Telstra Mission Statement Analysis (2026)
Telstra Corporation Limited stands as Australia’s largest telecommunications company and one of the most consequential corporate entities in the Asia-Pacific region. Founded in 1975 as the successor to Australia’s Postmaster-General’s Department and fully privatized by 2011, Telstra commands a market presence that extends across mobile networks, fixed-line broadband, enterprise solutions, and an expanding international footprint. With over 18 million retail mobile subscribers, the most extensive 5G network on the continent, and annual revenues exceeding AUD $23 billion, Telstra occupies a position in the Australian economy that few companies in any sector can rival.
Understanding Telstra’s mission and vision statements is essential for anyone studying corporate strategy in the telecommunications industry. These statements reveal how the company positions itself not merely as a carrier of voice and data traffic, but as a foundational infrastructure provider shaping how Australians live, work, and connect. This analysis examines both statements in detail, evaluates their strengths and weaknesses, and places them within the broader context of Telstra’s strategic execution, competitive environment, and technological ambitions. For a foundational understanding of how mission and vision statements differ, readers may wish to consult this guide on the difference between mission and vision statement.
Telstra Mission Statement
“We build and operate communications networks and technology solutions that allow people to connect with each other and with the world, providing a safe, reliable, and innovative experience.”
Telstra’s mission statement functions as a direct declaration of operational identity. It tells stakeholders precisely what the company does on a day-to-day basis: it builds networks, it operates those networks, and it delivers technology solutions. The statement then specifies the beneficiary and the standard of delivery. This is a mission statement that prioritizes clarity over aspiration, and in doing so, it reveals a great deal about how Telstra’s leadership understands the company’s role in the marketplace.
Strengths of the Mission Statement
The most notable strength of this mission statement is its operational specificity. The phrase “build and operate communications networks” leaves no ambiguity about Telstra’s core business. This is a company that owns physical infrastructure — towers, fiber, spectrum — and manages that infrastructure on behalf of millions of customers. In an era where many technology companies obscure their actual business model behind vague language about “empowerment” or “innovation,” Telstra’s decision to foreground the tangible work of network construction and operation is a meaningful differentiator.
The inclusion of “technology solutions” alongside network operations demonstrates awareness that Telstra is not solely a pipe provider. The company’s enterprise division delivers cloud computing, cybersecurity, managed services, and digital transformation consulting to businesses across Australia and internationally. By incorporating this into the mission statement, Telstra signals that its identity extends beyond consumer mobile and broadband services.
The quality descriptors — “safe, reliable, and innovative” — are arranged in a deliberate order that reflects sound strategic thinking. Safety comes first, an acknowledgment that telecommunications infrastructure is critical national infrastructure. Reliability follows, which is the single most important attribute any network operator can offer. Innovation appears last, not because it is least important, but because it is meaningless without the foundation of safety and reliability beneath it. This ordering reveals a company that understands the hierarchy of customer needs.
The dual framing of connection — “with each other and with the world” — captures both the domestic and international dimensions of Telstra’s business. Telstra operates one of the largest submarine cable networks in the Asia-Pacific, connecting Australia to global internet infrastructure. This phrase is not merely rhetorical; it reflects a genuine operational reality.
Weaknesses of the Mission Statement
Despite its operational clarity, the mission statement suffers from a lack of differentiation. Any major telecommunications company in the world could adopt this statement without modification. Optus, TPG Telecom, AT&T, Verizon, or Vodafone could each claim to build and operate networks that connect people safely, reliably, and innovatively. For a company that holds the dominant market position in Australia, the absence of any language referencing that market leadership, geographic commitment, or unique competitive advantage is a missed opportunity. Readers interested in how global competitors articulate their positioning may find value in examining the AT&T mission statement and the Verizon mission statement for comparison.
The statement also lacks any reference to customers as distinct groups. Telstra serves individual consumers, small businesses, large enterprises, government agencies, and wholesale partners. Each of these segments has fundamentally different needs, yet the mission statement addresses them collectively as “people.” This flattening of the customer base into a single undifferentiated group undermines the statement’s ability to communicate strategic focus.
There is no mention of Australia or the Asia-Pacific region. For a company whose identity is inseparable from the Australian market — and whose brand carries the weight of being the nation’s former government-owned monopoly — the complete absence of geographic anchoring is surprising. Telstra’s Australianness is a core brand asset, and the mission statement does nothing to leverage it.
