Reimbursement of costs of development of consumer-related industry codes
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Papers at http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.65640:::pc=PC_100428 
Submission by Australian Privacy Foundation, February 2006

1. The Australian Privacy Foundation is the main non-governmental organisation dedicated to protecting the privacy rights of Australians. Relying entirely on volunteer effort, the Foundation aims to focus public attention on emerging issues which pose a threat to the freedom and privacy of Australians. The Foundation has led the fight to defend the right of individuals to control their personal information and to be free of excessive intrusions. The Foundation uses the Australian Privacy Charter as a benchmark against which laws, regulations and privacy invasive initiatives can be assessed.  For information about the Foundation and the Charter, see www.privacy.org.au 

2. APF has been involved in the development of ACIF consumer codes since 1997.  Codes on which APF has participated include:

Codes currently in operation

ACIF C522:2003 Calling Number Display
ACIF C523:2001 Protection of Personal Information of Customers of Telecommunications Providers
ACIF C525:2005 Handling of Life Threatening and Unwelcome Calls
ACIF C536:2003 Emergency Call Services Requirements
ACIF C555:2002 Integrated Public Number Database (IPND) Data Provider, Data user and IPND Manager

Guidelines currently in operation

ACIF G516:2004 Participant Monitoring of Voice Communications
ACIF G517:2004 Monitoring of Communications for Network Operation and Maintenance

Withdrawn Codes/Guidelines

ACIF C537:2002 Provision of Assistance to National Security, Enforcement and Government
ACIF G503:1998 Service Description - Mobile (origin) Location Indication

3. APF volunteers have participated in the development of all the above Codes and Guidelines, either directly representing the APF or in a few cases representing the Consumers Telecommunications Network (CTN).  In all cases they have received no payment or expenses (except on a few occasions taxi or public transport fares reclaimed from ACIF).

4. APF has never obtained funding under subsection 593(1) of the Act.  Whether or not the Foundation might be eligible for assistance under this scheme, we do not consider it to be an appropriate alternative to the proposed re-imbursement of costs associated with particular Codes for NGOs not in receipt of s.593(1) funding.

Primary submissions

5. APF supports the principle of a government contribution to the costs of developing consumer-related telecommunications industry codes. 

6. However, it appears that only ‘Industry bodies and associations’ would be eligible.  Applications for declaration of eligibility of a Code, and for subsequent re-imbursement, can only be made by organizations which “represent a particular section of the telecommunications industry”.  By definition this excludes NGOs from directly applying for re-imbursement.   The scheme appears to envisage a single industry body or association applying for and receiving funding on behalf of other participants in the Code development process, and presumably having its own processes for passing the funds on as appropriate.

7. We note that costs eligible for re-imbursement include ‘travel costs of consumer representatives’.  While we support this, there appears to be no requirement for any minimum level of consumer involvement – this would appear to be entirely at the discretion of the industry body or association developing the Code, and in some cases there might be no such involvement.  Given the objectives of the scheme, no public money should flow to any industry body or association without an acceptable level and quality of consumer input. 

8. We therefore urge ACMA to incorporate the following feature into the scheme.

A requirement for a minimum level of consumer representation before an industry body or association became eligible for re-imbursement.  Criteria, thresholds and processes for this requirement to be worked out by ACMA in consultation with consumer organisations.

9. We further note that ACMA proposes to determine that amongst the ‘non-refundable’ costs would be ‘costs incurred by consumer bodies who have been granted financial assistance by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts under subsection 593(1) of the Act for purposes in connection with the representation of the interests of consumers in relation to telecommunications issues”.  This seems a reasonable limitation to prevent double funding but we remind ACMA that there are many consumer organizations, including APF, which are actually or potentially involved in Code development which are not in receipt of s.593(1) funding, and even CTN, which is, may need additional cost re-imbursement for activity over and above a base level supported by the s.593(1) funding.  A more flexible limitation may therefore be appropriate.

10. The main weakness of the scheme is that it does not appear to provide for re-imbursement of any contribution for the time spent by volunteer consumer representatives.

11. The scheme as proposed would significantly compound an existing problem of an imbalance of resources and influence in the ACIF Code development process.

12. A typical ACIF Code working committee comprises several full time paid employees of telecommunications providers, with at best one or two representatives of consumer organisations.  While CTN employees are salaried, other representatives, including those from APF, are not and donate their time.  In the case of APF, which has virtually no funds, no fees or even expenses are paid – all input is voluntary. 

13. The work of a committee typically involves between 5 and 15 meetings, usually of 2-3 hours duration, and many more hours spent reviewing papers and preparing for meetings.  While it is possible to participate in meetings by telephone, this is often unsatisfactory and to ensure equality of input it is often necessary to attend meetings in person.

14. The result of the imbalance of resources is that working committees are heavily influenced in favour of industry interests and positions.  Consumer representatives struggle to influence committees and at best achieve sub-optimal outcomes for consumers.

15. In the absence of a contribution to volunteers’ time, it is difficult to for APF (and other NGOs) to participate in as many Code development processes, and to the extent, as is desirable and in the public interest.

16. If the net result of the proposed scheme is to provide a subsidy to industry bodies and associations, but not to consumer organisations, then it would be actively detrimental to the interests of consumers. 

17. We therefore urge ACMA to incorporate the following feature into the scheme.

Provision for re-imbursement of reasonable ‘sitting’ fees to representatives of consumer organisations not already in receipt of funding for the same purpose (whether under s.593(1) or from other sources).

18. We understand that some of the undesirable parameters of the scheme are embedded in the legislation (Telecommunications Act 1997, Part 6, Division 6A). We believe that the legislation should be amended to provide for potential re-imbursement of costs, or at least a contribution to costs, directly to all parties to the development of consumer related telecommunications Codes.

19. Such a change would sensibly involve ‘once only’ declaration of eligibility of a proposed Code, with subsequent application for re-imbursement by multiple parties only having to relate to their own involvement in the development process.

20. We therefore urge ACMA to recommend legislative amendments to provide for direct funding to participants in Code development.

Secondary submissions

The following additional points apply whether or not our primary suggestions are taken up.

There seems no good reason why the re-imbursement scheme should not apply to Guidelines (or Standards) as well as Codes – they are equally valuable – it is often a fairly arbitrary decision as to whether a particular consumer issue is dealt with by means of a Guideline rather than a Code.

We assume that the scheme will apply mainly to Codes developed under the auspices of ACIF, but there seems no good reason why it should not also apply in relation to other Codes.  

It is proposed that Codes that deal wholly or mainly with ‘community safeguard’ matters would be excluded.  It is not clear whether the sorts of Codes that APF has been involved in would fall into this category. If so, then it would deny the possibility of re-imbursement of costs in relation to some of the most valuable Codes.  It would be unfortunate if the restriction to ‘retail customers’ was interpreted too strictly as requiring a direct link.  Indirect benefits to all retail customers along with other members of the general community should be acceptable.

Contact for this submission:

Anna Johnston, Chair 
(02) 9432-0320
chair@privacy.org.au 

Australian Privacy Foundation
GPO Box 1196  SYDNEY  2001
enquiries@privacy.org.au
www.privacy.org.au