Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

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

House of Representatives · Thursday 28 May 2026

Continued from Wednesday 11 March 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on establishing a universal outdoor mobile obligation to ensure baseline mobile coverage, particularly for emergency services, across Australia. The government argued the bill modernises an outdated framework by incorporating mobile services and leveraging new satellite technology. Opposition members supported the principle but criticised the bill for failing to extend regulatory obligations to existing mobile infrastructure and called for greater scrutiny. Speakers highlighted coverage gaps in both rural areas and urban centres, emphasising the safety risks of unreliable connectivity.

Outcome

The transcript does not state the final result of the vote.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Jordan-Baird argued that the bill establishes a necessary legislative framework to treat mobile services as essential infrastructure, addressing the gap where traditional coverage excludes vast areas of the Australian landmass. Jordan-Baird highlighted that the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation will require major network operators to provide reasonable outdoor baseline coverage, initially focusing on voice and SMS services, with a default implementation date of 1 December 2027. The member emphasised that the framework is technology-neutral and flexible, allowing for adjustments as direct-to-device satellite technology evolves. Jordan-Baird noted that the Australian Communications and Media Authority will enforce these obligations, ensuring accountability for providers. Jordan-Baird also referenced the government's broader connectivity investments, including the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia and specific support for First Nations digital inclusion.

Opposition response

Littleproud supported the bill in principle but argued it missed a critical opportunity to extend the universal service obligation to existing mobile infrastructure funded by taxpayers. Littleproud contended that current regulations fail to compel telcos to maintain mobile towers, leading to service failures in regional areas, and cited examples of poor landline repair times under the existing averaging provisions. Littleproud called for the reallocation of the $270 million annual universal service obligation funding to ensure maintenance of existing towers rather than just supporting new technology. Littleproud also advocated for mandated roaming options to allow consumers to use any available tower for a fee, arguing this would improve coverage reliability without additional government expenditure.