Alan Tudge's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I'm disappointed that the member for Mackellar did not support the amendment which I moved in my name on behalf of the opposition, because the precise issues which she raised in relation to her...
I'm disappointed that the member for Mackellar did not support the amendment which I moved in my name on behalf of the opposition, because the precise issues which she raised in relation to her amendment were in relation to so-called integrity and transparency and also to examine workforce shortages in other areas. The amendment which I moved on behalf of the opposition precisely refers to those other areas to be examined to provide recommendations as to whether or not policies should be extended precisely to those other workforce areas where there may be shortages, whereas her amendment does not. Hence I made the comment before that I thought the amendment the opposition moved was a better one. Her amendment in itself also says that a review should occur after three years. We believe it should occur after two years. We suggested that it should have incorporated some consultation with particular groups—in particular, the National Rural Health Commissioner and the Regional Education Commissioner. Consequently, we will be seeking to again take up these other important measures in the Senate.
I move opposition amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of Schedule 2 to this Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review...
I move opposition amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of Schedule 2 to this Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2 to this Act, with the purpose of assessing the expansion of the policy of waiving HELP debt to additional professions of high skills need in rural and remote Australia. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider, and make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government about, the expansion of the policy implemented by the amendments to other sectors in rural and remote Australia, including the health, mental health and education sectors. (3) The review should consult widely with rural and remote communities and their health, mental health and education service providers and specifically, the following must be consulted as part of the review: (a) the National Rural Health Commissioner; (b) the Regional Education Commissioner. Timing of review (4) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 2 years after the commencement of this Act. Review report (5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. Government response to recommendations (7) As soon as practicable, and in any event within 3 months, after the report is first tabled in a House of the Parliament, the Minister must cause: (a) a statement, setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each recommendation included in the report, to be prepared; and (b) the statement to be published on the Department's website. This amendment, which I tabled in my second reading speech, is an important one. The coalition pioneered this scheme, which the education minister has reintroduced. It was a MYEFO measure and was specifically designed to create incentives for new doctors and nurse practitioner graduates to go and work in the regional and remote areas. It will make a difference because they're very substantial incentives, one of which is to completely waive the HECS debt a doctor or nurse practitioner has if they go and work in the regional or remote areas for a certain length of time. We were very proud to introduce that, and I'm very pleased that the government has followed through in reintroducing this measure. What this amendment does is actually call on a couple of things. Most importantly, it calls for a review to occur after two years. A period of two years is important because it gives enough time to see what the behavioural change will be from the operation of this bill in relation to the doctors and nurse practitioners. Secondly, it asks for the review team to specifically examine whether or not the measures which are proposed for doctors and nurse practitioners should apply to other professions where there are shortages in regional and remote areas. In particular, the amendment calls for an examination of other health measures—mental health in particular—and the education sector. But there may be other professions where there are shortages. In a couple of years time those shortages could be different ones, and we may want to consider providing the same HECS discounts for those professions. I think this is a good amendment, and I hope it will get support across this chamber. The other important element of this amendment is that it documents at least a couple of different groups which should be consulted while the review is underway. Those include the National Rural Health Commissioner and the Regional Education Commissioner. I notice that the member for Mackellar is also going to move an amendment, which has been circulated. It's quite similar to the opposition's amendment, but it doesn't go as far as ours. Her amendment says 'before three years', rather than 'after two'. I think two years is a more appropriate length of time after which to do that review. Secondly, it doesn't specify who should be consulted—it's an open question—whereas we think that the National Rural Health Commissioner and the Regional Education Commissioner should be, quite rightly, consulted as part of the review and should be documented in the legislation itself. Most importantly, the amendment I have moved on behalf of the opposition specifically says that the review 'must consider' the expansion of policy to other areas. The member for Mackellar's circulated amendment is blind on that question. Consequently, I would put to the member for Mackellar and the government that the amendment that has been moved in my name is a better and more comprehensive amendment. It incorporates everything that the member for Mackellar's amendment proposes but goes further. Most importantly, it specifically says that the question in relation to other policy areas and professions where there may be shortages in regional and remote areas should be examined, and that advice should be provided to the government and, indeed, to the parliament for consideration. I commend this amendment to the chamber, and I hope that it gets broadscale support.
Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 is to give effect to two changes which were previously introduced by the Morrison government. The first is a...
The purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 is to give effect to two changes which were previously introduced by the Morrison government. The first is a substantial initiative for rural, regional and remote Australia, which is to give effect to the coalition's HELP for Rural Doctors and Nurse Practitioners measure announced in the 2021-22 MYEFO. This measure provides a partial or full higher education loan program, known as HELP, debt deduction for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia once they complete their studies. The coalition introduced this measure to encourage doctors and nurse practitioners to relocate to rural and regional Australia by reducing their outstanding HECS-HELP debt. This is a substantial incentive, given that the HECS debt for doctors can be up to $100,000. The need for health professionals across regional and rural Australia is particularly important, though, with around one-third of our population—around eight million people—living in rural, regional and remote areas. It's of great concern that this group of Australians experience poorer health outcomes than those in metropolitan areas. According to the OECD Health at a glance report in 2017, Australians have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. But when we dig deeper into the data the life expectancy rates between people in metro areas and those in regional and remote areas differ by about five years, with even greater differentials for Indigenous Australians. Much of this is attributed to less access to preventative health services, such as GPs and nurse practitioners. Around 20 per cent of people in regional Australia report not having access to a general practitioner nearby. In fact, around 65,000 Australians have no access to GP services within an hour's drive of their home. Consequentially, they access less care and are at greater risk of death from preventable and treatable conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease. Overall, there's a 20 per cent increase in disease compared to those living in metropolitan areas. This measure will go a long way to addressing this by providing access to essential health services. We hope that around 850 GPs and nurse practitioners will take up this initiative. The value of debt reduction applied will be guided by where eligible doctors and nurses locate to, using the Modified Monash Model. This model depicts the remoteness of a location on a scale, with category MM 1 representing a major city and category MM 7 representing a very remote location. The locations for this measure will be in the areas of MM 3 to MM 7. For example, doctors and nurse practitioners who choose to work in a rural or regional area will need to provide a minimum of 24 hours a week of Medicare billed services for a period equivalent to the duration of their whole degree. For doctors, this is usually around eight years. For nurse practitioners, this is around three years. These areas include locations like Dubbo and Lismore in regional New South Wales or Busselton in Western Australia. Doctors and nurse practitioners who choose a remote area to work in will need to provide a minimum of 24 hours a week of MBS billed services, for a period equivalent to half the duration of their degree, to have their full HECS-HELP debt waived. This would equate to around four years for doctors and 1½ years for nurse practitioners, so these are very substantial incentives. I'll repeat that: a doctor who's graduated goes and works in a remote area for half the duration of their degree—let's say it's an eight-year degree—they do it for four years and they have their entire HECS debt waived. Gone. It's the same for a nurse who does that. These areas include Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, Mallacoota in my home state of Victoria or Bruny Island in Tasmania. They are real, great incentives for new doctor and nurse graduates to go to these regional and remote areas, and we think they'll have a sizeable impact. That's exactly why we introduced this measure into the parliament at the end of last year. Unfortunately, the parliament was prorogued before the measure could pass. The measure itself will be backdated as per the coalition announcement in the 2021-22 MYEFO, and eligibility and retrospectivity commence from 1 January 2022. This measure builds on the coalition's significant investment in health, be it through Medicare and high bulkbilling rates, more listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, record hospital funding or more mental health services. We will be moving an amendment, and I'm happy to table that amendment. Our amendment seeks a review of the policy, which we would have done in government as a normal part of reviewing new policies. The review seeks to assess the policy's implementation, take-up and effectiveness in filling those particular workforce shortages across regional, rural and remote Australia. But a critical part of the review, which we have in this amendment and which we hope will get the support of this parliament, is to specifically assess other skills shortage areas in those regional and remote areas to see if a similar style of policy could equally be applicable for those skills shortage areas. It might be, for example, in mental health services. It could be engineers, which we often lack in regional or remote areas. Possibly, we can investigate having those HECS waivers for new graduates going into those areas, as well. That's what we're arguing this review should do in our tabled amendment. I urge the government to support this amendment to ensure that we can continue to provide Australians who live in regional, rural and remote areas with the services they need and should have access to. The bill also changes the definition of a grandfathered student to clarify the grandfathering arrangements under the Job-ready Graduates Package of reforms to higher education, known as the HELP grandfathering measures. These measures meant that, when the job-ready graduates program came into place, most of the fees for students