A new Australian Consumer Law

On 24 June the Government introduced amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974.

It is the first step towards bringing together 13 consumer (fair trading) laws that operate in Australia within the TPA.

The Bill is called the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009.

Generally based on Victorian legislation, the most important aspect of the legislation is to create a mechanism to void ‘unfair’ standard form contracts involving ‘an individual whose acquisition of the goods, services or interest is wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use or consumption’.

It was expected that the reach of this legislation would include business to business transactions.

However, as Consumer Affairs Minister Emerson said in his second reading speech:

The unfair contract terms law reforms were agreed by COAG in October 2008 and were based on the extensive consultation undertaken by the Productivity Commission.

These reforms are based on the extensive practical experience of the Victorian government in implementing and enforcing similar laws.

Since then the government has sought views on both the reforms more generally in February and on an exposure draft of the unfair contract terms provisions in May. In response to these consultations the Treasury received just under 200 submissions from many consumers, businesses and other stakeholders.

The government has also had numerous meetings with key stakeholders about these changes. And I understand that the Treasury has met and spoken with a wide range of people about these provisions.

We have consulted, and we have listened. And this is reflected in the provisions set out in this bill, which differ in key respects from those that the government exposed in May, particularly in respect of the exclusion of business-to-business transactions.

In relation to the question of whether business-to-business contracts—and particularly those involving small businesses—should be included under the unfair contract terms provisions, the government is currently reviewing both the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act and also the
Franchising Code of Conduct.

It would appear that the Franchise Council of Australia, satisfied with the protection contained in its sector specific legislation (principally the Trade Practices (Industry Codes – Franchising) Regulations 1998, had an excellent lobbying win.

However, smaller businesses who perceive they face unequal bargaining power when seeking goods and services from larger suppliers could feel less sanguine.

Larger businesses will undoubtedly be happy that business to business transactions have been removed from the ambit of the legislation.

However, they could still be concerned that aggressive use of the legislation will remove the certainty that standard form contractual documentation offers the market place.

On 25 June the Senate referred the Bill to the Senate Economics Committee for report by 7 September.

The closing date for submissions is 31 July.

As the Minister said in his second reading speech:

The government has also indicated its intention that this bill should be referred to a senate committee, and this issue will—no doubt—be further considered as part of that process.

No doubt.


It is finally noted that COAG signed off on an Intergovermental Agreement to underpin a uniform Australian Consumer Law at its Darwin meeting on 2 July.

The Seamless Economy Project - Is it a Good Idea?

The previous four articles illustrate how the regulations are made in an Australia with a seamless economy.

Many will say the Seamless Economy Project is good idea - Australia is an integrated common market, with people and companies commonly undertaking activities across state borders.

Moreover, Australia exists in a globalised world, with the complication of different rules in different states a reason not to come to Australia.

Regulatory difference is nothing more than a mere compliance costs that distort allocative efficiency with no public benefit.

In this case, there to be only one set of rules (usually encapsulated in legislation), preferably made by one legislative body – in our case, the Australian Parliament.

The states would have the role of (effectively) an English county council, concentrating on service provision based on national standards.

However, there are alternative arguments.

The (few) supporters of a federal system argue that citizens benefit where there is genuine "competitive federalism" –the idea that different jurisdictions will make different rules and regulations and have different levels of taxation, with each jurisdiction ultimately picking up what is "best practice" or face the loss of people and investment.

A similar argument is one holding that States are "incubators of innovation" –a place where different ideas can be tried, with the good ones taken up in the bad ones discarded - and if an idea is really bad, the entire nation doesn’t have to face the consequences.

To that extent, it is noted that in February 2009 the Standing Committee of Officials on Consumer Affairs have developed a discussion paper An Australian Consumer Law – Confident Consumers to assist in the development of a single national consumer law that will generally replace state based fair trading legislation.

Part III of the paper is entitled Consumer Law Reforms Based on Best Practice in Existing State and Territory Laws.

The Paper identifies a number of areas where activities (such as door to door sales, or lay-bys) are regulated in different ways (or not at all) and then asks for comments on what is ‘best practice’.

By definition, a single Australian consumer law would preclude this capacity to trial different forms of legislation.

Another danger is the development of a ‘democracy deficit’. This is discussed in the next article.

The Seamless Economy Regulatory Project - an Australian Consumer Law

On 2 October 2008, COAG adopted a recommendation from the Australian Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers to implement a national consumer law, based on the consumer provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The proposal is for current state based fair trading legislation to be replaced by agreed amendments to the Trade Practices Act, which will be picked up by state legislatures through the applied law model.

State based fair trading law will largely be repealed, with significant responsibility for consumer protection vested in the ACCC.

A discussion paper has been released seeking a degree of input into the structure of the IGA.

However, the input sought is limited. As pages 1 and 2 of the Discussion Paper says:

The purpose of this information and discussion paper is to:

Explain how the national consumer law will be developed; and

Explain the nature and scope of COAG's agreed reforms to create the national consumer law, and, in some limited circumstances, seek views on specific aspects of those reforms.

For example, COAG has decided that the law will provide consumers relief from an ‘unfair contracts’ contained within standard form contracts such as hire purchase agreements.

The ‘unfair contract’ provision proposed to be used is drawn from the law currently in force in Victoria.

The Discussion Paper seeks comment on whether small businesses should also be able to get relief from ‘unfair’ standard form agreements. However, relief from other forms of ‘unfair contracts’ appear to be ruled out because COAG has so decided.

That would appear to (notionally, at least) close off consideration of some of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics relating to relief from ‘unfair contracts’.

At page 49 of a report dealing generally with the unconscionable conduct provisions contained in Part IVA of the Trade Practices Act, non-government senators said:

We (the non government Senators) believe that the current Victorian legislative framework for dealing with unfair contract terms in consumer transactions should be extended to cover business to business relationships involving small business.

It will be interesting to see if the COAG decision will mean that it will be argued that this recommendation can’t be considered – simply because COAG has considered the matter and has made a decision.

The question of whether uniform legislation through the COAG process is a good idea or not is discussed in the next few articles.