Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports this bill. It helps to clarify, correct and strengthen Australia's consumer protection and product safety regime, and Labor has always backed measures that help and protect Australian consumers. Labor introduced the Trade Practices Act in 1974, the first consumer protection legislation for our nation, and Labor created the Australian Consumer Law, the ACL, in 2010. The federal Labor government, in negotiating the 2009 intergovernmental agreement on Australia's consumer protection arrangements which preceded the ACL, built in a requirement that the new laws be reviewed within seven years.

The bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations of that review. The ACL Review was commissioned in 2015, issued an interim report in December 2016, and submitted its final report to federal, state and territory consumer affairs ministers in March 2017. At their annual meeting in August 2017, these ministers agreed on 15 recommendations for implementation. A number of other recommendations were referred for further review, consultation or policy work. The measures in this bill have been agreed upon by state and territory consumer affairs ministers, and have been consulted on extensively, both through the Australian Consumer Law Review process and in an exposure draft, but the measures don't fully implement all provisions agreed by the government with the states.

Of the 15 agreed measures, 10½ are in this bill, one was legislated in a previous bill and two are expected to be enacted through regulation. The 10½ measures, in the order in which they appear in the bill, are based on the following recommendations from the ACL Review:

Proposal 17: Ease evidentiary requirements for private litigants through an expanded 'follow-on' provision enabling them to rely on admitted facts from earlier proceedings.

Proposal 9: Extend the ACL (and ASIC Act) unconscionable conduct protections to publicly-listed companies.

Technical Amendment (a): Amend the definition of 'unsolicited services' in section 2 of the ACL to allow the false billing provisions … to apply to false bills for services not provided.

The first half of proposal 12 by the ACLR clarifies that the 'unsolicited selling' provisions can apply in public places, not just at a residence or a workplace. It's unclear why the second half of proposal 12, which captures third-party lead generators under unsolicited selling provisions, wasn't included in this bill. The bill also implements the following recommendations:

Proposal 13: Enhance price transparency in online shopping by requiring that any additional fees or charges associated with pre-selected options are included in the headline price.

Proposal 8: Strengthen ACCC powers to obtain information about product safety, by broadening the power to apply to any person (including a consumer) likely to have relevant information, rather than just the supplier.

Proposal 11: Enable regulators to use existing investigative powers to better assess whether or not a term may be unfair.

Proposal 19: Allow third parties to give effect to a community service order under the ACL.

This can include when the offending party is not qualified or trusted to do so. An example is a community service order providing for financial counselling where it would be inappropriate for an offending financial service provider to conduct that counselling. The bill then addresses the following proposals:

Proposal 5: Clarify the scope of the exemption from the consumer guarantees for the transport or storage of goods where those goods are damaged or lost in transit.

Technical Amendment (b): Amend section 12DC of the ASIC Act to address terminology that is inconsistent with other consumer protection provisions in the ASIC Act and that may unintentionally narrow the scope of the provision.

This relates to the consumer protection laws around the sale or grant of land and will make terminology more consistent through the ASIC Act. And finally, the bill addresses recommendation 16:

Proposal 16: Amend the ASIC Act to clarify that all ACL-related consumer protections that already apply to financial services also apply to financial products.

There are three other proposals agreed by the federal, state and territory consumer affairs ministers which have been, or are expected to be, implemented through other legislative vehicles.

The ACLR proposal clarifies the mandatory text requirements for warranties against defects by developing specific services and services bundled with goods. This was included in the exposure draft of regulations that accompanied consultation on the bill. However, I note that the government is yet to indicate when they're likely to implement those regulations.

Proposal 18 increases the maximum financial penalties available under the ACL. Of course, Labor took this policy with a tenfold increase in maximum penalties for anti-consumer conduct to the last election. We've been calling on the Turnbull government to implement it as a matter of urgency. We were pleased when the government announced that it would adopt Labor's policy in the 2017 budget.

Legislation to implement the increased penalties was introduced into the House on 15 February this year, and ACLR technical amendment C amended section 76 of the ACL, or the regulations, to clarify that disclosure requirements for unsolicited conduct arrangements don't apply in certain exempt agreements. This corrects a drafting error that obliges gas and electricity suppliers to disclose information about cooling-off rights or unsolicited consumer agreement even in circumstances where those rights don't apply. This was included in the exposure draft of the regulations that accompanied consultation to the bill.

