​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you all for appearing today and thank you for your submissions. Thank you also for bringing engineers, not just government public relations people—not being a slide on the ladder. Senators come from a variety of backgrounds, but none of us, I believe, are equipped to deal with all of the very diverse range of issues, and the complexity of issues, that come before us, so sometimes we can be ignorant, including of this issue. I will just put that upfront. We can also be snowed by answers to questions because of our lack of technical expertise. But one thing I’ve learnt and really appreciate is that, through that camera, there are many, many people who are experts on the topic and they don’t hesitate to call me and say, ‘You were fobbed off there.’ So we’ll be back.  

I thought this was just about regional issues like regional access, safety, productivity and environment. I’ve learnt it’s much, much more. I also acknowledge some of the examples that you’ve put out. You’ve got a very big challenge with Australian demographics, languages and diverse technology. I’ve also got to disclose of conflict of interest. I have an iPhone from Apple. I use Telstra in my home and business. I also want to make clear that that has got nothing to do with my questions. I’m happy with Telstra, to some extent—to a large extent—but I just want to fulfil my responsibilities to constituents. That’s all I am after.  

I want to get some nuts-and-bolts questions out of the way first. You may have partially answered this first question. How many devices in use now are aligned on the 3G network to make or receive calls or emergency calls? Could you break it down into retail, wholesale and industrial applications. If you haven’t got that to hand I can understand. You can just take it on notice. 

​​Ms Rowe:​  We do. Gerard can answer that for you now. 

​​Mr Tracey:​  I’ve got the numbers. Based on handsets—the four categories—I can give you our consumer volume, our business number, our enterprise number and our Belong service provider number. That gives a total for Telstra. I can give you our wholesale for MVNOs, and the total, which was as of Friday last week. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  If you could give us that— 

​​Mr Tracey:​  I can give you that. Would you like me to read— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  And also separate it into calls and emergency calls. 

​​Mr Tracey:​  This is the number of devices. So there’s a key difference. Not all devices make calls all the time. What we have is records of devices that have connected to our network. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Okay. 

​​Mr Tracey:​  They are the numbers we’ve got associated with that. I can read the table out. If we want 3G-only handsets, it’s 26,000 for our consumer, 3,000 for business, 4,000 for enterprise. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  How many from retail consumer? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Twenty-six thousand. That’s a total across Telstra of 33,000. Our MVNOs—or our wholesale providers—is 6,000, which gives us the total of 40,000 3G-only devices as of last week. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. What about Optus? 

​​Mr Sheridan:​  We do have the breakdown, but we don’t have it in front of us. We can take it on notice, but we can reiterate the total numbers that I think we provided earlier. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  If you could provide the breakdown on notice. TPG? 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  To reiterate what we said before, on the same category—the total across all of TPG Telecom and our MVNOs for the 3G-only devices is 228. The number of 4G devices without voice-over-LTE capabilities is just below 8,000. I’ll provide all of this notice so you’ve got the exact numbers.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Okay. Thank you. 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  The number of devices we suspect cannot make a 4G voice-over-LTE emergency call is about 30,100. I’m just trying to add up three columns on the fly here as well. That’s split between 30,014 on TPG Telecom and another just over 100 on our MVNO partners. There is a cohort where we’re still seeking to understand the device capability, and that is around 16,500. We’re still trying to determine whether those can make an emergency call on the 4G VoLTE system. I’ll provide those numbers in a table for you. Those are all handset numbers. On top of that, we’ve also got about 1,329 things like wearables and other devices that aren’t handsets. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. I’ll come to them. How many roaming devices are reliant on the 3G network to make or receive roaming calls or emergency calls? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  From a Telstra perspective, I don’t have the number of roaming devices, but what I will talk through is what we have done and what we are doing from a— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Is it possible to get the number of roaming devices? You can take it on notice if you don’t already have it. 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Yes. But, from a network provisioning perspective, international roaming requires a relationship between our network and the international network provider. We have implemented a proxy arrangement such that an international roamer can come into our network and use our 4G network—with a capable device, obviously—but they still have a 3G arrangement with our international roaming provider. So we have implemented a methodology so that those international roaming customers will be able to use our network regardless of what the arrangement is with international roaming. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  But they have to have a 4G device? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  They do need to have a 4G device. 

​​Mr Sheridan:​  We’d also like to take your question on notice in respect of the number of roaming devices. On the technical matter, I’ll hand over to Michael. 

​​Mr Reynolds:​  Similar to Telstra, we obviously have arrangements and partnerships with overseas carriers. On our Optus network, we obviously have a roaming service, including 4G. So, similarly, customers that are coming into country do need a 4G device to roam onto our network when the 3G network shuts down. 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  Similarly, we’ll have to take that on notice, because obviously the number of travellers on roaming devices jumps around from day to day. As has been said, those international partners may well have agreements with any number of us at this table, so devices may well jump around between networks while the traveller is here. So there may be some double counting in the numbers you get back. I’ll hand to Gary Chant in our Brisbane office just to make sure that there isn’t any information additional to that answer. 

​​Mr Chant:​  No. I think we’re in line with Telstra and Optus. The number will vary depending on the international travellers, so you’ll get a snapshot in time, but it will vary a lot. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. In the last 12 months, how many calls to triple 0 were placed over the 3G network, and how many daily? 

​​Ms Rowe:​  We’d have to take that question on notice. 

​​Mr Sheridan:​  It’s the same for us. We’d have to take that on notice 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  Again, we’ll take that on notice. But I think it’s important to put out the context for why a call can end up on a 3G bearer into triple 0. There are a range of networks that are available to a handset at the moment, and essentially in an emergency situation it will pick up the strongest of signals and try to make a successful call on that bearer. So, whilst we’ll give you some numbers on how many calls have gone into triple 0 on 3G, it will overstate the size of the problem quite significantly, because, if for whatever reason the customer is in a strong 3G area, the phone, without a 3G network, would have quite happily made a 4G emergency call. So I’m trying to give you some context for why the answer you’re going to get back may look a particular way, not giving you a true sense of the problem. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So it chose 3G because the 3G signal was stronger? 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  That’s right. There are also things like orders of networks in phones, so it may well be that it’s ordered to try and pick up a 3G signal and make that call on that emergency system first. So there are a whole range of reasons for why calls may well come into an emergency system via the 3G network, beyond the issue that you’re highlighting. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. How many 4G and 5G devices in use currently rely on the 3G network to make calls as they lack 4G VoLTE calling supports with the networks? 

​​Ms Rowe:​  Our number is 9,000, but it’s coming down. 

​​Mr Sheridan:​  Our number was 25,611. 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  And mine, as stated before, was 7,978. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. What percentage and number of devices being used on each network support VoLTE roaming? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  It’s the same. It’s about the device capability, so, if the device is 4G capable, it supports 4G roaming. 

​​Mr Sheridan:​  Yes, that would be the same. 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  I’ll just confirm with Mr Chant that there’s no difference for us. 

​​Mr Chant:​  That’s correct. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  How many industrial, Internet of Things or machine-to-machine devices—such as energy meters, emergency lift phones and vehicles—use the 3G network for voice or data? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  From a Telstra perspective, if we refer to 3G-capable IoT devices such as water meters and electricity meters, today there are 399,000 across all of our customer base. If we look at smartwatches—the very early versions that don’t support the low-band 4G, so that’s our 700-megahertz ones—we have 63,000. For wireless broadband or tablets, we have 45,000. 

​​Mr Wright:​  Data devices break down into a variety of categories. I’ll give you the overall total, and we can take the specific split on notice. But it’s about 100,000, and these are predominantly in an enterprise context. It could range from— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Small business? 

​​Mr Wright:​  Or large businesses as well. It could range, for example, from a data dongle or data in a tablet or data in a payment terminal through to IoT devices for monitoring, telemetry et cetera. But we can provide that breakdown. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  As our network’s closed, obviously you’d imagine our numbers are quite a lot smaller, and we’ve done all of the heavy lifting in terms of working directly with our medical device customers and our IoT customers to make sure that that transition has already occurred. There are 1,329 devices, such as wearables, that are still on the network. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  How many medical alarms—you’ve just given the answer, Mr Mitchell. How many medical alarms, fall detection devices or similar health devices or safety devices are in use using the 3G network? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  We can’t provide that breakdown specifically, because we have no relationship with the customers. Our customer receives the medical alert. It’s outside that. But it’ll be a subset of the numbers that I’ve already provided. 

