Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, which is legislation on a topic that is of great import to the constituents of the Lyne electorate. For many of us in regional Australia, one of the issues that is raised quite often—in fact, I think every day my office receives calls from constituents with issues and concerns about this—is access to telecommunications. It's clear that the universal service obligation, created in the wake of the privatisation of Telstra some 30 years ago, is no longer a relevant consumer protection in this day and age. As a national carrier, Telstra was charged as responsible for delivering the USO, which obliged them to ensure every customer had and still has access to landline telephones and payphones regardless of where they live or work. But, in a world that has become increasingly mobile, it is obvious that consumer protections mandating delivery of payphones and fixed telephone service have for many become redundant—sadly so, in the regions. As such, there is a need to update the USO to ensure that it safeguards broader voice services and broadband.

The bill attempts to do this. The bill adds to the universal service obligation, which has traditionally only been binding for Telstra, by adding a universal outdoor mobile obligation, UOMO, on Telstra, Optus and TPG by 1 December 2027, mandating reasonable access to telecommunications while outdoors, excluding in vehicles or vessels. This bill attempts to deliver a modern and more fit-for-purpose USO in light of available technologies and consumer preferences, but unfortunately it falls short of its intentions.

Labor's bill proposes exemption powers that were not in the bill's consultation draft, arguably allowing the minister to limit how the USO terminology 'reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis' applies under the UOMO, setting up what we might like to call SOMO—sometimes outdoor mobile obligation. The bill excludes use from vehicles and vessels from UOMO, even though the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman expects using satellite while driving to become possible and ought to be included. Farming bodies have expressed concern that affordability is not in the universal outdoor mobile obligation. Expensive satellite technology might see telcos pass the cost onto consumers unless there are consumer protections.

After significant recent debate on triple zero connectivity failures, the NFF and NSW Farmers query why emergency services connectivity is not required under the UOMO. The government says that existing emergency call service determinations suffice. Consumer body ACCAN says that, until voice to satellite works, texts to triple zero should be mandated. Telstra says that there is insufficient spectrum for UOMO, which might in turn force a choice between 5G and 4G and thereby the closure of 4G, which could repeat the travesty of the botched 3D shutdown. A Nationals consumer protections amendment would prevent adverse consequences.

Mandatory domestic roaming should be part of the UOMO and indeed a future USO. If a call fails on one service, such as Optus, and another service is available, such as Telstra, the call could automatically connect to the other service. Telcos could resolve the commercial impact between themselves, just like banks did when customers could withdraw cash from ATMs of other banks. A fee was imposed, but, in the mandatory domestic roaming context, that fee might be instead built into business models and ultimately pricing, subject to consumer protections.

The Nationals support the goal of extending voice and text coverage outdoors across more of the country, because improved connectivity for regional Australians is a necessity. In cities and towns, a call dropout is an inconvenience. On a farm, in a forest or at a mine in a remote location, it's much more than that. However, the credibility of any government measure rests not on its aspiration but on its detail and reality. The telcos must also be able to understand precisely what is required of them, and consumers must be able to understand what they are entitled to expect. Nice phrases such as 'reasonably available' and 'equitable access' need to be measurable and enforceable standards. Clarity and a compliance framework is required to avoid risks that the obligation will be difficult to monitor and even harder to enforce.

We do not need aspirational headlines. In other words, the system actually has to work and be practical, reliable and affordable. This is why this bill must be deeply scrutinised. There is little point in proceeding down a path of promising something better when there are numerous issues still to solve with the existing telecommunications network.

Unfortunately this bill will do little, if anything, to address the issues that my constituents have been increasingly facing. I am receiving inquiries from constituents across the Lyne electorate—from Failford, Vacy, Wauchope and Elands—who have been contacted by their landline telephone providers about changes to their service or who have unreliable landline and mobile telephone services. Providers such as Dodo and Southern Phone have recently advised their customers that they will soon be ceasing their support of landline phones and that customers will need to transfer their number to a provider that does support PSTN technology, which is the public switched telephone network—that is, the traditional copper-wire telephone network, or landlines.

To complicate matters, these customers are also being told that (1) they will not be able to retain their telephone number, which in most cases they've had for decades, (2) they can switch over to the mobile telephone or NBN network, which in rural areas in my electorate varies from less-than-reliable to non-existent, (3) they can utilise a satellite based service such as Starlink, which in many cases they cannot afford and hence do not want to have to do, or (4) they can wait for the low Earth orbit satellite to become a reality.