Here, again, the government have not given an indication of when they intend to implement those regulations, and we would be keen to hear from the assistant minister as to the intentions in relation to enacting that recommendation. This brings us to one-and-a-half agreed proposals that are outstanding. The second half of one proposal relating to unsolicited selling is simply nowhere to be seen. We don't know what the government are doing with that proposal. Another recommendation to strengthen product safety recalls was featured in the exposure draft but removed from the bill for unknown reasons. Only the assistant minister knows why this was removed and won't explain it.

ACLR proposal 7 clarifies and strengthens voluntary recall requirements by introducing a statutory definition of voluntary recall and increasing penalties for failure or refusal to notify a voluntary recall in line with other ACL penalties. These provisions were included in the exposure draft bill but have been excluded from the bill as presented to the parliament. Again, the assistant minister hasn't explained why this has happened. It's another no-show from the assistant minister on this issue. We don't know if the government has abandoned this change contrary to the agreement it struck with states and territories last year, or is it, like so many other consumer reforms that the government has put, on the backburner while Australian consumers pay more?

What we do know is that the assistant minister and the government in general have what we could say are complicated feelings when it comes to product recalls. The Turnbull government failed to explain why it took six months for a compulsory recall of the deadly Takata airbags. They were asleep at the proverbial wheel when it came to this issue. The potentially lethal Takata airbags have been found to have misfiring inflators capable of firing shrapnel through the vehicle's cabin. This means drivers and passengers were risking life and limb whenever they got into certain vehicles. The airbags can turn a minor incident into a fatal crash. Misfiring Takata airbags are believed to have killed over 20 people worldwide, including at least one Australian. The alpha airbags have been identified as particularly dangerous with a failure rate of one in two compared to a failure rate of one in 400 for other Takata airbag models.

It was in August last year that the ACCC told the House Standing Committee on Economics that the deadly risk associated with the Takata alpha airbags meant they needed to be replaced immediately. That was the evidence that was given by the representatives of the ACCC at that hearing. The chairman, Rod Sims, also revealed that, as the Takata recall was voluntary at the time, there was little enforcement action that could be taken to ensure that everything possible was being done to replace the airbags.

The following day Labor called on the minister responsible for product safety, the current Deputy Prime Minister, to use his emergency powers under section 132J of the Competition and Consumer Act. We called for an immediate issuing of a compulsory recall of Takata airbags, amid growing concerns about the inadequacy of the voluntary recall process and renewed urgency around the alpha type of airbags. The result: nothing. The government did nothing. It took another six months, until February 2018, for a compulsory recall to be issued. They were asleep at the wheel whilst Australians were unknowingly risking their lives. Every time a person got behind the wheel or was a passenger, they were in danger. One Australian had already died, and it took six months for the government to take any action. What was Minister McCormack waiting for?

Now I want to speak about proposal 12, which clarifies that the 'unsolicited selling' provisions capture suppliers in their negotiations with consumers where suppliers obtain from a third party—sometimes referred to as a lead generator—a consumer's contact details or permission to be contacted. This wasn't even included in the exposure draft of the bill, and again we await an explanation as to why. It's yet another sign, as if we needed more, of the government's half-hearted approach to ensuring Australian consumer protections. Perhaps even saying 'half-hearted' may be generous. While the government make the right noises about reforms that were already in train or reviews that Labor started, in the end they always fall short. We've seen the government drag their feet on payday-lending reforms, we've seen them try to confuse consumers around measurement labelling, and we've heard nothing but talk in relation to improving consumer protections for retirement home residents. But Labor has been working to improve outcomes for Australian consumers—with or without the government.

There would be few better examples of the government's reluctance to improve protections for vulnerable consumers than their approach to payday lending and rent-to-buy schemes. We've seen these changes flicked back and forth between ministers and the assistant minister since the small-amount credit contract review reported in early 2016. Under amendments made by Labor in 2012 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, the government commissioned a review of small-amount credit contracts in 2015, which reported to the government in March 2016. The government's response was released in November 2016. Minister O'Dwyer indicated in February 2017 that drafting was underway, and we were told that the drafters were putting pen to paper to implement the SACC review's recommendations. But the following day, under questioning from Senator Katy Gallagher, Treasury revealed in estimates that the minister was incorrect and that drafting actually had not commenced. In the 2017 budget estimates, in May, Treasury again confirmed that drafting had not commenced around this particular reform. The former member for Perth, Tim Hammond, led a private member's motion debate about the SACC reforms in the Federation Chamber on 4 September last year. Then by late 2017, after responsibility for the reforms had been delegated to the Minister for Small Business—now the Deputy Prime Minister—the government released an exposure draft of the legislation. It meant to enact the recommendations of the SACC review and promised that the bill would enter the parliament by the end of that year. To date no legislation has been introduced and, following the December 2017 reshuffle, responsibility for these reforms has been brushed off to the member for Deakin.

