Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Campbell supported the bill, arguing it ensured every Australian had access to baseline mobile connectivity regardless of location. Campbell explained that the legislation would require carriers to use direct-to-device satellite technology to provide coverage where terrestrial towers were not viable. Campbell highlighted the safety benefits for remote communities, emergency responders, and travellers, noting that the bill addressed the digital divide and improved public safety outcomes.

Wilson discussed the importance of telecommunications infrastructure for modern society and citizen empowerment. Wilson raised local issues in his electorate regarding poor mobile reception due to high-density housing developments. Wilson criticised the government's housing policies and argued that telecommunications planning must account for urban density and building structures, not just rural coverage gaps.

French supported the bill, describing it as a necessary update to the universal service framework to reflect modern communication habits. French argued that mobile voice and SMS are essential infrastructure, particularly in remote areas where terrestrial coverage is limited. French emphasised that the obligation was scoped to be technically feasible and legally enforceable, providing a safety net for emergencies and improving connectivity for workers and tourists in regional Australia.

Scamps supported the bill, citing specific connectivity issues in her electorate, including Coasters Retreat, Mackerel Beach, and Narrabeen. Scamps detailed resident experiences with unreliable internet and mobile services, highlighting safety risks during emergencies and difficulties for remote workers. Scamps argued the bill provided a framework to hold providers accountable and improve coverage in areas previously deemed low priority.

Templeman supported the legislation, noting that traditional landline obligations were insufficient for modern emergencies. Templeman explained that the bill would expand coverage to rugged areas where towers are not feasible, using low-Earth-orbit satellite technology. Templeman highlighted the benefits for farmers and adventurers in her electorate, arguing the bill brought telecommunications law into the 21st century and improved safety in crisis situations.

McCormack acknowledged the importance of mobile coverage for safety and agriculture but criticised the government's delay in introducing the bill and its past allocation of Mobile Black Spot Program grants. McCormack argued that previous government programs favoured Labor electorates over those with greater need. McCormack called for the government to deliver on its promises and ensure fair, needs-based infrastructure development for regional Australia.

lead

Smith argued that mobile coverage is a critical safety and economic necessity for remote communities, where lack of reception can be life-threatening. Smith highlighted personal experiences of being stranded without signal and emphasized that the bill would level the playing field for regional Australians. Smith stated that the obligation would enable telehealth, education, and business opportunities, asserting that connectivity is effectively a human right. Smith commended the bill for addressing long-standing neglect of regional infrastructure.

shadow minister

Kennedy argued that while reliable mobile coverage is foundational infrastructure, the bill must address regulatory bottlenecks and red tape that deter investment. Kennedy cited poor connectivity on the Cronulla-to-city rail line as evidence of systemic failure and warned that vague definitions could hinder enforcement. Kennedy emphasized the need for deregulation to improve productivity and affordability, noting that consumers are already facing cost-of-living pressures. Kennedy supported the intent of closing blackspots but stressed that implementation must be technically realistic and economically responsible.

Phillips supported the bill, highlighting its importance for safety during natural disasters such as the Black Summer bushfires. Phillips noted that direct-to-device satellite technology allows connectivity where terrestrial infrastructure is insufficient or damaged. Phillips detailed government investments in network resilience and new base stations in her electorate, arguing that the bill complements these efforts. Phillips emphasized that the legislation ensures equitable access to emergency services for all Australians.

Birrell stated that reliable mobile coverage is essential infrastructure but expressed concern that the bill was delayed and lacked clear, enforceable standards. Birrell warned that costs could be passed to consumers and that device compatibility issues, similar to the 3G shutdown, must be avoided. Birrell criticized the allocation of previous mobile blackspot funding, alleging it favored Labor-held electorates over those with greater need. Birrell supported the concept of technology agnosticism but urged rigorous oversight to ensure delivery.

