Paul Fletcher's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Bradfield Electorate: Sport | Constituency Statements | House debates
The Lindfield Cricket Club and the Lindfield Rugby Club—and the junior rugby club—are very important institutions in the electorate of Bradfield, and both of them play at the oval at...
The Lindfield Cricket Club and the Lindfield Rugby Club—and the junior rugby club—are very important institutions in the electorate of Bradfield, and both of them play at the oval at the Lindfield Soldiers Memorial Park on the corner of Tryon Road and Eastern Arterial Road. The clubhouse there, which is shared by the two clubs, was constructed in 1960, and I have to tell you, it's a little bit tired. It needs some improvement. It needs much better facilities for girls and women. There's been a dramatic increase, a very pleasing increase, in the number of girls and women playing both cricket and rugby, but the facilities are not up to the needs of the current club members. The two clubs have done a lot of work to raise money to fund an upgrade. Just last Friday, I was very pleased to be with Gisele Kapterian, our hardworking Liberal candidate for Bradfield, along with Greg Cook, the president of the Linfield Cricket Club; Ben Dibden, who leads on special projects for the Lindfield Junior Rugby Club; and a number of others, to visit the clubhouse and the oval to announce that, if a Dutton government is elected, we would commit $1.5 million towards the redevelopment of the clubhouse. This is a very significant announcement. The Ku-ring-gai Netball Association is another very important sporting institution in the electorate of Bradfield. There are some 11 clubs and over 5,000 members. They do such a great job making this wonderful sport accessible to every girl who wants to play, and there is a particular focus on attracting more girls of Chinese background and many other backgrounds because Bradfield is a highly multicultural electorate. There's a lot of work underway on plans to upgrade the facilities at the Canoon Road netball courts in South Turramurra, and just recently I was there with Gisele Kapterian, our hardworking Liberal candidate for Bradfield. Gisele was there to announce that, if a Dutton government were elected, we would commit $1 million towards 50 per cent of the cost of the upgrade of the courts and the facilities. There would be a new canteen and a redeveloped amenities block. There would be five courts that would be redeveloped for multisport use. It was great to be there with the President of the Ku-ring-gai Netball Association, Rod Jackson; the patron, Brenda Williams OAM, who's been such a stalwart; and so many others. It's great to see Gisele Kapterian, the hardworking Liberal candidate for Bradfield, getting around, identifying community needs and offering clear plans from a Dutton government. If a Dutton Liberal government is elected, there will be funding towards Lindfield District Cricket Club, Lindfield Rugby Club and Ku-ring-gai Netball Association, and Gisele Kapterian is working hard to deliver on that.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025. I want to deal with what is, in my view, a very interesting case study of the issues raised by Labor's...
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025. I want to deal with what is, in my view, a very interesting case study of the issues raised by Labor's wrongheaded decision to employ 36,000 more public servants at a cost of an extra $24 billion. Since we've been talking about this, the usual union bosses and other bloviating bloodsuckers and parasites on the long-suffering Australian taxpayer have been out there complaining that if you cut public servants then service levels will fall. Services Australia is designated to receive 7½ thousand of these new public servants over the next three financial years under Labor's most recent budget announcement. Services Australia is huge. It now has around 34,000 people and it has the largest call-centre operations of any organisation in Australia. But its service outcomes have collapsed over the last two years, and what has happened under the disastrous leadership of Bill Shorten is a very informative case study. The number of public servants has gone up, while the customer service performance has gone down. Let's have a look at some of the data. One of the core jobs of Services Australia is to process claims made by Australians to receive a government benefit. If you made a claim for the age pension in financial year 2021-22 under the coalition, on average it took 35 days. In financial year 2023-24 under Labor, it was 76 days. If you applied for dad and partner pay in 2021-22, it took 14 days; under Labor, in 2023-24, 63 days. For the disability support pension, in financial year 2021-22, it took 40 days for Centrelink to process your claim; on average in 2023-24, under Bill Shorten's tender care, it took 93 days. How long does it take you if you are so unwise as to call Centrelink seeking assistance? Well, if you called the families and parenting line, under us, in 2021-22, on average you waited 24 minutes and 45 seconds. That's not a great performance, but that's what it was in 2021-22. In 2023-24 under Bill Shorten, it was 50 minutes and four seconds—more than double the wait time. If you called the older Australians line, under us, in 2021-22, you waited 21½ minutes; in 2023-24, it was 44 minutes 31 seconds—more than double. So productivity under Bill Shorten collapsed. Services Australia has more staff doing less work, processing fewer overall claims. Service delivery outcomes have become worse. Mr Shorten was asked about these issues in a media interview and he had this to say: But the other thing to mention is demand is up. Demand is up on previous years. So not only do we have that, it's like the two jaws of the snake, we've got a decreasing number of people and we've also got more people than ever asking. This is flat out wrong. Let me go through the data. Compared to the years in which the coalition was in government, customer demand faced by Centrelink is trending down. In the 2021-22 financial year, customer demand was 106.9 million; in 2023-24, it was 99.3 million. So demand is down. Mr Shorten said demand is up; demand, in fact, is down. Compared to the coalition years, fewer claims are being processed by Services Australia under Labor. In 2021-22, under the coalition, 517.6 million claims were processed. In 2023-24 that number was 468.5 million. So it has gone down. Under the coalition it was 517.6 million; under Labor it was 468.5 million—fewer claims being processed under the Labor government. Yet what has happened to the number of Services Australia staff? That has gone up. On 30 June 2022, just after we left government, the total Services Australia APS headcount was 32,310. On 30 June 2024 it was 33,554—up, not down. The number of staff has gone up under Labor; the total amount of processing work has gone down. In 2021-22, under the coalition, 7.99 million hours were spent on processing. Under Labor, in 2023-24, this fell to 6.54 million hours. So what is the actual picture? What does the data say, compared to Mr Shorten's explanations in the media? The data says the number of staff is up, the amount of customer demand is down, the amount of processing hours is down and productivity is significantly down. And what does the customer, the citizen, the end user, see when they interact with Services Australia, as millions of Australians do? They see that the average time taken to process an age pension, as I've explained, was 35 days in 2021-22 under the coalition. In financial year 2023-24 it was 76 days—more than double. There are more staff dealing with fewer claims, with wait times in many cases more than doubling. That is a textbook example of a collapse in productivity. What it tells us is that there is no simple, straightforward, linear relationship between the number of staff and the performance. What it tells us is that, when all of those bloviating, bloodsucking parasites on the Australian taxpayer—all of those union secretaries—get out there and whinge about the disastrous idea that we should in some way wind back on Labor's profligate use of additional public servants, their essential premise that there is a relationship, and that more public servants means better service, is directly contradicted by the data. It is directly the opposite of what we have seen in the last nearly three years in which Services Australia has been under the care and management of Bill Shorten. Bill Shorten has now left the building, but the damage that he has done is going to last for a long time. Let's have a look at some of the factors behind this disastrous collapse in productivity that we have seen at Services Australia, which means more public servants and more money being spent by the poor, long-suffering taxpayer, yet worse service being delivered to Australians. The first thing Mr Shorten did was, where he could, dump external specialist providers and replace them with generalist public servants. Why? Because, of course, as a former union boss, and because Labor is the political arm of the union movement, he wanted more public servants who are union members. That was his overall priority. Customer service was a long way down the list of Bill Shorten's priorities. One of the things that's happened, therefore, is that 3,000 previously outsourced roles at Services Australia are now being done by permanent public servants. In December 2022 there was a decision taken to get rid of more than a thousand specialist ICT—information and communications technology—contractors from Services Australia. This has gutted the agency's capacity to continue to develop its information technology systems. Another example was in June 2023. Services Australia axed a $343 million contract with a specialist external call centre provider, Serco, and got rid of their 600 jobs. This happened even though Serco's call centre operations were much more productive than Services Australia's in-house operations. Don't ask me; ask KPMG, who did an assessment and found that Serco staff took, on average, 34 per cent more calls than the full-time public servants employed by Services Australia. The second thing that Mr Shorten did, which has disastrously reduced the output, the capability and the productivity of Services Australia, is weaken the digital capability of Services Australia. According to the agency's assurance statement there has been a conscious management decision taken to pause automation processes, from late 2022. The stated reason for this decision is a 'revisiting of their risk tolerances'—whatever that particular piece of bloodless bureaucratic jargon means. It's a very odd decision because we know that Services Australia demonstrated under the coalition that it could improve customer service using automation. After the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, introduced Single Touch Payroll, Services Australia built on this by providing pre-filled online forms to Australians receiving JobSeeker and other benefits, making it easier for people receiving benefits to meet their requirement to report to the government the amount of income they receive from employment in a given week. It turned out that these pre-filled forms were very well used. Over 3.5 million income support related reports were made in 2022-23 using Single Touch Payroll pre-filled data. We also know that Services Australia is grinding to a halt on the IT transformation work that was underway under the previous coalition government. Labor inherited six major ICT projects from the coalition, the biggest being the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation Program. Today only two programs are still underway. The third problem with what former union secretary Bill