​​Mr Wright:​  Senator, just zooming back, we recognise that medical devices, as you’ve highlighted, are one of several categories of what we internally term high-risk devices. Lifts are another one that’s been quoted as well, as well as payment terminals, services in medical or community institutions and so on. Similar to Telstra, we ourselves don’t provide those end services, but our customers are the businesses that do. What we have provided those businesses with is specific identification and quantification of the number of known devices that are impacted. Where there is a high likelihood of there being a high-risk device, we work hand in hand with that business customer to track them down. At the moment, we have about 44—I’ll need to double-check, but I think it’s about 44—business customers that are on that high-risk register of ours. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  And they may have hundreds or thousands each. 

​​Mr Wright:​  It varies. I can provide the information on notice. But just for the benefit of this committee, to give a sense of the size, we have a limited number. For medical devices, I think there are fewer than 10 enterprise customers that we have relationships with where they provide devices of that sort. But we can provide more specific details on that to you. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. Will unlocked devices previously sold with telco-specific firmware branding—which I understand support VoLTE calling with the respective network—work with all other Australian 4G VoLTE calling networks? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So yours would work on all the others? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Yes. If it’s VoLTE capable and you port your SIM card to another network— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So you’ve got to change the SIM card to do it? 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Correct. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So if someone wants to make an emergency call— 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Sorry. A VoLTE-capable— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  There are two scenarios, I guess, from what you’re saying. 

​​Mr Tracey:​  There are two scenarios. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  There’s normal use, where you’ve got to change the SIM card so they won’t work on other networks, and there’s the emergency call, which will work on other networks. 

​​Mr Tracey:​  Correct. Unless you change your SIM card, you can’t make a standard voice call. You only make voice calls on your carrier—Telstra on Telstra, Optus on Optus, TPG on TPG—but for emergency calling you don’t even need a SIM card. The device will connect to an available network and make triple 0 calls.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I might come back to that later, in regard to what you just answered. Optus?  

​​Mr Reynolds:​  Where you have a phone with a version of software that will allow the SIM card that’s placed inside it to download the relevant operator configuration, you will be able to make VoLTE calls across the different networks. There are some early devices, when VoLTE was first launched, where certain software could be configured for the specific operator that it was arranged for.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  That’s a specific telco.  

​​Mr Reynolds:​  Yes, and this is the earlier devices. Where we are now, circa 2018 was largely when the Android base moved to a more standardised way of operating. Inserting the SIM card for Android phones, and the same for Apple, the VoLTE configuration is downloaded to that handset and you can work on different networks.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So you don’t have to change the phone; the phone changes itself, updates itself. 

​​Mr Reynolds:​  Correct. 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  That is the same situation for TPG Telecom and Vodafone. Gary Chant, do you have anything further to add?  

​​Mr Chant:​  Yes. Just echoing what the colleague at Optus said, we have software bundles for different handsets and different carriers, but essentially the only real difference plays out when it’s the much older handsets. The newer handsets are consistent across the board.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I have another question but I will put it on notice. I’m being asked to make this my last question. What are the new device sales numbers compared to this time last year?  

​​Mr Mitchell:​  Can I suggest, for all of us, that would be rather commercially sensitive. I’m happy for TPG Telecom to provide that to you— 

​​Senator STERLE:​  What’s commercially sensitive about it? We don’t want to know who bought them; we just want to know— 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  What my sales numbers are?  

​​Senator STERLE:​  What’s sensitive about it?  

​​CHAIR:​  You’re all public companies, aren’t you? 

​​Senator STERLE:​  Come on, don’t— 

​​Mr Mitchell:​  I’m happy to provide that confidentially to the committee on notice.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Okay, the committee will take— 

​​CHAIR:​  Just before we do that, why don’t we go to all of them. I presume we’re happy to take it on notice, given the detailed information, but we’ll ask Optus and Telstra: are you happy to provide that information?  

​​Mr Sheridan:​  I don’t have the information in front of me and we’re happy to provide that information. 

​​CHAIR:​  On notice? 

​​Mr Sheridan:​  On notice.  

​​Ms Rowe:​  On notice. 

​​CHAIR:​  Okay. Mr Mitchell, you might need to come back to us, on notice, on why it needs to be confidential. I don’t understand that myself, but if you could take that on notice and come back to us.  

​​Mr Mitchell:​  Certainly.  

​​CHAIR:​  Thank you.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I’ll put the other questions on notice.

  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you both for appearing. I want to express my appreciation for the RFDS for what you do. We’ve felt very safe when we’re travelling outback, especially in Central Australia and South-West Queensland. It’s just amazing. It’s like having a security blanket. So thank you. I also want to acknowledge your fabulous testimony this morning. It has been very precise and concise but also quite thorough. I’m stunned that you have 81 aircraft and 37,000 air medical emergencies a year. 

I’d like to know your impression of the mobile network operators. You just said you’re looking for greater consultation. Have you found them capable? Have you found them informative? Have you found them to be genuine when they’re coming to listen to you? Have they listened to you? 

​​Mr Klose:​  I think that’s a great question. We feel that we’re a small company to them. I feel that it has a very common sense of how large business would base its priority and focus depending on the revenue it’s generating. We feel that our voice isn’t as strong in these organisations even though we may be covering the largest area of any customer they may have. The other concern we have is that, as RFDS works with communities on health care, we also work with communities. We also become a discussion and consultation arm out there, explaining to other communities, whether it’s the person who owns the Pink Roadhouse in Oodnadatta or someone else, ‘Are you aware that 3G is going?’ Most of them go, ‘No, we haven’t heard.’ 

I’m thinking our role as RFDS is not to be a spokesman for the telco companies. Our role is really health care. But what are the telco companies doing to let these outback communities know that their fridge is no longer going to be monitored? In any area there, if you’re not aware of it or you’ve taken it for granted, it’s going to change on you. These are the people who are going to deal with the issues. If you’ve got a problem in the outback, you go to the pub, the roadhouse or the petrol station to complain. These are the people I’d be talking to to make sure they are aware of what’s going on out there. From going out there myself, I have the feeling that they’re completely unaware that this is happening. 

​​Ms Gale:​  That’s consistent, and that need around community information has been provided to this inquiry in a number of submissions. I’d add to Ryan’s point that we know it’s a big country, as our service footprint shows. We’re talking about small populations in very geographically dispersed areas. It’s challenging to do things like community consultation, community engagement, information campaigns and all those kinds of things. As we are on a range of other matters, we are always happy to work with government and other stakeholders and partners. As Ryan said, he is talking to so many people locally, and there can be a way to think about some of those information awareness types of efforts in an innovative way as well. That’s something that, when it comes to the transition, is a complex idea for many people and will require certain steps to be taken. We recognise the challenge of getting that information out there, but we are also very keen and happy to work with anyone we need to, to assist in that objective. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I can identify with what you’re saying, Mr Klose, having been to the Pink Roadhouse and having limped into William Creek with tyre problems and having left Marree and had an accident—a rollover. It’s something that can’t be quantified so easily purely in terms of visits; it’s much more life-saving than that. You mentioned Starlink. Has that got the possibility to eliminate mobile network operators? 

​​Mr Klose:​  Yes. The risk on Starlink was that there was only one, but we are seeing the next generation come through from Amazon’s Kuiper, which is meant to be twice as quick as Starlink. It will come to Australia in about 18 months, which will give us another option to Elon Musk’s Starlink. We are now working with outback towns to bring fast internet, which has not been done before, using traditional telco technology. 

Just to give the committee an idea: we’re able to bring to William Creek, for example—there may be 12 people who live there, or 15 on their residency thing. However, we know that can move up; Lake Eyre rolls into 200 or whatever. We’ve been able to roll out fast internet through the pub across the street, all through there, at a set-up cost of only $150,000—that is for the town and for visitors who come in—and then at an ongoing cost that’s probably close to $3,000 a month. That’s been done in conjunction with the SA government, to drive that. That’s us innovating, saying that the 4G and the 3G networks have their limitations. But what does low-lying satellite bring? It will now open up. 

If I can give the committee an idea: I went there with a portable Starlink, opened it up in front of the pub and then connected about six or seven people to Netflix, and everyone was watching streaming Netflix for the first time; they’d never seen it. There were seven people watching it off that device. There’s no way you’d be able to do that stuff now off any of those networks out there. To that other point, when I heard 4G is going to be extended to the same distance as 3G: that means 4G, which may have been able to have 10 or 20 devices connecting to it—you just give them 10 devices and then you’ll lose your signal. The telcos cannot solve this problem by just extending their towers. It loses the capacity, and the use of it just does not operate the same. 

