Trust, reform and the future of telecommunications: Building a framework that works for everyone

Presenter: Cynthia Gebert, Ombudsman

Event: TelSoc event - Trust, reform and the future of telecommunications: Building a framework that works for everyone

Date and time: Wednesday 23 September 2026, 12.30pm to 1.30pm

Duration: 15 minutes

Audience: Telecommunications industry

I acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia, and pay my respects to the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, where I am today.

I recognise their enduring connection to land, water, culture and community.

I pay my respects to Elders past and present, who carry the stories, knowledge and traditions of First Nations peoples, keeping communities connected through generations.

Long before our communications networks today, there were songlines written into the land and stories mapped in the constellations, as part of a rich and enduring system of connection and storytelling.

That legacy continues today. Sovereignty has never been ceded. This always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.

Introduction

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you to Jim and the TelSoc team for the invitation to join you.

Earlier this year I spoke at the CommsDay and ATA Industry Trust session.

In that speech I asked if our sector was ready to shift from debate to delivery, and from a compliance mindset to one grounded in trust and fairness.

Today, I want to take that conversation a step further because trust, reform and the future of telecommunications are not three separate issues.

They are one conversation about the kind of system Australians need, and the outcomes they should be able to rely on.

As the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the TIO sees the downstream effects when that system does not work.

Complaints give us a unique vantage point.

They show us where consumers experience friction, where provider systems fail to follow through, and where the regulatory framework is not producing the outcome people reasonably expect.

That perspective also gives us a responsibility.

An Ombudsman should not simply be the last resort, or the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

We should use what we see to help prevent harm before it occurs, and to support practical, systemic change.

The telecommunications industry is navigating rapid change. Technology is evolving. Expectations are rising. Investment decisions are complex. The economic and practical challenges of building and maintaining networks across a large, sparsely populated country are real, particularly in regional and remote communities.

But through all that complexity, consumers ask a set of very simple questions: Does my service work when I need it? If something goes wrong, will it be fixed quickly? Will I be treated fairly? Can I trust the people and systems I am relying on?

Those questions should sit at the centre of reform.

Trust is built through outcomes, not compliance

The first point I want to make is that trust is earned when consumers see outcomes, not when organisations point to compliance.

Compliance matters. Clear rules, enforceable protections and accountability are essential. They establish the baseline and help ensure that support does not come down to luck.

But a baseline of clear rules is not the same as outcomes. Consumers do not judge the industry by the complexity of the rules, the number of obligations met, or how difficult the regulatory landscape is to navigate.

They judge it by their lived experience.

They judge it by whether the phone or internet works when they need to earn a living, access healthcare, stay safe or remain connected to family and community.

They judge it by what happens after a mistake is made.

They notice delays, inconsistent answers, unclear communication and commitments that are not followed through.

Earlier this year, I described trust through three fundamentals: reliability, honesty and respect.

Reliability means the service works when it matters, and when it does not, the provider follows through.

Honesty means no hidden costs, no fine-print surprises and no promises that disappear when a consumer calls back.

Respect means people feel heard, valued and dealt with fairly.

These principles are straightforward, yet many complaints arise because the experience falls short of them.

Consider the consumer who accidentally paid a bill twice and was sent a refund cheque to the wrong address.

To have the refund reissued, he was asked to travel to a store two hours away to prove his identity.

Or the consumer experiencing hardship who was promised a discount, only to be charged the full amount and later told the discount did not exist.

Or the consumer whose service was disconnected because of an incorrect debt, despite written confirmation that the error had been fixed.

Each example contains a process that may have made sense somewhere inside an organisation, but from the consumer’s perspective, the outcome was unreasonable.

The system did not respond with reliability, honesty or respect.

This is why success should be measured less by whether a rule was followed in isolation, and more by whether the consumer stayed connected, received a fair response and could move on with confidence.

Trust can survive mistakes.

Mistakes are inevitable in any industry.

What damages trust is the failure to respond well, early and consistently.

The strongest argument for reform is consumer benefit

My second point is that the industry’s strongest argument for reform is not regulatory burden - it is consumer benefit.

The current telecommunications framework has developed incrementally over time.

Layers have been added in response to new technology, new risks, market changes and failures.

There is broad recognition that a comprehensive, root-and-branch review is needed to test whether the framework remains fit for purpose in a modern communications environment, and the TIO supports this review.

A framework designed for the future should be clearer, more coherent and capable of keeping pace with change.

But simplifying the framework must not be confused with weakening consumer protection.

The central test should be: what will Australians gain?

If industry is arguing for change, the case will be strongest when it clearly explains how reform will solve the problems consumers experience.

Will it deliver more resilient networks?

Faster restoration after outages?

More investment in regional and remote communities?

Simpler customer experiences?

Better access to emerging technologies?

Stronger confidence that help will be available when something goes wrong?

These are outcomes people can understand, but more importantly they connect an abstract regulatory debate to everyday life.

