Division Description Changes — Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018; Second Reading — 17th Oct 2018

Change	Division
representatives vote 2018-10-17#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2019-02-01 10:38:11	Title Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Criticism of Government Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ <p>The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Zappia</p>~~ The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html), which is that the majority agree to the main idea of the bill (or, in parliamentary jargon, that the majority read the bill for a second time). The amendment was: > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: >> (1) notes the Government's lack of support for, and failure to protect, Australian consumers; and >> (2) calls on the Government to reinvigorate the national Consumer Affairs Forum process, to enable the much-needed reform of Australian Consumer Law". Because this amendment was unsuccessful, the original second reading motion will remain unchanged. ### What does this bill do? The [purpose of the bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6188) is: > to introduce a national regime to regulate gift cards, including requirements that: gift cards must have a minimum three year expiry period; information about the expiry of a gift card must be displayed prominently on the card itself; terms and conditions cannot allow certain post-supply fees to be charged; and certain fees cannot be charged after a gift card is supplied. <p>In continuing my remarks on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 I'll pick up where I left off last night. I was making the point that gift cards are not always redeemed. Perhaps it's because there is not, at the time, an appropriate gift in the store that the holder of the gift card wants to purchase. On other occasions it may be that the time elapses unintentionally and the gift card is never used. There are also occasions whereby the gift card is redeemed but not to its full value; there might be a small amount left over. Again, time elapses and that small amount is never taken up by the holder of the card. Whatever the case, we know there are gift cards that are never cashed in and that the value of those cards, ultimately, is lost.</p> <p>I raised this concern only a couple of months ago, in this place, when I spoke of lost gift cards that were issued by Toys R Us. Toys R Us went into liquidation, and the stores closed. The holders of those cards lost their gift cards because the stores closed. Holders of gift cards, in the weeks leading up to the closure of those stores, were even told by the administrator that if they wanted to cash in their gift cards they could only do so if they purchased an equivalent amount of new product from the store. This was adding a condition that was not part of what would have been the understanding of the person who purchased the gift card. That was of serious concern to me because it effectively said to people who had a gift card, 'You have a gift card, but from now on the terms and conditions under which you can use it have changed dramatically.'</p> <p>I made the point at the time that I also believed that, given that that was the case, it was not good enough to simply say to those people who had lost the value of those gift cards because the store went into liquidation that they were unsecured creditors to an entity that might not have any credit when all the financials had been sorted out. It might have been also appropriate that, in the issuing of gift cards, the funds that the stores take in from those gift cards should be put into a separate account perhaps a trust account or something similar that was therefore secured and always available for those people who had purchased gift cards. I make that suggestion on the basis that I still have concerns about the holders of gift cards losing the value when a business closes down or, even worse, goes into bankruptcy, because under those circumstances the value is lost, and there is no product ever issued. I believe that we could perhaps do a little better.</p> <p>The other matter relating to the gift cards is this. As other speakers have noted—and I made the comments myself earlier in this discussion—both New South Wales and South Australia have now enacted legislation to ensure that there is a three-year time limit on gift cards. I think that that's appropriate and sensible. However, we now have legislation in South Australia and New South Wales, and we're about to have legislation in the federal parliament. That means we will have national legislation and state legislation. That immediately begs the question: which legislation supersedes the other when a breach of the conditions and perhaps the three-year time limit occurs? I don't know. I'd hate to think that, because there might be two sets of legislation, one at national and one at state level, there'll also be buck-passing between the two as to who is responsible for ensuring that the intent of this legislation is carried through at the time. It would seem to me that, from a consumer's point of view, they wouldn't necessarily know where to go.</p> <p>Indeed, if we have national legislation, will that supersede and make obsolete the state legislation? I really don't know. My understanding of the legislation that went through in New South Wales and South Australia is that it is very, very similar to what is being proposed under this bill. Given that, it would seem to me that we might reach a point where there is duplication. Indeed, that even begs the question: can a person be prosecuted for a breach under both state and national legislation and therefore incur two sets of penalties? Again, those are matters on which I would be interested in getting a response from the minister.