Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (17:20): I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows— COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICES) BILL 2026 This Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law and implements the. Government's commitment to protect consumers from unfair trading practices, subscription traps and drip pricing. Australians know exactly what this Bill is about because they have lived it.

Trying to decide on an online purchase, they suddenly find themselves pressured with a countdown timer or a warning that there are 'only two left in stock', despite the fact the retailer has plenty available. They subscribe to a gym and manage the payment online, but when they try to unsubscribe, they are told they have to make a phone call. They spot a bargain online, but when they get to the checkout, they discover a compulsory 'service fee' added to their basket.

That is not vigorous competition. It is friction by design. The way Australians buy and subscribe has changed profoundly.

Today, people make decisions about goods and services in many different ways: by strolling the aisles of their local store, by searching online for the best price, by browsing digital catalogues and comparison tools, or by entering subscription :,arrangements that renew automatically. Some transactions take place entirely in person, while others occur entirely online, but the experience of choosing and managing services now spans a wide range of channels.

These changes have given Australians more choice and convenience, but they have also created conditions in which certain business practices can quietly pressure, confuse or trap consumers. Australians are hardworking and fair minded. We expect businesses to compete vigorously and to innovate.

But we also expect that competition to occur on fair terms. We do not expect to be steered into decisions they did not intend, or worn down by design features that make the right decision harder than it should be. The evidence suggests these are not isolated irritants.

More than half of reported consumer problems now arise from online purchases. One in ten people say that an online provider has manipulated their choices, while more than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in the transaction. In a digital economy, design is not neutral.

Buttons, prompts, defaults, timers and cancellation pathways can all shape behaviour. These are signs of a marketplace in which confusion, pressure, and obstruction can become a business model. Over the past four years, through detailed consultation with consumers, businesses, experts, regulators, and our state and territory counterparts, a clear message emerged.

There are practices that do not meet the threshold for misleading or deceptive conduct, and that may also fall short of the high bar for unconscionable conduct, but which nonetheless distort decision making, cause real harm, and impose an economic cost. These gaps in the Australian Consumer Law allow manipulative or unreasonably distortive tactics to slip through, even where the impact on consumers is significant.

This Bill closes those gaps. It modernises the Australian Consumer Law to reflect the realities of how Australians now buy, compare, and subscribe. It ensures that consumers are protected not only from outright deception but also from the kinds of subtle, cumulative influences that can undermine genuine choice.

Speaker, this Bill does three things. A General Prohibition on Unfair Trading Practices First, the Bill introduces something Australians might reasonably have assumed already existed: a simple rule that businesses should not engage in unfair trading practices. It sets a straightforward principle: businesses must not manipulate, consumers or unreasonably distort the environment in which consumers make, or are likely to make, decisions, in circumstances that cause, or are likely to cause, detriment.

This is a principles-based test. It captures conduct that does not neatly fall within the existing prohibitions on misleading conduct or unconscionability, but which nonetheless exploits behavioural biases, overwhelms consumers with complexity, or structures choices in a way that leads people towards decisions they would not otherwise make. To provide practical guidance, the Bill includes a non-exhaustive, indicative list of examples of practices that may contravene the new· prohibition.

These include: impeding a consumer's ability to exercise legal rights or seek legal remedies, failing to disclose material information to the consumer, disclosing material information to the consumer in a way that is complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming, creating an environment (including by using design elements in digital interfaces) that places unreasonable pressure on a consumer or that obstructs the consumer from making or fulfilling their decision.

These examples help businesses understand where the line is drawn without restricting ordinary, legitimate commercial behaviour. This prohibition is not about stopping businesses from promoting their products. It is not about stopping advertising.

It is about dealing with conduct that crosses the line from persuasion into manipulation, conduct that harms consumers and undermines fair competition. Stopping Drip Pricing Second, the Bill deals with a practice that almost every Australian has encountered. A consumer sees a price that seems reasonable.

But as they progress through the transaction, new fees begin to appear, a booking fee here, a service charge there, all revealed at the very end of the process. In one example, a concert ticket promoted for $109.90 rose to $117.45 once a compulsory $7.55 service fee was added at the last stage of the process. By then, the consumer has already invested time and attention, and may feel locked into completing the purchase.

