Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be speaking on the first substantive bill before this House for the year on the very important issue of consumer protection in the telecommunications framework in Australia. It is one in which I have an abiding interest from practical experience working as a telecommunications regulatory specialist both within a firm and as an in-house counsel. These amendments reflect some critical changes that were proposed by the Labor government and reflect a very precise and a very diligent process of consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders within industry.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 covers a number of very important matters, including the do-not-call requirements, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the codes process. I think it is important to return to first principles and this bill is about reflecting what was meant to be achieved in legislation by what is called a co-regulatory scheme, which governs the Telecommunications Act, its related acts and also its instruments.

The co-regulatory scheme is quite unique in Australia. It is an ideal model in many ways for an area which is dynamic and one in which there is sectoral governance by a number of interest groups. Often network industries employ this approach. In order to work, in order to have compliance, it really needs multiparty buy-in, it must be capable of implementation and it must be capable of being updated. I think that this bill really reflects all of those attributes.

These are sensible amendments proposed in this bill. In many ways, they reflect standard practice in the telecommunications space. It has been a consultative process that has led to this point. The Senate reported in June last year on the various items in this bill and recommended that the bill proceed essentially the same but with a minor but important commitment on the co-development process. That has been incorporated in this bill as a recommendation from the Senate report.

It is very useful to go part 6 of the Telecommunications Act to remind ourselves about the importance of self-regulation and the self-regulatory environment under the industry codes and standards. It is very useful to reflect on section 112 of the Telecommunications Act, which contains a statement of regulatory policy. This has been a longstanding provision within the legislation. It states:

The Parliament intends that bodies or associations that the ACMA—

the regulator—

is satisfied represent sections of the telemarketing industry should develop codes … that are to apply to participants in the respective sections of the industry …

Again, that reflects the co-regulatory structure. I will skip to subsection (2) because it is important to reflect on the regulator exercising its powers. It states that the regulator will:

.. act in a manner that, in the opinion of the ACMA, enables public interest considerations to be addressed in a way that does not impose undue financial and administrative burdens on participants in sections of the telecommunications industry …

It goes to other industries within the sector as well. These are not novel principles when we hear a lot of talk about removing red tape; these are the principles that have long stood within the sector and have long stood as best practice not only in theory but also in reality.

Subsection (3) in this statement of regulatory policy sets out a very useful test for determining whether public interest considerations are being addressed in a way that does not impose undue financial and administrative burdens. Some of the things that the regulator needs to have regard to include:

(a) the number of customers who would be likely to benefit from the code or standard—

that is developed under these provisions and—

(b) the extent to which those customers are residential or small business customers; and

(c) the legitimate business interests of participants in sections of the … industry; and

(d) the public interest, including the public interest in the efficient, equitable and ecologically sustainable supply of:

(i) carriage services; and

(ii) goods for use in connection with carriage services; and

(iii) services for use in connection with carriage services …

Having taken all that into account, I think it is wise to have a look at the code scheme and what these precise arrangements mean in practice. The way that the self-regulatory rules operate within these provisions is that compliance with an industry code is voluntary unless directed. That is summarising it, but it is an area which is criticised—and I will go to some of the criticisms that have been made in one particular document. It is certainly consistent with the statement of the regulatory policy.

It has been very useful to have these codes develop not only as provisions to enable consumers to know their rights when interacting with carriers or carriage service providers; these codes also operate as default mechanisms for many intercarrier arrangements and access agreements, setting the minimum standards that apply to consumers as well as to industry. You will see that in many contracts that occur between participants in the industry, those contracts will often defer to the code and have had the effect in the past of minimising disputes but also enabling the implementation of new aspects of innovation to work well.

By no means is Australia novel in this respect. We have seen the adoption of innovations such as number portability—be it local number portability, mobile number portability or free phone number portability—and the predictability that arose out of developing an industry code certainly worked well in the implementation of the underlying networks and IT structures that needed to happen so that industry participants could cooperate. But in the end of course it served consumers well. Mobile number portability in Australia across the various forms has been working well for over 10 years now in many aspects of our telecommunications framework.

I now turn to some of the most important aspects of the changes proposed in this bill. One of the most important aspects, and one that I think is very welcomed by the industry, is that where a variation is taking place in the future in a code there is not a need to replace the code in its entirety. The industry can choose to vary that particular component rather than having to completely replace a code. In some cases, this lack of flexibility in the past has led to a number of items being, as you would put it, 'parked' and dealt with at a later date so that the industry did not have to open up what would often be a very cumbersome process. So in a very practical sense, opening up the code process means that not only are you able to deal with issues that are most pertinent but also you are able to do this in a much more efficient manner.

It is important to note that it is proposed under this bill that publication of code variations can be made on the website of the relevant industry group—something which was not there in the past—which certainly contributes to the transparency of this process and enables industry to have a much broader understanding of the issues being faced in particular areas of the sector. Another important one is where a draft variation is minor in nature and the requirements for publication do not apply. Examples of minor things might be updating references, including references to instruments which may already have been amended. Those sorts of things do not need to be subject to the publication rules—again, a much more efficient way of doing things by waiving variations if they are minor in nature. These are all very sensible changes.