Those on very low incomes have little or no capacity to absorb financial shocks. With little disposable cash after bills are paid and with little savings put away for a rainy day, one of the obvious options is a payday loan. We've all seen the TV ads. There's a profligacy of these payday lenders now springing up and using advertising—cash while you wait, and loans via apps. They're springing up everywhere.

There are also rent-to-buy schemes for consumer leases, under which a consumer will enter into an arrangement by which they rent a consumer good—a vacuum cleaner, a fridge or a dishwasher—from a company for a period, and at the end of the period they get to keep the good. This is becoming increasingly common with mobile phones. Labor recognises that these types of unconventional small-finance arrangements play a legitimate role in smoothing out the swings and roundabouts of modern life for low-income families. However, we do remain opposed to credit contracts that see some of the lowest income citizens being trapped in cycles of debt in which, if they don't meet the initial repayment obligations, they are forced to pay interest rates that often are in the hundreds of per cent when they come to paying back the debt. Cash loans are being described as leases to avoid caps on costs under national credit laws, and leases and loans have been given to people who already had financially crippling debt repayments for existing loans. Rent-to-buy contracts have ended up costing consumers over 800 per cent of the retail price of the good. Payday lenders are using loopholes to avoid having to follow the rules of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, and some providers have incorrectly used rent alone to calculate an applicant's expenses without taking into consideration grocery costs, bills and other cost-of-living items.

On the positive side, some small-amount credit contract providers have waived fees and created special payment plans for people in extreme circumstances. There are other options for those who need small loans. For example, the No Interest Loan Scheme makes loans of up to $1,000 available for low-income consumers. They are available via community organisations. NILS is operated by Good Shepherd Microfinance and is supported by the Australian government and the National Australia Bank.

But low-income consumers on fringe finance should not have to rely on credit companies' charity and goodwill. They need robust consumer protections. That's why in February Labor introduced the government's consultation draft of its payday lending reform bills as a private member's bill. The government was dragging its heels, and Labor came to the party and actually introduced the legislation—the exact same legislation—on behalf of the government. It shouldn't come to that. If the minister responsible was doing their job they wouldn't drag their heels. They would get this legislation into the parliament. Labor's payday lending private member's bill implements the government's own policy in relation to the reforms as expressed in its response to the SACC review over a year ago. As such, the bill must be supported by government members. It isn't just a stunt to get the government's failure to implement anything that looks remotely like an agenda; it's about having a heart and implementing the recommendations that have been agreed to by the council of ministers.

In summary, Labor supports the passage of this bill. We can't let it pass without noting that the government is failing in its responsibility to protect consumers and implement the recommendations of the reviews that have been undertaken and the agreements that have been made by the ministerial council through a COAG process. As is the case with payday lending reforms, we can only assume that the government is hoping that it can quietly sweep these policies—policies that the Deputy Prime Minister has already agreed to—under the carpet. Labor won't allow that. That's why we've introduced the private member's bill. That's why the government should bring that on for debate and finally allow and agree to these reforms going through the parliament.

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

I am pleased tonight to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018, which makes 11 rather detailed changes in relation to our competition laws. I would like to raise a few issues in relation to our competition laws and how these proposed amendments may affect some practical circumstance.

I will start with comments by Professor Judith Sloan written in The Australian about AGL, one of Australia's largest providers of electricity. Professor Sloan wrote:

… AGL is the biggest provider of coal-fired electricity in the country and more than 90 per cent of its (rising) profits is sourced from fossil fuels.

But we are still told to believe that the company is changing by moving into that rent-seeking space: renewables. But if you look at AGL’s profile of production, renewables are small beer and will remain so for a considerable period of time.

Now some might think hypocrisy by having to put up with the company’s marketing messages, egged on by a bunch of staffers some of whom have been trained by none other than Mr Inconvenient Truth himself, Al Gore.

But where you think hypocrisy, I think misleading and deceptive. I can’t believe that the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission hasn’t launched a case against AGL for using false information to attract customers. Surely a company that derives over 90 per cent of its profits from coal and gas can’t portray itself as green as grass.

