Struggling Aussies prioritising phone and internet bills over food, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report reveals
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) Cynthia Gebert has handed down a review of over 900 complaints about financial hardship in the 12 months to March 30.
The TIO's report said price pressures forced many customers to make difficult decisions when balancing their budgets.
Poor treatment of customers seeking help by service staff also weighed on struggling Australians.
"Some customer service staff made them feel belittled or guilty for requesting help," the report reads.
"Some consumers also told us they chose to pay for their telco services over other essential items such as rent or food."
One customer said their financial hardship worsened after their telco direct debited money from their account despite having a payment plan in place.
'This is devastating to us, as we are already struggling to meet basic needs, and I need to feed my 5-year-old and pay for petrol to get her to kindergarten,' the anonymous customer said.
'We live in a rural region and even struggle to pay the petrol to seek out the food relief we use.'
Another anonymous customer said she asked her telco for an extra week to pay her bill as she needed cash for an urgent car repair.
The telco agreed but took the money out on the regular day and refused her a refund, leaving her with limited cash for another week.
Ms Gebert said access to phone and internet services should not be considered a luxury, but rather essential services vital for everyday life.
'The consequences of losing access to your phone and internet can be serious, it can lead to people losing work and being unable to access critical support. From there, things can continue to spiral,' she said.
'Losing income and support services can compromise people's food security, safety and health.
'People may be just managing their basic living expenses like food, rent, and petrol, and be one unexpected phone bill or life event away from falling into hardship.
'It's at these critical moments that accessing the support you're entitled to from your telco is more important than ever – so you can manage your bills and stay connected."
The shocking report also drew concern from ACOSS' chief executive Cassandra Goldie, who said it highlighted how reliant many of the poorest Australians relied on telco services.
'It's absolutely devastating that people across Australia are going without food just to stay connected," Ms Goldie told SkyNews.com.au.
"A phone should not be a luxury, but people are going without essentials to pay for it.
"For many on the lowest incomes, a phone is the only way to stay in touch with loved ones, access government services or apply for jobs."
She noted the report was "another warning" that low-income support payments were making it "impossible for people to meet the cost of essentials".
'When your income doesn't even cover food and rent, staying connected becomes another impossible choice and the system is clearly failing them," Ms Goldie said.
'Social security is meant to provide a safety net but right now it's locking people into poverty.
"Without urgent action to lift payments above the poverty line, more people will be pushed into impossible choices just to survive.
"We need urgent reform to lift JobSeeker and related social security payments so everyone can cover the basics.'
The report showed some customers sought help before they missed payments but were turned away by their provider who said they could not help until payments were officially overdue.
There were also reports that some telcos experienced errors that exacerbated financial pain for some customers.
Impacted people also raised complaints with the TIO when telcos withdrew more than expected or processed payments on incorrect dates.
'Telcos need to actively rebuild trust with their consumers, and prioritise protecting consumers who are experiencing, or at risk of, financial hardship,' Ms Gebert said.
'We urge telcos to embed the flexibility and understanding that must be part of the way you do business when you provide an essential service to the community.'
The recent report marks the first full year since the Australian Communications and Media Authority unveiled the Telecommunications (Financial Hardship) Industry Standard 2024 that requires telcos to establish and promote clear policies for financial hardship.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Hollowed out of thinkers, Sussan Ley's party dreams of nothing other than opposition
As Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor attacked Labor's renewables policy as 'socialist planning' and ignored expert advice to invest in cost-effective fast batteries, instead committing $600 million of public money to a gas power plant in the Hunter Valley already rejected by the market. Costs are now reported to exceed $1 billion. Menzies led the Liberals to power for the first time in 1949 with an anti-socialist platform that attacked the Curtin Labor government's bank nationalisation plans. Now, 75 years on, the party's policy brain appears to have atrophied sometime between the Russian Revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall. When Labor introduced legislation to bring its 'Future Made in Australia' industrial policy to fruition in April 2024, Ley referred to the government as 'radical' while Taylor dismissed the policy as a slush fund for the PM to 'pick winners'. But industrial policy is one area where government intervention makes sense. Australia sits below Botswana at 105 out of 133 on the Economic Complexity Index, reflecting overreliance on commodities and underinvestment in innovation and manufacturing compared to other advanced economies. A policy to build sovereign manufacturing capacity and high‑skill jobs in strategically important sectors reflects a 21st-century economic consensus that markets are a means to a societal goal, not an end in themselves. Socialist smears may resonate with rusted-on conservatives, but risk alienating voters the party desperately needs. A 2024 YouGov