</p> <p>Lastly, I make this point. As a result of the issuing of gift cards and the community concerns that have been raised, and now the legislation in New South Wales and South Australia, I note that many of the stores, particularly in the retail sector, and others, have already moved to a three-year time limit on their cards. Indeed, there's no restriction on the limit extending further than three years, and some stores in fact leave their gift cards open ended, which I think is a good thing to do. But I notice that many of the stores are already moving in that direction and many of the businesses across Australia are already moving in that direction, clearly in anticipation that, if they didn't, they would be forced to anyway. Nevertheless, I think that that is a good thing.</p> <p>I think this legislation is very much a step in the right direction. It will close off many of the loopholes relating to the issuing of gift cards. Of course, it doesn't close all of them off, because, as we know, there are some types of cards—for example, a gift voucher that might be issued by a local business to a community organisation as part of a raffle or something like that—that I understand are not covered by this legislation, and nor should they be. There will be exemptions to the general term of gift cards when it comes to being protected by this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. I guess time will tell just how effective it will be.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jason Falinski</p>~~ <p>Like many Australians at Christmas or on birthdays, Father's Day or Mother's Day, I have received and given gift cards as presents. A gift card is one of the simplest and easiest gifts for loved ones or for an office Kris Kringle. There is nothing worse than going to David Jones, JB Hi-Fi or Bunnings, picking the thing you want or need and, once at the counter, realising the gift card has expired. It is essentially lost money. After all, there is no expiration date on money. That is why I'm happy to see the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 before the parliament. It will make things fairer for consumers and give the certainty that consumers and businesses need. No longer will people wake up on Christmas Day, unwrap a gift from their loved ones, perhaps an uncle, see a gift card and worry about onerous terms and conditions, which can be viewed only through a microscope or with the aid of a magnifying glass, and worry about the expiry time frame.</p> <p>When we talk in this place about economic reform, we normally talk about the importance of creating greater wealth for our community and the people who live in Australia, whether that's more job opportunities or whether that's lower taxes, more innovation or whatever. But this too is economic reform, because it's going to benefit the lives of so many Australians, providing them with opportunities to use gift cards that previously they couldn't use because the expiry date had passed. This is major economic reform. This is what a government that governs for the many, not the few, looks like. We Liberals in the past have taken on big oil and big tobacco and today we will take on the big gift card industry.</p> <p>The previous speaker said that he was worried about the difference between state laws and the federal law. Well, the reason this law is so important is that the government has become aware there are some people, in places like Tasmania, who have been considering setting up what are effectively call centres to sell gift cards into New South Wales and South Australia, where unsuspecting consumers don't realise they're not covered by the laws introduced by the excellent state minister Matt Kean, the Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation. As Mr Kean has pointed out, sometimes better regulation is more regulation, but today we are here to praise smarter regulation, because under this law the gift card boiler rooms that we feared might be established in places like Tasmania, selling to the unsuspecting consumers of New South Wales, will not be possible. Under this law, nowhere now will you be able to take advantage of Australian consumers.</p> <p>When this government talks about putting people before profit, it knows that you can't have profit without people. That is why Minister Robert, who has introduced this excellent piece of legislation, says that as he walks past stores and shopping malls in Brisbane and the Gold Coast people come up and hug him. It is no longer just because of his rugged good looks; it's because he's introduced a piece of legislation that the people of Australia love. And he is a beloved minister of this government. It's an example of how we are responding to the needs of consumers, not just in New South Wales and in Australia but right around Australia.</p> <p>Therefore, it is disappointing to see that the Labor Party felt it necessary to move amendments to this incredibly good piece of legislation. What is Minister Robert to say to people when they come and hug him in the street, unsuspecting as they may be? Is he to say, 'Well, we're trying to get this done but the Labor Party has moved amendments to it?' Hopefully, they will see that this piece of legislation is critical economic reform. It is critical to advancing the needs of and, indeed, the importance of, what all consumers need in this country, because when we make the lives of one consumer better we make the lives of all Australians better. Thank you.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Tony Smith~~
The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
~~Tony Zappia~~
The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html), which is that the majority agree to the main idea of the bill (or, in parliamentary jargon, that the majority read the bill for a second time). The amendment was:
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:*
>> *(1) notes the Government's lack of support for, and failure to protect, Australian consumers; and*
>> *(2) calls on the Government to reinvigorate the national Consumer Affairs Forum process, to enable the much-needed reform of Australian Consumer Law".*
Because this amendment was unsuccessful, the original second reading motion will remain unchanged.
