Ash Ambihaipahar (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I risk to speak on the Telecommunication Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025. This bill is about ensuring that, no matter where you are in this country, you will be able to call for help. If you're broken down on the side of the highway, if you're injured on a farm or if you're just lost in the bush, this bill ensures that, if you can see the sky, you will have coverage.

The concept of a universal obligation is not new. It originally came in 1991 and applied to the provision of voice services and serviceable payphones to everyone in Australia, regardless of where they lived. Now only 15 per cent of Australian adults use their landlines, whilst 98 per cent of us use our mobile phones. This reliance is even more pronounced in regional Australia. I can't say I know the stats for payphones, but it's safe to say it's pretty slim. It is for this reason that consecutive reviews have called the existing USO outdated, irrelevant and also costly. There are clearly few fans of the USO as it stands. Accordingly, this new UOMO focuses on dragging our telecommunications into the modern world.

The bill defines the UOMO as 'the obligation to ensure that mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis'. This includes 'the obligation to supply each kind of designated mobile telecommunications service such that the service is reasonably available outdoors throughout Australia'. Said designated mobile telecommunication services are focused on voice calls and SMS. However, the minister is granted the power to update these DMTs following the next advancement in mobile services when they so choose. This means that, when SMS becomes the next landline, we can update our legislation efficiently. In the same way, this bill on a whole has a flexible framework which can be adjusted by a disallowable legislative ministerial instrument as the market develops and satellite technology evolves.

Importantly, this bill does not simply express a hope that coverage will improve. It creates a legal obligation. It gives government a clearer role in setting expectations for mobile network operators, and it gives the parliament a framework to make sure those expectations keep pace with technology. That matters because, for too long, mobile coverage has been treated as a commercial question alone. If a provider believed a place was profitable enough to service, it was serviced. If it was difficult, expensive or inconvenient, communities could be left waiting. This bill changes that starting point. It recognises that outdoor mobile coverage is not just another consumer product; it is part of the national safety net. This bill is a commitment to making sure that such a safety net is fit for purpose so that, when the worst happens, you can always reach out for help.

I also want to make this point clearly. A universal obligation cannot just be understood as a regional policy issue. Of course, regional and remote communities face some of the most serious and dangerous coverage gaps in the country, and this bill is a major step forward for them, but the principle behind the bill is much broader than that. The principle is that Australians should not be left disconnected simply because the market has not delivered reliable coverage where people live, work, commute and gather. That principle applies on a remote road. It applies on a farm. It applies in a national park. Just as we are saying that we are a mobile-first country, we must also accept that the principle applies when individuals are just trying to use their phones for the basics of everyday life in urban Sydney as well.

This problem of mobile coverage cuts right to the heart of our densely populated and urban communities, like the suburb of Carlton in my electorate of Barton. Carlton is a growing suburb that is home to a culturally diverse community of young families, students, small businesses and essential workers. Many would assume that, being less than 15 kilometres outside of Sydney CBD, Carlton is well within a fully serviced and urban telecommunications environment. Yet, for many of my constituents, mobile coverage is poor and, to their frustration, has remained so for many years.

Let me begin with one of the most notorious and persistently experienced issues: lack of connectivity at the Carlton railway station. During peak commuting hours, hundreds of residents pass through Carlton Station, commuting to and from work and attempting to access mobile data at the same time. The result is predictable: networks become overwhelmed and speeds drop dramatically, and that's if you're lucky. In most cases, service becomes entirely unusable. Constituents tell me that when they're near the station they cannot send any text messages, check emails, make calls or access transport apps for service updates. In a modern city, in a major transport hub, this is simply unacceptable.

This problem is compounded by the nature of housing in Carlton. The suburb is increasingly characterised by high-rise and high-density residential developments. While these developments are very much essential to meeting Sydney's housing needs, they also present unique challenges for telecommunications infrastructure. Residents report that their fixed line internet services through the NBN are unreliable and slow, in particular, during peak usage times. In these circumstances, mobile data is not a luxury; it is a necessary backup. Without it, residents are left with no reliable means of connectivity at all. The consequences of poor mobile coverage are not mere inconvenience; they are punitive. I've heard from constituents who have been threatened with fines because they were unable to produce a digital driver's licence or valid transport ticket when requested by authorities. In an age where government services are increasingly digitalised, we must ensure that the infrastructure underpinning those services is reliable. It is fundamentally unfair to expect compliance with digital requirements when the means to access them cannot be guaranteed.

