Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 and I do so as someone who has spent years in this place fighting for my constituents to have access to something that Australians in our major cities take entirely for granted: a reliable mobile phone service. My wife and I raised our daughters in the Fisher hinterland, in the valleys and ranges that stretch from Beerburrum through to Cambroon, from Glasshouse Mountains to Conondale. These are close-knit communities of farmers, small-business owners and young families who have chosen to live in our beautiful rural region. For far too long, they've been connected to the rest of Australia by a telecommunications thread.

Since becoming the federal member for Fisher, I have personally secured mobile phone services for communities across Fisher in Conondale, Glasshouse Mountains, Peachester, Beerburrum, Beerwah, Glenview, Caloundra South and Caloundra West. I've met with network planners. I've sat with developers. I've negotiated with councils and telcos. I've argued the case community by community, tower by tower, for my constituents to be brought into the modern age. So, when a bill arrives in this place that promises universal outdoor mobile connectivity to all Australians, including to the people of Fisher, I want to believe in it. I really do. But wanting is not enough, and belief absent evidence is not policy; it's aspiration dressed up as legislation.

Let me acknowledge what this bill is trying to do, because at least the ambition deserves recognition. The universal outdoor mobile obligation—the UOMO—would, for the first time, extend Australia's universal service framework to mobile telecommunications. It would place a legal obligation on Telstra, Optus and TPG Telecom to ensure that baseline mobile coverage, voice calls and SMS are reasonably available outdoors to all Australians on an equitable basis. That is a worthy goal. The principle that every Australian, regardless of postcode, should be able to make a phone call or send a text message from outside is not a radical proposition. It is, frankly, a minimum standard of civilised life in the 21st century.

The coalition doesn't oppose this principle. What we cannot support is a bill that makes big promises, yet relies on technology that does not currently exist—and still leaves consumers with no real protections.

The centrepiece of this legislation is the obligation it places on mobile network operators. But what precisely is that obligation? The bill says that mobile coverage must be 'reasonably available' outdoors to all Australians on 'an equitable basis'. Those two phrases, 'reasonably available' and 'an equitable basis', do almost no work in this legislation. They are, in effect, escape hatches.

The bill explicitly allows the minister to exempt providers by legislative instrument. This means the minister can split the obligation, treating voice calls differently from SMS. And, although the obligation is meant to commence on 1 December 2027, the minister can delay it up to three times, for a 12-month period each time, potentially pushing the start date out to December 2030. What does 'reasonably available' mean for a farmer in Conondale who can't get help when a piece of machinery falls on him? What does 'an equitable basis' mean for a parent in Glass House who can't reach an ambulance when his or her child is choking? This bill, as drafted, provides them with no meaningful reassurance whatsoever.

The government's own explanatory memorandum concedes that direct-to-device satellite technology is still evolving, with the required infrastructure still being deployed. It notes that SMS services are available in some countries on certain handsets, but that voice services are 'expected to follow'—not guaranteed; not scheduled; not contracted; 'expected'. The bill legislates a framework for a technology that does not yet exist at commercial scale in Australia. It sets a commencement date for services that, as of today, are not available on most handsets in Australia, are not fully covered by our spectrum licensing framework and depend on wholesale satellite infrastructure, over which Australian carriers exercise no direct control.

I support the deployment of low earth orbit satellite technology. I've backed greater use of satellite solutions for years. But there is a profound difference between supporting technological innovation and legislating a consumer entitlement contingent on that innovation proceeding on schedule, at scale and on commercially viable terms. This bill guarantees none of these things. The people of Glass House Mountains and Peachester deserve more than a 'maybe'—more than a 'probable'.

In November last year, TPG Telecom reported that a person had died after triple-zero calls failed. The cause was handset incompatibility. Samsung devices were rendered incompatible with emergency call networks, following the government's closure of the 3G network. Around 50,000 Australians believed their phones would work in an emergency. For at least one of them, that misplaced trust was fatal. The government's response was, by any measure, inadequate. ACMA and the telcos sent text messages to people whose phones could not make emergency calls.

