The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has come under fire following revelations about its dealings with major telecommunications companies Optus and Telstra. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws by the ABC revealed that the regulator shared draft media releases with the companies for review prior to public announcements of fines and penalties. Consumer advocates and legal experts have raised concerns about the regulator’s approach, questioning its independence and transparency.
In response to criticism, the ACMA has defended its enforcement practices, pointing to its record over the past year. “The ACMA stands by its enforcement record, which involves the judicious use of various penalties and measures,” a spokesperson told Mediaweek. “In the last year, the ACMA has undertaken a number of regulatory actions against telco companies, resulting in financial penalties of more than $19 million. This includes a record $12 million penalty to Optus in relation to its November 2023 network outage.”
A mixed approach to penalties
The ACMA emphasised that financial penalties are only part of its regulatory toolkit. It also utilises tools such as court-enforceable undertakings (CEUs), which obligate companies to address compliance issues and implement long-term improvements. “The ability to use a range of regulatory actions depending on the circumstances of the breach ensures the best outcome for the public, leading to better customer service and more robust consumer protections,” the spokesperson said.
Consumer advocates, however, remain unconvinced. Carol Bennett, CEO of the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN), has called for a parliamentary inquiry into the regulator’s operations. “We need a regulator that acts in the public interest, not in the interests of industry and its profits,” Bennett said, pointing to what she described as “a slap on the wrist” penalty of $1.5 million given to Optus for serious public safety breaches. These breaches affected nearly 200,000 people over two-and-a-half years and involved a failure to provide critical information to emergency databases.
Controversial collaboration with telcos
A key point of contention has been the ACMA’s practice of sharing embargoed media releases with telcos before public announcements. According to the regulator, this practice is “consistent with our legal obligations and ongoing commitment to accuracy and the protection of any private, confidential, or sensitive information.” The ACMA stated that it does not agree to any changes proposed by telcos beyond factual corrections.
This explanation has done little to assuage critics. Anthony Whealy KC, former NSW Supreme Court judge and chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, expressed concern about the perception of “a cosy relationship between regulator and regulated.” He warned that such practices “threaten the necessary openness and transparency that is at the heart of good governance in regulating the industry.”
Calls for reform
The Albanese government has already flagged changes aimed at strengthening the ACMA’s regulatory powers. Last week, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland announced plans to increase maximum penalties under the Telecommunications Act from $250,000 to $10 million. The reforms will also remove a procedural requirement that currently limits the ACMA’s ability to act against companies unless they have first disregarded a formal compliance direction.
For now, the ACMA appears focused on defending its track record and approach. “Our regulatory actions are designed to ensure compliance and deliver outcomes that benefit the public,” the spokesperson reiterated. Still, with public confidence in telcos already shaken by high-profile incidents like the Optus data breach and Telstra’s overcharging scandals, the regulator faces mounting pressure to demonstrate its independence and effectiveness in holding the industry to account.
Public confidence at stake
As calls for a parliamentary inquiry grow louder, the ACMA’s actions will likely face even greater scrutiny in the months ahead. Consumer groups argue that the regulator’s current approach risks eroding public trust. “It’s not just about penalties,” Ms Bennett said. “It’s about ensuring that the regulator puts consumers first and maintains a clear, independent stance against industry misconduct.”
With reforms on the horizon and a spotlight on its practices, the ACMA’s next steps will be critical in restoring public confidence in Australia’s telecommunications regulation.