Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to such high office. I can think of no better person to occupy that office.

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. The Labor Party introduced this legislation when in government and we support it in opposition. The amendments being made by this bill will    enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register; simplify the processes for updating industry codes and increase the transparency of processes to develop industry codes; and provide greater clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, its standards of operation, and processes for regular review.

The various amendments in the bill are not contentious and they have the support of industry, of regulatory authorities and of consumer representatives. After the bill was first introduced into this place it was passed by the House, and then the Senate referred the bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee. That occurred earlier this year, and the committee reported in late June of this year. Six submissions were made to the committee, and the submitters were broadly in favour of the measures in the previous bill. I think the Senate committee recommended one amendment, which is incorporated in this legislation.

This bill reflects the continuing importance of consumer protection regulation in telecommunications. The amendments the bill makes are designed to enhance the ability of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to enforce the operation of the Do Not Call Register—a register that is now in place in large part because of the sustained and continued campaigning by the member for Chisholm in this place. I should make this point: the government has announced that it intends to proceed with an agenda to remove the burden of regulation, and it has made the point that it intends to have a regulation repeal day early in 2014 dedicated to removing regulation that is considered burdensome or redundant. The government has indicated that its measurement methodology will be based on the Victorian government's methodology. This methodology focuses on costs and does not focus on social outcomes of regulation. So it would be of great concern if the Do Not Call Register is identified as a regulatory burden because of the compliance costs of checking call lists against it.

The other two sets of amendments in this bill apply to protections for consumers of telecommunication services. All members of this House would be familiar with stories of telco providers' service failures. The industry has been criticised for plans that are very difficult to understand—roaming fees, bill shock and customer service failures. The conversations that I have had with telcos since becoming the shadow minister for communications indicate to me that they are committed to improving their customer service. This commitment has been underpinned by the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the regulator, ACMA. The development of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code was a major step forward. It included, for the first time, a comprehensive compliance regime.

These amendments, which permit industry codes to be amended rather than fully remade, will make it possible now for this code and other codes to be more effective. New problems and issues will be able to be quickly addressed by code amendment, and the industry must ensure that this occurs. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme is effective in providing recourse for consumers who are unable to resolve issues with their provider, but it has been slow to adapt to new issues and address governance challenges. The clear specification of standards of operation and the requirement for regular reviews in this legislation will ensure that it continues to be effective in the future. Reduction of regulatory burden is a goal that we share with the government, but it must not come at the expense of removing important protections for consumers. The amendments in this bill are an example of how effective regulatory review can be achieved, and I commend this legislation to the House.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise today for the first time to speak on a piece of proposed legislation. I too am pleased to speak to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. As speakers in this debate have already said, this bill seeks to strengthen consumer protections and improve the regulatory framework of the original Telecommunications Act 1997, which was introduced by the Howard government. This is an important act which ensures that consumers are protected and industry is held accountable. It is, however, important to keep legislation up to date with the fast-paced changes of industry, particularly when it involves the ever-evolving technology sphere. Australians are becoming more reliant on technology such as their mobile phones, tablet devices and internet connection to complete their everyday activities, both professional and personal. Having appropriate safeguards in place provides consumers with certainty that their rights are being protected.

Cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burdens has, and continues to be, a priority for the Abbott government. We have already proved our commitment to cutting red tape and looking out for the interests of all Australians by taking the first steps to repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax. Although my opposition colleagues have so far failed to 'see the light' on those pieces of legislation, it is important to note that similar legislation to this telecommunications bill was introduced by the former government, and it received bipartisan and industry support. It was also referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee, with submitters broadly in favour of the measures in this bill. Ensuring that amendments to this bill pass through the House will be another step towards reducing unnecessary administrative restraints on the telecommunications industry and updating its practices so that they are in line with the rapid developments of this sector.

This bill will streamline and improve the process for developing and amending industry codes. As the industry regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will continue to be responsible for both registering these codes and ensuring that they are enforced appropriately within the industry. Industry codes are currently required to be formally revised, which is often an arduous process by multiple stakeholders. Any move to streamline this process should be given full support from all sides of this House. These amendments will allow industry codes to be varied, rather than being replaced in their entirety. This will effectively speed up the process and ensure that stakeholders are not burdened by unnecessary administrative tasks.

