Luke Coleman, CEO ATA Speech to CommsDay Regional and Policy Forum 25/2/2026
Speech to CommsDay Regional and Policy Forum
11:40-12:00, Wednesday 25 February 2026
Good morning everyone, it’s great to be here with you and thanks to Grahame and the CommsDay team for the opportunity to speak.
Let me open my remarks by posing a question.
Does Australia have policy settings that encourage investment in digital infrastructure?
The answer is no – we do not.
And regional Australia suffers the most as a result.
Does Australia need policy settings that encourage investment in digital infrastructure?
Yes. We desperately do.
And I’ve got 20 minutes this morning to spell out how we should do it.
So let’s get straight into it.
If Australia is going to continue to benefit from some of the best connectivity in the world, this country needs a digital infrastructure investment strategy.
Thanks to AI, the world is currently in the throes of one of the biggest tech-driven capex cycles in history.
But while capital investors are pushing their foot down on the accelerator, our policy settings are pumping the brakes.
In my remarks today, I will describe the three pillars that are required as part of a digital infrastructure investment strategy.
First, we need better access to key inputs for network deployment.
Second, we need investment incentives.
And third, we need regulatory reform.
Before I get into the specifics of each pillar, let me start by setting the scene for why a digital infrastructure investment strategy is so desperately needed.
Telecommunications is the one and only sector in the Australian economy to have delivered more services at lower prices over the past decade[1].
Telco prices are down by 23% relative to 2015, even as consumers are getting more value from these services than ever before.
But at the same time, Australians have higher expectations on telcos than ever before.
Australians have come to expect telecoms networks to deliver more coverage, more capacity, and greater resilience – all of which require ongoing investment.
While Australian consumers have benefitted from telecoms pricing acting as an anchor on inflation, investment in digital infrastructure is in an unsustainable position.
As industry analyst David Kennedy described at the last CommsDay event on October, telecommunications network investments are, on average, generating returns on invested capital (ROIC) below the weighted average cost of capital (WACC)[2] – meaning that either prices will need to increase, or investment will need to decrease, to establish a sustainable market environment.
Neither of these outcomes would be good for Australia.
And it’s more than just about consumer outcomes.
Digital infrastructure is fundamental to the success of the Australian Government’s productivity agenda.
The Australian Government’s National AI Plan recognises that two components are critical to support AI at scale: computing power and “digital connectivity… which includes high-speed networks, fibre-optic connectivity and resilient telecommunications systems.”[3]
The National AI Plan’s third action item is to ‘Attract Investment’.
But as a nation, we do not have a strategy that would turn this ambition into action.
Telco networks are the critical infrastructure underpinning healthcare, education, banking and financial services, resources, Government services, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Australia’s economy would come to a standstill without it.
Digital infrastructure is central to everything.
So let me turn to the first pillar of a digital infrastructure investment strategy:
We need better access to key inputs for network deployment.
Today, Australians benefit enormously from a vibrant and competitive mobile market.
Australia’s mobile networks rank 10th in the world for network excellence, based on 4G/5G availability, download speeds, and consistent service quality[4].
Outside of Europe, Australia ranks 2nd in the world after South Korea – outranking Singapore, the USA, and Japan.
Tenth in the world is a truly remarkable achievement.
To put it in context, Australia ranks 6th in the world for the size of our landmass[5], and 6th–last in the world for population density[6].
If you took the top 9 countries on the OpenSignal network excellence index, all of them would easily fit within Australia’s enormous landmass.
But I’m not saying this to sounds triumphalist.
It’s not “mission accomplished” – it’s a warning.
This high global ranking did not come by accident. It came as the result of significant and sustained private investment in a competitive mobile market.
Australia risks falling into the malaise of thinking that we are simply “the lucky country”.
Luck did not deliver three competitive networks covering close to 99% of the population.
Private investment did.
And if Australians want to continue to benefit from this investment, telcos need better access to key inputs for network deployment.
Spectrum is the standout example.
I’ve already mentioned that telco prices are down by more than 20% relative to 2015.
But are declining prices sustainable if telcos are required to pay more for the spectrum they’re already using?
Spectrum costs are ultimately paid for by consumers in their phone bills.
Higher spectrum prices will result in either higher phone bills, or lower network investment – or both.
I will not spend my time today delving into the details of the current price benchmarking exercise being undertaken by ACMA as part of its Expiring Spectrum Licence process.
But I will frame the issue as simply as possible: Every dollar spent on spectrum is a dollar that can’t be spent on coverage, capacity, and resilience.
If Australia had a digital infrastructure investment strategy, it would consider the flow-on effects of spectrum pricing in relation to investment in mobile infrastructure.
It should have the strategic policy objective of maximising investment in coverage, capacity, and resilience.
This is an issue which is exacerbated in regional and remote areas.
No other country in the world comes anywhere close to Australia when it comes to the policy challenge of incentivising investment in areas with extremely low population densities.
It’s also a digital inclusion issue.