In an era when we seem to be talking a lot about red tape reduction, I note that section 120 has not been substantially amended. There were some minor changes in 2000, when the privacy provisions came in and the name changed following the new regulator being established, but otherwise there has been nothing substantive. Nevertheless, I am very pleased that these provisions will be enacted. I know the industry certainly welcomes them and I think that all these will, in the end, contribute to a much more positive user experience, and for that we should welcome them.

I want to highlight some of the criticisms of the self-regulatory scheme because, while I do not agree with them entirely, they are worth mentioning. In particular, I would like to mention a paper commissioned by Choice in 2008. Consumer protection in thecommunications industry: moving to best practice contained a number of recommendations including that the industry and the structure should:

… concentrate resources on a limited number of comprehensive codes rather than numerous fragmented codes.

It was probably shortly after this report was prepared when that occurred in the industry, with the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code replacing several smaller codes—for example, the billing code—consolidating all these into one consistent document. In section 2.2 of this report there is a critique of some of the provisions going to the code development process. It is interesting to focus on the precise criticism, which reads:

The legislation is vague on the code development process. There are no provisions that require independent consumer input to code development or prevent ACMA from registering a code which does not have consumer input.

The question arises: how prescriptive do we want to be in the legislation? Also, the reality is that consumer groups have had a long involvement in formulating these codes and the transparency offered by the amendments in this bill will go some way towards addressing some of those concerns.

I would like to turn to the amendments relating to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. As anyone in the industry would know, one of the objectives of operators is to engage as little as possible in the formal complaints process of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The proposed provisions are that there be a dispute resolution standard. Previously this operated in terms of the TIO publishing both its charter and expectations. So I do not necessarily think this was an issue of lack of transparency by the TIO but certainly the minister being able to make a standard under a legislative instrument should be useful in going some way towards addressing these criticisms.

Lastly, I point to an excellent analysis done by one of my former colleagues from Gilbert and Tobin, Sarah Alderson, who compared Australia's alternative dispute resolution scheme for telecommunications against that of the UK. In 2010, she noted when comparing and contrasting the numbers of complaints between the UK and Australia:

As … detailed ... in 2009-10, the TIO registered 215,000 cases. This means that in a country with less than a third of the amount of people—

Australia—

had almost 25 times more complaints than the UK.

As can be seen from that number and from the TIO's website, the focus of Australia's telcos—and they should be commended for it—really has shifted towards consumer satisfaction, particularly in this age of user-generated content where you have people giving succinct views on the operation of their carriage service provider. I think that has driven substantially the improvements we have seen in the TIO resolution levels. It is noteworthy that it is, in fact, in the industry's interests to keep these complaints at a low. As Sarah Alderson points out:

… acquiring new customers can cost 5 to 7 times more than satisfying and retaining—

them. So it certainly is in the interests of consumers for telcos to remain focused on their end users.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. It might be said that the rather detailed measures contained in this bill are of interest to only a small section of the community. But both the member for Greenway and I do form part of that small section of the community. More broadly, these changes will, as I seek to explain, be of benefit to telecommunications consumers.

The measures in this bill are ones that I look at with some interest, having spent a reasonable proportion of my professional life engaged in the area of telecommunications regulation. Indeed, I was working as an advisor to then Howard government communications minister, Senator Richard Alston, at the time that the act which is proposed to be amended by this bill first went through the parliament. Subsequently, I had the opportunity to serve on the board of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, an organisation which is the subject of key provisions of this bill. I also had the opportunity to head up the regulatory affairs function at Optus, the second-largest telecommunications company, where participation in the code development process—another key subject area of this bill—was part of our daily work.

Against that backdrop, I want to comment on the measures contained in this bill, which do several things. Firstly, they amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to strengthen the effectiveness of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) scheme. Secondly, they streamline the industry code process in the Telecommunications Act 1997. They also enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006.

I want to make three points. There is a heavy element of self-regulation in the telecommunications sector—to make the regime as flexible and adaptable as possible. But self-regulatory arrangements can develop some rigidities, and this bill seeks to correct some of those. There is more to do on regulatory reform and it is a major priority for this government in the communications sector.

Let me turn then to the first proposition about the importance of self-regulation in the telecommunications sector in Australia. The broad legislative framework under which the sector presently operates took effect on 1 July 1997. There is a heavy self-regulatory framework under that regime. A key reason is that the sector is so fast moving—detailed legislation prepared by parliamentary counsel can easily get out of date. To give just one example: 16 years ago, the notion of voice over IP as a mainstream technology for voice would have been fanciful. Today there are over four million Australians using VOIP services.

