The Business Council of Australia (BCA) represents some of Australia’s largest employers and well-known consumer brands. Our members are committed to maintaining high standards of consumer protection. We recognise that consumer trust underpins a strong and competitive market economy. The BCA supports clear, predictable and proportionate regulation that addresses genuine harm while preserving incentives to innovate, invest and compete.
The BCA has consistently encouraged Parliament and Government to consider how new regulatory proposals align with commitments made at the Economic Reform Roundtable in August 2025, including prioritising the reduction of regulatory friction rather than introducing new requirements. The 2026–27 Budget announced a Regulatory Reform Agenda that aims to reduce the regulatory burden by $10.2 billion a year once fully implemented. The measures contained in the Bill before Parliament risk working counter to this ambition by increasing complexity and costs for Australian businesses at a time when efforts are being made to reduce inflationary pressures.
The BCA notes with concern the official estimated business costs from implementing the measures. The general UTP prohibition is estimated to cost businesses $93.8m per year; the subscription changes are estimated to cost $19.6m; and drip pricing a cost of $9.8m, for a total cost of $123.2m per year. Of this, $103.6m is estimated to be imposed on small businesses, or 84 per cent of the total.
The BCA considers Australia already has a robust and well-established consumer protection and competition framework, underpinned by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and active enforcement by the ACCC. Existing prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms provide strong and effective safeguards for consumers which appear to be adequate to cover the issues and situations that this Bill is also seeking to cover.
The proposal contained in the Bill for the introduction of a broad UTP prohibition represents a significant expansion of the ACL. A change of this magnitude should be based upon addressing a clearly identified gap in the regulatory scheme and carefully aligned with existing ACL provisions to avoid duplication, unintended consequences and overlap.