Another key aspect of this bill is its focus on the operations of the Do Not Call Register. This is important to the electorate of Durack—and, dare I say, all Australians who do not particularly like their dinner being interrupted far too often at night by telemarketers. The Do Not Call Register was set up by government to protect the privacy of Australians who register their telephone number so as not be disturbed by telemarketers. These Australians do not go through that process just to continue receiving calls from telemarketers, who often prey on the weak and the vulnerable. Approximately nine million telephone numbers are listed on the Do Not Call Register, so it is important that, as consumers, their right to privacy is protected at all times. When discussing legislation it is important to remember that this is not just words on a page, but is something that affects real people. My mother is at an age where she spends an increased amount of time at home and is—well, let's just say—from our seniors generation, which, unfortunately, makes her the perfect target for telemarketers as she is perceived to be weak. She receives many unwelcome calls every week, which, of course, makes her feel vulnerable and pressured to give money that she simply does not have. I believe this borders on harassment at times.

An example of this type of unwanted phone call is the likes of a mobile phone company that you do not have a contract with calling to offer you an upgrade or free phone, which generally comes with a few additional fees once you start to read the fine print. Numerous constituents have made complaints to my office that, despite being on the Do Not Call Register, they continue to be hounded by these marketing companies. Asking my constituents to complete surveys over the phone has been the most common breach of their privacy. As one of my constituents stated: 'These are some of the worst time wasters who ring at the most inopportune times—usually Saturdays, when we cherish the time with our families, or are at least trying to sleep in after a hard week.'

It is important to note that there are some groups who are exempt from this register. These include charities, research companies, political parties and educational institutions. We have all experienced these unsolicited and disruptive calls, so there is clearly a weakness in the current legislation. It is our job as representatives to see that this is rectified and to ensure that all Australians, and in particular our elderly, are protected by the law. In order to achieve this, these amendments need to be passed in their entirety to allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to better enforce action in relation to unwelcome telemarketing calls and marketing faxes.

In the past, ACMA has encountered difficulty in establishing links between the company who is selling the product and the telemarketing company whom they have contracted or made an arrangement with. The purpose of these amendments is to remove any ambiguity from the legislation so that any telemarketing calls from a third party that are likely to be made, or unsolicited marketing faxes that are likely to be sent, in fulfilment of a contract, arrangement or understanding, are liable. This will clarify responsibility for telemarketing calls or sending telemarketing faxes and will ensure that companies can no longer contract this service out to get around their own telemarketing ban. It is an important amendment which will help to overhaul the current loopholes in the system, with the aim to increase levels of compliance.

Regulatory clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is another important amendment to this legislation, to ensure that the industry remains efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs of Australian consumers. This bill's amendments will put a greater focus on the TIO and its capability for dispute resolution, particularly in the areas of speed, fairness and efficiency. Periodic reviews against external benchmarks will provide a measure of its effectiveness and will allow the government and the public to have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that this industry standard is being upheld. These standards were established by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, with the TIO being reviewed against the standards within three years, and every five years subsequently.

The TIO is an important service for consumers, as it allows the industry to solve consumer problems rather than relying on government regulation to do the job for it. Government regulation is necessary, but it is important to find a balance that ensures industry standards are being upheld without detracting from productivity. These amendments will ensure that the TIO continues to provide an alternative dispute resolution scheme for the telecommunications industry in accordance with consumer and industry needs and standards.

After receiving unsolicited phone calls or faxes from these telecommunications companies, the last thing that the average Australian wants to do is endure a lengthy and convoluted resolution process. If the TIO and ACMA are not able to operate, or are prevented from operating, in accordance with best practice, then the Telecommunications Act becomes simply another piece of paper. It is our role to make sure that the Australian people and industry are able to work together harmoniously and that, where there are faults, these are resolved. This bill will ensure that best practice is upheld, consumers are protected from industry, and industry know their rights so that this legislation can effectively be implemented and enforced.

The Telecommunications Act 1997 has served consumers and the industry well, but we are all aware that technology is changing in the blink of an eye, with a new phone being released every couple of months—I expect it is probably every couple of weeks now. This has made traditional regulatory frameworks either inefficient or redundant, so we need our legislation to be adaptable and to progress with it. The Abbott government is committed to reducing administrative burdens and protecting the interests of consumers, and this bill ensures that appropriate safeguards are in place. I commend it to the House.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 today and to indicate that I will be supporting the bill. I will briefly reflect on the comments of the previous member about the broad purpose of the bill before us, which is to put in place three amendments related to consumer protections in the telecommunications sector.

