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

Holzberger supported the bill as a practical step towards solving mobile coverage gaps, noting that two-thirds of Australia's landmass currently lacks coverage. Holzberger shared personal anecdotes from his time working in rural areas to illustrate the life-and-death importance of reliable communications during emergencies. Holzberger argued that the legislation sets clear guidelines for industry and demonstrates a pragmatic approach to improving connectivity for all Australians, regardless of location.

Chesters argued that the bill establishes a baseline universal obligation for mobile coverage, replacing previous clunky grant-based systems that failed to deliver broad-span coverage. Chesters highlighted the frustration of regional communities with poor reception and emphasised the importance of connectivity for emergency services and safety during natural disasters. Chesters stated that the legislation ensures all Australians can access basic voice and text services if they can see the sky, marking a significant improvement for regional connectivity.

Wallace criticised the bill for making big promises while relying on technology that is not yet commercially available in Australia. Wallace argued that the vague language of 'reasonably available' and 'equitable basis' provided no meaningful reassurance to consumers, particularly regarding emergency communications. Wallace highlighted the risks of handset incompatibility, citing the 3G shutdown issues, and called for the bill to be referred to a Senate committee for proper scrutiny of technical feasibility and consumer protections.

Teesdale shared a personal story of being stranded in remote Australia without communication to illustrate the critical need for reliable mobile services. Teesdale explained that the bill modernises the universal services framework to include mobile voice and SMS, designating Telstra, Optus, and TPG as primary providers. Teesdale argued that the legislation provides flexibility to adapt to evolving technology and ensures baseline connectivity for safety and economic participation, particularly in regional and remote areas.

Willcox supported the goal of extending voice and text coverage but argued the bill lacked detail and realism regarding implementation. Willcox raised concerns about the reliance on developing satellite technology and the potential for increased costs and device incompatibility issues. Willcox emphasised the need for clear, enforceable standards and warned against repeating the mistakes of the 3G shutdown, calling for a framework that delivers genuine reliability rather than just headlines.

Urquhart highlighted the poor connectivity in remote parts of her electorate, such as the west coast of Tasmania, and argued that the bill addresses these long-standing issues. Urquhart noted that the legislation leverages new low Earth orbit satellite technology to provide coverage in areas where traditional towers are not feasible. Urquhart stated that the bill expands connectivity options for emergencies and natural disasters, ensuring that all Australians have access to essential mobile services.

Venning argued that the bill promised much but delivered little, citing a stark contrast between the single tower announced under the current government and the 56 built during the previous nine years of coalition rule. Venning contended that the legislation lacked clarity on enforceable standards and ignored the reality that direct-to-device satellite technology is still in its early stages and dependent on international providers. Venning highlighted the dangers of device incompatibility, referencing deaths linked to the 3G shutdown and Optus outages, and warned that the bill could inadvertently hand market control to global giants while leaving regional consumers with unaffordable or non-functional services.

Clutterham described the bill as a significant reform that modernises the universal service obligation to include mobile services, which are now essential for public health and safety. Clutterham explained that the legislation designates Telstra, Optus, and TPG Telecom as primary providers from 1 December 2027, requiring them to ensure fair access to basic outdoor mobile signals on an equitable basis. Clutterham noted that the bill grants the minister powers to set standards and benchmarks, and emphasised that emerging low-Earth-orbit satellite technology would help bridge coverage gaps in remote areas.

Penfold stated that while the bill attempts to update the universal service obligation, it falls short by excluding vehicle use and lacking clear consumer protections for affordability. Penfold argued that the term 'reasonably accessible' is too vague and risks creating a 'sometimes outdoor mobile obligation' that is difficult to enforce. Penfold highlighted constituent concerns about the reliability of existing landline services and the potential for telcos to pass high infrastructure costs onto rural consumers, urging referral to a Senate committee for further scrutiny.

Sharkie welcomed the framework but cautioned that it lacked the teeth to guarantee universal connectivity, particularly in high-risk bushfire areas with existing black spots. Sharkie supported amendments moved on behalf of the member for Indi to explicitly include affordability and availability in the definition of equitable access and to empower the minister to mandate temporary disaster roaming. Sharkie cited the 2024 Regional Telecommunications Review, which found that regional consumers face unreliable services and long repair times, arguing that the bill must address these systemic issues rather than just setting aspirational goals.

Young argued that the bill failed to address the immediate need for tower investment in peri-urban areas where population density has increased but infrastructure has not kept pace. Young criticised the removal of the Mobile Black Spot Program and advocated for integrating telecommunications planning into development applications to ensure new housing estates have adequate coverage. Young warned that the bill's vague language could allow telcos to avoid building infrastructure by relying on future satellite technology, which he noted would only work with newer handsets, potentially disadvantaging elderly and low-income residents.