Finally, the word “innovative” has become so overused in corporate communications that its inclusion adds little substantive meaning. Without specificity about what kind of innovation Telstra pursues — network innovation, product innovation, service innovation — the term functions as filler rather than differentiation.
Telstra Vision Statement
“To build a connected future so everyone can thrive.”
Telstra articulates this as its corporate purpose, and it functions as the company’s vision statement — a forward-looking declaration of the world Telstra seeks to create. Where the mission statement describes what the company does, this purpose statement describes why it does it and what ultimate outcome it aims to produce. This is a concise, ten-word statement that carries significant strategic weight.
Strengths of the Vision Statement
The vision statement’s greatest asset is its brevity and memorability. At ten words, it is short enough to be internalized by every employee, referenced in every strategic discussion, and recalled by external stakeholders without effort. The best vision statements function as decision-making filters — when a new initiative is proposed, leaders can ask whether it contributes to building a connected future where everyone can thrive. This statement passes that test.
The verb “build” creates continuity with the mission statement while shifting the frame from present operations to future aspiration. In the mission statement, Telstra builds networks. In the vision statement, Telstra builds a future. This escalation from the tangible to the aspirational is well-constructed and gives the company a narrative arc: the daily work of network construction is in service of a larger transformative goal.
The phrase “connected future” is both literal and metaphorical. Literally, Telstra is in the business of connectivity — mobile, broadband, IoT, cloud. Metaphorically, a connected future implies social cohesion, economic participation, and the closing of digital divides. This dual meaning gives the vision statement intellectual depth without sacrificing accessibility.
The word “everyone” is the statement’s most ambitious element. It signals universal inclusion, which for Telstra has specific operational implications. Australia’s geography presents extraordinary connectivity challenges — vast rural and remote areas, Indigenous communities with limited infrastructure, and a population distributed unevenly across a continent-sized landmass. By declaring that everyone should thrive, Telstra implicitly commits to addressing these disparities, a commitment that aligns with its ongoing investment in regional and remote coverage.
The word “thrive” rather than “succeed” or “benefit” is a deliberate choice that elevates the vision beyond mere utility. Thriving implies flourishing, growth, and fulfillment — outcomes that transcend the transactional relationship between a telecommunications provider and its customers. This positions Telstra as an enabler of human potential rather than a vendor of connectivity products.
Weaknesses of the Vision Statement
The vision statement’s brevity, while a strength in terms of memorability, is a weakness in terms of strategic guidance. “Build a connected future so everyone can thrive” provides no indication of how Telstra intends to differentiate its approach from that of any other telecommunications company. Every carrier in the world aspires to connect people and enable better outcomes. The statement offers no competitive positioning, no technological specificity, and no timebound ambition.
The word “everyone” creates a tension that the statement does not resolve. Telstra is a publicly traded, for-profit corporation. Its primary obligation is to generate returns for shareholders. The promise that “everyone” can thrive invites scrutiny from communities that feel underserved — regional Australians frustrated by network gaps, low-income consumers priced out of premium plans, or small businesses unable to access enterprise-grade solutions. A vision statement that promises universal benefit without acknowledging the inherent constraints of commercial operation risks appearing disingenuous.
The statement also lacks any reference to leadership or excellence. Telstra is not merely a participant in the Australian telecommunications market; it is the market leader by a substantial margin. A vision statement that acknowledged this leadership position — and articulated a commitment to maintaining or extending it — would carry greater strategic force. As currently written, the statement could belong to a challenger brand or a nonprofit equally well.
There is an absence of technological ambition. In a period defined by the rollout of 5G, the emergence of artificial intelligence, the expansion of IoT, and the growing importance of cybersecurity, a telecommunications company’s vision statement that contains no reference to technology feels incomplete. The “connected future” phrase gestures toward technology without naming it, leaving the statement somewhat detached from the industry in which Telstra operates.
Australian Telecom Dominance: The Weight of Market Leadership
To fully appreciate the context surrounding Telstra’s mission and vision, one must understand the scale of the company’s dominance within the Australian telecommunications landscape. Telstra is not simply the largest player; it operates on a fundamentally different plane from its competitors. With approximately 40% of the mobile market and the broadest geographic coverage of any Australian carrier, Telstra’s position resembles that of a utility provider as much as a commercial enterprise.