She continues:

Its recent behaviour, its stated intentions to close Liddell (all 2000 megawatts) and comments from the Yank have all belled the cat for the public by exposing the distorted Australian electricity market as an expensive and unreliable racket. It is now clear that the government must act and this does not involve doling out even more favours to the unreliable renewables sector.

That is Professor Judith Sloan. In another article she also talks about AGL's plan to close down the Liddell coal-fired power station. Professor Sloan writes:

…when a company is planning to short the market and drive up prices, why would it accept a bid from a competitor to keep the Liddell plant in operation?

…   …   …

It's simply following the money trail, even if there are profoundly anti-competitive aspects to the way the company operates – its ownership of a dominant retail operation, for instance.

…   …   …

Most of the board wouldn't know the difference between a megawatt and a Gucci handbag.

…   …   …

Something doesn't ring true here. Liddell is so valuable that Alinta's bid of $250m is too low but it's too expensive to keep going. Politicians and consumers should smell a rat.

…   …   …

As events panned out, the ACCC was completely on the money and AGL is simply exercising its full market power to take low-cost coal electricity out of the market and partially replace it with unreliable renewable energy and a small amount of very expensive gas.

That brings me to a case a decade ago about how competition law can deal with such anticompetitive conduct. This was in Germany back in 2008. I'm reading from the European Commission's Competition policy newsletter about how German authorities acted with a large electricity generator that had shorted the market:

On 26 November 2008 the Commission adopted a commitment decision addressed to E.ON …

E.ON is the large electricity generator in Germany, with very equivalent circumstances to AGL's market, market share and control here. It goes on:

For the first time in the Commission's decision-making practice, the decision requires the company concerned to dispose of very significant assets: E.ON will have to divest 5,000 MW of generation capacity

…   …   …

The first case relates to the German electricity wholesale market and the concern that E.ON may have carried out a strategy of short-term capacity withdrawal and deterrence of investments in electricity generation by third parties.

That seems to ring a bell with exactly what is happening here in Australia. It goes on about their case:

Both reports identified the issue of capacity withholding as being the lowering of production capacity offered on the short-term market …

How did European competition law deal with such withdrawal of capacity? They go on:

The withdrawal of generation capacity on the electricity market by a dominant operator is considered an abuse of a dominant position and therefore contrary to Article 82—

of the European competition law. Further:

Such action causes serious harm to all groups of consumers by increasing the prevailing price on the spot market.

What does European competition law actually state? It says exactly this:

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market … shall be prohibited …

It goes on:

Such abuse may, in particular, consists in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

Critically, paragraph (b) reads:

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

So, under European competition law, it is illegal, it is prohibited, for a company with a dominant position to limit production to the prejudice of consumers.

We have seen from the comments of Professor Sloan that closing the Liddell Power Station will limit production to the prejudice of consumers. How will this work under Australian Competition Law? Previously, our competition law provided that a company with a substantial degree of market power could not take advantage of that power to eliminate or substantially damage a competitor, to prevent the entry of a person into that market, or to deter or prevent a person from engaging in competitive behaviour in that market or another market. Perhaps, under those terms, there could be a case made out that a company with a substantial degree of market power cannot limit production to the prejudice of consumers. However, we actually changed that law and now it provides:

A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose, or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition …

So the test in Australia is: does the conduct that we're looking at result in a substantial lessening of competition? Under European competition law, the test is limiting production to the prejudice of consumers.

I have had extensive discussions with the ACCC. They do not believe that they can prove the case that AGL closing Liddell, not selling it to a competitor and withdrawing that production capacity from the market would be a substantial lessening of competition. But if we had the provision in our competition law that the Europeans have, which says that, if you have a dominant position in the market, you cannot limit production to the prejudice of consumers, we would have a clear-cut case against AGL's conduct with Liddell. Make no mistake: what they are preparing to do will short the market. Yesterday they put out a replacement plan. But how can you equate the extra capacity they are putting into the market to the closing of Liddell and not the closing of the Northern Power Station or the closing of the Hazelwood Power Station? They've already exited from the market. How they can equate that to Liddell specifically is quite beyond me. If we look at the details of their replacement plan, yes, there may be an argument that they are replacing the same dispatchable capacity. But when you look at what they are planning to replace in dispatchable megawatt hours to the grid, their replacement plan will limit production by about 50 per cent.

