Click on the submission below to be taken to the relevant ...

Click on the submission below to be taken to the relevant document Submission # Submission Name 213 Kane 51 Kassler 291 Kelly 129 Kerkhof 250 Kerr 10 Kerrison 52 Kiefer 1 Kleidon 84 Kleidon 207 Korn 419 Krahe 297 Kuhnel 164 Kuilboer

I support the proposed Do Not Call Register and favour a model similar to that now successfully used in the USA.

Hello, I am writing this e-mail in response to an article in the newspaper dated 10 November 2005 and the general discussions getting around about annoying telemarketing calls. My wife and I have received many of these calls, however the most frequent and the rudest, are from telephone companies. AAPT and Optus are two of the larger companies that have phoned, amongst others. I also mentioned rudest as they basically start talking to You like a lower class of person because you don’t sign up with them or just straight up tell them you’re not interested. (I will be using the hang up button much quicker in the future). Thank you for your time, and I hope that something is done to control these companies, or at the very least, given some manners.

Dear Do not call I am finding it is very very irritating. Many Thanks

I support the strictest controls on telemarketers. A free, government- run and enforced "Do Not Call" register should be a given. I do not support the idea that we owe the marketing industry anything. Telemarketing is an intrusive, insidious form of marketing and is not necessary or desirable in this country. The worst thing about it, is how it has hijacked our phones. We pay just to have these phones connected, just to have them let alone use them. Once, if the phone rang is was for us. Now, it might be a telemarketer. We rush to the phone, and it's an advertising call. Many people won't answer their phones now, especially at certain times of day, fearing they are telemarketers. Our amenity of the phones we pay to have is severely limited by telemarketing. I totally reject that they have any right to do this. I have never heard anyone express any desire to receive these calls. This industry does not need to exist.

I wish to submit my thoughts on the abovementioned subject: I prefer not repeat not to receive any calls whatsoever from telemarketers NOR should any exceptions be made. I certainly do not want politicians to be the exception - they are as bad as the others. Charitable organisations reach me by mail or newspaper advertisements and do not need to have an exception made on their behalf. I find ALL unsolicited calls an invasion of my privacy and certainly not what I had the telephone installed for. The overseas call-centres are the latest nuisance and I receive about six calls per week at least (all with Indian accents) and I strongly resent this intrusion. I have, in desperation, been ignoring calls (believing them to be possible nuisances) only to find that friends and acquaintances complain that I have not answered their calls. This is most embarrassing but it reveals how annoying this has become to the point where I find myself behaving irrationally. So, please, let's stop ALL of this nonsense.

Dear Minister, Telemarketers have proven to be a gross inconvenience to me and a totally unacceptable intrusion into my home. IT WOULD BE OF SERVICE TO US ALL IF THE INDUSTRY WAS CLOSED DOWN. TO TALK OF THE LOSS OF JOBS IN THE INDUSTRY IF IT IS CURTAILED SIMPLY GETS THE PRIORITIES WRONG. OUR HOMES AND OUR RIGHT TO PEACE AND PRIVACY IN THEM IS PARAMOUNT. The system should be on the OPT IN model. I should not have to opt-out so as to save my home from those who have no respect for it. Also, there will be many people (e.g. those who are elderly) for whom opting- out might not be understood. The government has the chance here to make a forceful statement about the high value it places on the home life of Australians. The automated dialling and recorded messages method of operation is becoming more prevalent. Whilst personal calls are no less objectionable, these automated calls seem even more unethical, in that a machine is allowed to interrupt my home. They must be stamped out. In response to some specific issues in the discussion paper: 4.4 In the case of an opt out register, there should be no time limit. It should have to be done once only. Why should people keep on having to renew there objection to what is an objectionable practice? 5.1 Overseas telemarketers should definitely be outlawed. They cause as much trouble as does the local industry. The principle is the same. 6. All of these practices should be prohibited. They all offend our Australian way of life. 7. There should be no exemptions. If existing business contacts or charities want to contact me, they can send a letter by post instead of telephoning me at dinner time or any other time. 8.5 The penalty should be heavy enough to stop any further breaches and also to give some satisfaction to the person (and there will have been others) whose home has been invaded. 9.3 It is unthinkable that a person should have to pay to be placed on such a register. The nuisance calls should not be being made in the first place. The telemarketers are the perpetrators in all this, so they should pay. It will be a black day for Australians when they have to pay instead of the perpetrators of the practice. This is my submission.

I support a do not call register for telemarketers to home phones. The system should be an opt in rather than opt out system. Offshore telemarketing should be regulated. Exemptions 1 to 7 are OK The telemarketing industry combined with possibly a small fee to those wanting to opt- in should be established.

Personal Submission to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Submission in response to the Discussion Paper dated October 2005 re: Introduction of a Do Not Call Register. Possible Australian Model Personal Submission by: Geoff Krahe

