Introduction
Thank you to Grahame and the team for the invitation to speak again at the 2026 CommsDay Summit.
I begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet today.
I pay my respects to Elders past and present and extend that respect to any First Nation colleagues joining us today.
The summit is always one of the pre-eminent dates in the telco calendar.
But this year feels especially so, considering the confluence of events and issues up for discussion.
This afternoon, I would like to:
- Talk about the role of regulation in rebuilding trust and confidence in the telco sector;
- Provide some observations about the operating environment; and
- Update you on some of the ACMA’s priority activities over the coming months.
In the context of the 2026–27 Federal Budget, the Treasurer, the Hon Jim Chalmers MP, commented that the world is currently throwing a lot at Australia.
I think it is fair to say that the last 12 months or so have also thrown a lot at the telco industry and just as much, if not more, at its customers.
The past year has seen events that have significantly tested public confidence in the industry.
Conversely, it has also reiterated the importance of telecommunications services to Australia’s economy and its society.
Those 2 concepts are intimately related. The more important telco services are to people in their lives, the more they expect from them.
Many people have been drawing that conclusion for years and yet the telco industry has not taken it on board and stepped up voluntarily. So regulators and government have been compelled to.
It would be too narrow to see the sector’s reputational challenge as something that has emerged only recently.
As Luke Coleman has correctly observed, the issues affecting telco reputation have developed over a longer period.
I am not going to run through a laundry list of those issues and various events today. That would not be especially useful.
The question for the sector is not simply how to explain what has happened. It is how to rebuild confidence through what happens next.
Yesterday’s session on “Restoring Telco Reputation” is timely, but it is a matter larger than any single event or conference theme.
Restoring telco reputation requires a concerted effort by all parts of the system.
For industry, it requires a clearer focus on consumer outcomes, stronger internal cultures of compliance, and a willingness to invest in the systems, people and processes that support customers before problems escalate.
It also needs to have levels of service that reflect what consumers expect of telco services today and tomorrow, not what they were prepared to accept yesterday.
Regulation is not the whole answer to restoring reputation. But it has an important and legitimate role to play.
It sets expectations. It provides guardrails. It establishes minimum standards. It gives consumers confidence that there are rules that must be met, and that there are real and timely consequences when they are not.
Good regulation is not a substitute for good corporate governance. Boards and CEOs have to have their house in order and be relentless about regulatory compliance, risk management and accountability.
And as I have also said at previous addresses, self-regulation and co-regulation have their place at some points in time and for specific circumstances, such as technical regulation.
But clear, direct regulation that is consumer-focused is an important bulwark against the erosion of public confidence and a safety net against consumer harms.
ACMA consumer regulations
In recent years, the ACMA has developed and implemented a number of significant telco consumer protection reforms to enhance consumer trust.
These have included:
- stronger rules for complaints handling
- improved protections for customers experiencing financial hardship
- strengthened emergency call service requirements, and
- new safeguards for customers who are victim-survivors of domestic and family violence.
And, at the end of this month, new mapping rules will come into place that will mean consumers will be able to compare like-for-like mobile coverage in their area.
Each of these measures has been directed at real consumer harms and real service expectations.
They have not been abstract exercises in regulatory intervention.
They have responded to clear evidence of consumer need and to community expectations about how a service that is essential to them should work for them.
Importantly, this work has also been informed by engagement with industry, government, consumer advocates and people with direct experience of the harms these rules are intended to address.
The domestic, family and sexual violence standard is a particularly salient example.
It demonstrated the value of bringing lived experience and consumer expertise into the centre of the regulatory process.
We recognise that implementing new obligations requires effort.
It requires investment of time, money, people and systems.
It requires training. It requires changes to processes.
It may require businesses to rethink how customer support is delivered and how compliance risk is managed.
And we recognise that effort will have a different impact on organisations according to their size and resources.
But we should be clear about the alternative.
We have seen that the cost of not having effective consumer protections is also significant.
It is significant for consumers, who bear the immediate burden when services fail or when they are not treated fairly.
It is significant for regulators and government, who are required to respond when systemic problems emerge.
And it is significant for industry itself – reputationally, commercially and financially.
So compliance should not be viewed only as a cost centre. It must be a key part of the DNA of the business.