Shorten did is that he engaged in a ferocious politicisation of the income compliance program carried out under the previous government—a program, I might say, which in the 2016 and 2019 elections, when Labor was led by Bill Shorten, Labor submitted policy costings which assumed the continuance of the income compliance program. But, of course, Mr Shorten then turned around and engaged in a ferocious political attack. A clear consequence of what he did, including dragging a whole range of public servants before a royal commission, is going to be to make the Public Service more risk averse and less likely to think creatively and ambitiously about how best to serve the government of the day and in turn the Australian people. Consider the rollout of voiceprint, digital assistants, digital identity and video chat appointments—all reforms delivered under the coalition. Consider in New South Wales the scrapping of the old motor registries, replaced by the new Service NSW model, which had been very successful and which was led by Victor Dominello, the former New South Wales minister, who did an amazing job. These new ways of service delivery at the Commonwealth and at the state level required innovative thinking from the public service. It is clear from the royal commission's report that the central idea for the income compliance program was developed by officials within the Department of Human Services. They were generating ideas, which is, after all, what we want public servants to be doing. Now, let's be clear. There were mistakes made with that program. It was initiated based on the clear advice of the Public Service that the program was lawful. Once that advice changed, those mistakes were acknowledged on our government's watch, and we fixed it on our watch. But to take away from this, as Mr Shorten did, the idea that algorithms should not be used, that technology is bad, that innovation should not be encouraged, is a very bad thing, and it contributed to the collapse in service levels under Bill Shorten, under Labor, at Services Australia. People in this place such as me use jargon terms like 'productivity is falling', which doesn't mean much to ordinary Australians. But I'll tell you what does mean a lot to ordinary Australians—when you apply for a benefit that you're entitled to, like the age pension, and you are waiting twice as many days to get that application processed because of the collapse in productivity and performance at Services Australia. When you call the older Australians line to ask, 'What's happening to my age pension application?' rather than waiting an average of 20 minutes and 30 seconds, as you did under the coalition, you now wait more than twice as long: 44 minutes and 31 seconds. That is what a collapse in productivity means to ordinary Australians. I say to the House: we have seen a collapse in productivity and a collapse in performance at Services Australia under Bill Shorten. More public servants have been employed, but waiting times have blown out and the performance of Services Australia has collapsed. Australians have been grossly let down as a result, but it also gives the lie to this claim, made by union officials and other supporters of this government's agenda, that, somehow, more public servants means better services to Australians. The data shows exactly the opposite.
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
Like just about everybody who gets to this place, my journey was not entirely straightforward. In 2007, Manuela, Gabriel and I were living in Surry Hills—a lovely part of Sydney but not...
Like just about everybody who gets to this place, my journey was not entirely straightforward. In 2007, Manuela, Gabriel and I were living in Surry Hills—a lovely part of Sydney but not very fruitful territory if you wanted to be a Liberal MP. So we moved to Miranda, and I sought Liberal preselection for the seat of Cook, covering the Sutherland shire of Sydney. As history records, I did not succeed. But, just 18 months later, Dr Brendan Nelson announced he would be stepping down in Bradfield. Manuela, Gabriel and I were now back in Surry Hills, living in a recently, and rather expensively, architecturally renovated terrace house with our family expanded by the happy arrival of Hugo, then around six months old. So when I told Manuela that I was turning my attention from the southern suburbs of Sydney to the northern suburbs of Sydney she took a moment to gather her enthusiasm, but very soon she was fully on board for this latest quest—and, if the Princess Highway heading south had been the boulevard of broken dreams, the Pacific Highway heading north turned out to be the yellow brick road. Within a few short months I was standing in this chamber giving my maiden speech, as it happens, precisely 15 years and one day ago—although it feels like five minutes. In that speech, I said: I want to be a voice for rational policymaking which recognises some basic realities—the reality that we are a small country in a large world which does not owe us a living; the reality that the prosperity we enjoy today is not guaranteed but needs continual work; the reality that our prosperity depends much more on the efforts of the private sector than the public sector; … How would I assess my performance against the aim of being such a voice for rational policymaking? In the marking scale used when I was a student at Sydney university in the 1980s, I would not give myself a high distinction or even a distinction, but I think it's probably worth a credit. I was lucky to work on some issues where I had relevant expertise. After the 2013 election I was made parliamentary secretary to the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull. He asked me to take charge of the Mobile Black Spot Program, our election commitment to spend $100 million on better mobile phone coverage in rural and remote Australia. I travelled all around the country, holding community meetings and visiting black spots, as we finalised the rules of the scheme and kicked it off. A lot of people said to me, 'Telstra has the best network in regional and remote Australia,' so just give all the money to them. But I thought we could design a reverse-auction process to maximise the competitive pressure on the three telcos—Telstra, Optus and Vodafone—and in turn maximise the number of new base stations we would get for the money. When the telcos lodged their bids, it was clear the strategy had worked. For this relatively modest sum, they collectively committed to build 499 new mobile base stations. I drew several lessons from this experience. First, well-designed, competitive selection processes are a good way to get value for money for the taxpayer. Second, you should aim to have government intervene just enough to get the outcome needed but no more—in this case, what was the smallest subsidy we could pay to get a telco to build a new mobile base station? Third and most important, in politics we are often seeking to deliver emotionally important outcomes. But the more work you put into developing a rational and carefully designed policy, the better your chances of getting the outcome you seek. Because of careful policy work, we didn't get 200 or 300 or 400 new base stations; we got 499. I am certain that for every one of those there are people alive today because a 000 call could be made and help obtained quickly after a farm accident or a car crash on a country road. The emotional outcome—enormously important—is saving lives, as well as all the other benefits, such as being able to make or receive a phone call in areas where before this program it was impossible. But we got a much better outcome because of good policy design. All too often in this place, the fact that the objective is important, that it is emotionally compelling, is the excuse for poor, ill-disciplined, wasteful policy design. As I will touch on later, I regard the National Disability Insurance Scheme as suffering from this problem. I drew on these policy principles time after time as a minister. Working on the News Media Bargaining Code with Josh Frydenberg and Scott Morrison, we wanted enough intervention to bring Google and Facebook to the negotiating table with Australian news media businesses. The process we designed worked as intended, securing some $200 million in payments from the platforms, not only improving the profitability of Australian news media businesses but also leading to a lot more journalists being employed. It is a shame that the current government has not been able to continue our work effectively. On the other hand, I am pleased that in other areas this government has continued directions I established. I welcome their support for the eSafety Commissioner, and I'm delighted to see Julie Inman Grant in the gallery today. I welcome the more sensible approach to extending the NBN fibre rollout. Instead of building fibre to every home, now there is fibre built down the middle of the street, with the connection to the customer's home done only when the customer orders a high-speed broadband service—a much more efficient use of taxpayers' capital. I'm pleased that the changes I made to Australian content rules for free-to-air television have not been reversed. These rules required commercial TV networks to show multiple hours of specified content, including drama and children's content, each week. But not many people watched it, and much of this content was low-cost, low-production-value material produced solely to meet the quota. The changes I made aligned with what I saw as the broader strategic goal for the Australian screen production sector—how to make shows that would sell globally, including to the global streaming services. So we needed to remove perverse incentives to create content that was not globally saleable. We also needed to give better financial support for the production of television content, including streaming, so we increased the producer offset for television from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. The Screen Producers Association strongly opposed these changes, but I believe they were a positive for the screen sector. And while there are ups and downs from year to year, over the past few years we've seen a clear upward trend in Australian screen production. One of my most challenging times as communications minister was the 2019-20 bushfires. On the worst day, around 150 mobile base stations were off the air across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. No mobile coverage means no EFTPOS and no capacity to call or text for help. It was a reminder of something we too often overlook: the sustainability of the physical telecommunications networks which underpin the internet and, in turn, the digital economy. These networks are built and maintained by Telstra, Optus, TPG, NBN and the rest of our telco sector. In many places these networks are vulnerable, with little or no network redundancy. This is an economic issue as well as a network design issue. The margins made by the telcos in building and operating networks are modest, while the global tech firms which write over those networks are making supernormal returns. This disparity presents a growing risk, in my view, and needs policy attention. The issues in communications were interesting and important. Equally fascinating were the issues in cities and urban infrastructure, a portfolio in which I served under various names from 2015 until 2018 and then again for nearly 18 months from late 2020, when it was added to my continuing responsibilities for communications and the arts. The high point, undoubtedly, was working on the Western Sydney airport. When Malcolm Turnbull asked me to take responsibility for this project, I set out to learn as much as I could about airports in general and this project in particular. I visited Changi