It is because of this need to be constantly adaptive to the extraordinary rate of technological change in this industry that the regulatory regime applicable to telecommunications makes very extensive use of self-regulatory codes. These codes are developed by groups of industry participants under the auspices of the Communications Alliance—again, a self-regulatory body—and are ultimately registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority and, once registered, they have the force of law.

They deal with a wide range of matters, including consumer protections, technical matters, and operational and interoperator arrangements. So code making is a vital and routine part of the way the industry operates and regulates itself in a very fast moving area. But there is a problem in the current process by which codes are made. As the legislative framework currently operates, there is no scope to make minor amendments on a stand-alone basis to the self-regulatory codes in the telecommunications sector. Instead, under the current process, the only way to make a change is for the developers of the code—that is, all of the multiple parties across the industry—to review the code in its entirety. Even if you wish to make minor changes or, indeed, urgent changes, you must go through, as the law presently stands, the full process of remaking the code, which takes two to three years given the number of parties involved and given the consultative process that is involved. So it is no surprise that telecommunications carriers have been frustrated by their inability to make minor changes to industry codes to ensure consumer protection obligations across industry are kept up to date.

Similarly, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman arrangements also involve a high degree of self-regulation. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is an industry funded complaints scheme. Historically, it has been governed at two levels, a board and a council—both have a mix of industry and consumer sector representation. When a complaint is made by a customer, there is a tiered process of investigating that complaint with the service provider. As the investigation becomes more complex and if the matter is not resolved, the service provider is charged an amount which increases as the complaint proceeds to a higher tier. It is a strong incentive for the carrier or service provider to resolve the matter. So it is a powerful mechanism for using the price signal to communicate to telecommunications carriers when they have a problem, particularly a systemic problem.

Over the nearly 20 years now that the system has operated, a range of issues have generated particular systemic problems. A good current example, recently cited by the CEO of Optus, Kevin Russell, concerns bill shock in relation to data charges. Mr Russell said:

The notion that a 16 year old can rack up a $3,000 bill in the space of a week, or that travellers can return home with over $22,000 in international roaming charges is unacceptable. It's not an answer to say people have choices if the choices aren't great.

He went on to say:

It's no wonder Australians are unhappy with our industry. Almost one million complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman about bills and customer service can't be wrong.

Optus is tackling these issues head on, by cutting our reliance on data breakage fees and unfair roaming charges.

I should again disclose for the record that I am a former employee of Optus.

Mr Russell's comments are a powerful demonstration that when charges paid to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman by a carrier or a service provider start to spike, it gets the attention of senior management, who ask, 'What do we need to do as a company to fix this and get complaints down?' I am certainly not saying that the system is perfect; no human institution is. But at its core it has worked effectively as a way to put a focus on problematic issues and to do so in a self-regulatory fashion—that is, without necessarily requiring the involvement of government.

While self-regulation is a central principle, self-regulatory arrangements can develop rigidities over time, and a key objective of this bill is to address some of the rigidities that have emerged. In my maiden speech I discussed the balance between rules being set by government and what the private sector should do. I said:

To me, the sweet spot in public policy is when government identifies the objectives and sets ground rules and incentives to achieve those objectives—and then gets out of the way to let individuals and businesses do the work.

I continue to believe that is a good principle but, as we have seen, there is a flaw in the present self-regulatory arrangements when it comes to codes, because there is presently no capacity to make minor modifications to codes. Similarly there is a need for some finetuning in relation to the arrangements governing the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. In particular, the amendments contained in the bill will allow codes to be varied through a streamlined process. That process will be similar to that for developing industry codes, but it will be more streamlined. One of the other changes is that code developers will be required to publish submissions. That will improve the transparency and accountability of the code development and review process.

In relation to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the amendments in the bill are designed to keep the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme in line with best practice for industry-run external dispute resolution schemes. This will be done by establishing a set of framework principles which will clarify the role of the TIO scheme and its expected standards of operations. The amendments will also introduce periodic, mandatory, independent and public reviews of how the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme is operating. These amendments will help to keep the TIO operating as an effective example of industry through its own efforts to respond to consumer complaints rather than relying on a process of direct government regulation.

The final point I want to make is that while this bill shows some encouraging progress towards lightening some of the burden of red tape and regulation on the communications sector, there is considerably more to do. When the Howard government introduced the Telecommunications Act, which took effect in 1997, it brought in a new period of competition in telecommunications. But it is timely now to look at the weight of the regulatory burden on this sector, just as the Abbott government is looking at the weight of the regulatory burden across all sectors of business. This government has made a strong commitment to reduce that regulatory burden. Indeed, we have set a very ambitious goal across government that by the end of our first term we will have reduced the cost to Australian business of regulation and red tape by $1 billion. In the communications portfolio, both Minister Turnbull and I are very focused on the importance of regulatory reform. The communications sector is, after all, highly regulated. The current regulatory framework is fundamentally based on a 1990s world of relatively stable technologies and business models which placed great emphasis on the predominance of the fixed-line network—which was certainly a valid assumption at the time. Since that time, of course, there has been a steady accretion of layer upon layer of rules and regulations. Some of these rules and regulations are important for facilitating competition but others are not of such evident value in 2014. It is timely to ask whether the policy objectives underpinning particular regulatory measures in the communications sector remain valid; if they do not, the case for those regulations being retained is very difficult to see.

