Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is really important that we in this place put on the public record our concerns about Telstra’s recent announcement that it will charge an administrative fee of $2.20 for each bill paid via mail or in person at a Telstra shop or an Australia Post outlet. From 14 September, anyone who chooses to pay their Telstra bill in person or even by mail will be charged $2.20 for each payment. I stand here tonight not on my own behalf but for the concerns I have received from my constituents, who are extremely angry and very upset about Telstra’s outrageous decision.

The question is: why should anybody, young or old, rich or poor, be penalised for wanting to pay their telephone bill? But the bigger issue that really stems from this administrative payment is its impact on low-income families and individuals. Those who can least afford it will be slugged an additional administrative fee for a communications service—a service that I consider to be a vital part of their day-to-day lives. This decision has broad consequences, not only across my electorate of Franklin but for every other electorate across Australia, where the low-income earners and working mums and dads will no longer have a range of payment options that are free from administrative fees.

When you consider the profit that Telstra has made over the past years, you have to question why it has introduced this $2.20 bill payment fee. Recent announcements about Telstra’s net profit in the last financial year state that it rose by 10.3 per cent to more than $4 billion. So we know this fee is not being introduced because Telstra is struggling. Those of us in this place know the history around Telstra’s journey to become the privatised company it is today. The decision to privatise was that of the former Howard government. Therefore, the current government has no ability to direct Telstra any longer.

In my home state of Tasmania this administrative fee is really going to affect a large proportion of consumers, because there are two significant consumer issues in Tasmania. One is that Tasmania has the lowest proportion of households with broadband of any state or territory—39 per cent, compared to the Australian average of 52 per cent. So the electronic options to pay your Telstra bills, which are exempt from the fee, are out of reach for so many Tasmanians.

The other issue in Tasmania is that Telstra has a very high market share, particularly in relation to landline services. The competition between telecommunication companies that we have on the mainland means that people have different options when it comes to service provision and customer care, but in Tasmania people find it much harder to vote with their feet and move between carriers and service providers because, when you look at the landline and mobile phone coverage in Tasmania, there are not exactly a lot of options. I know that many people living in rural and regional areas come across similar issues when it comes to competition. There is no market competition and people are forced to use the one company rather than have access to choice.

I do acknowledge that Telstra has exempted registered pensioners from this new administrative payment. However, when you consider the number of low-income earners and working families who will be charged this fee, particularly in the state of Tasmania, which has the highest proportion of people in receipt of government support payments, it is really unfair. I believe Telstra should reverse its decision. If we do not speak up now, we could very well see other companies following in the same footsteps as Telstra, conveniently charging fees for people who choose the normal day-to-day activity of walking into a shop or an Australia Post outlet, or mailing their bill. They will be slugged with an extra charge for doing so.

I hope that this private member’s matter is supported by both sides of the House. There is no doubt that this administrative fee will impact on many areas across Australia. It will mean that, if you do not have access to the internet to make electronic payments, you will be charged for paying your bill. If you read Telstra’s bill payment fee information, you will also be slugged more if you pay by credit card. I want to quickly read from this. If you direct debit from a credit card, you get an increased administration charge for processing credit card payments. A fixed direct debit from a credit card is the same. If you pay by phone with a credit card there is a higher percentage. For Telstra bills paid on the internet by credit card there is a higher percentage. If you pay by mail there is a $2.20 fee. If you pay in a Telstra shop by cash, cheque or EFTPOS there is a fee. If you pay in a Telstra shop by credit card there is a fee and the credit card fee—so two fees. If you pay in Australia Post by cheque, cash or EFTPOS there is a $2.20 fee.

Quite frankly, I think that this is a really bad decision. I want to take as much action as I can to try and get it reversed. I am writing to Telstra to see if it will review this harsh, unfair and unjust charge. I am writing to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ask it to investigate the impact of this inequitable and unreasonable charge. I am also going to write to the Treasurer to ask him to see whether it is necessary to amend acts of parliament to ensure that Australians are able to make legal payments in legal tender, if they choose to, without any additional financial penalty, because I believe we should all be able to. (Time expired)

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join the member for Franklin in supporting this motion. I am hoping the debate will not be as rancorous as the one we had on the last subject in this chamber. I would like to add the voice of the hardworking people of Mallee in objecting to the strong-arm tactics being used, particularly by Telstra as the major telecommunications provider in Australia. The proposal to add the cost of $2.20 to each account payment not remitted electronically has not gone down well at all amongst my constituents.

Over the years, as a member of parliament you get used to reading what will be an immediately significant issue. The phone switchboard lights up and the emails start flooding in when people take a strong objection to things that are done and they want to let their member of parliament know how they feel. There have been hundreds of emails on this subject. In fact, on this issue my office has had to implement some special monitoring to ensure that each complainant is registered so that I can get back to them.

