AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (15:29): On 1 January this year an historic and significant step was taken to improve the rights of Australian consumers and to reduce red tape for small business, with the commencement of the new Australian Consumer Law, or ACL. In 2008, COAG reached agreement around an agenda of more than 36 reforms to deliver a seamless national economy. The point of these reforms is to improve competition and reduce barriers to investment by harmonising regulation that is currently duplicated and/or is inconsistent across states, territories and federal jurisdictions.

Consumer law was identified as a priority area for reform, with the Productivity Commission estimating that the introduction of a single national consumer law would produce economic benefits of between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion a year. As well as reducing compliance costs for business, the Australian Consumer Law also significantly improved protection for consumers. It drew on recommendations of the Productivity Commission in combining the best practice in state and territory consumer law.

The new ACL also delivered a new national unfair contract terms law, covering standard form contracts; a new national law guaranteeing consumer rights when buying goods and services, which replaces the existing laws on conditions and warranties; a new national product safety law and enforcement system; a new national law for unsolicited consumer agreements, which replaces existing state and territory laws on door-to-door sales and other direct marketing; simple national rules for lay-by agreements; and new penalty enforcement powers and consumer redress options.

This is great news for consumers and businesses alike and should be recognised as a fantastic step forward for our economy and our consumer affairs system. I would like to provide a real example of how the ACL is working. My office was recently contacted by a constituent seeking assistance with a consumer affairs concern. She had been telephoned at home by a company selling discount booklets that promoted local businesses. She was told that the booklet contained $4,000 of value for the price of $99. That sounded very good and she agreed to purchase it.

The same day, a representative from the company knocked on her door to take receipt of her money and provide her with the booklet. Unfortunately, upon examination, the product did not meet her expectations or needs. The savings included products and services that she was unlikely to utilise, such as a bicycle puncture repair kit, a fringe trim and a monthly piece of bung fritz from the local butcher. Furthermore, these products and services were located at some shopping complexes that were not conveniently located to her for her normal weekly shopping. She was elderly and it made it difficult to get there.

The booklet did not meet her expectation and did not deliver the products and services she had anticipated. Despite a number of attempts to contact the company, the constituent was unable to resolve this matter and get her money refunded. Under the new ACL in relation to unsolicited consumer agreements, such as door-to-door selling or telemarketing, there is now extra protection for consumers. These include a cooling-off period whereby the consumer is provided with 10 business days in which to change their mind and cancel the contract without penalty. Furthermore, agreements reached over the telephone must be received by the consumer in writing within five business days, improving transparency around the terms and conditions of the sale.

I am pleased to note that the company in question has now agreed to refund my constituent's money in full and that the matter has been successfully resolved, largely thanks to the new, clear provisions of the ACL. I believe that the ACL provides a clearer, more transparent and simpler framework for consumers and businesses to trade fairly. It also assists with equitable outcomes in the event of a dispute, and I commend the state and federal Labor governments for their work in this area.