Consumer Bill’s bonkers bit
There’s an element in the proposed national unfair contract terms law that:
- isn’t in the Productivity Commission report that recommended the new law
- isn’t in the Victorian law that is already in force in Victoria
- isn’t in the United Kingdom law that served as the model for Victoria’s law, and
- is bonkers.
It makes no sense. It’s bananas. And the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Bill admits as much.
National consumer law Bill hits Parliament
On 24 June 2009, the Government introduced the Australian Consumer Law Bill into Parliament. It represents the biggest shake up of Australian consumer law in a long time.
From 1 January 2010, the Government intends that we’ll have a national unfair contract terms law. ACCC will have power to demand that advertisers positively substantiate any claims they make. And there’ll be new penalties, enforcement powers and options for compensating consumers.
Stay tuned to CSP Central for plenty of news and expert commentary about the new law. We already have some detailed comments on one misconceived part of the drafting.
Links
New consumer law will punch holes in ISP / telco contracts
Last August, we explained that the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs had generally accepted a Federal Productivity Commission recommendation for a national ‘unfair contracts’ law.
Canberra now says it will fast track the new law. Expect a bill in Parliament by June 2009, and a new law in force from 1 January 2010. As part of the process, an important discussion paper is now available.
Make no mistake. The new law will force a re-think of most ISP and telco standard contracts in Australia. Many everyday, standard terms will be at risk, or even completely banned.
It will also require Consumer Affairs Victoria to review its approach to unfair contracts.
Advertising substantiation notices: Coming to a national regulator near you
When the ACCC suspects a CSP is breaching the Trade Practices Act with unacceptable advertising, one of its main weapons is to issue a ‘section 155 notice‘.
It’s a bit like a subpoena and even a search warrant and requires the CSP to provide detailed documents, records and other information that may show it is in breach.
Now the Federal Government has agreed to give the regulator an even more effective power that will change the way CSPs need to approach advertising.
Unfair contract terms: A better balance ahead
Several legal jurisdictions worldwide have passed laws against unfair contract terms in recent years. Victoria is among them and New South Wales looked set to adopt a similar law.
The Federal Productivity Commission has now recommended a national approach to the topic and the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs has decided to run with it. Interestingly, it prefers a different model to the one now operating in Victoria.
Why the different approach ? I think the Commission’s report accurately assesses a risk in the Victorian model.
The national