We have commenced quite an extensive consultation process with the communications sector. A letter has been sent to participants right across the industry and some very good ideas have already been received from industry participants in relation to the reduction of red tape. This is a high priority. The coalition's first 'regulation repeal day' is coming up in March, and we expect at that time there will be measures in relation to communications included in the legislation which is before the House.

The coalition is determined to reduce the regulatory burden across the economy, and there is scope for the communications sector to share in that. The measures contained in this bill are improvements which will go some way towards making the self-regulatory arrangements which presently exist more flexible. But there is certainly more to do and the Abbott government is determined that the communications sector as well as other sectors of the economy will benefit from unnecessary regulation being removed, allowing greater efficiencies and less red tape so that business can get on with doing what it does best: serving its customers and serving Australians.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the passage of this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. For any of those members of the public who have received a telemarketing call while they are making dinner at home or trying to put the kids to bed, these reforms are a welcome improvement to our consumer protection provisions relating to telecommunications in Australia.

Of course, the reforms contained in this bill were introduced by the former Labor government, and we support them in opposition. The amendments will enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register, simplify the process for updating industry codes of practice, increase the transparency of processes to develop those industry codes and also provide greater clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, its standards of operation and processes for regular review. Basically, these reforms strengthen the consumer protections available in the telecommunications industry, but they are not over the top. They do not go too far. They strike the right balance in ensuring that the privacy of Australian citizens is respected and protected whilst they are at home.

The objective of the Telecommunications Act is to promote an industry that is efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs of the Australian community. The act also aims to provide appropriate community safeguards and to regulate participants in this important industry. The amendments to the Do Not Call Register were prepared in response to feedback received by the department from the Australian Communications and Media Authority. These amendments enhance the operational efficiency of the register by clarifying the meaning of 'cause' in relation to the party responsible for making telemarketing calls and sending marketing faxes where third parties are carrying out the marketing activities. Under the current act, a person or a company cannot make a telemarketing call to an Australian phone number of a person who is registered on the Do Not Call Register. These provisions extend that.

There have been incidences reported of individuals contracting out that responsibility to companies who do not have a contractual obligation to abide by the provisions that restrain the person contracting out from calling people on the Do Not Call Register. Section 12 of this bill will prohibit persons or companies from entering into a contract with another party to make telemarketing calls where there is no provision in that contract for a party not to abide by the Do Not Call Register. Consumer protection in the telecommunications industry is of the utmost importance. With that in mind, the amendments contained in this bill are designed to enhance the capabilities of the ACMA to ensure that the Do Not Call Register is operating as intended.

This government has made it pretty clear that they have an agenda of pursuing a reduction in red tape, and on this particular industry they have often spoken of pursuing the Victorian model. The problem with this approach, however, is that it focuses solely on the cost while ignoring the social impacts of regulations. I and members on this side are hopeful that reasonable consumer protections that protect the privacy of Australian citizens, particularly in relation to telemarketing activities, are not whittled away by this reform and this process of reducing red tape.

The other two amendments in this bill relate to consumer protection. Telecommunications service providers have deficiencies. We have all heard of bill shock, roaming fees and poor consumer service and assistance. These are issues that the industry is aware of and, thankfully, the industry is committed to rectifying. The amendments in relation to consumer codes followed an extensive review of the processes of making those consumer codes. The amendments in this bill enable codes to be varied rather than needing to be remade holus-bolus, and that is supported by all the stakeholders. The revised amendment requiring submissions received to public consultation on code development are also supported by all the stakeholders. These changes will allow new issues and problems to be addressed quickly and efficiently through code management and amendment.

The role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is of course essential in providing an avenue for adequate recourse to consumers experiencing issues with their provider. However, the scheme has been sluggish in adapting to new issues and governance concerns. Many MPs receive complaints about the time it takes for the telecommunications ombudsman to deal with complaints and get responses to complaints to consumers. The greater clarity instilled by this bill around the role of the ombudsman will ensure that this organisation continues to operate effectively into the future and, importantly, provides more efficiency around responses to consumers.

The removal of red tape is a goal that we share, but it is important that this objective is not pursued at the expense of consumer protection. We implore those opposite to ensure that the balance that is struck with this bill and with these reforms introduced by Labor is not whittled away in any process being undertaken looking at red tape in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I believe this is the first time I have spoken since you have been appointed a Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will make a fine Deputy Speaker and I look forward to speaking while you are in the chair. I rise to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013, a bill which amends the Do Not Call Register Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Services Standards) Act 1999. It is important to note that this bill was first introduced, as the previous speaker so eloquently stated, into the House under the Gillard government in March last year. It was legislation that was developed in response to problems experienced by consumers and by the industry generally. I believe it is really important for governments to react to problems such as those identified in this area and to rectify them.

