http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/592485The various submissions to this process turn up in the page on the 2005 draft decision:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/479780
ADMA-Code-amended-30-Jan-04.doc
| The Consumers' Federation of
Australia (CFA) submits that the ACCC
should not renew authorisation of the Australian Direct Marketing
Association Code of Practice. The existence of industry codes can act to prevent, or delay, the introduction of more effective regulation. Therefore, in determining the net public benefit of a code, it is important for the ACCC to consider whether authorisation may have this result. In the case of the ADMA Code, consumer groups believe that telemarketing is an area where tighter regulation is required, including a national, Government run, "do not call" register. Authorisation of the ADMA Code would provide very little, if any, benefit for consumers. However it would be likely to delay any effective approach to the growing problems of direct marketing and would provide the industry, in the public's mind, with ACCC approval. The Consumers' Federation of Australia supports and endorses the arguments contained in the submission made by the Financial Services Consumer Policy Centre. |
| We are
unaware of any of
these firms being members of the
ADMA. Furthermore, there is little in the ADMA Code of Conduct that
would have
assisted these consumers had it applied. CCLC strongly opposes authorisation of the renewal of the authorisation of the Australian Direct Marketing Association's Code of Practice as it does not provide effective protection for many of our clients and therefore appears to needlessly inhibit competition. It is also of great concern to CCLC that ACCC approval for the Code could potentially inhibit or delay other initiatives that could provide more effective controls and remedies than the Code. |