Airport in Singapore; Incheon in Korea; Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton in Britain; Schiphol in the Netherlands; and Dallas-Fort Worth in the US, in each case meeting the chief executive and other members of the executive team. All of them were extremely generous with their time and insights. This was a policy nerd's dream trip. I also spent many months engaging with the Sydney Airport Corporation. This company held a legally binding right of first refusal to develop the Western Sydney airport but, in the end, decided not to take up that right. We were well prepared for that scenario and announced almost immediately that the Commonwealth would establish a special-purpose company, WSA Co, to build the airport, with funding of $5.3 billion. This will not just be a new airport; it is the core of a new western parkland city, a new third city for the Sydney basin. It will have parks and recreational space. It will have a 23-kilometre-long metro rail line, with six stations running north to south, as the spine of the new city. It will have medium- and high-density housing around the stations. Because of the airport and the businesses the airport will attract, there will be jobs locally for people who live in that housing. This is urban policy, economic policy, transport policy and environmental policy all coming together. None of this would have happened without the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister, the key role that Lucy Turnbull played as chair of the Greater Sydney Commission and the strong backing for this vision from New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian and her government. I worked particularly closely with the New South Wales Minister for Western Sydney, Stuart Ayres. Stuart and I worked closely with the eight councils who had joined with the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments in the Western Sydney City Deal. I was impressed with the way the councils stepped up to think about what was best not just for their area but for the whole of Western Sydney. I acknowledge the advocacy of key Western Sydney leaders like David Borger. Anybody who has had the chance to drive down The Northern Road and look at the massive Western Sydney airport site and how well-developed that project is would agree with me that this is going to have a very big impact for our city and our nation. In years to come, I believe the Western Sydney airport and the associated policy framework, including the Western Sydney City Deal, will be seen as a template for urban policymaking in Australia. It's important for a host of reasons, including the huge challenge of housing affordability. If we can deliver new planned cities like this, with a combination of medium- and high-density housing, extensive parklands and local economic activity delivering local jobs, we have a powerful policy tool to bring a growing supply of affordable housing in areas which offer good quality of life. Part of the solution to housing affordability, I believe, comes with delivering better public transport connections, particularly rail, between our big cities and surrounding regions. This lets people buy homes in more affordable areas while remaining plugged into the economy and jobs markets of our big cities. We did significant planning work between the Commonwealth and state governments on what we called 'faster rail'. In the 2022 budget we announced funding for three rail corridors from the federal government: $1 billion for a corridor between Sydney and Newcastle; $1.1 billion for a corridor between Brisbane and the Gold Coast; and $1.6 billion for a corridor between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast. I want to acknowledge the two members for the Sunshine Coast, with whom I worked very, very closely on securing that announcement and the 'on again, off again, but ultimately on again'—as best as can be determined—commitment from the current government. On the 90-kilometre corridor from Brisbane to the Gold Coast, our funding was targeted to a 19-kilometre segment between two stations roughly halfway along the corridor. This would double capacity from two tracks to four and realign and straighten the tracks. Why should you care? Because having a stretch of four tracks means you can run more express trains and all-stops trains. It gives benefits along the whole corridor, allowing faster, more frequent and reliable services. It's not a coincidence that that was also what the funding for the Newcastle-to-Sydney corridor was dedicated to, similarly increasing from two tracks to four. This might not be as exciting as very fast trains, but it's targeted, it's cost-effective is and it will deliver tangible benefits within a few years. It was a privilege to work on these issues. It was also a privilege to be the Commonwealth arts minister. This brought some extraordinary experiences, such as visiting the set of Thor: Love and Thunder in Sydney and giving then 11-year-old Hugo the chance to meet Chris Hemsworth and Taika Waititi, who were both extremely charming, I must say. Equally special were the days spent visiting artists in four Indigenous communities in the APY Lands in the north of South Australia. Travelling with then South Australian premier and arts minister Steven Marshall, I met some remarkable Australians, including Robert Fielding and Betty Kuntiwa Pumani, winner of the 2017 Wynne Prize. There is no more distinctive feature of brand Australia than Indigenous art. As arts minister, I spoke very deliberately of wanting to build the market for Indigenous art. I visited Desert Mob in Alice Springs, Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair and the Cairns Indigenous Art Fair. These are important marketplaces where very talented artists can earn an economic return and buyers can purchase remarkable works. When COVID came along, almost immediately performances were cancelled, venues were closed and artists and crews lost their gigs. I felt a tremendous sense of responsibility. Could we devise policy settings to help sustain the arts sector and get it going again once COVID was over? We could. I want to acknowledge the strong support of Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg. The Morrison government provided unprecedented support to the arts sector, with more than $10 billion in wages and cashflow support under programs like JobKeeper. Our $200 million RISE fund supported 541 projects, created more than 213,000 jobs and stimulated a two-year pipeline of events, with an estimated total audience of many millions of people. We managed to get money into art forms that had been underfunded for a long time and money into suburban and regional Australia, which normally do not see a very big share of the Commonwealth arts funding. Left-leaning journalists at the ABC and the Sydney Morning HeraldI acknowledge that phrase is a tautology!—take it as an article of faith that the arts sector receives support stronger support under Labor than the coalition. Let me give you this fact. In 2021-22, under the Morrison government, there was record Commonwealth government funding to the arts of more than $1 billion. I want to say in particular to those coalition supporters in the arts sector: yours can seem a lonely and dangerous existence, I know, but I know you are there and actually in quite surprising numbers in some places. After all, artists, theatres and bands are businesses. Today we think of Shakespeare as a genius playwright, but he was also an entrepreneur, taking risks, employing people and building a business. I reckon old Will would have understood the solid policy case of giving small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million a capped tax deduction of up to $20,000 for business related meal and entertainment expenses. In communications, arts and infrastructure I was lucky to have had some prior interest and exposure, but when new prime minister Scott Morrison asked me to become social services minister in August 2018 I was coming into a portfolio about which I knew little. I only did the job for nine months. I learned a lot in a short time. I lived in constant fear that a journalist would start an interview with the question, 'Minister, what is the JobSeeker payment for single adults under 55?' Since you ask, it's $778 a fortnight. The portfolio included the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We need to acknowledge reality. The costs of this scheme are running wildly out of control and the governance and controls are deeply unsatisfactory. I referred earlier to the tendency in this place to use high emotional importance as the excuse for poor, ill-disciplined, wasteful policy design. This is what I believe has happened with the NDIS. Its advocates promised that, by spending more money on people with disability, the scheme would increase their capacity to work and to make a productive contribution and, in turn, it would generate economic benefits. That is a very worthwhile goal, but there is little evidence that it is happening. We need a well-designed, well-targeted, efficient scheme to support people with a disability, but what we have is very far from that, and every Australian taxpayer is being hit with a big and rising annual bill. There is a lot of work needed to fix this. Something else our nation would benefit from, in my view, is a scheme under which older Australians can use some of their superannuation balance to purchase an annuity from the Commonwealth. Recently I was interested to see the Grattan Institute advocating for such a scheme. Just to be clear, my view is it should be a choice. I would strongly oppose compulsion. Another policy in another portfolio I think we should adopt is the system of per kilometre road-user charging for electric vehicles. I advocated this unsuccessfully as urban infrastructure minister, pointing out in one speech that, under our current fuel-excise system, somebody driving an old Holden Commodore is effectively paying 4.5c a kilometre through fuel excise to use our roads, but, if you drive a Tesla, you're paying nothing. In other words, we have a fairness problem, but we also have a problem that, as the share of electric vehicles rises, revenue from the fuel excise will drop. Today this is a revenue stream in net terms of some $11 billion or $12 billion, which is money we rely on to pay for building new roads and maintaining existing roads. In my view, it would be fair and sensible to impose a federal per kilometre charge on electric vehicles set at a rate derived from the average effective rate per kilometre paid by users of petrol and diesel vehicles through the fuel excise system. Today electric vehicles are relatively expensive, and they're bought by more affluent Australians, so such a charge is unlikely to discourage electric vehicle sales. Rather than undermining the transition to electric vehicles, I see this as a policy measure which supports this inevitable and desirable transition by getting our road-funding arrangements set up for a world in which more and more vehicles are electric. It's one of a number of things I think we need to do, along with rolling out better and more comprehensive charging infrastructure. As for those who would criticise this as a new tax, my answer is, on the contrary, it's about updating an existing tax to deal with technological change. The Liberals want to see the lowest possible taxes charged fairly across the broadest possible tax base. If most Australians have no choice but to pay a tax but a small minority avoid it by buying an expensive vehicle using the latest technology, then we have a problem with the design of the tax and we need to fix it. When you're a minister, you regard parliament as an annoying constraint on your work. You have to answer all those pesky questions and, when you have a bill, you