Chapter 9
Enforcement provisions and remedies
9.1
This chapter examines the enforcement and remedies under Schedule 2 of
the bill and the application of the ACL.
Enforcement and remedies—Schedule 2 of the bill
9.2
The bill introduces new enforcement powers to complement the
introduction of the new consumer protection laws.[1]
It amends the TPA:
-
to introduce civil pecuniary penalties for breaches of specified
consumer protection provisions;
-
to enable the ACCC and ASIC to issue substantiation notices
relating to consumer protection in certain circumstances;
-
to enable the ACCC and ASIC to seek an order disqualifying a
person from managing corporations as a consequence of breaches of various
consumer protection-related provisions;
-
to allow the ACCC and ASIC to seek certain orders for the benefit
of persons that are not parties to proceedings; and
-
to allow the ACCC and ASIC to issue an infringement notice
containing a financial penalty for suspected contraventions of civil pecuniary
penalty provisions of the TP Act and the ASIC Act;
-
to provide for the ACCC and ASIC to issue public warning notices
relating to consumer protection in certain circumstances.
Civil pecuniary penalties
9.3
For some years, civil pecuniary penalties have existed for the
restrictive trade practices provisions of the TPA.[2]
However, the consumer protection provisions of the TPA and the ASIC Act are
enforced through civil remedies such as injunctions and, in certain
circumstances, criminal sanctions. The EM explains that:
While criminal sanctions provide an important deterrent
against the most serious forms of contravening misconduct, and civil remedies
can achieve timely outcomes for consumers, there is currently no means of
obtaining sanctions in the timely manner available under the civil regime.[3]
9.4
The bill introduces a civil pecuniary penalty for contraventions of:
-
the unconscionable conduct provisions of the TPA and the ASIC
Act;
-
the consumer protection provisions in the TPA and the ASIC Act
relating to unfair practices (except misleading and deceptive conduct);
-
the consumer protection provisions relating to pyramid selling;
-
certain product safety and product information provisions in the
TPA;
-
the provision in the ACL concerning the use of prohibited terms;
and
-
failure to respond to a substantiation notice or providing false
or misleading information in response to a substantiation notice.[4]
9.5
Civil pecuniary penalties will not be available for breaches of section
52 of the TPA.
Views
9.6
The Australian Bankers' Association maintained that the proposed civil
pecuniary penalties should not apply to a breach of the unconscionable conduct
provisions. It argued that the bill's provisions are:
...inconsistent with the intention behind the use of civil
pecuniary penalties, namely, to enable a “middle ground” remedy for provisions
which already have criminal sanctions attached. Whether a bank has acted
unconscionably will not always be clear and is an issue in respect of which reasonable
minds may differ. Often unconscionability is triggered by a party exercising an
otherwise valid contractual right. For the reasons that pecuniary penalties do
not apply in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct, the ABA believes
that pecuniary penalties should be removed in relation to unconscionable
conduct.[5]
9.7
The Law Council of Australia argued along similar lines:
...civil pecuniary penalties should not apply to the
unconscionable conduct provisions, for the same policy reasons underpinning the
decision not to apply penalties to section 52. Civil pecuniary penalties are
intended to bridge the gap between civil remedies and criminal penalties and
apply only to those consumer protection provisions that attract criminal
sanction. Currently, no criminal sanctions apply to unconscionable conduct
under the Trade Practices Act...The Committee considers that appropriate and
adequate sanctions already apply under the Trade Practices Act to address
unconscionable conduct and the imposition of civil pecuniary penalties is
inappropriate and unwarranted.[6]
Substantiation notices power
9.8
The Minister explained in the Second Reading Speech of the bill that a
key gap in the powers of the ACCC and ASIC is 'the lack of an ability to
quickly and easily require information to substantiate claims made in
representations by businesses'.
