Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Witty argued that the bill modernised consumer law to address manipulative digital practices such as drip pricing and subscription traps. Witty stated that the general prohibition on unfair trading practices closed a gap in existing laws where conduct caused harm but did not meet thresholds for misleading or unconscionable conduct. Witty emphasised that the reforms were principles-based to keep pace with evolving technology and market behaviours. Witty asserted that the legislation supported fair competition by ensuring honest businesses were not undercut by those using hidden fees or confusing terms.

Ryan supported the bill’s objectives but criticised the drafting as cautious and incomplete. Ryan argued that the threshold for the unfair trading prohibition was too high to be effectively enforced and that the drip pricing reforms did not require a single total price upfront. Ryan noted that the bill excluded several contract types and would not commence until 1 July 2027, leaving consumers unprotected for over a year. Ryan contended that the legislation failed to address the root causes of financial stress, such as market concentration in supermarkets and insurance, and described it as modest reform rather than a significant breakthrough.

Briskey argued that the bill protected consumers from cumulative harms caused by hidden fees and difficult cancellation processes. Briskey stated that the reforms drew a clear line between legitimate persuasion and manipulation, particularly in digital environments. Briskey highlighted that the legislation supported small businesses by creating a level playing field where transparency was rewarded. Briskey noted that the government had increased penalties for breaches and planned to extend protections to small businesses and franchisees in future consultations.

Wallace argued that the bill’s broad prohibition on unfair trading practices created excessive legal uncertainty for businesses. Wallace stated that terms such as manipulation and detriment were vague and would lead to costly litigation and compliance burdens, particularly for small businesses without legal resources. Wallace supported the targeted reforms regarding drip pricing and subscription contracts but opposed the general prohibition. Wallace contended that existing consumer laws were sufficient and that the legislation should have undergone more thorough consultation before introduction.