House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-20 Daily Xml

Contents

MOBILE PHONES

Ms PORTOLESI (Hartley) (15:43): Today I want to draw to the attention of the house the issue of mobile phone text message scams (or SMS scams). We all appreciate and understand the importance of mobile phones in our work and family life, but this technology is now being used to scam hardworking South Australians out of their money.

I am sure that many of us, from time to time, have browsed through the latest news headlines or even our email on our phones (I haven't, actually; I barely know how to use my mobile phone). This is what is known as a premium service, and it costs more to use than other services, such as text messaging or phone calls. However, these services are being used to lure people with the offer of significant prizes if they enter into competitions, where all they have to do is simply send a text message in response. When they do that, suddenly people find themselves unknowingly subscribing to a service that can cost anywhere from $2 to $4 per text message, and that is what happened in the case of my constituent.

There are a variety of scams out there, such as ones offering free ring tones or prizes, such as MP3 players or bikes. It has been reported that some people have even received text messages that look as though they are from an old acquaintance. In each case, mobile phone users can be dragged into paying subscriptions that end up costing them dearly.

My constituent contacted my electorate office after receiving a nasty surprise in her monthly phone bill. Instead of her regular monthly invoice, she noticed a substantial hike in her bill after she had responded to a trivia question via a text message. After the first message was sent, she continued to receive more texts from the premium service provider, each message costing her $4.50, and they eventually amounted to $32. After receiving many more messages, she finally twigged and contacted the phone number that was sending these messages and requested more information. What she discovered was that, by responding to the trivia question, she had automatically signed up for this service, whose terms and conditions, I would argue, were far from transparent or displayed clearly. Obviously, she then requested that the service cease.

After terminating the service and contacting my office, I was able to direct her to the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who informed my constituent that, basically, she had no rights in this area and that the scam she had been drawn into was, essentially, legitimate. Nonetheless and undeterred, representations were made to Optus, which then decided to refund the amount for the so-called premium service. They did not have to do that; it was simply an act of goodwill, and good on them for doing that.

While in this instance my constituent was lucky, there are many out there who are not so lucky and are forced to pay for expensive services and scams that they are unwittingly lured into. Of concern to me is the fact that these services we see advertised on television are targeted at the younger people in our community, students and those in part-time work. For them, and others on fixed incomes, it can become easy to get stuck in a cycle of debt.

At present, mobile premium services are self regulated by the telecommunications industry under the guise of the Mobile Premium Services Scheme and the Telecommunications Service Provider Determination. The Australian Communications and Media Authority also monitors the telecommunications industry, as does the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman handles complaints relating to premium services; obviously, as it did in this case.

Greater regulation and scrutiny of this sector is needed. I urge the federal government, in what little time it has left—and it certainly will not do it now—to investigate this industry, and I urge mobile users to exercise great caution and care.