We live in a digital economy. These outback towns deserve the right to digital and the benefits that come in health care, education, small business, social and all of that. That’s where the RFDS, to Lauren’s point, is innovating. We want to innovate with these communities so we can then take advantage of that and deliver health care on top of digital, so we can now give true 24/7 blood pressure checks and cardiac checks. Say you’ve just come back, or we’ve repatriated you, from the hospital after major surgery. We can watch you 24/7 by checking in on you, and these monitors are working. Some of these things were never possible or were very difficult in that area, but we’re increasing that. I know it’s to the side of it, but to your point: it’d be great for governments to lead and say, ‘I understand we’ve always approached the same problem the same way for the last 20 years in this area here, but what does the new innovation provide outback Australia, with low-lying satellite, which is already seeing this rollout, and is there a new way for us to deliver stability of these services?’ 

RFDS has been on this journey for two years. We have 26 clinics now because 3G sort of forced our hand on this to move. You go into these towns in there and they are now fully connected. Patient records can easily come from My Health Record. We can exchange data and images of a scan of a broken leg between us and an Adelaide, Darwin or WA hospital because the data links are big enough now. We’re sharing health information the same way that we take it for granted in the cities. That’s what we’re doing with Starlink, and I think it’s an exciting time for outback Australia. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for that, Mr Klose; I found that really interesting and helpful. You may or may not be aware of Project Iron Boomerang. 

​​Mr Klose:​  No. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  It will be a railway line across Australia, maybe supplemented by shipping around the south of Australia, linking Port Hedland in the west with Abbot Point in the east, having steel mills at both ends. We’ve had a bipartisan approach to this. Senator Sterle has voiced his support for it, as has the coalition. It will put a rail link across the north and across Central Australia, which will bring communications and open it up for commerce. 

​​Mr Klose:​  Fantastic. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  The status of that at the moment is that it has gone through two inquiries in the Senate and it’s now up to the proposers to refine their management structure and get on with it. 

​​Mr Klose:​  That’s great to hear. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You’ve told me the cost burden to the RFDS for the 3G is $150,000. 

​​Mr Klose:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Relative to budget, how significant is that? It’s a large amount of money. 

​​Mr Klose:​  It’s about $200,000 for our set-up out there. We do take advantage of the RFDS that we have our engineers jump on planes—there’s a patient sitting in there as well—and they keep very quiet next to the pilot. Let’s just say they’ve got free transport to get out there. It’s about $200,000. That is to not only purchase the Starlinks, but to erect them up there and get that monitoring set up so that we can see them. And then there’s an ongoing monthly fee for the use of Starlink that we pay out there. It’s about $250 a month per device that we use on there for every Starlink that we put out there. 

We’ve got Starlinks spread across a lot of Queensland, the Northern Territory, SA, WA and New South Wales on remote clinics. We’ve moved very quickly on that. All of those areas had been problematic on data. What do I mean by that? They would still use paper records for health care in those places. It didn’t matter what we had; they could not connect. Now we’ve got them connected and we’ve seen how that can elevate patient safety and clinician safety as well. They have confidence that they can actually operate with the skills that they know. 

For the other areas of Starlink into towns, we have this notion for RFDS that we want people to continue their health care outside of an RFDS clinic, because we limit Starlink just to our clinics. This project with the SA government I was speaking about is putting fast internet in the town and so when you leave the clinic you know your steps or your blood pressure or your monitoring or your telehealth services can still happen in your home. And they can happen at one in the morning when something has occurred. You can contact the RFDS and be connected to one of our doctors immediately. 

Those kinds of things with Starlink are opening, so we continue to grow Starlink as a rollout. But the direct response to 3G forced our hand in areas and we’ve had to move a little bit faster. It’s new money; it’s not money we’re replacing out there. This is all new money; the 200,000K was new money on top of our budget. What were our spending budgets in this area? To give you an idea, most of the technology is old so there’s no real infrastructure being spent in those areas. It just continues 4G and high satellite—I think they use Sky Muster in there, which is challenging. So outback communities have never really had the opportunities on any of the telco services out there in this area. Starlink has opened it. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So you may be pioneering something that will come from the bush back into the cities? 

​​Mr Klose:​  We hope so; yes! Aged-care homes will use this technology. Hospitals in the homes, which are moving now, is very similar to the situation you have in the bush where you could be completely isolated and you need to have trusted internet around you because of the vulnerability of these people. The aged-care sector is likely to learn from what the RFDS has done in outback communities in this area and may take some of these learnings into aged-care homes and people ageing in their homes in a safer environment with better technology. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Correct me if I’m wrong, Mr Klose, but you said $150,000 is the cost to the RFDS for complying with the changes to getting rid of 3G. Is that correct? 

​​Mr Klose:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So $150,000 is not far short of the $200,000 to do something far better. 

​​Mr Klose:​  Correct. I don’t know if this is the right forum, but we would like to think that not only is there a change in 3G but, if there was investment made available to invest infrastructure into the outback—not the old infrastructure where there was billions in telcos with the 4Gs and 5Gs, but if we focussed on Starlink, which actually is a lot lower cost, higher speed and more reliable—you’ve got them in the sky above you—then that would make a lot more sense for outback Australia. And we have another technology player coming on the scene, so Starlink isn’t the only option. There’s another one coming called Kuiper, which is Amazon’s, and that’s coming to Australia. This is really the modernisation for fast internet for the outback, and also for homes that use the internet. It’s faster than NBN. 

​​Ms Gale:​  The point of costs and those kinds of things, Ryan has given a really wonderful example there of a partnership approach to particular communities in South Australia. That kind of approach, where we can leverage both footprint and some of the expertise—obviously, we’re a not-for-profit and anything that we are needing to spend in addition to our regular costs means our services that are potentially impacted. We’ve obviously done a huge amount of work, which is not necessarily for this committee today, about the gaps that still exist just in accessing health care in rural and remote places. That kind of approach of how we can partner with others and do things most efficiently and to make sure that there is benefit for a range of players in those areas when things can be so high in terms of the cost of doing business is absolutely critical. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You’ve done the RFDS proud this morning, both of you. Thank you so much. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You mentioned the second aspect which was lack of awareness. The first one was that they weren’t aware of 3G being shut down. Of those who were or are aware, they’re not aware that devices will be impacted and some of them have many devices. 

​​Dr Trembath:​  Yes. For example, surveyors are a good example of this, and I believe they came and spoke to you yesterday. The equipment they’re using has been designed for 3G. It’s only just started to move across to 4G, so it’s possible to get 4G equipment now, but that’s new. If you’ve only just bought 3G enabled equipment and now you’re having to replace that at approximately $15,000 per item, then obviously that’s going to be quite a significant move.  

The Surveying Association have been reaching out really proactively to their members and also to the telcos wanting to have those conversations. They’ve been quite concerned and expressed the concern to us that despite the efforts they have been conducting, that knowledge and awareness is still not broadly disseminated amongst their community. We’re finding the same thing with our members. Despite our best efforts, and we are communicating broadly to our members, the knowledge of this is simply not that widespread yet.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  The surveyors also mentioned the impact on housing construction costs and the inflation as a result of it, because they will have to charge more for their services. Also, some businesses have got a massive cost burden. Have you reached out to the mobile network operators to consult with them and to invite them in?  

​​Dr Trembath:​  Yes, we’ve had conversations with Telstra specifically. We would certainly welcome conversations with the others, and we probably will reach out to discuss with some of the other telcos after this hearing. We focused our attention on Telstra first because initially, as you’d know, Telstra was going to be shutting down a month ago. But, yes, we have had conversations with Telstra specifically. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  How did you find the conversation? Was it genuine? Did they care? 

​​Dr Trembath:​  I wouldn’t want to say whether or not it was genuine, but the kinds of conversations were more aligned to, ‘But we’re already doing the things. We’re putting out the communications.’  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So it was one way, and they were telling you what was going on rather than listening?  

​​Dr Trembath:​  That may be a way to characterise it. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  They’ve only delayed the imposition by a month or two, and I don’t think they’ve really been listening at all to many people across the country. What are your specific concerns? Is it that people are going to find out in a couple of months that they’re high and dry? 

