Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

For too many Australians, the promise of modern telecommunications has not been made good. They pay modern prices for outdated services. They live in metropolitan Sydney and still have to walk to the end of the driveway to make a call. On a good day it's infuriating; on a bad day it's dangerous. In a fire, flood or medical emergency it can be the difference between life and death.

Anybody who has looked at my record in this place will know that better telecommunications for the people that I represent has been a constant focus of mine. I've fought for and achieved better signal outcomes including mobile towers in places like Dangar Island, Sackville North, Hornsby Heights, Arcadia, Annangrove, Glenorie, Glenhaven and Dural and elsewhere across my electorate. I campaigned hard to make sure that peri-urban communities like mine were not forgotten in the national conversation, and that campaigning helped drive the creation of the Peri-Urban Mobile Program. It was a step forward, but there's much more to do. That's why this Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 matters.

The current universal service settings belong to a different era. They were built for the age of the copper line, the payphone and the assumption that the mobile phone was just a useful extra. Well, that's not the world we live in now. The mobile phone is now the ordinary phone. The Parliamentary Library notes that landline use by Australian adults fell from 54 per cent in 2017 to just 15 per cent in 2024, while mobile phone use rose from 95 to 98 per cent.

Australians have already moved on, and now the law has to catch up. In practical terms, this bill would amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act to create a universal outdoor mobile obligation. It would initially require Telstra, Optus and TPG to ensure that voice and SMS are 'reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis.' The extra coverage is expected to come largely through low Earth orbit satellites and direct-to-device technology.

This bill also gives the minister broad powers by legislative instrument to determine coverage areas, providers, standards, benchmarks and rules. It creates further powers to set standards and benchmarks for mobile services more generally before the new obligation begins, and the default commencement date is 1 December 2027. The purpose is sound, but purpose does not equate with performance. Announcements don't create signals. Parliament shouldn't just wave through a broad framework with the critical details left for later if there's no certainty as to whether those details will make families safer, ensure that businesses can trade, and determine whether emergency calls can get through.

My approach is straightforward. I support the objective of better mobile services. I support dragging telcos into a position where they meet the expectations of ordinary Australian families who do the right thing and pay their bills month in and month out. That's why this bill needs to be closely scrutinised by the Senate committee, because there are serious questions about this legislation—about whether it works in practice for communities like mine. I want to encourage everyone in my community who's had a mobile phone issue to make a submission to the Senate committee, to put your issues and challenges on the record so we can ensure that this bill is fit for purpose.

I want to take this opportunity to make a series of points. The first is that poor connectivity is not just a regional problem, not just a remote problem; it's also a peri-urban and outer-metropolitan problem. It's a Berowra problem. Too often policy in this area has fallen into a false binary: If you live in the cities, the assumption is that you're covered. If you live in the bush, at least the system admits you might need help. But if you live on the outer metropolitan areas, on the urban fringes—on the Hawkesbury, in some of our steep valleys and even in some of our wonderful suburbs—you need help, too. It's extraordinary that in the third decade of the 21st century these places, only a short drive from the Sydney CBD, are mobile blackspots. Too many families in my electorate have ended up with the worst of both worlds: forgotten by metropolitan assumptions and overlooked by regional programs.

That's why the lived experience of my electorate needs to be heard in this debate—the experiences of people like Brendan from Cattai, who runs a small business and relies on Telstra. He reports that poor and deteriorating reception has left him unable to make outgoing calls for extended periods. It's affected his business communications and even his onsite security systems. He says he's made complaints and is still paying for a service that's often unusable. Then there is Eric from Epping. Eric says that the signal from all major carriers is so weak that his household relies on wi-fi calling over the NBN just to make or receive calls and that usable coverage returns only when he walks to nearby streets. And there is Christine, from Berowra Waters. She recently experienced a complete loss of both mobile and fixed internet services after more than a decade of regular bill paying. Shockingly, it took intervention from my office to even get proper communication from the telco about restoration.