I am hoping that Telstra will recant this announcement. It certainly was extremely poorly handled by them. You would think that a prestigious organisation like Telstra would have access to better public relations sources than have been demonstrated by this announcement. The problem with Telstra’s approach on this issue is their vested interest. Forcing their customers to use electronic means by enforcing an account management fee if they do not, when Telstra also own that electronic resource and will earn the revenue which will come from the increased use of it, clearly declares their conflict of interest and is anticompetitive. The motion calls for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take an interest in this. I hope they are. It is one thing for Telstra to say it will save them costs, but it is another thing when they force customers to use services which they have the majority ownership of and hence will receive monetary benefit from.

The way that this announcement was made was very disappointing. It has been hard to establish the facts on what Telstra now say are exemptions for people on social security benefits and the like. I cannot believe that Telstra missed a golden opportunity here. Instead of this big stick approach, if their assertion is that their collection costs are prohibitive, why not use a carrot? Why not offer a discount for the use of electronic services for the payment of accounts? That would create an incentive for people. Any loss of revenue as a result could clearly be taken up by what they allege to be their extra costs of collection through conventional means. This is an approach that has legitimacy if Telstra are genuine in their claim to be incurring unacceptable costs for the conventional payment of accounts.

I also do not accept explanations from Telstra that low- and fixed-income customers will be exempt. It has been like extracting hen’s teeth to get advice out of Telstra about these exemptions. The fact that pensioners and welfare recipients will be exempt took too long to establish. Even then, the position was not clear. I have one particular example. Representations were made by my office to clear up the issue of how this would affect those people who are on an age pension but have no fixed loan account, only a mobile phone account. They were not to have exemptions. Telstra had not thought that through. I am advised that they are prepared to recant that somewhat, but in the next month or so of remittance of accounts we will see what Telstra’s real intention is. Then there is the position of self-funded retirees who are of an age where they do not want to be bothered with the internet. People in their 70s do not want to be bothered with the use of electronic gadgets or even the phone. What is the position for them? Will they be exempted as well? It is not clear.

This is very arrogant behaviour by Telstra. It is not too late for them to recant this outrageous measure. I am very disappointed at this approach by one of the nation’s largest corporate citizens. If they wanted to save administration costs—and I will repeat what my constituents repeatedly advise me, and representations are still coming in—then they should focus on what they paid their CEO. He was paid far more than he was worth and far more than the alleged savings of this outrageous measure. I support the motion and the request implied in it for detailed examination of this matter. I appeal once more publicly to Telstra to recant. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Franklin for moving this motion on administration fees. I notice that the member for Page is in the chamber. The member for Page and I also have a similar, quiet pointed motion on the Notice Paper. Both of us, in the middle of last month, wrote to the new CEO of Telstra. This morning I received a phone call directly from Telstra’s Group Managing Director, Public Policy and Communications. He asked me specifically about the issue, which the members for Franklin and Mallee and others have mentioned in this place—as have I twice before. Essentially, he was asking me to reinforce the arguments that have been put. Most of us share the same demographics, and I put that clearly to him.

I did say to him that Telstra has introduced the stick, which the member for Mallee alluded to, instead of the carrot. Telstra talk publicly about becoming a customer agent again, being customer focused and customer friendly, yet they tell us in a letter that on 14 September they are going to whack on charges for people who pay their bills across the counter and double penalise people who use a credit card. I said that was not customer friendly.

My other point was—and it has been reiterated—in relation to the whole question of computer literacy and access to the internet. The older population are not happy, and in the main do not have the capacity, to use this. I am not saying that they cannot, but in the main they do not want to. When they go out to pay their bills once or twice a week social interaction takes place, and they are being charged for it. I hate to use the term ‘un-Australian’, but this is very un-Australian from an Australian company that has been performing in a very un-Australian way for several years now. I made clear to the policy director that this is their opportunity to change.

There are concessions for health card holders. I suggested to him that many people just over the threshold experience difficulties with this. They are in the same age demographic as those on pensions yet are not able to access a concession. I suggested that he look at expanding the concessionary side of this un-Australian charge for paying your bills to Commonwealth seniors health card recipients. He gave a commitment that they would look at that.

I also said that I wanted to speak to the CEO himself, Mr Thodey. I am expecting a phone call from him so I can make the views known—no doubt they are monitoring this. I made it very clear to him that this was an issue that is spreading across the parliament. I have letters here from Bass, which is not my electorate. I have several letters from my own electorate of Braddon. We have petitions going out in about nine or 10 different agencies. We have to send more petitions now because they are being filled up rapidly by people who are very upset by this. I am sure my colleagues in this House would have similar cases, particularly those with similar demographics to my own.