have to get it through the chamber. But, in this term, as Manager of Opposition Business, I've had to pay a lot more attention to the workings of the parliament. I want to thank and acknowledge you, Mr Speaker. Working collaboratively with you was an unexpected pleasure, but I have formed some clear views about how this place works and how it could improve. Our voting process in the chamber is inefficient. It should be electronic. In my view, once the speaker says, 'Ring the bells for four minutes,' after members have come in and the doors are locked, members would hold up a smartcard or their phone to a reader. The vote would be captured and electronically tallied, and it could all be done in a minute or two. Having question time at 2 pm is inefficient. So much time is spent across this building every day preparing for possible questions in ministers' offices and working out questions to ask in other offices. It should be at 11 am with the standing orders providing for it to conclude automatically by 12:30 pm at the latest. This would free up lunchtime for meetings and events, and it would reduce the amount of the day committed to fairly unproductive short-term work in preparing for question time. Three-year terms are inefficient. To move to four-year terms should be a no-brainer. Under our current system, within about a year and a half, you start to hit the pause button on doing anything significant because your first consideration is how it might play in the next election. Well, you might conclude from some of these comments that you are listening to a grumpy, splenetic man leaving the parliament disgruntled that his greatness has not been recognised and spraying around a collection of uncharitable observations as a parting gesture. On the contrary, as I leave this place I am not disgruntled at all; rather, I feel a deep sense of gratitude for the opportunity to serve in parliament and as a cabinet minister. It was only possible because of the Liberal Party, and the committed and dedicated volunteer members of the party in Bradfield and all across Australia. Our democracy is a precious and fragile thing. People who commit their time and energy and often money in being a member of a political party make an absolutely vital contribution to that democracy. I cannot mention everybody in Bradfield who helped me but I do want to acknowledge my three FEC Presidents Alister Henskens, Carolyn Cameron and Jon Stewart; and to mention just a few others Nick Campbell, Jimmy Chen, Namoi Dougall, Penny George-Farlow, Ros and Geoff Jarrett, Robyn and Roger Kerr, Charles and Belinda Khong, Brett and Vicki Kvisle, Simon and Alicia Lennon, Michael Li and Michelle Lam-Li, Alan and Lyndy Lipman, Jenny Powell, Victoria Qiu, the late and much missed Geoff Selig and Jane Selig, Les and Larraine Taylor, Barbara and Gary Ward, Jan and Tony Ward, James and Leanne Winter and Di Woods. I have missed out many others and I apologise but I certainly recognised and appreciated your support. My Liberal Party involvement goes back to 1981 when I joined the Young Liberals and 1983 when I joined the Sydney University Liberal Club. I retain close friends dating back to those days, including Stephen Coutts, Patrick Fair, Don Harwin, Marise Payne and Michael Photios, all of whom helped me very considerably as I sought out a seat in Parliament. For those engaged in careful decoding, yes, all are self proclaimed moderate Liberals, as am I. So too are other good friends who helped me on my journey, including Matthew Abbott, David Begg, Simon Birmingham, Scott Briggs, John Brodgen, Matt Cross, Matt Daniel, Jason Falinski, Joe Hockey, Matt Kean, Brendan Lyon, Natalie Ward, Sam Witheridge and Trent Zimmerman. I may be a moderate but I am a strong believer in the importance of diversity of opinion in our party room. The Liberal Party is at its best when both our conservative and our small-l liberal traditions are respected. Most Liberal Party members and overwhelmingly our voters have zero interest in factions and arcane internal ideological squabbles. They simply want to see a strong, capable, sensible centre right government which is careful with their money, which works to build a stronger economy and which keeps a careful eye on our national security. I am very proud of our coalition parliamentary team and the discipline and focus we have shown over this term, under Peter Dutton’s leadership. We are a real prospect for government, which two and a half years ago seemed most unlikely. My parliamentary career was only possible because the people of Bradfield saw fit to place their trust in me for six successive elections. Politicians as a class are not held in terribly high regard by the Australian people, but they tend to make an exception for their own local MP. I have been treated with courtesy and kindness, and I thank the people of Bradfield for that. Over recent weeks as I have gone about the electorate I have been very touched by the number of people who have come up to me to wish me well for the future. And it was only possible because of the love and support from my family. I am so pleased that my wife Manuela, my stepson Gabriel and my son Hugo are here today. I have put them through a lot and I am very grateful. As I often say when Manuela joins me at political events, she is the human face of the operation. But as well as being a wonderful wife and mum, she is also a very talented jewellery designer and accomplished businesswoman, with her store, Zappacosta Jewels, having operated successfully in the Strand Arcade in Sydney for over twenty years. I am very proud of what she has achieved. When it comes to gratitude to family members, I also want to mention my mum Mary, my sister Sam, her husband Andrew and sons Tim and Nic. All of them have handed out at numerous elections and helped in countless other ways. I am grateful to all my personal friends and supporters who have helped out on campaigns - including, softly be it said, some who are not Liberal voters but still came along to put on the t-shirt and hand out for me. I am grateful to the many people and organisations who made political donations in support of campaigns in Bradfield and beyond I am grateful to the four leaders I have served under: Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. All gave me opportunities to contribute. I am grateful to the many wonderful colleagues I have worked with in the coalition party room over more than fifteen years, and I also want to acknowledge and express thanks for friendships with people across the parliament, of every political stripe. I'm grateful to all who served as my staff in my electorate office and in my ministerial and shadow ministerial offices, quite a few of whom are here today. I can't mention everybody, but, in my electorate office, Jacquie Barnes and Jacquie Parker were key in earlier and later years respectively. As chief of staff at various stages, Luke Coleman, Alex Waldren, Boronia Morrison, Ryan Bloxsom and Brooke Curtin led my office very capably. I was pleased to have a number of ministerial staffers with deep sector experience, like Emma McDonald. I want to particularly mention the wise, unflappable and often extremely amusing Imre Salusinszky. Let me close by speaking about why I am optimistic for Australia and our future. This sentiment can feel rather unfashionable at the moment, but I think we live in a remarkable country with a very bright future. We should give ourselves more credit than we do for our remarkable national achievement in building the most successful, multi-ethnic, multiracial, multicultural, multireligious nation in the world. The electorate of Bradfield is a microcosm of Australia. Almost 25 per cent of its residents report being of Chinese heritage, another four per cent are Indian, three per cent are Korean—and many other backgrounds as well. I should acknowledge our Armenian community, our South African community, our Jewish community—and there are plenty of others that I'm forgetting in that quick list. What I see in our schools, in Scouts and Guides groups, in sporting clubs and in so many other institutions is a no-nonsense, lets-get-on-with-it attitude to make everyone feel welcome and included regardless of who they are or where they come from. It's not mandated by governments or decreed by bureaucrats. It is the ordinary practice of millions of Australians—building relationships and making friendships, and thereby overcoming the suspicion and mistrust that all too easily can arise between people of different backgrounds. I'm optimistic about Australia's future because I believe we will keep attracting smart, motivated, energetic people from around the world. Our focus on skilled migration for many decades has served Australia very well. I am also optimistic about technology. When I reflect on the unbelievable changes just in my own lifetime, to me the evidence of scientific and technological advancement improving our lives is absolutely compelling. There is a strand of thinking on the far left which hankers for some kind of pretechnological state of grace and purity. It is delusional. How anyone can maintain this belief the first time they have a serious dental issue requiring treatment is entirely beyond me. Do I think all applications of technology are positive? Of course not. But consider the internet—it has transformed the way we live, work, meet our partners, entertain ourselves, do business and a hundred other things besides. Is there a lot of pointless, stupid stuff on TikTok and social media generally? Of course there is. But the phenomenal amount of practical, useful information available to any one of us is, in my view, absolutely something to celebrate. 'What about artificial intelligence?' I hear you say. 'It's going to take our jobs.' As the expression goes, predictions are hard, especially about the future, but we can see a clear patterns from every previous wave of new technology. There has been alarm that it would destroy jobs. Instead, it has changed jobs and created new jobs while increasing prosperity. 'What about global warming?' you ask. 'Aren't we all doomed?' Let me be clear—I absolutely believe that we're seeing an increase in the parts per million of carbon, that there's a link to the burning of fossil fuels and that we need to phase out fossil fuels, and of course that is the clear commitment of the Liberal and National parties. But I'm an optimist that the human race will get this job done, and science and technology will be the way that we will do it. I have to say, I'm even more optimistic now, after spending 2½ years as shadow minister for science, visiting supersmart scientists, researchers and businesspeople all around the country. Once you've had a few decades on this planet, you've heard plenty of examples of seriously scary things that are about to destroy us. When I was a school and university debater, it was the coming ice age. Later it was peak oil. Then there was the Y2K bug—remember that? It was going to bring the entire global economy to its knees because computers had been programmed with only a two-digit field for the date back in the sixties and seventies, and, once the date flipped over from 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000, everything would suddenly stop working, chaos would descend and zombies would walk the earth. It didn't happen. Of course, there are things that it's rational to be concerned about, but to be rationally concerned about risks and threats is one thing; to plunge from that into despair is not the right response. I believe the right mindset for our nation and indeed for our world, to use the title of an impressive recent book, is rational optimism. Let me conclude. It has been a privilege to serve in this place for 15 years. It is time for renewal. Thank you. It has been great. Keep in touch.
Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is an issue—the challenge of antisemitism and how we respond to it as a nation—which is of...
I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is an issue—the challenge of antisemitism and how we respond to it as a nation—which is of great concern to many, many Australians. It is certainly an issue of very considerable concern in the electorate of Bradfield, which has the second-largest Jewish community of any federal electorate in New South Wales. It has four synagogues and a Jewish school, Masada College. Just last Friday, I was at a service at one of those four synagogues, North Shore Synagogue in Lindfield, at the invitation of Rabbi Lewin. I was joined by the mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Christine Kay; the state member for Davidson, Matt Cross; and the Liberal candidate for Bradfield, Gisele Kapterian. We were there along with other local dignitaries and leaders to express our concern for our local Jewish community and for the Jewish community of Australia. I know our local Jewish community, along with the Jewish community all across Australia, is rightly enormously concerned about the shocking upsurge in antisemitism that we have seen throughout Australia since the 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorist attack in Israel. Indeed I've attended numerous events in my electorate over the last year and a half in response to the enormous and entirely justifiable and understandable concerns of my Jewish constituents and, I might say, of the broader body of my constituents in Bradfield. In Bradfield, as around Australia, alarm and concern about the outbreak of antisemitism in Australia is certainly felt by Jewish Australians, but it is also felt by Australians of goodwill of all faiths and none, because it is a threat to social cohesion, it is a threat to social order and it is a threat to civilisation and to the values which underpin our modern Australian nation. In October 2023, shortly after the appalling 7 October terrorist attack, I attended a moving service at Kehillat Masada synagogue in St Ives. Several North Shore synagogues came together at that service; it was physically held at Masada, as I mentioned. A significant number of dignitaries and leaders joined that event. It was an opportunity for the Bradfield Jewish community and the North Shore Jewish community to come together in mutual support and to express their support for the victims of the appalling terrorist attack, their loved ones, their families and indeed all who were rightly concerned about that appalling event. In June last year, I spoke about antisemitism at a community forum at North Shore Synagogue. In August 2024, there was another event at the North Shore Synagogue with a focus on Jewish teenagers and young people. In November 2024, I spoke about antisemitism at Chabad North Shore, one of our other synagogues in St Ives. I spoke to a group of about 120 people and answered questions for quite a considerable period of time, which is evidence of the enormous degree of concern amongst our Jewish community in Bradfield, as there is enormous concern amongst Jews, their friends and supporters all across Australia. I visited the homes of Jewish constituents in St Ives, where I heard from several families—parents, teenagers and young adult children—about the antisemitism and bullying that those Jewish young people had been experiencing. I rise, therefore, to speak on this bill with a very considerable interest in the issues it seeks to address and a clear recognition of its importance to social cohesion in our nation but also of its particular importance to the community that I represent in Bradfield. Sadly, we have seen from the present government a lamentable failure to engage in a determined and effective way with the rise of antisemitism. The fact is that Australia is one of the world's great multi-ethnic, multiracial, multicultural, multireligious nations. That is something in which we should all take enormous pride. Our success in this regard is built on core Australian values of mutual tolerance, respect and understanding. The shocking incidents of antisemitism that we have seen across Australia, and their violent manifestations, are entirely at odds with the values of mutual tolerance, respect and understanding which underpin Australia's success as a multi-ethnic, multiracial, multicultural and multireligious nation. These outbreaks of antisemitism are to be condemned for a whole host of reasons. One of the reasons they are to be condemned is because they are wholly at odds with the values which underpin our modern Australian nation. The sad fact is that the appalling terrorist attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 has energised and unleashed Hamas sympathisers in Australia. That is something to be absolutely regretted, condemned, and accurately recognised and described as entirely at odds with Australian values. It is disappointing that we have not seen a stronger, clearer, more courageous response from the Prime Minister and from the Albanese Labor government. It is mystifying that the Prime Minister and other senior Labor figures find it impossible, evidently, to speak about antisemitism without, in the very same sentence, using the word 'Islamophobia'. Let's be clear: hatred directed at Jews must be condemned. Hatred directed at Muslims must be condemned. But they do not need to be endlessly linked in a rhetorical formula used by self-declared 'progressives' as some kind of designated form of moral equivalence. We need to recognise that there is a particular and serious problem with antisemitism, and we need to have a clear and strong policy response. That being said, the changes made by the laws that are proposed before the House today are changes that the coalition welcomes and supports. We regret that it has taken so long to get to this point, given that the bill was introduced in the last sitting week in September 2024. We've made efforts to encourage the government to speed it up. It's good that we have this bill before us. There should be no doubt in the minds of anybody engaging in the kind of violent antisemitic conduct that we have seen, sadly, over the last year and a half, that they face serious jail time. The measures in this bill are strong but they are necessary. The scourge of antisemitism is something that we must be resolute in opposing. It is fundamentally at odds with the values which underpin the modern Australian nation, one of the world's great multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural and multireligious nations, and that is why strong action is necessary.
Bradfield Electorate: Community Services | Constituency Statements | House debates
I want to speak about the remarkable community spirit in Bradfield, the electorate that I've been privileged to represent in this place for 15 years. Last Saturday, as one manifestation of that...
I want to speak about the remarkable community spirit in Bradfield, the electorate that I've been privileged to represent in this place for 15 years. Last Saturday, as one manifestation of that community spirit, the Killara Rural Fire Service station opened. This has been the culmination of many years of work and planning to establish the new Killara Rural Fire Brigade in 2017 and to build this magnificent new station in Koola Avenue in East Killara opposite Killara High School. I particularly congratulate deputy captain and brigade president Stuart Clark, who has worked for many years to achieve this outcome, as well as brigade captain Andrew Wilson and all of the volunteers who serve in the NSW Rural Fire Service, not just in the Killara brigade but locally in the Ku-ring-gai brigade and of course across New South Wales and Australia. Late last year, I held my annual Bradfield community Christmas drinks, and we recognised three outstanding local organisations and asked each of them to brief the assembled group of over 100 people on the great work that they do. We heard from Liz Lovell of Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury. There's a very big facility that they have in Gordon, in the electorate of Bradfield, and, as the name suggests, they serve people from the harbour up to the Hawkesbury River and beyond, including through the lots of counsellors who work on the enormously valuable Lifeline telephone counselling service. I've heard from many of them stories about people they have helped—people who are in considerable distress and, in some cases, considering ending their own lives. We also heard at this event from Kevin Hao, a very impressive young man in my electorate who has just finished year 12 with outstanding results. While he was at high school he founded an organisation called Youth 4 Difference, which has attracted large numbers of high-school students to volunteer for a whole range of important causes. I joined them last year along with Gisele Kapterian, the then Liberal candidate for North Sydney and the now Liberal candidate for Bradfield, at a community barbecue at Bunnings in support of the DANII Foundation, which works to deal with the scourge of diabetes and early onset diabetes. We also heard, at my Christmas event just before Christmas, from Fran Signorelli, of Hope in a Suitcase. This is a wonderful volunteer organisation which repairs suitcases full of personal items, clothing and toys for children who are going into foster care and often finding themselves in a situation where they have very few or no personal effects with them. I acknowledge all these wonderful volunteers and the many other volunteer organisations across the electorate of Bradfield. Thank you for the work you do to make our community a more fortunate place and for the help that you give so many others.
Services Australia | Statements by Members | House debates
Bill Shorten has left the building, but the damage that he has done will linger on. We know that what Labor wants to do—and is in the course of doing—is put on 36,000 additional...
