Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, I present the committee’s report entitled Phoning home: inquiry into international mobile roaming, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—As members of parliament, we know how important it is to stay in touch. Some of us may complain about the number of calls we get on our mobile phone, but I do not think any of us would argue that it has not enhanced our ability to represent our constituents.

Those of us who have travelled overseas will have no doubt about the utility of international mobile roaming, a service that allows you to use your own phone and phone number wherever you are in the world—or in most places.

The utility of roaming was recognised by many of the participants to the communications committee inquiry. The Consumers Telecommunications Network said the following at the public hearing in Sydney on 28 November 2008:

… the expectation these days is to be able to be contacted. People want to take their phones with them, but they do not want to do that at the expense of getting a shock when they come back.

Members of the committee shared their own stories of the shock of mobile phone bills after travelling overseas.

During the inquiry, the committee was confronted with evidence of roaming bills, in some cases, in the tens of thousands of dollars. Thankfully, none of the committee members had experienced that kind of shock.

The committee found that there were two apparent reasons for the high cost of mobile roaming.

The first was to do with how costs are attributed. Roaming is supported by a complex technical treatment of calls to and from roamed phones. This treatment means that the cost of making and receiving calls is higher for roamed calls than for domestic calls.

The most obvious example of this is the approach to receiving calls. In the regular use of mobile phones, the recipient of a call is not charged. However, if the recipient is using roaming, they will be charged for the international leg of any calls that they receive.

Most consumers do not know this, but it is now obvious to the committee that it is a fact. Also, consumers, when selecting a phone service provider, generally only consider the domestic cost structure and are already locked in to the one provider they have selected when they decide to travel overseas. In other words, the consumers do not generally consider the cost structure of international roaming when they are selecting their service provider.

To enhance consumer understanding of roaming costs, the committee has recommended that:

• the Australian Communications and Media Authority facilitate a meeting of the Communications Alliance to discuss the development of a minimum standard for consumer information and awareness on roaming and potential costs; and
• the Australian government explore opportunities to collaborate with the Australian Telecommunications Users Group’s ‘Roam Fair’ campaign.

The second apparent reason mobile roaming bills are so high for Australian travellers has to do with the power of Australian providers in negotiations with overseas providers over roaming services. Australian providers do not appear to have the customer base to negotiate competitive prices for roaming services.

The committee believes that this situation is best overcome through a policy of regulating the framework for the wholesale cost of roaming through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with other countries, ensuring that countries with the largest number of Australian visitors are given priority in these negotiations.

In an effort to improve competition between Australian providers, the committee is recommending that the Australian Communications and Media Authority develop, through the Communications Alliance, an amendment to the code on mobile number portability to allow temporary mobile number portability for roaming services.

The committee also examined the various alternatives to mobile roaming, including: purchased phone cards; hiring a mobile in the country you are visiting; using the internet; and using hotel phones.

While there are a number of other ways in which travellers can remain in touch, none of these has the utility of roaming.

Nevertheless, the committee believes that with careful planning most travellers can find an alternative that offers some of the utility of roaming at a lesser cost.

In order to ensure travellers are aware of the alternatives, the committee has recommended they be incorporated into information on roaming provided by the Australian government.

There can be no doubt that it will take some time before Australians are offered really competitive roaming rates, but hopefully the committee’s recommendations will go some way towards reducing the cost of phoning home in the near future.

I commend the report to the House.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I join with and support the committee chair in commending to the chamber the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Phoning home: inquiry into international mobile roaming. One of the things that you are faced with after overseas travel is that, even if you are not knocked over by jet lag and different time zones, you will be completely bowled over by your phone bill. It is absolutely frightening what you can face after travelling internationally and using global roaming functions. The committee recognised that this is a very serious concern but realised that it is not a concern that affects everybody. One of the things that kept coming through from evidence to the inquiry was that for the major players—the telcos and the like—it is not a really big share of their revenue or at the top of the list of things to do, although there was universal agreement that this is an ugly area of telecommunications and it is frightfully expensive. It seems very complicated to address. The factors involved, which have been very eloquently outlined in the report, make this a complex challenge to address.

The committee’s recommendations are pragmatic and realistic. They start with a very simple call to consumers: be very, very alert to avoid being very alarmed when you come home; be aware of what you are faced with, what the charging structures look like and what the options are; and be very thoughtful in your phone use. We learnt that there are so many influences on that final bill that cannot be directly regulated or addressed by our institutions and framework in Australia—and you end up paying a very big bill. The committee acknowledges, the report acknowledges and I acknowledge that not all of the factors that go to global roaming charges are within the control of the telecommunications companies. What is clear, though, is that it is their logo that is on the bill. We look to the telecommunications sector to be a positive, constructive and proactive influence in trying to address these concerns.

The committee’s recommendations also embraced what is a legitimate role for government. These are away-game issues. These are influences way off the shores of Australia, but there is a role for government in trying to get in place a framework that makes sure that the charging at a wholesale level—which is a charge generated offshore—is within some realistic parameters, and that should be part of our diplomacy and advocacy when it comes to bilateral and multilateral activity.

This is a good, pragmatic report, and it provides some very constructive recommendations. The report calls on the communications industry, through the Communications Alliance, to be very helpful and active in the information it supplies to its consumers. It says that government can do its bit through Smartraveller and other alerts like that, where people can find out about their visas and inoculations. It is also saying: be thoughtful about what you are doing with your phone bill; and it also says that the ATUG, the Australian Telecommunications User Group, campaign is something that we should embrace.

I want to praise the committee staff who were involved: Kevin Bodel, our inquiry secretary; Jerome Brown and all the other temporary secretaries that we had on the way through; Geoff Wells, the research officer; and Dorota, Emma and Claire from the committee secretariat. I thank them for their work.

Above all, I urge consumers to realise that they are in the driver’s seat. All the tools we wish they had available are not always available. Be very, very alert about global roaming; otherwise, you will come home and be very, very alarmed and substantially out of pocket. I commend the report to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Robertson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39 (c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.