Submission by G. Krahe to the Discussion Paper re Introduction of a Do Not Call Register. The following views and suggestions are based on my own Family experiences and ideas with Telemarketing organisations. The views and comments are provided against the specific questions outlined in the discussion paper. Question/Reference: Comments, views, suggestions. 1.1 Do you support the I support the introduction of a Do Not Call establishment of a do not call Register. register? 1.2 Why do you support the After having been disturbed on many occasions, establishment of a do not call having tried unsuccessfully to be removed from register? specific organisations call lists and being treated rudely by calling staff I believe that the only way to resolve this is to have a register or equivalent method to prevent this type of unwanted behaviour by telemarketers, etc. 1.3 Why do you not support the N/A establishment of a do not call register? 1.4 Could a self regulatory Based on my experience I do not believe that a scheme provide a suitable self regulatory scheme can be successful as the solution? rules are too difficult to apply. Eg to be removed from their list with one organisation require a name – and obviously spelt it differently every time and my name did not match their list. 2.1 Should a do not call register Yes – otherwise activity just moves from one address direct marketing medium to the next. The register should cover approaches by facsimile? all direct marketing communications. 3.1 Should individuals and small N/A businesses be able to ‘opt in’ to receive telemarketing calls? 3.2 Should individuals and small Opt out would enable individuals or small businesses be able to ‘opt out’ businesses to stop telemarketing calls if required if they wish not to receive and would have a lesser impact and therefore telemarketing calls? more palatable for the telemarketing industry (at least initially) 4.1 Who should be eligible to Only the ‘owner’ of the service register numbers on a do not call register? 4.2 Should mobile numbers be Yes – to exclude any similar medium will most included on a register? likely result in a shift to that medium and require further extension/expansion of any register scheme/s at a later time. 4.3 Should there be a limit on how No. many numbers can be registered overall? 4.4 Should there be a time limit No time limit unless ownership changes. set on the period numbers remain on a register? 4.5 Should individuals be able to No. register numbers on behalf of others? 5.1 Should Australia attempt to This would be preferable otherwise it would be regulate offshore possible to misuse this capability. telemarketers?

Submission by G. Krahe to the Discussion Paper re Introduction of a Do Not Call Register. Question/Reference: Comments, views, suggestions. 6.1 Should automated calls be Yes, otherwise allows potential for circumventing prohibited to numbers on a do the purpose of the register. not call register? 6.2 Should predictive dialling calls Yes, otherwise allows potential for circumventing be prohibited to numbers on a the purpose of the register. do not call register? 6.3 Should recorded message Yes, otherwise allows potential for circumventing calls, providing information the purpose of the register. only, be prohibited to numbers on a do not call register? 6.4 Should calls which have dual Yes, otherwise allows potential for circumventing purposes, that is, to provide purpose of the register. My experience is that 2 information or test customer calls are made in many instances – the initial call satisfaction, for example, as to gauge interest/determine if the customer is in well as offer goods or services a target group and the second to ‘sell’ to the for sale, be prohibited to numbers on a do not call target. register? 7.1 Should exemptions to the No. prohibition on calling numbers listed on a do not call register be permitted? 7.2 Why do you think exemptions Do not agree with exemptions. to the prohibition on calling numbers listed on a do not call register should be permitted? 7.3 If you think exemptions should Nil be permitted, what do you think these should be? 7.4 If you think exemptions should As a general rule I think that exclusions will be not be permitted to the too difficult to manage. If an individual or small prohibition on calling numbers business has opted not to receive any calls then listed on a do not call register, this should apply to all calls. The only viable why do you oppose granting option I could envisage would be to have a all/some/particular exemptions? number of categories for each individual or small business to opt out of but this would be difficult to administer. Exemptions would allow potential for circumventing the purpose of the register. 7.5 If you think exemptions should N/A be permitted do you think existing business relationships should be exempted? 7.6 Should this exemption also N/A apply to affiliates or subsidiaries of companies with whom people have existing relationships? 7.7 Should exemptions be granted No to charities? 7.8 Should exemptions be granted No to religious organisations? 7.9 Should exemptions be granted No to educational institutions? 7.10 Should exemptions be granted No to government bodies? 7.11 Should exemptions be granted No to registered political parties

Submission by G. Krahe to the Discussion Paper re Introduction of a Do Not Call Register. Question/Reference: Comments, views, suggestions. and registered political candidates? 7.12 Should exemptions be granted No to market researchers undertaking social research? 8.1 Should the Australian No comment except that it should not be Communications and Media administered by an industry body Authority directly administer a do not call register? 8.2 Should operation of a do not No comment. call register be awarded after a tender process? 8.3 What specific tasks should be I would expect that the responsibilities would be entrusted to an administrator? similar to the IPND and Silent line registration. 8.4 What specific tasks should be No comment. entrusted to an enforcement body? 8.5 What penalties should apply? No comment. 9.1 Should the telemarketing Yes. The telemarketing industry has created the industry solely fund a do not need for this to occur. The costs incurred will call register? not only be for the Do Not Call Register but should include end to end costs. There will be costs for telecommunications companies – to provide the customer ‘opt out’ information to the Do Not Call Register or to validate ownership of services before inclusion in the Do Not Call Register 9.2 Should the telemarketing Refer 9.1 industry primarily fund a register? 9.3 Should individuals and small No – the costs are associated with telemarketing businesses be expected to and therefore the costs should be recovered pay a small fee to be included from the telemarketing industry. on a register? 9.4 How should fees to access a Fees should be based on the cost to set up, register be set? operate, maintain and enforce the Do Not Call Register and associated processes. 10.1 Should minimum national Standards should include: contact standards apply to all Clear identification of the organisation telemarketing approaches? Contacting person Phone number for complaints. 10.2 What are the appropriate rules No comment for information disclosure? 10.3 Are there any other standards I believe that all telemarketers should be that should apply to obligated to provide their calling number. These telemarketers? could be registered (perhaps as part of the Do Not Call Register processes) and would make follow up on complaints, etc simpler

Sirs, I'm fed up with being rung 10-12 times per week, at up to 8.30pm at night, by uninformed people trying to sell me inappropriate services. Please, please introduce legislation whereby I can reclaim my telephone for my own private use, and not let it be used as an open door for any idiot with a database.

Click on the submission below to be taken to the relevant ...

by Shelly38

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Click on the submission below to be taken to the relevant ... Document Transcript