Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today, on behalf of the Labor Party, to speak on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. It is my great pleasure speak on such important legislation because this has been an issue in the Australian community for many years, one that members on this side of the House—Labor—have been calling, pardon the pun, for action on for a considerable period of time. The introduction of this legislation is a significant win for Labor. This legislation has been pursued by Labor and we have put pressure on the government. While it is a win for Labor in parliamentary terms, it is a huge win for the community. Labor have been calling for the establishment of a national do not call list since before the last federal election and have been campaigning on the issue for the past two years. Personally, I have very actively campaigned on this issue in the local community. It gives me great pleasure to be here today to speak on this bill, because the people of Oxley—indeed, all the people of Australia—will be very pleased when these measures have been introduced. This is a long overdue win for Australians and a change that will give them back some peace of mind and a bit of phone freedom. The government’s backflip on this issue is very welcome.

The bills essentially provide for the creation of the national Do Not Call Register that allows individuals to opt not to receive unsolicited calls from telemarketers. The register would be overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA. The new regime that will be established by these bills will give a greater sense of freedom to all Australians—freedom from being pestered by telemarketers during dinner, while bathing the kids or while relaxing and enjoying a bit of quiet time at home by themselves or with their friends and family. This is very real—I do not say these things lightly.

I will speak from my own experience of telemarketers. After getting home from a long day at work and spending some time in the kitchen undertaking some household chores—enjoying a bit of quiet time and feeling pretty tired—it is annoying enough that the phone rings at all, even though it could be a friend, but you can be very annoyed, even angry, when you realise it is an unsolicited call from a telemarketer trying to sell you something over the phone. I think everybody could relay their own personal experience. When it happens to you once in a night it is annoying, and when it happens to you twice in a night it is frustrating, but when it happens to you three times in a night you get very angry. Sometimes the only option is to take the phone off the hook.

People do not mind being interrupted by a phone call at home when there is a good likelihood of it being somebody who is close to them—a friend or someone who is calling them personally—but, for a lot of people, answering the call late at night is approached with trepidation. For many older people, it can be an intimidating experience to have somebody on the other end of the phone asking them specific questions, giving them information and, from my own experience, giving them a bit of a hard time. For many people this is quite intimidating. It can be a horrible experience.

With the introduction of the measures, that will no longer be the case. People will be able to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. When this bill is introduced people will rush to this list. They will do so in their tens of thousands. People will take this opportunity to opt out, because they see it as their right to use their phone for private purposes and not for receiving unsolicited calls. As the explanatorily memorandum states, the framework contained in the bill is designed to regulate and minimise:

... unsolicited telemarketing calls made to Australian telephone numbers that originate from overseas numbers or Australian numbers.

It also acknowledges that, while telemarketing is a legitimate method by which businesses can market their services or seek donations, the new system will empower Australians to express a preference not to be called by telemarketers. As much as I believe telemarketers have a right to call people, people have a right to refuse those calls and to therefore opt out completely from the system. I think that is legitimate for consumers in this country.

There are some exceptions in the bill: for example, some public interest organisations are permitted to make telemarketing calls. I think the real issue is that those so permitted should make calls within reasonable hours and within the reasonable bounds of what people would expect. The principal mechanism of this new regime is the establishment of a Do Not Call Register, which would be kept by the Australian Communications and Media Authority or a delegated authority. People will be able to register not only their home number but also their mobile phone number. For many people, their mobile phone number is also their home number as many people have adopted the practice of having a mobile phone as their means of communication. It is important that mobile phones are included because for many people it is a work related tool or a communication device that is very personal to them, and they do not want to be annoyed by telemarketing calls on that private number.

Telemarketers who wish to promote their services will be required to check their calling lists against the numbers registered in the do not call list to ensure that they do not contact numbers of individuals who have opted out of receiving telemarketing calls. My very strong message to telemarketers is to respect the wishes of those who opt out and list their numbers as not to be called. I think that is very important.

Complaints relating to the Do Not Call Register and breaches of the bill can be made to the ACMA. A range of penalties are enforceable. I believe that those penalties should be followed through completely and that they should be fully enforced. A strong message needs to go out that these laws will be acted upon. People have tried to opt out—a company has rung them and they have asked to be removed from the company’s list—only to find that they have received a call from the same company 15 minutes later, or the following day or the following week. It seems that for many people the frustration of continually trying to ring and get their name removed has been pointless. This bill should alleviate that problem.

The introduction of these new measures has long been overdue. Unwanted telemarketing is a serious problem and one that is getting worse in this country. I just want to bring to the attention of the House, and of people listening, a few salient facts as they relate to the telemarketing industry. The volume of telemarketing calls in Australia has been skyrocketing, to the point where, for many telemarketers, it is now almost a useless exercise. I see some acknowledgment of that in the gallery. As I said earlier, I think people understand this whole point about telemarketers very directly. For a lot of telemarketers as well it must be frustrating to ring people who are sick and tired of getting these calls, to the point where it is absolutely useless. People get frustrated and angry and are hesitant to answer the phone later in the night because of all these calls.

Research conducted last year estimated that telemarketing companies made more than 1 billion—that is right: 1 billion—telemarketing calls. That is a staggering thought. That is 53 calls per person or 2.7 calls per household per week—way too many; a figure which is out of control. These numbers represent an increase in telemarketing calls of six per cent on the previous year. In addition, the behaviour of some telemarketing companies is deplorable. While many telemarketing companies act in a responsible manner, there are many others who act irresponsibly. In fact, some, I would say, use disturbing tactics to pressure vulnerable people on the end of a phone—people who do not have the capacity to articulate their wishes or the power to really refuse someone on the phone. That is a real issue, a real problem.

Many people in the community cannot simply be rude and just say to telemarketers, ‘Go away!’ This bill gives them the power to tell telemarketers to go away. And they can do it directly, by listing their numbers on the Do Not Call Register. Once people understand that these laws have been passed—and I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to promote them in my electorate and that many others will be doing the same across the country—they will be rejoicing in their new-found freedom.

Many of the call centres engaged in telemarketing employ aggressive and, in some cases, deceitful sales practices, exploiting the most vulnerable in our community. As I say, this does not apply to all of them, obviously. There are many respectable, honourable telemarketers who do their job properly, within the bounds of the law and of what we would determine to be an ethical standard. But there are some who do not. Unsolicited calls are the biggest source of complaints to the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading, and in 2005 there was a surge in the number of complaints recorded in Victoria and South Australia. I am sure that the numbers in Queensland are also staggering—the numbers of people who are completely annoyed, who have absolutely had enough. It is clear, therefore, that there is substantial community interest in stopping unwanted telemarketing.

The community has demanded action. For years it has been ignored by government. Labor has been pushing this issue for well over two years. In fact, it was on the policy platform before the last election. Again, I welcome the backflip of the government on this issue. Every once in a while you have to applaud a backflip from governments. Governments that do backflips and admit that they were wrong should be congratulated. So I would congratulate the government on a spectacular backflip on this very important issue.

Labor acknowledged that the rate of unsolicited telemarketing calls had grown significantly in recent years. In fact, in 2004, Labor proposed the introduction of the national Do Not Call Register, but the then communications minister Daryl Williams dismissed Labor’s policy as just plain populist. Well, I am afraid he was wrong. It may be a populist issue but it is still a real issue—a real issue that concerns many people in the community and one that needs to be dealt with. Now that the government has backflipped on this and adopted Labor’s policy, I say that perhaps the then communications minister was more than wrong.

I want to make special mention here of my colleague the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, who introduced a private member’s bill in late 2005 to establish a national do not call list, to be managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Under that bill, telemarketers who contacted numbers on the list would be subject to fines of up to $10,000. The provisions of this private member’s bill are largely reflected in the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006. One area of difference between the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and Labor’s policy is that the government has prevented small businesses from registering on the list. Whether amendments to this bill reflecting this position should be moved will be discussed between the shadow minister for communications and the shadow minister for small business.

Labor welcomes today the change of heart from the Howard government to adopt Labor’s do not call list banning unwanted telemarketing phone calls. This is a win, as I said earlier, for Labor but it is also a huge win for ordinary families. Labor has long understood that Australians have become sick and tired of being hassled by annoying telemarketing phone calls.

Unfortunately for Australian families, John Howard played politics on nuisance calls. When the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, gave notice that she would be introducing a private member’s bill into the House of Representatives last year creating such a national Do Not Call Register, the government refused to even allow a vote on the bill. The government then cynically released a discussion paper on the issue, on the day before the bill was scheduled for debate. Now, after almost six months of delay, the Howard government has fully adopted Labor’s policy position. Senator Coonan should explain why she has made Australian families endure a further six months of annoying telemarketing calls just to allow her to take the political credit for this policy. She should also explain why the nuisance calls will go on until 2007.

Petty politics like this demonstrates the arrogance of a government that has been in power for far too long. The Howard government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming all along on this issue. It is clearly out of touch with community interest and does not understand how frustrated and annoyed ordinary Australian families are when they get home from a hard day at work and receive these nuisance calls. Labor listened and pressured the Howard government. Now Australian families will see an end to this irritating practice.

The next challenge for the Howard government is to adopt Labor’s plan to give peace of mind to parents concerned about their kids’ exposure to violent and pornographic material on the internet. We will be happy to continue to pressure this government until it understands what ordinary families need and deserve. So today I also call on John Howard to perform his second backflip and adopt Labor’s plan, which requires all internet service providers to offer a filtered, ‘clean feed’ internet service to all households, schools and other public internet points accessible by children. As I said, we welcome this bill. We welcome the Do Not Call Register, and Labor are very pleased that the government adopted our policy.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Failure is an orphan but success has many fathers. It is always interesting that, when you see members of the opposition get up on what is obviously a very good government initiative, they always try to claim the credit for it. I am not saying that they did not have any influence on these decisions, but to outrageously claim all the benefits of and all the credit for the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 is genuinely over the top. I think the member for Oxley normally gives a fairly reasonable contribution to this parliament. He even showed his warm and caring side today, telling us how he enjoyed cleaning up and cooking at home and did not like being interrupted by the phone calls while he was doing that. He is a very warm and caring member—although I think many people, when they are washing the dishes, would not mind being interrupted by something!

I agree with the member for Oxley that there is nothing more annoying when you have got home after a long day at work and you want to spend some time with your family or you have some other things to do or you have settled down to watch a movie—all those occasions when you are having your own time—and you are interrupted by someone who has no interest in you except in what he or she can perhaps sell to you. It is very annoying, and those occasions seem to have been on the increase.

I can remember years ago—and I do not know whether it is an urban myth or not—that the story used to be that if somebody rang up you could leave the phone off the hook, just walk away and then that person might hang up but they could not use that line. That is what I used to do. But unfortunately, after about half an hour, you realise that somebody else might be trying to get through to you, so you hang up your phone. Other people have had the experience of getting one of these calls from a telemarketer. They have decided that they will just leave it there hanging, go off, wash the dishes and come back, and they have found the person still talking without drawing a breath. Those sorts of stories abound all over Australia.

It is very annoying, and I think there is general agreement on both sides of this parliament that there will not be any opposition to this legislation because it is a very fine idea. I regularly have constituents ringing up and complaining. I tell them that there is a register, but this goes much further.

Often these calls are time consuming, with a hundred different questions before you even find out what they are calling about. As a rule, if I get one of these calls myself, I just say, ‘Not interested,’ and hang up. You soon come to recognise them. But I will be the first to admit that I mistook one caller with an Indian-sounding voice who tried to ring me three times. I was getting pretty annoyed by this stage, until I found out that this person actually worked for my local bank and had a pretty important reason to be ringing me up. That was the problem, as I think we all must recognise. I think India is the telemarketing centre of the world, and we recognise these voices, as I did. I plead guilty of making a mistake on this occasion.

On top of the frustration, as I said, many of the telemarketers are not even calling from Australia, nor do they speak fluent English. A recent advertisement by the Royal Automobile Association in South Australia depicted the character George talking about the frustrations of overseas call centres, in a humorous approach. The ‘Which deli?’ advertisement showed George telling cafe owner Trevor about the service provided by a call centre operator from New Delhi, India. George asks where the call centre operator is calling from, to which he replies, ‘New Delhi.’ George says that he is actually at the new deli in his neighbourhood. The call centre operator replies that they should catch up for a curry and a pappadum. Whilst the advertisement has been removed from the air, as the Advertising Standards Board received the complaint that it was racist, it certainly shows the common frustrations felt by many people at having service calls answered by overseas call centre operators.