Carlton is also one of the most multicultural suburbs in our nation. For many residents, English is not their first language. These constituents rely heavily on translation apps to navigate daily life, whether it's communicating through service providers, interpreting governmental services and health information or interacting with authorities. When mobile coverage fails so too does the community's ability to access these essential tools. A digital divide is not just a technology issue; it is a matter of inclusion, equity and social cohesion. The impact extends further still into the local economy. Carlton's small businesses depend on reliable mobile connectivity for their day-to-day operations. From processing digital payments to managing online orders and communicating with customers, mobile service is integral to the modern commerce in Carlton. When coverage is poor, transactions fail, productivity drops and customer confidence is eroded. For small businesses already operating on tight margins, these disruptions can have serious financial consequences.

One of the frustrations I hear from these constituents is that coverage maps do not always reflect the lived experience. A map may show that an area is technically covered, but that does not mean a person can reliably use their phone when they need to. There is a difference between theoretical coverage and usable coverage. If your phone shows one bar but the call drops, that is not meaningful coverage. If a text message will not send, that is not meaningful coverage. If a person has to walk around a street corner and hold their phone up in the air or wait until they leave the station precinct before they can connect, that is not the standard Australians should expect. This is why the language of the bill is important. It focuses on coverage being 'reasonably available'. That phrase matters, because availability cannot just mean something that exists on paper. It has to mean something that works in practice.

I acknowledge that some of the issues in Carlton I've raised go beyond the narrowest reading of this bill. This bill is principally about baseline outdoor mobile coverage, with a particular focus on voice calls and SMS. It is not by itself a complete answer to the congestion, indoor reception, mobile data reliability or every local black spot. But that is exactly why it's worth raising Carlton in this debate. Carlton shows how quickly the line between basic coverage and modern connectivity is blurred. A phone call, a text message, a digital licence, a transport update, a translation app and a payment system are all part of the same basic expectation that when people are out in their community their phone will work. This bill starts with the most fundamental part of that expectation. It says that outdoor mobile coverage should be reasonably available across Australia on an equitable basis.

That is the right foundation, but as the technology develops and as the minister considers future designated mobile telecommunications services the lived experience of communities like Carlton must be part of that conversation. We should not build a framework that only asks whether a signal technically exists. We should build one that asks whether people can actually rely on the signal when they need it. This bill, with its evolving framework and its commitment to recognising new technology as it comes into the system, provides a strong, stable foundation for better mobile coverage across Australia. It means that we will not be locked into legislation that considered the landline to be the be-all and end-all as we were before. I hope that this bill sends a clear message to providers: coverage should span the whole of Australia, it should allow you to make calls in an emergency and it should not fail when you're simply using your phone to complete the small but essential necessities of everyday life.

This bill is an important step in modernising Australia's telecommunications framework. It recognises that mobile coverage is no longer a convenience. It's a basic part of how people stay safe, access services, participate in the economy and go about their daily lives. The Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation sets a clear expectation that, wherever reasonably possible, Australians should have access to baseline outdoor mobile coverage. That matters in the regions, it matters on our highways, on farms and in our remote communities, and it matters in suburbs like Carlton, where people are still dealing with the frustration and unfairness of unreliable mobile service in the middle of a major city. The example of Carlton shows why this work is so important. It reminds us that the coverage gaps are not always where people expect them to be. They can exist in dense, growing, multicultural communities close to the CBD where thousands of people rely on their phones every day to commute, work, study and run a business, translate information, access government services or even keep in touch with their family.

This bill will not fix every telecommunications problem overnight. It will not, by itself, solve every issue with congestion, mobile data, indoor reception and every local black spot, but it does set the right foundation. It treats outdoor mobile coverage as essential infrastructure and gives us a flexible framework that can respond as direct-to-device technology develops and as community expectations change. That is the practical value of this reform. It moves us away from an outdated model built around landlines and towards a framework that reflects how Australians actually live.

A mobile phone is now how many Australians call for help, receive emergency information, access transport updates, produce a digital licence, make payments, contact family and interact with essential services. The law needs to recognise that reality. For communities across the country and for the constituents in Carlton and in my whole electorate, this bill sends a clear message: reliable mobile coverage matters and the standard we accept must keep rising. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context