went down or stayed the same. But there were some courses where the fees went up, and these grandfathered arrangements were put in place to ensure that, if you'd already started a degree at a certain price point, that price point would be maintained for the duration of the degree. This particular amendment ensures that an honours year of study at the end of your degree is also considered to be part of the overall degree, as far as the grandfathering arrangements are concerned, rather than being a new degree which consequently attracts a higher fee rate. It's a very straightforward, clarifying amendment. That was always the intent of the job-ready graduates program, but this will absolutely make sure that those students who started their degree under the lower rates will continue all the way through to the completion of their honours year under that rate, as well. I commend the government and Minister Clare for re-introducing this bill. I particularly commend the government for adopting the coalition's policy—a very good policy which we introduced towards the end of last year—of providing those HECS and HELP waivers for the doctors and nurse practitioners who go and work in the regional and the rural areas. We think it will make a difference. We're confident it'll make a difference. It will make a difference in getting more doctors and nurse practitioners out to more regional and remote areas. In doing so, it will make a difference to the health outcomes of all of those Australians who live in those locations. I thank the government for reintroducing the coalition's bill. I commend the amendment which we have put down, which will reassess how this is all going after a couple of years and take a look at whether or not any other skills shortage areas should additionally have the benefit of these types of HECS and HELP waivers, applicable through this bill for doctors and nurses. I commend this bill and the amendment.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
The minister just said that this budget delivers on their election commitments. As you can see, there weren't many election commitments in the Education portfolio from the Labor Party. They only...
The minister just said that this budget delivers on their election commitments. As you can see, there weren't many election commitments in the Education portfolio from the Labor Party. They only had nine years to work them up. They came up with four—no disrespect to this minister, who came in very late and was a bit of a surprise package announced by Prime Minister Albanese, putting aside Tanya Plibersek, who was the responsible shadow minister for so many years. There were four, and he has just outlined those four. I would like to focus on just one or two of them, but before doing so, could I raise a very pressing matter I have written to the education minister about. The reason it is so pressing is that it concerns our universities being clear and transparent to students about what sort of course they are going to get when they enrol at university next year. Is it going to be online? Is it going to be face to face? What proportions and how many hours are there likely to be of each? We all know that during the COVID period everybody shifted to online. Fair enough; we understand that. Some people prefer online. But students ought to know what they are going to get when they enrol in a course so they can make a proper selection. I've written to the minister in relation to this because the universities themselves aren't taking responsibility and providing that information to year 12 graduates. I would like to see the minister himself put that pressure on the universities for them to deliver upon it, because his response says it will just be dealt with by the accord, which is frankly too late. Year 12s are making decisions now, and I would like to see action taken in relation to that. I want to raise the issue of the 20,000 places, which the minister mentioned in his remarks and is indeed mentioned in the budget papers. The language in the budget papers was changed from '20,000' places to 'up to 20,000' places. My concern is that many of these 20,000 spots will, in fact, be the re-use of the 100,000 new places the coalition government put in place. My question to the minister is: can you guarantee that these are 20,000 new places on top of the 100,000 places the former government set aside and announced? As I said, the language in the budget papers has changed. I think he should be transparent because 'up to 20,000' places could, in fact, be only 10,000 places or only 5,000 places. They promised 20,000 places, and we want to make sure that they deliver on their promise. The 20,000 places, which the minister says that he has announced in the budget, are geared towards lower SES students and Indigenous students because they are unrepresented in the tertiary sector. It's a fine ambition to have more low SES people and Indigenous people in the tertiary sector, an ambition shared across the parliament and certainly shared by the coalition. My concern is that it's one thing to get people through the door; it's another to get people to stick and actually graduate. We know there have been problems with high dropout rates, which are higher amongst low SES and Indigenous students than there are on average. We don't want to see people coming through the door and getting a high HECS debt but not getting the qualification. So they end up with HECS debt with no qualification, which doesn't necessarily help anyone. My question is: will he commit to putting more money into the Indigenous Regional Low SES Attainment Fund, which is a fund specifically geared towards helping those students get through their studies and having the best chance of graduating and getting that degree or certificate at the end of the day? That would be a good initiative. Finally, I want to say that the teacher initiatives that were announced in the budget are strongly supported by the coalition. They did indeed come out of the work of the initial teacher education review, which I commissioned when I was minister. There are some very good recommendations coming out of that. I'm pleased that the government is taking them up, and I hope they'll see them fall through.