​​Dr Trembath:​  Yes. Take the example I gave in my opening statement around fire alarm systems. If those fire alarm systems are on the 3G network, the screen on that system is going to start showing an error. It’s just going to say that it’s not working. If you’re not aware that the 3G network is shutting down, what kind of problem-solving are you going to do there? Who do you ask? You’re probably likely to call your fire alarm system manufacturer to say, ‘There’s a problem with my alarm system.’ Hopefully they know. If they know, then great; they can then pass that information on. Hopefully there hasn’t been a fire in the interim, before they noticed that the system’s gone down. But what if the manufacturer of the fire alarm system isn’t aware that the 3G system’s down? You can imagine the scenario where in fact— 

​​ACTING CHAIR:​  [inaudible] We were told this morning this is—I’m sorry to interrupt. 

​​Dr Trembath:​  No, please. 

​​ACTING CHAIR:​  We asked questions along these lines, about a lift in airports and backups, and quite clearly the telcos—I strongly urge you, Dr Trembath, to go back and have a listen to that. I can understand small-business people are out there pulling their hair out, and single operators and that sort of stuff, but I’m really struggling with your saying that a lot of your members are saying they’re not aware of it.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I think what Dr Trembath is saying is that some are not aware of it happening and some are not aware of the consequences for their business. 

​​ACTING CHAIR:​  No, I understand the consequences; I understand that. But there’s a lot of ‘if someone has that fire alarm, do the fire alarm people know’. Do you know what I mean? It’s filtering right down. Anyway, I know what I’m trying to say. I’ll come back. But I did interrupt you, Senator Roberts. Please keep going.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  No, I’m done, thanks. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for appearing in person today. Are you aware of James Parker’s submission and his testimony yesterday? 

​​Mr Brealey:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What’s your opinion of it? He raises many issues. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  He does. It’s a comprehensive submission, and his testimony was quite comprehensive as well. On some of those issues, it is quite a complicated picture. On things like portability of handsets and ability of handsets to make calls on different networks, mobile number portability has been in place in Australia for quite a long time. We haven’t seen evidence from customers, in terms of complaints, about an inability to port successfully with their devices. 

A couple of other issues were raised. There was mention of the 900-megahertz-replanning work that the ACMA had done. That evidence was given in the context of whether or not we thought there had been sufficient lead time for devices to switch to VoLTE. I think the context of that inquiry was quite different. It was about clearing that band. At that time, I think, there were blocks of 8.4 and 8.2 megahertz of spectrum which needed to be cleared so that we could have five-megahertz blocks so that there would be a more efficient allocation to the providers and, potentially, continuous spectrum over the bands. That conversation was really about a bit of a debate between the carriers about the timing on when that clearance should happen, rather than the kinds of issues we’re talking about today with the closure of 3G and the ability of handsets to make emergency calls on 3G. There was also a mention, I think, that the firmware in some of these devices could be changed out or upgraded quite easily. There was an example given of a service, the name of which escapes me. 

​​Mr Major:​  Jio. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  Jio. I think we had a look at Jio, and it’s not quite that simple. For Jio, you also have to buy an additional piece of hardware. It’s not just a matter of changing the firmware in that device. Like I say, it’s a very comprehensive submission. There are some good points. My point is really that it is quite complicated and perhaps not as straightforward. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  On that point, he said it was complicated but he said that the industry is aware of the root cause of the problem and is not willing to fix it. He mentioned a variety of reasons—more handset sales, more telco sales, more revenue for associated industry; they want to recoup their 5G investment; it’s more commercially beneficial to them to sell new phones than updates to existing devices et cetera. He says they want to protect their market, and interests around preserving their market control and reducing costs meant 4G standardisation failed. He says it’s in the telco’s interests and the handsets’ interests to do the swap, to shut down 3G, even though we’re not ready for it. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  I can’t comment on behalf of the carriers, of course, but I know that there has been talk about refarming spectrum from 3G to 4G and 5G for a number of years because of capacity constraints around the spectrum they have and just upgrading the services and the networks that they’re providing to the consumers. That’s been the main driver, as far as I understand it. As far as I know, they haven’t been talking publicly about closing down 3G in order to drive handset sales. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  They wouldn’t dare talk about it if that were the case. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  We’ve not heard anything of that nature at all. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What about the industry’s failure—I know you said it was complicated—to address the root causes in terms of the serious 4G compatibility issues? He says there is a solution. He says the French, the British and possibly—from memory of his submission—the South Africans are saying, ‘We will address this in coming years and we will delay the shutdown of 3G and 2G.’ Britain, for example, is not shutting down 3G and 2G. France is delaying it until at least 2028. James Parker points out that the solution, in his opinion, is to sort out those issues first rather than just shutting down 3G. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  I think we heard testimony from the carriers that there are other international jurisdictions that are closing down. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  We’ve got to be careful there, because my understanding of their wording was that China and Japan, which have very high population density, have shut down but the others were in the process of shutting down. They mentioned France as being one of them, and France has said nothing before 2028. So I don’t know how accurate their statement was. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  From our perspective, of course, we have no capacity or jurisdiction over whether or not networks are closed down by carriers. That’s entirely a decision for the provider. We have no capacity to direct them to close down or not close down a particular network. That’s a decision for the commercial provider and not something that we can really have any sort of influence over. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What has been ACMA’s involvement in this? When were you first notified? When were you first consulted? Have you been consulted? Where are you up to now with them? 

​​Mr Brealey:​  I might defer to my colleague. 

​​Ms Rainsford:​  If I particularly focus on the issue that has been the main topic of interest this morning, around the device compatibility with the networks once the 3G shuts down, we had a meeting with MNOs in, I think, December last year where they first alerted us to their understanding of that compatibility issue. There was a follow-up meeting in February this year where they shared with us, at that point, their understanding of the number of devices affected. In terms of your broader question about the ACMA’s role here, a key role for us as the telco regulator is assessing whether or not actions of telcos are compliant with the existing law. We’ve obviously had a look at what they’re proposing to do and the relevant regulation to assess whether there were any concerns about their compliance. That’s an ongoing piece. But we’ve certainly not identified any concerns that what they’re doing is not consistent with the current regulatory framework.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Did you listen to the testimony this morning from Optus?  

​​Ms Rainsford:​  Yes, I was here.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  My understanding is that they were not aware of the size of the impact until February this year, but they’d flagged the shutdown in 2023. I am then questioning either their motive or their competence. Flagging a shutdown and then finding out later it’s much more complicated than they thought, doesn’t seem to be good management.  

​​Ms Rainsford:​  I can’t really comment on the internal operations of Optus.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I’m not asking you to. 

​​Ms Rainsford:​  Certainly, the factual basis there is consistent with our understanding, and we’ve flagged, as had the other carriers earlier, the timing of their proposed shutdown. It’s our understanding that they, really, clarified by February this year the likely impact around this device compatibility issue.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What I’m getting to is they flagged the shutdown in 2023 but it wasn’t until February that they were aware of the size of the impact. Does that concern you at all, that Optus seems to be making a decision and then assessing whether or not it’s a competent decision? 

​​Ms Rainsford:​  Probably, what I can say there is the ACMA, since we’ve become aware of the problem, has expressed its concern to all of the carriers about the importance of the work they are doing to make sure that their customers are aware both of the timing and the possible impacts of the 3G closure, and they are providing a range of supports to assist their customers to take action, should they need to. That includes, via the chair of the ACMA, writing to the CEOs of the MNOs some months ago to share our concerns, consistent with those expressed by the Minister for Communications. To that extent, yes, we are concerned if there are customers.  

As we’ve heard this morning, the telcos are very focused on, particularly, what I would call the more vulnerable groups of the community, which involve a number of different circumstances, potentially, and making sure that they are a real focus, in terms of assisting them to have a smooth transition through so that they will have the same access to services and, particularly, access to triple 0 services post the shutdown.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What power does ACMA have to intervene?  

​​Ms Rainsford:​  As Mr Brealey said, we don’t have powers that would allow us to direct telcos to keep their networks going. In terms of the regulation, that’s a matter for the commercial providers to make decisions on. There’s nothing within our remit that would allow us to require them to do anything that way.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Mr Parker seemed to know what he was talking about. He said that most overseas countries are not doing anything with 3G shutdown until they resolve compatibility issues. He cited France, the United Kingdom and South Africa as examples. He suggested holding providers to a government specified standard for a number of compatible devices and minimal coverage levels in regional or remote areas, to protect people. And he suggested all networks support open market standards and allow any phone to work for emergency calling and regional areas.  

Overseas countries have become aware of the problem and are now not switching off 2G or 3G until near the end of the decade. France is 2028, for example, at least. What scope is there for ACMA to protect customers in this country?  

