellence which has been achieved in that industry. Nor do we often enough stop as regulators, as lawmakers, to think about the many daily impediments, burdens and challenges which those operating restaurant and catering businesses face.

One of those challenges has been the operation of a very detailed provision of what used to be called the Trade Practices Act, which has now changed to the Competition and Consumer Act. A very detailed provision was added to that act in 2009 which made it more difficult for restaurant and café owners who were carrying out what was a fairly common practice in that industry, for perfectly good reason, to specify on their menus that a surcharge applied on particular days—weekends and public holidays. As a result of the amendments to the act which were made in 2009, introducing a so-called component pricing provision, it was made more difficult for restaurant and café owners to adopt this hitherto common practice in their industry.

It was no longer adequate under the changes that were made to the Trade Practices Act in 2009 for a restaurant or a cafe to have a menu which said, for example, that the beef burger cost $16 and then to put a note at the bottom of the menu saying that there was a 10 per cent surcharge on weekends and public holidays. That was no longer possible because to do so breached the component-pricing provisions in the Trade Practices Act.

Now, I do not doubt that the relevant officials who recommended this approach did not envisage that it would cause great difficulty. I do not doubt that they never took a moment to think through the practical implications for a small business person running a cafe or a restaurant and needing to deal with this in addition to customers; in addition to getting down to the markets early in the morning to buy produce; in addition to recruiting, hiring, training and retaining staff; in addition to coming up with menus that were attractive and met the needs of customers in a very competitive market; in addition to keeping their facilities clean, safe and compliant with all of the standards that properly apply in those areas; and in addition to keeping the accounts of their business, complying with their GST and business activity statement requirements and complying with their tax obligations. I do not doubt that it never occurred to the officials who recommended these provisions that this would be an additional, onerous burden on the small business people running restaurant catering operations.

I do not doubt that the officials who came up with this provision did so with good intentions, and that there was no malice in the fact that they simply failed to think through the practical day-to-day implications for a business owner in this very demanding and very competitive sector, with an extraordinary range of pressures. They failed to think through the practical implications of the component-pricing provisions, which required them to have now not one set of menus but two sets of menus: one set of menus showing that the beef burger was $16 during the week and another set showing that on the weekends it was, for example, $17.60.

But for the small business person running a restaurant or a cafe, very often with themselves as the only full-time staff member—perhaps a couple of part-time or casual employees or perhaps it is a family business with both husband and wife involved—the additional practical burden in these circumstances with the additional cost burden of producing and maintaining two sets of menus and two sets of printed menu boards in cases where restaurants have such boards outside, and all of the other complexities associated with that, represent an additional burden. Indeed, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association of Australia has estimated these costs per restaurant at between $8,000 and $10,000. That is a nontrivial amount of money for a small business operating, as restaurants and cafes often do, on very narrow margins.

In its annual review of regulatory burdens on business, the Productivity Commission in 2010 recommended that the Australian government should amend the Trade Practices Act to have restaurant and cafe menu surcharges for specific days placed outside the scope of the component-pricing provisions of that legislation. And it would seem that a miracle occurred, because it is not unreasonable to suspect, based upon this government's track record and approach, that an annual review of regulatory burdens on business is a document that would not be closely read by ministers in this government. I venture to suggest that it is a document that upon receipt would immediately be filed by most such ministers in the circular filing cabinet.

On this occasion, extraordinarily, and for reasons which we will not speculate about, the government has chosen to accept this recommendation. An exposure draft of the amendment that we are now contemplating was released in December 2012, and there followed after that an extensive period of public consultation before we reached the point at which the requisite number of jurisdictions agreed to amend the competition law.

It has taken a long time, and it should not be like this. It should not be that small businesses can have such onerous regulatory burdens placed upon them which, when weighed up against the public benefit, are difficult to justify. Of course, if people are to be charged more on weekends or on a public holiday, they ought to be notified of that. Of course, it would be inappropriate if a restaurant had a price on the menu but then unilaterally charged people more without notifying them of that. That is not the question. The question is whether that desirable policy outcome is satisfactorily achieved by the previous standard industry practice of noting on the menu that there was a surcharge on weekends, or whether it required the more onerous, prescriptive, detailed, expensive, time-consuming, burdensome regulatory requirement of specifying the specific prices and requiring two duplicate sets of menus for one restaurant, for one business.

Happily, sanity has prevailed. On this side of the House, the coalition is pleased to welcome and support this brief outburst of sanity from this government. The coalition has a strong commitment to the reduction of unnecessary red tape which impinges on business activity, which harms economic activity and in turn harms employment and the economic prospects and conditions faced by all Australians. We have a government today which purportedly is committed to reducing regulation, but instead the reality is that we have seen an explosion of red tape: some 21,000 new or amended regulations introduced, only 1,100 repealed.

I want to make a point which is relevant to the bill before us. This is a point which the shadow minister for small business makes repeatedly, eloquently and passionately. The burden of compliance with regulation falls heavily on large business, but it falls even more heavily on small business. Large businesses can afford a legal department. They can afford a compliance department. From my own experience as a senior executive of a large corporation with a team of some 18 lawyers employed by the company discharging the many regulatory and compliance obligations that we faced, I know that while this is burdensome for big business, it is more feasible to deal with than is the case for small business. In a small business, there is no legal department, there is no compliance department. There is very typically just one struggling person trying to serve customers and make a profit while dealing with a forest of burdensome regulatory requirements and the ever-growing ingenuity and creativity of this government and its officials in dreaming up yet more regulatory requirements to impose on business.

In the bill before the House this afternoon we have seen an unlikely and unexpected outbreak of sanity. On this side of the House, we welcome it. We wish simply that it were not a one-off.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all of those members who have contributed, especially the member for McMillan who is still here. I thank the member for Bradfield for his dynamic contribution. Made on a Thursday afternoon, it is as good as a coffee.

The Australian consumer law put in place by this government in 2011 provides Australian consumers with effective rights and protections wherever they are in Australia. It has delivered significant benefits to the national economy since its introduction. The Productivity Commission has estimated the total long-run prospective economic impacts of the Australian consumer law reform to be almost $1 billion annually. That is the sort of reform on a deregulatory front that those opposite seem determined to choose not to recognise.

The single pricing requirement in the ACL provides a fundamental protection for consumers. The requirement ensures that the most prominent price of a good or service displayed by a business is in fact the full price. The government recognises that restaurant and cafes are an essential part of the Australian economy and that it is important that these small businesses are not subject to any unnecessary regulatory burden. That is why this government is taking action to reduce regulation for small businesses by amending the single pricing provision to allow for a targeted exemption to be made for restaurant and cafe menu surcharges. This practical amendment will enable many venues that are open on weekends and public holidays to continue to provide valuable service to consumers in major cities and regional areas. The amendment will also ensure that consumers continue to have protection and clarity when it comes to ordering from menus.

There has been extensive consultation in relation to this bill and there is broad community and industry support for this change. I would like to thank all those who have made contributions to the consultation process, and I would also like to thank my colleagues in the states and territories for their ongoing cooperation. I simply note the contributions of others. I thank the member for Dunkley for his contribution. I note that the member for Hughes made some rather disturbing statements. It seems as though he believes that the correct process of law reform really requires a complete repeal of these provisions. He seems to think that reverting back to section 52 on its own would be the most effective and appropriate way of protecting consumers rights. If that is in fact his coalition policy then I think consumers should be very concerned about that. He, of course, will say that it is a matter they will discuss as part of their root and branch review. That root and branch review will be fun viewing, if that ever comes about because there is clearly a very strong divergence of views on the other side of the table. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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