This legislation is a very welcome step to saying goodbye to those nuisance calls. It is fantastic that this government—and I give credit to members of the opposition that they support it as well—has heard the cries of the public demands for such a register to be established. Last year alone, complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on telemarketing had increased by more than 600 per cent. That is a huge increase in anyone’s terms. That is saying something about the inconvenience and interruptions to people’s lives that these calls are creating.

We should also note that the proposal of such a register is supported by the telemarketing industry peak body, the Australian Direct Marketing Association, or ADMA. I think they should also be given credit for recognising this problem. The model being proposed is a legislated national register which will give the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the power to enforce industry compliance. The ACMA will also establish the administrative arrangements for the operation of the register. This legislation will also enable the establishment of minimum contact standards to which all telemarketers must adhere, including all exempted organisations such as charities.

There may still be some concern that charities are exempt. In my experience, charities are often the ones making these calls—and also to small business. I note that the member for Oxley raised this as well. I think that, in time, we will need to review those two areas. Small businesses often complain to me that they are busy during the day when they get these calls and the calls take up their time. We all like to think that charities are good and that they provide a great service, but they can also be annoying. I often get phone calls asking for donations, not because I am a member of parliament but because I am an average Joe Citizen like everyone else. Certainly my constituents often tell me that it is charities that are doing the ringing up, often at 7 o’clock or 8 o’clock at night when it is very inconvenient.

It seems that Australians are not the first to encounter this type of register, with successful schemes having been in operation in many countries, including the United States since 2003 and the United Kingdom since 1999. The proposed model for Australia takes the best features of schemes already operating in other countries but is primarily based on the United States model. This register gives the power to the consumer to say no to these annoying calls.

Consumers will have the legal right to stop telemarketing approaches at any time by placing their numbers, both fixed line and mobile phone numbers, on the national register. Once a telephone number is on the do not call list, telemarketers other than those in the exempt categories will be prohibited from contacting a registered number unless they have prior consent. All this is free to consumers. Individuals can nominate to register either via the internet, post or telephone and, once they have done so, their numbers will remain on the register for a period of three years before they will have to be reregistered unless they are removed earlier.

As per similar international systems, the government will fund the regulatory costs of the register and will contribute to the establishment costs for the register, including some ongoing costs. With the register proposed to cost just over $33 million over four years to establish, the government will make a contribution of $17.2 million over the four years. The industry will contribute $15.9 million over the same period, and telemarketers will then be required to pay for access to the register in the form of fees for access. I am pleased to note that ACMA would be empowered to enforce compliance of the register with the onus then being on the telemarketing industry to avoid calling anyone on the register without their consent. Should they not consult the register and dial consumers who are on it, they will face a fine.

I am also pleased to note that the register would apply to calls made within Australia as well as to calls made from overseas. Often companies have call centres located overseas, and this legislation will capture calls made overseas to an Australian number, even if the telemarketer or the commissioning company does not have a presence in Australia. Whilst enforcement of such calls may be difficult, it is recognised that telemarketing is in large part an international problem. With this in mind, the government has recognised the importance of cooperating with other countries in developing bilateral or multilateral arrangements to help move more effectively towards global enforcement of telemarketing.

Of course, in every situation, there are exemptions to the rules. Within our country there are some organisations that would be exempt from these rules, such as certain government bodies—including the armed forces and police forces—registered political parties, religious organisations, charities and educational institutions. For government bodies, telephone calls are an important mechanism through which the government is directly able to contact the public. Exempting such bodies as government departments, agencies including armed forces and police forces and authorities or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth, states and territories requiring to contact the public from time to time would seem sensible and appropriate.

For the purpose of staying in touch with constituents, political parties, independent members of parliament and nominated political candidates would be exempt. I note with some interest that, I believe, a member of the other place has suggested that politicians should not be exempt. We may laugh in this House about senators not knowing much about constituents at times, because we are the people’s house. I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, would have done a very similar thing when, like me, you are driving along in a large rural electorate and you ring someone out of the blue—it is not a bad thing to pick a number—with a hands-free phone set-up so that you are not breaking the law and driving dangerously. That is a risk we take. If someone does not like us doing that, they can vote against us. That is their ultimate way of saying, ‘We didn’t like that call.’ My experience in this is that people have been quite surprised that a member of parliament has rung them out of the blue, and they are quite happy have a chat about anything. As long as you do it in a polite manner and listen to them, they take it very well. I think that is a very good thing for parliamentarians to do.

The exemption also applies to persons nominated as a candidate under the Commonwealth Electoral Act—and I think it is only fair that we treat all candidates, whether or not they are the sitting member, the same. They can be a candidate under the Commonwealth Electoral Act or a relevant state or territory law that deals with electoral matters. Where this exemption does not apply is when a party member seeks to promote their own business through telemarketing calls for their own benefit. We are awake to that. As religious organisations provide valuable support and community services, as well as moral guidance to many people within the community, they have been exempt from these rules. Educational institutions also need to contact their students to inform them of the needs of the institutions and to solicit funds to ensure their viability, and for these reasons they are also being exempt from the rules.

While it sounds as though consumers are trying to stop communicating with anyone unknown to them, we must remember that the telemarketing industry actually wants this register. The industry will benefit through decreased operational costs associated with the proposed national telemarketing standards, reduced costs of compliance with state and territory legislation and better targeting of calls as they will no longer call individuals who will hang up on them—as I do and as I am sure many members of this parliament and many members of the public do.

This legislation signifies consumers and the government taking a stand for our privacy and our precious time and how we choose to use it. For a long time we have received these annoying calls and, with people working as hard as they do now—families and children being busy with schooling, sports and other activities—time is precious. Why would anyone want to waste five minutes that they could have with their children, after just walking in the door from work and with the children heading off to bed, to listen to a telemarketer calling from another country and selling something that is completely useless to the family? The Do Not Call Register will put an end to this. I do not think anyone in this chamber should oppose this bill and would be very surprised if anyone did. I commend the bill to the House.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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)

welcomes the Government’s decision to implement Labor’s plan to establish a Do Not Call Register;

(2)

declares that the carve out for small and micro business represents a substantial deficiency in the bill and represents Government complacency on small business policy; and

(3)

calls on the Government to adopt Labor’s more comprehensive model”.

I begin my contribution on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006, as I did yesterday on a couple of occasions, by expressing my disappointment at the government’s decision to gag this and a number of other important bills—and they are important for a number of reasons. From the reaction of the government’s own backbench, we can see the importance of the immigration bill that is being gagged. We all understand why it is being gagged. It has been done in an attempt to minimise political damage and fallout for this government. Yesterday Labor wished to move a technical amendment to the petroleum bill and we were denied that opportunity.

There could be no better example of an affront to parliamentary democracy than the successful attempt to deny minor opposition parties the right to move amendments in this place. However, it is not only an affront to Australian democracy; it is an insult to all those whom we represent in this place. We should be able to move such amendments in this place. Indeed, today I am again being denied the opportunity to move, on behalf of many Australians—in this case small business—a consideration in detail amendment to this bill. There could not possibly be any justification for that action.

On that basis, I seek leave to table the amendment that I would have moved in the consideration in detail stage, if I had been given the opportunity to do so and not gagged by the government on this issue. I have discussed the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and I am sure he would be happy to grant leave.

Leave granted.

The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 provides for the creation of a national register that will allow individuals to opt out from receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The register will be overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Exemptions will be provided for certain types of telemarketing calls to allow organisations who carry out activities in the public interest to carry out their work and to continue to provide services to the community. The exempt bodies are charities, registered political parties—so the Prime Minister will be able to call people at home again during the next election, if he is still around—independent members of parliament and candidates, religious organisations, educational institutions and government bodies.

The Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 enables the development of relevant industry codes and standards relating to telemarketing calls. It requires the ACMA to make national standards regulating the making of all telemarketing calls. The mandatory standards will relate to certain conduct matters, such as the time at which telemarketing calls may be made, the information that must be provided to recipients and the termination of such calls. The standard will apply to all telemarketers including those exempt from Do Not Call Register arrangements.

As indicated by the member for Oxley, Labor welcomes this legislation; it is long overdue. I am sure that he pointed out to the House that Labor has been calling for this for at least 18 months—I think longer. I believe that we took this policy to the last federal election. For whatever reason, the government for a long time was very reluctant to move on the matter, but community pressure has been overwhelmingly strong and has obviously forced the government’s hand.

I just make mention of the member for Chisholm. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today. She is unwell and has had to go home. She will be very disappointed to have missed this debate. All members of this House will be aware that the member for Chisholm has driven this agenda. She has run a very heavy public campaign and has introduced a private member’s bill into this place to give effect to what the government is attempting to achieve today.

It is interesting to note the number of submissions that were made on this bill. I was surprised to see them as I went through the bill’s explanatory memorandum. There were some 12 submissions from small business, 28 from charitable organisations, 32 from telemarketing organisations, eight from telephone carriers, five from consumer groups, eight from government, 20 from special interest groups, one from a social and market research organisation and, interestingly, 377 from individuals. So you can see where the push is coming from. It is not coming from industry organisations, as is so often the case in this place. The push is coming from ordinary mums and dads and families out there who are sick and tired of receiving unsolicited telephone calls at dinnertime or while they are watching their favourite movie or footy event. I am one of those victims. In particular, over the last Christmas period, I was inundated with unsolicited phone calls from these marketing organisations. It drove me crazy—absolutely crazy. It enraged me at times to be receiving these calls while trying to enjoy a short Christmas break and some quiet time with my family.

Interestingly, my daughter came home from school one day and informed me that someone at the school had told her the best way to deal with these calls is not to hang up but to leave the phone off the hook, sitting idle, and just let the telemarketers speak for five minutes or for however long until they work out that you are no longer on the other end. So that has become the practice in my household, and I understand that many households have adopted that same practice.

It is very frustrating to receive these calls, often at the worst possible times. On that basis, like the 377 people who made submissions and the many members of parliament, including Anna Burke, who have been pushing the case, I am delighted that the government has finally moved on this very important issue. We lag behind other nation states. These measures have been in effect in the United States and in the United Kingdom for some time, and I understand Canada is in the process of putting them in place. I know there has been some concern about the impact on the telemarketing industry, but the evidence from other nations where these things have been put into effect is that it has not been too adverse. In fact, it has forced the industry to have another look at itself and at how it can better present its case to the consumers it is targeting. I am very pleased that we are moving to a mandatory system. I think that is the only way we will give proper effect to what we are trying to achieve in this instance.

The second reading amendment I have moved gives members an opportunity to talk about a few things, particularly the tardiness of the government in bringing this legislation forward. But it also gives us an opportunity to talk about the impact of this legislation on small business. The amendment I had intended to move at the consideration in detail stage of this bill would have allowed small business to opt back into system. Unfortunately from my perspective, the government has made a decision to not allow small business people to opt into the system. In other words, private individuals at home will be able to register and request that they not be called and people with mobile phones will be able to request that they not be called, but people in small business will not be able to do the same.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, says that the government took this decision because she was concerned that business undertaking ordinary business-to-business activity throughout the day might inadvertently get caught up in this legislation. That makes no sense to me. I cannot see the Australian Communications and Media Authority taking action against a small business for inadvertently falling under the scope of this bill. It would be clear to the authority that that is not the intention of the parliament, and I think it is highly unlikely that the authority would take any action in that event.

There is a very blurry line here between what is a business phone and what is a private phone—take tradespeople, in particular, who use their mobile phones for both purposes. You can imagine the small business builder, up on top of a roof, working away, when his phone rings. He needs to have that phone on his hip because not having it on his hip means the possible loss of business. So he keeps the phone on his hip and he keeps it turned on in case a customer is trying to call. But how frustrating is it for him—or it could be her—to struggle to put the hammer down, get the phone off the hip and risk falling off the roof only to learn that the call is coming from a telemarketer putting a proposition to him that he has absolutely no interest in. You can imagine a motor mechanic working under a vehicle in the dirt and the heat when the phone rings. He is compelled to come from under the car and run to the office to take the phone call, and you can understand how frustrating it is for him to find that the person on the other end of that telephone call is indeed a telemarketer trying to sell him something he has no interest in whatsoever.

People in retail or people in hairdressing and beauty therapy doing their treatments cannot afford to ignore the phone, to have the phone off the hook or to offend people with an answering machine. They are absolutely compelled to answer that phone every time it rings because they want to deliver the best possible service they can to their customers and to their potential customers. There is nothing more frustrating for them than to be interrupted and to have to leave their client or their customer alone for a few moments to go to answer a phone call that turns out to be from a telemarketer flogging something they have no interest in.