​​Ms Rainsford:​  As I said, under the current laws, the ACMA doesn’t have any powers to address those types of matters. It’s certainly on our radar to have a look at whether or not there is some change needed in the regulatory environment that would help to mitigate these types of risks in the future, and to that end we’re having a look at and reviewing a particular instrument with a view to whether that needs to evolve over time—in particular, that’s the emergency call service determination. But currently there are no powers that sit with the ACMA to direct the carriers to keep their 3G networks operational at this point. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  When did ACMA first become aware of the telcos’ desire to shut down 3G—not just the compatibility issues but the 3G itself? 

​​Mr Major:​  Before my time. 

​​Ms Rainsford:​  Yes. I think it’s fair to say—we’re the telco regulator; we monitor what telcos do. I would expect that, within the organisation, we would be aware of the proposals to shut the networks down at the respective times the telcos notified. For Telstra, that’s five years ago, and it’s obviously a bit later for Optus and TPG. As I said, that’s before the time of most of us at the ACMA. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Mr Brealey, I think you said the government owns the 3G spectrum—sorry, the taxpayer owns it; the people of Australia own it. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  The telcos are granted access to that spectrum to provide services on the basis of licences that they purchase from the government. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  On behalf of the taxpayer. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So this really is a taxpayer government matter. You’re reallocating the spectrum. 

​​Mr Brealey:​  The spectrum goes to those carriers via an option process, usually, but there can be direct allocations in different circumstances. That spectrum is provided to those carriers. They purchase it in a competitive process and then they roll out the networks that best suit their commercial priorities. How they use it then is up to them, within the broad requirements of the licence that they’ve purchased. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for appearing today, in person no less. Taking the third paragraph from your submission, I want to put on the record and talk about that in terms of small business awareness. You said: 

We have heard from stakeholders that vital equipment and software can still rely on 3G networks, including those relating to record-keeping, accounts, bookings, payroll, telephones, EFTPOS, security systems, cameras, asset-tracking tools, surveying instruments, water and environmental monitors, medical alerts and many of the wireless operating systems on farms— 

and fire alarms, as we’ve heard today. 

​​Mr Billson:​  And security systems and point-of-sale technology. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Some of this equipment can be expensive and must be sourced from overseas companies with extended waiting lists. We heard that yesterday from the surveyors at Cooma. You also go on to say: 

Additionally, some 4G-enabled devices, including emergency alert systems, have elements or functions that are powered by 3G— 

which we’ve heard repeatedly. Then you say: 

Users may be unaware of these components until they stop working. 

Could you elaborate on that, because I happen to agree with you? People don’t know the complexity of what’s working in their businesses these days. 

​​Mr Billson:​  What we have observed is businesses, small and family businesses, using capability where there is a communications link but unaware that it may be a 3G link, so the focus on the equipment’s functionality might not trigger, ‘Oh, there’s a communications dimension to this.’ You’ve touched on some of those in that rather eloquent submission. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Very. 

​​Mr Billson:​  That’s what we were quite concerned about. In our role of trying to advocate and draw attention to that concern and encouraging small and family businesses to turn their mind to this, given it’s not a handset, a phone, but it’s an embedded communications capability with a 3G chip in the side, we were just saying, ‘Please, check this stuff out otherwise the first you’ll know about it may well be when it just stops working.’ You might be on a large agricultural property and controlling gates remotely, or monitoring water levels in your dams or microclimates, or you might be tracking assets and trucks for a freight company or wander up to a vending machine to pay for a Pepsi Max and nothing happens. A security system might be looking after your premises, and all of a sudden there’s no link back to the base station and no remote observation capability. You might think, ‘What’s going on here?’ So what we’ve tried to do is just raise awareness of this as a possibility that people should turn their minds to, beyond the evidence you heard earlier in the day about the handsets themselves. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Is this something that a telco should be doing? 

​​Mr Billson:​  We’ve encouraged the telcos to step up and be more frank about where this technology is embedded. There are a number of websites, but even those websites—the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association website is a good resource but focuses very much on the handset. It doesn’t go very far at all into these embedded 3G applications, where it’s quite secondary to what the kit is designed to do but if it’s not there—you would have heard this from the surveyors—the total station using 3G will just not work. You’re not thinking about that when you’re looking at the functionality of that total station, just as you aren’t thinking about it if you’re running a transport business and keeping track of where your trucks are, or if you’ve got a point of sale. We’re trying to work out, if we are able, just how many of these pay pads where you walk up with a card and pay actually have a 3G chip as the comms to open the gate at a car park or to pay for a vending machine purchase. It’s been really hard to work out how deep that is. 

My sense—and it’s only a sense—is that those most likely to know are the telcos, because someone is paying for the use of that spectrum. I suggest the Senate might encourage the telcos to have a look at who they’re billing for 3G use. You might go back to them and say: ‘You’ve obviously got 1,800 vending machines coming through your billing system. Maybe get in touch with the vending machine operators and play a role in helping to identify which capability providers have 3G as their comms link.’ But communications isn’t the primary focus of the kit being used in small and family businesses. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. Your recommendation No. 1 says: 

The Australian Government and affected industries should engage in a targeted education scheme. 

That would imply to me that it’s not currently targeted or is not effective. 

​​Mr Billson:​  Well, I’m not sure what it is. We’ve been flabbergasted by how limited the awareness is. I can’t recall, but the number of media interviews that I have done, particularly on regional and rural radio, trying to raise awareness of it would be in the dozens. We’ve put material out through social media and the print media, and people have said: ‘Wow! I didn’t know about that.’ We’ve heard other stories where people with handsets have been getting engaged by the telcos, and maybe they’re dealing with that: ‘Hey, soon your 3G handset’s not going to work. You might want to do something about it.’ They are maybe not seeing that as a great priority, but that’s the more immediate one. We’re just concerned about these embedded uses of the technology, which could really compromise the businesses, including family enterprises. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  The themes that come through in your submission are the complexity and the unawareness of the complexity. I might be a small business owner who has a 5G phone, so I think I’m right and I don’t need to worry about that, but my business might be riddled with embedded devices that I’m not aware of. 

​​Mr Billson:​  You might be selling miniature goats at regional shows, and you have a mobile EFTPOS machine. You might not know. You might be using a device to monitor the microclimate in your vineyard. You might not know. Gates opening, refilling water troughs and tracking assets around the place are the sorts of things. It may affect your security system. You might not know, because the focus of that kit is not the comms link. That’s kind of in the background. It might not trigger— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  This is my last question. You are recommending that the inquiry’s report stress the need for improved communications to develop awareness of the embedded devices in particular. 

​​Mr Billson:​  Yes, sir. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Also, the question is who should wear the cost of that. Surely it should be the telcos, not the taxpayer or the government, doing it. 

​​Mr Billson:​  Well, I think the telcos have an important role here. I understand and respect their motive to make the highest and best use of the spectrum that’s available, but I would have thought supporting a transition would have been a commercially reasonable thing to expect of them. There is also the fact that they’re the ones billing people who are using 3G capability in whatever form it might be. They’re also the most likely to know where these applications are. I would be encouraging them to step forward and lean in at those levels. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  In your role, you are aware of many problems and you get around. If you are shocked at the level of unawareness, surely that needs a call for delaying or deferring the shutdown of 3G. 

​​Mr Billson:​  Possibly. I was asked about that on regional radio. To be honest, I said, if we’re just going to do more of the same, perhaps not, because nothing will change. But, if there’s a different approach to raise awareness and engage with, from my perspective, small and family businesses that are using kit with that embedded technology—if there’s a different approach—then a window of time to enable that to be effected is credible. But I did say on radio that, if we’re just going to leave it as it is and hope people become aware of it through serendipity, maybe extending the time frames— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  From your listed devices, we can’t do that. It’s going to be catastrophic. It’s like Y2K in reverse. The problem with Y2K was tiny; it wasn’t really a problem. But the hype was huge. In this case, the problem is huge and potentially catastrophic, but the talk is minimal. 

​​Mr Billson:​  I will take that as a comment, thank you. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you both for appearing. Your comments trigger some really serious questions. Have you seen James Parker’s submission? 

​​Ms Morice:​  I saw it last night. I did read it yesterday evening. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  It’s well worth a read. It opened my eyes a lot. I thought this issue was just about 3G coverage, regional access, safety issues, productivity and environment. What I’ve learned is that there’s much, much more, and James Parker’s submission opened my eyes to that. He claims that the industry is sacrificing public interest for commercial interests: getting more handset sales by shutting down 3G, forcing people to buy new handsets; more telco sales; more revenue for the associated industry; and recouping their 5G investment, because it hasn’t been as lucrative as they thought. He’s saying it’s more commercially beneficial to sell people new phones than to provide updates to existing devices—in other words, forced obsolescence. Do these things come within your purview? 

