Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025

Mr FRENCH (Moore) (15:59): Another wild ride in the chamber! I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025. On its face, this appears to be a technical reform, a structural amendment to telecommunications legislation.

But when you strip away the statutory language and regulatory framing, the underlying proposition is remarkably simple: in modern Australia, if you're standing outdoors, under an open sky, you should reasonably expect to be able to make a phone call or send a text message, not stream a film, not upload gigabytes of data, not conduct high-definition conferencing—just call or send a message.

For the first time, mobile voice and SMS services will be brought within Australia's universal services framework. That is not symbolic; it is structural and it reflects something fundamental. The way Australians communicate has changed dramatically.

But, until now, the legal framework governing universal access has not fully caught up. In this building, we often refer to a statistic that approximately 99 per cent of Australians live and work in areas that have terrestrial mobile coverage. That is correct, but that statistic only tells part of the story.

Geographically, traditional terrestrial coverage extends across roughly one-third of Australia's landmass. Two-thirds of the continent sits beyond conventional tower infrastructure. That means there are millions of square kilometres where, if you are standing outside with a standard handset, you cannot make a call.

In many of those areas, you cannot contact emergency services. In a small, densely populated European nation, that gap might be marginal. In Australia, it is consequential.

We are a continent. We have freight corridors stretching for hundreds of kilometres. We have pastoral leases larger than some countries.

We have remote Indigenous communities. We've mining operations operating continuously far from urban centres. We've tourists travelling vast distances through remote landscapes.

Connectivity gaps in that context are not abstract regulatory issues; they are lived experiences. Before I entered this place, I worked as an electrician across Western Australia, including on remote mine sites. Those sites were disciplined, safety-conscious workplaces, with risk assessments, toolbox meetings, radios and procedures.

But mobile coverage was often limited or entirely absent. On more than one mine site, the only reliable form of external connection was a payphone bolted to the wall of an accommodation block—a payphone! That was not nostalgia; that was necessity.

If you walked out into the operational area beyond the camp, your phone would frequently show no service. If you were driving between regional towns, you knew precise sections of the road where reception would disappear—everyone knew. You planned around it.

You told family, 'I'll call back once I'm in range.' You accepted it, but acceptance doesn't mean adequacy. It simply reflected the technological and commercial limits of terrestrial infrastructure at the time. It's true.

I have the same problem when I talk to my mum in regional South Australia—the phone drops out all the time. Mr McCormack: She loves hearing from you, too! Mr FRENCH: She does.

But technology has moved forward and the law must move with it. Australia's universal service obligation was constructed around fixed line voice services and payphones. It was built in an era where copper line was the primary means of communication.

That architecture made sense in 1999. In 2026, the communications landscape is fundamentally different. For many Australians, particularly younger Australians, a mobile handset is their only telephone.

Payphones are no longer the backbone of connectivity—mobile networks are. Yet, mobile voice and SMS have not historically been included within the universal service framework. This bill addresses that omission.

It establishes the universal outdoor mobile obligation, requiring that baseline mobile voice and SMS services be reasonably available outdoors across Australia on an equitable basis. That is a profound recalibration of universal service policy. It recognises that mobile connectivity is not an optional enhancement to modern life.

It is essential infrastructure. The obligation is deliberately scoped. Upon commencement, it applies to voice calls and SMS text messages.

The limitation is not timidity; it is prioritisation. This legislation does not attempt to mandate universal high-speed broadband via satellite across every desert track. It focuses on what matters in remote and regional contexts.

When something goes wrong, when a vehicle breaks down, when someone is injured, when severe weather rolls in, the first thing you need to be able to do is call someone or send a message. Voice and SMS are the foundations of emergency response and personal reassurance. By embedding those services within the universal service regime, the parliament is recognising their essential nature.

The obligation applies outdoors. It does not require indoor reception inside every building. It does not extend underground.

It does not extend underwater. This reflects physical realities. Direct-to-device satellite services require line of sight to the sky.