Repacholi strongly supported the bill, describing it as overdue and practical for improving safety and livelihoods in regional areas. Repacholi explained that the obligation requires carriers to provide baseline voice and SMS coverage using a combination of terrestrial and satellite technologies. Repacholi shared anecdotes from constituents who face dangerous situations due to lack of reception, emphasizing that safety should not depend on postcode. Repacholi argued the bill creates accountability and ensures equitable access to connectivity.

O'Brien supported the intent of the bill but raised concerns about vague definitions and the readiness of satellite technology to meet expectations. O'Brien noted that Wide Bay had received no new mobile towers under the current government, despite previous achievements under the coalition. O'Brien warned that affordability could be an issue, potentially pricing out low-income families, and highlighted the risk of early 4G shutdowns due to spectrum constraints. O'Brien urged the government to ensure fair delivery of services across all electorates.

Moncrieff argued that the bill addresses market failure by ensuring mobile coverage in areas where commercial incentives are insufficient, such as national parks and winding roads. Moncrieff emphasized that the legislation is technology-neutral and leverages emerging direct-to-device satellite capabilities to provide baseline connectivity. Moncrieff highlighted that the bill includes powers to enforce standards and protect consumers if industry fails to deliver. Moncrieff stated that the obligation ensures triple zero access is available wherever voice service is provided.

Joyce argued that mobile reception is a core workplace safety concern in regional Australia, noting the decline in coverage with each technological shift from CDMA to 5G. Joyce criticized the reliance on foreign satellite services and urged the government to enforce existing obligations and network reliability frameworks. Joyce suggested that new mobile towers are the most effective solution and alleged that recent tower placements favored Labor electorates. Joyce called for the government to honor past commitments and ensure regional communities are not left behind.

shadow minister

Chaffey opposed the bill, arguing that the government had lost the trust of regional Australians due to poor performance, such as the 3G shutdown. Chaffey expressed concern that the direct-to-device technology required for the obligation was not yet fully developed or available within the proposed timeline. Chaffey also noted that the current technology did not support triple zero calls via satellite, rendering the safety benefits questionable. Chaffey argued that the bill relied on unproven technology and vague ministerial powers rather than practical, reliable solutions.

Comer argued that mobile coverage is essential infrastructure for safety, social inclusion, and accessing government services. Comer explained that the bill establishes a framework requiring Telstra, Optus, and TPG to provide baseline outdoor voice and SMS services by 1 December 2027, using terrestrial networks and direct-to-device satellite technology. Comer highlighted that this reform modernises the universal services regime to reflect contemporary communication needs and supports public safety outcomes.

Roberts supported the bill, stating it addresses connectivity gaps in fast-growing outer-metro suburbs and regional areas. Roberts argued that reliable mobile coverage is critical for small businesses, emergency response, and daily life, rather than being a mere convenience. Roberts emphasised that the legislation holds telecommunications providers accountable through new performance standards and oversight by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Steggall supported the bill, citing the need to close safety gaps exposed by the Optus network outage in September 2025. Steggall argued that the legislation must be implemented with clear benchmarks and accountability to ensure universal access is practical, not just theoretical. Steggall indicated support for amendments proposed by the member for Indi to clarify concepts like equitable access and disaster roaming.

Cook strongly supported the bill, describing mobile connectivity as a basic utility essential for safety and economic productivity in Western Australia. Cook argued that the universal outdoor mobile obligation expands coverage to areas where terrestrial towers are not feasible, leveraging low-Earth-orbit satellite technology. Cook stated that the legislation modernises the outdated universal services framework to protect consumers and ensure equitable access across the nation.

Haines supported the bill as a generational change for regional connectivity but raised concerns about affordability and the definition of reasonable availability. Haines moved amendments to explicitly include affordability in the legislation, introduce temporary disaster roaming powers, require statements of reasons for coverage exclusions, and mandate fault rectification timeframes. Haines argued that without these changes, vulnerable Australians might be excluded from the benefits of the universal obligation due to device costs or plan prices.