Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026

Mr HOLZBERGER (Forde) (17:59): I rise in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026. In doing so, I too commend the work of the assistant minister in the lead-up to and preparation of this bill and also for the way that he has handled this bill through the parliament and through the Labor Party processes as well. I don't think the community could ask for a better assistant minister at this time than the assistant minister we have.

He's somebody who lives and breathes this sort of work. It's a privilege to be able to serve in this parliament alongside him. I also pay due credit to the leader of our economic team and my neighbour, the Treasurer, who is leading an economic policy focused on the cost of living.

The competition policy sits very much within that general approach to tackling the cost of living. The measures in this bill are about improving competition for our economy, which sits not only within this government's mission but also within the Labor Party's historic mission. We're now 52 years on from the introduction of the Trade Practices Act, which was introduced by another great reforming government, the Whitlam Labor government, and by another great reforming Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy.

The Trade Practices Act 1974, on which this work is built, sat squarely then in the government's approach to tackling inflation and the cost of living, just as ours does today. In fact, it gave me an opportunity while preparing for this speech to look at what Lionel Murphy said at the time. It's interesting that history rhymes, as the saying goes.

He said: The Bill … is especially important because of its relevance to inflation. The purpose of many restrictive practices is to maintain prices at levels higher than would otherwise prevail. This contributes to the inflationary trend.

He went on to say: Consumer protection also assists in the fight against inflation. It is the consumer who has to bear the burden of higher prices and of unfair methods of dealing. I half quoted Mark Twain's quote that history may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes—and just as it was with the Trade Practices Bill in 1974, so it is with the mutterings we hear from the opposition.

Are they supporting this bill? Are they not supporting this bill? I'm not 100 per cent clear on what their position is, and that's because I don't think they're 100 per cent clear on what their position is.

There is a rhyme from history here as well. In introducing this bill back in 1973, Lionel Murphy said: Regrettably Opposition senators refused to debate that Bill— because— … there had been insufficient time to consider its provisions. Some things are just hard to get out of your DNA when you're a political party.

It ultimately tries to parade itself these days as looking after the battler, but it has always been the party for the big corporations and big businesses. It is only the Labor Party that has stood up for small businesses, stood up for consumers and stood up for farmers. When you look at the results the opposition got in Farrer, I'm not sure they're drawing the right lessons.

They would certainly do well to do a little bit of private introspection rather than trying to litigate that in public. This is in the DNA of those opposite. They were defending an act in 1974—just as they're equivocating about supporting this one—that Lionel Murphy described as having been proved to be one of the most ineffectual pieces of legislation ever passed by that parliament.

Even in 1974, that would have had some stiff competition. He said: In consumer transactions unfair practices are widespread. The existing law is still founded on the principle known as caveat emptor—meaning 'let the buyer beware'.

That principle may have been appropriate for transactions conducted in village markets. It has ceased to be appropriate as a general rule. Now the marketing of goods and services is conducted on an organised basis and by trained business executives.

As insightful as and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, I don't think even he could have been quite as— Mr Conaghan: Are you talking about the same bloke that was convicted for perverting the course of justice? Mr HOLZBERGER: Deputy Speaker, I think the member is casting aspersions on former members that are outrageous, and I would ask that they be withdrawn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ): You refuse to withdraw?

Will you withdraw? Mr Conaghan: No, I will not withdraw. It is a fact, Mr HOLZBERGER: Deputy Speaker, I'll continue.

I understand there's no standing order to deal with that sort of outrageous personal attack—on somebody who is deceased, mind you. Mr Conaghan: Just because he's dead doesn't mean it's not true. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, member for Forde—will you just pause there for a moment?

I would like to request that when I call the House to order that is respected by members in this chamber. Thank you very much. You may proceed.

Mr HOLZBERGER: I think that, as insightful and prescient as Lionel Murphy was, and as somebody that really had at heart such a passion for defending the individual rights that Australians are entitled to, when he talked about marketing of goods and services being conducted on an organised basis by trained business executives, even he couldn't have thought about what those trained business executives would be like today.

They manipulate not only vulnerable consumers; the best of us have all struggled to find that greyed-out unsubscribe button; we've all been attracted by the light and the colour. We've all had our hesitation measured. There are an infinite number of permutations and combinations that the latest market shysters are able to use to manipulate our behaviour.

