By Esther Han and Consumer Affairs Editor
Retailers and toy companies are attempting to double the length of time in which they must alert the consumer watchdog to a product that may have caused a serious injury, illness or death.
Fairfax Media can reveal powerful lobby groups representing businesses such as Bunnings Warehouse, Mattel and Unilever are demanding the current two-day time limit to lodge a mandatory report to be increased to four.
The push, highlighted in submissions to the first review of the Australian Consumer Law, has been decried as "ridiculous" and an example of "profit over safety" by consumer advocates.
The Retail Council, whose members include Harvey Norman and Officeworks, said the law didn't give businesses enough time to thoroughly conduct internal investigations.
It complained the timeframe was problematic on weekends – despite the fact it begins the day after a business becomes aware of an incident, and the due date can be extended to the next business day.
"Members also raised questions about the usefulness of the system as a whole," its submission reads. "Very few product safety warnings are ever followed up by the [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] ... and so it is not clear how the system in its current format improves consumer safety."
The Australian Toy Association, whose 280 members enjoy $2.4 billion in annual sales, claimed in the era of social media, it may take more than two days to contact an injured customer.
"[The current system] is leading to a lot of incomplete, inaccurate and possibly unnecessary reports," it says.
The Business Council of Australia said a four-day time frame would allow internal investigators to establish a product didn't cause an injury, negating the need to make a report.
Consumer group Choice said the two-day period was "reasonable and achievable", especially as Australia finds itself "in the grips of a dodgy product boom".
The rate of recalls has been increasing in the past half decade, with 670 recalls in 2015-16, up 12 per cent on the previous year's figure.
"More and more, we are seeing suppliers seeking to keep costs down, sourcing from overseas countries without having direct oversight of every step of the supply chain," ACCC deputy chair Delia Rickard said last month.
The ACCC's guide says mandatory reporting helps it to identify injury patterns and assess risks. A report is not treated as an admission. If a supplier isn't sure whether to report an incident, "it is appropriate to report it".
"Reporting this information in a timely way means that regulators can act quickly to avoid further injuries or deaths, for example by issuing a permanent or interim ban," said Choice spokesman Tom Godfrey.
"This is especially important where vulnerable groups, such as babies and children might be affected by unsafe goods in the marketplace."
However, product safety consultant Gail Greatorex believes the industry's arguments are fair and come from a thoughtful and understandable position.
"[It] would definitely bring some efficiency benefits for both business and the government. Two days is a short timeframe for most businesses to recognise a problem and work out how it relates to a product," she said.
"[It] would certainly not prevent, nor I think, discourage companies, from initiating an immediate recall in cases of serious risk."
In its submission, Accord, the peak body of hygiene and cosmetic product makers, proposed a two-step process, which may involve a form of notification within two days, and an overall 10-day period to allow a business to undertake a proper risk assessment.
"This has the benefit of improving the quality and evidence-base of the information made available to the regulator and that should result in a better quality regulatory decision," said Accord spokesman Craig Brock.
In 2014, the ACCC revealed about 30 per cent of the mandatory reports it received in the past year were in relation to cosmetics. Some of the products caused bacterial conjunctivitis, folliculitis, corneal ulcers and anaphylactic shocks.
Choice, in its submission to the review, is calling for mandatory reports to be made public, like in the US.
"The Australian public has a fundamental right to know the nature of these injuries and/or deaths, including the steps taken by suppliers in response to the incidents," it says.
Choice's investigation into injuries caused by the cult kitchen appliance Thermomix uncovered 10 incidents that should have been reported by manufacturer Vorwerk to the ACCC.
More than 10,000 mandatory reports of serious injury, illness or death have been reported since the ACL came into force in 2011.
Woolworths was fined $3 million in February for knowingly selling unsafe goods. Part of the fine, $57,000 of it, was in relation to its failure to lodge eight injury reports on time, including one about a drain cleaner with a faulty child resistant cap that "burned a hole" in a toddler's leg.