Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about an issue that matters very deeply to the people in my electorate of Indi and to communities right across regional Australia: universal telecommunications access. Every year that I have served as the Independent member for Indi, poor regional telecommunications has been one of the most frequent issues raised with me by constituents. It's why the work of the Indi Telecommunications Advisory Group has been so valuable to my community and why we've needed significant investment under programs like the Mobile Black Spot Program and the Regional Connectivity Program.

However, there is much, much more work to be done. The universal outdoor mobile obligation, UOMO for short, is a generational change in the commitment of government to ensure we all have access to a minimum level of connectivity, no matter where we live. For years, the universal service obligation included reasonable access to payphones and a landline phone in your home. For many years before mobile phones, that was enough. But times have changed, and now we work on our mobiles, run businesses on them and keep in touch with family and friends on them. We participate in telehealth appointments on them.

We've also seen the rise of the low-Earth-orbit satellites that make it possible to connect to the internet from practically anywhere with a line of sight to the sky. Many people don't realise that most smartphones produced in the past five years can already connect to satellites through emerging direct-to-device technology. It's why the government is now introducing the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 to upgrade our universal service framework so that we can access phone calls and SMS from anywhere in Australia, as long as you can see the sky. It's a potential game changer for regional communities—no question.

I've spent years fighting for better internet and connectivity for regional Australia, so I welcome this bill. With the rise of these new technologies, it will make life safer for those working, exploring or living in the bush or off the grid. In Indi people desperately want the UOMO to succeed as promised, because, whether you are a farmer in Goomalibee, a nurse travelling from Tolmie or a hiker out in Dandongadale, people are sick of second-rate access. It makes it harder to work and get by, and, in an emergency, it is absolutely life threatening.

In recent months, communities in my electorate have been devastated by bushfires, with hundreds of homes lost on the tablelands between Euroa and Alexandra and in the Upper Murray too. In many of these fire affected communities, as I heard from a woman last year in Merton, connectivity is sparse in good times and much harder to maintain in an emergency or, indeed, during tourist season. Put simply, the UOMO will save lives if implemented correctly.

I'll now discuss in more detail what this bill does, and then I'll outline my concerns and speak to important amendments I will be proposing to this bill. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to incorporate the UOMO into the existing universal service regime. The UOMO will complement the existing universal service obligation by creating a new section in the act that will establish the UOMO as an existing part of Australia's telecommunications framework. Initially, three mobile network operators will be captured as primary universal outdoor mobile providers: Telstra, Optus and TPG. The minister may designate other mobile network operators in the future. In reality, this will only happen if new telcos enter the Australian market, which at this stage seems unlikely.

The UOMO will require providers to deliver baseline mobile services—voice services and short message services, SMS—to all our outdoor areas on a reasonable basis. The government expects these providers will meet UOMO requirements by using a mix of their current terrestrial land based mobile networks and rapidly evolving direct-to-device technology, which will be delivered through satellites. When operational, the UOMO will theoretically guarantee SMS and voice call coverage for significantly uninhabited or sparsely inhabited areas where it has never been and never will be viable to provide land based towers.

While the UOMO will only require provision of voice services and SMS at first, the legislation is written to enable the addition of new services, such as data, subject to technological and market developments. The bill will also establish ministerial powers to create standards, rules and benchmarks that will lay out how the UOMO will work in practice. This flexibility is important because technology can change quickly, as we've seen with the low-Earth satellites in recent years, and the legislation must be flexible enough to adapt to future innovation and changes in the technology landscape.

The bill will also allow the government to create standards that would apply in the interim period before the commencement of the UOMO in 2027, which is just under two years from now. We cannot accept avoidable delays to this date, and I implore the government to ensure the telcos know that this deadline is not aspirational. They need to be clear; it is essential. So, while the bill charts a destination—universal outdoor access—it doesn't describe every step of how we get there. That's understandable, but in its implementation the government, the regulator and the telcos must deliver a gold standard UOMO because that's what we need and that's what Australians deserve.

I have some concerns with the bill as it's currently drafted. Central to this concern is the ambiguity in what is meant by 'reasonably available' and 'equitable basis'. This bill requires that mobile coverage be reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis. While these terms sound great at face value, it isn't clear what these terms mean and how the government and the telcos will interpret them in practice. It has left key advocacy groups fearful that some groups will be left behind if 'reasonably available' is left to the for profit telcos to define.