We have to keep the pressure on Telstra. You have to continue to raise it on radio and television and through your newsletters. People are inundating us with phone calls and writing us letters. Here is one from Sorell in the electorate of Lyons. A chap claims that it is discrimination because they are allowing concessions for some and not others; they are forcing or herding people onto the internet when they do not want to be on the internet; they are setting up an anti-social system; and they are not accepting the coin of the realm, behaviour which he regards as illegal.

So there is another movement going around that says, ‘Just don’t pay them full stop; throw your money over the counter and go “ta-ta”.’ He says, ‘They are that pathetic in giving their itemised accounts anyway that it’s going to take them months to catch up with you and by then they should have come to their senses and will phase this in properly.’ Like my friends the member for Mallee, the member for Franklin and certainly the member for Page have said: use the carrot, not the stick. At least phase it in, expand the concessionary element and start acting like a service agency, which is what Telstra, a mighty company, once used to be. Instead of paying out millions of dollars to CEOs to go ‘ta-ta’ to a failing company, set up a new standard of service in this country.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also very pleased to support his motion and to highlight the growing disappointment of many of my constituents who are finding it harder to pay in cash for goods and services. This issue has once again been placed in the community spotlight after Telstra announced that a $2.20 fee will apply for each bill payment that is sent through the mail or made in person at Australia Post or at a Telstra shop from 14 September. While I acknowledge that Telstra are one of the last telecommunications service providers to implement such a fee and they have taken into consideration the need to make automatic and other exemptions, Telstra have contributed to the growing inequity of payment services which are rightly expected by the general public.

Companies have set a dangerous precedent by isolating loyal customers who enjoy the interaction of one-on-one customer service. Unfortunately, this growing trend is not just isolated to telecommunications. Many other services are following suit by favouring electronic or phone payment services rather than encouraging face-to-face cash payments. There are still people in our community who are not comfortable with these payment options. The previous speaker alluded to that. While many of our seniors have embraced technology, others have been left behind. It is unfortunate that they will be the ones directly affected by this trend. Being required to provide one’s personal details over the phone or on the internet is just not accepted by some members of our community. It is disappointing that the alternative method of cash payments is now being charged for.

Often many of the new payment options require one to have a credit card. While many people in our community have a credit card, there are community members who do not use a credit card because they do not wish to fall in the debt trap. Even though others may want to pay by credit card they may not be able to obtain one and therefore will not be able to use that method. As the motion states, it is likely those who can least afford who will be adversely affected by these extra charges to pay in cash.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a poverty tax.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a poverty tax. Many of my constituents often complain about the lack of customer service which they once enjoyed when purchasing goods or services. They remember a time when they built a relationship with their local service providers. Now these customers are today being charged to enjoy the pleasure of face-to-face customer service. I want to mention a couple of issues brought up by my constituents. Paul, a resident of Woodcroft in my electorate of Kingston, emailed me with his great disappointment over Telstra charging this fee in what he deemed an unnecessary charge for customer service. Paul raised a very important issue. He believes that this fee discriminates against people with no online access. We must keep in mind—and I know that members here today experience the same issue as I do in my electorate—that a lot of people do not have access to ADSL broadband and, even if they want to pay online, they are unable to do so. As an aside, I would like to commend the government’s visionary approach to building a national broadband network because this is very important, but there are many customers and people who do not have access to broadband and they need to pay in cash.

From the correspondence I have been receiving from both Telstra and Optus customers, it is not just the fee increase that has angered them. They are frustrated that they will have to pay extra for what they see as a very basic service. Peter from Christies Beach has highlighted to me via email that it is an unfair charge, one which he believes is nothing more than a fee for nothing. This motion which seeks support for looking at this in a very detailed way is really just asking for a standard service in our community—the ability to make payments in legal tender in person if people choose to do so. I really support the part of the motion that looks at the need to investigate the impact that these types of charge have ant I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate and thank the member for Franklin for her very thoughtful contribution to this issue and her resolu-tion. One thing I hate is exploitation. The thing that comes just after that is opportunistic behaviour. This is a typi-cal example of both. The old PMG and Telecom were known for their commitment to service. In recent years we looked to the changes in Telstra—and I will not bore you to tears by telling you about the last administration of Telstra but I thought it was appalling—and I had great expectations, as did my colleague from Tasmania, that with this change of administration we would see a commitment to customer friendly service and all those sorts of things. But what did we see? We saw a raid on our back pockets.

The payment in cash in return for a service is the most fundamental form of payment there is. You can go back to pre-Biblical times and that was the way. You handed over your shekels for the service that was delivered or for the goods you were buying. But no, not with Telstra. No, no; they are different. They can charge you $2.20 for paying your bill in cash—

Honourable Member:

And on time!

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And on time—yes, of course. And then on top of that, what if you send it by post? Dear God! The temerity of putting it through Australia Post in an envelope! It is $2.20. And then on top of that again, if you have the further temerity to get out your plastic and pay for it then they will have another go. This has been going on for too long in Australia, and you do not expect one of the leading corporations of the country to be leading it.