The first amendment is to the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 to enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register, which I will go into a little bit later, and to clarify which party is responsible for making telemarketing calls and sending marketing faxes where third parties are carrying out the marketing activities. The second amendment is to streamline the process of developing and amending industry codes under part 6 of the Telecommunications Act to extend the application of the reimbursement scheme for developing consumer related industry codes, to vary these codes and to require code developers to publish draft codes, draft variations and related public submissions on their websites. That is a very important change.

The third amendment amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Services Standards) Act 1999 to improve the operation of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, TIO, scheme. Each and every member of this House would value the TIO and its role. This amendment will provide greater clarity about the role of the TIO and expected standards of operation by requiring the TIO scheme to comply with standards determined by the minister. I assume those standards determined by the minister will reflect the standards that we as members of parliament and those we represent in the community expect. It will also require periodic public reviews of the TIO scheme conducted by a body independent of the TIO and the telecommunications industry—once again, independence and transparency are all very important. This legislation, I believe, is good legislation. It makes really positive changes and is legislation that provides protection to those people we in this parliament represent.

The Do Not Call Register was, I think, one of the most innovative changes within the industry. I would like to pay credit to the former Speaker, the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, for the role that she played. She championed the Do Not Call Register when those opposite were in opposition and was able to get that through the parliament. The Do Not Call Register reflected the demands and expectations that people in the community were making to members of parliament. They were saying that it was not good enough that they were getting unwanted phone calls—usually at tea time, as most people know. People were getting unsolicited, unwanted phone calls and something needed to be done to stop this. The interesting thing is that there are now nine million landlines that are registered with the Do Not Call Register. It is important that we ensure the register is actually achieving what it is supposed to. These changes to the legislation will make sure that the Do Not Call Register is vibrant and delivers what it should. That, coupled with the Do Not Knock signs that people are putting on their doors, has really made a change in the way people receive unsolicited door-to-door advertising and sales. It is interesting to note that at the end of last year a verdict was handed down and significant fines were placed on ATL and another organisation because they knocked on a person's door who had a Do Not Knock sign on the door. These are really important forms of consumer protection. The Do Not Call Register relates to unsolicited phone calls, people selling things that people we represent have not asked for. The Do Not Call Register and the Do Not Knock stickers that people are now placing on the door are really important changes in consumer protection.

The amendments to the code, which I detailed, require organisations to place details of those codes and responses to submissions on their websites. We need to have a strong code that is agreed to by all parties. It is important to note that the things to be looked at include the telemarketing and fax marketing industries. They have got to put all the details up there about bodies or associations that have been developed in relation to the industry, the industry code and how the code provides appropriate community safeguards where relevant. I think that is the thing that we as members of parliament are particularly interested in, because this is all about community safeguards and ensuring that the community has the type of protection that it needs.

The Do Not Call Register, as I previously pointed out, was an innovative register that was set up to stop unsolicited calls. The Do Not Knock stickers are to prevent unsolicited people knocking on your door. Now this legislation will ensure that there is a proper code of conduct in relation to the telecommunications industry. In the past it was really hard to compare different mobile phone plans. It was like comparing apples and oranges. There has been an evolution within the telecommunications industry that has made it easier to do this. This code of conduct will make it even more transparent and even easier to look at and compare the different telecommunications deals, offers and companies that are out there in the community. It is all about providing consumers with greater protection and more information and allowing them to make informed decisions.

In the past I have had numerous complaints in my electorate office about people receiving unsolicited phone calls offering to provide them with assistance with their computers online. These calls have created some damage for people who have actually followed the instructions that they have been given. There are also unsolicited calls and faxes offering people deals and sums of money. This legislation will tighten up the requirements to establish the link between the person making the phone call and the company that they are representing.

In addition to that, this legislation will make the TIO operate a lot more efficiently and effectively. There have been problems in the past with the TIO and the speed with which it can react to and deal with issues. Hopefully the changes that are included in this legislation will deal with that and lead to faster, fairer and more efficient operation by the TIO, consistent with current alternative dispute resolutions and best practice. They should also lead to the TIO having the ability to promote and encourage industry efforts to deliver quality complaint resolutions before any sort of outside intervention is introduced. This legislation was referred to and examined by a Senate committee. There were, I believe, six submissions to the inquiry, and those six submissions basically did not have any major problems with this legislation.