The first amendments are, obviously, to improve the efficiency of the Do Not Call Register Act. Can I put on record at this point my congratulations to former Speaker Anna Burke, who originally started the process to establish a Do Not Call Register, doing a lot of work as a backbench member of the opposition at the time. The purpose of the Do Not Call Register Act was to regulate unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls. It is well recorded—and indeed the previous member made this point—that vulnerable people were particularly harassed by those sorts of unsolicited calls. The register provides that a person must not make, or cause to be made, a telemarketing call to an Australian number if that number is registered on the Do Not Call Register, and the call is not a designated telemarketing call. The explanatory memorandum to the bill indicates that a problem had arisen, and this amendment seeks to redress that. To use the direct words, it says:

In some instances, the ACMA has encountered difficulty in establishing evidentiary links between the first person and the other party providing the telemarketing and/or fax marketing services. This has commonly arisen because agreements between the parties relate to the sale and/or marketing of the first person’s goods or services without any specific reference to the means by which the goods or services are to be sold and/or marketed.

Amendments are proposed to address that problem.

Amendments are also proposed to streamline the process for developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the act. This is to be achieved by: firstly, enabling industry codes to be varied rather than requiring that they be wholly removed; secondly, extending the application of the reimbursement scheme for developing consumer related codes so that it also applies to varying such consumer related industry codes; and, thirdly, requiring code developers to conduct transparent and accountable code development processes, specifically by publishing on their websites draft codes and variations, and any submissions received about them.

The amendments also go to the improvement of the operation of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme, by providing greater clarity about the ombudsman's role and expected standards of operation, by requiring the TIO scheme to comply with standards determined by the minister, and by requiring periodic public reviews of the scheme conducted by a person or body independent of the TIO and the telecommunications industry. The protection of consumer rights is very important, particularly in a very fast-developing sector such as telecommunications. I know the shadow parliamentary secretary at the table with me, the member for Chifley, has put a lot of his own time and energy into looking at this issue.

It is an issue that is very pertinent to people in all our electorates, so I want to take this opportunity to talk about an area of telecommunications service on which I—and, I am sure, many members of this House—have received significant complaints over time, but particularly since the election: the provision of broadband services. With the member for Throsby, I was particularly concerned to see, not so long ago, that there had been a significant change to the information provided on the NBN Co. site about the progress of the rollout of the national broadband network.

People in many suburbs in my area had been able to look on the map on the NBN Co. site and see where they sat in terms of the framework rollout—whether they were in the area for programs to be commenced within one year, in an area which would commence within three years, or in an area which would be commenced post that time: more than three years but within the overall build time. I was lobbied by lots of people who were not in the one-year or the three-year programs, saying that they wanted to be fast tracked. People were very supportive of the construction rollout and just wanted to see it happen even more quickly in their areas.

In some sort of Machiavellian interpretation of the word 'transparency', everything has now disappeared. As I said before, it is as if the government believes that invisibility is the ultimate form of transparency. It is actually completely the opposite. Not providing any information is not being more accountable to the population, and I have had quite a lot of complaints.

Whole suburbs across my area—Woonona, Russell Vale, Corrimal, Bellambi, Tarrawanna, Fairy Meadow, Fernhill, Towradgi, Balgownie, Kembla Grange, Wongawilli, Horsley, Marshall Mount, Penrose, Dapto, Wollongong, West Wollongong, Mangerton, Mount Keira, Keiraville, Gwynneville, Mount Saint Thomas, and Coniston—were previously on maps, so that residents could see where the construction was programmed to start, and hold me accountable as the local member for that commencement going ahead. Now they look at the map and they see nothing. They have no idea what the current proposal is. As a result of this, as members may be aware, there has been a national petition underway, online. It has been run by the NBN defence group.

