Telecommunications (Voice Performance Requirements for Customer Equipment – AS/CA S004) Technical Standard 2025

The central concept is the AS/CA Standard, defined in s 6 as AS/CA S004:2013, the January 2013 edition. This is a private industry standard published by Communications Alliance Ltd. An “item” is customer equipment used for voice communication and connected to a telecommunications network (s 12). The instrument distinguishes “original items” (the first manufactured or imported in a class) from later identical items via the class-of-items concept (s 10). A “modified item” is one altered by or on behalf of the manufacturer or importer after manufacture or import (s 6). The “original modified item” is the first such modified item in a class (s 10(2)). The class system is a cost-saving mechanism: if items are identical and have the same manufacturer or importer, later items can rely on the compliance date of the original item (ss 14(2), 15(2)). This reduces the need for repeated testing of essentially identical products. However, “identical” is strict: any variation breaks the class unless the variation is a non-material modification (s 15(3)-(4)). A modification is material if it would or could reasonably be expected to affect compliance with the AS/CA Standard as in force on the date the original item was made or imported (s 15(4)). This is a vague, risk-laden test. A minor component change could be argued to be immaterial, but the burden falls on the manufacturer or importer to justify that view. The transition provisions are another key concept. The ACMA transition period (s 8) is triggered when the AS/CA Standard is amended or replaced. If Communications Alliance Ltd includes a transitional arrangement in its amendment instrument or replacement standard, the ACMA transition period matches that (s 8(a)); otherwise it is two years from the amendment or replacement date (s 8(b)). Section 9 defines an “AS/CA transition period” as a specified period in the amendment instrument or replacement standard that allows an item to comply with either the old or new version. Overlapping transition periods are expressly contemplated (ss 14(4), 15(6), 8 Note 2). This creates a matrix of possible compliance versions. The stated rationale is to smooth industry adjustment, but it adds considerable complexity for anyone importing or manufacturing equipment: they must track not only the current standard but also the effective dates of past and future versions and any overlapping periods. The cost of this complexity may fall disproportionately on smaller importers who lack legal or regulatory compliance resources.

The primary duty bearers are manufacturers and importers of customer equipment that transmits and receives voice frequency signals and connects to a telecommunications network (s 12, read with s 406A of the Act). This includes landline telephones, cordless phones, VoIP handsets, PBX equipment, fax machines with voice functions, and any device that can be used for voice calls over a carrier’s network. It also affects businesses that modify such equipment after import or manufacture (e.g., adding custom firmware that changes voice processing). The class system and transition periods are available only to the original manufacturer or importer who created the class; a second importer of identical equipment cannot use the same class unless they are the same legal entity. This means a re-seller or rebrander cannot rely on the class compliance of the original manufacturer unless they are the same importer under the definition. Carriers and carriage service providers are indirectly affected because they are prohibited under the Act from connecting non-compliant customer equipment to their networks. They may require certification or testing evidence from suppliers before permitting connection. Testing laboratories and certification bodies are affected as the standard creates demand for compliance testing services. The cost of that testing may be passed on to consumers and small businesses. The standard does not exempt low-volume or custom equipment; any item within scope must comply, even if built as a one-off for a specific client (unless it is already covered by a class for an identical item). The object of protecting health and safety (s 5(b)) suggests that devices which could cause hearing damage or electrical hazard during voice calls are within scope, but the standard itself does not list specific health thresholds; it relies entirely on AS/CA S004:2013. That standard is not published in the instrument and must be purchased or accessed separately, imposing a direct information cost on regulated parties. For an independent business, the requirement to buy a private standard and potentially pay for testing just to sell a telephone handset is a compliance barrier that may reduce product variety and price competition.