Whilst I understand there could be some concern on the government’s part about people inadvertently getting caught in the net, if you balance that against the disadvantages for small firms then clearly you would have to default to the view that it is important to also include small businesses in that same net. I have moved the second reading amendment to give members the opportunity to talk more broadly about that. Again, can I say how disappointed I am that Labor will be denied the opportunity to move its amendment at the consideration in detail stage—a technical amendment that we should have been able to move. That amendment would have simply put small business back in the system.

In my amendment, as the House will see, we were measuring small businesses—those with 20 employees or fewer. If the government had allowed us to debate that amendment and had decided, for good reason, that a better measure could be put in place for small business, we would have been happy to have that debate and change the amendment. It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to deny us the opportunity to even move that amendment in this place. If I remember correctly, this bill has already been dealt with in the Senate. It initiated in the Senate, through Senator Coonan. So, in effect, we have been completely denied the opportunity to move that amendment. Often in cases when we face a gag, we have the opportunity to move the amendment in the other place. But, if I am correct on that point, we will not have that opportunity. This is a ridiculous denial of parliamentary justice.

I invite the minister representing Helen Coonan in this place, when delivering his summation on this bill, to better explain to the House why it was that in the end small business was carved out of this process, because it is certainly not coming from submissions from small business. I can quote for the House the head of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Mr Tony Steven, who said:

Constant calls from telemarketers are a time imposition for small business. We do want to restrict business-to-business marketing, but we should be protected from mass marketing telemarketing campaigns run by call centres in India.

He reinforces the point I have made. We deal with some very technical legislation in this place on a daily basis, but the government wants to tell me they cannot produce legislation that protects small business from mass-marketing telemarketers and at the same time ensures they are able to continue to do their normal business-to-business activity on any given day. That is a ridiculous proposition. I smell a rat. I do not know what it is, but I just cannot understand why the government would carve small business out. That is why Labor wanted to move an amendment to carve them back in.

The minister needs to come back in this place and articulate to us very clearly why it is that small business is going to be denied the opportunity to be protected from telemarketers in the same way that we at home are to be protected. I remind the House again that there is a very blurry line between what is a private phone and what is a business phone, particularly for tradesmen. We know the statistics on the ever-increasing reliance of small business on mobile phones to undertake their business. Of course, that extends now to wireless technology on the internet et cetera. It is becoming increasingly popular. This is a time when the government should be working harder to assist small business, not making things more difficult for it. So, in the absence of an opportunity to move the amendment, I invite the government to consider my amendment between now and the closure of the debate on this bill. If they want to have a rethink and embrace my amendment as their own, they would be more than welcome to do so.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A Do Not Call Register is really a database with a list of names and numbers of people who do not want to have unsolicited calls. I think the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 are going to be welcomed by many Australians. In my electorate office I have had many calls from people. Those who are disabled, the elderly and those who are on their own are the key callers who hate the interruptions and the inconvenience—not of having a meal disturbed but of having to answer a phone which may be an emergency call or a call from a relative seeking their support or assistance. The elderly and infirm are always conscientious in answering phones.

The register will be established and it will be for private owners. The previous speaker from the Australian Labor Party, Mr Fitzgibbon, raises the problems of small business. I think it is a fairly easily deduced differential the government is placing here in the legislation of public and private use—the publicly advertised telephone numbers of a small business compared to the private use of an individual. The government has made that separation and I think it is a perfectly reasonable separation. It is okay to speculate that not all business phones can be easily separated from private use. That may be the case, but if a phone is publicly advertised as a business number and the normal hours of contact are between nine and five or between seven and seven then access should be granted to those publicly available phone numbers.

Direct marketers are really competing in what is called the attention economy. They want to grab attention. The process of direct marketing by telephone is like spam: they hope that, by making a certain number of hits at very low cost per contact, they are going to be able to pick up the attention of somebody they are calling and get a market response from them—something they can use, perhaps not in that call, but that can be stored and used at a future time. There is a feeling amongst marketers that consumers may be more receptive if they are at home and contacted by a personal call rather than by print or by television advertising. So it is a more personal type of advertising. No doubt it would not be continued if there were no gain from the process. It is just like spam: if they hit enough people, the marketers may get a response.

It is often said that the inconvenience of these calls is small and that this proposal should not go ahead. In the United States currently there are approximately 10 calls per day per telephone subscriber marketing through this direct calling process. In Australia I understand the figure is about two calls per day on average. We have got a long way to go to reach the numbers in the United States. The concerns being expressed by the Australian community justify the steps the government is taking.

Most reputable organisations in fact keep a list of those who prefer not to be called, but then that just leaves the door open for the disreputable or the overseas contractor to be able to use a direct marketing process straight to the home of the elderly or the disabled. Therefore, the government has chosen to take a step to address this. Not everybody in this field is reputable. Not everybody is going to have their own database and set aside an in-house process where calls are not made. The Do Not Call Register will be limited to basically private telephones, and that is the way it should be. Publicly listed phones available for business should be open to direct marketing.

Is this a problem elsewhere? Canada is in the process of introducing similar legislation and the UK and the USA have done so already. It is understood that there are 90 million people registered with the US Federal Trade Commission on the National Do Not Call Registry. Ninety million Americans have said, ‘We don’t want direct marketing through our telephones.’

I am indebted to Caslon Analytics Ltd for providing some of the statistics for this industry. The most common cause for complaint by direct marketers is that there will be job losses. Enough people have had calls from outside Australia to know that the job losses will not necessarily be Australian. I understand that the turnover in this industry is about 300 per cent per annum—so the average person holds a job in this industry for approximately four months. So the industry could hardly be termed a permanent place of employment. Not only that, but it is hardly considered to be an entry point to the IT industry. Students—all sorts of people—will pick up a casual job in a call centre and they will stay for only a short time. This is not an industry that holds a big future for them, with big prospects for advancement and long-term employment.

I draw the government’s attention to voice over internet and the problems it will create. I predict that the use of VoIP rather than the direct telephone line will be the next avenue used by direct marketers. Voice over internet will be very difficult to manage, in my opinion—it will be very difficult to control for the group of marketers who switch to it.

This legislation is something that the government has done well. I compliment the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, on its introduction. The Australian community welcomes it. I am sure many constituents of mine will take advantage of the Do Not Call Register so that there will be a chance for them to say they do not wish to have calls. A registration process will be established, and the cost of the register will be borne, on a cost recovery basis, by the telemarketing industry.

From the telemarketing industry’s point of view there will be considerable advantages to the register because there will be a reduction in the number of wasted calls. The 90 million callers who have subscribed to the National Do Not Call Registry in the United States alone must indicate the magnitude of the number of people who do not wish to be bothered by direct marketing schemes. This alone will be a significant saving to direct marketers. The penalties under this program range from $1,100 to $1.1 million, depending on the provisions breached and the seriousness of the breach. But Australians will welcome the register because it applies not only to direct call marketers within Australia but also to those confounded international calls, where it is obvious that the caller has been well schooled but is not living in Australia. These calls are a complete irritant to many of their recipients.

I know that the telemarketing industry has tried to address this problem. There have been a number of attempts to have a voluntary code of conduct and solve the problem, but telemarketing is a very entrepreneurial marketing process, and people are very inventive in the way they approach the marketing techniques they have adopted. So it is necessary to legislate. There are just too many operators unwilling to lift their standards or to change the way they do things. Consumers will be able to complain if the process is not working. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, as it is now called, will be administering the program, so they will take charge of any complaints. There will be a level playing field for all telemarketers. The register will be valued by the Australian community.

I have received a few calls within the last few weeks from an elderly lady living on her own in a retirement village. She was very unhappy to have received six telemarketing calls in a very short time as she depends on calls from a close relative to report that relative’s state of health. She was worried about that person but got confounded calls coming in from people who just annoy and harass her. She is not in the state of mind physically or mentally to be able to cope with that sort of marketing and rang my office on a number of occasions, three days in a row, distressed by the calls she had received.

Another gentleman, a Mr Bond, has been calling my office, saying, ‘However do these telemarketers get my silent number?’ Telemarketing involves a casual process of dialling, often computer generated, where the marketers are going to pick up silent numbers. This gentleman will now be free of those concerns. So two people who have notified me about this problem recently will welcome this system. Telstra have been helpful. I pay tribute to Wayne Rose of Telstra for the offer of help he has given to both these people. But now they will be set free of this problem. They will register and they will not get the calls.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 and broadly endorse the statements made by members on both sides of the House on behalf of their constituents. As the previous speaker said, I am sure we have all received these telemarketing calls. The frail and elderly, in particular, feel harassed in their homes by these sorts of calls. I have had exactly the same sort of experience. I am glad to be able to speak on this bill, as I have been gagged on so many others. I have a pile of never delivered speeches in my office that I think would almost outnumber those that I have delivered. So I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on this bill.

The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 sets up a scheme to enable individuals who have an Australian number to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The bill aims to regulate and minimise calls made to Australian telephone numbers that originate from overseas or Australian numbers—something that will be welcomed by many in our communities. Labor has been calling for the establishment of a national do not call list since July 2004. Further to this, in October 2005 the member for Chisholm proposed a private member’s bill to this effect. The Howard government refused to allow a vote on this bill, instead releasing a discussion paper on this issue on the day before the bill was scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives. Now, almost two years after Labor’s original proposal in July 2004, the Howard government has put forward this legislation but it will mean that the national do not call list will not be up and running until 2007. So I think we will have missed an opportunity over the intervening 2½ years to provide some relief to many people. For two years Australian families have had to suffer through these annoying telemarketing calls and, unfortunately, they will be forced to endure them until the beginning of next year.

I have had hundreds of complaints from my constituents in Cunningham about these irritating calls. They are a nuisance and indeed often a harassment for many people, especially the elderly, infirm and disabled. These people are unnecessarily disturbed by nuisance calls, often causing them pain and confusion and indeed financial loss if they get caught up in something with which they had no intention of engaging. They are often disturbed by telemarketers numerous times each day, often—as the previous speaker outlined—while they are awaiting calls from family or awaiting medical results and the like. The phone rings and they then have to get up—and for some who are disabled or frail that can be quite onerous—and find the phone, only to discover it is simply another telemarketer. Many of these people suffer from arthritis or have mobility difficulties.

A telemarketing campaign was under way in Wollongong in July last year which resulted in a person’s telephone account being changed to another provider without the person’s permission. I think the member for Charlton also received complaints in her electorate at that time. The process is called ‘slamming’. Telemarketers phoned my constituents and said they were calling on behalf of their current telephone provider. They asked whether they were speaking to the authorised account holder. The account holder answered yes and the telemarketer then recorded this answer and used it as an ‘authorisation’ to transfer their current account to another phone provider. The only way my constituents found out that they had been ‘slammed’ was when they received their next telephone bill and it was from another provider.

Telemarketers are also a source of frustration for many families in the Illawarra. I know, as a working mother, exactly what that is like. You have picked the kids up from school or child care—or in many cases both—you have done the shopping, you get through the door and you are trying to put the shopping away, start dinner, bathe the kids and help with the homework when the phone rings. You are put on hold and then you hear a voice from overseas telling you that you have been selected as a lucky winner of a mobile phone or accommodation—but only if you sign up to their ‘special’ offer. They can be very persistent, aggressive and indeed deceitful.

During the past two years of government inaction, I have heard arguments about how a do not call register will affect charities and Australian jobs. It is not the charities or the companies who use Australian call centres that my electorate office receives complaints about. The complaints that I have had are about companies who set up or contract overseas call centres. I receive the most complaints about repeated and aggressive telemarketing calls. My constituents advise me these calls are generally from India and are often from Australian companies who have gone offshore to set up call centres, to the detriment in fact of employment opportunities here in Australia.

This type of aggressive telemarketing impacts significantly on the hardworking Australians employed legitimately by good companies with good telemarketing practices. The companies that operate offshore use autodialing machines to automatically dial numbers in any numerical sequence. The calls are made from the call centre and then bank up until an operator is available. People are left waiting for a few seconds or up to a minute until one of their operators becomes available. The autodialing method also means that even if you have an unlisted number, as other speakers have identified, you are still susceptible to these calls.

In fact, in July 2005 I advertised in my regular electorate newsletter the Australian Direct Marketing Association’s voluntary Do Not Call Register. The response from my constituents in Wollongong was explosive, and it is one of the issues that my office has had the most contact on. We received hundreds of calls, all detailing individual experiences and frustration with these particular calls. I was constantly advised that these calls caused even the most normally charming people to become angry and aggressive—such is the extent of the complaints and the emotion that these calls conjure up.