We know the direct-to-device technology is only available to the most recent smartphones. For example, the government funded Regional Tech Hub states on its website that, currently, only iPhone 13, 14, 15 and 16 and Samsung Galaxy S25 devices are supported by Telstra's direct-to-service SMS service. It's clear that many Australians won't have one of the phones I've just listed, and it's not clear if they'll be able to access the UOMO when it launches. For those without means to purchase these compatible phones—with the latest iPhone starting at $1,399—where does this leave pensioners or young families struggling with the cost of living and living in regional or remote Australia?

There's a real risk that less well-off users will see less or no benefit from UOMO compared to those who can afford premium devices and premium plans. When the 3G shutdown occurred, the users of older devices were forced to purchase new ones. Many were using older devices because they couldn't afford a new one, and therefore they bought budget phones that now won't be compatible with direct-to-device technology.

Knowing these were concerns raised clearly in the consultation on the draft UOMO legislation, I hoped the government would have provided sufficient explanation to allay my concerns and those of key consumer advocacy groups. So I turned to the bill's explanatory memorandum, which expands on what is meant by 'reasonably' available, stating that this would include 'a choice by a consumer not to purchase an appropriate handset or plan'. A choice? For so many in my community struggling with the cost of food, the cost of housing or the cost of health care, purchasing a $1,000 phone isn't a choice for them right now. If access to a universal service is limited by income and affordability, then by definition it is not universal. I accept that we can't connect every device to satellites right away. That's just a technological fact. But to shift the responsibility for that onto the consumer is grossly unfair. The government must do more to explain how it will ensure all Australians, and especially those doing it tough, with less financial means, aren't left behind.

I've spoken with the Australian Communications and Consumer Action Network, who are similarly concerned about the lack of a clear definition for what constitutes 'reasonably available'. They've said:

This open-ended language creates significant uncertainty regarding what constitutes 'reasonable' mobile coverage. It creates opportunity for providers to circumvent their obligation …

We're trying to get a universal obligation. Similarly, I've spoken with the National Farmers' Federation, who have said:

If the UOMO is to be truly universal, it must be accessible not only in terms of coverage, but also in terms of cost.

They said that, in regional areas, 'there is a real risk that consumers in these areas will be priced out of essential mobile services, undermining the very purpose of the UOMO'.

This is why I have circulated amendments—to ensure affordability is explicit in this legislation and to ensure that the concepts of 'reasonably available' and equitable access consider the cost of mobile devices and plans. They will also clarify that 'reasonably available' includes affordability and cost as a key element.

In addition to amendments putting affordability at the heart of the UOMO, I'll be moving amendments that make three other changes to the bill. First, I will seek to introduce a power for temporary disaster roaming. This overdue reform has been recommended by inquiry after inquiry after inquiry, including most recently by the government's hand-picked regional telecommunications infrastructure review committee. Despite saying it was looking into disaster roaming over two years ago, the government is yet to act. Now, this isn't good enough for my electorate, where bushfires have this summer destroyed hundreds of homes and left communities disconnected.

Second, my amendments require the minister to set out a statement of reasons when determining a location that excludes the UOMO. This will improve transparency about decisions that limit the universality of the obligation. If the government is going to limit its universal service obligation, then it must be required to explain why and what impact it will have on affected residents.

Finally, my amendments will require performance standards to include fault rectification timeframes. This is a significant issue in regional Australia, where faults take much longer to fix, on average, than in metropolitan Australia. Standards for providing universal access should consider the time it takes to restore reliable service.

We must recognise that terrestrial infrastructure, the mobile towers and other physical assets on the ground, continue to have a central role in the telecommunications network. That's why ongoing investment to fix black spots and strengthen power backup to mobile phone towers and telephone exchanges is absolutely essential.

I support this bill as an important step towards truly universal telecommunications in Australia. The UOMO acknowledges that new technologies, including low-Earth-orbit satellites, are expanding how we connect and that our embrace of these new technologies must benefit all Australians, not just those who are well off. However, I remain concerned that, at least initially, the UOMO won't be truly universal and will favour those with access to the latest smartphones, disadvantaging vulnerable Australians and those doing it tough. So, while I commend this bill to the House, I will continue to advocate for an outdoor mobile obligation that genuinely, truly serves all Australians wherever they live and whatever their means.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context