The central duty is set out in s 13: an item must meet the requirements of s 14 (for non-modified items) or s 15 (for modified items). This duty is placed on the manufacturer or importer by the broader Act; the standard itself merely defines what compliance means. There is no duty in the standard on retailers or end users. The primary right conferred by the instrument is the ability to rely on the class system. Under s 14(2), if an item is included in a class and the original item complied with the AS/CA Standard as in force on the date the original item was manufactured or imported, then any later identical item in that class is deemed compliant, regardless of when it was manufactured or imported. This is a significant cost saving because it avoids re-testing for each production batch or import shipment. The same right applies to modified items under s 15(2), but only if the modification is identical across the class. Another right is the ability to use transition periods. During an ACMA transition period, an item can comply with either the old version of the AS/CA Standard (immediately before the transition) or the new version (or a replacement standard) as in force at the commencement of the transition period (s 14(3)(b)). Overlapping periods give the option to comply with any of the versions in force at the start of any of the overlapping periods (s 14(4)(c)). This gives manufacturers and importers a window to phase out old stock and adjust designs. There is a corresponding right for modified items in s 15(5)-(6). The non-material modification exception (s 15(3)) provides a limited right to modify an item without requiring full compliance re-assessment, provided the modification would not reasonably be expected to affect compliance. However, the burden of proof that a modification is not material falls on the party making the modification. If the ACMA later disagrees, the item could be found non-compliant. This is a significant uncertainty risk. The instrument also grants grandfathering under s 16: items manufactured, imported or modified before 30 March 2025 that complied with the 2015 standard are taken to comply with this standard. This prevents the instrument from rendering existing stock non-compliant overnight.

The instrument itself does not prescribe any penalties. It is a legislative instrument made under s 376(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1997, and enforcement relies entirely on that Act. Under the Telecommunications Act, supply of customer equipment that does not comply with a applicable technical standard may attract civil penalties (up to 10,000 penalty units for a body corporate under s 410, as at 2025), infringement notices, or injunctions. The ACMA can also issue directions to cease supply, require recall, or impose compliance measures. The instrument’s only enforcement-related provision is the definition of “ACMA transition period” which effectively grants enforcement forbearance for a period: an item that complies with an earlier version during the transition is deemed compliant, so no enforcement action would lie. However, once the transition period ends, any item still relying on the earlier version must have been manufactured or imported during the transition period to remain compliant; stock manufactured after the period must meet the new version. The absence of a penalty provision in the instrument means that a regulator or court must look to the Act for the actual legal consequences. Practitioners should note that the standard is not self-enforcing; the ACMA must bring enforcement action. The ACMA’s compliance approach may be risk-based, targeting systematic importers of non-compliant equipment rather than individual devices. The cost of defending a compliance dispute could exceed the penalty, especially for a small importer. There is no provision in the instrument for private rights of action; an end user cannot sue for non-compliance under this standard. Any remedy would have to be under consumer law (e.g., ACL implied warranties) or tort, but the standard may be used as evidence of a reasonable expectation of performance. The instrument does not reverse the burden of proof; the ACMA would need to prove non-compliance. However, the absence of a mandatory labelling requirement in the instrument means there is no simple visual indicator of compliance, making enforcement detection harder.

This instrument is part of a suite of technical standards under the Telecommunications Act 1997. Other ACMA technical standards may apply to the same equipment, such as those for electromagnetic compatibility (AS/CA S041) or safety of customer equipment. Compliance with this voice performance standard does not imply compliance with those other standards; each must be separately met. The instrument also interacts with the Telecommunications (Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling)) Notice, which requires that compliant equipment bear an A-tick or similar label. This standard sets the requirements that must be met before that label can be applied. The standard’s definition of “customer equipment” (imported from s 21 of the Act) means equipment that is used, or is capable of being used, to supply a listed carriage service. This may overlap with equipment regulated under the Radiocommunications Act 1992 if the device also transmits radio frequencies (e.g. cordless phones). In such cases, both the ACMA technical standard and the Radiocommunications (Compliance Labelling - Devices) Notice 2024 may apply. The instrument’s object of protecting health or safety (s 5(b)) may intersect with state and territory electrical safety regulations. A device that meets this voice standard might still need approval under an electrical safety scheme (e.g. in Queensland or Victoria). The object of ensuring access to emergency call services (s 5(c)) links to the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019, but the instrument does not require specific emergency call features beyond what AS/CA S004:2013 mandates. The standard also interacts with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Australian Consumer Law). If equipment is non-compliant and causes a problem (e.g. distorted emergency calls), the manufacturer or importer could face liability for misleading conduct if they claimed compliance, or for safety defects under Part 3-5 of the ACL. The instrument does not provide any defence against consumer law claims. There is no interaction with state fair trading legislation beyond the normal application of the ACL as a national law.

