Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4988:

(1)    Clause 4, page 7 (after line 21), after the definition of services insert:

small business means a business which employs fewer than 20 people;

(2)    Clause 14, page 15 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

; and (d) it is used or maintained exclusively or primarily by a small business.

Essentially, the amendments seek to include the option for small businesses to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls. The fact is that small businesses are just as much victims of aggressive telemarketing as ordinary Australian families. We on the opposition side consider that the government’s decision to exclude small businesses from the scope of the bill is a major deficiency. Clearly, the government appears not to be listening to what small business wants.

The opposition has consulted with COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, in relation to this amendment. I understand that small business is firmly supporting the opposition’s proposal. Minister Coonan is not here but, in summing up in the second reading debate, she put what I have to confess I found to be a rather confused response to this issue. She said that they wanted to not exclude business-to-business transactions but that that was not possible under the legislation. Let us be very clear about this: including small business in the amendment Labor has proposed is simply allowing small business to opt out. It gives small business the chance to opt out. It is not saying to them, ‘You have to not get these calls’; it is saying that, if you are a small business operator and you want to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls, you can do so. Small businesses who want to continue to receive them obviously can.

We do not see any sensible policy basis for the government excluding small business from the protection against unwanted harassment through telemarketing. I make the point that there are a great many tradespeople in this country whose business contact is often also their personal phone—a tradesperson carrying a mobile phone when their mobile is obviously their business and personal phone. What will happen to them? Are they not given the option to opt out because they are technically a small business? I also want to consider somebody who is a hairdresser or a beauty therapist who has a small business. Obviously when you have an appointment the last thing you want is for it to be interrupted by somebody flogging a product to you over the phone.

Frankly, the advantages for small business significantly outweigh the disadvantages. In my speech during the second reading debate I quoted Tony Steven, the head of COSBOA, who said: ‘Constant calls from telemarketers are a time imposition for small businesses. We don’t want to restrict business-to-business marketing, but we should be protected from mass market telemarketing campaigns run by call centres in India.’ I find it rather extraordinary that the government is refusing to listen to the interests of small business in relation to this matter. It seems to us perfectly sensible that small business ought to have the opportunity to opt in to a regime which protects them from telemarketing.

The evidence from COSBOA indicates that that is an appropriate way to go. The government’s defence appears to be that there is business-to-business marketing. As I said, that is obviously an issue for the small business owner to consider. What we are talking about here is mass telemarketing, often from call centres offshore, and not sensible commercial contact between business associates or potential associates. I commend the amendment to the Senate.