Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's advisory report on the Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. The Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012 is a private member's bill introduced into the House of Representatives on 21 May 2012 by the member for Hindmarsh, the ever hardworking Mr Steve Georganas.

The bill would set up a scheme enabling individuals to opt out of receiving unsolicited marketing calls to residential and government addresses. Unsolicited marketing calls would be prohibited to addresses registered on the Do Not Knock Register. The bill would permit 'designated marketing calls' from certain organisations and individuals including government bodies, charities, religious organisations, politicians—and I am sure from the hard work you did on the Do Not Call Register, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, you would be familiar with this—and also political candidates.

The Selection Committee referred the bill to the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee for reasons of constitutionality. The committee considers it would be inappropriate for this committee to attempt to advise the parliament on the constitutionality of a bill.

Should a member of the House question the constitutionality of a bill, then that question should be put to the Attorney-General and it is for the House to determine if it will consider the bill, and ultimately for the High Court to determine the validity of a bill if passed—a river currently higher than its source, I think is the legal concept at play here. In its report, the committee presents evidence received regarding the constitutionality of the bill, but the committee draws no conclusions and makes no comment on that evidence.

The committee thought that consideration was required regarding the proposed operation of the bill and its capacity to address its policy intent. As such, the committee took evidence from consumer advocacy groups and affected industry groups.

The driving force behind the bill is the protection of vulnerable consumers, such as the elderly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, migrants and the disabled. We heard evidence about them suffering through people calling on them at home unannounced throughout.

There are existing protections put in place by the Australian consumer law, which is a single, national law concerning consumer protection and fair trading which only came into effect in January last year. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission recently launched a campaign to improve consumer awareness of rights relating to door-to-door sales. Consumer advocacy groups launched a 'Do not knock' sticker campaign earlier this year. The legal protection provided to consumers by this sticker is currently being tested in the courts by the ACCC.

Affected industry groups objected to the bill, pointing to the adequacy of the existing protections and protesting the lack of consultation. They also claimed that the bill would create excessive implementation and compliance costs and would also be difficult to administer. The Australian Treasury advised against the bill, describing it as a disproportionate response which might attract significant costs.

The committee deeply sympathises with vulnerable consumers who are confronted by unscrupulous door-to-door sales practices but views educating consumers about their ACL rights and continued promotion of the do not knock sticker as the best option to address this problem. I know this myself, having come home one day to find my wife talking to a salesman despite a do not knock sticker on our mailbox, the salesman then proceeded to explain that he had a right to be there, and I proceeded to explain to him that actually he did not. My wife is a lawyer and I am a lawyer so we understand the law a bit, but more vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.

Noting the recent implementation of the ACL, the committee considers that any further regulation at this stage is premature. Further regulation would only be merited if efforts to educate consumers about the ACL prove ineffective and if courts do not uphold the legal protections provided by the do not knock sticker—the law of trespass, et cetera. If these two outcomes were to pass, the committee considers that the scheduled review of the ACL in 2015 would be an appropriate forum to consider further regulation. Therefore the committee recommends that the House of Representatives not pass the Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012 at this time.

I thank the committee for their work and particularly thank the secretariat for their energetic assistance and frank and fearless advice—sometimes a little too frank, but never too fearless. I commend the report to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the outset I acknowledge the work of the member for Hindmarsh in bringing his private member's bill to the House. The Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012 seeks to implement a do not knock register similar to the Do Not Call Register which was implemented in 2006. Although the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has unanimously agreed that the bill not pass through the House, the member for Hindmarsh has clearly shone the spotlight onto a serious and growing public concern about the intrusion of door-to-door sales.

This should not be construed as a criticism of all door-to-door sales operations. Many people make their living from door-to-door sales and in many instances provide a welcome service to the community. Most of the vast army of door-to-door salespeople do act with integrity; however, as the member for Hindmarsh has highlighted in this bill, there are difficulties for many in the community who have to deal with aggressive sales personnel at the front door. Those who may be vulnerable in unsolicited marketing operations are people who have a disability, those who are elderly and those in the community for whom English is not their first language. Evidence taken by the committee indicated that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, for example, were in certain circumstances particularly targeted by door-to-door sales operations, and they may be particularly vulnerable because in some cases they are unable to interpret written information. This may also be true for non-English speaking people.

Family Counselling Australia did nominate some of the unscrupulous practices their clients have encountered, including misleading conduct and overpriced or shoddy goods. They did outline some of the systemic targeting practices towards certain groups in the community who could ill afford the products being offered. However, others argued that there were already measures in place to protect the vulnerable, such as the do not knock stickers available free of charge to the community from local councils. As my colleague the member for Moreton has just outlined, there is a test case going on as to whether the law of trespass can be triggered when somebody has this sticker on their front door. The committee did hear that almost 200,000 stickers have been distributed since August 2011.

I do not have time in this short debate to go through all of the recommendations but I commend the report to anyone who is concerned about these practices and who may be affected by them. Page 40 of the report also outlined a number of protections for consumers, such as the 10-day cooling-off period and the unconscionable conduct provisions. Although there has not been a flood of concern raised in the Pearce electorate, from time to time I do hear complaints about pushy salespeople and shonky door-to-door operations. These problems seem to be more acute in the eastern states in recent times in regard to electricity retailers. In the course of its inquiry, which was to examine the constitutionality of the bill, it became clear that the committee needed to consider the proposed operation of the bill and its capacity to address its policy intent.

The committee received 17 submissions and had two public hearings. In the evidence taken by the committee, there was an indication that there are a number of practical problems with establishing a do not knock register and that other measures may well resolve some of the risks for people who are most vulnerable to the more aggressive door-to-door sales tactics—but that remains to be seen.

The member for Hindmarsh, as I said, has done a very good thing in turning the spotlight on what is a very important issue, and it is hoped that the industry will now do all it can to ensure that its salespeople meet the standards expected of them and that the industry has set for them. I acknowledge the work of the other committee members in examining this particular bill, and the hardworking committee secretary, as always.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Moreton wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.