9.9
The bill enables the ACCC or ASIC to issue a substantiation notice if a
person makes claims or representations intended to promote the supply (or
possible supply) of goods or services, the sale (or possible sale) of an
interest in land by a corporation or employment which is (or may be) offered by
a corporation.[7]
9.10
The EM explains that the substantiation notice requires the person to
provide documents within 21 days of the notice being issued, information or
documents which could be capable of substantiating the representations or their
ability to supply. The ACCC or ASIC may seek information so long as it is
relevant to the substantiation of the claim or representation or the person's
ability to supply.[8]
Views
9.11
The new power is intended as a preliminary investigative tool where the
regulator suspects a representation may not be able to be substantiated and,
therefore, in breach of the consumer protection laws.[9]
9.12
However, some submitters have criticised this provision of the bill as
both unnecessary and potentially disruptive.
9.13
For example, GE has argued that given the regulators' current
information-gathering powers, 'there is no demonstrable policy need for
introducing a power to issue substantiation notices'. It further claimed that
the 'essential requirement' is that the regulator believes that a business is
breaching or has breached the law. Finally, GE argued that there is a need for
the bill to clarify how the substantiation notices would apply to information
and documents subject to legal professional privilege and other protections.[10]
9.14
The Australian Bankers' Association argued that the new substantiation
power:
...will likely lead to “fishing” type exercises by the relevant
regulators and will significantly increase the administrative burden of
businesses without corresponding benefits. Both the ASIC and the ACCC already
have formal information gathering powers under the ASIC Act and the TPA and
this additional preliminary investigative tool is unnecessary. If the Committee
believes that such a power is necessary, the ABA believes that at the very
least any such power to request substantiation must be accompanied by
objectively verifiable and reasonable grounds.[11]
9.15
The Law Council of Australia stated that it is 'not convinced' that
substantiation notices will lead to 'additional consumer benefit'. It shared
the ABA's concerns on "fishing expeditions". The Law Council
described the absence of any 'objective or evidential threshold' as a 'serious
omission from the provision given the serious consequences of not complying with
these notices'.[12]
It recommended inserting a clause into the bill that the regulator must have
'reasonable grounds that the statement is false or misleading'.[13]
Disqualification orders
9.16
Disqualification orders are currently available for breaches of the restrictive
trade practices provisions of the TPA and for breaches of the Corporations Act.[14]
The bill enables the ACCC and ASIC to seek a disqualification order from the
court to ban people who disregard the consumer protection laws from being a
director of a company.
9.17
The disqualification orders will apply to the civil pecuniary penalty
provisions (except those relating to substantiation notices) and the criminal
provisions of the TPA and the ASIC Act. They will not be available in relation
to the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the TPA (section 52) or
the ASIC Act (section 12DA) because these provisions do not create a liability
but establish a norm of conduct.[15]
Views
9.18
Master Builders Australia argued in its submission that disqualification
orders are not 'a proportionate response'. Rather, it argued the merit of an
approach:
...which emphasises educating businesses, particularly small
businesses, about their obligations under the proposed unfair contract
provisions...Master Builders notes that disqualification orders, which
effectively ban or restrict individuals from participating in specific
activities for specific periods of time, including managing corporations, have
the potential to bankrupt many small businesses. Furthermore, disqualification
orders improperly applied have the potential to seriously disrupt the operation
of a business of any size, where a manager is appointed or ‘works their way up’
based on specialised knowledge and expertise. It is also unclear what benefit
these orders would have for the public, so are unlikely to meet a proper cost
benefit analysis.[16]
Infringement notices
9.19
Part VIC of the TPA and Part 2 Division 2 of Subdivision GB of the ASIC
Act will be amended to provide a mechanism for the ACCC and ASIC to issue a
person with an infringement notice containing a financial penalty for suspected
contraventions of the following provisions:
-
a contravention of the unconscionable conduct provisions (of Part
IVA of the TP Act; and of Part 2, Division 2, Subdivision C of the ASIC Act);
-
a contravention of certain of the consumer protection provisions
relating to unfair practices (except sections 52, 53A(1)(c), 54, 56(1), 58 or
64) of Part V, Division 1 of the TP Act; and of Part 2, Division 2, Subdivision
D (except sections 12DA, 12DC(2), 12DE, 12DG(1), 12DI or 12DM) of the ASIC
Act);
-
a contravention of the consumer protection provisions relating to
pyramid selling (of Part V, Division 1AAA of the TP Act; and of Part 2,
Division 2, Subdivision D of the ASIC Act);
-
a contravention of certain product safety and product information
provisions of Part V, Division 1A of the TP Act;
-
a breach of the new provision in the ACL concerning the use of
prescribed unfair contract terms (in Schedule 2, Part 2, section 6 of the TP
Act; and in section 12BJ of the ASIC Act) once those provisions commence; and
-
failure to respond to a substantiation notice or providing false
or misleading information in response to a substantiation notice (in Part VID
of the TP Act; and in Part 2, Division 2, Subdivision GC of the ASIC Act).[17]
9.20
The Minister explained in the Second Reading Speech that this provision
of the bill will enable the regulators to deal with alleged breaches of the law
without the need for costly legal proceedings. The infringement notices will
enable the regulators to deal with minor breaches of the law through the
payment of an amount which will enable a person to avoid legal proceedings.