This dominance traces directly to Telstra’s heritage as the government-owned Telecom Australia. When privatization occurred in stages between 1997 and 2011, Telstra inherited the national copper network, an extensive portfolio of radio spectrum, and a brand synonymous with Australian telecommunications itself. While the creation of NBN Co in 2009 separated fixed-line infrastructure into a wholesale entity, Telstra retained its mobile network advantage — an advantage it has compounded through aggressive spectrum acquisition and infrastructure investment in every subsequent decade.
The mission statement’s reference to building and operating networks is therefore not an abstract claim. Telstra operates more than 11,000 mobile base stations across Australia, covering more than 2.7 million square kilometers — an area larger than Western Europe. This infrastructure advantage is self-reinforcing: greater coverage attracts more subscribers, more subscribers generate more revenue, and more revenue funds further network expansion. Competitors cannot easily replicate this cycle, and the mission statement’s emphasis on network construction reflects an awareness that physical infrastructure remains the foundation of Telstra’s competitive moat.
The vision statement’s promise that “everyone can thrive” takes on particular significance in this context. As the only carrier capable of serving the most remote communities in Australia, Telstra bears a de facto responsibility that extends beyond its commercial obligations. The Australian government’s Universal Service Obligation historically ensured that all Australians had access to basic telecommunications services, and while the formal mechanisms have evolved, the public expectation that Telstra will serve areas no other carrier can reach has not diminished. The vision statement’s universalist language acknowledges this expectation, even if it does not explicitly address it.
Market dominance also brings regulatory scrutiny. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has historically examined Telstra’s market power with particular attention, and the company’s strategic communications must balance competitive ambition with regulatory prudence. The relatively measured, non-aggressive tone of both the mission and vision statements may reflect this dynamic — a market leader that projects responsibility rather than dominance.
The T25 Strategy and Its Successor: Strategic Execution Under Scrutiny
Telstra’s T25 strategy, announced in 2021 under CEO Vicki Brady’s predecessor Andy Penn and subsequently carried forward by Brady upon her appointment in 2022, represented the most ambitious strategic transformation in the company’s post-privatization history. The strategy established four pillars: building the best network, delivering exceptional customer experiences, accelerating growth through new business models, and creating a simpler, more sustainable organization. Each of these pillars maps directly to the mission and vision statements, providing the operational detail that the statements themselves lack.
The “best network” pillar aligns with the mission statement’s emphasis on building and operating communications networks. Under T25, Telstra committed to covering 95% of the Australian population with 5G by the strategy’s conclusion. This target was backed by capital expenditure programs running into the billions of dollars annually. The mission statement’s claim to reliability and innovation finds its tangible expression in this investment — reliability through network redundancy and geographic expansion, innovation through next-generation wireless technology deployment.
The customer experience pillar connects to the vision statement’s aspiration that everyone can thrive. Telstra historically struggled with customer satisfaction, frequently ranking below competitors in Net Promoter Score surveys and attracting criticism for opaque pricing, complex plan structures, and inconsistent service quality. The T25 strategy acknowledged these deficiencies and committed to radical simplification — reducing the number of consumer plans, investing in digital service channels, and embedding customer experience metrics into executive compensation frameworks. The vision statement’s promise of universal thriving rings hollow if the customer experience does not deliver on it, and T25 represented a systematic effort to close the gap between aspiration and reality.
Growth through new business models — the third pillar — extended Telstra’s strategic ambition beyond traditional telecommunications. The company invested in health technology through acquisitions, expanded its enterprise cybersecurity offerings, and explored opportunities in autonomous vehicle connectivity, smart city infrastructure, and industrial IoT. This diversification agenda explains why the mission statement references “technology solutions” alongside network operations: Telstra’s leadership envisions the company as a technology conglomerate, not merely a telecommunications carrier.
The fourth pillar — organizational simplification — addressed structural inefficiencies that had accumulated over decades. Telstra undertook a legal restructure that separated its infrastructure assets (InfraCo Fixed and InfraCo Towers) from its retail and enterprise operations (Telstra International and the consumer-facing business). This restructure was designed to unlock the value of infrastructure assets, provide transparency for investors, and create optionality for future transactions including potential tower sales or partnerships. The mission statement’s straightforward language — building, operating, connecting — belies the complexity of the organizational transformation required to deliver on those promises efficiently.