Many residents came to see me about this in late November. I think it was on 26 November. They brought to me a copy of the petition which, at that point, had 270,640 signatures from across the nation. A freelance graphic designer—one of my local constituents, Marina Varda—came along with a number of other constituents to present the petition to me and to ask me to raise the matter in the parliament. I am absolutely happy to do so on their behalf today. The petition was set up by a 20-year-old student Nick Paine through change.org, and it is to Minister for Communications, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, asking him to consider the coalition's policy.

I acknowledge the former member for Gilmore, who is in the gallery—in the heavens above us. It is lovely to see Joanna Gash, again.

The petition is provided to members on a disc and I just want to put on the record of the House some of the comments by my local constituents about their concerns about this broadband decision. Local petitioners in my area are very unhappy, in many cases, with their current broadband service, and were particularly looking forward to getting fibre to the home. Brendan says:

A full fibre NBN for all Australians is critical for improving the productivity of Australia's digital economy, competitiveness, social services, and community inclusion. It has the potential to transform our country for the better. It just makes sense.

Evan says:

Tony Abbotts plan is in the end going to cost more because what he is proposing to put in place is just going to have to be removed later on down the track, when the speeds it provides are not viable for Australia's growing online requirements.

Jack says:

Because I already suffer under the terrible quality copper that exists now. When it rains my internet dies. Copper is not the future and will not be cheaper in the long run, The LNP need to stop kidding themselves.

Danny says:

As a Liberal Party member, I believe that faster internet is the best way to engage the world, especially Asia through business, to help create a better economy for Australia.

Ryan says.

Fast internet is absolutely vital to Australia's long-term growth. Fast internet means a better economy, better education, better health, more innovation, and maintaining an edge in a competitive world.

Phill says:

The NBN is a core piece of infrastructure in the future of Australia. The internet becomes more and more important every day, we need to set ourselves up now to take advantage of any opportunity that this advancing technology represents.

William says:

FTTH gives fibre access to everyone not just the rich who can afford it.

Rosalind says:

If you are going to do something, do it right! You might gain some of my respect, too, and the respect of a lot more people.

Matthew says:

Australia is years behind in technology when compared to many other countries of a similar economic strength. Without a proper fibre infrastructure we will continue to slip until this becomes a serious threat to our economic standing. The FTTN plan is purely a measure to make it seem like the government are making progress. If you have any knowledge of network construction you realize that the data speed to the node is irrelevant if it hits a bottleneck caused by the existing archaic copper cable infrastructure.

Jesse says:

Investing in the internet is a fantastic way to bring Australia's education and business environments closer to a par with the rest of the world.

Guy says:

My current copper network connection is not capable of supplying ADSL2 speeds let alone supporting high speed internet.

Diana says:

This is important to me as an educator. Our children and their children deserve access to the best; it is we who pay for it and we want them to have every advantage. Not just our children but their children as well. We are behind when it comes to technology and our country will only be able to compete, on an equal footing, on the international stage when we have state of the art facilities driving our ability to do so.

Nicola says:

My partner is a sole trader working from home and relies on the net. We need a premium service.

Frederick:

As a scientific researcher I am required to download vast amounts of data, and currently have to do that at the office and cannot work from home due to exceptionally slow and expensive internet. My work and that of countless others would be made so much easier by having Internet at a reasonable speed and price as is in the rest of the world.

Jordan:

I live in an area where the current copper network can only handle a limited number of ADSL connections. I'm not one of the lucky ones. Currently I have to make do with extremely expensive internet via 3G connection that is unstable. I need the internet for homework. Oh, and I aspire to become a programmer, and a lot of the resources that help me to gain the knowledge is online. On top of that my family are heavy internet users.

Christel says:

Australia needs to step up a notch and digital media is vital to work, study and Education.

Rob says:

I work from Home and have an increasing need for high quality, high speed broadband.

David says:

I'm currently in the final stages of a computer science degree and the University of Wollongong. As such, this issue directly influences my career, and in turn, my whole life.

James says:

I am doing computer science at university of Wollongong and knowing a bit about computers i believe the FTTH would be a more feasible plan. we are getting left behind from the rest of the world, and the power of internet is very important for our future.

Samual says:

If we get this infrastructure right it will provide opportunity and innovation which might not be as feasible under a less superior network. Network loads are only set to increase, we will need it one day.

Daniel says:

I am an IT professional who needs to compete on a global stage that already has fibre internet (e.g. singapore).

