House debates

Monday, 29 May 2017


Communications Fees

11:50 am

Photo of Tim WilsonTim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is almost impossible to rise to this notion without recognising the abject foolishness of what it seeks to achieve. Let's go through the different sections of the motion. Part 1 notes:

… the rapid increase in the use of electronic communication technology in recent decades, including in commerce …

I give that a tick. Clause 1(b) says:

… that access to electronic communication technology differs between Australians, and is often related to income, age, education level and remoteness …

That is true. That is also a tick. Then it says:

… that not all Australians have the skills and infrastructure to communicate effectively by electronic channels …

That is a sensible, logical, reasonable observation. Clause 1(d) says:

… That many businesses, including banks, telecommunications companies and utilities, charge consumers an extra fee to receive communications via post …

That is a tick. That is a logical statement of reason and rationality and observation of the world. Then you go on to matter 1(e):

… Often the fee charged by companies to receive communications by post are intended as a disincentive, and do not represent the actual costs incurred by the company …

I have to say that there is a very big question mark there. The reality is that it is definitely true that some institutional service providers like to send things electronically. Why? It is actually pretty bloody obvious. They like to send things electronically—


No comments