The UOMO is designed to be delivered, in significant part, through direct-to-device satellite technology. That technology requires handsets that support it. The vast majority of devices currently available in Australia, including many recently purchased high-quality devices, do not support direct-to-device connectivity. The bill contains no obligation to address this compatibility gap, no consumer education and no handset transition program—not even an acknowledgement of the problem. How can we legislate a universal outdoor mobile obligation when the obligation cannot be accessed by the majority of devices currently in use?

Perhaps the most extraordinary omission in this bill is its complete silence on emergency communications. The government argues that triple zero obligations are already covered by the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019 and that voice services under the UOMO will be captured by that determination. With respect, that is a circular argument that fails the basic test of legislative integrity.

The UOMO is a new framework. It will apply to new technologies, including direct-to-device satellite services, whose interaction with existing emergency call determinations has not been tested, has not been adjudicated and may give rise to technical and legal ambiguity at precisely the moment when ambiguity is most dangerous. Many of my constituents have long been unable to call triple zero from outside their homes. The entire purpose of extending coverage to those areas is, at least in part, to enable them to call for help in an emergency, yet the bill does not say so explicitly. It does not guarantee it. It does not mandate it. That is not good enough. An obligation that is meant to save lives should say so in those terms.

Let me speak plainly about the political context of this bill, because context matters. The previous coalition government committed $811.8 million to connect regional Australia through the Mobile Black Spot Program, the STAND program and the Regional Connectivity Program. We helped build towers. We provided an infrastructure. We provided funding. We delivered services to communities that had been waiting for connectivity for decades—communities like those in my electorate of Fisher. And to this day, I'm still advocating for better mobile phone reception in rapid growth areas like Banya and Nirimba. Carl from Banya can only get one bar of service. He has to drive to the Stockland Sales Centre to make or receive calls. Adam and Michelle in Landers Shoot tell me that, since 3G cessation, their phone connection frequently drops out; text messages can't be sent. This has serious impacts on my constituents—constituents like Carl from Eudlo.

The Albanese government cut the Mobile Black Spot Program in the 2024-25 budget. It's cutting the better regional connectivity programs from 2027, and in the most recent round of mobile service upgrades, 75 per cent of funded projects were delivered in Labor electorates. Three in four upgrades went to Labor held seats. This government cut these programs, botched the 3G shutdown, left 50,000 Australians with phones that could not call triple zero, and now asks us to trust it with legislation built on technology that does not yet exist. At some point, incompetence has consequences. In this portfolio those consequences are measured in lives.

The coalition is not calling for this bill to be defeated; we're calling for it to be done properly. I am tired, after 10 years of being in this place, of rushed, panicked bills with minimal consultation and inadequate technical expertise. This approach is hurting Australians. This is the approach that the Albanese government has taken over the last four years.

A Senate inquiry through the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee would allow farmers, small businesses, local governments, emergency services, telecommunications engineers and consumer advocates to put on the public record what they need from this legislation and what, in its current form, it fails to deliver. We need submissions from regional communities about what connectivity means to them in practice. We need evidence from technical experts about the realistic deployment timeline for direct-to-device satellite services. We need clarity about handset compatibility, about the interaction between the UOMO and existing emergency call frameworks, and about the enforceability of an obligation couched in the vague language of 'reasonableness' and 'equity'. These are the minimum requirements of sound public policy; they should not be sacrificed for a political headline.

The people of Fisher have waited long enough for reliable mobile coverage. They've waited while technology evolved and commercial incentives pointed elsewhere. They've waited while city commuters checked emails on the trains while families in the hinterland couldn't call a doctor, an ambulance or even a friend. I want this bill to succeed, but wanting is not governing. Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. The people of regional Australia deserve more than an ambitious headline. They deserve a framework that actually works for them.

I support the reasoned amendment moved by the member for Lindsay. I call on the government to refer this bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, and I call on the government in the strongest possible terms to come back to this House with a bill that is worthy of the obligation it claims to create. Australians deserve nothing less. It doesn't matter whether you live in the bush or you live in the cities. Australians deserve to be in a modern day world—in the 21st century. They deserve to be able to pick up one of these phones that is their lifeline to the world and expect that it is going to work—not only if the weather's fine and if they hold up their hand and left foot, but always and at all times, because their lives sometimes depend on it. (Time expired)

See this speech in context