Rebekah from Glenhaven says she has no decent phone coverage at home, even when she walks onto the street. She's not living in a remote station; she's living in town, in a city suburb. But, for her, the coverage map says one thing and the reality says another. And don't get me started on Telstra and its deceptive coverage maps. Then there is Wendy, from West Pennant Hills. She reported a lengthy outage that disrupted her work as a medical specialist working from home, with consequences not only for her but for her patients as well. Rhonda from Berrilee remains on ageing infrastructure and has been told that the viable alternative is to pay for more satellite internet, despite living roughly an hour from the Sydney CBD.

But it's not just individuals; it's businesses, too. In my electorate, local businesses in Brooklyn have reported serious disruption during rail shutdowns when phone and internet services fail. The consequences are immediate and they're financial: EFTPOS goes down, bookings are lost, and safety and communication systems can be compromised. These types of impacts have a direct hit on small businesses, their confidence and their viability. It's a direct hit to the bottom line. It's a direct hit to the pay that those business owners take home in order to put food on the tables of their families and to pay their mortgages. These stories matter because this bill will succeed or fail not on a press release, a coverage map or a departmental diagram but on the lived experience of households, small businesses, commuters, carers, volunteers and emergency services.

The second issue is the bill's core language. What does it actually mean for coverage to be 'reasonably available outdoors'? That phrase sits at the centre of the bill. It's not defined, but it's doing an enormous amount of work. Consumer groups have warned that it might create uncertainty, inconsistent application and scope for providers to interpret their obligations too narrowly. That's not a drafting quibble. That's the difference between being able to make a call or not.

If a person has to stand at a particular corner of a paddock or walk down a driveway or leave a house to stand on the verge or climb onto a hill or wait for the weather to clear, is that really service that's reasonably available? If a call drops out repeatedly but a text somehow gets through, is that reasonable? If coverage exists on a map but not in real conditions, is that reasonable? If the service works outdoors but not inside a family home, a shopfront, a vehicle or a train platform, is that good enough for a country that says that this will be universal? When I listen to the experiences of people in my community and I compare them to the text of the bill, these are the questions that come to mind, because Australians don't live their lives in perfect test conditions. Real life happens inside homes, inside workplaces and inside vehicles during emergencies.

In 2021, I put forward an exposure draft of a telecommunications reform proposal that was deliberately broader. It aimed to ensure people could use a mobile phone inside a home or a workplace, not just outside and under ideal conditions. It's regrettable that this bill doesn't go that far.

The third issue is the term 'equitable basis'. This bill is designed to ensure that mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors on an equitable basis. What does that mean? Again, the phrase is undefined, but it's doing a lot of work. Does it mean that people will actually be able to afford the service? Does it mean the service must be available on ordinary retail terms? Does it imply that telcos have an obligation to ensure access is not tied to the newest devices and handsets? What is the delivery mechanism? Is it low-Earth-orbit satellite and direct-to-device technology? That technology is promising—it may well be part of the answer. For some people who gave up on legacy broadband, satellite has already been a lifeline, but promising technology is not the same as affordable technology.

Consumer groups have warned that these types of solutions will simply be out of reach for too many. And, of course, there's the question of who bears the cost. It is the serious question of who pays. Is it the telco, the taxpayer, the industry levy or is it the consumer—quietly, every month on a larger and larger bill? Will people in my electorate be left cross-subsidising a more expensive service model that still leaves them behind? This leads directly to a further point.

If this reform only works for people with newer phones, then it will not be a universal obligation on the telcos in any meaningful sense. If the quid pro quo is that the telcos provide universal outdoor access, but only if you stump up for a new handset, then there are deep issues within this bill. It will be a premium, niche service dressed up in universal language. No Australian should have to buy a new, expensive handset just to send a text from a black spot or to make a basic emergency call.

The fourth issue is safety, resilience and emergency access. Berowra is a beautiful electorate—the most beautiful electorate in the country—but it's also disaster prone, such as the Hawkesbury floods that we've had repeatedly since 2020. There is bushfire risk. We know that because of the 26 Rural Fire Service stations that exist in my electorate. There is steep terrain. There are river communities, isolated pockets and areas of heavy tree cover—and communities that depend on volunteers who turn out in moments of danger. In that context, telecommunications is not a convenience; it is critical infrastructure. COVID exposed some of the weaknesses in our telco settings. Floods exposed them again. Every major outage does the same.