While a person issued an infringement notice is not obliged to pay, if s/he
does, the regulator cannot take further action for the alleged breach.[18]
9.21
Treasury told the committee that:
Infringement notices are directed to fairly minor breaches.
The size of the penalties is fairly small. The largest on the face of the bill
is $6,600 for a corporation. So these would not be used to deal with major
breaches that might apply in relation to, say, a national company. They are
designed to provide the regulator with a means of drawing to a business’s
attention a potential breach to give them the option of paying the penalty, which
that business is entitled not to pay. But that comes with the risk that they
may be then subject to enforcement action for a civil pecuniary penalty, which
may be a good deal more substantial. In terms of the way in which the regulator
approaches this, there is a process under the intergovernmental agreement for
the development of a memorandum of understanding between the ACCC, ASIC and the
states’ and territories’ regulators to provide clarity around the way in which
they will interact with one another and to provide guidance as to the way in
which they will apply these powers on a consistent national basis.[19]
Views
9.22
The Consumer Action Law Centre supports the bill's provisions enabling
the regulators to issue infringement notices for breaches of certain consumer
protection provisions. It noted that at present, a business can engage in minor
breaches 'with relative impunity' because the likelihood of any enforcement
action is low. The Centre argued the need for a proportionate response to deal
with action that causes minor consumer detriment. It cited the Productivity
Commission's assessment that the issuing of infringement notices is desirable
to provide scope for the regulators to deal with minor offences in a
cost-effective manner.[20]
9.23
However, the Consumer Action Law Centre argued that the provision to
issue infringement notices should be extended to include breaches of provisions
in any industry codes made under Part IVB of the TPA. It highlighted the new
Retail Grocery Industry (Unit Pricing) Code of Conduct and the Horticulture
Code of Conduct as prominent examples of where the issuing of infringement
notices would assist in more effective enforcement.[21]
9.24
The Australian Bankers' Association views the infringement notices as a
potential source of 'reputation damage to legitimate businesses'. It noted that
there is no safeguard in the bill to ensure that the infringement notice
mechanism is only applied to minor breaches of the relevant provisions.[22]
9.25
Minter Ellison also expressed concern at the adverse impact of the
infringement notices:
...we believe there is a real risk that the lower standard of
proof and the ability of ASIC to impose infringement notices without going to court
will do significantly more to create a risk adverse culture amongst regulated businesses.
We are concerned that a lower standard of proof will mean that ASIC will be more
inclined to prosecute breaches. The infringement notice power certainly seems likely
to lead to more aggressive enforcement by ASIC.[23]
Redress for non parties
9.26
In 2002, the Full Court of the Federal Court ruled that the existing
section 87 of the TPA does not allow orders to be made for those who are not
parties to the proceedings.[24]
9.27
The bill inserts new sections 87AAA of the TPA and 12GNB of the ASIC Act
to allow the Court to make certain types of orders to redress, in whole or in
part, loss or damage suffered by a person that is not party to the proceedings.