Mobile connectivity is often described as an ‘essential service’ – but increased spectrum costs will ultimately be reflected in consumers’ phone bills – and will be felt by those who can least afford it.
It’s remarkable how affordable mobile services are today. For less than a dollar a day Australians have access to unlimited phone calls, unlimited text messages, and around 1GB of mobile data a day from a range of competitive providers[7].
That is a massive win for digital inclusion.
But it is at risk if telcos are required to spend billions more than they should on spectrum.
So that’s pillar one of a digital investment strategy: making key inputs available.
The second pillar is investment incentives.
The Australian Government should seek to incentivise investment in digital infrastructure through targeted financial incentives, co-investment programs and Public-Private Partnership, we well as through tax benefits.
We’ve had some success in the past.
Co-funding initiatives such as the Mobile Black Spot Program, Telecommunications Disaster Resilience Innovation program, and Mobile Network Hardening Program have delivered benefits to Australians by providing financial support to telcos to invest in infrastructure in regional areas.
There is a certain irony that the funds committed to these co-investment programs do not come anywhere near the fees paid for spectrum access.
ACMA’s proposed total price for expiring spectrum licences is $7.3 billion.
To put this on context: the cumulative funding for 8 rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program, 3 rounds of the Mobile Network Hardening Program, and the Telecoms Disaster Resilience Innovation Program is around $530 million.
That means the Commonwealth Government re-invests just 7% of spectrum taxes back into investment incentive programs.
In other words, 93% of those spectrum fees simply go into the Treasury coffers – with no direct benefit to mobile users.
Add in three rounds of the Regional Connectivity Program and that figure is closer to $900 million, which equates to just over 12% of spectrum costs.
It’s not hard to imagine that Australian mobile users would have seen more investment in coverage, capacity and resilience if that capital was available to telcos.
So that’s pillar two: investment incentives.
The third pillar of a digital infrastructure investment strategy is regulatory reform.
The Productivity Commission recently released its report titled ‘Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy’.
When the Commission consulted on its interim report, it described the “three core challenges facing policymakers, regulators and ministers”, being:
- strong incentives to be risk averse,
- strong incentives to undervalue the regulatory burden on businesses, because governments do not bear the burden themselves, and
- a tendency for tunnel vision, as they allow their primary regulatory objective to outweigh all other considerations.[8]
Sound familiar?
Let’s look at the Productivity Commission’s “three core challenges” through the lens of regional policy.
Incentives to be risk averse.
Incentives to undervalue regulatory burden.
And a tendency for tunnel vision.
Nothing could better encapsulate these challenges than the fact that we don’t have one universal service obligation.
We have three.
First, we have the Universal Service Obligation, paid for by a combination of an industry levy and taxpayer contributions.
This sees Telstra receive $230 million for standard telephone services and $40m for payphones. Excluding GST.
This contract runs until 2032, meaning that at a total annual cost of $270 million, more than $1.6 billion is yet to be spent on fixed-line voice and payphone services over the next six years.
To put that in context, Telstra delivers around 300,000 USO services outside NBN’s fixed-line footprint[9].
So excluding payphones, $230 million a year until 2032 is $1.38 billion.
$1.38 billion divided by 300,000 services is $4,600 per premise. To deliver fixed line voice.
And many, if not most, of those premises have mobile coverage. And Starlink coverage. And NBN Fixed Wireless coverage.
So that’s the first Universal Service Obligation.
The second universal service protection is the Statutory Infrastructure Provider or SIP regime, and the accompanying Regional Broadband Scheme levy, which came into force in 2020[10].
The SIP regime establishes minimum requirements for voice and broadband speeds, with NBN Co designated as the default SIP.
The exception to the SIP obligation for voice is NBN’s current satellite service, which today connects some 70,000 premises[11].
Under the Regional Broadband Scheme, carriers operating competing fibre networks pay a monthly charge to cover the losses of NBN’s regional networks, estimated at $9.8 billion over 30 years[12].
And the third universal service protection, which is yet to be legislated but is currently before Parliament, is the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation or UOMO.
Today we have three national mobile networks, one of which provides coverage to 99.7% of premises and two others to 98.5%, but only to 30% of the Australian landmass[13].
The UOMO will fill that remaining coverage gap by requiring mobile operators to offer direct to handset connectivity in partnership with LEO satellite providers.
How much it will cost operators is the great unknown.
So in summary, we have one universal service policy for fixed voice.
We have another universal service policy for fixed voice and broadband.
And we will soon have a third universal service policy for mobile.
All three of which are funded by either taxpayers or industry levies – meaning they are ultimately paid for by consumers.
When the Productivity Commission said that policymakers tend to be risk averse, undervalue regulatory burden, and have a tendency for tunnel vision – I think this is what they had in mind.
When the Commission’s final report was delivered, it named telecommunications as one of three sectors in the entire economy in need of urgent for regulatory reform, calling on Government to undertake a “substantial regulatory review” of the sector.