New TCP Standard
In its submission to our consultation on our upcoming compliance and enforcement priorities, Telstra has said that they should be “grounded in current and emerging telecommunications risks, implementation experience from recent reforms, and evidence of consumer and community harm”.
We couldn’t agree more, and the move to a Telecommunications Consumer Protections Standard will be the next significant step forward in meeting these objectives.
For several years the ACMA has been clear with the industry that deficiencies in the existing Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code needed to be addressed.
A Standard provides an opportunity to strengthen protections, improve clarity and rebuild confidence in the framework that governs consumer outcomes in the sector.
The goal should not simply be to create more rules. The goal should be to create rules that are clear, enforceable and directed at the outcomes consumers have a right to expect.
That includes:
- fair and transparent sales practices.
- clear billing information.
- Effective complaints handling.
- Appropriate support for people experiencing hardship or vulnerability.
- Reliable processes for disconnection and restriction.
- And a stronger culture of accountability and real action when things go wrong.
As with our previous work, formal and informal stakeholder engagement, will be essential.
Consumer advocates have a substantial part to play in ensuring the Standard responds to real-world harms and delivers meaningful protections.
We expect that they will be fully engaged in the process.
Industry also has a critical role – not only in identifying implementation issues, but in approaching the process with a genuine commitment to better consumer outcomes.
The most effective regulatory frameworks are not built in isolation.
They are informed by evidence, tested through consultation, and shaped by the experience of those who understand where existing arrangements are falling short.
The move to a TCP Standard is not just a technical regulatory change. It is an important moment for the sector.
It is an opportunity to demonstrate that restoring telco reputation is not simply a conference theme, but a shared commitment.
We are well advanced in drafting the new TCP Standard and will be commencing our initial consultations in the coming weeks. Our intent is to have the Standard in place later in 2026.
ACMA 2026–27 priorities
Just on our compliance and enforcement priorities for 2026–27– these will be announced shortly. There should be no surprises on our telco priorities in the year to come.
We will continue to focus on compliance with Triple Zero and public safety requirements.
This will be supported by additional government funding of $23.4 million over four years to lift our capacity to undertake regulatory oversight and compliance activities and support the work of the Triple Zero Custodian.
We will enforce the new domestic, sexual and family violence consumer safeguards.
We will maintain our focus on protecting telecommunications consumers experiencing vulnerability.
And we will continue our work combating spam and telco scams, including monitoring compliance with the new Sender ID rules.
We will also be developing the detailed requirements under the new Scams Prevention Framework for the telco sector.
These priorities reflect the same basic principle – regulation should be targeted first and foremost on areas of greatest potential consumer and community harm and focused on areas where failures can have the most serious consequences for the public.
Industry environment
The ACMA’s work does not occur in a vacuum.
We regulate in a market that is competitive, capital-intensive and structurally changing. And as a sectoral regulator, the ACMA needs to understand the dynamics of the industry and your business.
Because context matters. It informs how we think about cost, investment and innovation in delivering strong consumer outcomes.
The latest results across the major carriers point to an Australian telecommunications market that remains competitive, cost-conscious and structurally evolving.
The sector has moved into a more stable earnings phase.
Mobile continues to be the primary growth engine, with improving average revenue per user, strong demand for data, and the benefits of scale becoming more evident.
Network-sharing arrangements are also beginning to deliver efficiencies, helping to lower unit costs and extend coverage.
All three major operators have emphasised disciplined cost management, more focused capital expenditure and a renewed focus on cash flow.
Telstra’s results announced in February reflect steady growth in income and earnings, driven by mobile performance, infrastructure demand and the momentum from its transformation program.
Less than two weeks ago, Optus reported improving financial performance and a stronger operational focus, alongside efforts to rebuild customer trust.
TPG, meanwhile, is emerging as a leaner, more mobile-led competitor, with significantly improved cash flow and network reach.
At the same time, it is clear that this is not an easy growth environment.
Fixed broadband remains highly competitive and more margin constrained.
Legacy fixed and enterprise services continue to face structural pressures.
And operators are balancing the need to invest in network quality, coverage and new technologies while also maintaining cost discipline.
Importantly, the operating environment has also become more complex.
There is a growing need for investment in network resilience and security.