That is drip pricing. Australians have had enough of it. This Bill requires businesses to disclose mandatory transaction-based charges at the same time they display the base price.

There should be no last-minute surprises, no artificially low headline prices that rise only after the consumer has invested time and attention, and no reliance on the consumer's reluctance to abandon the purchase after coming so far. The Bill does not prohibit transaction fees. It prohibits hiding them.

It ensures that the businesses doing the right thing are not disadvantaged by competitors who conceal the true cost until the final step. That matters for competition as well as fairness. We know from behavioural economics that people anchor on the first price they see, and once they have invested effort in reaching the final stage of a transaction, they are less inclined to walk away.

A business that discloses its full price upfront should not be made to look more expensive than a rival that waits until the final screen to reveal unavoidable charges. Ending Subscription Traps Third, this Bill addresses subscription traps, a growing frustration in modem consumer life. Subscriptions are now a regular part of household budgeting.

They provide access to news, fitness, entertainment, software and many other services. But too often, subscription arrangements are designed around the assumption that consumers will forget to cancel free trials, will not notice renewals, or will struggle to find the cancellation pathway. Research from the Consumer Policy Research Centre shows the scale of this issue.

Three in four Australians have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. Nearly half have spent more time than intended trying to exit a service. One in three have felt pressured to stay.

One in ten Australians has given up trying to cancel and kept paying for a service they no longer wanted. Some people have been so frustrated by unwanted subscriptions that they have chosen to cancel a credit card just to get rid of the recurring subscriptions. The estimated the consumer detriment from spending on unwanted subscriptions by Australian consumers is $971 million per year.

This is a hidden drain on household budgets. This Bill addresses these proble111s directly. Businesses must clearly disclose that a consumer is entering a subscription, what it costs, how long it runs, how it renews, and how it can be ended.

This information must be provided prominently and in a way that is easy to understand. The Bill also establishes a framework for reminder notices, ensuring that consumers receive timely, sensible prompts when a trial period is ending or a renewal is approaching. In addition, cancellation must be straightforward.

It must be easy to find. And it must require only the steps that are reasonably necessary. A contract that can be entered in seconds should not take half an afternoon to escape.

Many reputable businesses already operate in this simple, fair and transparent manner. This Bill ensures that all businesses meet that standard. Broader Competition and Consumer Agenda This Bill forms part of a wider agenda to strengthen competition, improve transparency and support consumers across the economy.

The Government has legislated the most significant overhaul of Australia's merger laws in 50 years, ensuring that large mergers are properly assessed before proceeding and that anti-competitive acquisitions do not escape scrutiny. We have increased funding for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by more than 30 million dollars, enabling stronger action against misleading pricing tactics, particularly in supermarkets and other consumer facing markets.

We have outlawed unfair contract terms, and for the first time gave the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Securities Investment Commission the power to seek penalties against companies that breached these laws. We are strengthening the unit pricing code and cracking down on shrinkflation. Australians will be able to see clearly when a product has gotten smaller, but the price has stayed the same or gone up.

Under the former government, the supermarket Food and Grocery Code was merely voluntary, without penalties for wrongdoing. Labor's Food and Grocery Code of Conduct is mandatory, backed by strong penalties that prevent supermarkets from using their market power to unfairly squeeze suppliers. Penalties matter.

That is why the Government has increased the first limb of the maximum penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act—from $10 million to $50 million in 2022, and last month up to $100 million. Stronger sanctions ensure that breaches of consumer law cannot be dismissed as a mere cost of doing business. They ensure that businesses of all sizes face meaningful consequences for conduct that undermines fairness.

Across the labour market, reforms to non-compete clauses and other restrictive practices will help improve job mobility and productivity. The right to repair is being extended to agricultural machinery, ensuring that farmers have genuine choice in how they service their equipment. Through a revitalised National Competition Policy, supported by the $900 million National Productivity Fund, the Government is working with states and territories to remove commercial and industrial planning and zoning barriers that make it difficult for new entrants.to compete.