Designing the obligation around outdoor availability ensures that it is technically feasible, legally enforceable and operationally meaningful. In many remote communities, the key safety question is precisely this: if you are standing outside under open sky, can you connect? This bill answers that question affirmatively, where it is reasonably achievable.

For decades, extending terrestrial towers across sparsely populated regions was commercially unviable. The economics did not support it. Low-Earth-orbit satellite constellations are changing that equation.

Direct-to-device connectivity allows standard mobile handsets to connect directly to satellites—no fixed disk, no specialised equipment, no bespoke installation. SMS capability is already emerging commercially. Voice capability is expected to follow.

The government has chosen not to wait for the technology to fully mature before establishing the legislative framework. Instead, this bill sets the expectation now. It ensures that, as the technology scales up, its deployment aligns with universal access principles rather than purely commercial incentives.

That is proactive governance. Under this framework, Telstra, Optus and TPG will be designated as default providers from 1 December 2027. That date provides certainty to industry and clarity to consumers.

It signals seriousness. At the same time, the legislation includes flexibility. If wholesale market readiness or technological constraints require adjustment, the minister may refine its commencement or structure through legislative instrument.

This is not rigidity. It is disciplined flexibility. The parliament sets the objective; the regulatory framework allows responsive implementation.

The obligation is framed in terms of reasonable availability, and that phrase is critical. Telecommunications networks are complex systems. Weather events occur.

Maintenance is required. Spectrum interference happens. Devices vary in capability.

The law does not require perfection. It requires that, where it is reasonably achievable to provide outdoor voice and SMS coverage, it must be provided. This is not a vague aspiration.

It is a legal standard capable of interpretation, enforcement and oversight. It recognises constraints without excusing inertia. Under this obligation, where voice services are supplied outdoors, emergency call requirements follow.

As coverage expands, so does access to triple zero. In remote Western Australia I've seen how rapidly circumstances can change. Storm systems move quickly, vehicles fail unexpectedly and the distance between service centres is vast.

Redundancy is critical. Layering baseline satellite-enabled connectivity into these environments strengthens resilience. It does not remove risk, but it reduces isolation, and, in remote contexts, reducing isolation can be the difference between delay and response.

This is not a voluntary undertaking. The bill enables standards, rules and benchmarks relating to reliability, performance and consumer protection. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will oversee compliance and enforce the obligation.

Without enforcement architecture, universal service obligations risk becoming aspirational. With enforcement architecture, they become operational. Connectivity is not only about emergencies; it underpins productivity.

Agricultural operations rely on coordination and logistics. Freight movements depend on communication along long corridors. Tourism in remote regions depends on traveller confidence.

Resource operations rely on layered communications and systems. Reliable baseline connectivity contributes to economic stability in regions that drive national export performance. This bill strengthens the communication foundation of those sectors.

Beyond economics, connectivity sustains relationships. When you are working for weeks at a time in a remote location, the ability to send a message home matters. I remember queuing for payphones onsite—brief windows, limited privacy, timed calls.

That was the practical reality. Technology now allows us to provide a more dignified baseline. This reform acknowledges that human connection should not be constrained by legacy infrastructure where modern alternatives exist.

It does not erase geography. It does not eliminate technical constraints. It does not mandate universal broadband speeds everywhere.

It does not nationalise networks. It sets a floor. If the technology exists to provide outdoor voice and SMS coverage, and it is reasonably achievable to deploy it, then the law should require it to be deployed.

That is not extravagant; it is prudent. Australia's scale demands policy responses suited to continental geography. Bringing mobile voice and SMS into the universal service regime is not regulatory expansion for its own sake; it is alignment with reality.

It lifts the baseline expectation of connectivity. It ensures that universal service in the 21st century reflects how Australians actually communicate. When I reflect on working in remote environments, one principle stands out: you focus on what works, you build redundancy, you reduce unnecessary risk where you can.

This bill reflects that mindset. It does not promise perfection. It does not overreach.

It sets a realistic, enforceable baseline. If you're standing outdoors in open sky in Australia and it's technically feasible to connect you, then that connection should be reasonably available. For a country of our size, our ambition and our economic footprint, that is not excessive.

It is sensible and it is overdue. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.