I move amendment (3) on the sheet revised on 7 September 2026, as circulated in my name:

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (after line 6), at the end of section 12F, add:

(5) A legislative instrument made under subsection (4) must be accompanied by a statement setting out:

(a) how the circumstances or matters referred to in that subsection were determined; and

(b) the expected impacts of the instrument on the reasonable availability of the universal outdoor mobile obligation.

The bill establishes a universal outdoor mobile obligation, but it also gives the minister power to determine the circumstances in which the obligation does not apply. If that power is used, my amendment will require the minister to provide a statement explaining the reasons for their decision and the impact it's expected to have. Much of my electorate is dense, hilly terrain, the kind of place it's hard to get a signal and exactly where the UMO could be a game changer, but people in those areas, whether it be in the upper Murray or the deep valleys of the Ovens and King or the Strathbogie Ranges—places that are highly at risk of natural disasters, bushfires, floods and so on—are deeply worried that the bill includes a 'get out of jail free' card that allows the minister to exclude them because the telcos say, 'It's all too hard in those places.'

My amendment is a crucial transparency measure. If the minister decides to limit something that's supposed to be universal, the public deserves to know why and what it will mean for them. Importantly, it also lays the groundwork for future oversight, because, as the explanatory memorandum acknowledges, the circumstances in which coverage should be available will continue to change as technology evolves. I'm very pleased that the government has worked with me on this particular amendment. My understanding is that the government will support this amendment, and I'm very pleased about that.

I thank the member for Indi for this amendment. At the outset, I will state that the government will be supporting her amendment.

This bill will create a power for the minister to determine circumstances in which a provider would not have an obligation under the UOMO by legislative instrument. This approach is consistent with existing universal services arrangements where legislative instruments have been made to determine circumstances in which USO and statutory infrastructure provider obligations do not need to be met—for example, in circumstances where it is unsafe to perform work or where practical impediments make provision unreasonable. The circumstances in which it is reasonable to expect mobile coverage to be available can change as technology and the market develop, and it is therefore important that the regulatory framework can be adjusted in response.

The member's proposed amendment would require that any determination made under this section be accompanied by a statement setting out how the circumstance or matters were determined and the expected impacts on the reasonable availability of services. Given universal mobile services are uncharted territory and given the vital importance of improving connectivity for rural and regional communities, the government believes an additional level of transparency is warranted. Put simply, there must be a high bar for allowing providers to avoid UOMO in specific circumstances, and it is reasonable to require that the government clearly outlines the decision-making process if such determination is to be made. For that reason, we will be supporting the amendment, and I thank the member for Indi for her engagement on this matter.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) and (4) to (7) on the sheet revised on 7 September 2026, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 15), after the definition of designated mobile telecommunications service in subsection 5(2), insert:

equitable basis, in relation to the availability of mobile coverage or a designated mobile telecommunications service, includes:

(a) the affordability of the service for end-users; and

(b) the ability of end-users to obtain and use the service, including the availability of compatible devices and service plans.

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 6), after the definition of primary universal outdoor mobile provider in subsection 5(2), insert:

temporary disaster roaming means temporary access to a mobile telecommunications network other than the network ordinarily used for an end-user's service, provided to the end-user in an affected area during an emergency period to enable voice calls and short message service communications.

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (line 25) to page 9 (line 27), omit subsection 12H(2), substitute:

(2) A designated mobile telecommunications service is available outdoors at a location if the service is available in a manner that enables end-users to access and use the service in practice, including:

(a) the technical capability of the service to be used at a location; and

(b) the affordability of the service for end-users; and

(c) the accessibility of the service, including the availability of compatible devices and service plans necessary to use the service.

(7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 18 (after line 5), after section 12R, insert:

12RA Temporary disaster roaming

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules requiring a primary universal outdoor mobile provider to provide temporary disaster roaming to end-users in an affected area during an emergency period.

(2) Rules under subsection (1) may prescribe any or all of the following:

(a) the definition of affected area and emergency period, including by reference to an instrument made under any other Act;

(b) timeframes for temporary disaster roaming;

(c) minimum service performance requirements for designated mobile telecommunications services supplied by means of temporary disaster roaming;

(d) information-sharing and operational coordination between carriers and carriage service providers reasonably necessary to implement temporary disaster roaming;

(e) wholesale arrangements reasonably necessary to implement temporary disaster roaming, including terms as to price, technical interfaces and dispute resolution;

(f) record-keeping and reporting requirements.

(3) Rules made under subsection (1) may confer a power on the ACMA to make a legislative instrument in relation to technical, operational or performance matters for the purposes of this section.

These amendments address three concerns about whether this bill delivers for regional Australians. The first is the fact that the terms 'reasonably available' and 'equitable access' aren't defined in the legislation. I'm worried that, without a clear definition of these terms, commercial interests will be allowed to override the needs of consumers. This is because we know that direct-to-device technology is only available on the most recent smartphones, such as the iPhone 13 and beyond. Many Australians don't have one of these phones and simply cannot afford to upgrade. This creates a real risk that less-well-off users will see less benefit or indeed no benefit from UOMO compared to those who can afford premium devices and premium plans.