Bill Shorten has left the building, but the damage that he has done will linger on. We know that what Labor wants to do—and is in the course of doing—is put on 36,000 additional public servants, $24 billion of extra cost. Services Australia, for which he had responsibility, is at the epicentre of this. The head count of Services Australia has gone up from 32,310 in 30 June 2022 to 33,554. So we've seen a strong increase in head count, but service levels have gone down. The average time taken to process an age pension claim has more than doubled. In 2021-22, it took on average 35 days. In 2023-24, it took 76 days. The average wait time when you called the older Australians line was 14 minutes and 14 seconds in 2021-22, and 44 minutes and 31 seconds in 2023-24. So what is Bill Shorten's record? This is typical of Labor's approach to productivity in government. Productivity has collapsed. Services Australia has more staff doing less work, processing fewer overall claims. Service delivery outcomes have become worse. Do not believe this incorrect claim from the other side that there's a one-to-one correlation between people and outcomes; under Bill Shorten, it has been the reverse.
Handa Opera at Millthorpe, Craven Creek Music Festival | Statements by Members | House debates
At Easter this year there will be a three-day opera festival in the New South Wales country town of Millthorpe, near Orange. It's being put together by Lyndon Terracini, who was formerly the...
At Easter this year there will be a three-day opera festival in the New South Wales country town of Millthorpe, near Orange. It's being put together by Lyndon Terracini, who was formerly the artistic director of Opera Australia. He's secured sponsorship from the billionaire Japanese businessman and arts patron, Haruhisa Handa, the same man who has long sponsored Handa Opera on Sydney Harbour, one of Lyndon's signature initiatives in his previous role. The festival in Millthorpe will feature the Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra, which is much loved in my electorate of Bradfield and features many talented musicians who have day jobs. Lyndon Terracini was recently interviewed and he said: I wanted to start modestly this year, and I haven't applied for any government funding. As a former arts minister, I love that attitude, just like I love the Craven Creek Music Festival—organised by Greg Lindsay, former director of the Centre for Independent Studies—near Gloucester in country New South Wales, which is typically held in the second half of the year. I went last year and loved it. There is great music at events organised by great Australians, with no government handouts involved. So google them—Handa Opera at Millthorpe and Craven Creek Music Festival. Get yourself some tickets. You won't regret it. These are terrific events in wonderful parts of country Australia, organised by very distinguished Australians. I congratulate them both. There's going to be some great music.
Economy | Questions without Notice | House debates
Mr Speaker, standing order 91(c) states that a member's conduct is disorderly if they wilfully refuse to conform to a standing order. You rightly directed the Prime Minister to come back to the...
Mr Speaker, standing order 91(c) states that a member's conduct is disorderly if they wilfully refuse to conform to a standing order. You rightly directed the Prime Minister to come back to the subject of the question, to comply with the relevance requirement, and he is flouting your order, your direction.
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
by leave—There was confusion as to whether we were on the amendment or on the second reading question, that the bill be agreed to. We certainly want a division on that second reading. I...
by leave—There was confusion as to whether we were on the amendment or on the second reading question, that the bill be agreed to. We certainly want a division on that second reading. I move: That the second reading of the bill be rescinded and the question on the second reading be put again. Question agreed to.
Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024. This bill relates to information obtained in the course of Operation Ironside, which was conducted by the...
I rise to speak on the Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024. This bill relates to information obtained in the course of Operation Ironside, which was conducted by the Australian Federal Police between 2018 and 2021. As of June 2024, Operation Ironside has resulted in 392 alleged offenders being charged with 2,355 offences. These offences include crimes such as trafficking in illicit drugs, money laundering and dealing in the proceeds of crime. One of the central features of Operation Ironside was the use of a dedicated encrypted communications application, the ANOM app, which allowed surveillance of alleged organised crime networks. Relevantly, the bill before the House clarifies certain aspects of the operation of Australia's Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and other relevant legislation as they apply to information obtained during the police operation. The use of information obtained through the ANOM app has been challenged on at least two occasions in courts. The central basis for those challenges has been a claim that the information was obtained by 'intercepting' of messages sent through the ANOM app. Section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act prohibits the interception of communications passing over a telecommunications system, except where certain criteria apply, such as where the interception is authorised by a warrant. You cannot intercept communications unless authorised. However, the word 'intercept' is not defined in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act . Instead, section 6 of that act explains what is meant by the phrase 'interception of a communication passing over a telecommunications system'. It says that interception 'consists of listening to or recording, by any means, such a communication in its passage over that telecommunications system without the knowledge of the person making the communication'. It is clear that, under the law, for there to be an interception, there must be a communication which is listened to or recorded 'in its passage over the telecommunications systems' and 'without the knowledge of the person making the communication'. Both the Supreme Court of South Australia and the South Australian Court of Appeal have considered how these concepts apply to information obtained through the ANOM app. The South Australian judiciary, which at appeal stage relevantly included the Acting Chief Justice, has made clear that the use of the ANOM app does not involve an interception for the purposes of that act. Instead, the ANOM app sends a completely separate message, comprising a copy of the original message and some additional data, to a server. The information on that server can then be lawfully accessed by police if authorised by a warrant under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004. This distinction is technical but important. What this bill does is clarify the operation of the law in a way that is consistent with the position taken by the courts to date in relation to a limited number of specified warrants. This certainly is welcome and no doubt will assist in the continued investigation and prosecution of criminal organisations which profit from harming the Australian community. I thank the House. Debate adjourned.
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is on relevance. The fact is that emissions have gone up. Can the minister—
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given emissions have gone up under the Albanese Labor government, how does the Prime Minister expect Australians to take this government seriously on climate...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given emissions have gone up under the Albanese Labor government, how does the Prime Minister expect Australians to take this government seriously on climate action?
Climate Change | Questions without Notice | House debates
On relevance. It was a very specific question: can the Prime Minister guarantee it won't lead to increased energy prices for Australian families? If he can't give that guarantee, he should admit it.
Economy | Statements by Members | House debates
The Albanese government's time in office has been all about reckless spending, with Canberra's already bloated bureaucracy growing by an additional 36,000 public servants under Labor's watch....
The Albanese government's time in office has been all about reckless spending, with Canberra's already bloated bureaucracy growing by an additional 36,000 public servants under Labor's watch. Labor has now hired almost 50 new bureaucrats each and every day. Economist Shane Oliver told the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living: … the RBA's job would be a lot easier if they didn't have the surge in government spending that has been occurring over the last few years— government spending rates of 27.3 per cent of GDP in the June quarter. Services Australia is a good case study of the reckless spending. There is $1.8 billion now committed for an extra 7,500 public servants, but here are some facts on Services Australia's plummeting performance—something you probably won't hear in the member for Maribyrnong's valedictory speech. When the coalition was in government, it took, on average, 35 days to process a claim for an age pension. From 1 January this year to 1 May this year, the average time was 84 days. The member for Maribyrnong gives the excuse that customer demand for services is increasing. Not true! Demand was 126 million in 2021-22; it has dropped to 92 million in the most recent year. More government spending, poorer outcomes—that is a record of the member for Maribyrnong.
Early Childhood Education | Questions without Notice | House debates
On relevance, there was no reference in the question to alternative policies, opposition or any of that. The minister is now straying into opposition policies and statements. She's not being...
On relevance, there was no reference in the question to alternative policies, opposition or any of that. The minister is now straying into opposition policies and statements. She's not being relevant, and she should be directed to be relevant. If she can't be, she should be asked to sit down.
National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. The National Broadband Network was first dreamt up as a policy by former...