All they really need is to be able to continue to have a reliable, secure and affordable landline phone that the USO requires. Remember, in rural areas the landline system provides far more reliability in times of medical emergencies, bushfires, floods and blackouts. I recall a meeting at the Lansdowne Hall where there were issues with the local Telstra service. The community actually asked Telstra to put in more payphones so that, in the case of an emergency, they could go to a payphone, because they knew that they couldn't rely on their mobile service.

Clearly this scenario is causing considerable anxiety, which is being compounded by the fact that customers have not been provided with a clear or satisfactory reason as to why their service cannot be converted back to Telstra or why they cannot keep their existing number. When these customers changed from Telstra to another provider it was a simple process and did not require a number change. Furthermore, in some cases where constituents have been proactive and contacted Telstra direct they've received email replies that are vague, incoherent and challenging. I'm increasingly concerned that Telstra's planned exit from the copper network and preference to transition customers to the mobile, wireless or NBN network is not consistent with Telstra's universal service obligation for which it is funded $297 million per annum by the federal government.

Then there is the issue of battery storage capacity at local rural telephone exchanges and mobile phone towers. Just recently, around midday on Saturday 28 February, both the landlines and mobile service at Elands went out following a power outage. This was the third phone network outage in one month in the area. Only people with satellite internet could communicate and seek Telstra's assistance. How is it that the tower's battery storage capacity is insufficient to run the tower for a period after the electricity network power goes down? Surely that's the purpose for which the battery was installed.

Even the existing universal service obligation is fraught with problems. As other coastal electorates also experience at school holiday time, the large influx of visitors can and does overwhelm the mobile phone towers so they just cease to function. The community of Harrington, where I used to live, knows that all too well.

If we do move towards having an outdoor coverage obligation, it will be meaningful only if Australians' devices can actually connect to the services being promised. Yet many mobile phones are not designed for satellite connectivity. Regional Australians, older Australians and small businesses often retain devices for longer periods. A reform that functions only for the latest high-end smartphones is contrary to the principle of equitable access. The lessons of the 3G network rollback show how important it is to have products that can actually use a new technology. Consumers and businesses were forced into unplanned handset upgrades and faced disruption to their lives and operations.

There can be no tolerance for problems or errors when it comes to emergency services connectivity. Australians expect that when they dial triple zero their call for help will be received. The recent history of triple zero outages and device incompatibility has shaken public confidence in the system. Technical glitches will never stand scrutiny when it comes to safety and emergency assistance. Emergency triple zero access must not be contingent on owning a new phone.

I've already mentioned that telecommunications affordability is a critical issue, particularly for households and businesses in my electorate. If compliance with a new obligation significantly increases infrastructure costs, that will be reflected in retail prices. Regional consumers already face higher service costs and fewer competitive options than their metropolitan counterparts. A universal obligation must not translate into higher bills for those it is intended to support.

It is very true that new and emerging technologies will always be coming at us, and we will have to adopt and adapt. Direct-to-device satellite technology will be an exciting development in telecommunications, with the potential to reduce longstanding coverage gaps across vast regions of Australia. Yet it remains a developing technology, with global rollout still underway and significant technical and commercial aspects to be settled. Domestic carriers will depend on international satellite providers, whose pricing models and deployment schedules are outside Australia's direct control. The satellite rollout will occur in time, but legislating a universal outdoor mobile obligation will not magically deliver it, make it work and make it affordable.

The legislation leaves many issues in doubt and numerous questions unanswered. The stark reality is that in many regional and rural areas like mine the existing universal service obligation is falling short. I cannot see how the government can rightly and honestly proceed to a new, bigger commitment without ensuring that the current one is fixed first and without ensuring that the new technology to do it actually exists and is workable, reliable and affordable. With all these considerations, the government's bill might be better to call it a 'sometimes outdoor mobile obligation'—and 'sometimes' is not good enough when we're talking about critical infrastructure that underpins our personal lives, our businesses, our sources of information, and our safety and security.

Australia's geography makes connectivity both challenging and critical. While new technologies provide an opportunity to ensure that our regions have access to telecommunications services, they must be matched by genuine reliability, not just promises. So, in conclusion, I support further scrutiny of this bill by referral to a Senate committee. Such diligence is essential for essential infrastructure such as this bill proposes.

See this speech in context