David says:

I run an Architectural practice in suburban Wollongong and work from home so that I may also care for my two children. I often spend a day or two without any internet access as the pits are flooded and connections are dodgy on the existing copper network. FTTN will not fix this. Furthermore it seems myopic to spend at least 2/3 of the money to and garner the ongoing expense of powering and maintaining all these nodes, for a solution that has 1/8 of the performance and no expandability. If I ran my business with those principles I would get laughed out of town.

Christopher says:

… because the area I'm in I can't even get adsl2 so the whole infrastructure in this area needs to be updated not just to the node.

There are pages and pages of comments from Wollongong region constituents on this petition, outlining not only their dissatisfaction with their current broadband technology, infrastructure and price but also their great disappointment that fibre-to-the-premises NBN construction is not proceeding. So I am very happy to recognise our almost 200 candidate locals who identified by their suburb that they live in my area. Many Australians signed the petition just listing their location as 'Australia', so there could be more from my region—it is hard to identify how many. But this is clearly an issue for regional Australia and clearly an important piece of infrastructure that people are very unhappy about.

I do not anticipate the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman will be very thrilled at the number of complaints that they may continue to get as people find the old copper network continuing to fail them and not living up to the modern world's needs. So I commend the bill to the House, but I also commend the locals who have taken the opportunity to express this view. I hope they succeed in changing the communications minister's mind.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. This is a good bill, it is a simple bill and it is one that has come into this place following on from some of the very good work that Labor did in government. It is one of those changes and shifts you see in the community through legislation that really has a direct impact on consumers. The more that I think about what this bill does via the Do Not Call Register, the more I see it as a bill to help people who are a little too polite or a little too vulnerable. As we know, a lot of people are preyed upon because of their vulnerability. Sometimes it is older people; sometimes it is younger people; sometimes it is people who are a bit isolated or at home at particular hours; and other people are preyed upon because of their goodwill or just their inability to say no or to perhaps fully comprehend what is being spruiked to them.

It became evident to us, particularly through the good work that some of our backbench members did—in particular, Anna Burke, the former Speaker of this House, when she was a backbencher—that we should look at ways that we can assist and protect consumers. The Do Not Call Register Act became a very important tool in that armoury to help all of those people, and I know it is very widely used. The initiative went further and now there is the Do Not Knock initiative. People may have seen the little stickers you can put on your door—I see people nodding their heads and shaking their heads. It is really effective and it does send a clear message and signal. Particularly with the Do Not Knock initiative, people do have a time which they believe is their time, and we on this side agree. People should be afforded some privacy, particularly around dinner time or at night when perhaps they have had a long day at work and just do not really want to be bothered by somebody selling or spruiking them something at the door.

Even worse and more invasive, though, is what happens from time to time when people call you unwanted. I am sure we have all heard the stories, and they are endless. I could almost speak all day on the scams and things that come through the telephone line, if not the internet. People ring up saying they are from a large technology company and there is something wrong with your computer. If only you do X, Y and Z and give them all your details, they will help you fix it—too bad when you tell them you do not have a computer in the house!

A whole range of very important consumer protection mechanisms are contained in this bill. Even beyond just this bill, consumer awareness and education about protecting yourself is, I think, really important. A lot of the work I did in government in the area around financial literacy was also important in trying to help people arm themselves against people who try to separate them from their money or even them from their time. So it is very important.

We created these new laws in government to protect people, consumers specifically. The bill before us is in three parts and contains some sensible amendments to try to make improvements on what was already in place. We support it because we wrote it. In opposition, it is a good thing to be able to come in here and find a really good bill before the House. It ought to be good because we did a good job in putting it together. It is pretty straightforward. Part 1 of the bill amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 to clarify when a person is taken to have caused another person or third party to make telemarketing calls or send marketing faxes in carrying out marketing activities. Part 1 of the bill also amends the Telecommunications Act to streamline and improve the process for developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the act.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1995 to do a few things but, particularly, to require that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme, the TIO scheme, comply with standards determined by the minister of the day and also to require that there is a periodic public review of the TIO scheme. That should be done by somebody outside, by an independent person.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act to insert a reference to the Australian privacy principles as well. So it encompasses all good amendments. As I said earlier on, the Labor Party introduced this legislation in government and we will also be supporting it in opposition, as the shadow minister has said.

