AMTA supports the Productivity Commission’s draft recommendation to review the costs and benefits of identity checks for prepaid mobile services in consultation with law enforcement and security agencies.

The Productivity Commission said the review should have the objective of either abolishing the requirement, or substantially revising the regime to better achieve its objectives while eliminating unnecessary costs to business.

The mobile telecommunications industry this week provided a submission to the Productivity Commission’s Annual Review on Regulatory Burdens on Business: Social and Economic Infrastructure Services.

AMTA told the Productivity Commission that it had been advised of an in-principle agreement among key departments and agencies to undertake a policy review on prepaid identification requirements for mobile telecommunications services.

The advice came from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Attorney-General’s Department, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and industry).

“AMTA welcomes this development but notes that the policy review has not commenced and that its initiation is progressing slowly, with the scope of review, terms of reference, etc, not yet discussed or agreed,” AMTA Chief Executive Officer, Chris Althaus, said.

“AMTA would therefore strongly support the Commission keeping its recommendation as outlined in its Draft Report. Any change to the Report to reflect a policy review that is still at the ‘in-principle’ level would not be supported.”

AMTA also supported the final Report extending and strengthening its comments in relation to the costs and benefits of the regime. The Draft Report currently states:

The regime should be reviewed, to more fully establish the costs and benefits of the regime. The review should involve consultation with law enforcement agencies who will be able to identify the extent to which the identity information being gathered has actually proved useful in leading to convictions or preventing criminal activity.

Mr Althaus said: “The point the Commission makes here is critical; any regime must be outcomes focused, with all parties clearly able to see the costs and benefits of the regime.

“As outlined in its most recent submission, to AMTA’s knowledge, despite repeated requests, no empirical evidence was ever provided by the LEAs to demonstrate the extent of the problem in the first place, or against which to consider the effectiveness of an ‘improved’ regime in helping them address their objectives (p7-8, AMTA submission, Feb 09).

“ Without such information, it is impossible to consider the effectiveness of any regime, or proposed regime, or possible alternatives. Moreover, it damages the trust and goodwill necessary to ensure good outcomes: continuous, honest and open assessment of any regime is vital to allow incremental improvement and better meet any regime’s objectives. “

Mr Althaus said AMTA was unclear whether the LEAs were unable to provide the requested empirical evidence (in which case, a system change would be required to ensure appropriate feedback and assessment mechanisms), or do not wish to.

“Either way, AMTA suggests that a recommendation to ensure that LEAs must be able to identify how the information has been helpful in assisting them achieve their objectives would address the issue,” he said.

“There must also be a requirement to ensure appropriate consideration of other methods that could give effect to LEA objectives, such as use of mobile location information and traditional surveillance methods. “