I will conclude by making the statement that any legislation that provides better protection to the people that we represent in this parliament is good legislation. The simple fact that both sides of this House are supporting this legislation shows that it meets the test of being able to provide protection to the people that we represent. This legislation will ensure that we have a fair, efficient and effective telecommunication industry. It will ensure that we have a Do Not Call Register that operates in the way that it is intended to. It will also ensure that the industry develops a code of conduct that is actually accessible to people, through web pages. It will allow the industry to change regulations but to do so in a transparent way and a way that benefits consumers.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013, a bill which is very much focused on improving consumer protection in relation to telecommunications services. The delivery of telecommunications services now so deeply and profoundly affects our lives that the focus on consumer protection in this area and the ability of people to properly access telecommunications services is every day becoming more important. So much of our lives now we conduct through telecommunications services. The very way in which our businesses, work and homes are structured makes us increasingly dependent on the provision of reliable telecommunications services, so the need for us to have a robust protective regime is very important.

I want to pick up on the comment that was made by the member for Kingsford Smith. I think that within all of the discussion that we have about the importance for there to be a self-regulatory regime and for us not to impose unnecessary burden on the industry, it is always very important for us to countervail that with the need for enhanced protection for the consumer, given the centrality of these services to the conduct of their daily lives and the difficulties that emerge when those services are simply not available in a reliable and timely fashion. I will talk about a few instances in my electorate where people found that, unfortunately, the sort of assistance that they would have expected from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman was simply not there by virtue of the limitations on the role of the telecommunications ombudsman.

I think that the provision of the Do Not Call Register was a great development, given the amount of intrusion by these phone calls into people's already time-poor lives. Some nights, one would get three or four of these unsolicited telephone calls. The Do Not Call Register was a very welcome development for the Australian community. But, like many people, I have to say it seemed to be failing and calls seemed to resume. So it is pleasing now to see that one of the possible loopholes or enforcement barriers is being addressed in this legislation and that those people who were seeking to circumvent any consequences of breaching the Do Not Call Register by engaging third parties to do the work for them will now be forced to accept the responsibility. I guess you could call it a chain of responsibility measure that has been put in place here. I think there is a lot more scope for chain of responsibility legislation in a number of different areas, but I am very pleased to see that we are accepting some of the commercial realities and are now taking action to ensure that the Do Not Call Register is not easily suborned.

As has been said, I think everyone is very pleased that we are now going to have the capacity to amend the provisions whereby codes can be varied in part. As has been pointed out by the member for Greenway, the requirement that an entire code be amended in order for it to be changed and be up for review has in fact been a negative provision that has stopped progress in the proper development of these codes. So the idea that we can now make targeted and nuanced changes without having to submit the entire code for review is of course very welcome.

Perhaps the final point I want to make goes back to the idea that, whilst it is always important that we are very efficient in the way we regulate industry and do not create needless and duplicated burdens on industry, in this area the need for consumer protection is ever increasing, and that it is not just focusing on cost comparisons and the ability for people to make wise and cost-effective choices—although that is extremely important—but on the very ability for people to have access to a reliable, dependable service and to have a measure of recourse where that reliable, dependable service is not available.

In the last couple of months we have been dealing with a number of issues with our constituents that centre around this and around their disappointment. Two very different sets of residents, with very different issues, came to us because they were surprised that they were unable to get any relief from the telecommunications ombudsman. In the first instance this involved an area of a number of streets in the suburb of Bedford in my electorate. There are a variety of different service providers that people use to get their internet services, but their internet services have always been of a low quality and speed. The services were increasingly falling out, the length of time to access those services was expanding and services would routinely drop out, so you would be lucky if you could get half an hour of continuous service.

This was making it extremely difficult for people seeking to study at home, who would come home at night wanting to use their internet service for research for the education programs that they were engaged in. It was very difficult for people that were trying to run small businesses. They would contact their service provider, and their service provider would say, 'Look, there's nothing we can do about it, it's just that we've got a poorly maintained network here and that's the best that we can do.' So they would contact the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman would tell them that, as they were not Telstra customers, there was nothing that they could do. They would contact iiNet, and iiNet would contact Telstra, and nothing ever changed, so the roundabout simply continued. Quite clearly we have a problem here. It is simply not possible, it would appear, for the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to deal with fundamental infrastructure problems.

There was a whole street, a new subdivision in a very old, established area. A small subdivision was created. Quite simply, these people could not get any telecommunications services at all. As part of their development they had private structured cable laid to their housing. The contractor they employed installed the conduit cable to the house, to the street verge, ready to be connected to the Telstra pit. However, it turned out that there was no pit in the street. There were attempts to engage with Telstra. Telstra for quite some time refused to accept that this issue was even relevant to them. Finally, after some intervention on our part, there was a recognition that, yes, this was something that the internet provider could not themselves deal with and that it was indeed a Telstra issue.

There were numerous occasions when people were then told that Telstra would come out to the site and deal with this issue. Technicians would come out. They would poke around for a while and then say they had to go back to the exchange. They would go back and they would never return. This went on for many, many weeks. Complaints were made to the telecommunications ombudsman, and again they replied that they were unable to pursue Telstra as Telstra were not the people's service provider.