These changes will enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register. It will also simplify the processes for updating industry codes and will increase the transparency of processes to develop industry codes. It goes further in that it provides some greater clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, its operation standards and processes for regular reviews. We want to ensure that it is very clear how the register works and also very clear how a consumer can access remedies through the office of the ombudsman. It is often very difficult for consumers to deal directly with their service provider, which may not be willing to assist in rectifying certain issues and problems that people might have. So this is an important clarifying point.

As the minister noted in his second reading speech, the various amendments to this bill are not contentious and have the support of industry, regulatory authorities and consumer representatives. So it is supported across all areas, across all stakeholders. The amendments also reflect the continuing importance of consumer protection regulation in telecommunications. It is a pretty messy area of law and if there are not decent, good consumer protection principles and regulations in place, then people can easily get in trouble.

There was an earlier period when it was not possible in Australia to find two mobile phone contracts that you could ever compare. They were deliberately designed to be very confusing, incomparable and incompatible. They made it as difficult as possible for a consumer to discover whether one policy or one contract for a service provider was better value than another contract. We did a lot of work in government to ensure that comparability existed, that contracts were fair and that there were fair clauses within those contracts so that a telecommunications company could not write in there something ridiculous, such as, 'If you take out a two-year contract with a mobile phone, you have to buy the mobile phone all over again for another round,' and things like that. We did some really good things, including providing sensible mechanisms, to ensure that consumers were protected and that there was some accountability and transparency in those types of contracts as well.

The amending legislation is designed to enhance the ability of the regulator and the Australian Communications and Media Authority to enforce the operation of the Do Not Call Register. There is no point in having a register if they cannot enforce it. There is no point in having these things if they do not actually work in practice as well as in principle. We have worked very hard to ensure that they actually work in practice. I still get calls to my office from people complaining, saying: 'I've registered on the Do Not Call Register, but I still get calls.' You have to explain to people that sometimes they are just randomly generated numbers and they may be the unfortunate person receiving that call. But, over time, as more and more people register, it will become clearer to telecommunications and marketing companies that people really do not want to be annoyed in the privacy of their home, particularly at dinner time. There are certain times when we all want a bit of a rest. I think that is important.

This is really good work. Without stretching the telecommunications field too far, obviously, there are a range of things in the legislation that relate to how people work at home and how, these days, their fax machines—if you have still got one—are becoming less and less of an item in business or even at home, as more and more of life is transacted over the internet and how important really good, fast broadband is. And it is good to have the Minister for Communications here at the table. I have not found anyone who does not want a big, fast, cheap, good-value, efficient broadband connection.

You are lucky if you have ADSL2. In fact, very lucky because in most places you cannot get that. And there is this ridiculous circumstance where people go on waiting lists for two years, only to find that they move in the period and they have to re-register, even if they have only moved next door. Or the circumstance where they were living in one street and somebody who had an ADSL broadband connection, maybe their neighbour, is moving somewhere else and says, 'You can have my connection,' and of course that is not possible, either. That highlights the big problem here that our interchanges and nodes are not capable of getting whatever comes to them out to the actual house, to the consumer. That is where, under our policies and under the rolling out of the National Broadband Network, we really saw the big change, the big shift: broadband directly into the home. This was the big pipe. Sometimes people think it is all a bit difficult, confusing and technical; it is not really. Just imagine a big water pipe: the bigger the water pipe, the more water you are going to get. Maybe that is not a good analogy in terms of the home. But the bigger the pipe to the home, the better off you are. If you put in just a little pipe, you will obviously not get a lot down that pipe.

It is very important that we stop the farce in this country—which is holding back business, holding back the economy and holding back people who work from home, which we see more and more of—with this ridiculous notion that, if you take a really big pipe down the street somewhere, that will be good enough. And it is too bad that the majority of ordinary Australians will not be able to either afford to connect or even connect, depending on where they live. So there is a real issue at hand in how we deliver telecommunications right to the individual consumer, just like some of the good things that have been done in this particular bill, in ensuring that consumers are served directly, not just vicariously by some other method.

