Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 was also introduced by the Labor government during its previous term and is being supported by us in opposition. People might think that this is a pedestrian bill. It is certainly uncontroversial, but it is critically important because it goes to amendments to the Do Not Call Register, which most of us as consumers have had some dealings with.

The amendments in this bill will enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register. It is quite interesting, perhaps, to those who might be listening, that the Do Not Call Register was put in place to regulate unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls. The main elements of the Do Not Call Register act are a prohibition on making telecommunication calls to an Australian number which is registered on the Do Not Call Register, subject to certain exemptions.

I know that there would be many people in this place who have had constituents advise them that they felt that the exemptions are not fair and that organisations which are allowed to use such telemarketing techniques should be discouraged from doing so. I have some sympathy for the frustration of families who sit together at dinner time inevitably to get a call from an overseas telemarketer on behalf of a charity. I encourage charities and not-for-profit organisations who use telemarketing not to call at that time of day. The penalty provision is aimed at calls made from an Australian number or from overseas to Australian numbers—and we are all acutely aware of how many organisations have now relocated their telemarketing centres overseas.

There is a requirement that agreements for the making of telemarketing calls must require compliance with this act. It is surprising how many organisations do not understand that there are quite serious implications for not complying with this act. The requirement is aimed at organisations which may contract with another party to provide telemarketing services on their behalf. Again, when you realise that you are contracting to an overseas telemarketing company, the onus and responsibility is on you in contracting that service to ensure that the telemarketing company meets the requirements of the act.

There is a requirement for a Do Not Call Register to be established under the act, which has been established and is quite effective, allowing people to register either their private or their domestic numbers on the register. The act also includes the civil sanctions regime. The enforcement regime is a tiered regime to allow ACMA, as the telecommunications oversight body, to enforce compliance—starting with a formal warning, acceptance of an enforceable undertaking, issuing an infringement notice or even going to the step of applying to the Federal Court for an injunction. So it is a tiered approach and not necessarily a heavy-handed approach, which is not what we want to see although we do want to educate charities, organisations and telemarketers about the way in which we like to do business in Australia.

The amendments being made in this bill will enhance the operational efficiency of the Do Not Call Register. The bill will also simplify the processes for updating industry codes and increase the transparency of processes to develop industry codes. It will also provide greater clarity around the role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, its standard of operations and processes for regular review. The amendments to the bill are not contentious. They certainly have the support of industry, the regulatory authorities and, as I said, many consumer representatives and consumers themselves.

The bill was introduced by the previous government in the House of Representatives and was then referred by the Senate to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee last year. That committee reported in late June but the bill was not actually reintroduced into the Senate. The committee only received six submissions, and those submitters were broadly in favour of the measures in that bill. The committee recommended one amendment, and that has been incorporated into this legislation.

The bill reflects the continuing importance of consumer protection regulation in telecommunications and the two sets of amendments in the bill that apply to protections of consumers of telecommunications services are very important. We are all familiar with stories of telco-provider service failures—they seem to be the most common consumer advocacy complaints, constantly aired in the media—and the industry has certainly been criticised for telecommunications plans that are difficult to understand, roaming fees, phone-bill shock and customer service failures. It becomes more complicated when you have a smart phone, so you are connected into the whole internet failure and the NBN, but we can continue with those arguments on another day.

This bill really is about industry regulation and industry codes of practice. The telecommunications industry has a reputation for having quite strong industry codes of practice. They are an industry that is committed to continuous improvement in their customer service because, of course, their customers vote with their feet and they will go to another service provider—and the telecommunications market is a highly contested market. So customers make their choices based very much on customer service in a range of ways, including things like the Do Not Call Register.

My mother used to have a saying, which was that it didn't matter what people said to you; it was how they made you feel that you remember. The frustration of having your calls drop out can be one of the worst disasters you can have as a telecommunications company. Once people have had a negative experience with a telco provider they will go away and they will never come back. It is a hard lesson for that industry to learn, but they are committed to it.

So the commitment by the telcos has been underpinned by the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code as well as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the regulator, ACMA. The development of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code was a major step forward and it included, for the first time, a comprehensive compliance regime. The amendments in this bill allow industry codes to be amended rather than having to be fully remade, making it possible for the code and other codes to be made more effective if new problems and issues arise as new forms of IT support or new innovations in the telecommunications space emerge. Those can be quickly addressed by amending the code, and the industry must ensure that that occurs.

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme is effective in providing recourse for consumers who are not able to resolve the issues with their provider, but in fact it has been slow to adapt to the new issues and to address governance challenges. We have seen that in the way in which we have had large telco providers packaging up their services in ways and then selling their services to smaller consumers, particularly in regional areas, who perhaps do not have the bandwidth or the capacity to actually deliver the services to their consumers. So smaller providers are definitely caught up in this issue. The clear specification of standards of operation and the requirement for regular review that are included in the legislation will ensure that it continues to be effective in the future.

We have heard much discussion by this new government about the reduction of regulation, and that is a burden we all share with the government. But we believe that it must not come at the expense of removing important protections for consumers. The amendments in the bill are an example of how effective regulatory review can be achieved. As I said, industry codes work well in well-regulated industries and better regulation is what we all seek to achieve—as opposed to more red tape.

In the opposition we are very interested in how the government intends to proceed with its agenda of removing the burden of regulation. The government has made the point that it intends to have that regulation repeal day some time in 2014. I do not know if the date has been announced yet.

There will be a day dedicated to removing regulation that is considered burdensome and redundant. The government has indicated that its measurement methodology will be based on the Victorian government's approach, which focuses on costs and does not focus on the social outcomes of regulation. So one of the issues that is raised in the context of this bill is that if the Do Not Call Register is identified as a regulatory burden because of the compliance costs of checking call lists against it, it would be targeted for revision. In weighing up the costs and benefits of regulation we want to ensure that it is not just the monetary costs that are taken into account. The inconvenience factor can sometimes be used as an argument for removing regulation that is there to protect consumers. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Stephens for her contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.