poll found 53 per cent of Australians aged 18-24 favour a more socialist direction, compared to 22 per cent preferring more capitalism. According to a June Redbridge Group poll, voters aged 65+ were the only cohort in which the Coalition won more votes than Labor at the May election. A paltry 19 per cent of 18-34 year-olds voted Coalition, less than half of those who voted for Labor – a result dubbed a 'youthquake' by Redbridge director and former Liberal Party official Tony Barry. Loading Where to now for a party that defines itself in opposition to a Labor Party that's colonised the political centre? How does the party of 'lower taxes' resonate in a social democracy where overall taxation is already well below the OECD average? Unfortunately for Ley, she has inherited a party lacking the policy hardheads to write the necessary software update. In the wake of the election result, Institute of Public Affairs Senior Fellow John Roskam bemoaned the loss of the 'serious thinkers' at the heart of the party in the 1970s and 1980s. Roskam says the party is verging on 'anti-intellectual' and is lacking the personnel to think critically about how Liberal principles can be adapted to 21st-century realities. Meanwhile, the pews of a once broad church have been gradually purged of moderates since Ian McPhee lost preselection for opposing John Howard's hard-line rhetoric on Asian immigration in the late 1980s. Others followed, among them Julia Banks, John Hewson, Fred Chaney, and former PMs Fraser and Turnbull. Loading What remains is a party with an uninspiring message about small government that airbrushes over Menzies' nation‑building legacy of universities, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and delivering the publicly funded Snowy Mountains Scheme – the largest engineering project in our nation's history. Ley deserves some patience as she tries to rehabilitate the Liberals. She's saying all the right things about 'listening' and addressing issues that concern young people, but uncertain times call for a leader, not populist vessel. We must judge her on whether she can reignite a contest of ideas anchored in sound values and serious policy work. The outcome from her working group on energy and emissions reduction will be a test she cannot afford to fail.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Hollowed out of thinkers, Sussan Ley's party dreams of nothing other than opposition
As Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor attacked Labor's renewables policy as 'socialist planning' and ignored expert advice to invest in cost-effective fast batteries, instead committing $600 million of public money to a gas power plant in the Hunter Valley already rejected by the market. Costs are now reported to exceed $1 billion. Menzies led the Liberals to power for the first time in 1949 with an anti-socialist platform that attacked the Curtin Labor government's bank nationalisation plans. Now, 75 years on, the party's policy brain appears to have atrophied sometime between the Russian Revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall. When Labor introduced legislation to bring its 'Future Made in Australia' industrial policy to fruition in April 2024, Ley referred to the government as 'radical' while Taylor dismissed the policy as a slush fund for the PM to 'pick winners'. But industrial policy is one area where government intervention makes sense. Australia sits below Botswana at 105 out of 133 on the Economic Complexity Index, reflecting overreliance on commodities and underinvestment in innovation and manufacturing compared to other advanced economies. A policy to build sovereign manufacturing capacity and high‑skill jobs in strategically important sectors reflects a 21st-century economic consensus that markets are a means to a societal goal, not an end in themselves. Socialist smears may resonate with rusted-on conservatives, but risk alienating voters the party desperately needs. A 2024 YouGov poll found 53 per cent of Australians aged 18-24 favour a more socialist direction, compared to 22 per cent preferring more capitalism. According to a June Redbridge Group poll, voters aged 65+ were the only cohort in which the Coalition won more votes than Labor at the May election. A paltry 19 per cent of 18-34 year-olds voted Coalition, less than half of those who voted for Labor – a result dubbed a 'youthquake' by Redbridge director and former Liberal Party official Tony Barry. Loading Where to now for a party that defines itself in opposition to a Labor Party that's colonised the political centre? How does the party of 'lower taxes' resonate in a social democracy where overall taxation is already well below the OECD average? Unfortunately for Ley, she has inherited a party lacking the policy hardheads to write the necessary software update. In the wake of the election result, Institute of Public Affairs Senior Fellow John Roskam bemoaned the loss of the 'serious thinkers' at the heart of the party in the 1970s and 1980s. Roskam says the party is verging on 'anti-intellectual' and is lacking the personnel to think critically about how Liberal principles can be adapted to 21st-century realities. Meanwhile, the pews of a once broad church have been gradually purged of moderates since Ian McPhee lost preselection for opposing John Howard's hard-line rhetoric on Asian immigration in the late 1980s. Others followed, among them Julia Banks, John Hewson, Fred Chaney, and former PMs Fraser and Turnbull. Loading What remains is a party with an uninspiring message about small government that airbrushes over Menzies' nation‑building legacy of universities, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and delivering the publicly funded Snowy Mountains Scheme – the largest engineering project in our nation's history. Ley deserves some patience as she tries to rehabilitate the Liberals. She's saying all the right things about 'listening' and addressing issues that concern young people, but uncertain times call for a leader, not populist vessel. We must judge her on whether she can reignite a contest of ideas anchored in sound values and serious policy work. The outcome from her working group on energy and emissions reduction will be a test she cannot afford to fail.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