Quite clearly, in these settings we have problems with the provision of infrastructure that it would appear that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman is not able to deal with. Many of these constituents, who presume that this is the appropriate person to go to, find that it is not and find themselves in this endless loop between their service provider and Telstra, going round and round in circles. This can have an impact on people's lives, their ability to operate their small business and their ability to engage in education programs as well as all the more day-to-day things that they may wish to do as consumers and as friends and family over the internet.

I think we need to do better. We need to absolutely and profoundly understand just how, as a society, we have become so dependent on the provision of reliable telecommunications services. We have to be very cognisant of the need to have a system that provides a very strong measure of protection for people and a very clear conduit for people to take action when these services fail. There needs to be some ability to cut through the 'it's not my fault; it's their fault' regime that certainly many of my constituents are finding themselves wound into.

Of course, that also leads into the very strong arguments for upgrading our very basic infrastructure to try to deal with some of these problems, at least some of which come from a poorly maintained copper network. I note that the Minister for Communications is here. I am pleased to perhaps now have the opportunity to ask the minister if he is aware of the new cable-laying technology or techniques that have been developed in Perth that provide an enormous opportunity to radically reduce the cost of laying fibre-optic cable in brownfield sites. They dramatically reduce the cost of doing so. This, in my view, will enable us to do a lot more fibre to the premises in a very cost-effective way. It is a logical consequence of engaging in a rollout that these new techniques develop. I would be very hopeful that the minister is open to exploring these new opportunities for laying down stronger infrastructure. (Time expired)

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to thank the members who have contributed to this debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013. An efficient and responsive consumer protection regime is a vital element of our telecommunications landscape, particularly—as many honourable members, including the speaker preceding me, have observed—as Australians increasingly rely on telecommunications technology to support all of their work and everyday activities. There used to be a time when we spoke—and we still do, in fact—of the digital economy. The reality is that the economy is a digital economy. That is the economy. All of our transactions and all of our commerce are being conducted, in one way or another, in the digital sphere.

The various measures outlined in the bill, which I gather has the support of the House, seek to improve consumer safeguards while reducing the regulatory burden imposed on the telecommunications industry when developing or altering its governing codes. The self- and co-regulatory frameworks which form the foundation of the Telecommunications Act 1997 have served consumers and the industry well. But as new devices and technologies enter this dynamic market and consumer preferences change, traditional regulatory frameworks are at increasing risk of being left behind by technology. So, importantly, amendments in this bill will give the companies and organisations that develop these industry codes additional flexibility to respond more quickly and efficiently to the evolving telecommunications sector.

As honourable members have discussed in this debate, the particular amendments to the Telecommunications Act in this bill will permit industry codes to be varied or revised without the rest of the code becoming obsolete. The telecommunications industry is a fast-changing and exponentially growing sector. Its co-regulatory framework in which industry, government and consumer groups work in partnership has to be equally dynamic. It cannot be always playing catch-up; it has to be able to move with the times. The bill improves the transparency and accountability of the industry code development process by requiring code developers to publish their draft codes and variations on the web as well as submissions received from industry and the public. In addition, the bill incorporates changes to the code developers' reimbursement scheme allowing them to be reimbursed for those costs associated with varying consumer related industry codes.

A core element of the telecommunications industry self-governance regime is the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme. The TIO provides an independent alternative dispute resolution service for residential and small business consumers of fixed line, mobile and internet services in Australia. This bill will implement a number of measures to improve the TIO scheme's effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, the bill establishes a performance framework that will ensure that the TIO scheme complies with fundamental standards of fairness, equity and efficiency. Importantly, the proposed amendments will also enable these standards and the entire TIO scheme to be periodically reviewed and adjusted as community expectations evolve. Finally, the bill makes amendments to the Do Not Call Register Act 2006. The proposed amendment will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, to pursue more effectively those telemarketers and fax marketers which may be using third parties overseas and other intermediaries to reach local consumers, in breach of the Do Not Call Register provisions.

Sixteen years ago the Howard government introduced the Telecommunications Act 1997, as the honourable member for Bradfield and my parliamentary secretary reminded the House just a few moments ago. This enabled a new era of competition in Australia's telecommunications sector while establishing a comprehensive co-regulatory framework to protect the interests of consumers. The guiding principle was progressively to remove regulatory barriers and constraints on genuinely competitive conduct and actively engage with the telecommunications sector to transfer much of the responsibility for regulation to the industry itself. The coalition government, the Abbott government, has vowed to continue this work of removing red tape and by so doing to continue to lift Australia's productivity. So this bill is part of a broader package of reforms of the telecommunications industry.