We are not saying that AGL as a company should be forced to keep that plant open against their wishes, but if they have competitors in the market that are willing, able and prepared to buy that plant from them, I say they are actually engaging in conduct that will limit production, and it will be to the prejudice of consumers. If our existing competition laws are not strong enough to find that conduct anticompetitive, we need to have a close look at our competition laws and make a laser-like amendment to those laws, especially in the area of essential services. We cannot have companies that supply essential services—electricity is one of those—limiting production. We cannot run our factories, we cannot heat our homes, we cannot have the lights on, we cannot have our trains and our communications systems all running and we cannot have our hospitals running without reliable electricity being delivered to the grid. There is no other market where we have a provision in our competition law that provides that a company that is in a dominant position, or has a substantial degree of market power, can limit production to the prejudice of consumers. That is the plan that AGL have.

I say to this parliament that we have an obligation to Australian consumers. We have an obligation to Australian industry to make sure they remain internationally competitive. If AGL are continuing down this track, we should adopt those principles of European competition law. We can apply them specifically to essential services. We can give them a very clear message that this parliament and this country will not accept the anticompetitive conduct that they are engaged in.

This bill makes 11 amendments to our competition laws. I could go through them all, but for brevity I commend them and I commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018. But I do so while simultaneously raising concerns that I have with respect to consumer laws in this country. It is true that we have done much over the years to protect consumers, as a result of consumer law legislation at both federal and state level. But there are still too many gaps within our laws, which allow unethical operators—some of whom are very well-known brands—to exploit consumers. It is little wonder that, today, consumer confidence in all sectors of society is diminishing. We've heard other speakers talk about some of the areas that are still not adequately covered by consumer law protection. I will list a handful of them before I get to some specific comments I wish to make in respect of this legislation.

We've heard about payday lenders: like in every industry sector, there are good and bad operators. But the bad operators are clearly taking advantage of some of Australia's most vulnerable people. When they're in the greatest need and have to go and cash in products that they own, they then get taken advantage of. I have heard of people paying, sometimes, amounts of maybe 10 times what the value of the product would have been, had they had the money to have bought the product up front.

We've heard about car manufacturers—again, I heard only in recent days about the CEO of one global car company who may be jailed as a result of the performance indicators being fabricated with respect to the brand of that vehicle. We have airlines and insurance companies using fine-print contracts to avoid meeting their obligations or to add extra charges for consumers. Telcos are doing the same.

We have the private health insurance industry—only today there was information that private health insurance complaints rose by 30 per cent in the last year alone. We have exclusions between one company and another with respect to the policies or excess co-payments being charged. These exclusions make it almost impossible for consumers to try and compare the policies of the various companies, if they decide that they want to take up private health insurance. Not surprisingly, with all of the confusion, the number of people that are now covered by private health insurance is diminishing and people are dropping out—because of the confusion and because they find that the companies are taking advantage of them.

I want to turn to the question of the energy and other utility service providers, which the previous speaker also referred to in his remarks. It has become almost a daily practice that, in my office and throughout the community, I hear complaints, or complaints are brought to me, about the activities of the energy providers in particular. Whilst there are several of them out there now, certainly, in my home state of South Australia, trying to choose which provider a consumer will go to is becoming increasingly difficult because it's becoming almost impossible to make fair comparisons between what each of them have to offer. And it was only a day or so ago that there was an article released by Bruce Mountain, Director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre from the Victoria University, which stated:

A recent survey found that Australia’s power companies are less trusted than media companies, banks and telcos. … One feature that deserves close scrutiny is the all-pervasive discount. In electricity retailing, all but 3 of the 28 active retailers use discounts in their retail offers. … discounts give customers the impression that they are making a smart buy. This is often true, particularly in cases where it is easy to see and compare the discounted prices. But if it’s not easy to compare, customers may not realise if they’ve been duped.

With respect to discounts, Mr Mountain goes on to list the ways—and I won't read the whole list—that, quite often, the customers are duped, to use his language:

…   …   …

Those examples highlight why consumers are finding it so difficult to make choices and, in fact, how consumers are being taken advantage of.