Consumers and government are far more likely to support reform when the benefit flowing to the public is visible, credible and capable of being measured.

That means reform proposals should not begin and end with the cost of compliance.

They should explain the public value created in return.

They should be clear about the safeguards that will remain, how accountability will work and how we will know whether the new framework is delivering better outcomes.

It also means being honest about trade-offs.

Technology-neutral regulation can create flexibility, but only if practical consumer outcomes remain protected.

Simplified regulation can reduce duplication and overlap, but only if responsibility remains clear.

Innovation can expand access and choice, but only if consumers are not left behind as products and services evolve.

The reforms that endure are the ones people can see working for them in everyday life.

Industry leadership can build trust in reform

My third point is that trust grows when industry leads the reform conversation, rather than only reacting to it.

Too often, telecommunications reform is shaped through a cycle of failure, inquiry, proposal and response.

Industry is asked to comment after public confidence has already been damaged, and reform becomes an adversarial contest between competing positions.

That cycle is costly for everyone.

It slows progress, entrenches positions and encourages participants to defend the current system rather than design a better one.

Industry has itself called for greater collaboration between providers, government and regulators.

It has highlighted real challenges, including infrastructure investment, power resilience and the difficulty of servicing remote communities.

These issues require long-term thinking and shared responsibility. No single organisation can solve them alone.

But leadership in this conversation requires more than asking how regulatory burden can be reduced.

It requires asking a bigger question: what kind of telecommunications market do Australians need over the next decade?

That question changes the conversation.

It puts resilience, reliability, affordability and access at the centre.

It creates room to discuss long-term investment in networks, stronger outage preparedness and restoration, technology-neutral solutions, and place-based approaches for regional and remote Australia.

It also asks industry to advocate not only for its own interests, but for a system that earns public confidence.

That does not mean providers, regulators, government and the TIO will always agree.

Independence matters, and constructive challenge is part of a healthy system.

But we can engage differently.

We can listen with the intent to understand the problem, not simply defend our position.

We can use evidence from complaints, operations and communities to identify causes, not just symptoms.

And we can act before every detail is prescribed in black and white.

The organisations that rebuild trust fastest are those that act early, before regulation is needed or beyond what is required by law.

When business culture and systems put consumer and public outcomes at the centre, better decisions follow.

From failure demand to prevention

There is also a practical reason to make consumer outcomes the organising principle for reform: prevention is better for everyone.

At the TIO, we see complaints that should have been resolved much earlier through better communication, accountability and follow-through.

When issues are not addressed at the first opportunity, positions harden. Consumers repeat their story.

Providers undertake rework, complaints take longer and become more difficult to resolve, and trust erodes further.

The most effective dispute resolution is the dispute that never needs to reach us.

The best outcome for consumers, providers and the reputation of the sector is a fair response the first time.

A future-ready framework should therefore reward early resolution and systemic prevention, and it should make responsibility clear, encourage providers to identify repeat problems, and support intervention before consumer harm becomes widespread.

The TIO has a role in this.

We must continue to improve our own responsiveness and consistency, strengthen how we use complaint insights, and work in a more structured way with providers to address delays and repeat issues at their source.

We hold ourselves to the same standards of reliability, honesty and respect that we ask of industry.

We do not always get it right, and we must be open about that.

Trust is strengthened when institutions are willing to acknowledge problems, explain what they are changing and demonstrate progress through outcomes.

A shared framework for the future

So what should guide the next phase?

First, start with the outcome Australians need, not the rules we want to remove or add.

Second, design for real consumer experiences, including people in vulnerable circumstances and communities where distance, infrastructure and service choice shape what is practically possible.

Third, make accountability visible.

Consumers should know who is responsible, what they can expect and where they can go when the system fails.

Fourth, use evidence to learn and improve. Complaint data, outage experience, provider operations and community insight should tell us whether reform is working and where further action is needed.

And finally, lead together.

Industry, government, regulators, consumer advocates and the TIO each see a different part of the system.

A durable framework will draw on all of those perspectives while keeping the public interest at its centre.

Closing

The telecommunications industry has a trust challenge.

The question is not whether reform is needed - there is broad recognition that the current framework should be reviewed.

The more important question is whether consumers will trust us when we say reform is in their interests.

We will not answer that question through rhetoric.

We will answer it through the choices we make, the safeguards we preserve, the problems we solve and the outcomes people experience.

The reforms that endure will not be judged by how much red tape they remove or how much money they save in isolation.

They will be judged by whether Australians are better connected, safer and more confident that the system works for them.

The industry’s trust problem will not be solved by fewer rules alone.

It will be solved when consumers believe the sector is advocating for a better telecommunications system for everyone, and when their experience gives them reason to believe it.

That is the opportunity in front of us: to move from debate to delivery, to build reform around consumer benefit, and to create a framework that is resilient, trusted and ready for the future.

Thank you.