The stories from my electorate keep piling up. Peter from Mount Colah reported losing landline and internet services for nearly a month. Joseph, from Epping, says his NBN service has repeatedly failed, despite years and years of complaints. When services collapse, people don't just lose entertainment; they lose the ability to call family, receive alerts, process payments, work remotely, access telehealth, open security gates, coordinate local response and, in the worst cases, reach help.

This bill is meant to support voice and SMS. Low-Earth-orbit direct device technologies based on satellites support only SMS functionality, but in Australia emergency services can only be directly contacted via voice calls. Stakeholders have already made the case for the text to triple zero and emergency roaming or camp-on arrangements, where a user on one type of plan can access another network. That's exactly the kind of issue that a Senate inquiry should test.

In an emergency, a citizen does not care about the contractual relationship between a terrestrial carrier and a satellite operator. They care whether the call or text goes through. They care whether triple zero works. They care whether the phone in a vehicle works. They care whether it works in a storm, when the carrier is down or when their family needs to be contacted. This isn't something to treat casually. In an emergency, 'outdoors' is not a neat legal category. People are in houses. People are in cars. People are on roads, trapped by floodwaters, evacuating with children and trying to pass on a message. The expectation created by a universal outdoor mobile obligation is that the call will get through. The question is whether it actually will.

The final issue to raise is about competition, accountability and market structure. One of the enduring frustrations in my electorate has been that, for too much of Berowra, Telstra has been the monopoly or near monopoly provider. I've made no secret of my frustration with Telstra. I believe in competition. It disciplines market behaviour, and lack of competition breeds complacency. When coverage is weak and customer service is poor, consumers need alternatives. Too often they don't have them. This bill creates obligations on Telstra, Optus and TPG. But, if the practical path to meeting those obligations depends heavily on a small number of global satellite operators which become price takers in that market, what are the consequences? Will this bill increase competition or entrench it in a different layer? Are we expanding choice or merely changing the form of dependency?

There's also the broader accountability issue. This bill gives the minister wide powers to determine standards, benchmarks, rules, coverage areas, exemptions and even timing through legislative instruments. I understand why the government says flexibility is needed in a developing technology market, but flexibility without guardrails creates uncertainty for consumers and industry alike. Australians are entitled to know what standards will be used, what success will look like, what redress consumers will receive when service is sold and service isn't delivered, and what independent oversight there will be of ministerial decisions.

A universal obligation shouldn't be measured by optimism. It should be measured by objective outcomes: whether calls connect, texts send, outages fall, emergency access improves, prices remain fair, competition strengthens and communities like mine actually notice the difference. A serious parliament doesn't write a broad, blank cheque just because the headline sounds good. Flexibility isn't a substitute for clarity, and delegation is not a substitute for design. A law that's insufficiently clear or reliant on delegation demands scrutiny.

That's why I welcome this bill going to the Senate committee. It creates a proper opportunity to test the bill's underlying assumptions. It allows us to examine costs, competition impacts, emergency access, device compatibility, affordability, implementation and the real meaning of core terms like 'reasonably available' and 'equitable'. I say to the people in my electorate who've endured these problems for years: make a submission. Put your experience on the record. Tell the committee what the coverage maps say and what your phone actually does. Tell them about the dropped calls, the outages, the lack of accountability, the confusion between carriers, the poor complaint handling and the safety implications. This isn't just a policy debate for experts in Canberra. It's a practical question about whether families and businesses in Berowra get the service they pay for and the service they need.

I want to see the telcos held to account. I want to see the law catch up with the reality that mobile service is now an essential service. I want to see real competition, real standards and real consequence for failure, and I want to see my community treated seriously, not as an afterthought. The people of Berowra don't want slogans; they want signal. They don't want excuses; they want service. They don't want a legal fiction that says coverage exists while they stand outside searching for a bar on a screen. They want a system that works when it matters. That's the test the parliament should apply to this bill, and that's not too much to ask for in modern Australia. We shouldn't settle for less.

See this speech in context