The bill's explanatory memorandum refers to consumers' choice not to buy an appropriate handset or plan. But for people in my community struggling with the cost of food, housing and health care, purchasing a $1,000 phone is not a choice. Shifting responsibility onto consumers in this way is unfair. My concern is shared by ACCAN, which has warned that this open ended language will let telcos circumvent their obligations, and the National Farmers' Federation, which is worried about regional consumers being priced out. In fact, the NFF says:

If the UOMO is to be truly universal, it must be accessible not only in terms of coverage, but also in terms of cost.

My amendments create definitions that capture not just whether a service is technically available but whether it's truly affordable and accessible to people who need it. They also allow the minister to make affordability standards that providers must comply with.

Secondly, my amendments make sure performance benchmarks take into account timelines for fault rectification. The best coverage in the world doesn't mean much when you're waiting for it to come back on after an outage. This is a significant issue for regional Australia. It's a significant issue for the many people I represent where faults take much longer to fix, on average, than in metropolitan areas. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recommended that we do much better in this space, and part of that is ensuring there are clear standards to cover the restoration of reliable service following a fault.

Finally, my amendments give the minister the power to make rules that require temporary disaster roaming during declared emergencies. I've spoken at length many times in this House about the crying need to have this. Temporary disaster roaming is an overdue reform that has been recommended by inquiry after inquiry and is already operational in many other countries around the world. It ensures your phone will connect to any network that's available when you need to make a potentially life-saving call or access emergency warnings or information. I know that work is underway to implement temporary disaster roaming as an industry led initiative, but a hands-off approach isn't good enough for my electorate, where earlier this year bushfires destroyed hundreds of homes and left communities disconnected for prolonged periods, which put them at enormous risk. This truly is too important to leave up to the telcos, so my amendment makes sure that the government can play its role.

The UOMO bill promises better connectivity in Australia, but these amendments would make it stronger, fairer and more effective for the people who rely on it most. I'm disappointed that the government will not support my remaining amendments—unless, perhaps, they've changed their mind—but I'm encouraged by my ongoing engagement with the minister on these issues. I know she takes these things seriously. I wish it would be written into the legislation to give us all the guarantees and comfort that we need, in particular, in rural and regional Australia. I understand that some of the things I've raised will be addressed in forthcoming standards and rules and I look forward to continuing to work with the minister to ensure that UOMO benefits everyone, no matter where they live or what they can afford.

I'll begin by acknowledging the amendments put forward by the member for Indi. I thank her for her good-faith engagement with this legislation, which I know is so important for the people in her electorate. The member for Indi's amendments go to the definition of equitable including the need for affordable mobile services and the regulation of temporary disaster roaming. The government recognises the importance of these issues, but it considers that there are a range of powers in the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 that would achieve similar outcomes and that ultimately the amendments are not necessary.

I turn first to amendments (1), (4) and (5), which deal with equitable access and affordability. The proposed amendments seek to define equitable access as it relates to affordability and access to devices. Whilst these issues are clearly important to whether a service is being provided on an equitable basis, there are other matters that also go to this issue—for example, geographic coverage—to ensure there is no discrimination in the provision of services. The government is concerned that applying a prescriptive definition may limit the government's ability to intervene in the event that industry does not deliver in the public interest and may inadvertently have some unanticipated consequences. For example, it could be read to say it would require all mobile services to be affordable to all people, which may have a significant impact on the commercial provision of mobile services. To ensure that the needs of vulnerable or low-income users can be addressed, the standard powers created by the bill could deliver assistance in a more targeted way if industry does not provide appropriate products and services.

On amendment (6), which relates to standard-making powers, the government agrees that it is important that the minister has the power to set standards for the delivery of UOMO services in the event that industry does not meet community expectations. However, the addition to section 12R that the member has proposed is not required, as section 12Q of the bill allows the minister to determine standards including in relation to performance, reliability and fault rectification timeframes. The proposed amendment to section 12R would not support the setting of standards in this manner, because section 12R deals with performance benchmarks made in relation to standards determined under section 12Q, rather than creating overarching standards.

Turning to temporary disaster roaming, which is dealt with by amendments (2) and (7), I note that mobile operators have made solid progress in recent months with a TDR capability that will commence from October this year ahead of the high-risk weather season. TDR is an industry led initiative. It will provide an additional tool to help keep people online during natural disasters. It is certainly not a silver-bullet solution. If needed, the government has existing powers that could be drawn on if a regulatory option is required, so this change is not required.

For these reasons, the government will not be supporting these amendments from the member for Indi, but I do again thank her for her good-faith engagement on behalf of her people, and I look forward to engaging with her further in relation to these standards, which I do intend to make under this legislation.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.