We are progressing reforms to create a single national market for goods, streamline standards, improve heavy vehicle productivity, and improve occupational licensing so that workers can move more freely across jurisdictions. We are also supporting health and care professionals to work to their full scope of practice. Together, these reforms strengthen competition and dynamism, boost productivity and contribute to a fairer marketplace.

Other Unfair Trading Practices This Bill focuses on consumer protections. But unfair trading practices don't only affect individuals. Small businesses and franchisees often face the same vulnerabilities when dealing with larger suppliers.

The Explanatory Memorandum notes the Government will consult on extending unfair trading protections to small businesses, including those in franchising. That work is underway. We will release a public consultation on the expansion of these reforms shortly, and will have legislation in Parliament later this year.

Working closely with the Assistant Treasurer and Australian Securities and Investments Commission, we will consider whether any alignment of protections within the financial services sector is necessary. Any expansion will be considered carefully, respecting the distinct frameworks providing consumer protections for financial products and advice. In presenting this Bill, we reaffirm a basic principle: markets work best when they're fair.

When consumers are respected rather than worn down. When design helps people make informed choices rather than steering them into unwanted ones. When transparency is rewarded and hidden fees are not.

The reforms in this Bill, banning unfair trading practices, cracking down on drip pricing, and cleaning up subscriptions, will give Australians back time, clarity and agency. It will strengthen trust and boost competition. And they will 1nake the Australian marketplace a place where good businesses thrive by doing the right thing.

They will also help restore confidence that online markets can work on straightforward terms: where prices are what they seem, where leaving a service is as simple as joining it, and where firms who act fairly are not punished. For example, nine in ten Australians say that they would likely purchase from the same organisation if cancelling its subscription was quick and simple.

Speaker, I want to acknowledge the vital contribution of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, including Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb and Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe, whose enforcement work and market studies have provided important insights into the effects of unfair trading practices. Australia's consumer movement has also been instrumental in consistently bringing consumer experience to the forefront, including Erin Turner and her team at the Consumer Policy Research Centre, Stephanie Tonkin and her team at the Consumer Action Law Centre, former CHOICE CEO Ashley de Silva and his team, Jeannie Paterson and her team at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, community legal centres, financial counsellors and many others.

I also acknowledge the strong; support and partnership of my State and Territory Consumer Affairs Minister colleagues and their Officials Anoulack Chanthivong, Nick Staikos, Deb Frecklington, Guy Barnett, Tara Cheyne, Tony Buti, Marie-Clare Boothby and former South Australian Minister, Andrea Michaels. Reform of this scale is only possible when all governments share a commitment to fairness and transparency.

I thank the experts in Office of Parliamentary Counsel and in the Department of Treasury including Nicole Ryan, Phoebe Butcher, Stacie Lawson, Tessa Cramond, Matthew Osinski, Ira Goyal, Reese O'Sullivan, Megan Peterson, Taylor Fouracre and Angelina Kosev, and my advisers Tori Barker and Meg Thomas, for their work on this Bill. Their hard work has helped forge a fairer society and a more dynamic economy.

Speaker, this Bill is principled, proportionate and timely. It responds to real harms, identified through genuine consultation, backed by evidence, and aligned with Australians' sense of fairness. It ensures the Australian Consumer Law remains robust and capable of protecting people in a rapidly changing economy.

The reforms will not only protect consumers but also support productivity by promoting dynamic and competitive markets. They will help ensure businesses are not incentivised to adopt unfair tactics, and will increase consumers' confidence to engage in markets, particularly when transacting online. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE AMENDMENT (RCDVS IMPLEMENTATION AND RELATED MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2026 I am pleased to present the Defence Force Discipline (Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill. This Bill represents one of the most significant reforms to Australia's military discipline framework in decades, delivering on key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

The Albanese Government accepted the overwhelming majority of the Royal Commission's 122 recommendations: agreeing or agreeing-in-principle to 104 recommendations. We've been working at pace to implement these—by the end of 2025, 32 recommendations, over a quarter, were implemented. The Royal Commission dedicated a whole volume to sexual violence, unacceptable behaviour and military justice.