### What does this bill do?
The [purpose of the bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6188) is:
> *to introduce a national regime to regulate gift cards, including requirements that: gift cards must have a minimum three year expiry period; information about the expiry of a gift card must be displayed prominently on the card itself; terms and conditions cannot allow certain post-supply fees to be charged; and certain fees cannot be charged after a gift card is supplied.*
In continuing my remarks on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 I'll pick up where I left off last night. I was making the point that gift cards are not always redeemed. Perhaps it's because there is not, at the time, an appropriate gift in the store that the holder of the gift card wants to purchase. On other occasions it may be that the time elapses unintentionally and the gift card is never used. There are also occasions whereby the gift card is redeemed but not to its full value; there might be a small amount left over. Again, time elapses and that small amount is never taken up by the holder of the card. Whatever the case, we know there are gift cards that are never cashed in and that the value of those cards, ultimately, is lost.
I raised this concern only a couple of months ago, in this place, when I spoke of lost gift cards that were issued by Toys R Us. Toys R Us went into liquidation, and the stores closed. The holders of those cards lost their gift cards because the stores closed. Holders of gift cards, in the weeks leading up to the closure of those stores, were even told by the administrator that if they wanted to cash in their gift cards they could only do so if they purchased an equivalent amount of new product from the store. This was adding a condition that was not part of what would have been the understanding of the person who purchased the gift card. That was of serious concern to me because it effectively said to people who had a gift card, 'You have a gift card, but from now on the terms and conditions under which you can use it have changed dramatically.'
I made the point at the time that I also believed that, given that that was the case, it was not good enough to simply say to those people who had lost the value of those gift cards because the store went into liquidation that they were unsecured creditors to an entity that might not have any credit when all the financials had been sorted out. It might have been also appropriate that, in the issuing of gift cards, the funds that the stores take in from those gift cards should be put into a separate account perhaps a trust account or something similar that was therefore secured and always available for those people who had purchased gift cards. I make that suggestion on the basis that I still have concerns about the holders of gift cards losing the value when a business closes down or, even worse, goes into bankruptcy, because under those circumstances the value is lost, and there is no product ever issued. I believe that we could perhaps do a little better.
The other matter relating to the gift cards is this. As other speakers have noted—and I made the comments myself earlier in this discussion—both New South Wales and South Australia have now enacted legislation to ensure that there is a three-year time limit on gift cards. I think that that's appropriate and sensible. However, we now have legislation in South Australia and New South Wales, and we're about to have legislation in the federal parliament. That means we will have national legislation and state legislation. That immediately begs the question: which legislation supersedes the other when a breach of the conditions and perhaps the three-year time limit occurs? I don't know. I'd hate to think that, because there might be two sets of legislation, one at national and one at state level, there'll also be buck-passing between the two as to who is responsible for ensuring that the intent of this legislation is carried through at the time. It would seem to me that, from a consumer's point of view, they wouldn't necessarily know where to go.
Indeed, if we have national legislation, will that supersede and make obsolete the state legislation? I really don't know. My understanding of the legislation that went through in New South Wales and South Australia is that it is very, very similar to what is being proposed under this bill. Given that, it would seem to me that we might reach a point where there is duplication. Indeed, that even begs the question: can a person be prosecuted for a breach under both state and national legislation and therefore incur two sets of penalties? Again, those are matters on which I would be interested in getting a response from the minister.
