Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025
Dr HAINES (Indi) (09:42): 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.