While the sector is performing more strongly in financial terms, it is doing so in a context of heightened expectations and increased obligations.
That is the environment in which we work as a regulator.
We are conscious of the need to strike the right balance between supporting investment and innovation and ensuring strong consumer outcomes.
That balance is central to the work we are doing with government on the future policy and regulatory framework.
There are a number of important areas of focus.
First, through reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and improving efficiency.
The government recently announced it would be streamlining approvals for telco infrastructure by modernising the relevant legislation.
Second, through supporting greater competition and innovation in the market.
MVNO market share has increased from around 9 per cent in 2021 to around 13 per cent in 2025, with providers reporting double-digit revenue and earnings growth.
These results reflects both organic customer acquisition and more active commercial arrangements with host networks.
It also reflects consumers increasingly willing to consider lower-cost and value-oriented brands to address cost-of-living pressures.
The same pattern of competitive pressure is visible in fixed broadband.
Smaller NBN resellers, including Aussie Broadband, Superloop and Vocus have continued to gain share from larger incumbents.
The acquisition by Vocus of TPG’s Enterprise, Government and Wholesale fixed business and fibre assets expands its scale and reach reflects that changing competitive landscape.
These developments reinforce a central point: this is not a static market.
Competition is shifting across layers, brands and technologies, and regulation needs to understand those dynamics while keeping consumer outcomes at the centre.
Third, we are looking ahead to the next generation of connectivity.
This includes initiatives such as the UOMO, which is critical to supporting future mobile capacity and performance.
And there is the emergence of low Earth orbit direct-to-device satellite services, which have the potential to transform coverage.
This could become a critical piece of the network puzzle for regional and remote Australia.
These developments will create new opportunities, but they will also raise new regulatory questions - about spectrum allocation, interoperability, consumer protections and competitive dynamics.
Our role, working with government, is to ensure that the settings are in place to enable investment and innovation, while also maintaining confidence in the integrity, resilience and accessibility of the communications system.
Spectrum
Let me turn briefly to an issue that many of you will be very familiar with – the pricing of expiring spectrum licences.
It would be an understatement to say this has been a significant and contested process.
Given the scale of the decision—over $7 billion in the price of licence renewals—robust debate is expected. Spectrum is fundamental to the sector and underpins services used by virtually all Australians.
Stakeholders have expressed divergent views:
- Operators argue that higher prices may constrain investment and affect consumers;
- Consumer advocates argue for stronger returns to the public.
In this context, the ACMA has applied its statutory obligations and focused on long-term public interest.
In a different context, the most straightforward way to establish market value might have been to auction the spectrum.
But this is not an abstract exercise.
This spectrum is already in use. It supports the delivery of more than 30 million mobile services to the vast majority of Australians, including critical communications such as emergency services.
Instead, we determined a market-based pricing using benchmarking against more than 200 international spectrum valuations and established economic modelling.
The process has been transparent and highly consultative.
I would just like to respond to some of the criticisms and claims made about our decisions:
- Spectrum pricing alone should not lead operators to increase prices for consumers. The aggregate cost of spectrum under the renewal framework is lower than the cost operators face today.
- A fair market price for spectrum is unlikely to dampen investment. Investment decisions are driven by expected returns. The outlook for mobile services remains strong.
- Robust statistical techniques have been applied to our benchmarking to avoid undue influence from outliers.
- Pricing does not represent merely a decrease on historical values. Instead, we have undertaken fresh and detailed assessment of current market value recognising that some spectrum values have increased over time, while some have decreased.
Diametrically opposing views have framed the valuation through their own prism. It’s either been a ‘cash grab’ or a ‘bargain basement discount’.
In reality, it is a fair price to pay to the taxpayer for a national asset that belongs to all Australians.
Closing comments
I will finish where I began – with events that are thrown at us.
Events test institutions, industries and regulators. But reputation is shaped not only by the events themselves. It is shaped by the response.
For the sector, the response must be clear: a greater commitment to consumer outcomes and more reliable systems.
This is underpinned by the stability, transparency and accountability that regulation provides.
For the telco sector’s reputation, and for all of us as participants in a cohesive society, it’s critical that there is confidence in the services that make us inclusive, connected and productive.
We all have a part to play in that as industry, advocates, government and regulators.
Thank you.