But the Coalition senators on the committee have raised doubts about the Government's move, slamming a lack of evidence about the ramifications of the scheme for businesses and a lack of clarity around the difference between day-to-day business calls and telemarketing.
The controversial bill has been opposed by the Australian Direct Marketing Association and the Council of Small Business of Australia, which were both concerned that the extension of the DNCR could restrict legitimate business telephone marketing.
But the Senate Committee has largely dismissed these concerns.
"Businesses will still be able to contact other businesses with whom they have a relationship under the current inferred consent provisions or where express consent to receive calls or faxes is given. However, the bill will prevent the use of 'cold calls' and marketing faxes to businesses that have opted-in, in instances where the express or inferred consent provisions do not apply," the committee's report says.
And in an agreement that might puzzle the direct marketing sector, the Committee has also argued that the introduction of the DNCR for businesses could actually make life easier for telemarketers.
"By including themselves on the DNC Register, businesses that do not wish to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls will decrease the size of the pool of businesses which could be contacted," the committee says.
"Consequently, the number of businesses in that pool which are likely to respond favourably to unsolicited telemarketing calls will increase, which is likely to lead to a increase in the success rate of those engaged in telemarketing."
But in something of a win for the opponents of the Bill, the committee has recommended a three year registration period for numbers on the DNCR, rather than a permanent registration.
But comments from the Coalition Senators on the committee indicate there is far from unanimous approval for the extension of the DNCR to business numbers.
In a special section of the report, the Coalition Senators outline concerns about the compliance burden associated with the DNCR and the restrictions placed on legitimate business-to-business dealings.
"The Government's figures grossly underestimate the financial impact of the bill on businesses," the Coalition senators said.
"This is in part because Government figures are based on the existing "Do Not Call" regime, which imposes obligations to businesses which place calls to private numbers, and assumes those trends can be transferred to this Bill, which potentially imposes obligations on all businesses for 'every day' business calls. This is particularly evident when unquantifiable costs associated with a reduction in competition, information and innovation; unemployment due to reduced telemarketing business.
"Businesses contact each other for a multitude of reasons, in the course of day-to-day operations. Coalition Senators believe that the Bill would "over-reach", hindering the ability of businesses to conduct "routine" business, and to establish and maintain commercial relationships."
ADMA was unavailable for comment prior to publication.
Related Items :
written by dejay, February 26, 2010
Telemarketing will soon be a thing of the past, it holds little value to the consumer except for nuisance value. The staff conducting the telemarketing typically turnover quickly because they don't like the work and because of the emotional drain of rejection. Let it go marketing companies, Let it go!
written by Leightonj, March 01, 2010
Already major companies have over-reacted to the privacy guidelines to the point where they do not send emails to companies. In a similar vein this will raise the burden on business and not help in the drive to raise the country's productivity - how?
Imagine Company A has a product that will reduce the cost of building a widget by 50%.
Company A knows that Company B builds widgets and would get benefit from it. But company A cannot contact company B as they are on the DNCR. If the Production manager at Company B hears about the product and wants to know more - but leaves a switchboard number and not his mobile number - his call may not be returned as they are on the DNCR.
Company B goes out of business? Or does Company A risk the law and push ahead?
We would all like to get off the call list of hotel loyalty cards, but we don't want to lose our business because of it!
written by christo, March 04, 2010
This will all depend on how the independents vote, if the Bill is reintroduced at all. The Greens surely can't be for an increase in junk mail - all those dead trees.