I'm pleased to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. The National Broadband Network was first dreamt up as a policy by former Labor senator Stephen Conroy in the lead up to the 2007 election. It was an ill-thought-through, careless and lazy piece of policy. I was so frustrated by it that I wrote a book, Wired Brown Land?, about the broadband battles in Australia. The book came out in 2009, and I'm often asked, 'How did it sell?' Well, for a book about telecommunication economics, extremely well! My central point was that the policy that then Senator Conroy devised dismally failed because it sought to get Telstra to do something that it did not want to do—namely, to build a national fibre-to-the-node network for $4.7 billion and give its competitors access to that network. An even more ill conceived policy was then dreamt up by Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd. Notoriously, the details were sketched out on the back of a beer coaster on a flight on a government jet. Under that policy, the commitment was to spend what was supposed to be $43 billion on a fibre-to-the-premises network. If you go back and look at what was promised in the 2009 media release and press conference by Kevin Rudd, Stephen Conroy, Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner, just about every aspect of what they promised has been a manifest failure. As a result of this policy, some $30 billion of taxpayers' money has been spent, and the value for money taxpayers have received has been absolutely appalling, in stark contrast to the frugal Kiwis, who managed to get a national fibre network for a total taxpayer commitment of NZ$1.5 billion. In the nearly 15 years I've been in the parliament, and having taken quite an interest in this issue, I've spoken many times on stupid pieces of legislation associated with Labor's National Broadband Network, yet the bill before the parliament today achieves an unenviable distinction. It is the most stupid, pointless, empty, nakedly political, entirely useless piece of cynical performative-gesture politics that Labor has managed to serve up in its nearly two decades of deeply undistinguished policymaking on the National Broadband Network. In the time available to me I'd like to make three points: (1) Labor's record on the NBN is hopeless, (2) the policy framework on future ownership of the NBN was established by the Rudd government under Stephen Conroy as minister—and, indeed, it was his then representative in the House, the now Prime Minister, who explained what that policy framework would be, and (3) the bill before the House today which proposes to change that policy framework—which, for some 15 years, Labor has thought was absolutely fine—is a naked, meaningless, cynical and empty political stunt, and the coalition will be voting against it. Let me start with the proposition that Labor's record on the NBN is hopeless. As I've already indicated, the plan they announced in 2007 completely failed because Telstra's then management team refused to cooperate. So they announced another plan in 2009. Kevin Rudd promised that his government would build a National Broadband Network that would serve 90 per cent of homes with access speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, take eight years to complete and cost $43 billion. None of this was achieved. Let's judge what Labor delivered by the time it left office in 2013 against what had been promised in NBN's 2012 corporate plan. Labor promised 286,000 premises passed by June 2013. NBN Co fell a full 100,000 premises, or almost 40 per cent, short of its target, and, of the premises it claimed, many were designated as so-called service class 0 or service class 1, meaning they could not actually provide a service at all. Labor was systematically dishonest about what the NBN was delivering. And the man who was communications minister at the time is Australia's current Prime Minister, the man who just loves being upgraded to seat 1A. Let me remind you what happened. In August 2013, during the election campaign, the then Minister for Communications, the member for Grayndler, stood in front of a big red button and announced that broadband was now available to 5,400 homes and businesses in Sydney's western suburbs: 'It's fantastic to see that the NBN fibre network is now available,' he said. What he didn't say is that close to 1,000 of these were service class 0, and 98.6 per cent of these homes had no fibre connection to them. By the time of the 2013 federal election, NBN Co said it had passed 209,000 premises, but close to 80 per cent of these had no fibre going into the home. It was not fibre to the premises; it was fibre to the press release. When the coalition took over responsibility for the NBN we set about fixing the problem in a methodical way. Our 2013 strategic review recommended using a combination of rollout technologies—the multitechnology mix. Had we continued with Labor 's model it would have taken up to five years longer to complete the rollout and would have cost billions of dollars more. If we'd stuck to Labor 's plan then, when the pandemic hit and millions of Australians moved overnight to working and studying from home, Australia would have been in a dreadful mess. But, thanks to the coalition's work, the NBN was ready for the challenge, with 98 per cent of premises around the country—over 11 million—able to connect in early 2020. I've said it before and I'm very pleased to say it again: as the communications minister when the pandemic hit Australia, I am enormously proud of the efforts made across Australia's telecommunications sector. NBN Co, Optus, Telstra, TPG, Vodafone, Aussie Broadband and a whole range of other companies came together to keep the network operating when Australians desperately needed it, and that was critical to the way our nation was able to get through the pandemic. Let me turn now to Labor 's policy framework on NBN ownership. This is the framework developed by Labor and legislated in 2011. It carefully sets out the steps that, in the judgement of the Labor Party, would need to happen before the NBN could be sold by the government to private owners. Let me quote from the minister's second reading speech in this place on the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011: The first bill in the package, the NBN companies bill, obligates NBN Co. Ltd to limit its operations to, and focus them on, wholesale-only telecommunications. It also sets out arrangements for the eventual sale of the Commonwealth's stake in the company once the NBN rollout is complete, including provisions for independent and parliamentary reviews prior to any privatisation, and for the parliament to have the final say on the sale. The bill also creates a power for the Governor-General to make regulations concerning future private ownership and control of NBN Co. Ltd, and establishes other relevant reporting, governance and enforcement mechanisms. As such, the bill deals with arrangements for both today and into the future. I remind the House that these are not my words; I'm quoting the words of the then minister, the member for Grayndler, now the Prime Minister. He went on to say: Taking into account the recommendations of the implementation study on the NBN, the Commonwealth will retain full ownership of NBN Co. Ltd until the rollout of the NBN is complete. He then went on to say: After the communications minister has declared that the rollout is complete, the productivity minister may direct the Productivity Commission to undertake a 12-month inquiry into a number of matters. These may include the regulatory framework for the NBN, and the impacts of a sale of NBN Co. Ltd on the Commonwealth budget, consumer outcomes and competition. Within 15 sitting days of the Productivity Commission inquiry report being tabled, a parliamentary joint committee on the ownership of NBN Co. Ltd is to be established, according to the practice of parliament, to examine the report of the Productivity Commission inquiry. This joint committee will report to both houses of parliament within 180 days of its appointment. After it reports, the finance minister may, by disallowable instrument, advise that conditions are suitable for an NBN Co. Ltd sale scheme. As is clear from this extensively quoted material, the minister of the day laid out a clear framework which needed to apply before the National Broadband Network could be sold. He did not say the NBN could never be sold. Instead, he set out a comprehensive series of steps which would need to occur before the parliament was given the opportunity to consider an instrument, prepared by the finance minister, advising that conditions were suitable for an NBN sale scheme. Of course what this means is that under the existing legislation, unless both houses of parliament agree, no sale can occur. As I have informed the House, the minister who explained these required stages to the House so carefully and thoroughly in his second reading speech is, of course, the member for Grayndler, the current Prime Minister, enthusiastic recipient of air-travel upgrades and keen real estate investor. Let us be clear: there is a comprehensive framework in the legislation, developed and passed by the Australian Labor Party, setting out all the things that would have to happen before the NBN could be sold. Critically, one of those steps involves the tabling of a disallowable instrument—that is, an instrument which can be disallowed by a majority vote of parliamentarians in either house. No privatisation could occur unless there was majority support for it in the parliament. That has been the policy setting since 2011—the policy settings devised and implemented by the Australian Labor Party. Given the realities I have just explained, any reasonable observer would ask: what is the possible point of the bill which is before the House now? Given that privatisation of the NBN could not occur unless a majority in both houses of parliament agreed to it, what possible additional work does the bill before the House do today? The answer is clear. It does no substantive or real work at all. That is why I say this bill is the most stupid, pointless, empty, nakedly political, entirely useless piece of cynical, performative gesture politics that Labor has managed to serve up in its nearly two decades of deeply undistinguished policymaking on the NBN. That is why the coalition will be voting against it. This is not the first time the current Prime Minister and his communications minister have tried on this particular stunt. Similarly, in the lead up to the 2022 election, they tried to bring on a big political fight about whether there was some difference between the parties about the future of the NBN. On 17 November 2021, this dynamic duo issued a media release containing this ringing commitment: 'Labor will also keep the NBN in public hands.' It attracted virtually no attention then and it's not attracting much attention now. This is a non-issue. The existing legislative framework, introduced in a rich irony by the current Prime Minister in 2011, sets out very clearly what has to happen before the National Broadband Network could ever pass out of public ownership. It cannot happen unless there is majority support for it in both houses of parliament. If the member for Grayndler and the member for Greenway had any capacity for shame left, if they had any self-knowledge at all, they would be curled up on the floor in writhing agonies of embarrassment at having brought forward this ludicrous bill. I say, for the third time, this bill is the most stupid, pointless, empty, nakedly political, entirely useless piece of cynical, performative gesture politics that Labor has managed to serve up in its nearly two decades of deeply undistinguished policymaking on the NBN. I say to anybody who is listening tonight, you should be very cross that the Prime Minister and the minister have wasted the time of the national parliament on this ludicrous joke of a bill. I am very pleased to say the coalition will be having nothing to do with this useless bill.
Vocational Education and Training | Questions without Notice | House debates
Mr Speaker, the question was clearly structured to deal with, firstly, what the minister's responsible for, and then opposition. It could not be clearer, on the wording of the question, that what...
Mr Speaker, the question was clearly structured to deal with, firstly, what the minister's responsible for, and then opposition. It could not be clearer, on the wording of the question, that what the minister is being asked about is not within his responsibilities.
This has been a pattern from the government in questions which I'd suggest to you are not consistent with standing order 98(c). Ministers can be questioned on matters for which they're...
This has been a pattern from the government in questions which I'd suggest to you are not consistent with standing order 98(c). Ministers can be questioned on matters for which they're responsible or officially connected. By definition, the minister is not responsible for opposition.