A court will be able to issue various forms of redress without the need for all
consumers affected to be named as parties to the regulator's court proceedings.
9.28
The Court may make orders to redress non party consumers where a person:
-
engages in conduct in contravention of an unconscionable conduct
provision (of Part IVA of the TP Act and of Part 2, Division 2, Subdivision C
of the ASIC Act);
-
engages in conduct in contravention of a consumer protection
provision relating to unfair practices (of Part V, Division 1 or Part VC of the
TP Act; and of Part 2, Division 2, Subdivision D of the ASIC Act);
-
engages in conduct in contravention of a consumer protection
provision relating to pyramid selling;
-
breaches the new provision in the ACL concerning the use of
prescribed unfair contract terms (in Schedule 2, Part 2, section 6 of the TP
Act; and in section 12BJ of the ASIC Act);
-
is a party to a consumer contract and are advantaged by a term in
relation to which the Court has made a declaration under section 87AC of the TP
Act or section 12GND of the ASIC Act once those provisions commence; and
-
the contravening conduct or declared term caused or is likely to
cause loss or damage to a class of persons and the class of persons includes
non-party consumers.[25]
9.29
A court will be able to order various types of redress, including:
-
declaring a contract or arrangement void in whole or in part;
-
varying a contract or arrangement;
-
refusing to enforce provisions of a contract or arrangement;
-
refunding monies or return property;
-
an order to repair goods or supply services at the respondent’s
expense; or
-
an order varying or terminating an instrument creating or
transferring an interest in land.[26]
9.30
In the Second Reading Speech on the bill, the Minister stated that:
Redress for non-parties will allow the ACCC and ASIC to act
more effectively where, for instance, thousands of consumers suffer small
losses on which each of them might not take action individually because of cost
and inconvenience. Businesses should not profit from consumer detriment, just
because the amount is small or the harm is spread widely. This is not a general
power to award damages, but a power to order redress where that loss or damage
is clearly identifiable and there is no need to decide the merits of each case.
It could be used to order redress such as an apology, the exchange of goods or
a refund.[27]
Views
9.31
The Consumer Action Law Centre strongly supports the bill's provision on
non-party consumer redress, arguing that it fills a 'significant gap' in the
TPA and ASIC Act's remedy provisions. The Centre's submission cites a 2006 OECD
report on consumer redress which argued that regulator powers to obtain
consumer redress are not only justified on fairness grounds but can also
enhance enforcement outcomes.[28]
9.32
However, the Centre is concerned that the bill does not clarify the
types of orders that are intended to be excluded from the court's powers under
these provisions. As drafted, the bill states that the court may make orders as
it thinks appropriate 'other than an award of damages'. The Centre has argued
that:
An award of damages is a general legal concept that can
include many different heads of damages, including direct loss or damage,
consequential damage and punitive damages. Refunds of money would address one
type of direct loss or damage suffered by consumers, and indeed the orders are
intended to redress consumer loss or damage generally. It is therefore unclear
how the exclusion of orders for an "award of damages" interacts with
express provisions enabling orders to redress "loss or damage"
including to "refund money". The EM also sheds no light on this
question. We are concerned that this confusion could lead to unintended
problems or set-backs in future court cases in the absence of further
clarification.[29]
9.33
The Centre therefore recommends amending the bill to clarify the types
of orders that are intended to be excluded from the court's powers under these
provisions, rather than excluding awards of damages generally. To this end, it
considered that:
...it would not be reasonable to exclude orders to redress
direct loss or damage suffered by consumers, but consequential loss or damage
and punitive damages could reasonably be excluded from the non-party redress
provisions.[30]
9.34
Brambles Limited does not support the bill's provision of non-party
consumer redress. In its view, the current procedures for representative
actions are adequate, making the provision both 'unnecessary and
inappropriate'. It added:
...there is a danger that consumers who otherwise would not be
able to make out the elements for recovery (e.g. where they have not relied
upon any misleading representation) will be entitled to the benefit of any
proposed orders made by a court.[31]
9.35
The Law Council of Australia put its objections to the provisions in the
following terms:
With regard to the non-party redress orders...essential
