Federal Election 2025: Chalmers takes aim at Coalition's ‘savage cuts'
Jim Chalmers has blasted the Coalition's 'savage cuts' after the opposition released its election policy costings promising 'a $14bn bottom-line budget improvement over the forward estimates'.
The costings forecast the budget deficits would be $7.9bn worse off than under a re-elected Albanese government for two years before climbing to at least $10bn less than Labor in the following two years.
With key savings coming from cuts to the public service and foreign aid, the Treasurer said the Coalition was offering 'a recipe for higher taxes'.
'Higher taxes, savage cuts and still bigger deficits under the Coalition are in their costings today,' Mr Chalmers told reporters in Brisbane.
'Now there are savage cuts in Peter Dutton's costings, but they are just the beginning.
'Savage cuts to training, savage cuts to housing are savage cuts to energy are higher income taxes for 14 million Australians and more student debt for students.'
Announcing the long-awaited accounting a little over an hour earlier, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor slammed Labor's handling of the economy over the past three years and warned Australia was heading toward '$1.2 trillion of debt'.
'In contrast … what we've announced today is a $14bn bottom-line budget improvement over the forward estimates,' Mr Taylor told reporters in Sydney.
'But on top of that, we've laid out a $40bn improvement in the debt position over that same time period.'
He promised 'the biggest improvement in the budget position' while spruiking the Coalition's flagship immediate cost-of-living relief measures – cutting the fuel excise by 25 cents a litre for 12 months and a $1200 'a tax cut for first home buyers'.
But for the first two years, the budget position would be $7.9bn worse off before a $21.8bn rebound.
As for how the Coalition would achieve its budget goals, finance spokeswoman Jane Hume was clear.
'First and foremost, we will reduce government spending as a share of the economy,' Senator Hume told the same press conference.
'We will cut waste, control expenditure growth and ensure that every dollar that is spent by government is focused on delivering essential services and strengthening our nation, not growing bureaucracy.'
She highlighted the opposition's flagship cost-savings plan to 'sensibly reduce the size of the (Australian Public Service) by 41,000 over a period of five years', insisting it would do so 'through a hiring freeze and through natural attrition … while protecting the services delivery and national security positions'.
The plan would save $17.2bn, according to the Coalition.
Though, experts have said the move — which were supposed to be Canberra-based jobs — was impossible without carving into services the Coalition promised not to touch.
Peter Dutton has repeatedly said the public service cull would take place in the capital.
But pressed for details, Senator Hume contradicted her boss, saying the cuts would 'focus on Canberra'.
'I should be clear, about 5000 or so of the 41,000 are people that haven't actually been hired yet,' she said.
According to official data, some 7500 Canberra-based public service jobs were added between June 2022 and June 2024, as opposed to the 36,000 claimed by the opposition.
The Coalition would also hike visa fees to offset its proposed permanent migration cuts, which would cost the budget some $4.2bn.
It also added some detail to the nuclear policy, earmarking $36.4bn to 2035 and $118.2bn longer term.
Foreign aid cuts 'catastrophic'
Aid groups have taken aim at the Coalition's proposed $813.5m cut to the foreign aid budget, echoing a defining policy of Donald Trump's administration in the US.
The consequences of the US's decision to freeze foreign assistance plunged global humanitarian works into chaos, leaving agencies scrambling for funds.
The Coalition did clarify a carve out for the Pacific, where Australia is locked in a battle for influence with China.
'At a time of catastrophic global need, we'd hoped to see an increase in lifesaving aid, not an $813.5m cut that will likely hurt the world's most vulnerable children,' Save the Children chief executive Mat Tinkler said.
'We welcome the decision to spare the Pacific, Indonesia and Timor-Leste.
'But Australia has a responsibility beyond our region.
'We cannot turn our backs on Africa, South Asia and investment into critical global funds, particularly at a time when children there need us more than ever.'
Meanwhile, the Australian Council for International Development said the proposal 'risks weakening one of Australia's most effective tools for peace, prosperity and stability'.
'A strong aid program is not just generous — it is smart, strategic, and deeply aligned with Australia's national interest,' chief executive Matthew Maury said.
'We acknowledge and appreciate that the current government has held the line on aid in difficult fiscal conditions.
'We continue to urge all political leaders to work together on a long-term plan to restore aid to 1 per cent of the federal budget — reclaiming the ambition that once united leaders across the political spectrum.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Legal challenge against Woodside extension expected
The federal government is expected to face a legal challenge on the approval of Woodside Energy's North West Shelf gas plant extension. Environmental and Indigenous activists say the gas plant threatens the erosion of rock art in the area. Labor has agreed to give "Save Our Songlines" founder Raelene Cooper at least three days' notice before formal approval of the project. The commitment will give the traditional custodians an opportunity to file an injunction against the decision.
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Hearing voices: why the Nats should be watching their backs
The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring.
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The billion-dollar industry with scant consumer protections
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
