Jess Teesdale (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In this place we pass many bills. Each one matters. Each one has purpose. Some will adjust regulatory settings. Some will refine systems. Some improve programs in ways that are important but not always immediately visible to the public. Occasionally, legislation comes before us that will be felt in a very direct way. This is one of those bills, because the ability to make a call or send a text anywhere in Australia—anywhere that you can see the sky—is something that people will notice, something that families will rely on and something that could save lives. I know that personally.

Many years ago, as a teacher, I was travelling along the Arnhem Highway to Darwin for a professional development weekend. It was early in the season. The road had only just reopened. Crossings like Blyth River Crossing and Cahills Crossing had to be timed really carefully. You watched the tide, you checked the depth and you made sure that your vehicle was ready, that the car was serviced, that there was food and water, and that the satellite phone was charged.

But on the return trip to Ramingining, about halfway between Gunbalanya and Maningrida, the car broke down—not in a river, and thankfully not in a tidal river, but on a bend in the road. In remote Australia, this is never a good thing. Still, we were calm. We had supplies. We had a satphone; we would call for help—except the credit had expired the day before. At that time, you actually could not recharge your credit from the handset itself—unbelievable. There was no mobile coverage, no satellite credit and no way to call.

In remote Australia, you plan carefully, because help is often very far away. You tell people when you expect to arrive. You map out your route. And you think ahead. You assume somebody will come along eventually. You assume that, when you do not arrive, somebody will raise the alarm. But assumptions do not shorten distances. It was three days before someone found us—three days. We were lucky: it was not a crash, we had food and water and the weather held. But I often think about how different that story could have been if a simple text message had been possible; if one call could have been made; if reassurance could have been given to my family. And that is why this bill matters: because, when something goes wrong in remote Australia, every minute matters, and no Australian should be placed at greater risk because they happen to be outside terrestrial mobile coverage.

Access to telecommunications is no longer optional. It underpins public safety, it underpins participation in our economy and it underpins connection to family, services and community. Yet our universal services framework still reflects a different era. For decades, the universal service obligation has focused on fixed voice services and payphones. That made sense when landlines were the dominant form of communication, but Australia has changed. Mobile phones are now the primary device for communication for most Australians. In many households, particularly in regional and remote communities, they are actually the only device.

So this bill modernises our universal services framework to reflect that reality. It establishes a universal outdoor mobile obligation, the UOMO. It brings mobile voice and SMS services into the public interest telecommunications services framework by amending the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, with supporting amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. But, at its core, the UOMO requires that designated mobile telecommunications services—initially, starting with voice and SMS—are reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis.

This bill designates that Telstra, Optus and TPG will be the initial primary universal outdoor mobile providers. They will carry that obligation from day one. The regulator, ACMA, will be responsible for ensuring compliance and taking enforcement action where necessary.

The bill also explains what we mean by 'coverage'. Coverage is about whether an end-user who is outdoors at a particular location can use that service, and 'the outdoors' does have to be defined carefully. It is 'outdoors' as we would understand it: not inside buildings; not underground; certainly not underwater. At this stage, it does not assume service inside vehicles or aircraft, because current direct-to-device technology depends on line of sight to the sky. But that clarity is important. It sets honest expectations and keeps the obligation focused on what is achievable as that technology matures.

'Reasonably available' is a practical test. It recognises that there will be technical limitations, temporary outages and consumer choices about whether they have a compatible handset or plan. But it also sets a clear expectation that basic services should work outdoors, in places where it is reasonable to expect them to work.

'On an equitable basis' matters too, because equity is not just about geography; it's about who can access the service. Stakeholders have raised concerns that new satellite-enabled services could cost more and that affordability could become a barrier for regional and remote Australians and for vulnerable consumers. This bill gives the government tools to actually address that. It provides for standards and benchmarks that providers must meet, including the ability to deal with the terms and conditions of supply, including matters related to price. And this is a crucial safeguard. It means universality can be made real in practice, and not just on a coverage map.