processes and meanings are not clearly set out in the bill. For example, how
would the affected class be determined? The bill has similarly not taken fully
into account the consequences of some of the proposed enforcement actions on
business reputation and consumer perceptions. The committee is also concerned
that, under the bill as presently drafted, the regime will have unintended
retrospective application once terms are prohibited or declared as unfair.[32]
9.36
On the issue of retrospective application of prohibited terms, Ms Amanda
Bodger, representing the Law Council's Trade Practices Committee, explained by
way of example:
...sometime after the introduction of the new regime,
businesses have been conducting their business with the standard form contracts
for some time and under standard form contracts a fee is required to be paid by
a consumer in certain circumstances. The business has been collecting that fee
for a number of months or years and believes that the fee is a fair one, action
is taken either to get that term declared as unfair or perhaps a regulation is
passed prohibiting the collection of an early termination charge or some sort
of fee. The bill does not only provide an ability for redress going forward but
because the term is void from its inception there is a risk that the regulator
could require redress for all amounts that have been paid under that term—for
many months, for many years—and the business collecting it in good faith. That
is where there is an ability for the regime to act in a retrospective way. That
leads to a lot of uncertainty for businesses generally in relation to standard
form contracts.[33]
9.37
The Australian Bankers' Association queried whether the provision to
offer non-party redress is consistent with the broader principles underpinning
the legislation. As it commented in its submission:
...the effect of a term being declared by a court to be an
unfair term should apply only to the specific contract to which the application
for a declaration relates. However, the drafting of the Bill’s non-party
redress provisions suggests that this is not the current intention. For
example, s12GNB provides ASIC with the ability to seek redress for
“non-parties” who may be affected by a declared unfair term. In permitting the
court to grant orders for a class of unidentified persons who may suffer loss
or damage (against a party who is advantaged by the declared term in the contract),
the availability of non-party redress is by its very nature intended to apply
without knowledge of any individual circumstances. This clearly suggests that
the effect of a declaration that a court can make will in fact relate to more
than one customer’s contract. This seems at odds with the policy of the regime
that whether a term is unfair will be dependent upon all of the relevant circumstances,
the contract as a whole and the transparency of the term.[34]
Application of the Australian Consumer Law
9.38
The ACL will be enacted both nationally and in each of the States and
Territories by means of an application law scheme. The law will be legislated
by the Australian Parliament, and each State and Territory will apply the
nationally agreed law. Amendments to the national law would then require
agreement by jurisdictions according to an Inter-Governmental Agreement.[35]
9.39
Schedule 1 Part 2 of the bill inserts a new Part XI into the Trade
Practices Act 1974. Part XI will:
-
apply the ACL as a law of the Commonwealth;
-
facilitate its application as a law of each State and Territory;
and
-
make provision for its administration, enforcement and amendment.
9.40
The Commonwealth Government, using its corporations' power under section
51(xx) of the Constitution, will be the lead legislator. Part XI provides that
the ACL applies as a law of the Commonwealth to the conduct of corporations
(except in relation to financial products and financial services).
9.41
Part XI will provide for participating States and Territories to enact
an applied ACL as part of the law of their respective jurisdictions. The States
and Territories are required to enact legislation by 31 December 2010 to apply
the ACL.
9.42
Part XI will facilitate the application of the ACL in the States and
Territories by:
-
allowing them to confer functions or powers on a Commonwealth
entity;
-
conferring original and appellate jurisdiction on the Federal Court
in relation to a matter arising under the ACL in a State or Territory's law;
-
providing there is no doubling-up of liabilities in a breach of
the ACL as set out in the TP Act, and an applied (State or Territory) ACL; and
-
confirming that the ACL provisions in the TP Act do not exclude
the operation of an application law of a State or Territory.
9.43
The Intergovernmental Agreement will set out the manner in which the ACL
will be implemented, the consultation and voting process for amending it and
arrangements for its administration and enforcement (see paragraph 2.15).
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page