Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Leader of the Nationals) (12:11): Just on the other leg of this amendment, the minister said the government didn't want to restrain the types of detriment or the definition of detriment. The minister mentioned that this is aimed at costs on consumers, including waste of time. I'm just trying to get clarity.

Is the government's position that any waste of time amounts to, or could meet the test for, unfair conduct? It just seems strange to me. In the normal practice of business, people are confused or people need time to evaluate a proposal, an online form, terms and conditions, an end-user licence agreement—all these things.

Is the government's position that any potential waste of time amounts to unfair conduct? I'm just a little perplexed by that. Surely, there must be some bar or threshold before we send something off to the ACCC, or before we get lawyers involved.

That's why, as I mentioned earlier, everywhere else in this act there are these qualifiers that seek to restrict regulatory responses to stuff that is harmful—very harmful. It's not just any harm; it's substantial harm or material harm. This is very, very common in law.

Given that we haven't had these laws, ever—yes, we've got an issue here and we do support these changes; we've said that. But the country's not falling apart without them. I'm just worried that we've now got a sledgehammer cracking a nut.

Why don't we just make it very clear what we mean? Maybe the minister could just make clear here, at least, in this debate, which has some weight, whether or not in fact all detriment and all waste of time is potentially covered by these proposed changes.