At the heart of those reforms is the consumer. Everyone in this chamber recognises that Australia needs a world-class telecommunications network. We may disagree about some engineering issues about the design and construction of such a network but a critical issue is to make an honest and adequate appraisal of what consumers face in the network today. A number of honourable members have spoken about the NBN project. I want to remind the House of the way in which the government have approached the NBN since the election. We undertook that we would tell the Australian people the truth about the state of the project and what the options were for completing it, and to do so independently.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

The NBN Co itself conducted a strategic review with the assistance of some external experts, including KordaMentha and the Boston Consulting Group. It was published just before Christmas. What that showed is that, under Labor's plan for the NBN, consumers would have faced internet price rises of up to 80 per cent and a total funding cost of $73 billion.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

It also showed that the project would take an extra four years to complete and demonstrated that there were alternative approaches using a range of technologies which would enable the project to be completed for $31 billion less in terms of total funding, and years earlier. That is a great outcome for the consumer because it means they will get better broadband sooner and it will be more affordable. The honourable member for Perth in her speech, and she has been interjecting while I have been speaking, asked about technologies for better, more efficient trenching of cables, fibre-optic cables or any cables, that are available. I imagine she was talking about micro trenching technologies. I can assure the honourable member that both I as the minister and the NBN Co even more so are very aware of that. But one of the things that the honourable member should bear in mind is that her colleague Senator Conroy, while the minister, arranged for the NBN Co to enter into a comprehensive agreement with Telstra of a take or pay kind whereby the NBN Co is obliged to use Telstra's ducts and pits and, if it does not use the nominated vast quantity of them, to pay them for it nonetheless. So yes, there are in some areas more cost-effective ways of putting fibre underground than horizontal drilling and installing new ducts and they can be taken into account. But the honourable members opposite have to remember that the government is not dealing with a blank sheet of paper here. We can only play the hand of cards that we have been dealt and what we have been left with by the previous government, and that has been a shocking mess.

Let me go on in the time available to me to continue as to what we have done. Among the things we have done, we have ensured that the board now has members who have spent lifetimes in the telecommunications sector, including Ziggy Switkowski, chairman and former CEO of Telstra, and in the case of Patrick Flannigan in the business of constructing distributed linear infrastructure. We now have a very qualified board. We have identified and engaged a new chief executive, Mr Bill Morrow, who is a very distinguished international telecom executive, highly regarded around the world as a turnaround specialist in the telecom sector. So now we have a highly qualified board and, joining us very shortly, a highly qualified CEO.

There is another review going on at the moment, which will be completed in March, of the satellite and fixed wireless part of the project, which faces, as many honourable members know, very, very serious problems—a mixture of misleading information being provided by the previous government coupled with what can only be described as bungling or incompetence in terms of the management of it. That report will be completed in March. This is a very considerable and expensive mess and, as I have said many times to honourable members, there are tens of billions of dollars that at the end of the day will have been wasted because of commitments made and decisions taken by the Labor government without proper homework.

One of the other things we are doing is conducting a thoroughgoing cost-benefit analysis. Of course, that should have been done by the previous government before they embarked on this in the first place, but it is better late than never. But it would have been better if it had been done at the outset.

The bottom line is that as far as the NBN project is concerned, the government's commitment is to be completely transparent and treat the people of Australia as you would treat the shareholders in a public listed company, to provide them with timely information about the state of the project and in effect to open the books of the NBN Co, and we are doing that. Instead of having to have rollout figures dragged out of the minister with great difficulty and pain, every week the NBN Co now publishes its latest rollout figures on its website. Every week they are published there. There will be a quarterly report done by the NBN Co management on the financial performance and of course the construction performance of the project. That will be done by the NBN Co management in exactly the same way as if it were a public listed company. Maximum transparency is going to be given to this project.

Honourable members should recognise that the failure of the NBN project under Labor has resulted in so many Australians who had no broadband in 2007 still not having it today. The truth is that some Australians have very good broadband—excellent broadband, world-class broadband. Many Australians have little or no broadband. You would think that, if the government were going to spend money on a broadband project, it would prioritise those who were in greatest need. But not only did the Labor government not do that, it did not even ask the question of where those underserved areas were. So shortly, we will be releasing a set of maps which show those parts of Australia—those districts, those neighbourhoods, if you like—where broadband services are good, okay, average and very, very poor. That information will inform the construction of the NBN so that, as far as practicable, the worst served areas are prioritised. Our commitment is to prioritise the worst served areas.

Ziggy Switkowski and I went out to Blacktown recently to see some work that had been committed to and planned under the previous government, which showed the NBN fibre being rolled out in streets where there was not one but two hybrid fibre co-ax networks. Under the ground there was Telstra's HFC; up on the poles was Optus's. From either of those networks residents in the street could order a 100-megabit-per-second service, yet that area was being prioritised when areas in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Craig Kelly, and indeed in outer suburban electorates in the big cities were being completely left behind. The former government did not even bother to ask the question in a systematic way as to where those underserved areas were.

There has been a massive cultural change in the management of the NBN Co. It is going to be run as a transparent business, being straight with the Australian people instead of treating it as a political exercise where any information it releases has to conform with the minister's political agenda and not otherwise.

Returning to this bill, the amendments in the bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013, will ensure the sustainability of the proven co-regulatory telecommunications framework while continuing to safeguard the interests of Australian consumers. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.