All this was met with a great deal of understanding on my behalf. I was certainly brought up to always be polite. I have found in the past with many telemarketers from Australian based companies that, when I had politely listened to their introduction and politely said, ‘Thanks very much for calling but I am not in the least bit interested,’ they generally said, ‘Thank you,’ and that was the end of the conversation. So, while getting up to answer the phone while I was in the middle of trying to feed the family was a bit annoying, at least I had a polite exchange. In more recent times my experience, like many of my constituents’ experiences, is that the person on the other end of the line is particularly rude and particularly persistent. Having politely listened to their introduction and politely told them you are not in the least bit interested, you will get a very aggressive response: ‘Well, I’ve got this offer. As I’ve been able to contact you in order to give you an opportunity, I want to tell you about it.’ I say, ‘Thank you but I am not interested,’ but they persist.

On all the occasions that I have had these calls, without exception I have had to simply hang up in the middle of their comments. This is not something that I normally do in my day-to-day exchanges. As politicians, we have some fairly heated exchanges on occasion but I always manage to feel that I can continue the conversation and that there is a bit of dialogue on both sides. But these calls are not like that. They are aggressive and they are rude. Indeed, on one occasion when a company rang me for the third time that night to sell me some educational products, I again politely explained that I did not have primary school age children and was not interested. When I said, ‘In fact, you have already rung me twice tonight,’ the man said, ‘No, we haven’t’. I said, ‘Yes, you have,’ and he said: ‘No, you’re wrong. We haven’t rung you before.’ When I said, ‘Yes, you have rung me before,’ he hung up on me.

The outcome may have been pretty good in terms of shortening the call but it left me feeling fairly agitated. I thought that if I were a fairly elderly person and had that exchange it would have been very distressing. These are the sorts of calls that all our electorate offices are getting complaints about. The persistent and aggressive telemarketers make it even more difficult for those that most would consider to be genuine and legitimate call centre workers and charities. What happens is that we develop a hard shell and give an abrupt response when we get these calls, so genuine people who try to do their job with some professionalism often end up bearing the brunt of a fairly aggressive response from the receiver.

In 2006 Telstra reported that its unwelcome calls unit received 1,500 calls each day, with between 700 and 800 related to telemarketing. Most complaints reflected the failure of telemarketers to adhere to industry codes of practice and conduct, such as privacy codes and the ADMA’s do not call arrangements. These calls are impacting on family time. Many families have advised me that they can be called up to five times in the same evening by the same company. We all lead very busy lives. Many of my constituents commute to Sydney for work; they have very long days and are constantly under pressure to manage their travel to work, child care, after school care and other commitments. The very last thing they want is to be constantly interrupted during the short time they spend with their families in the evening.

I really do not think the Howard government understands how intrusive these calls can be. Indeed, during the 2004 election campaign the Liberal Party employed pre-recorded telemarketing technology to make unsolicited calls to thousands of Australians before voting day. I must acknowledge the fact that at least the company providing this service to the Liberal Party did employ Australian workers. As I recall, one of the Australians employed by this company was indeed the Prime Minister’s son.

I fully support the national do not call list, but it should be set up now—in fact, it should have been set up quite a while ago. Australian families and the elderly should not have to wait until 2007 for the list to be set up. Research conducted last year estimated that more than one billion telemarketing calls were made in Australia last year. That is 53 calls per person or 2.7 calls per household per week.

The United States of America has had a do not call register scheme since 2003. I was recently speaking to a renowned paediatric pathologist, Dr Edith Schmidt, who is a resident of Las Vegas, the advertising capital of the USA. Dr Schmidt advised me that, prior to the register being set up, she was inundated with unsolicited telemarketing calls to her home every evening. Since registering with the scheme she now receives very few marketing calls and most are misdialled numbers. Schemes in the UK and Canada have been in place since 2004.

The main elements of the bill before us are: firstly, a prohibition on making telemarketing calls to an Australian number that is registered on the Do Not Call Register, penalties applying for calls made from an Australian number or from overseas to an Australian number; secondly, a requirement that agreements for the making of telemarketing calls must comply with the act—this is aimed at organisations that may contract with another party to provide their telemarketing services; thirdly, a requirement for a Do Not Call Register to be established, enabling individuals to register their private or domestic number—the register would be kept by the Australian Communications and Media Authority or outsourced to a third party, which would operate the register on its behalf; fourthly, civil penalty provisions, not criminal offences, for a breach of a provision—breaches may attract significant financial penalties; and, fifthly, a tiered enforcement regime that provides for a range of enforcement measures to be initiated by the ACMA. The enforcement measures include formal warnings, acceptance of an enforceable undertaking or the issuing of an infringement notice. The ACMA may also institute proceedings in the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for breach of a civil penalty provision. The court may order action that could include the payment of compensation to a victim who has suffered loss or damage as a result of a breach of the act.

While I am supporting the bill before us—it is crucial that a Do Not Call Register is established—I do feel that the government’s efforts in seeking to delay its introduction and in seeking not to have the register fully operational prior to 2007 reflects a lack of understanding of the level of frustration faced by many Australian families and the elderly.

In the brief time left I want to also address my disappointment with the gag having the effect of not allowing the amendment of the member for Hunter to be given proper consideration and, I would have hoped, support. I speak to many small business operators in my electorate. Many of them are as frustrated and annoyed by these calls as those of us who have private phone numbers are. If you run a small business—a corner shop, a small florist, a chemist—and you have two or three staff working, and you constantly have someone having to answer the phone because you are getting these sorts of telemarketing calls, it is as annoying and disruptive to your business as it is to many of us in our home lives. I see no reason, to be honest, why we could not have extended the Do Not Call Register to small business. If they want to take the initiative to list on it, they should have the capacity to do that. In particular, that would recognise the modern reality of many small businesses. If plumbers, builders and those sorts of people are out and about on the job all day, generally their business phone is their mobile phone—they are carrying it around with them—and they obviously have to be able to take a call in case it is a business related call.

I had the plumber at my place a couple of weeks ago, out the back digging up the pipes, and his phone rang quite a number of times. He complained to me about the fact that these were often telemarketers. He had his hand, shall we say, well and truly in the muck, and it is a fairly intensive job that he needs to concentrate on. He said there is nothing more annoying than having to climb out of the trench, wipe your hands off, get the phone and then discover it is somebody trying to sell you encyclopaedias or something like that. For him, and for many small business people like him, the ability to register on this list would have been a great asset. I think it is extraordinarily disappointing that, because of the gag on this debate, the amendment that the member for Hunter indicated in his speech he would have liked to have moved as a technical amendment will not be considered. On behalf of the small businesses in my area—and I suspect that many on the other side would feel the same and support it—I will continue to urge the government to review this issue and to look at future amendments to this bill to give some relief to those small business operators.

In summary, I know that we are all in a mass-marketing world. I get home from work at the end of the day and I can barely get my letterbox open for the amount of junk mail that is in there. It is annoying. But at the end of the day it is my decision as to whether or not I engage in those sorts of interactions. If I want to take that whole bundle of stuff out of the letterbox and dump it straight in the recycling bin, which I frequently do, I am able to do that. It is the same with my internet access and pop-ups, emails or whatever. I am choosing to sit at the computer at that time so, while they are annoying, they are manageable. The difference with phone telemarketing is that you are not choosing to engage; they are interrupting you at a time of their convenience and often it is of great inconvenience to you. For the many people in my area who have indicated that this has become the absolute bane of their lives, particularly in the evenings, I think this bill will be very welcome. Their only disappointment in it will be these two aspects: firstly, that they have to wait until the beginning of next year and, secondly, those small businesses affected will not have the opportunity to take advantage of it.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 sets up a scheme to enable individuals who have an Australian number to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The use of the telephone as a sales tool dates back as far as the early 1900s. That is not bad, considering it was only invented around 1854 by Antonio Meucci—or, if you are a Canadian, in 1875 by Alexander Bell. In Australia, however, it was not until the 1980s that telemarketing techniques became more refined and incorporated into the marketing strategies of businesses of all sizes. In 1996 there were 9,400 people employed as telemarketers. By 2006 this increased to an estimated 250,000. Even though only a very small percentage of calls are successful, telemarketing is still an extremely lucrative part of the marketing mix for many companies. With around 1.065 billion telemarketing calls being made each year from Australia’s 30,000-odd call centres, this adds up to significant sales figures. In 2002 the industry was estimated to be generating around $10 billion per year. With technologies such as voice over internet protocol, the number of calls is only expected to increase. In fact, the Australian Direct Marketing Association states that the telemarketing industry is currently growing at a rate of 17 per cent per year.

Such success for business is fantastic. However, there is a down side: those hundreds of millions of receivers who are not interested. These people often feel harassed and intimidated in their own homes. Telemarketers are calling too often, late at night or during meal times and they are far too pushy. Some people have even felt pressured into purchasing products they did not want. When submissions on a discussion paper on the Do Not Call Register were called for, more than 90 per cent of responses were in favour. The message was clear—people wanted their privacy back. People have come up with many ways of attempting to avoid the telemarketing calls. Methods such as caller ID, answering machines and voicemail can be used to screen calls. One novel device is the TeleZapper. Most call centres use a special piece of software known as an autodialler, which calls several numbers simultaneously. When you answer, the autodialler quickly connects you to an operator. The TeleZapper foils the autodialler by issuing a tone that causes the autodialler to think the number is out of service and it does not dial the number again.

A much easier and cheaper way for people is the establishment of a Do Not Call Register, which the bill proposes. Individuals who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls can place their home and mobile phone numbers on this register. Telemarketers will be required to check their calling lists against those numbers registered to ensure that they are not contacting those individuals. If they do contact these people, they will face a substantial financial penalty. Individuals will not be required to pay for registering their phone numbers. The operational costs of the scheme will be covered predominately by the telemarketing industry itself. Telemarketers will be required to pay for access to the register in the form of fees for access. The proposed fee structure will be apportioned on the basis of usage of the register. This will result in lower costs for smaller businesses that use the register less frequently. The government will fund the regulatory costs and contribute to the establishment costs and some ongoing operational costs. The scheme will be administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will have the option to either run or tender out the operation of the Do Not Call Register. It will establish the operational requirements for the register and enforce the scheme.

As around 17 per cent of the population move house each year, it was decided that each number would remain on the register for three years. As a result, the register should be fairly accurate, without individuals having to re-register every year. There are some organisations which will be exempted from the scheme. These are organisations that operate in the public interest such as government bodies, like the police force; registered political parties; members of parliament and nominated political candidates; religious organisations; charities; and, in some circumstances, educational institutions. Consumers can also consent to a particular telemarketing call. For example, if you have entered a competition, this would not in itself be sufficient to establish a relationship that infers consent to receiving future telemarketing calls from the organisation involved. If, however, you have specifically ticked a box as part of the entry form requesting future contact, then this is express consent. The duration of this express consent is three months unless indicated otherwise.

The general level of annoyance over telemarketing is perhaps exacerbated to some extent by the lack of unified policy and regulation surrounding telemarketing activity. Currently there is no central agency to address telemarketing complaints and there is confusion for both agencies that use telemarketing practices and consumers on respective obligations and rights. The bill is accompanied by the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, which makes various amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 and the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997. These amendments provide a regulatory framework for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to investigate complaints relating to telemarketing calls and to enforce the scheme. Enforcement arrangements will include infringement notices, formal warnings, injunctions, penalties and court actions, with penalties ranging from $1,000 up to $1.1 million, depending on the seriousness of the breach.

The amendments also enable the development of industry codes and standards relating to telemarketing calls. These standards must be adhered to by all telemarketers, including those exempt from the Do Not Call Register. The standards will cover matters such as permitted calling hours, minimum information to be provided to recipients of calls and minimum requirements surrounding termination of calls. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will consult with specified bodies to set out these detailed rules of conduct.

The current rules governing telemarketing practices are contained in various instruments, including voluntary codes developed by industry, state and territory legislation and Commonwealth law. For example, the main telemarketing industry body, the Australian Direct Marketing Association, has developed a do not contact register and direct marketing code of practice. In fact, over 113,000 Australians have put their names on this do not contact register. However, the 20 per cent of telemarketers who are not members of the association are not restrained from calling numbers on this list, and the association has no enforcement authority on those who do not stick to the code. The Australian Direct Marketing Association is in favour of this bill, as it will enforce many aspects that it has tried to bring into the industry. The industry will become more efficient by preventing unnecessary calls to those who will simply hang up and creating a level playing field requiring all telemarketers to adhere to professional standards.

What about overseas telemarketers? The Do Not Call Register will apply to these calls also. If they are being made on behalf of an Australian company, action will be taken against that company. If there is no presence in Australia, the legislation will still apply. For this reason, the government recognises the importance of cooperating with other countries and of developing bilateral and multilateral arrangements to help move more effectively towards global enforcement of telemarketing. The UK is currently investigating international agreement options in this respect. An anonymous submission into the Do Not Call Register discussion paper stated:

We long for a time when phone calls were a source of pleasure.

