Telstra's outrageous new policy

- When protecting women ends up targeting men

This week came further proof of our feminists’ insatiable quest for power and control. Telstra customers across Australia were treated to a superb example of the sisterhood’s capacity to enlist large corporations to their cause.

Look at this Telstra policy announcement, slipped in between various news items from the telecommunications giant:

As soon as the implications of this jaw-dropping announcement started to hit Telstra customers, my inbox was flooded with people venting their spleen. Now Telstra can cut off services to you if your ex alleges you’ve been violent. We’re talking not just about phones but also internet services – and associated email addresses. That could play havoc with a business, sever vital connections with friends, family and work associates. The result would be huge disruptions to your life and work.

Note we are only talking about services where the alleged victim shares the same account with the accused. In this case both phone and family/business internet services could be impacted.

Here it is - one more juicy incentive to add to the list encouraging false allegations in this country, even though, according to a YouGov survey, we already have one of the highest rates in the world.

The Telstra complaints department was quick to pass the buck, claiming they were just complying with standards set by the regulator - the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). That’s rubbish. ACMA says nothing about cancelling an accused’s services or about transferring them to the accuser.

ACMA recently produced an industry standard for domestic violence protection after being heavied by Labor’s Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. Telstra was in the bad books following a 2018 incident where a technical outage in its GPS tracking network led to a breakdown of South Australia’s electronic monitoring of domestic violence offenders fitted with GPS ankle bracelets. This was used by advocacy groups as a “wake up call” to the industry.

It led to Telstra working overtime to suck up to the domestic violence lobby, by, for instance, donating over 50,000 smartphones to “survivors”. But ACMA reported numerous examples of telco failures to support DV victims like suspending phone services for non-payment of bills - deemed unacceptable because it is claimed these women suffer “financial abuse”. Telcos were also in trouble for suggesting victims sort out joint account issues by requiring them to communicate with their alleged perpetrators. The list goes on.

So ACMA’s new standard is all about protecting victims, making sure they remain connected at all times, the privacy and security of their phone accounts is protected, and they aren’t forced to interact with alleged perpetrators. It’s largely pretty sensible stuff.

But the Telstra policy is appalling. It is inflammatory, provocative, heavily biased, draconian, and in conflict with the intent of the ACMA standard.

• Inflammatory - Encouraging punitive action based on unverified allegations, potentially escalating conflict between the couple.

• Provocative – Telstra is encouraging one set of customers to deny its services to another, a tempting option for couples at loggerheads.

• Heavily biased – Removal of vital services on the basis of unproven allegations using procedures which deny any possibility of an impartial investigation.

• Draconian – Termination without due process

Then there are legal issues. Telstra’s policy breaches well-established principles of natural justice by denying procedural fairness – requiring an unbiased assessment and the right to be heard. Telstra could be sued for economic loss arising out of an arbitrary disconnection/transfer. Also, possibly for defamation for taking action which could reveal the identity of a person as an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence.

It is troubling that Telstra was prepared to ignore the spirit of the ACMA guidelines to push through this draconian policy. But we are talking about a company which has become increasingly woke. Note they are aiming for a 40:40:20 target for their executive leadership teams: 40% women, 40% men and 20% “any other gender.” That rather says it all, doesn’t it?

This is the culture which prompted someone in that leadership team to cook up this plan to steal accused men’s phone and internet services and hand them over to their accusers. Yes, I know the policy is presented in gender neutral terms but it’s hard to imagine the Telstra ladies who run their DV section taking complaints from male accusers seriously.

Not that survivors need any evidence for Telstra to swing into action. The ACMA standard spells out that “a provider must not require evidence or supporting material which demonstrates that a consumer is an affected person.” How’s that for ruling out any possibility of a proper investigation?

Given the breadth of the things included in the definition of violence there’s no doubt plenty of women could actually qualify as abusers. We’re talking not just about physical violence but about emotional or psychological abuse, and coercive control – areas where the Australian Bureau of Statistics data has shown female perpetrators are just as common as male.

(After publishing this 2016 data, the Bureau no longer highlights gender comparisons in this territory and muddies the waters by broadening the definition of emotional abuse).