The legislation before us today takes a significant step towards implementing recommendations in that space. The Bill also responds directly to concerns about fairness, transparency, mental health treatment, timeliness and complexity within the Defence Force Discipline Act (the DFDA). The reforms contained in the Bill are comprehensive and, collectively, modernise the system so that it protects people, strengthens discipline, and aligns with contemporary Australian community expectations.

This Bill represents one of many reform packages aimed at implementing measures that respond to the Royal Commission's recommendations. In particular, the Bill directly implements recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63, and gives effect to recommendation 34—these relate to strengthening workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations, the sentencing and recording of convictions for perpetrators of military sexual violence and court martial governance.

The Royal Commission also noted that involvement in _the military justice system, whether as a victim or an accused, can itself be a risk factor for suicide. It highlighted the pressing need for improved workplace protections, modern sentencing practices, reporting and recording of serious offences in a manner consistent with civilian jurisdictions, and for a modern approach to the management of mental impairment in disciplinary proceedings.

This Bill does all of this. The Bill contains six Schedules. Schedule 1 has five Parts that directly implement Royal Commission recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63.

Schedule 1 provides a power to suspend a Defence Force member where a Defence member is under investigation for a civil or overseas offence. Currently, a member under Defence Force Discipline Act investigation may be suspended, but a member under civilian investigation for potentially more serious conduct may continue to work until charged. This Bill fixes that gap by allowing suspension once any formal investigation commences; the suspension ceases when the investigation ends unless a charge is laid, preserving procedural fairness.

This implements Royal Commission recommendation 18 to enhance safeguards to ensure that victims are not required to work alongside perpetrators while investigations are underway. Schedule 1 also strengthens sentencing procedures by recognising that rank disparity is an aggravating feature of offending, regardless of whether the victim is of higher or lower rank.

This change reinforces the requirement for service tribunals to consider the impact on victims where the service offence involves conduct that constitutes a serious violent or sexual offence, and a service impact statement must be sought to allow the service tribunal to consider the effect on discipline, cohesion and command. These reforms implement Royal Commission recommendation 20 and give effect to aspects of recommendation 34 by bringing sentencing practices closer to contemporary civilian standards.

Schedule 1 also improves transparency by requiring that superior tribunal convictions be disclosed to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ensuring that serious service offences that are analogues to civilian criminal offences are recorded on criminal records. A limited non-disclosure order mechanism protects individuals in exceptional cases where disclosure would be unjust or harmful.

This supports the broader implementation of Royal Commission recommendation 23 by ensuring that relevant sexual and violence-related service convictions are captured in national police records in a manner consistent with civilian jurisdictions. Schedule 1 also removes stigmatising language from the Defence Force Discipline Act, replacing the outdated and pejorative term "malingering" with a neutral description that better reflects modern understanding of injury and illness, consistent with Royal Commission recommendation 63.

Finally, Schedule 1 seeks to clearly distinguish between violent and non-violent forms of ill-treatment within certain service offences, to further support Royal Commission recommendation 23(b). Schedule 2 of the Bill seeks to modernise and streamline superior tribunal procedures to align with contemporary civilian criminal practice while retaining the flexibility and efficiency required for military operations.

It gives effect to the Royal Commission's recommendation 34, which required the priority review of provisions related to court martial panels not being required to give reasons for punishments imposed by introducing the requirement for any conviction and sentencing decision by superior tribunals or reviews to be accompanied by reasons. The legally complex task of sentencing would become the responsibility of a judge advocate rather than a lay panel, aligning superior tribunal practices with civilian criminal justice practices.

Changes to streamline the procedures of the superior tribunal system, integrated with the other measures in this Bill, support the adoption of modern best practices related to sentencing. A power to adopt such matters through regulation allow the system to keep pace with justice reforms in civilian jurisdictions. These measures aim to increase fairness by ensuring that complex, sensitive or serious matters proceed in the most appropriate forum, with the most appropriate procedures and practices applying.

Schedule 3 is one of the most transformative parts of the Bill. It contains two Parts that overhaul how the Defence Force Discipline Act deals with accused persons suffering from mental impairment. Part 1 introduces new powers permitting a tribunal to adjourn proceedings where continuing would be detrimental to the accused or contrary to the interests of discipline.