American Express. We will have to charge you a levy.’ It is as if you have got some sort of fungus on your hands. Or it is, ‘Oh, you are on Diners Card.’ The latest one I have seen is, ‘To even this all out we will charge you all another one per cent.’ I saw that in a prominent hotel in Sydney not more than two months ago. And the whole idea of this is to screw a bit more out of the client. In fact, I went to Gladstone not so long ago and I was actually charged $8 more for using an American Express card. I think it was $5 plus three per cent of the bill. That is sim-ply outrageous. If you are a businessperson and you accept the facilitation of American Express, Diners, Master-Card or Visa or whatever it might be, you are committing to that form. You are saying, ‘I am prepared to accept business on your terms.’ You cannot then say, ‘Well, I have accepted it on your terms but there will be a bit more for me.’ And that is what it is. Then when you come to Telstra, not only do they want to charge you the $2.20 for posting in your bill or paying in cash—paying in cash, I just cannot get over this!—but on top of that, if you are paying on Diners Card then you are up for another two per cent. So all in all, if you are a Diners Card customer, it is four per cent.

I reckon this is wrong. It diminishes the quality of legal tender. We have 800 years of developed law that came from Magna Carta and the monasteries, the British parliamentary system, our own parliamentary system, and partly the American system. We have international codes of conduct and behaviour with finance, and it ill behoves a leading Australian company to be guilty of this sort of thing. I commend you, Member for Franklin. I support you in getting the ACC to give this a real working over. I really think that the Treasurer should seriously consider strengthening the legal tender provisions of the Currency Act.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly support the member for Franklin’s motion and commend her for raising it. I note that the member for Braddon in his contribution cited the notice of motion that he had on the Notice Paper that he put forward and that I was seconding. It just shows that a whole lot of people in this place are responding to the anger, the disappointment and the dismay in the community and across the electorate. I can associate myself with all the comments of all the members who have contributed tonight and beyond tonight, because everybody is at one. It is something that has really ignited the whole community.

I am a Telstra customer and I have got my bill, and in the bill it said a couple of things. It called it an ‘administration fee’. I call it a penalty. It is not an administration fee. There is a whole thread running through our common law system that does not allow penalties. There are ways around it, I know, but through our system penalties were not allowed for loans and all sorts of other things. So, yes, it is couched as an administration fee, but it is clearly a penalty. If you are front up in a certain number of ways in paying your account, then you are penalised—you have to pay $2.20. That is the first thing I want to say. It is not an admin fee; it is a penalty, and penalties are just not on. It should be removed.

The other thing in the letter I got from Telstra with my bill said, ‘Exemptions may apply’. It did not say that they will apply; it said they may apply. That means that people have to jump through hoops to get them. Yes, it says, ‘Exemptions may apply, including for pensioner concession card holders. For more details see over the page.’ Well, it was not clear to me exactly who would get them. I think that it is offensive to think that, if you pay a bill in certain ways that are just the informal social intercourse that you have, you are going to be penalised for it. It is just bizarre.

With indulgence I would like to read the letter that I sent to Mr David Thodey, the CEO of Telstra. I said:

I read recently about your new approach to customer service and the appointment of customer ambassadors to better serve Telstra customers. I will take you at your word and ask that you put customers first, vis-a-vis their bills, and that you immediately retract the new billing fee scheduled to be introduced next month. As the federal member for Page, an electorate with many people on low incomes, I can tell you that there has been an immediate and widespread angry reaction to this new billing policy. The very idea that people are billed for Telstra services and then they have to pay for the privilege of paying their bill in certain ways goes against any concept of fairness and customer service.

And it does. It is just not fair. That is why it struck a chord with everybody. It is just not fair. Australians rise up against that or rail against it.

I will quote from a couple of the letters—and there were a lot—that I received from people. I said to people, ‘One of the banks went through a process of removing some of their fees and penalties after a whole lot of people complained about it; people power. That is what we have to do. If you are a Telstra customer, yes, complain through your local members’—and many people are—‘but also complain directly to the organisation. You must take it up with them directly. If you cannot access them, then send your complaint to me and I will send it off.’ One person who was concerned about reports of Telstra charging the community to pay their bills wrote:

Not all people have access nor the ability to pay for or use the internet. Is this ethical of a utility serving the means of commu-nication for our vast country? I pay my bills on time but would despise being charged extra to do so. Not all people have the opportunity, ability, access nor capability to select another provider as an alternative means of payment.

I note that one of my local newspapers, the Daily Examiner, has also been active in this area. It has been running a campaign, along with the community, to try to get Telstra to change its mind. I have had one person in my elector-ate of Page express support for it as a shareholder. They are the only one.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.