This industry faces a myriad of complex, costly, and duplicative regulation which is stymieing investment in digital infrastructure.
Telcos are subject to more than 500 legislative and regulatory instruments, of which around 200 are sector specific.
In 2025 alone, around 20 new sector-specific obligations were introduced or were in development[14].
While any one of these individual regulations may make sense in isolation, the cumulative cost of complying with these requirements significantly erodes capital reserves otherwise available for digital infrastructure investment.
Capital invested into infrastructure yields a higher economic return than regulatory costs, lengthy planning processes, and spectrum licences.
The pervasiveness of digital connectivity, and its criticality for Australia’s productivity, result in a multiplier effect of capital invested in digital infrastructure.
Digital infrastructure is central to everything.
The ATA calls on the Australian Government to accept the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to urgently progress a substantial regulatory review in the telecommunications sector.
But the case for reform goes far deeper.
If we want investment in digital infrastructure, we must make it easier to deploy.
Regional Australia is crying out for better connectivity, but telcos are hamstrung by layer upon layer of planning requirements which actively disincentivise investment.
Slow planning approvals were largely to blame for delays to 176 sites under the Mobile Black Spot Program.
Getting power connected to new mobile towers can take more than two and a half years[15].
And don’t even get me started on the planning challenges you’ll face if you want to roll out new long-haul fibre.
Telstra has reported that a single intercapital fibre deployment required more than 3,000 land access activity notices, 1,128 construction certificates, 1,723 land access surveys, and 171 cultural heritage and environmental assessments.[16]
Similarly, during a project to build a 2,000km fibre route through regional WA, Vocus was required to consult with 200 different entities, including state government, local government, native title holders, tenement title holders, and private land title holders.
Construction through one 30-kilometre segment required 16 different approvals from 4 government departments, 1 native title holder, and 11 land and tenement title holders.
Governments should be rolling out the red carpet for major fibre investments to support the National AI Plan.
State Governments have proposed a range of programs to incentivise datacentre investments – including fast-tracking planning approvals for access to land, energy, and other key inputs.
Telecommunications infrastructure investments should receive similar treatment to datacentres.
But the ‘Carrier Powers and Immunities’ framework has consistently seen its powers diminished under the weight of State-based land access rules, environmental approvals, and heritage laws – which are duplicative and inconsistent.
On top of this State legislation often results in open-ended consultation processes with no established timeframes to conclude land access agreements.
Governments cannot claim that digital infrastructure is ‘critical’, while making it so difficult to deploy and maintain.
Telecoms networks are only ever treated as ‘critical’ when they face an outage – never when they need to be built.
We need a reform roadmap to address the myriad inconsistent planning requirements for digital infrastructure deployments, including Commonwealth and State environmental approvals, heritage approvals, applications for power, native title issues, and any other required approval process which prevents the timely deployment of critical telecommunications infrastructure.
And that’s the third and final pillar of a digital infrastructure investment strategy: regulatory reform.
So I’ll conclude my remarks with a brief re-cap of my key points today.
Digital infrastructure is central to everything. And Australia needs a digital infrastructure investment strategy.
This strategy should be built on three key pillars:
First, better access to key inputs for network deployment, such as spectrum.
Second, incentives to encourage investment.
And third, rather than tying up investors in red tape, we need regulatory reform. Thank you.
[1] ABS CPI Data, Weighted average of eight capital cities, indexed from 2015
[2] David Kennedy, ‘State of the Australian Telecommunications Industry – Telco at a Crossroads’ 16 Oct 2025.
[3] Department of Industry, Science and Resources, National AI Plan 2025
[4] OpenSignal Global Network Excellence Index Q4 2025
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
[7] Examples: Belong $30 p/m plan with unlimited calls/texts and 50GB data, TPG $25 p/m with 25GB of data, Dodo $25 p/m with 25GB of data
[8] Productivity Commission. 2025 (p. 32). Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy Interim Report
[9] Better delivery of universal services, p6-7
[10] https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/telecommunications-new-developments/sip
[11] NBN weekly network premises report 15/1/2026
[12] Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019, Explanatory Memorandum
[13] Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 Explanatory memorandum
[14] Including, but not limited to: 1. Telecommunications (Financial Hardship) Industry Standard 2024; 2. updated Telecommunications (Consumer Complaints Handling) Industry Standard 2018; 3. updated Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination; 4. new Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard 2024; 5. new Telecommunications (Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Consumer Protections) Industry Standard 2025; 6. new online safety Codes and Standards, 7. new rules under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018; 8. new Cyber Security Act 2024; 9. new Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025; 10. new Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Act 2024 and 11. Standard (30/09/25); 12. and other additional co-regulatory instruments (i.e. ACMA-registered, enforceable industry codes) requested by Ministerial Directives.
[15] CommsDay 13 June 2024, WA planning rules effectively prohibit mobile infrastructure in some locations: MCF
[16] Telstra submission to Productivity Commission Five Pillars of Productivity Inquiry – June 2025