As the T25 horizon concludes, attention has shifted to what follows. Telstra’s strategic direction beyond 2025 must contend with a telecommunications landscape reshaped by artificial intelligence integration, the maturation of 5G, the early development of 6G standards, and evolving customer expectations shaped by digital-native competitors. The vision statement’s open-ended nature — “build a connected future” without specifying a timeline — provides flexibility for strategic evolution, but this same flexibility could be interpreted as a lack of concrete ambition.
5G Rollout: The Network That Defines the Next Decade
Telstra’s 5G network rollout represents the single largest operational expression of both the mission and vision statements. The company activated its 5G network in selected areas in 2019 and has since expanded coverage aggressively, leveraging its spectrum holdings across low-band (700MHz, 850MHz), mid-band (2.1GHz, 2.3GHz, 3.6GHz), and millimeter wave (26GHz) frequencies. This multi-band approach enables Telstra to deliver both broad geographic coverage and high-capacity, high-speed service in dense urban environments.
The strategic significance of 5G for Telstra extends well beyond faster mobile broadband. 5G standalone architecture, which Telstra has been deploying, enables network slicing — the ability to allocate dedicated virtual networks for specific applications or customers. This capability transforms the network from a shared commodity into a configurable platform, opening revenue opportunities in enterprise markets that were previously inaccessible. A mining company requiring ultra-reliable, low-latency connectivity for autonomous equipment, a hospital deploying remote surgical capabilities, or a logistics firm managing a fleet of connected vehicles each require different network characteristics, and 5G standalone allows Telstra to sell differentiated network products rather than generic bandwidth.
The mission statement’s reference to “technology solutions” encompasses these 5G enterprise applications, but the statement does not capture the transformative potential of what Telstra is building. This is a limitation: the mission statement reads as though Telstra is in the same business it has always been, when in reality, 5G is redefining what a telecommunications company can offer. A mission statement that acknowledged this evolution — that Telstra is not merely operating networks but building programmable, intelligent infrastructure — would more accurately reflect the company’s trajectory.
The vision statement’s promise that “everyone can thrive” connects to 5G through the concept of digital inclusion. As more government services, healthcare delivery, education, and economic activity move online, the quality of one’s network connection increasingly determines the quality of one’s participation in society. Telstra’s 5G rollout, particularly its extension into regional areas through mid-band and low-band spectrum, is a direct mechanism for delivering on the vision statement’s promise. However, the economics of 5G deployment in low-density areas remain challenging, and the gap between Telstra’s 5G coverage in metropolitan Sydney and that available in rural Queensland illustrates the tension between commercial viability and universal service.
Telstra’s 5G Fixed Wireless Access product also warrants examination. By offering home broadband service delivered over the 5G network, Telstra has created an alternative to the National Broadband Network for customers in areas with strong 5G coverage. This product directly competes with NBN-based broadband offerings from Telstra’s own retail division and from competitors, creating a dynamic where Telstra is simultaneously an NBN reseller and an NBN competitor. The mission statement’s claim to building and operating networks takes on a competitive dimension here: Telstra is building a network that could partially displace the national broadband infrastructure it was compelled to help create.
Competition with Optus and TPG Telecom: A Three-Player Market
The Australian mobile telecommunications market operates as a three-player oligopoly, with Telstra, Optus (owned by Singapore Telecommunications), and TPG Telecom (formed from the 2020 merger of TPG and Vodafone Hutchison Australia) competing across consumer and enterprise segments. This competitive structure shapes the context in which Telstra’s mission and vision statements must be evaluated.
Optus, as the second-largest carrier, has historically positioned itself as the value-oriented alternative to Telstra. Optus offers competitive pricing, particularly in prepaid and youth-oriented segments, and has invested in its own 5G rollout, though its coverage footprint remains substantially smaller than Telstra’s. The September 2023 Optus network outage — which left millions of Australians without mobile and broadband service for an extended period — underscored the fragility of telecommunications infrastructure and, by contrast, reinforced Telstra’s reliability narrative. The mission statement’s emphasis on “safe, reliable” service reads differently in a market where a major competitor suffered a catastrophic outage that affected emergency services, payment systems, and critical communications.