How a 'snowballing' $76 blockchain token trend could become the first rung on the property ladder for Australian renters
Trying to save a 20 per cent deposit now feels like running on a treadmill that keeps speeding up. A recent analysis shows the average renter would need more than eight years to scrape one together, and that's if rents stop jumping tomorrow. Many young Australians have quietly decided the old dream is broken. But a different path is opening on their phones: buy a sliver of a house for the price of a night out, collect rent the next morning, repeat. What a $50 token buys On the US platform Lofty you can tap 'buy' on a $50 USD ($76 AUD) blockchain token tied to a Detroit duplex or an Atlanta townhouse. The token records your slice on the blockchain, sends your cut of the rent every day, and lets you sell whenever another investor clicks 'buy'. The idea is snowballing. Six in ten people using fractional platforms this year are under 40, the very group priced out of full ownership. The tech that makes it possible The heavy lifting sits in code. Blockchain keeps an unchangeable ledger of who owns what. Smart contracts split the rent and push it to digital wallets while we sleep. Artificial-intelligence programs crunch vacancy data and tweak rents in real time. Paperwork, conveyancing fees and month-long settlements vanish. Proof it isn't hype There have been successful models worldwide. The 'Lofty' platform in the US has already tokenised more than 140 US properties. Investors pocket rent daily and vote online if a tenant trashes a kitchen or an offer comes in. In Britain, London House Exchange (once Property Partner) runs a regulated exchange where anyone can trade slices of single flats just like shares. Singapore's RealVantage is pulling in investors from across Asia to co-own apartments in many countries, including Australian cities. None of these ventures relies on wishful thinking; they charge modest management fees and still turn a profit. Big money is noticing. Global transaction volumes from institutional investors jumped 43 per cent in the first quarter of 2025, a vote of confidence from pension funds and private equity giants. Market researchers tip real-estate tokenisation to swell from about US $3.5 billion today to nearly US $19.4 billion by 2033. Why Australia should care right now Our wage growth lags price growth. Land is scarce. Construction firms keep collapsing. Fractional ownership can't solve everything, but it can start turning renters into owners sooner. A uni graduate could drip-feed a few hundred dollars a month into tokens spread across several cities instead of hoarding every spare dollar for a single monster deposit. Over a decade, those micro stakes have grown, paid rent along the way, and built a credit-file story banks understand. It could also unlock a new supply. When thousands of small investors pool cash through a platform, developers get cheaper equity to build mid-rise rentals or retrofit empty offices. The model is already nudging US build-to-rent projects off the drawing board. There's no reason it can't bankroll medium-density infill around Parramatta or Geelong. A simple road map for Canberra Start small. Let the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) extend its existing crowd-funding sandbox to cover blockchain property tokens. Cap how much anyone can tip in while the rules bed down. Invite super funds chasing steady, green income to co-seed the first portfolios; they provide ballast and credibility. Next, pick a patch of surplus state-owned land, think car parks near train stations, package the air-rights into tokens and sell half to retail investors on a local platform. Use the cash to build energy-efficient flats and promise a slice of the rent back to token holders. The public sees a tangible project, not another scheme stuck in consultation. Finally, borrow a lesson from London. There, fractional platforms must hold each property in a stand-alone trust. If the company dies tomorrow, the trust still owns the building, and investors still own their slices. We can replicate that safeguard, and most fears about 'crypto scams' fade fast. Honest warnings Tokens are easier to sell than whole houses, but they're less liquid than shares. Some days, nobody will want your slice. Rules will keep shifting as regulators catch up. And governance matters: if a roof leaks, someone has to vote to fix it. Smart platforms make those votes painless, but buyers still need to read the fine print. The upside for a generation locked out For Gen Z, the appeal is obvious. It's low-cost. It's quick. It lives on the same screen as banking apps and streaming queues. You can track rent in real time and brag about owning a bit of a house in Texas or Toowoomba. More importantly, it flips the story from 'wait ten years, then maybe buy' to 'start building equity today'. Australia missed the first big wave of ride-sharing and watched foreign platforms set the rules. We don't need to repeat that mistake with property tokens. The technology is mature, the consumer appetite is raging and the regulatory pieces already exist. With a light touch from Canberra and a push from super funds, a $50 blockchain token could become the first rung on the property ladder for millions of young Australians. It won't cure the housing crisis overnight, but it might give the next generation something better than hopeless spreadsheets and landlord letters: a real stake in the roof over their heads, even if they only own a few shingles to start. Dr Ehsan Noroozinejad is a senior researcher at Western Sydney University who writes about innovative housing policy, modular construction, and urban resilience. He advises governments and industry on affordable-housing strategy and has appeared on ABC News, Sky News, The Guardian, The Policymaker, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Conversation.