It also allows, in limited circumstances, the dismissal of a charge where the accused suffers from a mental impairment and prosecution would not meaningfully serve the maintenance of discipline. These changes reform the rigid and outdated "unsoundness of mind" framework and acknowledge the urgent concerns identified by the Royal Commission regarding trauma and mental health in the Defence context.

Part 2 establishes a Defence Mental Health Tribunal framework. When a person is unfit to plead or is acquitted because of mental impairment, the tribunal may order treatment, care or detention, as appropriate. Orders must be reviewed at least every six months and cannot exceed three years (or ten years for serious violent or sexual offences).

They only take effect once confirmed by a reviewing authority, ensuring strong oversight. This modernises military practice in line with civilian mental-health jurisprudence and provides a clinically informed alternative to the outdated custodial provisions currently in the Defence Force Discipline Act. Schedule 4 replaces the existing mid-tier discipline system with a new system of summary contraventions, to allow for more streamlined and efficient military discipline outcomes.

Summary contraventions deal with contested minor misconduct, and misconduct too serious for an infringement notice but not warranting prosecution as a service offence. They are administrative, not criminal, and use the civil standard of proof. A central pillar of this framework is to allow Defence to manage misconduct in a proportionate, efficient way while reducing unnecessary escalation into the service offence system.

The effect of streamlining this mid-tier discipline system will be to reduce the time that individuals spend exposed to the military justice system, thereby reducing potential mental harm and enhancing the disciplinary effect of the system. Schedule 5 contains sixteen Parts, each delivering a discrete fairness, efficiency or modernisation measure that seeks to strengthen the Defence Force Discipline Act framework.

Broadly, these include modernising drug-offence thresholds to align with other Commonwealth legislation, clarifying delegation powers, updating rules of evidence, harmonising judicial-officer termination grounds, improving review processes, modernising the powers of investigating officers, enabling removal orders for intimate images, enabling evidence to be provided via video, victim impact statements and providing for the extinguishment of historical homosexual service conviction records that would not be offences today.

Each measure enhances system coherence and brings the Defence Force Discipline Act in line with contemporary Australian law and practice. The extinguishment of historical homosexual service convictions is an important measure and a step in righting an historical wrong. This is a long time coming, nearly 34 years ago, in November 1992 Prime Minister Paul Keating declared homosexual men and women would no longer be banned from serving in the Australian Defence Force.

These changes will allow Defence personnel who were convicted of offences purely on the basis of consensual homosexual activity to apply to have this conviction extinguished. The effect of this extinguishment will be to also prevent disclosure of that conviction or information related to it by other people. Families of Defence members, including of deceased veterans can also apply under this scheme on behalf of their loved ones.

These changes are a restorative legal change to help lessen the detriment associated and stigma imposed by former homophobic attitudes and practices reflected in such convictions. We have always been proud of those who serve our nation. With these changes to enable expungement of convictions now no longer regarded as a crime, those that had to previously hide can have their pride in service accurately reflected in their service record as well.

Schedule 5 also allows the Minister for Defence to issue guidelines to the Director of Military Prosecutions. This approach aligns with section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, which provides a similar power for the Attorney-General to issue directions and guidelines to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The Bill also implements a number of other reform recommendations, including introducing stronger protections over disclosure of sensitive materials during disciplinary investigation.

This implements a 2016 Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Report recommendation. As well as adopting 19 of the 28 recommendations for reform to the discipline system made in the JAG's 2024 Annual Report; and measures introduced address recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's Report 148 related to Reforming Justice Response to Sexual Violence, to allow for providing video evidence-in-chief for sexual offence prosecutions.

Ultimately, the reforms in this Bill strengthen trust in the military justice system, reduce harm, improve transparency, modernise mental-health responses, and ensure that the Defence Force Discipline Act reflects the standards expected in today's Australia. This Bill represents a careful, comprehensive and essential response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

It supports the wellbeing of Defence personnel, strengthens the integrity of the discipline system, and upholds community expectations of fairness and accountability. I commend the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ): In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 25 June and 1 July 2026 respectively.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.