This instrument is the first version of the standard under this name, replacing the 2015 version. It has no amendment history because it is a new instrument. However, the instrument itself contemplates future amendments to the underlying AS/CA Standard by Communications Alliance Ltd. When such amendments occur, the instrument does not automatically incorporate them; instead, s 8 defines an ACMA transition period that will apply. To give effect to the new version, the ACMA would need to amend the definition of “AS/CA Standard” in s 6 or issue a new technical standard. The note to s 6 states that the AS/CA Standard is available on the Communications Alliance website, but the instrument does not incorporate later editions by reference. The repeal of the 2015 standard is the only immediate change. There is no transitional provision for items that had already been placed on the market under the 2015 standard; instead, s 16 grandfathers them if they were manufactured, imported or modified before 30 March 2025. Items manufactured after that date must comply with this standard (which in substance adopts the same AS/CA S004:2013 standard as the 2015 version, so the practical change is minimal unless the ACMA later updates the definition). The instrument does not amend any other legislative instruments. Its commencement on 30 March 2025, only ten days after signing, gives industry little time to adjust if they had not anticipated the repeal and re-making. For businesses that rely on the 2015 standard in their compliance documentation, it would be prudent to verify that the new instrument’s language does not introduce any subtle differences in the class or transition provisions that could affect the compliance status of items in production.

The instrument itself has no litigation history. It commenced only on 30 March 2025 and has not been the subject of any reported court or tribunal decisions. The 2015 standard that it replaced also appears not to have generated significant litigation; no cases are cited in the instrument or its explanatory materials. Challenges to technical standards under the Telecommunications Act are rare because the ACMA has broad delegated authority and the standards are legislative instruments subject to disallowance by Parliament. Legal disputes are more likely to arise under the Act’s enforcement provisions (e.g. civil penalty proceedings) where the standard is used as the benchmark. In such proceedings, the standard would be interpreted by a court, potentially leading to disputes over definitions such as “material modification” (s 15(4)) or whether an item is “identical” for class purposes (s 10). The class system could be a source of litigation if an importer claims that a later, slightly different item falls within a class and the ACMA disagrees. The non-material modification test is another potential litigious point: s 15(4) uses a “would or could reasonably be expected to affect compliance” standard, which requires an objective assessment of likely effect. A manufacturer might argue a change is non-material, while a regulator might argue the opposite. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the AAT’s replacement) could review ACMA decisions such as refusing to accept a compliance claim. However, given the narrow subject matter and the cost of litigation relative to the value of most telephone equipment, disputes are likely to be resolved through negotiation or infringement notice payment rather than full litigation. For serious practitioners, the absence of precedent means that the interpretation of new provisions remains open until tested.

Several features of this instrument are easy to overlook. First, the definition of AS/CA Standard is locked to the January 2013 edition (s 6). The instrument repeatedly refers to the “AS/CA Standard as in force on the date the item is manufactured” (ss 14, 15). At first glance, this suggests that if the AS/CA Standard is amended after commencement, the new version applies to items manufactured after that amendment. However, because the definition is static, an amendment to the private standard would not change the “AS/CA Standard” as defined. The ACMA would need to issue a new or amending instrument to adopt a later edition. The transition period provisions (ss 8-9) assume that future amendments or replacements are possible, but they are designed to operate when the ACMA amends this instrument to refer to a new version. As of commencement, the only standard in force is AS/CA S004:2013. Any updates will require a further legislative instrument. This gap could catch importers who assume the industry standard updates automatically.

