Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move items (1) to (4) on sheet 6049 revised:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 42, page 13 (lines 9 to 14), omit paragraph 17(1)(b), substitute:

             (b)    remains in force unless removed from the Do Not Call Register:

                   (i)    under paragraph 16(f); or

                  (ii)    in accordance with a determination under paragraph 18(1)(e); or

                 (iii)    in accordance with an application by:

                      (A)    the relevant telephone account-holder; or

                       (B)    a nominee of the relevant telephone account-holder;

                           in the form (if any) specified in a determination under paragraph 18(1)(aa).

(2)    Schedule 1, item 42A, page 13 (lines 15 to 18), item to be opposed.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 43, page 13 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute:

43  Subsection 17(2)

Repeal the subsection.

(4)    Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 24), after item 49, insert:

49A  After paragraph 18(1)(a)

       Insert:

           (aa)    the form of applications for Australian numbers to be removed from the Do Not Call Register;

I will talk to both types of amendments—and I spoke to them in my speech quite well. What I will say is that they do permanent registration in the US and the UK. When a number is deactivated, or when someone changes their number, it is taken off the Do Not Call Register and you have to reregister. I understand the Liberal Party’s comments but I am not sure they are really well thought through. But the fact that the US and the UK do it indicates there is a reasonable way of making sure that numbers which have been deactivated do not remain on the register, so that the next owner of the number does not have a do not call number. There are ways around that.

On the removal of exemptions for political parties on the Do Not Call Register, I think a classic example is that of prerecorded messages from the Prime Minister. I think they would be classified as being pretty close to being a nuisance call. I am pretty sure Labor would agree with me, because they called those sorts of calls nuisance calls when the previous government used them. This would be a way of making sure that that did not happen, given that they complained so bitterly about them at the time. There would be consistency if Labor did support it. It is important that there is at least a two-year extension. That is the only reason I agreed to make this legislation non-controversial. I appreciate the chamber allowing me to speak and to raise my concerns, which I have been consistent on, and I am hoping that Labor may do a backflip and support my amendments.