In 1974, they could not have conceived of quite what it would be like. We are no longer in a village market. We are no longer even in just a sophisticated street market.

We are well and truly in a new world, and this bill goes some of the way to addressing the inequity that exists between consumers and those that are effectively wielding that power and have that responsibility. Of course, though, it sits within that general approach that this government has taken to fixing many of the problems that we were left with by the inaction of the previous government.

We kicked in an extra $30 million for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to enable stronger action against misleading and pricing tactics in the supermarket and other retail sectors. Again, the ACCC cops a fair bit of criticism. Perhaps some of it is justified, but a lot of it is because it was completely underfunded by the previous government.

I think the ACCC has done some amazing things when it comes to protecting consumers. One of them has to be hitting Optus for six. Optus copped a $100 million fine for selling expensive and, really, unwanted plans to vulnerable people, and Optus didn't even bother to check whether it was actually covering them in the areas that they lived.

Optus copped a $100 million fine for selling these plans to people with learning disabilities—people that were obviously disabled. One person, an obviously disabled and vulnerable person, had been talked into it by the shop staff and was too embarrassed to say no at the time. But, even when his representative—and he was lucky to have a representative, mind you—went into the store to try and get a refund, that guy was refused.

The ACCC did some fantastic work getting that $100 million fine. This government is the only party which really takes the enforcement actions of the ACCC seriously by funding it. We've also outlawed unfair contract terms.

For the first time, we've given the ACCC and ASIC the power not only to help people have those terms voided in contracts but to take action and have serious penalties imposed for inflicting those sorts of unfair terms. Going back to 1974, it was actually a practice of some people in contracts to have, as a term, that this contract will not operate under Australian law.

That actually needed to be outlawed. But there are plenty of unfair contract terms in there today, such as the supplier can adjust the terms whenever it likes. How can that possibly be fair?

I'm reminded of one young woman who had a gym membership. She moved 90 minutes away from the gym. It was easy for her to sign up online, but, when she tried to unsign online, she was told she couldn't.

She rang up. She was told she would need to come in. And so she needed to make a three-hour round trip in order to have the contract terminated.

It was only because she was persistent and knowledgeable to the extent that she was able to actually show them the law that the gym backed down. We're strengthening the unit-pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Even now, while the supermarkets know that this is on the government's agenda, they're asking for it, really, with their outrageous behaviour.

There was an example in February where they're selling a packet of five bananas as a unit. It costs twice as much as the bananas that are next to it, which are bought by weight. Woolworths say it's for the convenience of the consumer because they can just grab it.

For the privilege of being able to take it off, Woolies think they can just charge them twice and get away with it, without displaying clearly that they're paying twice as much as they would be if they picked up five bananas by themselves. We've made the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory, backed by strong penalties. Again, the other side talk about representing farmers.

I used to be a station hand—I worked for these people. I know the heart and soul that these people put into their farms. They're not Gordon Gekko dealing with international companies or huge companies like Woolworths.

These people have no bargaining power. Through this code, which used to be voluntary—it took this government to make it mandatory—we've allowed for people to be anonymous when making their complaints to encourage whistleblowers to come forward, to restore some balance back into what is an otherwise thoroughly unequal situation. Across the labour market, this government has introduced reforms to non-compete clauses.

Believe it or not, there are employment contracts out there now where a laundromat worker is not able to work in another laundromat in the town. In order to get a job, a young engineer, straight out of university, has to sign a non-compete clause to say that he can't work as an engineer in another firm. These are not only things which are unfair on the individual.

Courts generally, from what I understand, strike out those ridiculous terms. But sometimes you have to go to court, and sometimes it's possible for the employer to actually put an injunction on you going to somewhere else that you then have to fight. Even though these terms are basically completely unfair, it puts the onus on the worker to do it.

This sits within the history of the Labor Party. From 1974 to now, it has taken Labor governments to try and level the field for consumers, try and level the field for small businesses and try to level the field for farmers. That's why the history of the Labor Party, I think, is going to continue into the future, while the history of the Liberal and National parties is somewhat in doubt.