​​Ms Morice:​  They would if they raised issues under the Australian Consumer Law. For example, if a form of misleading representation had been made to consumers that they had to perform a certain action which may not have been necessary, potentially. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You can’t go to intent—only actions and what they’ve stated? 

​​Ms Morice:​  I don’t think we can go to intent. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  That’s what I thought. Mr Parker is saying it’s also about preserving market control and reducing costs. He’s saying there’s a simple solution, and that is 4G standardisation, which the telcos are not interested in because they want to preserve market control and reduce costs rather than spending it on standardising 4G. It’s the same with the handset manufacturers and the telcos. The industry is basically sacrificing safety and customers instead of fixing standardisation issues. Is that something you can pursue? 

​​Ms Morice:​  I think Mr Parker set out a number of device compatibility issues in his submission. I don’t think we’re aware of those issues he set out. We have focused on some of them, but they’ve been more to do with a different issue. I’m not in a position to have all the technical information, so I don’t think I could really provide an answer on whether there’s a standards issue from our perspective. We’re not the technical regulator. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Has Mr Parker piqued your interest? He’s basically saying that instead of turning everything upside down and causing a mess by pushing the solution as being one of shutting down 3G—and we’ve heard that many people are not aware that they’ve got 3G devices embedded throughout their businesses—that we focus on the real solution, which is to standardise, so there’s no problem. He said this is being worked on overseas. Is that something you would explore? 

​​Ms Morice:​  We can certainly have a look at some more detail in his submission, and if it raised issues we’d be very happy to have a look at that. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Would that include a call to Mr Parker? 

​​Ms Morice:​  Yes. I’d be very happy to talk to Mr Parker. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  He’s basically saying that the industry has failed to address root causes, which are serious 4G compatibility issues, and we don’t need to go to this trouble and impose all these costs for the benefit of the telcos, the handset manufacturers and the associated industries.  

​​Ms Proudfoot:​  The challenge we have is that we have that lens of the Competition and Consumer Act and the Australian Consumer Law that we’d need to have regard to. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I accept that. Do you work with other departments—in this case the Department of Communications? 

​​Ms Proudfoot:​  We do. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  How would you describe that relationship and the work you do together? 

​​Ms Proudfoot:​  We engage at a range of levels. Sometimes, for an issue like this, we’ll have more frequent discussions, but we have semi-regular—probably at least fortnightly—communications with the department. We also work with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, who were here earlier, and have cross appointment relationships with our commissioners. For example, a member of ACMA sits on our communications committee as an associate commissioner, so we have good lines of communication with those groups and a clear understanding of who fits where. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  When did the ACCC first become aware of this issue? 

​​Ms Morice:​  We were aware of issues to do with the handsets, but it wasn’t particularly on our radar. We first became aware of the issue to do with the category of handsets that are voice over LTE enabled but are unable to be used to make calls to 000, in early March this year. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  James Parker says that he was aware of the VoLTE compatibility issues with devices for four to five years. I think he said in his submission he became aware of it when it was introduced because he thought, ‘This is going to cause a problem one day, because 4G relies upon the 3G network.’ He forecast the problem. What he’s saying is the government departments have failed to monitor the switch-off. Who notified you of the problem? 

​​Ms Morice:​  I think we received a briefing from the mobile network operators, but at about the same time the department also advised us. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  March? 

​​Ms Morice:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  This year? 

​​Ms Morice:​  Early March, yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Alright. Thank you very much. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for being here, Ms Gebert. On page 4 of your submission you say that the TIO can handle 3G shutdown related complaints about, first, misleading sales practices and, fifth, unclear information. I don’t know if you’ve read the submission by James Parker. 

​​Ms Gebert:​  I haven’t, Senator, I’m sorry. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Okay. 

​​ACTING CHAIR:​  Sorry to interrupt you, Senator Roberts. The chair has joined us online. Senator Canavan? 

​​CHAIR:​  I’m happy for you to chair; you’re doing it so well. It’s better for someone in the room to do that. I’ll just ask questions when I need to. 

​​ACTING CHAIR (Senator Sterle):​  Thanks, Senator Canavan. Well, that stops me sneaking out halfway through! Senator Roberts. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Mr Parker yesterday told us also that he believes the telco industry is sacrificing public interest for commercial interests—more handset sales, more telco sales and more revenue for associated industries; and recouping their 5G investment, which hasn’t been paying off so far. He says the industry has failed to address the root cause. They’re saying, ‘Switch off and shut down 3G. It’ll all be finished—no more problems.’ The core issue is serious 4G compatibility issues, and these issues can be solved with software, and that’ll be the end of the problem. We also know—I don’t know if you’ve read other submissions or listened to other testimony today or yesterday? 

​​Ms Gebert:​  I haven’t, Senator Roberts. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  We also know that other countries have deferred their shutdown of 3G until late this decade—2028, for example, in France. Britain are still continuing with both their 3G and 2G. They’re not shutting them down. We’ve learned that only two countries have stopped their 3G. That’s China and Japan. They’ve got much higher population densities than we have, so they don’t face the same issues. And maybe America has too.  

But is this a case of misleading sales practices—because it seems to me from the evidence that the telcos have been saying, ‘3G is old. There’s better technology coming. The problem is just a change of technology. Sell more handsets. Make more telco sales and more revenue for associated industries,’ when all that’s needed is a software fix and standardisation of software. 

​​Ms Gebert:​  What we’re hearing from consumers is they’re heavily reliant—which I think goes to the core of what you’re concerned about—on their telco, their phone and their internet, to get clear information. What we’ve seen through their complaints is that customers are a bit confused. They’re not really sure what’s going on. Positively, though, we have seen some of the telcos come forward, particularly for those that are the most vulnerable, and offer a number of different solutions that try and help bridge the gap. But there are people who would obviously know a lot more about the technical information and would be able to respond specifically to the technical nature of your concerns, Senator Roberts. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What I’m saying, Ms Gebert, is that there is a case here, it seems, for telcos to be investigated for misleading sales practices—because their excuse is the wrong reason—and also for unclear information. We know from many witnesses yesterday and today that there are many small businesses who would say, ‘I’ve got a 5G phone; it doesn’t affect me,’ when 3G devices that will be shut down are embedded in their business. There will be an enormous cost, needless cost, because the telcos are covering up the main issue. 

​​Ms Gebert:​  That’s not what’s coming through in the complaints that we receive. And our role is really to ensure that we understand the nature of the issues coming to us and that we’re able to work with the individual customers who are presenting to us about their concerns. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You also mentioned that complaints are the tip of the iceberg. We also know that awareness is low. I’m wondering whether that’s deliberate because the telcos are going to make a lot of money out of selling new handsets and, potentially, other new devices. My office went back over the recordings today and assessed it. Of 3G-only handsets, there’ll be an extra 40,000 sold that’ll be redundant next month, from Telstra alone. There are 224 from TPG. Of 4G non-VoLTE, there will be 186,000, plus another 8,000 from TPG. Of 4G non-VoLTE emergency, there are 9,000 affected for Telstra, 25,000 for Optus and 16,000 for TPG. These are the numbers that the telcos actually gave earlier this morning. Of 4G sub-700-megahertz, there are 13,000 from Telstra. Of those that TPG were unsure of and were trying to assess, there were 16,500. That’s 465,000 handsets, and, as we’ve heard from many witnesses, a lot of people are unaware. Of other devices—the Internet of Things, 3G water meters et cetera—there were 399,000 for Telstra. Of smartwatches, there were 63,000 for Telstra. Of tablets, there were 45,000, plus 100,000 for Optus. So that’s 500,000 in total from Telstra, 100,000 from Optus and 1,000 from TPG, for a total of 608,000 other devices. That’s a total of a million devices that will be redundant in a month. 

​​Ms Gebert:​  Yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So there’s nothing you can do about it? You can only act on complaints? 

​​Ms Gebert:​  We can act on the complaints that we receive. We also have a systemic issue function that would look at whether there’s something underpinning the nature of the issues coming to us. But the specific issues that you’ve raised are not coming through in a nature that would prompt us to undertake a systemic investigation. As I said before, we aren’t able, as an ombudsman scheme, to prevent or otherwise stop the shutdown of 3G. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I understand you can’t stop it, because you said in your submission: 

The TIO cannot handle 3G shutdown related complaint issues about:  

• dissatisfaction with the decision … 

I get that, but this is a potential catastrophe coming. There’s only a month to go. 

