Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026

Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:33): I rise to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, and I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) the Opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices; (2) Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms; (3) the Government has failed to clearly identify the gap in existing law that the bill is intended to address; (4) the bill's broad new prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' risks creating significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years; (5) despite the Government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $124 million per year, including more than $100 million per year on small businesses; (6) these additional compliance burdens will fall on small businesses already under pressure from high inflation, rising energy costs, higher rents, higher insurance premiums, the Government's new taxes, and a slowing economy; (7) these costs will be passed on to everyday Australian consumers; and (8) the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny, stakeholder consultation and consideration of its impact on small businesses".

I just want to read, before I go to my speech, some of the essence of what the amendment is—firstly, 'that the opposition supports strong consumer protections and believes Australians should be protected from being misled, pressured, exploited or trapped by unfair business practices'. The amendment also notes that Australia already has a comprehensive consumer law framework, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms.

The amendment also says that the bill's broad new prohibition on unfair trading practices will create risks through significant legal uncertainty for businesses, with key concepts likely to be tested through costly litigation over many years. The amendment also says that, despite the government's promises to cut red tape and lift productivity, the bill is expected to impose regulatory costs of more than $100 million per year; this will all be worn by small business.

The amendment also mentions the additional compliance burdens that will fall on small businesses already under pressure from higher inflation, energy costs, rents, insurance et cetera and that these costs will eventually—obviously, if they're passed on to business—be passed onto everyday consumers in what is already a cost-of-living crisis. The amendment also says that the bill should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to ensure proper scrutiny.

I often feel it in this chamber; there's an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are some things about this bill, which I will go into in a minute, where I think the intention is warranted and good. But, as I mentioned in the amendment, we're concerned that in this bill there will also be a new legal test about what is unfair trading.

This will create a lot of uncertainty in the business sector, especially in the small business sector, around what will be considered fair or unfair trading, which I think will be a lawyer's picnic. We're not convinced that this is needed, given we already have the consumer laws. As the amendment mentions, there's $100 million a year in red tape that this is predicted to put onto small business.

We know and you know, Deputy Speaker, the pressures that are already on small businesses. Of course, they will pass it onto consumers. While the coalition won't oppose this in the House, we are sceptical of this bill, which is why we want to refer it to a Senate inquiry.

If I can go into some of the targeted measures that I think have merit in this bill, one is drip pricing. We all know an example of this would be buying something online; you might start off at $12, and, by the time you've clicked 'buy', it's gone up to $24 because of costs that get added as you keep clicking, whether it be booking fees, service fees processing fees, handling fees or et cetera.

I think there's some merit in the bill in that area. The other one is subscription traps. To subscribe to something is very easy; 'Just click here and subscribe,' and you're subscribed.

But, if you try and get out of it, you've almost got to take your dead grandmother in to prove who you are. Those types of things have merit, and I think that is warranted. But, again, I want to touch on the problem that we have with the general prohibition on unfair trading.

Who will define what unfair trading is? What this bill will do is open up the question of what is unfair trading. If it's very broad, then a business may breach the law and not even necessarily know it's breaching the law until that is determined in a court.

We think that will unreasonably distort decision-making and cause detriment to the small business, which will be financial but can also be non-financial. There'll be wasted time, stress, compliance costs, red tape costs and inconvenience. Who's going to decide what is unfair?

When does normal marketing become manipulation? When does inconvenience become legal detriment? Again, the bill doesn't go into all of this.

The courts and lawyers will decide this. This will be a lawyers picnic, and they'll be feasting on small businesses and, again, increasing costs. Again, Labor have promised to cut red tape and to boost productivity.

I would say that opening up this new general definition of what is unfair trading is doing exactly the opposite of both of those. This will lower productivity and increase red tape and red tape costs. Treasury estimates the bill will impose more than $123 million a year in regulatory costs.

Why would we want to do that right now? Why do we want to have this new general definition of what unfair trading is— Mr Laxale: Because we don't want consumers to be ripped off. Mr HOGAN: Labor are interjecting.

They obviously think increased regulatory costs are good. That's great. I'm glad that Labor are interjecting that they think increased regulatory costs are good, because that will be passed on to the consumer.

If you think an increase in the cost of living is good for the consumer right now, good on you—I take that interjection from those opposite. I'm sure that the Labor interjector thinks that, for the 1.5 million small businesses that are going to be affected, it's good for them to have more governance, red tape and regulatory costs, and I note that. Again, this will be especially harsh on small business.

Obviously big business will have problems with it as well, but often they will have in-house compliance departments and in-house lawyers. Small business just doesn't have those resources. This means that small businesses, trying to get ahead and trying to make a living, will just have more things that they need to worry about when they go home, more forms that they need to deal with.

This bill needs a Senate inquiry, and one of the reasons we think it needs to be referred to the Senate is that, as I note in my amendment, we already have strong consumer laws in this country. We're not operating in a vacuum here. There are already protections for consumers, as there should be.

We already prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct. We prohibit unconscionable conduct. We have unfair-contract-terms protections.

I don't think the government has explained exactly what gap the new general prohibition in this bill will fill. Again, the measures deserve proper and serious scrutiny. I also note that the exposure draft consultation was only open for two weeks, but that's not surprising anymore, with this government that campaigned on increased transparency.

Allowing two weeks of consultation for an exposure draft is just normal practice for them. I encourage the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to test whether the general prohibition is too broad, whether the detriment goes too far, whether the bill overlaps with the general consumer protection laws we already have and whether small business needs more protection.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Senate committee recommends. Maybe there can be small-business protections and carve-outs, given they don't have the resources here. I'll end by saying that the coalition supports protecting consumers—obviously, we need to do that—but we do not support vague new laws that punish small business and enrich lawyers.

The road to ruin can often be paved with good intention. We need to make sure that these laws do not do that. We don't want a law that puts $100 million of red tape on small businesses for no real gain, and I look forward to this bill receiving proper scrutiny through a Senate inquiry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): Is the amendment seconded? Ms McKenzie: It is.