Summary

  • ACMA’s consultation opened on 29 September and closes at 5 pm AEDT on 10 November 2026. The draft is a proposal; the 2019 Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code remains registered until a replacement standard comes into force.
  • The draft would make provider governance more auditable: it assigns executive responsibility and proposes sales-bonus limits tied to customer feedback. Whether these controls are proportionate across large carriers and small providers is now a central consultation question.

A different document is now on the table

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is asking telcos and the public to comment on a proposed Telecommunications (Consumer Protections) Industry Standard 2026. The consultation opened on 29 September and closes at 5 pm AEDT on Tuesday 10 November. It is not yet a binding standard. The current 2019 Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code remains in place until a replacement standard comes into force.

The change follows a failed attempt to keep the rules on an industry-code track. The Australian Telecommunications Alliance submitted a revised code in May 2025. ACMA declined to register it in October, saying it was not satisfied that it provided appropriate community safeguards. On 23 October, the regulator issued a notice under section 125 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 that the existing code was deficient. The Alliance sent a second draft in November. ACMA later ended that review and chose to develop a directly enforceable standard; it announced that direction in March 2026.

That sequence changes where the operative text is made. An industry-developed code can draw on provider expertise and consultation, but this process now places the proposed instrument in ACMA’s hands. Section 125 permits the regulator to determine a standard after a registered code is found deficient, notice is given and the period to address the deficiencies ends. Under section 128, participants must comply with a registered industry standard. The Act also says the old code ceases to be registered when the new standard comes into force—not when a draft is published.

The draft reaches into the provider’s internal control system. It would require systems, processes, training and accountability for fair consumer outcomes, alongside clearer product information, responsible sales, informed consent for service transfers, understandable bills and flexible payment support. Disconnection would be a last resort after reasonable steps to address payment difficulty and eligible hardship assistance.

The most visible governance design is inside sales remuneration. Draft section 40 would cap a staff member’s maximum performance-payment entitlement at 20% of base salary. Sales volume or value could account for no more than 30% of that entitlement, while customer-feedback measures would account for at least 70%. Providers would retain policy versions and payment and investigation records; the draft also links identified mis-selling to withholding or recovering incentives and reporting to ACMA. These are proposed controls, not current obligations.

Draft section 9 similarly names responsibility rather than leaving “the provider” as an abstract actor. A provider that is not large would assign approval and compliance responsibility to a senior executive. A large provider would put approval and compliance responsibility with its CEO or equivalent, while a different executive would oversee review, updating, implementation and operation. The consultation paper says the market includes both ASX-listed firms and small businesses and aims to avoid unnecessary regulatory burden. That makes the design’s size thresholds and evidence requirements consequential.

The question for the consultation is therefore not simply whether consumer safeguards should be stronger. It is whether the final standard makes responsibility, evidence and remedies clear enough to enforce without forcing a small provider to reproduce a large carrier’s control apparatus. Submissions are due by 5 pm AEDT on 10 November. Until ACMA completes that process and the instrument commences, the proposed controls remain proposals.

Sources