​​Ms Gebert:​  There is only a month to go, yes. You’re correct. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  A lot of individuals are going to be catastrophically hurt. 

​​Ms Gebert:​  You’re correct. There is a significant impact on people. One of the things that we’ve been doing since late last year is providing independent information and advice, specifically to those consumers that come to us but also through our website, and connecting our consumer panel with industry organisations to help ensure more accurate provision of information to those that are impacted. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Who can we take this up with? You’ve said yourself that the complaints are the tip of the iceberg. We have a massive number—1,072,000—of devices soon to be cut off. We have low awareness. You said that yourself. But you only deal with complaints. How do we head this train wreck off? 

​​Ms Gebert:​  I think it’s a responsibility of the industry, as well as anyone around it, like us, to ensure there is the provision of accurate information to help people understand both their rights and the steps that need to be taken to be able to manage themselves through the shutdown of 3G. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Can you contact James Parker, or at least read his submission? 

​​Ms Gebert:​  I can contact James Parker. I can do that. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you very much. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for that. I’m pleased that there’s a precedent and that you’re aware of it. Coming back to the emergency call provisions and ACMA: it seems to me, from our session with ACMA this morning, that they’re reluctant to get involved. What are the steps? Does your department or does the minister notify ACMA? Does ACMA then follow suit? 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  It can happen in a couple of ways. This is where the broader piece of work being done on triple 0 and the outcomes of the review from the Optus outage are quite relevant. I might ask Ms Silleri to talk about what ACMA and the government are doing on that front. 

​​Ms Silleri:​  As you heard this morning, the ACMA has responsibility for the emergency call services determination, which broadly sets out the rules and arrangements to ensure that when you call triple 0 you get through. When we looked at the ecosystem that supports triple 0, as a result of the Optus outage, we found that there were a number of gaps and flaws in that ecosystem, whether that be through formal arrangements, informal arrangements, processes or the actual rules. Many of the recommendations from that review, of which there are 18 in total, are aimed at improving the rules around the ecosystem and particularly the emergency call services determination. 

In the government response to the review, the minister indicated she would be directing the ACMA to review the emergency call services determination. I can advise that we’re currently consulting on a draft of that direction. Not only does it look at issues identified in the Optus outage; it’s also looking at issues we’ve learnt through this 3G closure process. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  That’s very refreshing to hear, and reassuring. 

​​Ms Silleri:​  One of the things we’re most concerned about is: if it’s considered that the rules in the determination do not require that all calls to triple 0 be carried, then they should. That’s where we’re heading. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So you’re updating literally in real time, from yesterday and today— 

​​Ms Silleri:​  The minister will direct the ACMA in a very short period of time, and then the ACMA will conduct that work. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. Europeans seem to be only just now waiting. I’ve referenced James Parker’s submission and his testimony yesterday many, many times in this hearing; it has been quite a revelation. It seems to me that France is deferring until late this decade—to 2028, I think. Britain continues to use 2G and 3G, as do other countries like South Africa. They seem to be waiting, so we’re in good company—so it’s not as though you’ve dropped the ball. 

I was going to focus on who knew what when, but I think Senator Sterle and Senator Canavan have asked those questions. What have you or your staff learnt from that, Mr Chisholm? One of the things that has happened is that TPG have already bolted; they’ve flown the coup, and that’s very disappointing to hear and read. I understand that TPG has a relationship with Optus which enables it to get access to 3G anyway, so they haven’t really bolted. But I don’t want to see Telstra and Optus bolt. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  You’re right, in the sense that TPG transitioned earlier this year, January, and they have the capability of their triple 0 calls camping-on to Optus and Telstra. So the potential impact associated with a switch from 3G for triple 0 isn’t really being experienced in the case of TPG because of that link. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Exactly. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  Optus and Telstra are engaging quite extensively with TPG, and TPG with Optus and Telstra, to ensure that those customers are identified and are supported in advance of any transition. But you are correct that the potential impact of that has been muted because of the camping-on capabilities that exist there. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  What actions have you implemented? You convened a meeting, I think, with the industry earlier this year, February, which seems to me horribly late, but I think the industry has been keeping you out of the loop somehow. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  Can we just add that we have had quarterly reporting from industry from around 2021. We requested, due to some of the issues that we saw coming through that reporting late last year, much more granular reporting. That reporting has been useful, and, in something similar, you might seek the granular reporting earlier. We also have the work that is already underway through the Bean review, which will address some of the risks that we’ve seen coming through the 3G shutdown as well. That’s already underway, as Ms Silleri has outlined. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  The thing that I’ve been looking at here is the point that was made earlier that there was this strong focus for some time, stretching back to 2021, on the reporting and service equivalence. It was really only late last year that the question of a proportion of devices not able to make emergency services calls was being raised. This is despite the fact that we were getting very regular—at some point, quarterly—reporting, which is now, obviously, much more intensive reporting, from industry. Then, in December last year, Telstra, in its quarterly report, indicated that there were some devices—older handsets—that were potentially impacted and that Telstra, Optus and TPG were working together to look at that. Then, early this year, following on from that, we undertook a range of our own analysis and wrote out to the companies, and the minister commissioned the working group and a number of the reporting mechanisms that sit under that. We obviously do depend on industry giving us the information that we need to advise government and to communicate with the community about the impacts of these changes, and it’s fair to say that, as soon as we started to get a sense that there were devices that were going to be impacted that weren’t previously identified, we did ramp up our engagement and put in place more regular reporting. The minister has now written on a number of occasions to industry and met with the companies to seek updates from them. As I say, she is aware of regulatory options that are available to her. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for that. That’s very encouraging and reassuring. I think Ms La Rance said that reporting started under the Morrison government—quarterly reporting from April 2021. It was initially just Telstra, when Telstra was asked, and it was specifically about 3G shutdown and 4G coverage. Then, in May 2023, you added Optus to the party—your department did. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  Minister Rowland requested quarterly reporting from Optus. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  Minister Rowland’s, yes. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So, rather than be embarrassed by your lack of action, you’ve actually taken action to ramp it up when you started becoming concerned? 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  Correct. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  I think quantifying it was an important part of that. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Exactly, the data. Wonderful. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  We became aware of the scale. As the mobile network operators gave as evidence this morning, they also became aware of the scale around that time with the corrective questions. We took that to the minister when we got it in late February this year. The minister acted quite quickly, along with us, to establish that working group and that fortnightly reporting, which has the information that we’ve discussed today on the different device types and numbers. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Perhaps jumping the gun a bit here: if you defer or intervene then perhaps there could be an objective threshold criteria which has been met by the telcos specified by your department or by the minister to say that, when you achieve this level of surety or this level of conversion, so that there are no people left behind when 3G shuts down, then, and only then, will they shut it down. Or maybe this is such a mammoth exercise, looking at the number of devices, that you make an indefinite extension. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  That very much goes to that question of obtaining assurance that, particularly when it comes to handsets, triple 0 calls will be able to be made. That has been our fundamental concern in relation to devices: the switch will happen when it happens, and people will still be able to make phone calls on some of those devices, but triple 0 calls won’t work. That is not acceptable for the government. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  No, and it will be interesting to know if you can give us, one day, a deadline by when we will know that every lift and every airport is okay. Until then, I don’t think we can afford to shut it down. As I said, we’re in good company. We’ve got some leading operators in Europe now recognising that the core issue here is an industry failure to address the root cause, which is serious 4G compatibility issues and still relying upon 3G. I thought this whole exercise was about just about regional access, safety, productivity and the environment, but I have learned, just in the space of 48 hours, that it’s a hell of a lot more and much more serious. It raises questions, including of the minister and the department. It seems like you’ve got that covered. Now we will have to be watching what the minister does in the future to protect Australians. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  We will provide the list of critical industry peak bodies that we’ve contacted. I will add that this list isn’t exhaustive. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  When did you contact them? 

​​Ms La Rance:​  We have contacted them—we would have to check the timeframe—over the last 12 months. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So it is not just since you became concerned? 