The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 will go a long way in helping to achieve this goal.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that the government is finally listening to the cries from this side of the House to introduce a Do Not Call Register; it is not before time. Telemarketing has become something of a scourge in the First World, and I would like to consider today how it has developed. Telemarketing is the process of selling goods and services over the telephone. It has been used to market a variety of products ranging from insurance to newspapers to industrial equipment, and it has the potential for selling virtually any product. The use of the telephone as a sales tool dates back to the early 1900s. However, the full potential of outbound telemarketing was not recognised by business until WATS—wide area telephone service—lines came into existence in 1960. During the 1970s, telemarketing techniques became more refined and were incorporated into the marketing strategies of businesses of all sizes. Between 1981 and 1991, spending on telemarketing efforts grew from $US1 billion to $US60 billion. In 1997, telemarketing sales to consumers and businesses totalled $US425.5 billion.

Consumers these days have a negative perception of telemarketing because of untimely and annoying calls. Certainly this has been the case in Australia for many years. Complaints to my office have increased markedly over the past two years. This may well coincide with the increase in the number of call centres of Australian companies going offshore. It has also been the vehicle for a variety of fraudulent schemes or scams, including multilevel marketing and pyramid schemes.

There are two kinds of telemarketing: outbound and inbound. It is outbound telemarketing that this legislation is dealing with. Outbound calls present a marketing situation in which the telemarketer has the undivided attention of the prospect and can get immediate feedback. It has become very popular as a marketing tool across the world. Different jurisdictions have dealt with the telemarketing pest in various ways. Britain has had a do not call register since 1995, which began as a voluntary, self-regulatory scheme under which consumers could choose not to receive unwanted calls—similar to the service provided by the ADMA. In 1999, regulations were introduced whereby callers, including charities and political organisations, are prohibited from contacting those registered on the do not call list. By June 2005, over eight million people had registered.

In New Zealand, there are currently no laws protecting consumers from telemarketers. There is, as in Australia, an industry association, which promotes a code of ethics. In addition, in order to operate in New Zealand, telemarketers must obtain a permit from New Zealand Telecom. To obtain this permit, the business has to indicate that they will operate within reasonable hours, never phone after 9 pm, state the reason for the call and invite callers to hang up. It is perhaps not surprising that New Zealanders seem not to be as concerned as Australians are with intrusive telemarketers.

In the United States, privacy legislation was introduced in 1992 to protect consumers from telemarketers. This obviously proved insufficient. A national do not call register was introduced in June 2003. There are some exceptions, such as charities, market researchers, not-for-profit organisations and political organisations. By July last year, over 98 million Americans had signed up to the register. Although challenged by telemarketing corporations and trade groups as a violation of commercial speech rights, the national do not call registry was upheld by the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on 17 February 2004.

The reason I have provided this brief history of telemarketing is to simply point out that action against excessive levels of telemarketing has been taken all over the world except Australia—until the opposition raised it as an issue. The member for Chisholm introduced a private member’s bill into this House on 31 October 2005. It took the opposition to recognise the fact that Australians were fed up with telemarketers contacting them at inconvenient times. It has taken over seven months for the government to acknowledge that Labor and the member for Chisholm were correct and to introduce the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. Nonetheless, we do not wish to be ungracious; here it is, and it is about time.

Certainly I am aware of the high level of frustration in the community over this matter. I have received many calls, drop-in visits and letters in relation to the issue of unwanted telemarketing calls. As with many of my colleagues, I made an unwanted calls kit available to people in the Banks electorate. To date 250 households have sought copies of the booklet, which provides details of the current process for getting rid of unwanted callers. These booklets have been distributed beyond that 250 to friends and relatives in all parts of the community.

I should acknowledge at this point the Australian Directing Marketing Association, ADMA. In the ‘unwanted calls’ booklet, details were provided for people to contact ADMA to remove their names from the lists. ADMA made it clear that the prohibition could apply only to those telemarketing businesses which were members of ADMA. We also passed that on to constituents. I congratulate ADMA for this great initiative. I have since heard from constituents that their lives have been made considerably easier by ADMA members providing the do not call service.

Several of my colleagues have referred to the annoyance caused to families by nuisance calls at family bath time and meal times. One group not so extensively mentioned, and from whom I received a large number of enquiries, are the elderly. One lady contacted my office to tell her story. She is over 80 years old and suffers considerable problems with her legs. It is difficult to get around her home, but she insists on remaining independent. It is a nightmare for her to get to the phone when it rings. Her family are aware of this, so they roster calls to minimise inconvenience while keeping in contact; therefore, whenever the phone rang she assumed that it was an emergency. You can imagine the frustration and even pain she faced prior to using the service provided by ADMA.

I am also aware of a number of families who have purchased answering machines for their older parents, simply to allow them to filter out the unwanted calls. For others it has become tremendously confusing. Recently my office took a call from an elderly person who believed she was being offered a free holiday. Fortunately, the lady contacted my office and we directed her to the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading, which assured her it that it was a scam. Other examples have emerged over past months, with another couple coming to my office late one afternoon, desperate for relief after receiving five telemarketing calls so far for that day. Mr Joe Tewfik, Managing Director of ‘Contact 1-2-1’, commented that the increase in complaints is more than likely due to large corporations using offshore call centres. This meant that, with the cheaper labour costs, there was an increase in the volume of calls.

It comes as no surprise to me that the telemarketing industry itself has called for action. The current situation is covered by a myriad voluntary codes, state and territory laws and Commonwealth law. This has only led to inconsistency and confusion. As with any industry, telemarketers need consistency in regulation. It also ensures that the telemarketers do not waste their resources on people who are not interested in dealing with them.

I note the comments from ADMA’s chief executive, Mr Rob Edwards, published in the Age on Saturday, 15 April. He said that he did not believe the register will push telemarketing work overseas. Mr Edwards said that the penalties to Australian companies would be imposed regardless of whether the company used a local or offshore marketing provider. The explanatory memorandum for these bills takes us through the various options available to the government to deal with telemarketers. These include:

1.

Do Nothing;

2.

Co-Regulatory Approach ...

3.

Establish an ‘opt-out’ Do Not Call Register and National Standards; and

4.

Establish an ‘opt-in’ Call Register and National Standards

These options were established from consultations conducted as a result of the number of complaints received by the Telecommunications Ombudsman and Telstra.

The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts released a discussion paper in October 2005. The following is a summary of the submissions received from the government, as provided in the explanatory memorandum. Twelve submissions were received from small business and organisations representing the interests of business that do not use telemarketing. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register, though they did not support a self-regulation scheme. Many small businesses indicated that unsolicited telemarketing call approaches are time consuming and costly for their businesses as they use valuable resources that congest fax and telephone lines, potentially resulting in loss of business opportunities. Twenty-eight submissions were received from charity organisations and organisations representing the interests of charities. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register that included exemptions for charities and telemarketers operating on behalf of charities.

Thirty-two submissions were received from telemarketing organisations and businesses that use telemarketing and organisations representing the interests of telemarketers. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register, noting that self-regulation is a suitable solution with concerns about the cost of operation, compliance issues and possible loss of jobs. Eight submissions were received from telephone carriers and organisations representing the interests of telephone carriers. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register and exemptions for existing business relationships, noting that domestic companies should be accountable for overseas telemarketers acting on their behalf.

Five submissions were received from consumer groups. They expressed total support for a Do Not Call Register and for regulating offshore telemarketing, but did not support exemptions and maintained that consumers and small business should not have to pay a fee to be included on the register. Eight submissions were received from federal and state government agencies. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register, with the majority supporting an opt-out register. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner noted that prohibition of unsolicited telephone calls is an important step towards regaining individual control and that the most important objective for the register from a privacy perspective is the handling of personal information.

Twenty submissions were received from special interest groups. The trend was supportive of a register, with the majority supporting an opt-out register. Submissions noted the negative effect of unsolicited telemarketing on the elderly, as they are particularly vulnerable to this form of direct marketing, as I have already noted. Three hundred and seventy-seven submissions were received from individuals supporting the establishment of a Do Not Call Register.

One submission was received from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman supporting the establishment of a Do Not Call Register and noting that the number of complaints that the TIO received regarding telemarketing had increased significantly over the last year. The TIO preferred an opt-out register to include offshore calls and that certain organisations should be exempt.

The government has chosen Option 3—Establish an ‘opt-out’ Do Not Call Register. This is consistent with the evidence provided in the submissions to the DCITA discussion paper. Despite the unnecessary time wasting by the government in proposing this legislation, Labor is very pleased to support it.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. This legislation is one of those pieces of legislation that makes a very practical and real difference to the lives of Australians. I am certainly pleased that, for residents in my electorate of Moncrieff and more broadly on the Gold Coast, the passage of this legislation will mean that in future they can expect to receive far fewer telemarketing calls than they have received in the past. The Gold Coast has a large number of retired people, both pensioners and self-funded retirees, and I know that, because they are frequently at home where they are often annoyed by telemarketing calls, they would particularly welcome the establishment of the national Do Not Call Register.

In past years, I have done much to convey the concern of constituents who have contacted me about telemarketing calls and, in addition, to highlight to my constituents some of the facilities at their disposal to try to minimise intrusions in their lives from opportunistic telemarketers. In particular, I highlighted the Australian Direct Marketing Association Do Not Call Register, which was established as a private sector initiative—and I congratulate ADMA for their initiative in establishing a private sector Do Not Call Register. I put a large column in my newsletter, which I circulated to the 100,000 or so people in my electorate, highlighting that residents who were concerned about telemarketing intrusions could register their telephone numbers with ADMA. I am pleased to say that the number of people calling me, speaking to me at my community listening posts and coming up to me at shopping centres and highlighting their concern about nuisance telemarketing calls decreased significantly. In fact, many constituents said that they were pleased to use the ADMA service and that they had noticed a considerable drop-off in the number of phone calls following that.

This initiative by the Howard government, though, takes it one step further. Whilst the ADMA Do Not Call Register certainly achieved some success, it was clear that we needed a nationally consistent approach to ensuring that the Australian people need not be bothered by telemarketing calls if they choose not to be. In this respect, I am certainly pleased that this initiative has been undertaken.

The creation of the national Do Not Call Register, which will be free for the Australian people to register with, is something that I most wholeheartedly support and applaud. I know that many residents do not want to receive those intrusive phone calls from telemarketers. Now it will simply be a case of either telephoning or logging onto the internet in order to register your number on the national do not call service, and that service will be free. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will then be required to verify the registration of that phone number, to ensure that someone has not falsely registered someone else on the Do Not Call Register. Once that verification has taken place, by either a telephone call or an email, that phone number will then be listed and will stay on the national Do Not Call Register for a period of three years. This three-year period was decided by the government on reflection.

I am supportive of this decision. It is an appropriate balance between the need to ensure that once a phone number was listed it did not remain on that database forever—because about 17 per cent of Australian households move every year and therefore we did not want phone numbers to be listed forever—and the need for a number to be on the register for a considerable time to ensure that people were not bothered before they needed to reregister with the national Do Not Call Register. I think that we have achieved the appropriate balance by making it a three-year period. A person will register with the national Do Not Call Register and then will not be bothered by telemarketing calls for a period of three years.

There are exemptions in this legislation that will ensure that important research activities can take place and that charities, for example, will still be able to use telemarketing to solicit support. From my conversations with constituents in Moncrieff and the people of the Gold Coast, I believe the vast majority of people are supportive of these exemptions. I understand that people do not like to receive telemarketing calls from private companies that might be selling particular equipment or services, time share or things like that. However, they are often pleased to hear a compelling case from, for example, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross or other charities that run very important social outreach services. In this respect I welcome the exemptions that are incorporated into this legislation.

Likewise, I believe the Australian people in broad terms are supportive of the benefits that flow from important research that is undertaken. Our universities and other private research institutions are often required to survey large numbers of people in order to gain a snapshot of particular attitudes within Australia or, more importantly, particular concerns that Australians may have—for example, concerns about their health. Patterns of behaviour, types of approaches that Australian people take—information about all of these types of attitudinal approaches is gathered by research facilities, universities and private sector research facilities in order to make important determinations about what kinds of drugs or approaches are needed, for example, to make the Australian people more healthy. So it is important to have the exemption for research purposes incorporated into the legislation, and I welcome that exemption as well.