I turn to a matter that is current right now. I refer to the case of Toys "R" Us, who went into, I think, receivership on about 21 May. I understand that all operations of Toys "R" Us will close in Australia by 5 July. The administrators are McGrathNicol. On about 21 May, the administrators issued a statement in respect of the company. For the benefit of anyone listening, I will say that the company has about 700 permanent and casual staff here in Australia. It's got 44 stores in the country, three of which are in South Australia with two of those being in my own electorate. In South Australia, there are about 70 employees, and the two stores in my electorate would cover about 40 of those employees. Firstly, I hope those employees are properly covered with respect to their worker entitlements and the pay that they are entitled to receive. The other issue that concerns me with respect to the administrators of Toys "R" Us is that they made a decision that anyone who holds a gift voucher cannot use it unless they expend an equivalent amount of additional funds on the day they go to collect their gift voucher value. I will read directly from the frequently asked questions sheet put out by McGrathNicol:

Gift cards, coupons and store credits

The terms of redemption depend on the nature of the card, coupon or store credit. Ordinarily, gift cards and store credits represent an unsecured claim against TRU Australia and would not be able to be redeemed. Until 5 July 2018, the Administrators have agreed to honour gift cards, coupons and store credits in store only, on the basis that the total transaction is at least double the value of the gift cards, coupon or store credit amount utilised in that transaction (i.e. to utilise a $100 gift card, the value of the transaction must be at least $200.)

If customers do not utilise or are unable to utilise their gift cards or store credit in accordance with these conditions, they can complete a Proof of Debt for the balance they are owed. … Westfield gift cards may be used with restriction.

So, immediately, there is a differentiation between one type of gift card and another. That, in itself, is wrong. But what is even more wrong is that the decision to have holders of gift cards required to spend an additional amount was never part of the understanding when that gift card was purchased. Therefore, whilst the administrator may well be within their rights to impose that condition, it is totally unethical and immoral to do so.

I don't know whether it is within the rights of the administrator. I would have thought that, whilst the company or the shops are trading—and they will be trading to 5 July—the holders of those gift cards should be allowed to go to the store and cash them in for the products that they want at the value of the gift card, without any additional conditions. If there are conditions, I suspect that the purchasers of those gift cards were never told about them, or that they are subject to change and that new conditions might be applied to them in the future. That is a matter of serious concern, because, I suspect, it will affect hundreds and possibly thousands of consumers around Australia.

It is an issue which also arose back in early 2016 when the Dick Smith stores around Australia also closed. The same thing happened there—in terms of the cards not being honoured because they were considered to be unsecured creditors. I don't believe that, at that time, there was an expectation that holders of the cards had to spend an equivalent value to the gift card value; they were simply not honoured. Again, I find that that is totally unfair on the purchasers and holders of those gift cards.

I don't know how we close those kinds of loopholes, but these are matters that affect thousands of people in the community and there should be ways of closing them. One of the suggestions that I would make is that, perhaps, when a gift card is purchased the money should go into a trust account of some kind where it cannot be used for normal business purposes by the owner of that business, so at least it will be there should the business go bankrupt or become unable to continue trading. That would not only secure the money for the holders of the cards but also guarantee the business some future purchase, which would enable the business to know that its sales would be there in the months ahead as people cashed those cards in. But there may be better ways of doing it. I raise this matter because I know that it is affecting people right now. Indeed, given that the operators of Toys "R" Us are still trading to 5 July, I hope that they might reconsider. Having said that, I'm not holding my breath that they will.

As other speakers have pointed out, this legislation does make improvements. I accept that and I support the improvements being made. I am, however, conscious that consumers continue to be exploited by unethical operators. In my office it's perhaps one of the most common matters that we have to deal with: we step in to try to assist residents in my electorate who have been in some way or another treated unfairly by operators. Sometimes we have success, but not always. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the most common comments I get as a federal member of parliament is: 'Why can't you people just agree on something? Anything!' If anybody were to watch question time they would think both the government and the opposition are constantly at loggerheads on every single point, and that every single point is taken. So it's refreshing to see matters such as this where both the coalition government and the Labor Party can come together and agree on some very sensible measures. And these are sensible measures. They are sensible measures that have come about as a result of the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations. They're not hugely groundbreaking, but they are progressive and they do certainly improve the act as it stands.

In a past life when I was a barrister, from time to time I acted on behalf of clients who relied on the Competition and Consumer Act 2010; its previous iteration, the Trade Practices Act 1974; or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. I want to rise today to express to the House the importance of this bill for so many of our constituents. Around budget time, debates in this place often revolve around unimaginable sums of money—macroeconomics, huge spending programs, figures with some so many zeros they're almost incomprehensible to the average person. The Turnbull government has made those big economic decisions in my own community, with billions of dollars for the road and rail infrastructure that we need on the Sunshine Coast and, quite frankly, that's in no small part thanks to the minister sitting at the dispatch box tonight. I want to thank him for his terrific work when he was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. He truly did an absolutely sensational job, and I have no doubt that he will do a similar job in his role as Minister for Veterans' Affairs.

