The Internet Association of Australia Ltd (IAA) expresses its disappointment that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has rejected the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code (the Code), describing the decision as a missed opportunity to strengthen consumer safeguards through effective co-regulation.

While not entirely unexpected, IAA notes this decision appears to be influenced by misguided assertions regarding the mandatory and enforceable nature of the Code, and the role of the co-regulatory framework.

“The TCP Code was never voluntary. It was already binding on industry, and with the anticipated passage of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 currently before Parliament, would have become directly enforceable,” said Narelle Clark, CEO.

IAA emphasised that the Code represented a significant advance in consumer safeguards, with the benefit of being developed by industry participants with direct operational and technical expertise in telecommunication networks to ensure safeguard measures would remain feasible and practicable.

“We are keen to review the ACMA’s detailed reasoning for the rejection,” Clark said, noting that some of the issues cited by the ACMA such as network outages and Triple Zero failures which have undermined consumer confidence in the industry and seemingly precipitated the rejection, are already subject to direct regulation, and cautioned against the assumption that a shift away from co-regulation would necessarily improve outcomes.

“The final version of the Code had already gone to considerable lengths to address the ACMA’s stated concerns, even to the point that many industry participants considered the obligations heavily onerous. The rejection, without clear and comprehensive justification creates uncertainty as to what additional measures are being sought, and on what basis.”

Looking ahead, IAA is committed to engaging constructively in the development of the replacement standard. As part of this process, IAA emphasises the need for inclusive and meaningful consultation.

“It is essential that all stakeholders work collaboratively to deliver a framework that benefits consumers and supports a sustainable and competitive industry. Recent consultation processes affecting the telco industry, and not necessarily by the ACMA, have at times been rushed, sometimes allowing only a period of 1-2 weeks to respond to key changes. For a reform of this magnitude, consultation must be genuine and must allow for thorough participation actively including the breadth of industry.”

“The Australian Telecommunications Alliance was subject to intensive consultation process requirements in its review of the Code, including requirements to publish summaries of stakeholder feedback, and providing public responses to feedback. We would expect the same level of transparency from the ACMA as a matter of regulatory best practice.”

IAA stressed the increasing regulatory pressures for smaller telecommunications providers.

“We are hearing consistently from smaller providers that the cumulative regulatory burden is becoming unsustainable. There is a real risk that the increasing regulatory settings are unintentionally pushing smaller players out of the market, which cannot be in the consumer interest. We need a regulatory framework that both protects consumers and ensures smaller providers can continue to operate in the market, thereby preserving genuine choice for consumers, and access to local providers who understand their needs.”

Under the current Code, there are also exemptions for niche providers meaning that while the spirit of compliance is well adhered to, cases where the Code is irrelevant means those providers haven’t had to comply to the same extent. Introducing new compliance obligations will add cost, largely to business customers which will in turn have flow on cost impacts to the broader community.

IAA also expressed compressed timelines for compliance as a key concern disproportionately affecting smaller providers.

“Even with the final version of the revised Code, members had expressed grave concerns about the proposed implementation timelines. We sincerely hope that this is up for re-consideration as part of the consultation process. Small providers, who may comprise as few as one or two staff, simply don’t have the capacity to divert their limited personnel to implement extensive changes within short periods, or the ability to absorb these costs. Regulators also need to recognise that telco providers are often facing multiple, concurrent compliance deadlines.”

As a representative body of small to medium sized internet service providers, IAA commits to representing its membership who form an underrepresented but disproportionately affected sector of industry in this consultation on a replacement standard.

IAA also noted that this once again raises the concept of telecommunications as an essential service which is not supported by corresponding legislation or well accepted definitions.

“We certainly agree that communications is a vital part of daily life but the concept of ‘essential services’ carries certain legislative implications that aren’t currently in place for the telecommunications sector. There needs to be widespread comprehensive discussions about what it means for telecommunications to be formally recognised as an essential service, and the costs of delivering services at that level,” said Clark.