With respect to the costs of establishing the register, I have already outlined that there will be no charge levied upon those who seek to register their home telephone number or mobile telephone number on the Do Not Call Register. The costs associated with the establishment of the register—which will be presided over by the Australian Communications and Media Authority—will be met by the government through the allocation of taxpayers’ money. After that, though, I am pleased that the private sector operators who will access the Do Not Call Register will make the contribution towards the ongoing costs associated with running the Do Not Call Register. I think that is appropriate. It is appropriate that the industry that requires this regulation because it has become such a burden to people in the community is required to pay for its self-regulation. So I want to send a message to those who are listening or those who may be reading through the transcript of this debate that we will be levying those costs on those companies that have required this legislation because of their continuing use of telemarketing services in selling products or services. The costs will not be borne by those who are registering.

In addition, I will just touch on the issue of small businesses. There may be some who are involved in small business who would say, ‘I’d like to be able to register my telephone number on the national Do Not Call Register.’ As the legislation is before the House at present—and my view on this is the same as that of the government—there will not be the opportunity for small businesses to register their numbers. That is because the reality is that most small businesses advertise their phone numbers, for example in the Yellow Pages, and solicit business. As a part of that, often business-to-business contact is made. It would seem to me to be a little unfair for a small business to expect that, in putting their telephone number on marketing material, into the Yellow Pages or perhaps onto the internet, they will not be contacted by other businesses that may be seeking to sell them a particular good or service—and to expect those businesses to be fined or punished as a result of making an unwanted telephone call seeking their business. So in that respect I think an exemption for small business telephone numbers is logical.

However, when it comes to a small home office or a small home business, there will be the opportunity for someone who is working from home to register their home number for that purpose. So someone who is in small business—for example, working out of their study or perhaps even working off the kitchen table, which I know that many small businesses in my electorate do—will be able to register their number. However, it is worth noting that, from time to time, they may receive a phone call from a telemarketer selling them a good or service, because of the fact that they are advertising their phone number widely, for example in the Yellow Pages. When that occurs, I would foresee that ACMA is probably unlikely to take a particularly tough stance against the business that has breached their listing on the Do Not Call Register. I believe that we are now really talking about things that will happen at the margin. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the way in which this will operate.

Most fundamentally, though, when it comes to the national Do Not Call Register, we will see the creation of a register that will prevent people being bothered at home, especially around mealtimes, by telemarketers. It will be free to those people in the community, and I know that they will welcome that. The costs will be borne initially by the government but then subsequently by those who are requiring the regulation—that is, the telemarketers themselves, who will use the list. It will operate so that you are registered for three years; although there will be the opportunity to remove yourself from the list prior to that three-year period if you decide that you want to do so. All up, this is a good bill. It will make a meaningful impact on people’s lives. It is certainly one that I welcome for my residents in Moncrieff, and I commend the legislation to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has been intent on the creation of a Do Not Call Register to give relief to thousands upon thousands of Australians frustrated at receiving annoying telephone calls from marketing companies, so of course I am speaking in favour of this concept. I will vote for anything that protects people from nuisance calls. We must do what we can to help people achieve some peace.

Within the electorate of Hindmarsh, an enormous number of constituents have responded to a newsletter story I put out about this problem. We had many people writing to us about the issues of cold-calling and telemarketers. I have been told of examples such as one where a fully automated system with voice recordings announces: ‘Congratulations. Your number has been selected to enter a draw for a new car.’ The person is supposed to be convinced of this and be led through a series of prompts. The constituent who relayed this to me said that, when they received this call, they simply hung up prior to the recorded message’s completion. What happened from there on? The constituent’s number apparently went back onto the list. A couple of hours later, there was the same nuisance call—the same phone call with recorded messages: ‘Congratulations. Your number has been selected to enter a draw for a new car.’ I have heard of similar recorded messages that encourage people to register their entry for one prize or another by telephoning a particular number. The catch with this is that most of these numbers are 1900 numbers. They vary in expense depending on the arrangements the company has made, ranging from 50c or 55c per minute to $5 per minute.

It is disgusting that grubby parasites are bamboozling, intimidating and exploiting the good-natured people around the country who are still decent and up front enough to take people at face value, to take people at their word. It is very sad that the people—many from a previous generation—who lack cynicism, who have learned to concentrate on the positive elements of their perceptions of people, can be treated so callously.

Evidence of this problem exists in the creation of the Australian Direct Marketing Association’s very own do not call list. This do not call list is observed on a voluntary basis by the association’s members. It is of particular interest that even the association representing direct marketers acknowledges through the existence of the do not call list that many people simply do not want to be bothered with such activity and that the association is prepared to take matters into its own hands and act to prevent as best it can nuisance calls being made to people who have gone out of their way to discourage this form of intrusion. It may well be in the best interests of the direct marketer to exclude from their contact list people who, for whatever reason, are clearly out of their potential market. Such people can exist in relative peace, and the direct marketers can focus on those who may be more open to receiving offers. Whether or to what extent the ADMA service is effective in reducing the numbers of annoying calls, people continue to be desperate for relief from the barrage of companies flogging their wares and are prepared to do what they can to limit their exposure.

Government members may or may not have been listening to what their constituents have been saying—I do not believe that constituents only in Labor electorates are frustrated and annoyed with cold-calling to the point of despair—but the government has failed to take the lead and do something about this issue. The member for Chisholm introduced a private member’s bill last year. She did what the government had failed to do—to show adequate interest in this matter. While the issue may not have been of interest to the government, the media’s interest in the member for Chisholm’s private member’s bill must have gained their attention. Whether it is a belated response to the needs of ordinary Australians desperate for assistance or a more cynical attempt to avoid being seen as out of touch on this issue, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts eventually intervened and took charge of the legislative agenda.

The explanatory memorandum of the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 identifies that this government is out of step on this issue with comparable countries. For example, the do not call list has existed in the United Kingdom since 1999 and in the United States since 2003. Canada introduced its legislation in 2004. Here in Australia the minister released a discussion paper in late 2005 and received submissions from both industry and community groups.

Beyond that opportunity to contribute it was not the intention of the minister to enter the public debate prior to the bill being presented to this parliament. The Australian Direct Marketing Association is reported as being told by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts officials that the government would not ask for further industry input until the bill passed through both houses of parliament and was referred to a Senate committee. I would hope that, if this is correct, limitations will not be put on the people to whom this government is directly responsible—the Australians who cop the brunt of this method of marketing and whose interests the bill has notionally been written to protect. If, over time, the public is able to highlight potential problems with the bill, its implementation and its effectiveness, I certainly hope that the concerns of the public do not fall on deaf ears and that the government is prepared to work collaboratively with both the public and MPs or senators who can improve the bill to eventually see millions of Australians relieved of this affliction.

What came to light prior to the bill’s presentation to parliament came from the minister herself. I understand that on Tuesday, 4 April the minister spoke with Adelaide radio station 5AA, and the program host, Leon Byner, asked the minister: what would happen if a call centre rings you and you are registered as ‘do not call’? The minister told people to report the call centre, which could be fined up to $200,000. The host of the 5AA program immediately identified a potential problem. He said that for this to work and to be worth more than the paper it is written on, you have to know which company has called and who they are.

A member of the state parliament within South Australia, Mr John Rau, the member for Enfield, received a complaint from a woman with a number of young children who had been harassed by a stalker. She adopted a silent telephone number, but phone calls started coming through. Some of the calls would simply stop before there was an opportunity to answer them, some would go through her answering machine and her answering machine would record nothing, and others would be picked up by her only to find there was no-one on the other end. She drew the conclusion that she was being harassed by somebody, as you would in those circumstances, and contacted her state MP, the member for Enfield, John Rau, to see what he could do. His office got in touch with Telstra, who advised that the constituent should keep a log of the time of the call and ring them back the next day. She did this and, upon calling Telstra, she was informed that they knew the number. She asked for the number but was told it was confidential and they could not give it to her. All they could say was that it was a telemarketer.

In trying to help this person, Telstra concluded that if the caller kept calling and she kept noting the calls and telling Telstra, and if Telstra kept logging the caller, Telstra could contact the caller and ask them to stop calling. This they may or may not do. The problem here is that the telecommunications companies protect the call centre’s privacy whilst the call centre invades our privacy. Clearly, even silent numbers do not save people. Many companies use prescriptive dialling to telephone you—a computer generated list of numbers which includes silent numbers and recorded messages. If a person is not able to identify who is responsible for a call, how can a complaint be made? This bill provides for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, in policing the bill, to investigate complaints that are lodged without the identity of the cold-caller. This is well and good, as ACMA is responsible for establishing rules applicable to direct marketing, minimum standards such as the permitted hours within which calls can be made, standards regarding the termination of calls and the minimum information that must be provided for recipients of calls.

I fully expect the cold-callers will be obliged by ACMA to identify themselves, their telemarketing company and the client on whose behalf they are making the call—all with such clarity and at such a pace that anyone would be able to take down the details. Without such information, and while ACMA will have the powers to investigate anonymous or silent calls, the number of such investigations and the stress they could notionally put on the organisation’s resources could well be such that many complaints go unresolved. It is stated within the explanatory memorandum that ACMA has discretion to not inform complainants of the progress of any investigation or even, as I read it, whether an investigation has been undertaken. I acknowledge that the volume of complaints in the short term will probably be acute, but I would ask ACMA to pay maximum respect to the complainants and offer what information and follow-up it can. Naturally, people concerned with the calls they receive want to know that something is happening, that the situation can reasonably be expected to improve and that this legislation is not just a toothless tiger, as we have seen with many other regulatory bodies—that is, it really does have some sort of bite and can get to the bottom of a problem and ensure that prosecutions will take place.

It has been suggested that a company should be able to telephone you in the interests of serving a client with whom they have a business relationship. According to this argument, if you purchase a product with a particular brand name or company ownership structure, presumably that company should be able to telephone you with any information or offers directly related to the original purchase and not be restricted in its cold-calling activities. This is ridiculous. If a private citizen purchases a product on their credit card that is manufactured by Nestle, for example, no-one would expect this to establish a company-client relationship and legitimise ongoing communication between that company and the client.

How this might relate to small businesses—or any businesses, for that matter—may well be a different thing. Obviously, companies need their products distributed; they need them on shelves, in catalogues and the like. Cold-calling by distributors and shop owners in expanding their products’ exposure to the public may be the best method of promoting the movement of their stock. Any Do Not Call Register will limit the lists that are bought and sold from company to company for almost indiscriminate saturation calling and, as I mentioned a little earlier, often using automation. I would not expect an average business looking to expand its product market penetration to rely on such lists and such technology. It is totally impersonal, disrespectful, inflexible and tacky—just like the government’s 2004 election stunt. We all remember the Prime Minister’s recorded message. I encourage the government to ensure that the public can be protected from the excesses of direct marketing and that the system put into place will truly be effective. I look forward to hearing how many $200,000 fines are issued.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. These are important bills for every day Australians; they make a very direct and meaningful impact on their lives. They are also very popular bills. They are certainly very popular in the Ryan electorate, which I have the great privilege of representing in the Australian parliament. I can certainly advise the House that these bills will go down very well with the Ryan electorate’s mums and dads, elderly citizens and businesspeople. I have had many approaches from the Ryan constituency and they are very supportive of these bills.

Minister Coonan has predicted that, under the opt-out approach, the register would possibly total one million numbers within the first week alone rising to some four million numbers within 12 months. This is a staggering figure and is certainly reflective of the very popular nature of this legislation. At its heart, this legislation sets up what is called a national Do Not Call Register. The Howard government has allocated budget funding of some $33.1 million over four years to cover the register’s implementation and initial set-up costs. Numbers registered on the national Do Not Call Register will not be able to receive any telemarketing calls from Australian or overseas operators, subject to the limited exceptions that I will outline shortly. That goes to the reason behind this legislation: the receipt of unwanted telemarketing calls from call centres locally and internationally.

The telephone is a wonderful device; I do not think any of us could imagine our world without it. To Alexander Graham Bell, the man from Edinburgh, Scotland, who is regarded as having invented the telephone in the 19th century, we owe thanks for his creativity and innovation. However, even in today’s very busy modern world, respect needs to be given to people’s private time and their desire not to be abused or harassed with unwanted and unsolicited telephone calls. Australians value the telephone in their lives but, as I say, there comes a time and a place when they do not want to be harassed by it.

Any private Australian telephone number can be placed on the register, including those of landlines and mobile phones. Unless withdrawn earlier, a number shall remain on the register for a period of three years. If a telemarketing call is made to an Australian number listed on the register, enforcement provisions in the legislation provide for civil penalties against both the person who made the call and the person who caused the call to be made, if applicable. It is therefore a requirement that any contract to provide telemarketing services include a clause requiring compliance with this act. The prohibition also covers attempted calls—so even those that result in a silent call are covered by the penalty provisions, if they originated from a telemarketing company.