Lastly, I make this point. As a result of the issuing of gift cards and the community concerns that have been raised, and now the legislation in New South Wales and South Australia, I note that many of the stores, particularly in the retail sector, and others, have already moved to a three-year time limit on their cards. Indeed, there's no restriction on the limit extending further than three years, and some stores in fact leave their gift cards open ended, which I think is a good thing to do. But I notice that many of the stores are already moving in that direction and many of the businesses across Australia are already moving in that direction, clearly in anticipation that, if they didn't, they would be forced to anyway. Nevertheless, I think that that is a good thing.
I think this legislation is very much a step in the right direction. It will close off many of the loopholes relating to the issuing of gift cards. Of course, it doesn't close all of them off, because, as we know, there are some types of cards—for example, a gift voucher that might be issued by a local business to a community organisation as part of a raffle or something like that—that I understand are not covered by this legislation, and nor should they be. There will be exemptions to the general term of gift cards when it comes to being protected by this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. I guess time will tell just how effective it will be.
~~Jason Falinski~~
Like many Australians at Christmas or on birthdays, Father's Day or Mother's Day, I have received and given gift cards as presents. A gift card is one of the simplest and easiest gifts for loved ones or for an office Kris Kringle. There is nothing worse than going to David Jones, JB Hi-Fi or Bunnings, picking the thing you want or need and, once at the counter, realising the gift card has expired. It is essentially lost money. After all, there is no expiration date on money. That is why I'm happy to see the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 before the parliament. It will make things fairer for consumers and give the certainty that consumers and businesses need. No longer will people wake up on Christmas Day, unwrap a gift from their loved ones, perhaps an uncle, see a gift card and worry about onerous terms and conditions, which can be viewed only through a microscope or with the aid of a magnifying glass, and worry about the expiry time frame.
When we talk in this place about economic reform, we normally talk about the importance of creating greater wealth for our community and the people who live in Australia, whether that's more job opportunities or whether that's lower taxes, more innovation or whatever. But this too is economic reform, because it's going to benefit the lives of so many Australians, providing them with opportunities to use gift cards that previously they couldn't use because the expiry date had passed. This is major economic reform. This is what a government that governs for the many, not the few, looks like. We Liberals in the past have taken on big oil and big tobacco and today we will take on the big gift card industry.
The previous speaker said that he was worried about the difference between state laws and the federal law. Well, the reason this law is so important is that the government has become aware there are some people, in places like Tasmania, who have been considering setting up what are effectively call centres to sell gift cards into New South Wales and South Australia, where unsuspecting consumers don't realise they're not covered by the laws introduced by the excellent state minister Matt Kean, the Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation. As Mr Kean has pointed out, sometimes better regulation is more regulation, but today we are here to praise smarter regulation, because under this law the gift card boiler rooms that we feared might be established in places like Tasmania, selling to the unsuspecting consumers of New South Wales, will not be possible. Under this law, nowhere now will you be able to take advantage of Australian consumers.
When this government talks about putting people before profit, it knows that you can't have profit without people. That is why Minister Robert, who has introduced this excellent piece of legislation, says that as he walks past stores and shopping malls in Brisbane and the Gold Coast people come up and hug him. It is no longer just because of his rugged good looks; it's because he's introduced a piece of legislation that the people of Australia love. And he is a beloved minister of this government. It's an example of how we are responding to the needs of consumers, not just in New South Wales and in Australia but right around Australia.
Therefore, it is disappointing to see that the Labor Party felt it necessary to move amendments to this incredibly good piece of legislation. What is Minister Robert to say to people when they come and hug him in the street, unsuspecting as they may be? Is he to say, 'Well, we're trying to get this done but the Labor Party has moved amendments to it?' Hopefully, they will see that this piece of legislation is critical economic reform. It is critical to advancing the needs of and, indeed, the importance of, what all consumers need in this country, because when we make the lives of one consumer better we make the lives of all Australians better. Thank you.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~