The Internet Association of Australia Ltd (IAA) expresses its disappointment that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has rejected the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code (the Code), describing the decision as a missed opportunity to strengthen consumer safeguards through effective co-regulation.

While not entirely unexpected, IAA notes this decision appears to be influenced by misguided assertions regarding the mandatory and enforceable nature of the Code, and the role of the co-regulatory framework.

“The TCP Code was never voluntary. It was already binding on industry, and with the anticipated passage of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 currently before Parliament, would have become directly enforceable,” said Narelle Clark, CEO.

IAA emphasised that the Code represented a significant advance in consumer safeguards, with the benefit of being developed by industry participants with direct operational and technical expertise in telecommunication networks to ensure safeguard measures would remain feasible and practicable.

“We are keen to review the ACMA’s detailed reasoning for the rejection,” Clark said, noting that some of the issues cited by the ACMA such as network outages and Triple Zero failures which have undermined consumer confidence in the industry and seemingly precipitated the rejection, are already subject to direct regulation, and cautioned against the assumption that a shift away from co-regulation would necessarily improve outcomes.

“The final version of the Code had already gone to considerable lengths to address the ACMA’s stated concerns, even to the point that many industry participants considered the obligations heavily onerous. The rejection, without clear and comprehensive justification creates uncertainty as to what additional measures are being sought, and on what basis.”

Looking ahead, IAA is committed to engaging constructively in the development of the replacement standard. As part of this process, IAA emphasises the need for inclusive and meaningful consultation.

“It is essential that all stakeholders work collaboratively to deliver a framework that benefits consumers and supports a sustainable and competitive industry. Recent consultation processes affecting the telco industry, and not necessarily by the ACMA, have at times been rushed, sometimes allowing only a period of 1-2 weeks to respond to key changes. For a reform of this magnitude, consultation must be genuine and must allow for thorough participation actively including the breadth of industry.”

“The Australian Telecommunications Alliance was subject to intensive consultation process requirements in its review of the Code, including requirements to publish summaries of stakeholder feedback, and providing public responses to feedback. We would expect the same level of transparency from the ACMA as a matter of regulatory best practice.”

IAA stressed the increasing regulatory pressures for smaller telecommunications providers.

“We are hearing consistently from smaller providers that the cumulative regulatory burden is becoming unsustainable. There is a real risk that the increasing regulatory settings are unintentionally pushing smaller players out of the market, which cannot be in the consumer interest. We need a regulatory framework that both protects consumers and ensures smaller providers can continue to operate in the market, thereby preserving genuine choice for consumers, and access to local providers who understand their needs.”

Under the current Code, there are also exemptions for niche providers meaning that while the spirit of compliance is well adhered to, cases where the Code is irrelevant means those providers haven’t had to comply to the same extent. Introducing new compliance obligations will add cost, largely to business customers which will in turn have flow on cost impacts to the broader community.

IAA also expressed compressed timelines for compliance as a key concern disproportionately affecting smaller providers.

“Even with the final version of the revised Code, members had expressed grave concerns about the proposed implementation timelines. We sincerely hope that this is up for re-consideration as part of the consultation process. Small providers, who may comprise as few as one or two staff, simply don’t have the capacity to divert their limited personnel to implement extensive changes within short periods, or the ability to absorb these costs. Regulators also need to recognise that telco providers are often facing multiple, concurrent compliance deadlines.”

As a representative body of small to medium sized internet service providers, IAA commits to representing its membership who form an underrepresented but disproportionately affected sector of industry in this consultation on a replacement standard.

IAA also noted that this once again raises the concept of telecommunications as an essential service which is not supported by corresponding legislation or well accepted definitions.

“We certainly agree that communications is a vital part of daily life but the concept of ‘essential services’ carries certain legislative implications that aren’t currently in place for the telecommunications sector. There needs to be widespread comprehensive discussions about what it means for telecommunications to be formally recognised as an essential service, and the costs of delivering services at that level,” said Clark.