TPG Telecom occupies the value end of the market with particular strength in urban areas. The merger that created TPG Telecom combined Vodafone’s mobile network with TPG’s fixed-line infrastructure, creating a vertically integrated competitor. However, TPG’s coverage in regional and remote areas is minimal, and the company has entered into a network-sharing arrangement with Telstra that effectively acknowledges the impossibility of replicating Telstra’s geographic reach. Under this arrangement, TPG customers access Telstra’s network in areas where TPG has no coverage, paying wholesale rates for the privilege. This arrangement monetizes Telstra’s infrastructure advantage and validates the mission statement’s emphasis on network building as a core strategic activity.
The competitive dynamics of this three-player market influence how Telstra’s mission and vision statements should be read. The mission statement’s lack of competitive language — no reference to leadership, superiority, or differentiation — may reflect a strategic choice to avoid provoking regulatory attention or competitive retaliation. Alternatively, it may reflect a confidence rooted in market position: Telstra does not need to claim leadership because its leadership is self-evident to every stakeholder who encounters the statement.
The vision statement’s universalist tone — “everyone can thrive” — also functions as competitive positioning, albeit implicitly. By aspiring to serve everyone, Telstra differentiates itself from competitors whose business models are predicated on serving profitable urban segments. Optus and TPG cannot credibly claim to serve everyone because their networks do not reach everyone. Telstra’s network does, and the vision statement leverages this operational reality into an aspirational commitment. For a broader perspective on how leading global companies frame their strategic direction, readers may explore this collection of top companies with mission and vision statements.
The enterprise market adds another dimension to the competitive analysis. Telstra’s enterprise division generates a substantial portion of total revenue, providing managed network services, cloud computing, unified communications, and cybersecurity to Australian businesses and government agencies. In this segment, Telstra competes not only with Optus and TPG but with global technology companies including Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, and specialist cybersecurity firms. The mission statement’s reference to “technology solutions” gestures toward this competitive arena, but the statement does not convey the sophistication or scale of Telstra’s enterprise ambitions. A multinational corporation evaluating managed network providers would find little in the mission statement to distinguish Telstra from dozens of competitors.
Infrastructure Separation and the InfraCo Model
One of the most strategically significant developments in recent Telstra history — and one that neither the mission nor vision statement directly addresses — is the legal separation of the company’s infrastructure assets into distinct entities. InfraCo Fixed holds Telstra’s passive fiber, ducts, and data center assets. InfraCo Towers, subsequently rebranded as Amplitel, holds Telstra’s portfolio of mobile towers, one of the largest tower portfolios in the Southern Hemisphere.
This structural separation reflects a global trend among telecommunications companies to unlock the value of infrastructure assets that are often undervalued when bundled within an integrated carrier. Tower companies globally trade at higher valuation multiples than integrated carriers, and by isolating its tower assets, Telstra created optionality: the ability to sell a stake to an infrastructure investor, list Amplitel as a separate entity, or retain full ownership while providing greater financial transparency.
The mission statement’s claim to “build and operate communications networks” technically spans both the retail-facing Telstra and the infrastructure entities, but the corporate restructure has complicated this narrative. Telstra the retail brand builds customer relationships and delivers services; Amplitel and InfraCo Fixed build and operate the physical infrastructure. The mission statement does not acknowledge this organizational complexity, instead presenting a unified corporate identity that no longer fully reflects the legal and operational structure of the enterprise.
For investors, this matters. A mission statement that acknowledged the dual nature of the company — both a service provider and an infrastructure owner — would provide a more accurate representation of the investment proposition. For customers, the distinction is less material, but it illustrates a broader point about the limitations of mission statements as strategic communication tools: they necessarily simplify a corporate reality that is far more complex than any single sentence can capture.
Digital Transformation and the AI Imperative
The period from 2024 through 2026 has been defined, across every industry, by the accelerating integration of artificial intelligence into business operations and customer experiences. For Telstra, this trend presents both opportunities and challenges that the current mission and vision statements do not address.
On the opportunity side, AI enhances Telstra’s ability to manage its network, predict and prevent outages, optimize spectrum allocation, and deliver personalized customer experiences. AI-driven network optimization allows Telstra to extract greater performance from existing infrastructure, reducing the need for capital-intensive physical expansion in some scenarios. In customer service, AI-powered virtual assistants and predictive analytics have the potential to transform the customer experience from reactive to proactive — identifying and resolving issues before customers are aware of them.