When it comes to our constituents' daily lives, often it's not the big spending programs and government grants that have the biggest impact. We often talk about some of these programs—for instance, the $3.2 billion that's being spent on infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast. Sometimes the biggest impacts are small community grants, sometimes only worth a few thousand dollars. To the average community group or the average person, that's a lot more tangible than $3.2 billion. I mean, what is $3.2 billion? What does it look like? I don't know. I've never seen it. I've never experienced that sort of money.

But one of our duties and our privileges in this place is to pass laws which protect ordinary Australians from the harm caused by the misbehaviour among those who have power over them. Alongside record spending on health and education, unprecedented income tax reform that we just announced last week and $75 billion in infrastructure investment, the Turnbull government has been very active in protecting everyday Australians from corruption, from exploitation and from fraud. We introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission to protect workers and employers in the construction industry from the threats, intimidation and violence of the union movement and its most lawless representative, the CFMMEU. We passed the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Act 2017 to protect working Australians from having their pay and conditions traded away in return for secret backhanders. We passed the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017 to stamp out the exploitation of low-paid workers, first identified in the franchising sector. As I speak, we have bills before the House and in the other place to protect superannuation savers from the improper management of their retirement savings. These and many other pieces of legislation brought forward by the Turnbull government demonstrate our commitment to protecting ordinary Australians from corruption and exploitation. There is only one side of politics that is standing up. This side of politics, the Turnbull government, is standing up for vulnerable Australians, and that is a very noble thing.

As I saw so often during my time as a barrister, ordinary consumers can face exploitation and misbehaviour from unscrupulous traders. It has to be said that most businesses operate with great integrity and with a focus on consumer satisfaction; it's at the forefront of their minds. However, there will be those who make mistakes, some intentionally. Some of them go out of their way, unfortunately, to make a quick buck by exploiting vulnerable people. The Turnbull government recognises that this is an unfortunate reality. Importantly, we also recognise that, as the world is changing, these threats change, and so the legislation that we have to address those threats must keep pace. We recognise that, in an increasingly competitive environment for products like insurance, entertainment, telecommunications and financial services, there's been a resurgence in aggressive sales techniques in public places like shopping centres and CBD streets and often in people's own homes when they get doorknocked and phone-called. Consumers can be just as vulnerable to high pressure sales and exploitation in those locations as they can in the traditional door-to-door setting. The existing law was not clear enough that these situations were covered by the proper consumer protections, so schedule 4 of this bill makes that explicit.

The government recognises that, in an era of new technology start-ups, alternative business-funding models and more flexible approaches to growth, public listing is no longer the preserve only of very large and well established businesses. That's why schedule 2 of this bill removes the carve-out which excludes publicly listed companies from protection against unconscionable conduct. We recognise that, among other things, the significant focus on speed and convenience in online sales has increased the prevalence of so-called preselected options. Too often these added-cost preselected options are not reflected in the headline price and can easily be confusing to consumers. Schedule 6 therefore ensures that in the future they will have to be made clear throughout.

Online sales in recent years have also dramatically increased the weight of goods being shipped or otherwise transported rather than purchased in person. Schedule 9 of this bill extends consumer guarantees to better cover the transport of these goods as well as providing consumers with more power to deploy those rights for themselves. We recognise that the increasing complexity of many services, especially services delivered online or using digital technology, has led to more opportunities for unscrupulous individuals and businesses to demand payment for services which were not only never requested but never in fact supplied. This includes, perhaps most notably, unsolicited demands for payment for the spurious renewal of online domain names. Schedule 3 clarifies that this behaviour is prohibited under the Consumer Law's false-billing provisions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I don't know about you, but nothing riles me more, apart from the Labor Party and the CFMEU, than receiving a letter in the mail saying that I have to pay a particular account for something that I did not ask for and that I did not purchase.