The bill has one schedule in two parts. Part 1 inserts the UOMO into the existing universal services regime and creates the supporting powers to set UOMO-specific standards, benchmarks and rules. Part 2 will help to create a separate framework for standards, benchmarks and rules for mobile telecommunications services more broadly, even before the UOMO starts. And that second part really does matter. It means we are not powerless between now and the commencement date. If there are problems with mobile service quality, accessibility or consumer outcomes, the framework allows standards to be developed and enforced ahead of the default start date. The UOMO has the default start date of 1 December 2027. It's a clear signal to industry and a clear promise to the public.

The bill also includes flexibility, so the obligation can be adapted as the market develops. The start date can be brought forward when the market is ready. It can also be postponed in 12-month steps up to three times if there are genuine readiness constraints. It means that we're not moving forward if it is not ready. The obligation itself can be divided. For example, voice and SMS can be separated if that is required to get services working sooner and more reliably.

I understand scrutiny concerns about delegated powers, but parliament always should watch closely when substantial detail is set through these sorts of instruments. There's an area of fast changing technology. The bill puts core obligation in primary law then allows technical detail to be adjusted transparently and over time with consultation and with parliamentary oversight through disallowance.

The reforming technology is neutral. It does not dictate the network architecture. It expects providers to use their existing terrestrial infrastructure where it exists and to use direct-to-device satellite connectivity outside that terrestrial coverage. Direct to device means a mobile phone potentially communicating directly with low Earth orbit satellites. It is not a replacement for towers. It is a complement and a potential way to fill the gaps, and those gaps at the moment are enormous.

If this policy delivers what it is designed to deliver, it will extend basic outdoor voice and SMS coverage across huge areas of Australia that have never had it. This is also about emergency readiness. We are living through more frequent and more intense natural disasters—floods, bushfires, cyclones, severe storms. In those moments, communications becomes critical infrastructure. People need warnings. They need to contact emergency services, they need to reach loved ones, and they need to ask for help.

The bill does not rewrite the emergency recall rules, because those rules already exist. Providers of public mobile telecommunications services must provide access to triple zero under the Emergency Call Service Determination. As voice becomes available outdoors under the UOMO, that emergency framework will still apply. The principle is simple. Baseline outdoor connectivity expands the footprints of safety. It increases resilience. It gives Australians another way to reach help when they are outside tower coverage.

Regional telecommunications have been a recurring focus of this parliament for a reason. We know the business case is harder when population density is low. We know market forces alone do not always deliver equity, and that is another reason this bill matters. It makes baseline outdoor connectivity a matter of national expectation. It modernises an outdated framework to match the way Australians actually communicate. And it does it with enforceable obligations, with standards and benchmarks and with the ability to adapt as that technology evolves.

I also want to note that the framework is designed to evolve. While the designated services at commencement are voice and SMS, the legislation allows additional kinds of designated mobile telecommunications services to be added over time, following consultation and consideration of technical readiness, market conditions and consumer impacts. That matters because what Australians need from mobile connectivity will continue to change, and we cannot lock ourselves into a model that cannot adapt.

The bill also allows the minister to specify circumstances where it is not reasonable to make that coverage available and to identify matters that must or must not be considered when assessing reasonableness. That power does need to be used carefully and transparently, because exemptions that are too broad would undermine the entire purpose of this reform. But, done properly, it provides a practical way to deal with genuinely exceptional situations without abandoning the national objective.

Finally, this bill did not appear overnight. It followed consultation with industry, consumer groups and regional stakeholders, and it sits in a longer story of reviews calling for the universal service framework to be updated and made technology neutral. It is a response to what Australians have been telling us for years—that mobile is the real lifeline now, particularly outside the major cities, and that government has a responsibility to ensure baseline access is delivered fairly.

When I return to the story I began with, I think about the waiting, the uncertainty—that distance between need and help. A simple text could have changed that experience for me completely. Being able to make a call when you need to is not a luxury anymore. It is a baseline expectation in a modern nation. This bill updates our laws to reflect that expectation. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context