Obviously, I am very supportive of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Code and also the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the regulator and ACMA in terms of all the good work that they do. It is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013, which is fixed largely on improving the operation of the Do Not Call Register Act. This act reflected community sentiment that they wanted to see something done about telemarketing being used by a range of organisations. At one time I worked for electricity distributors, where deregulation had occurred and companies could pursue new customers. They employed a range of techniques to reach those customers and that included face-to-face doorknocking, which the member for Oxley reflected upon in his contribution to the House a few moments ago. You can now see affixed to the doorframes of most homes a small sticker requesting that people do not knock on doors for the purpose of marketing and peddling business. As a result of that sentiment, we had the establishment of a register to prevent people being disturbed at home by telemarketers.

The statistic that stood out for me in the second reading speech was that, with a population of 22 million Australians, nine million people have signed up and are asking that they not be contacted at home via telephone for the purpose of marketing. So there are 22 million people in this country, nine million households and nearly two-thirds of all the subscribers of fixed line telephone services say, 'Please don't call.' I do not think that reflects at all a degree of them not being sociable or being unfriendly but it does reflect in large part that they have made a determined decision that they do not want to be contacted at home as a way of someone trying to make money from them and that, when they do need to make a decision about how they wish to purchase or procure a product or service, they are quite fine doing that on their own and not being disturbed. It may be the case, as has also been reflected upon through the various contributions made by both sides of the House today, that people will make a decision that will ensure that their privacy after a long day at work is maintained. They do not feel like they need to jump through a series of hoops when people ask them all sorts of very intrusive questions about their purchasing habits or otherwise and wish to be put on this list.

So there have been three sets of amendments made to the consumer protections within the sector. Specifically, as I said, these amendments are designed to improve the efficiency of the act—largely to regulate unsolicited and unwanted calls. It provides that a person must not make or cause to make—which is an important distinction—a telemarketing call to an Australian number if the number is registered on the Do Not Call Register and the call is not a designated telemarketing call.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill indicates the problem has arisen. This amendment has been framed to try to tackle the problem. The explanatory memorandum says:

In some instances, the ACMA has encountered difficulty in establishing evidentiary links between the first person and the other party providing the telemarketing and/or fax marketing services. This has commonly arisen because agreements between the parties relate to the sale and/or marketing of the first person’s goods or services without any specific reference to the means by which the goods or services are to be sold and/or marketed.

These amendments are proposed to streamline the process for developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the act. I have to commend the industry. No doubt they were very resistant initially to the change that was brought about. The member for Chisholm, with all due credit, at the time in opposition led a very active and energetic campaign to see this arise. I imagine that at that point in time it would have been quite confronting for the industry to be faced with the prospect of this act, but over time industry has recognised the value in responding to consumer sentiment and they have put in place their own codes. With work between the government and industry, industry is prepared to amend the codes. This amendment in particular enables industry codes to be varied rather than having the requirement that they be completely removed. It extends the application of the reimbursement scheme that helps develop consumer related industry codes, and that will also apply to varying those codes. It requires code developers to conduct transparent and accountable code development processes. They would do this by publishing on their websites the draft codes, the variations and any submissions received about them.

Another aspect of what is before the House involves amendments to improve the operation of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme. It does this in two ways. I want to reflect on the TIO as well, which has done a great job in being able to provide redress for people who feel that telecommunications service providers are not responding in a timely or helpful way to the complaints that are raised across a range of services, from telephony through to internet. The TIO, I have to say, has played a very important role within the sector to help address consumer sentiment or dissatisfaction in relation to the way that services are provided to them.

I will go to the two points that will see an improvement to the operation of the scheme.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

There are two, member for Hunter. I note the member for Hunter's long-term and consistent advocacy in the telecommunications space. I think his voice needs to be heard more often on these matters, but I understand he is focused very much in the agriculture space now, being a very active regional member. But, member for Hunter, it is good to see that the TIO, the government and specifically the member for Wentworth are seeing two amendments to the TIO scheme which we support. They will provide greater clarity about the ombudsman's role and expected standards of operation required by the TIO scheme to comply with standards determined by the minister. There will be periodic public reviews conducted by a person or body independent of the TIO and the telecommunications industry, which is another good development to ensure that there is an arms-length ability to look at the way that the scheme is working. It ensures that the operation of the scheme gives people a great degree of confidence in it. I will leave my comments at that. I am grateful for the audience.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 97, the debate may be resumed at a later hour.