Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the bill:

(1) does not provide sufficient certainty that universal outdoor mobile connectivity for voice and SMS services will be delivered to all Australians within the requisite timeframe, particularly for those living in regional, rural and remote Australia;

(2) places a vague and uncertain obligation on telecommunications carriers to provide "reasonable access" to outdoor mobile connectivity on an "equitable basis";

(3) legislates the use of technologies such as voice to satellite before it either exists at scale or is commercially available, fuelling uncertainty and raising false hope particularly for Australians living or working in regional Australia;

(4) does not account for the fact that many handset devices in the Australian market will not be compatible with the technology required to access universal outdoor mobile connectivity;

(5) does not include express obligations in relation to universal access to triple zero emergency voice calls and SMS messages which is crucial for the health and safety of all Australians; and

(6) should be referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry, given the degree of uncertainty and cost implications for consumers, so that public submissions which will inform potential amendments to the bill can be properly considered".

The opposition has long supported the objective of improving connectivity for Australians, particularly those who live, work and travel beyond the boundaries of our major cities. It is why we introduced the landmark Black Spot Program, after Labor declined to invest in improved connectivity in the regions.

Communications is not an optional extra in modern Australia. It is core infrastructure—economic infrastructure, social infrastructure and safety infrastructure. For families in metropolitan areas, mobile access is part of daily convenience. For regional, rural and remote Australians, it is something far more fundamental. It is the ability to call for help on a remote highway. It is the difference between a safe trip home and being stranded without assistance.

Australia is not a small, compact nation; it is a continent. People travel enormous distances for work, for family, for freight and for tourism. Truck drivers traverse thousands of kilometres across the Nullarbor and through the outback. Farmers operate across properties that stretch further than some European countries. Grey nomads, young families and seasonal workers move through regions where coverage remains patchy or non-existent. In those environments, communication is about safety and about dignity.

Regional Australians have long felt the frustration of black spots that linger year after year. They know what it is like to climb onto the roof of a ute to get just one bar of signal. They know what it means to lose service just when it matters most. The coalition has always understood that reality. We have consistently invested in mobile black spot programs, regional connectivity measures and infrastructure that improves resilience. We believe Australians should not be disadvantaged because of their postcode. Connectivity equity is a core principle. In concept, extending a framework to outdoor mobile coverage for voice and text is a very worthy and necessary goal, but measures to give effect to this goal must work. They must genuinely expand coverage, and they must do this in a practical, reliable and affordable way. But significant questions still need to be answered.

The bill would require major carriers to ensure that mobile coverage is reasonably available outdoors to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, but the legislation contains no clear definition of what 'reasonably available' or 'equitable basis' actually mean. Without clarity, compliance becomes uncertain and enforcement becomes difficult. There are no penalties specified for breaches of delivery. There is no clear pathway for the regulator to challenge whether telcos are delivering what is required of them. The timetable for delivery by the end of 2027 also appears ambitious, given that large-scale direct-to-device satellite services are not yet fully deployed in Australia. Legislating technology before it exists at scale risks embedding unrealistic expectations and unintended consequences.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns that the onus for delivery sits with the telecommunications operators, not with the satellite infrastructure providers on whom they will depend. Under this model, low-Earth-orbit providers such as SpaceX or Amazon would not be subject to the same obligations or pricing controls as domestic carriers. This raises questions about consumer cost and market competitiveness not addressed in this bill. There is also the question of spectrum. To operate effectively, dedicated spectrum will be required. It remains unclear what arrangements are in place to dedicate this spectrum and who will wear the costs.

That brings us to one of the most critical issues: devices—your mobile phone handset. Devices must be designed and manufactured to comply with those operating requirements, particularly to ensure that Australians can contact emergency services. Most devices currently in the market are not configured to utilise direct-to-device satellite technology. Only newer handsets have this capability. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, hold on to older devices for longer periods of time. Many people hang on to their old device as a back-up in case the new one breaks, or they pass it on to their kids or their parents. This presents a real and clear danger if we have devices that aren't compatible with the technology.

We saw the result of this very thing with the closure of the 3G network. Too many people across Australia had their devices rendered completely useless and had to buy new handsets that they could not afford. People couldn't contact emergency services when they needed help. This unintended consequence of government changes must not be allowed to happen again. Putting lives in danger and placing an unfair cost burden on people to replace their handsets in a cost-of-living crisis cannot happen again. An obligation that works only for the latest premium handsets is not an equitable obligation. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. Genuine reform must take account of the rapid evolution of technology while safeguarding those on older devices. It must be cost-effective for customers and for taxpayers. It must strengthen, not weaken, competition. And it must be subject to proper parliamentary inquiry so that these questions are answered before unrealistic expectations are set.

It is impossible to discuss communications policy without addressing the Albanese government's record. Australians have been repeatedly let-down on communications under this government. The botched 3G shutdown is a case study in poor oversight and poor planning. The transition away from 3G networks was always going to be complex. It required coordination between carriers, manufacturers, regulators and emergency services. It required rigorous testing of device capability and clear communication to consumers. Instead, what we saw was confusion, late identification of incompatible devices and Australians forced to replace handsets at significant cost. Hundreds of device models were found to be incompatible. Many consumers only discovered the problem when their device stopped working.

As the coalition has repeatedly highlighted, warnings were raised and not adequately acted upon. Consumers were left scrambling, businesses were interrupted, vulnerable Australians were exposed. Most concerning of all are the continuing implications for emergency calls. Late last year, around 70 additional devices were detected as incompatible with the network following the 3G shutdown. Tragically, two Australians passed away after their devices could not connect to triple zero. Since then, further devices have been detected as incompatible. This is not a minor administration error; it is systemic failure. It underscores the central point: communications policy is not abstract; it is real world stuff and it has real-life consequences.

The problems have not stopped there. Australians have endured significant triple zero outages in recent years. The Senate inquiry into those outages reveal troubling evidence about government shortcomings. Recent revelations about device compatibility and emergency access only compound those concerns. When Australians dial triple zero, they expect it to work. There is no margin for error. There is no tolerance for 'almost'. Yet we have seen a pattern of reactive management by this government, rather than proactive oversight.

The government's response to communications challenges has too often been announcement driven rather than delivery driven. Grand promises are made, expectations are raised, the detail is left unresolved. That is why this bill needs to be examined in detail. The government sales pitch for the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation has suggested that Australians will be able to make a call or send a text from anywhere that they can see the sky, but that is not the whole story. Satellite directed device services are constrained by coverage footprints, capacity, handset compatibility and commercial agreements. This bill must ensure that improved access to communications is delivered in a way that ensures it is cost-effective and competitive.

The coalition believes in expanding connectivity. We believe in embracing new technology. We believe in satellite services and that they can play a big role in bringing change and bridging the digital divide. But we also believe in doing the hard work of getting the framework right. This bill deserves proper inquiry, proper interrogation and detailed scrutiny of definitions, enforcement mechanisms, pricing structures, spectrum allocation and device compatibility. Regional Australia deserves better than slogans. Australians deserve a government that manages transitions competently and transparently.

Communications policy is about trust, it is about safety, it is about equity. Australians should never have to wonder whether their call will go through, and, as I said, over the last few months and throughout the past year, tragically, Australians did die when they weren't able to make those triple zero calls when they needed them the most. We must have high standards when it comes to communications policy, and we must have standards that the government actually meets. That is the standard against which this bill and this government's record will ultimately be judged.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.