Ms Husar interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're just having fun. We're friends, really.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't talk about that. The government has also listened to my colleagues in the legal profession, and this bill contains further practical measures to improve access to justice for consumers. Schedule 1 of the bill extends the follow-on provisions of the Australian Consumer Law to more closely match those which apply to competition law and to allow private litigants to rely on admissions of fact made by the respondent in earlier proceedings as prima facie evidence in their own case. Schedule 6 extends the minister's or delegate's power to issue disclosure notices to obtain information about the safety of goods or services to third parties like other traders, test laboratories, safety consultants or consumers. Schedule 7 further removes impediments to robust investigation of wrongdoing by extending the power of the ACCC and ASIC to use their statutory powers to determine whether a contract may be unfair. Finally, schedule 8 clarifies the remedies which are available to the court to ensure that community orders can be used sensibly to get injured parties the services they need, whatever the specific qualifications of the person in breach.

Whenever I hold a seniors forum or whenever I talk to consumer groups, I, as a barrister—although I'll tell them this isn't legal advice—will try to give them some instruction. I tell them this very simple principle—and I'll use this opportunity, this megaphone of the House of Representatives, to tell all the millions of people who will be listening right now—if someone rings you and tries to sell you something or if someone knocks on your door and tries to sell you something, whatever it is they are selling, you shouldn't be buying. Not everybody's a rip-off merchant, but I always err on the side of caution. If I want to buy something, I'll go out, I'll do my research and I will look to see who the most appropriate company is to deal with. If someone knocks on your door or rings your phone and they want to sell you something, hang up; close the door.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you sing that?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could be a song! Do yourselves a favour: don't give them any information, don't sign a contract, take them nowhere, give them nothing. Protect what is yours—protect your hard-earned money. As a barrister, I saw the impact that breaches of these and many other consumer law provisions can have on everyday consumers. I saw how much more serious these impacts can be on vulnerable Australians, particularly our older Australians.

This is something that happens, unfortunately, very much in the online space. I hope my dad doesn't mind me saying this, but someone recently tried to rip him off as he tried to buy a car. The banks cop an absolute shellacking here, there and everywhere, but he literally got as far as the bank teller to get a bank cheque drawn, and the bank teller said: 'Mr Wallace, there's something about this transaction that doesn't sound right to me. Do you mind if I make some inquiries?' She went out the back and made some inquiries. My dad is 84. The teller came back out the front and said: 'Mr Wallace, I think you've been scammed. I can write this bank cheque for you if you like, but I really suggest that you don't do it.' Sure enough, Dad came to within an inch of being scammed for $10,000-odd. So, whatever you do, be very careful online. These are important reforms and I commend them to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer to provide the summing up comments on behalf of the government regarding the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018.

Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who've contributed to this debate. This bill amends the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act to clarify and strengthen consumer protections relating to consumer guarantees, unsolicited consumer agreements, product safety, false billing, unconscionable conduct, pricing and unfair contract terms.

Schedule 1 of this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to ease evidentiary requirements for private litigants through expanded follow-on provisions, enabling litigants to rely on omitted facts from earlier proceedings.

Schedule 2 amends the Australian Consumer Law to extend the Australian Consumer Law and ASIC Acts unconscionable conduct protections to publicly listed companies.

Schedule 3 amends the Australian Consumer Law to amend the definition of unsolicited services, to allow the false billing provisions to apply to false bills for services not provided.

Schedule 4 amends the Australian Consumer Law to ensure that the unsolicited selling provisions operate as intended, by clarifying that the provisions can apply to public places.

Schedule 5 amends the Australian Consumer Law to enhance price transparency in online shopping by requiring that any additional fees or charges associated with preselected options are included in the headline price.

Schedule 6 amends the Australian Consumer Law to strengthen the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's powers to obtain information about product safety by broadening the power to apply to persons likely to have relevant information rather than only the supplier.

Schedule 7 amends the Australian Consumer Law and ASIC Act to enable regulators to use their existing investigative powers to better assess whether or not a term is unfair.

Schedule 8 amends the Australian Consumer Law to allow third parties to give effect to a community service order where the trader in breach is not qualified or trusted to do so.

Schedule 9 of this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to clarify the scope of an existing exemption from the consumer guarantees regime for the transport or storage of goods where those goods are damaged or lost in transit.

Schedule 10 amends the ASIC Act to address inconsistent terminology in relation to the sale or grant of land.

Schedule 11 amends the ASIC Act to clarify that all Australian Consumer Law related consumer protections that already apply to financial services also apply to financial products.

These amendments, taken together, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's consumer protection regime and ensure that the Australian Consumer Law continues to be fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.