John I Fleming - I mean ... are you kidding? You honestly believed you didn't need ethics approval? Only consultants don't go through ethics approval when involving human subjects. I believe you'll find that the ARC requires beneficence in all research involving humans:

"the obligation to maximise possible benefits and minimise possible harms. Harm, in this context, extends beyond physical harm to a wide range of psychological or emotional distress, discomfort... Researchers exercise beneficence in assessing the risks of harm and potential benefits to participants, in being sensitive to the rights and interests of people involved in their research and in reflecting on the social and cultural implications of their work."

ie, any research involving human subjects. Especially work which requires a human subject to fill out a survey on a topic that may offend or upset, such as abortion.

NB.
In John's defence, survey's performed by market research companies do not have go before a human research ethics committee (HREC). Strange or no, they are not considered human research and don't come under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council. And another thing; where did the bill for this research get sent to? Anonymity is hardly possible, and although this might not bias research in any way, it certainly is a long bow to draw. I do wonder if this whole episode has done more to cloud the whole issue; the opposite of what John was apparently intending. Without some remedial action it might be uphill from here. Give Eva a call, mate!

Mountbank is right. No ethical approval needed. I am always amused by the fashionable left liberal 'intelligentsia' though. We have seen it all in this little debate. Don't like results - attack the messenger. Attack his religion. Cast doubts on any commercial company - after all anti-capitalism sentiment requires a prejudice against anything done in free enterprise. Indulge the need to have a conspiracy - provision of money means that the provider must be like my critics, the left liberal intelligentsia, and corruptly influence outcomes. Hey guys, I said I will reveal questions and I will. I have said that the provider of funds is unknown to the 2 companies, and that is the truth. Yes, I am a Catholic priest, but that doesn't mean I am more likely to be biased than secularists and atheists. It seems to be the case that anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of today's secular 'intellectuals'. And one of the reasons that I am taking my time over all this is because I accurately forecast the pretentious and bigotted nonsense that has come from people who are not used to having their own opinions questioned. The other and more important reasons are the ones I have given.

John
You repeatedly refer to your work as research
and I have read the report - yes it is a piece of research -

Given the context of abortion (a medical procedure) and proposed implications for Medicare, The NHMRC Statement for Ethical Conduct in Research involving Humans applies.
This research proposal should have been presented to a Human Research Ethics Committee - particularly as there was clear risk of harm
There must have been risk of harm to participants otherwise why did you not tell them up-front that the telephone survey was about abortion.
Quite frankly -if it was found that I had not submitted a like proposal to an ethics committee it would be the end of my career as a researcher - such is the seriousness of such an offense in my profession.
Also in reference to the Code of Professional Behaviour from the Market Research Society of Australia - if you refer to Rules then C Professional Responsibilities of Researchers pt 14. - clearly states that " Researchers must always be prepared to make available the technical information necessary to assess the validity of any published findings" - key word being "always" .

So is Sexton Marketing not acting within its professional code and advising you to with-hold questionnaire details, or perhaps with-holding of the information is your idea although it would contradict usual standards of ethical prectice in both Marketing Research and Medical / Social Science research fields.

Dear Manz, I hope your career as a researcher ends now you seem to know so little! Of course people were told the subject and were given opportunity not to be involved. Which some did. If we were going to ask questions about people's personal lives then ethics clearance would have been sought. Actually, I wouldn't do it anyway for a range of ethical reasons even if a committee agreed. People's opinions were sought and in line with standard ethical requirements. There was no requirement to go through NHMRC procedures, nor was it necessary. Again, Manz, you and your mates are simply engaging in personal attacks on the old three C basis, Catholic, Capitalist, and therfore Corrupt.

I thought I was critiquing your research methodology - You shouldnt take things so personally
It is still clear to me that your conduct is not in keeping with NHMRC guidelines nor in keeping with Market Research Code of Ethics.

How many people did you telephone to yield a sample size of 1200 - 3 in the survey?