Penalties range depending on who made the call and any prior record they may have. Penalties for an individual with a prior record can be as much as $11,000 per offence and some $55,000 for a company. These are very stiff penalties and they are not to be taken lightly. I would encourage all who would contemplate breaching the provisions of this legislation to certainly consider the penalty provisions very seriously. If multiple offending calls are made in a day—professional telemarketers can make hundreds of calls a day—the maximum penalty per day is in excess of $200,000 for an individual and some $1.1 million for a company. There is also scope within the penalty provisions for ancillary orders, including payment of compensation to be made to the offended parties. The legislation also provides an effective means of handling complaints against telemarketers who breach these provisions. In addition, the operation of the Do Not Call Register will be reviewed after three years of operation. I certainly welcome these provisions in the legislation.

I want to touch on some examples from Ryan constituents. I think they are very instructive on how popular this bill is and on how directly meaningful it is to the lives of my constituents. No doubt like many of my colleagues, I have received overwhelming support from my constituents. The residents of Ryan are very keen for the measures in this bill to commence. Much of the correspondence I received occurred after the announcement of the discussion paper into a do not call register and related to suggestions and concerns about the operation of the register.

I want to take this opportunity in the House to give the example of the Jones family from Pullenvale, who contacted me about their experience with telemarketers. This family has been on the wrong end of a telemarketing company. They asked a phone company to divert calls from their home phone to their mobile phone when they were out. This service was vital during a short holiday in order that they did not miss important calls to their home, and of course each call diversion incurs a small fee. They recalled to me how repeated calls from telemarketers, even unanswered ones, racked up a significant amount in diversion fees on their telephone bill. While they were quite happy to pay the fees for legitimate calls, they were very unhappy that they had to pay for the extensive number of calls that they received from telemarketing companies during their short vacation. This is a very practical example of a family that will be very happy when this bill is passed. This legislation allows any private Australian telephone number to be placed on the register, including for landlines and mobile phones. So those who use mobile phones and do not use landlines will also have the benefit of the provisions in this bill.

Another Ryan constituent, a Mr Tait of Indooroopilly, told me of his experiences of being harassed by international telemarketers calling on behalf of Australian companies. He recalled the experience of one friend who received some seven calls from a telemarketing company every day, until it got to the point where, to ensure that their small child could sleep uninterrupted, the family had to disconnect their phone. That is a horrendous example that none of us would want to experience, particularly if we had a small child in our family. I am happy to advise Mr Tait and his friend that, once this register is in place, it will stop these types of abusive and harassing calls.

While Australian law cannot be enforced on overseas companies or on individuals directly, this bill sets out penalties not only for the individual or company that makes a telemarketing call to a number on the register but also for the authors of the call. Other residents from Ryan report to me, among other things, middle of the night phone calls, repeated calling over a very short space of time and, worst of all, abusive telemarketers. One resident, having hung up on an overseas telemarketer—as many of us have done—was shocked to find out that this particular telemarketer decided to take out their vengeance upon that constituent by calling repeatedly and leaving abusive telephone messages on their answering machine, something that would not have been expected by my Ryan constituent.

I want to turn to exceptions in the bill. A new resident to the Ryan electorate, Mr Reynolds of Paddington, contacted me via my website not only to introduce himself but also to inquire about the exceptions to the register. Let me advise Mr Reynolds of Paddington that, once a number is registered on the national Do Not Call Register, it will not be able to receive any telemarketing calls from Australian or overseas operators, subject to limited exceptions.

There are three categories of exceptions that I want to elaborate on. They are calls made by government bodies, religious organisations and charities; calls made by registered political parties, independents or political candidates; and, calls made by legitimate educational institutions. These exceptions are aimed at exempting calls which have a public interest perspective. These include calls such as soliciting funds for charities. Calls from government departments are also exempt because of their public interest in the sense of relaying important government or departmental information. The bill also contains a measure for restricting the possible abuse of these exemptions. For example, while educational institutions are an exception, they are limited to contacting current students or their legal guardians or alumni from that particular educational institution. So we will not have a case of the University of Queensland, in my electorate, having the authority to call graduates or alumni of the Queensland University of Technology or Griffith University. That would not be deemed to be a legitimate use of the provisions in the bill.

Why do we need these exceptions? Those calls which are exempted from the register are those calls which, as I have said, have a public or a social purpose to them. Mr Rob Andrews, the Chief Executive of the Australian Direct Marketing Association, in an article in the Weekend Australian in late April, commented about recent research commissioned by the University of New South Wales that showed people initially viewed all telemarketers in the same way, no matter what their purpose. Regrettably, despite a degree of self-regulation by the industry itself, the telemarketing industry seems unable to shake this negative perception. Once the register contained in this bill is in operation, registered Australians can be sure that any telemarketing calls that they do receive are subject to stringent industry standards and are from legitimate charities, from government bodies or, as I alluded to, from legitimate research or educational institutions.

I understand that Senator Fielding, the Family First senator, has criticised the exemption of members of parliament under this bill. I want to express my disappointment at his view. His view diminishes the standing of members of parliament. It is a view that discourages us from seeking contact with our constituency from time to time in a spontaneous fashion. As the member for Ryan I have taken it upon myself to contact my constituents when I am in the car or when I am walking in the park. I make phone calls to my constituents on a spontaneous basis to connect with them and talk to them and get their feedback about issues of concern and issues currently on the national agenda. I find they are very welcoming. The calls are well received by Ryan residents. They are received in the right spirit. They are received in the spirit of a constituent being contacted and consulted by their local member. I will continue to do that. I express my disappointment here with the senator’s views. In conclusion, I want to again commend this bill to the House and to my Ryan constituents. This is important bill. It is a meaningful bill that puts very practical mechanisms in place, and Ryan residents will welcome it.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 establishing a Do Not Call Register to stamp out unwanted telemarketers have widespread support. It is actually about giving back to the Australian community its right to privacy. It is only a pity we did not have this bill in place long ago. If anything, it ought to be described as the ‘Anna Burke Do Not Call Register bill’, because it was the member for Chisholm who led the campaign on behalf of the Australian community and forced the government’s hand on this very important piece of legislation.

It is for that reason that I suggest to the House that the government cannot take any credit. It was the Labor Party, led by Anna Burke, the member for Chisholm, that delivered an outcome that, whilst not perfect, represents a major step forward in returning to the Australian community their right to privacy.

It has taken the very tactics of the telemarketers themselves to get the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, to listen to the concerns of the Australian community. The minister, and the record shows it, has been bombarded by those opposed to telemarketing calls, literally pleading for her to do something—to actually get off her backside and bring forward legislation that assists the Australian community. One householder emailed her office begging her to do something. She wrote:

Please, please do something NOW! There is way too much stress in this busy world of ours without adding to it with this ‘tele terrorist’ activity.

That sums up why this legislation is important. This was just one of the submissions and views from individuals that bombarded the minister’s office. Another wrote:

It is the most pervasive change for the worse in over a century of public telephony.

This virtual home invasion plague must be suppressed—our home is not the market.

Another angry householder wrote:

They are a curse on society—even profanity doesn’t stop them.

In my electorate of Batman I have been inundated by constituents complaining about the invasion of their privacy through telemarketing calls. For example, Reservoir resident Jannette Shannon has been receiving calls from telemarketers twice a day, up to four times a week and at all hours of the night. You can imagine the impact that has on elderly citizens. That is just one person. Taken nationally you can understand that Australians receive more than a billion unwanted phone calls from telemarketers. And it is getting worse—we all appreciate that from talking to our own constituents.

I understand the desperate requirements of some workers in these centres to actually try to turn a dollar. They are employed to do this and are expected to make a certain number of calls a day. This is not for high wages; it is just to try and make ends meet and to look after their families. This is not a criticism of these poor workers; this is a criticism of the people who set up these companies—the owners and those who profit from invading ordinary Australian people’s privacy.

These calls are not only a nuisance. I understand why ordinary people are getting angry. They have had enough. They have also had enough of the lack of government action. This anger is especially amongst our elderly people, because when the phone rings they always expect the worst. They are not used to frequent phone calls other than from family members and close friends. When they get these calls at all times of the day and night, their alarm bells go off and it causes them serious concern and angst. The message to these companies is: back off!

This legislation is part of the solution. Unfortunately the anger and worry of these people has for too long been prolonged by the government dragging its feet. In 2004, the then communications minister, Daryl Williams, dismissed the Labor Party’s call for a national do not call list based on the US model. How did he dismiss it? He said that it was populist, arguing that it would not work in Australia. We have finally got some legislation. The opposition actually ran a community campaign. At the head of that campaign was the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, who unfortunately cannot be here to see the end result of her national campaign, which started in the seat of Chisholm in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I hope that the member for Deakin, her neighbour electorally, gives her some credit, because he is following her, supporting her legislation. He ought to give the member for Chisholm, despite the fact that she is a member of the Labor Party, the credit for a terrific outcome.

That reminds me that last year she was not given any credit or support. The member for Chisholm last year sought to introduce a private member’s bill into the House to establish a Do Not Call Register. It was the Howard government that rejected such a proposition, because it represented a serious embarrassment to them for their lack of attention to this very important issue.

But we finally have a bill that is about giving people some privacy back. They have been crying out for it for far too long. It will enable them to lock their doors and close their windows and cut off the invasion of privacy which comes through the telephone line. But more should have been done. The discussion paper was completely unnecessary. We knew what the problem was. Why wasn’t it fixed? It is inconceivable that Senator Coonan failed to hear the growing tide of complaints over the issue. She just had to listen to those complaints. She should have addressed them much earlier, in the same way in which the previous minister for communications, Daryl Williams, should have addressed them back in the last parliament.

For example, last year Australians received 53 telemarketing calls per week on average, and that does not include the millions of calls coming from overseas. This equates to Australians spending almost half an hour each week fielding unwarranted calls. Unfortunately, the Australian Direct Marketing Association’s list only covers the 500 members in Australia. Whilst the opposition welcomes the ADMA efforts, such a limited service means that these measures are not totally effective. In particular, many companies which operate from overseas are not covered.

I suggest to the Australian community that, when you get a call from overseas, say, ‘Just a minute,’ put the phone down, walk away and let the time add up. Let the cost add up and teach them a lesson. There is only one way to teach them a lesson, and that is when it hits them in the hip pocket. Whilst we have not done enough to protect the Australian community from overseas telemarketing invasions, maybe the people can stand up and frustrate these groups by allowing the costs to run up when calls come in from overseas. Hit them where it hurts.

At least the frustration of the Australian community over this issue has finally been heard. The number of people requesting the ADMA service has doubled to almost 320,000 in the last 12 months. So, rather than talk, obfuscate and delay with a discussion paper, Senator Coonan should simply have acted long ago by listening to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have had a gutful and given them back their privacy. After years of campaigning, finally we will have a Do Not Call Register. Clearly this vindicates the member for Chisholm. She has done her job not only on behalf of her constituents in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne but also on behalf of all Australians. Throughout the length and breadth of Australia, this is a great achievement by the member for Chisholm, with the support of the opposition, the Australian Labor Party.

We all knew that at the core of this issue was people’s privacy. Legislation exists with respect to people’s privacy and access to information provided to government. That is important legislation, but this register is also about giving people privacy and stopping interference in their lives by the invasion of their homes by telemarketing systems. The argument comes down to one person’s right over another, and I do not believe that a person’s right to do a job should be at the expense of another person’s privacy. The argument being pursued by some people at the moment is a falsehood. I understand the importance of respecting the workers who work for telemarketing organisations, but in the end it is our privacy. We are talking about an industry in its infancy, one that is still evolving. Indeed, the evidence does not support this argument. The key point here is privacy and respecting every person’s right to it. Now that we have waited for this bill for the past two years we learn that, unfortunately, we will have to wait until 2007 for the register to be established. For the benefit of families, Senator Coonan should respond to the Australian public and implement this legislation sooner rather than later.

I say to the Australian community: unfortunately, this legislation really is not important to the Howard government, because it has guillotined debate on the bill today. Yet again, we are not permitted to express the views of our constituents in this House and put their concerns on the record. The government does not want to listen. It has moved a guillotine motion to stop debate in the House, so I think it is fair to ask: after more than two years of loud campaigning on this issue, why do Australians have to wait another year?