The Telstra definition of violence also includes “monitoring of phones”. Check out social media and you’ll find much merriment over stories of phone snooping by jealous women, funny stories of attempts to track potentially wayward partners. In fact, there are psychological studies showing women, driven by jealousy or attachment anxiety, are more likely than men to engage in phone monitoring behaviours, including checking a partner’s phone, tracking calls and location.

The inclusion of this trivial nonsense has little to do with Minister Rowland’s professed desire for telecommunications to be a “safe, secure lifeline” for escape and recovery for women escaping dangerous men. The reality is, as my videos with police officers and former prosecutors have revealed, most domestic violence complaints are not based on physical violence but arise out of minor verbal conflict. It’s grossly misleading to claim that domestic violence victims are mostly women escaping dangerous men. But the use of such exaggerated claims is Feminism 101 – unfortunately now the prevailing wisdom in all our major institutions.

We can’t let Telstra get away with this dangerous move – which has only just been announced but won’t be implemented until December 11. We’ve prepared a draft email you can use to write and complain, even if you are not a Telstra customer or shareholder. It’s worthwhile for other people to voice outrage and say they will be encouraging friends and social media networks to avoid the company.

The Telstra complaint service is useless as is the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) which responded to our complaints by stating that the “TIO is not able to handle complaints about a provider’s terms and conditions.” Classic ‘Yes Minister’ response.

The draft letter is here.

Note that we have addressed this to the CEO of Telstra and other relevant managers. We’re pleased that people responsible for this policy will directly face criticism of what they are doing instead of hiding behind complaint services. But I really need large numbers of my readers to send a letter so we are not dismissed as a tiny bunch of ratbags.

We’re working on having the issue raised in parliament, including in Senate Estimates. And please help by circulating this blog and trying to get attention in other media sources.

I encourage readers who have services with Telstra to investigate better alternatives. Here are some sites that may be helpful: Finder, Whistleout and Canstar blue.

We’ve let too many of these feminist policies just pass through to the keeper and now they are entrenched and wreaking havoc in men’s lives.

In June 2023 I wrote about debanking, where banks were introducing policies to shut down bank accounts of people (mainly men) accused of financially controlling their partners. By late 2022, the four major Australian banks had blocked 500,000 messages from across 300,000 individual accounts, as well as cancelling, suspending and/or warning more than 3000 customers of financial abuse.

Punitive domestic violence policies are everywhere – with untested allegations of violence used to advantage women and punish men.

Here’s just a few examples:

• Employment – Employers can suspend or terminate alleged perpetrators’ employment if domestic violence is deemed to impact the workplace i.e. when violence orders conflict with work requirements through no-contact rules, exclusion zones (e.g., prohibiting approach to the victim’s workplace), or surrender of weapons, for police/army etc.

• Housing & Tenancy - Alleged perpetrators can be evicted from shared tenancies or have leases terminated if the domestic violence breaches “quiet enjoyment” or safety clauses. Victims can issue a Domestic Violence Termination Notice to exit without penalty.

• Community Housing- Providers can suspend or terminate access to supported housing/services for alleged perpetrators, prioritizing victim safety. Social housing providers evict for “anti-social behaviour” linked to DV.

As with the Telstra policy, no proper evidence is required for a woman to trigger actions which can have such a draconian impact on the alleged perpetrator - just as no evidence is required for the huge list of perks generally available for alleged victims. I described these in detail some years ago when I wrote about the domestic violence gravy train.

To these we can add the latest perk – 10 days of paid domestic violence leave costing employers between $13.1 million and $34.3 million annually. And here too hardly any employers dare ask for proof of victimhood.

To our national shame, Australia now leads the world in industry-wide domestic violence mandates, with our banking policies and Telstra’s outrageous move pulling us ahead of countries like US, Uk, Canada and New Zealand which largely focus on housing and employment policies.

When are we going to call a halt to this sick corporate pissing competition using domestic violence policies for virtue signalling and public relations one upmanship? It is all a shocking diversion from the vital need to provide proper help to the real victims - women, men and children - who face real violence.