On the enterprise side, Telstra’s ability to offer AI-integrated solutions — combining network connectivity with cloud computing, edge processing, and AI analytics — represents a significant growth vector. Manufacturing clients deploying computer vision for quality control, agricultural enterprises using IoT sensors and AI for precision farming, and healthcare providers implementing AI-assisted diagnostics all require the kind of integrated technology solutions that Telstra’s mission statement references. The gap between the mission statement’s generic language and the specificity of these use cases is a missed opportunity for strategic communication.
The vision statement’s aspiration that everyone can thrive in a connected future takes on new meaning in the context of AI. If artificial intelligence reshapes labor markets, educational requirements, and social participation, the quality and ubiquity of telecommunications connectivity will determine who benefits from the AI revolution and who is left behind. Telstra, as Australia’s most extensive network provider, is positioned to play a decisive role in ensuring equitable access to the infrastructure upon which AI-driven services depend. The vision statement’s universalism aligns with this role, even if it was not drafted with AI specifically in mind.
Sustainability and Social License
Telstra’s corporate strategy increasingly incorporates environmental sustainability and social responsibility commitments that intersect with the vision statement’s aspirational tone. The company has committed to reducing its absolute emissions, sourcing renewable energy for its operations, and supporting First Nations communities through digital inclusion initiatives. These commitments align with the vision statement’s promise that “everyone can thrive” and give the statement a social dimension that extends beyond commercial connectivity.
However, sustainability also presents challenges for the mission statement’s promise to “build and operate” networks. Network expansion — particularly the construction of new tower sites, the deployment of fiber, and the energy consumption of data centers — has environmental implications. A telecommunications company that is simultaneously expanding its physical infrastructure footprint and committing to emissions reductions must navigate a genuine tension. Neither the mission nor vision statement acknowledges this tension, which represents a gap in the company’s strategic communication.
Social license is particularly important for Telstra given its heritage as a government-owned entity. Many Australians, particularly those in regional and remote areas, retain an expectation that Telstra will prioritize universal service above commercial returns. The vision statement’s universalist language reinforces this expectation, which creates both a brand advantage — Telstra is seen as the provider that serves all of Australia — and a commercial constraint, as investments in low-return regional infrastructure divert capital from higher-return urban opportunities.
Final Assessment
Telstra’s mission and vision statements represent a study in contrasts. The mission statement is operationally grounded, specific in its description of core activities, and measured in its claims. The vision statement is aspirational, concise, and emotionally resonant. Together, they provide a framework for understanding Telstra’s self-conception: a company that does the practical work of building and operating networks in service of a larger ambition to enable universal human flourishing through connectivity.
The mission statement’s primary weakness is its lack of differentiation. It describes what any telecommunications company does, not what Telstra specifically does differently or better. The absence of geographic anchoring, customer segmentation, or competitive positioning renders it generic in a way that underserves a company of Telstra’s stature and market position. A stronger mission statement would acknowledge Telstra’s Australian identity, its infrastructure leadership, and the breadth of its customer base.
The vision statement succeeds where the mission statement does not: it is memorable, emotionally compelling, and strategically flexible. The word “everyone” is simultaneously its most powerful and most vulnerable element — powerful because it commits Telstra to universal inclusion, vulnerable because the gap between aspiration and reality invites criticism. A vision statement that acknowledged the scale of the challenge — connecting a continent, bridging digital divides, enabling participation in an AI-transformed economy — would retain the statement’s emotional force while grounding it in operational specificity.
Both statements are notably silent on technology, competition, and organizational transformation. The T25 strategy, the 5G rollout, the InfraCo separation, and the enterprise growth agenda represent the most consequential strategic initiatives in Telstra’s recent history, yet none are reflected in the company’s foundational statements. This is not unusual — mission and vision statements are designed to endure beyond individual strategic cycles — but it does mean that stakeholders must look beyond these statements to understand what Telstra is actually doing and why.
In the final analysis, Telstra’s statements are competent but not exceptional. They communicate a clear identity and an admirable aspiration without distinguishing Telstra from its peers or capturing the full ambition of its strategic agenda. For a company that dominates Australian telecommunications, operates critical national infrastructure, and is investing billions in next-generation technology, the mission and vision statements deserve to be as ambitious as the company itself. The statements serve their purpose as corporate anchors, but they leave room for a bolder articulation of what Telstra is, what it does, and why it matters — not just to shareholders, but to the nation it serves.