Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

To begin with, I would like to commend the member for Franklin for moving the motion before the House and also associate myself with the comments by the previous speakers. The motion refers in part to Telstra’s recent announcement that it will introduce a new bill payment fee of $2.20 for customers who choose to pay their bills by mail or in cash in person. The Telstra media release of 20 July 2009 announcing this decision said:

Commencing on 14 September 2009, Telstra will charge a $2.20 administration fee for each bill payment sent by mail or made in person at a Telstra Shop or Australia Post, unless an exemption applies.

It is obviously an effort by Telstra to coerce customers into using the bill-paying options which suit Telstra—that is, direct debit or internet based options, or phone options using credit cards. For many cards, the press release continued:

The existing credit card payment processing fee will increase to one per cent of the payment amount …

Telstra has informed my office—and I assume that many other members have been contacted by Telstra in recent times—that these other payment options are free to use, but the cynic in me wants to ask for how long their use will be free. Will Telstra guarantee that such options will remain free to use in the future? I seem to recall the Australian banking system encouraging more and more customers to use automatic teller machines, which were free to use when they were first introduced; then came limits on the number of transactions and, of course, fees for use.

I can understand the business rationale behind Telstra’s decision but I am inclined to think the company is definitely putting profits ahead of people. I believe the decision is mean spirited and shows a lack of respect for the millions of Australian customers who support the company and its products. Changing customers’ behaviour through such punitive measures, even a relatively modest penalty of $2.20, is something I am not personally comfortable with, and my reservations are shared by many others in my electorate. I have received about 20 phone calls and letters of complaint from Gippslanders who are not happy about the changes, and I have asked the minister for communications to investigate the legality of introducing this fee for customers who are already on a contract with Telstra.

There is no doubt that electronic transactions are becoming more popular, and it is probably an inevitable transition as younger, more tech savvy customers move through the system. But I fear that Telstra is trying to force a social change for economic gain, and it is effectively punishing its older customers and those who are less inclined to adopt new technology. Many people are simply not comfortable using new technology to conduct their financial affairs; they either do not trust the systems or have not developed the necessary skills. And I take up the point made by the member for Franklin that, in many of our regional communities, people simply do not have access to the broadband services required. This decision will tend to impact more heavily on people who can least afford it and those who are less educated, who are likely to have a lower income in the first place and may not even own a computer or have access to credit cards.

Telstra says this is a commercial decision and the increases are consistent with industry practice—and, to its credit, Telstra has announced a range of exemptions from the new fees applying to pensioners, healthcare card holders and people with disabilities. But it does seem an odd situation when Australian residents are being penalised for using our legal tender. I welcome the motion’s further call on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ‘investigate the impact on consumers of these types of changes’.

I also take up the member for Braddon’s remarks in regard to broader concerns about the more impersonal systems of automation which are replacing face-to-face contact, which has fallen out of favour as companies chase bigger profits. I do not think it is drawing too long a bow to relate that to the increasingly impersonal nature of many of our communities, particularly our major cities. If you walk down the street of any Australian city, you will pass dozens of people plugged into their iPods, mobile phones or other electronic devices; they will be talking to or texting someone else or listening to music. It seems to me that, the more connected we have become in terms of communications technology, the less connected we have become in terms of our personal interactions in our own communities.

I am not suggested for a second that this is Telstra’s fault, but the decision to discourage people from actually popping into a Telstra shop or Australia Post to pay their bills is another small step down that path. It may seem like a relatively minor point, but discouraging another opportunity for people to actually talk to each other while conducting their business, rather than tap numbers on a keyboard or use some other form of automation, simply adds, I believe, to the social disconnect in our community.

It may suit Telstra to force its customers away from paying their bills in person, but it certainly does not suit many Australians who do not trust electronic transactions and like the security of knowing they have actually handed over money to pay their bills. In the grand scheme of things, a $2.20 penalty may not appear to be a big issue, but it is amongst the people who have contacted my office and, I think, in the broader Australian community. This fee impacts more heavily on people who can least afford it and adds to the increasing social disconnection within our communities. I commend this motion to the House and I congratulate the member for Franklin for bringing the House’s attention to it.

See this speech in context