Services Australia | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House notes that: (1) according to Services Australia's 2023-24 annual report: (a) customer satisfaction was 79.1 out of 100, against a target of 85; (b) only 55.2 per cent of...
I move: That this House notes that: (1) according to Services Australia's 2023-24 annual report: (a) customer satisfaction was 79.1 out of 100, against a target of 85; (b) only 55.2 per cent of customers were served within 15 minutes, against a target of 70 per cent; (c) the percentage of work processed within timeliness standards was 71.8 per cent, against a target of 90 per cent; and (d) only 58.5 per cent of Centrelink claims were processed within their respective timeliness standards; (2) under the watch of the Minister for Government Services, Australia has recorded its worst result for digital government in over a decade, according to the latest E-Government Development Index; and (3) the previous Government was doing a much better job of delivering a better customer service experience, with the 2023 OECD Digital Government Index, based on data for the period from January 2020 and October 2022, placing Australia in the top five best performing countries. I am prompted to do this because, last week, the member for Maribyrnong, the Minister for Government Services, delivered a speech which he billed as containing a stocktake of his achievements in the government services portfolio. It turns out that the Minister for Government Services, when he comes to assess his own performance, gives himself a very high mark. He didn't put it in exactly these terms, but certainly when I was at Sydney university it went from pass to credit to distinction to high distinction. I think it's pretty clear that the Minister for Government Services regards himself as being worthy of a high distinction. He had this to say: When I took over the portfolio it was obvious that staffing cuts—thousands of jobs being abolished—had left the Agency unable to meet customer expectations … By the way, he was referring to those dreadful Liberals who had done this. He said further: I fought very hard to get Services Australia properly resourced and was able to secure record funding in this year's Budget. This is the basis on which it seems he would award himself very high marks. But I think it's worth taking a look at the facts, because the facts are rather different to the revisionist construction which the minister has put on what occurred. If you look at what happened in the May 2023 budget, when the Minister for Government Services was on the job, the resourcing to Services Australia wasn't increased; it was reduced. It was reduced to $8.593 billion. The average staffing level was not increased but cut to $26,692. We all know that the member for Maribyrnong likes to put the best possible construction on things, and you'd be naive to take what he said at face value. But I have to say, this is a particularly remarkable exercise in rewriting history. Because the simple fact is that, under the member for Maribyrnong, the performance of Services Australia has gone backwards. The reason is that the minister, the member for Maribyrnong, has been applying the wrong policy tools. In 2021-22, when 'those dreadful Liberals', to use his language, were in government, it took on average 35 days to process a claim for an age pension. For the period 1 January 2024 to 1 May 2024, the average time was 84 days. So processing time has gone from 35 days to 84 days; it has gone from reasonable to terrible. At the same time, we saw a change in the number of people sitting in the customer delivery group from 20,902 to 23,324. So the number of people in the customer delivery service group went up, and the actual quality of the customer service delivery went through the floor. I've heard a range of excuses from the minister over the last couple of years. There has been an argument that we've seen an increase in customer demand. That's not true! Customer demand in 2021-22 was 126 million. Customer demand in 2023-24 was 92 million. It went from 126 million to 92 million, so demand dropped. The number of claims that were made in 2021–22 were 517 million, and in 2023-24 there were 468 million. Let's be clear, the number of claims dropped, and yet the processing time got worse. Under the coalition, Services Australia had a smaller headcount and more claims to deal with. It faced higher customer demand and delivered better outcomes. Under the member for Maribyrnong, the number of staff has blown out remarkably, and yet the service performance has gone through the floor. What is the member for Maribyrnong's solution? It's to splurge yet more money. There is $1.8 billion now committed for an extra 7,500 public servants. We've seen the trend—more public servants mean services reducing. On that trend, if that continues, the 7,500 additional public servants will not make things better but worse. Frankly, the member for Maribyrnong has done a truly dismal job, and, critically, in trying to run Services Australia in the 21st century, he's been using discredited 19th-century approaches. He wants to throw more staff at the problem. What he needs to do, amongst other things, is do a much better job on the digital service delivery. Service New South Wales under the coalition government showed the way. This minister has not been listening. Australians deserve better. The member for Maribyrnong has given himself a very high mark. Most objective observers would disagree very strongly.
Select Committee on PsiQuantum Funding | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That: (1) a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on PsiQuantum Funding, be appointed to inquire into and report on the process undertaken by the Australian Government to...
I move: That: (1) a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on PsiQuantum Funding, be appointed to inquire into and report on the process undertaken by the Australian Government to provide $470 million to American-based company PsiQuantum Pty Ltd; (2) the committee is to inquire into the following matters: (a) the process by which the Australian Government selected PsiQuantum Pty Ltd for investment; (b) the expression of interest process; (c) the financial implications of the investment; (d) the commercial and scientific terms of the investment; (e) whether actual or potential conflicts of interest have been appropriately managed; (f) the nature and extent of interactions between PsiQuantum or its external advisers and the Minister for Industry and Science, the Minister's personal staff and officials of the Australian Public Service; and (g) any other matters necessary or incidental to the committee forming a view as to whether the investment in PsiQuantum is a proper expenditure of public money; (3) the Minister for Industry and Science be called by the committee to appear as a witness to assist the committee in its deliberations; (4) the committee consist of seven members, three Members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip and four Members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip of whom at least two must be a crossbench Member; (5) every nomination of a member be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy; (7) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier; (8) the committee present its final report no later than 1 March 2025; (9) the committee elect an Opposition member as its chair; (10) the committee elect a Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; (11) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (12) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote; (13) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee; (14) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; (15) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only; (16) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee; (17) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (18) the committee or any subcommittee has power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and (19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. The Albanese Labor government's decision to invest almost $1 billion of taxpayers' money into the American company PsiQuantum raises several serious questions which warrant scrutiny. Since the announcement was first made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Science on 30 April, the opposition has sought to hold up to scrutiny this extraordinary bet which has been made with public money, and the government has trenchantly resisted that scrutiny at every stage. That is why today I'm moving to establish a parliamentary inquiry so that we can find out what happened and who is responsible. The Albanese government has chosen to bet a very large amount of public money on one particular company pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum—a field in which people who have worked for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve a successful outcome. On any view, it will be at least several years, very possibly longer, before the technology being developed by PsiQuantum is proven to work, if it can be proven to do so at all. We know that a very poor process was followed to get to this decision. The Albanese government agreed to assess an unsolicited proposal from PsiQuantum as early as November 2022, two months before external probity advisers were engaged. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources entered into a non-binding agreement with PsiQuantum in June 2023, yet the government points to an expression-of-interest process which commenced only in August 2023. It was an expression-of-interest process in which companies were invited to participate by one email only. There were no follow-up telephone calls; there was no second email. Those who were invited to participate were told they could not speak with Australian government officials. This was after PsiQuantum had been speaking for more than eight months with Australian government officials, up to and including the minister, who had visited their premises in California and had met with them directly. We now know the terms of the expression of interest. It essentially asked respondents to match the promise made by PsiQuantum of building a fault-tolerant, error corrected quantum computer by 2030. Many in the sector are extremely sceptical that this can be done. But scepticism is not welcome in Minister Husic's regime. We know that Minister Husic has a particular interest in venture capital firm Blackbird. In October 2022, he appointed Clare Birch of Blackbird to the National Quantum Advisory Committee. In December 2022, he appointed Kate Glazebrook of Blackbird to the Industry Innovation and Science Australia Board. In May 2023, he launched the National Quantum Strategy with Nomad Atomics, a Blackbird funded company. On 30 April this year, he announced almost $1 billion in funding for PsiQuantum, a company in which Blackbird is an investor. Blackbird and the many other investors in this company of course greatly benefited from that decision and that announcement. It is on the record that there is a close personal friendship between the minister's senior adviser Ellen Broad and Blackbird executive Kate Glazebrook. I've written to the Auditor-General requesting that the Australian National Audit Office undertake an investigation into the Australian government's investment in PsiQuantum, and the Auditor-General has responded that a potential investigation is being considered. There are many aspects of what happened here which are very concerning, and there needs to be a parliamentary inquiry to get to the bottom of this decision, the reasons for it and many other aspects of what happened. We know a deputy secretary who advised against this commitment of funding subsequently left the department after being on gardening leave for a considerable period of time. We know that Export Finance Australia was directed to commence work on providing the funding even before the expression-of-interest process had concluded. The sad reality is that, as a consequence of this decision, Australian taxpayers are now exposed to almost $1 billion of their money being put at risk in what is a remarkably speculative venture. The minister has publicly stated that he welcomes scrutiny of this investment, and now is the time for him to back those words with action. If he's serious he will arrange for this resolution to brought on for a vote and for Labor to vote in support of it.