I end by reminding the House that this delay and the failure to deliver relief on this issue is yet another example of arrogance by a tired and complacent government that guillotines debate on important measures day after day, not only on the Do Not Call Register but also on consideration of fuel tax measures and the importance of promoting the biofuels industry in Australia. People ought to look at the record of the parliament over the last couple of years. I understand from the smile on the face of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that he thinks it is a joke to take away the right of the Australian community’s representatives to debate in this House. He stands condemned for his very arrogant attitude to the right of people’s representatives to argue out their concerns in the House. I say to the parliamentary secretary: wipe that smile off your face; the Australian community understands completely the arrogance and disrespect of the Howard government towards their concerns. I commend the bill to the House.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006. The creation of the national Do Not Call Register has been warmly welcomed by the general public, and it is very easy to understand why. Australians are sick and tired of being hassled and annoyed by telemarketing phone calls, particularly at meal times and the like. We all appreciate the precious time we have which we need to spend with our families—spending quality time with our loved ones away from the demands of public life is important.

The word ‘home’ evokes notions of peace, tranquillity, privacy and a hassle-free environment. But, all too often, Australians are subjected to aggressive telemarketing tactics and manipulative, pushy salespeople while we are in our own homes. It is not even as if these people announce their presence by knocking on the door; their increasingly frequent method of communication is via the telephone, which they often use anonymously until the receiver engages in conversation with the caller.

I am sure that all members of this House have had constituents contact their offices about telemarketers intruding into their home life. Perhaps the most upsetting stories come from elderly folk, who are often anxious and confused by such phone calls. They are told that they have won this or that prize and they really must act quickly on such and such. Old people find that distressing. Imagine the frustration of an old person having to rise from their chair two, three or four times in an evening to take these calls, and imagine their distress if they subsequently take up an offer just to get the telemarketer off the phone and then find they are committed to some deal which meets neither their needs nor their expectations. The distress, anger and frustration they feel is being rapidly replicated across Australia.

So the establishment of the national Do Not Call Register is good news for Australians. Even better, this service will be provided to them free of charge. The Do Not Call Register is a nationally coordinated solution to the problem of unwanted telemarketing calls. It will apply to all telemarketers operating in Australia as well as to overseas telemarketers who represent Australian companies. Unfortunately, many of these calls from overseas are made on behalf of Australian companies that should know better.

I am heartened by the response of the Australian Direct Marketing Association, which supports this initiative and is prepared to work with the government. It is estimated that through the Do Not Call Register up to 80 per cent of unwanted calls could be filtered out. It will work by giving members of the public the right to opt out of receiving unsolicited calls on both fixed telephone lines and mobiles. They will be able to do so by applying to have their phone numbers recorded on the register, with each individual listing being valid for three years. So, if you change your mind after three years and want the calls back, you can do that. Telemarketers must consult the register before undertaking phone calls and must not call telephone numbers listed on the register.

The establishment of the register will cost around $33 million, with $17 million coming from the government and the remainder of $16 million coming from the telemarketing industry itself. The cost to individual industry players will be ascertained on a usage basis—that is, the bigger telemarketing companies that make more frequent use of the register will pay a higher cost than small businesses which access the register less frequently.

I have previously mentioned that the bill will provide a nationally coordinated approach to the issue. However, we cannot extend its powers to telemarketing operators that do not have a direct Australian link—in other words, those calls that come from overseas directly to our homes, not via an Australian company or Australian products. Despite several attempts by our telemarketing industry to address this problem, there are too many operators unwilling to lift their standards and too many offshore call centres offering reduced prices for their services. To try to overcome that difficulty, the bill makes provision for the development of bilateral agreements between countries wishing to stamp out international telemarketing.

This legislation will establish national minimum contact standards for telemarketers, including permitted calling hours, minimum information requirements and the termination of calls. It will give the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, a range of enforcement options for offenders, including warnings, fines, formal directions and financial penalties for offenders. ACMA will be empowered to enforce the legislation through the tiered enforcement regime, with penalties ranging from $1,100 to $1.1 million, depending on the nature and seriousness of the breach.

Of the 495 submissions made in response to the discussion paper on the creation of a register 90 per cent supported its creation. It is predicted that there will be one million registrations in the first week of operation of the register and up to four million over the first year. This is not surprising given the incredible surge of telemarketing activities in recent years. Complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman about unsolicited phone calls have increased by 600 per cent in the past year alone. To put it another way: there were 2,135 privacy complaints last year, with the largest number, 887, being about telemarketing.

The telemarketing industry’s growth is also illustrated by the explosion in the employment figures for the sector. According to an ABS labour survey report, in 1996 there 9,400 people working as telemarketers. Compare that figure with the report of January 2005, which stated that the number of people employed in the industry had risen to 15,000—an increase of 62 per cent. Further to that point, the Commercial Economic Advisory Service of Australia recently reported that 1.065 billion telemarketing calls were made from Australia’s 30,000 call centres in 2004. Australians now receive more than one billion telemarketing calls, and I would be fairly confident in saying that most of these calls are unsolicited and, more to the point, unwanted.

In establishing this register we need to find a balance between people’s right to peace and privacy and the necessity for business to promote their wares and services. The employment figures I previously quoted clearly demonstrate that call centres are also providing tremendous job opportunities for Australians. One such call centre was opened by Salmat in Bundaberg in 2003, and it was the first regional site for Salmat’s teleservices in Australia. The call centre generated around 150 jobs for Bundaberg, with its staff handling general sales, billing and new connection inquiries for Telstra, as well as some telemarketing services. The call centre has been a real bonus for Bundaberg and provides our regional centre with benefits not only in contact but also in telecommunications technology and infrastructure.

The sector is also a good employment option for many people seeking to re-enter the workforce or those who require a degree of flexibility, such as students, mothers working part time and single parents. As I previously mentioned, Bundaberg’s Salmat call centre undertakes some telemarketing through its SalesForce Australia operations. I will give a few statistics in order to give some idea of its reach into the public domain. SalesForce Australia operates 3,000 workstations throughout Australia and New Zealand and it uses phone, SMS, email, fax and the internet to liaise with the wider public. Its staff use these technologies to engage in more than 50 million inbound and outbound calls annually in Australia and New Zealand.

We also have to recognise that telemarketing can be a very useful tool when it comes to charity fundraising and providing information of interest to the wider community—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked to speak until 1.20 pm—hence, the reasonableness of allowing exemptions for certain bodies, including registered charities, religious organisations, educational institutions and, yes, political parties and organisations. Politicians are elected by their constituents to serve the electorate and they are pivotal to our democracy.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And to filibuster, obviously.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been accused of some things, but I have never been accused of filibustering. In Australia we have general elections every three years or so, and individuals decide where their vote will go on the strength of the policies and personalities of the local candidates. Communicating with the electorate is time consuming and costly, but it is a necessary part of the job. In order to represent the community effectively, we must be able to exchange information and canvass issues that are important to the community. While we politicians are often lambasted and parodied for our constant pursuit of the electorate, we simply would not be doing our jobs if we failed to do so. If politicians were included on the Do Not Call Register, it would effectively put a barrier—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I take it, from the member for Hinkler’s comments in response to the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006, that the government has an attitude towards the parliament of a ‘do not speak’ bill. The member for Hinkler is deliberately stopping the member for Prospect from making a contribution to this debate, which has been gagged by the government.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler has made his point.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was making was that, if political activity were prevented by the Do Not Call Register, it would effectively put a barrier on constituents and their elected representatives. For that reason, politicians, along with charities, will be permitted to contact people. Nevertheless, politicians and candidates will have to follow an enforced standard that will cover matters such as permitted call hours, the minimum information to be provided to the recipients of calls and the minimum requirements around the termination of calls. This legislation gives people the power to decide whether they want to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls. I urge people in the Hinkler electorate to make use of the register if they are being harassed by unsolicited and unwanted calls. On that note, I commend this legislation to the House.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the three minutes I have available to me because of the government’s arrogant approach to this debate on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, I would like to say that the Howard government has been dragged kicking and screaming to the dispatch box to introduce this legislation. I pay tribute, as other members have done, to the member for Chisholm, who more than six months ago moved a private member’s bill which was very similar in content to this bill.

I was surprised to read that unsolicited calls are the biggest source of complaints made to the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading and the Federal Privacy Commissioner. Research conducted last year estimated that telemarketing companies made more than one billion telemarketing calls in Australia last year—53 calls per person or 2.7 calls per household per week. No wonder we have all been deluged with complaints from constituents about unwanted telemarketing calls.

In the couple of minutes I have available to me, I want to say something about the staff in telemarketing centres. The member for Hinkler referred to the fact that call centres create a lot of jobs. This bill is in no way a reflection on the work done by the good and hardworking people in telemarketing centres. But I ask: do those staff members really want to call people who do not wish to receive calls? Do they really want to receive the less-than-welcoming responses from the people they call? This bill is good for the industry as well, because it means only people who are open to receiving those calls will receive them. People who have no wish to receive telemarketing calls will not receive them. The United States has a do not call list and 70 per cent of people have subscribed to it. As a result of the growth of telemarketing calls, people are subscribing to private services or opting for silent numbers, which they should not have to do. This bill does, at last, after the government wasted the last 12 months, achieve that. What an outrage!

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being exactly 1.20 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer to speak for a maximum of five minutes.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on these important pieces of legislation—the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006and I am pleased to note the broad support they have from members in the chamber. Many members have shared their own experiences as recipients of telemarketing calls and members have agreed that this legislation is clearly a win for the community.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bowen interjecting

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard more than enough from the member for Bowen. The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and consequential amendments—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I know that—provide a direct response to community concerns about unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls. The number of unsolicited calls in Australia has grown significantly in recent years. This has led to rising community concerns about the inconvenience and intrusiveness of telemarketing. The government is addressing these concerns by giving Australian phone users the right to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls and by creating a more consistent and efficient operating environment for the telemarketing industry. The telemarketing industry itself has called for action. The rules governing telemarketing practices are contained in various instruments, including voluntary codes, state and territory legislation and Commonwealth law. This fragmented and sometimes inconsistent approach has led to calls from industry organisations such as the Australian Direct Marketing Association for the government to address the issue. This is needed to provide telemarketers with more operational certainty and consumers with more effective complaint-handling mechanisms. Currently, there is no single body with which consumers can register a complaint.

Under the arrangements set out in the bills, a national Do Not Call Register and telemarketing conduct standards would be established. People who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls would have the option of applying for their fixed and mobile numbers to be recorded on the register. Once a number is recorded, it will be prohibited for telemarketers to contact that number except in specified circumstances. The scheme would apply to telemarketing calls made within Australia and to calls originating from overseas. Some exemptions are provided for organisations that act in the public interest, such as charities, religious organisations, educational institutions and government.

The beneficial nature of the activities of these groups has led to their exemption from the prohibition on telemarketing numbers on the Do Not Call Register in order to ensure that there are no unexpected or untoward impacts on the sector. However, it is important to note that activities in these sectors will be subject to the national standards to be established by ACMA regarding permitted calling hours, information that callers must provide about their organisation and termination of calls.

This is a comprehensive scheme to address a problem that affects a large number of Australians. The telemarketing industry has attempted to address this problem, but there are simply too many operators unwilling to raise their standards and too many offshore call centres offering reduced prices and low standards. The Do Not Call Register arrangements benefit telemarketers and individuals. Individuals will be able to take effective action against unsolicited telemarketing calls through registering on the Do Not Call Register and will be able to complain to a recognised body if the requirements are not complied with.

Telemarketers will enjoy efficiency gains by not making calls to those who do not wish to receive them. They will experience reduced compliance costs from having national standards legislation and will have a level playing field with all telemarketers bound to high professional standards rather than having the industry brought into disrepute by rogue operators.

Drafting the bills has been a delicate balancing act. We must balance the legitimate needs of business and the concerns of the community. I think the bill hits the right targets. The bill has flexible sanctions and an enforcement regime which extends from formal warnings to infringement notices through to significant financial penalties for repeat offences, and it has an appropriately short review time frame of three years.

I note that Labor has welcomed the bulk of the provisions. The member for Hunter has raised concerns about certain things and, particularly as one relates to small business not being on the register, I welcome the opportunity to explain the government’s reason for this. The reason is really very simple: many small businesses advertise their telephone number for the purposes of gaining business. Business-to-business contact, for a multitude of reasons, happens in the course of day-to-day operations. The government was concerned not to potentially expose organisations to fines and penalties for ordinary business-to-business conduct. In addition, there would be a very practical problem for businesses seeking to contact other businesses. I note, too, that a number of Labor members were critical of the time it has taken to reach this point. Let me be clear. Developing good public policy, which is something the Labor Party is not used to, does take time. (Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary is gagged, as everyone else was. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.