​​Ms La Rance:​  No. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I noted here that in February this year you started getting more detailed numbers, and that coincides with your first elevated meeting. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  Yes. February this year was that breadth and that particular focus on that triple 0 issue. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  To give you a sense of it: we have been very broad. This list includes water and sewage services, energy companies, health care and hospitals, universities, and food and groceries. We’ve talked about transport, infrastructure companies, defence, transport and space technology. We have gone very broadly, in terms of sectors that we’ve reached out to, and we’ll continue to do that work as part of the information we need to gather for advising the minister. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  That’s good news. One of the things I’ve done is go through the submissions and the witness statements. I went through, in particular, Mr Parker’s submissions and his summary statements. I came up with five sets of questions. The fourth one was his belief that there has been insufficient oversight from the minister, the department, ACCC, ACMA and media, but I can see now that it hasn’t been insufficient. You are ramping it up, which is good to see. I have more questions, but the final thing we need to see from your department or the minister is a quantified threshold to say that when that’s reached, only then can you move on and shut 3G and, even better, as part of that threshold, a specification that they will sort out the 4G compatibility issue. That seems to be the core problem. The rest is smoke and mirrors, not on your part, but on the industry’s part—they’re playing footloose here. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  Through that working group there has been a lot of work undertaken to understand the different devices and share that information, and we will continue to work with ACMA on those device standards as well.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  On the compatibility issues? 

​​Ms La Rance:​  Yes, the standards for devices being able to operate, and that goes to the triple 0 issue in particular. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I understand there’s GSMA and GSM, which provide advice or hints rather than hard standards globally, and the European countries are now starting to wake up to the fact they’re not in compliance with them. It seems as though the same applies here. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  We’re aware of Mr Parker’s submission and we’ve gone through that. We’ll make sure that the relevant issues will be raised. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I’m sorry. What was that last sentence? 

​​Ms La Rance:​  We’ll make sure that, if there are issues in there that are relevant, they will be raised. There’s already an awareness of most of them. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You are already aware. So there’s hope that not only will 3G continue until it’s safe to do so but that the compatibility issue, the core issue, will also be addressed by your department, or make sure that the industry addresses it. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  It’s under consideration to see what there is to be addressed. Some of the issues that have been raised are in progress, or some of the characterisation by Mr Parker is a little bit different, but we will work with ACMA on that. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Who is ultimately responsible if it proceeds and is a commercial disaster or people’s lives are threatened or even deaths occur because of failures? Is the department, the minister, the telcos, or all of the above, responsible? 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  At the end of the day, the companies have responsibilities to their customers associated with that switch. So that’s one set of responsibilities. Industries themselves that represent organisations or individuals with devices who are aware of the transition have a responsibility to ensure that that communication effort is being amplified and undertaken. And the government— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Let me just check my understanding. You’re saying that the telcos are responsible and you are responsible for making sure they’re responsible. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  The role we have taken is twofold—I guess it’s threefold. One is to get to the bottom of the information like how many numbers of devices are affected, where are those devices— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  With due respect, also the compatibility issues, the core issue. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  Absolutely. That’s something that’s very relevant. That’s one part of what we do. The other part of what we do is to amplify and ensure that people are aware of this. We have seen the— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Which people? Do you mean the customers? 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  The customers. Some of the industries we’ve talked about here this morning, as part of the reaching out effort and talking to these industries, there have been times when we’ve found that they are well aware of it; there are other times we have found they are less aware of it. We see our job as bringing that information to the broader set of information or broader set of groups as possible. Thirdly—and this comes to your question—at the end of the day, we provide advice back to government about all of those issues and the potential recourse available under legislation to respond to that issue. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  It’s not sufficient to say, ‘We’re going to switch over in two months, six months, 12 months, two years.’ That doesn’t cut it. A lot of people think, ‘Well, I’ve got my latest phone, it’s 5G,’ and they think that’s sweet, but they don’t know about the embedded devices all through their businesses, hundreds of the darn things, or the lifts in the airport. 

I think that’s the critical step that the telcos have failed on, because that has come through loud and clear, be it from the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman this morning or from other groups. A lot of people don’t know that they’re exposed here, and they’re relying upon you to protect them. I think that’s another part. 

Perhaps I could go to something else to see if you’re aware of it. Mr Parker—and I’m pleased to see that you’re going to be reading his paper in detail— 

​​Ms La Rance:​  We already have. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  You already have? That’s good. I’m trying to advertise it because I was seriously impressed by it. He deserves a medal. In one of the summaries from his two-page summary he says that the industry is sacrificing public interest for commercial interest. I’m not accusing the telcos of being corrupt; I think they’re probably swept up in the groupthink. He says specifically that more handset sales, more telco sales and more revenue for associated industry are all very alluring. Under the circumstances, people can get swept along and think that it’s all hunky-dory, when they don’t really look. And I’m pleased to see that you are looking. 

He also mentioned that the industry could likely be suffering from a shortfall on ‘recouping their 5G investment’ and that they’re looking to spur along 5G sales. In other words, it’s more commercially beneficial, as he says, to sell people new phones than provide updates to existing devices. But the key is the updates to existing devices. So I think that we’ve got an industry sacrificing safety and customers instead of fixing the standardisation issues at the moment. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  I would be reluctant to express an opinion about the broader investment and commercial considerations that might be relevant to the telecommunications companies’ considerations. There are a whole set of issues there that are probably best directed to them. I’m aware of the points you’ve raised there. I would come back to what our fundamental focus is: irrespective of the motivations of the transition, it must address the concerns and considerations that we’ve outlined here today about public safety and about ensuring that we don’t have any of the risks realised that we’ve talked about. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  That has very much been the focus of that working group, and the three mobile network operators have been participating in all of those working group meetings and outlining what they’re doing to contact affected consumers and industry groups. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I think that there is consumer protection—that’s officially ACCC’s role—but surely, as part of your oversight of the telcos, that’s part of your role as well. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  We have been communicating with regulators as well, ACMA and the ACCC, and we’re providing advice to the minister. But one of the key roles of government in any of these industry transition issues, particularly where you’ve got this question of potential safety impacts, is to reach as many people as we possibly can. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Not only reach them but make sure they understand. 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  Absolutely—reach them and make sure they understand. And if there’s a view that some of those technical issues you’ve outlined haven’t been properly addressed, or if we can’t be confident that they’ll be addressed, that will certainly be relevant to our advice back to government.  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  I think that we need to see a position where the telcos can guarantee that every trucker with a 3G tracker has been contacted; that, for every piece of farm equipment, as Senator Canavan said, every holder has been contacted; and that every lift in every airport will work. I also understand that, in relation to the emergency calls determination, ACMA testified that a certain network, such as 3G, not being available to make emergency calls would not breach the rules. Is that the case? 

​​Mr Chisholm:​  There’s a requirement under the rules to ensure that triple 0 calls are able to be made. It doesn’t focus on whether it’s 3G or 4G; however, our focus is on ensuring that triple 0 calls can be made as part of the transition anyway. 

​​Ms Silleri:​  The ACMA has a certain interpretation of the existing determination, which is why the minister is currently considering a review of the direction to them to make it beyond doubt that calls must be carried to triple 0. If I could just add something on one of the issues that you touched on around device compatibility, an additional recommendation arising from the Optus outage review—I think it’s recommendation 3—is that there must be mandated six-monthly testing across devices and networks for end-to-end interoperability to ensure that a call can be carried from one network to another, regardless of the device. That testing requirement is currently being developed by the industry association Communications Alliance under request from the ACMA. So that’s a further measure that will ensure that, going forward, handsets and networks will be configured in a way that calls will be carried to triple 0. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  Thank you for that. My staff have just been through the proceedings from today and have been getting some of the details. As I said, with more than a million devices not being compatible after 3G is removed, maybe they meant that some networks will still rely on 3G.  

One of the things that surprised me today—well, maybe it didn’t surprise me—was that the Optus representative—Mr Pickard, I think it was—said that Optus was not aware of the size of the impact until 24 February. How is it that a company the size of Optus, with the customer reach it’s got and the responsibility it’s got, can make a decision to shut down and then not be aware until a few months before the deadline? That’s really chilling. 

​​Ms La Rance:​  I understand that that was in relation to quantifying the triple 0 devices that appeared to work but wouldn’t. That came to light for industry in the second half of last year. That was the process that I’ve gone through a couple of times with quantifying it. So industry— 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  So you’re saying it’s to their credit that they’ve opened up and found it? 

​​Ms La Rance:​  Once they were aware of the problem to then understand how many people were affected—that is an issue, the triple 0 issue, that came to light last year. 

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  It’s pretty embarrassing. 

​​ACTING CHAIR:​  We are running short of time, so, Senator Roberts, do you have any more?  

​​Senator ROBERTS:​  That’s it from me.