Second, the class system in s 10 requires strict identity. “Identical” is not defined, and even a minor difference in packaging, software version, or component sourcing could break the class. An importer who relies on the original item’s compliance for a later shipment that is not truly identical faces non-compliance, even if the variation is invisible to the end user. The burden is on the importer to prove identity.

Third, the non-material modification exception (s 15(3)-(4)) is framed negatively: a modification is material if it “would or could reasonably be expected to affect whether the modified item complies”. This is a low threshold - “could reasonably be expected” means even a plausible risk of affecting compliance makes the modification material. Many routine changes (e.g. a different resistor value) could arguably affect voice performance. The safe path is to treat all modifications as material unless the party can document objective evidence that compliance is unaffected.

Fourth, overlapping transition periods (ss 14(4), 15(6), 8 Note 2) can be confusing. An item manufactured during the overlap of two transitions may comply with any of several versions. But if one transition period ends before the other, items manufactured after that end date must meet the version that became mandatory. Keeping track of multiple end dates for different versions is administratively burdensome, particularly for items with long production runs.

Fifth, the instrument does not require the manufacturer or importer to hold any records demonstrating compliance. However, under the Act’s enforcement provisions, the person claiming compliance bears the evidentiary burden of proving it. Without records of testing, class dates, and transition periods, a business cannot defend a compliance challenge.

Finally, the instrument applies to “customer equipment” used “for connection to a telecommunications network” (s 12). This includes equipment connected via VoIP or other IP-based services, not just traditional analogue PSTN lines. Any device that sends or receives voice signals over a network is in scope, which may capture many modern devices not commonly thought of as “telephones”.

To comply with this instrument, a manufacturer or importer should follow these steps. First, determine whether the product is customer equipment for voice communication as defined in s 12. This includes devices that transmit and receive voice frequency signals and connect to a telecommunications network. If the device uses voice over IP (VoIP) via an ethernet port or Wi-Fi, it is likely in scope. Second, obtain the AS/CA Standard AS/CA S004:2013. It is not free from the legislation website; it must be purchased or accessed from Communications Alliance Ltd. This is a direct cost. Third, design or source the item to meet the requirements of that standard. Compliance can be demonstrated by in-house testing or by using an accredited testing laboratory. The instrument does not require a particular form of evidence, but a testing report will be essential if the ACMA questions compliance. Fourth, consider whether the item can be brought within a class of items (s 10). If multiple identical items are to be manufactured or imported, the first item’s test date can be used for all later items. Maintain records showing that all items in the class are identical, including component specifications, manufacturing processes, and software versions. Fifth, if any modification is made after the first item, assess whether it is material under s 15(4). Document the rationale. If there is any doubt, treat the modification as material and re-test against the standard. Sixth, check if a transition period is in effect. This requires monitoring the Communications Alliance website and ACMA’s legislative register for any amendment instrument or replacement standard. If a transition period applies, choose whether to comply with the old or new version. Keep records of which version you rely on and the date of manufacture or import. Seventh, for items already in existence before commencement, verify they complied with the 2015 standard (s 16 grandfathering). If they did, no further action is needed. If they did not, they must be made compliant immediately. Eighth, ensure any compliance label (e.g. A-tick) applied to the equipment is accurate. The labelling notice requires that labelled equipment meet all applicable ACMA technical standards. This voice standard is one of them. Finally, maintain a compliance folder containing: the AS/CA Standard edition used, testing records (or certificates), class date and basis for class inclusion, and assessments of any modifications. This folder does not need to be filed with the ACMA, but must be produced if requested. The cost of compliance includes the standard purchase, testing fees (which can run from a few thousand dollars for simple devices to tens of thousands for complex systems), and ongoing record-keeping. These costs are not trivial for a small business importing a niche product, and may lead some to exit the market, reducing consumer choice.