Consumer protection · Extending the unfair trading ban to financial services
Extend the ban on unfair trading practices to cover financial services — back it or block it?
The bill creates a general ban on businesses using "unfair trading practices" — conduct that manipulates or unreasonably distorts the choices a consumer makes. At the committee stage the Senate worked through several proposed changes, and all were defeated.
The main contest was a Greens push to extend the ban to the financial services sector, tied to the collapse of investment schemes First Guardian and Shield. Other rejected amendments included adding "lead generation" to the list of banned conduct, requiring free-trial reminders before charges begin, and delaying the rules for small businesses until 2030.
🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to reveal how the chamber voted.
For · Greens (Nick McKim)The competition regulator (ACCC), the corporate regulator (ASIC) and peak consumer groups have long called for the ban to cover financial services. The collapse of First Guardian and Shield cost about 12,000 people over $1 billion in retirement savings, and ASIC's chair said such a ban may have helped its investigation — leaving it out is a missed chance to protect consumers.
Against · Government (Labor)The government wants to deliver this first tranche of reforms now and is examining extending the rules to financial services in future, but won't commit to a timeframe. On lead generation specifically, it argues the general ban already captures the key harms and that banning lead generation outright would catch legitimate sales practices that are not harmful.
Against · CoalitionSenator Canavan said the Coalition shares concern about First Guardian and Shield but believes the response belongs in investor-protection law, not consumer law, which deals with different activities such as signing up to subscriptions. It will wait for the government's separate legislation and warns against outlawing ordinary selling and following up leads.
Day by day
· Senate
Amendments debated — consideration in detail
“That amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3912 be agreed to.” — 21 to 31, rejected.
“That amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3841 be agreed to.” — 11 to 30, rejected.
“That amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3774 be agreed to.” — 11 to 25, rejected.
“That amendments (1) to (3) sheet 3913 be agreed to.” — 24 to 31, rejected.
“That amendments on sheet 3772 and 3771 be agreed to.” — 11 to 22, rejected.