Universities | Statements by Members | House debates
Across Australia, year 12 students are finishing their exams and making decisions about their studies next year—decisions that will define their future. But in a lot of cases they're making...
Across Australia, year 12 students are finishing their exams and making decisions about their studies next year—decisions that will define their future. But in a lot of cases they're making that decision without knowing the facts about whether their preferred university course will be taught face to face or online, or a mixture of both and in what ratio. This is unacceptable. I recently wrote to the Minister for Education and to Universities Australia, calling for this data to be published in full, immediately. I received a cursory response from the minister and nothing from the peak body. There's also a broader point here about the student learning experience at our universities. In many cases, it's not good enough and it's not delivering on what was promised. I hear constantly from students dissatisfied with their course, or getting online courses when they were promised face to face. Universities, like any other service provider, should be accountable for their service offering, particularly when students are paying thousands of dollars. If you ordered a Mercedes Benz and a three-year-old Corolla was delivered, you'd justifiably be unhappy with the outcome and feel entitled to a refund. If a university is not delivering quality, a refund should be provided to the students, and a new body, such as a university ombudsman, should be established to adjudicate on this. This would create the financial incentives for universities to lift their game. The government would get my full support if they took this up as a matter of urgency.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I've pointed out those two facts and I appreciate that the opposition don't want to hear that. They don't want to look at their own budget figures and they certainly don't want to look at the...
I've pointed out those two facts and I appreciate that the opposition don't want to hear that. They don't want to look at their own budget figures and they certainly don't want to look at the analysis from Professor Wooten from the University of Melbourne, which shows centralised bargaining actually produces lower wage increases than enterprise bargaining does. There have been tremendous concerns about this bill, particularly in relation to the pattern-bargaining provisions of the bill, right across the business community and, indeed, across the education sector as well—of course I have much to do with that as shadow education spokesperson. I know that the education sector, particularly the higher education sector, is concerned that the impacts of the bill will lead to pattern bargaining across universities. The universities themselves are large organisations that typically have thousands of staff, and sometimes many thousands of staff—130,000 altogether. Government members interjecting— And quite rightly! Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I know they're interjecting again over on the other side. They're calling out; they don't want to hear what I have to say. Indeed, they don't want to hear what the higher education sector has to say. They pointed out that the enterprise model, which they have presently, takes into account the financial health of the university, the unique student cohorts, the research profiles and the geographic location, which all helps in aiding an enterprise-bargaining agreement. This is versus an industrywide agreement, which is what this bill would lean towards, where you can't take into account those unique circumstances. It is just purely ridiculous to say that a university in Port Macquarie is exactly the same as a university in Parkville. They're not; there are different circumstances, the cost of living is different, and there are different research priorities, geographies, student cohorts and the like. Quite rightly, those academic staff should be capable enough to bargain with those university leaders themselves rather than being told what to do. Secondly, I would refer to what the business community more broadly has said. The business community has almost unanimously been critical of this bill. I will just point out a few comments, because I was here at question time and the minister was very proudly saying how he has consulted with everybody. I can tell him that he may have had meetings with them but he certainly didn't listen to them or act on what they said. I will read out what a few of them have said. First up is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Andrew McKellar. He has warned that the compulsory multi-employer bargaining in this bill will lead to a seismic shift in Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus. And he says that it will lead to more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust with their enterprises. Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group said the proposed changes to Australia's workplaces risk taking the country down a path of more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust with their enterprises. The Business Council of Australia said: Australians deserve a system that delivers higher wages and better jobs, with diverse businesses that can innovate, deliver the best services and products and grow the economy. This will not achieve those outcomes, instead we are staring down the barrel of a more complex system that runs the risk of stifling innovation and fossilising the economy. The COSBOA CEO says the legislation is a trojan horse, as emphasised by the CEO of ACCI, for the empowerment of unions in every workplace in Australia. I could just go on and on in relation to the business community sentiment. There is one stakeholder, though, who has given a positive review of this bill, and I'm sure those opposite will be very pleased about this, because this person is a very big donor to them. It is none other than John Setka from the CFMMEU, the man who's probably been subject to more findings of breaking the law than any other union leader in Australian history. He has said he's very impressed by Tony Burke's bill—incredibly impressed. He's absolutely stoked about the bill, because he knows he'll now get into every single one of those businesses, creeping into those small businesses, into the tradie shops, into all the other smaller construction houses which presently are just getting on with the job, trying to do their job and provide good conditions for their employees. This is not a good bill. It is being rushed through this parliament. It hasn't had the scrutiny it deserves, and it deserves to be voted down. It will do exactly the opposite of what it presents itself as. It will not secure more jobs. It will not secure better pay. We can be certain of that. To the contrary, we're going to get lower pay, we're going to get less-secure jobs and we're going to get more distrust between business and employees. It's almost a guarantee that we will have more strikes in this country. And it's almost a guarantee that prices are going to increase as well. The government likes to say that they're doing everything they can to get on top of inflation. Ha! That's a joke. Almost everything they do is exacerbating inflationary pressures, and this will do that equally. So, this is not a good bill. It should be rejected. I haven't even touched on the abolition of the ABCC. In the past, when it was last abolished, that led to an increase of 56 per cent in disputes with the construction sector. For that, as well, the bill should be rejected. But overall it's not a good bill. It sets Australia back. It puts us back decades in terms of our industrial relations system and should be firmly rejected.
Labor's proposed workplace changes presented in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Wages) Bill represent the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system...
Labor's proposed workplace changes presented in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Wages) Bill represent the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system since prior to the Hawke-Keating governments. In fact, they take us back to prior to the impressive reforms that they introduced. These were followed by the reforms of the Howard-Costello government that really set up our economy for the tremendous growth and prosperity that we've all enjoyed. This legislation is a reversal of that. The bill itself is called the 'secure jobs, better pay bill', but it's actually almost Orwellian in its title because, if anything, this will lead to less secure jobs and, in fact, it may well lead to lower pay rather than higher pay, which is their stated ambition. There are two pieces of data which support this conclusion. The first piece of data is looking at the budget papers themselves. I suggest to those opposite who are here, and there are many in the chamber: open up the budget that was introduced by Treasurer Chalmers just a few weeks ago. That budget itself says that real wages will decline over the next two years. That's what it says; you yourselves are admitting that, from this bill, real wages will decline while inflation continues to skyrocket along with the massive budget deficit continuing to increase. That's what it says. The other piece of evidence that is worth examining is the evidence presented by Professor Mark Wooden from the University of Melbourne. He's done analysis of different systems across the world as to which systems have produced higher wages over the last few years, bearing in mind that across the Western world wages have been depressed over the last decade. But there have been distinctions between the systems, and what Professor Wooden found from his analysis is that those systems in developed economies which were the most decentralised and had enterprise focused bargaining frameworks have actually experienced the highest wage growth, whereas those systems which had the most centralised industrywide bargaining frameworks had the slowest growth. And he concluded that Australia was somewhere in between those two. What this bill does is reverse the enterprise-bargaining framework which Hawke and Keating introduced and which has continued since, and chooses the pathway which, according to the University of Melbourne's Professor Wooten, puts us on a lower-wage-growth path. That's what it does, and that's why I say that this bill being called the 'secure jobs, better pay bill' is Orwellian, because that analysis itself says that this will actually lead to less pay for everyday Australians. And, certainly, on our side of the table, we don't want to see that. We want to see prosperity in this country and we want to see prosperity for everybody.
Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The coalition will be supporting the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to five measures introduced by the former coalition...
The coalition will be supporting the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to five measures introduced by the former coalition government, and then a further new measure by the new government to cease the 10 per cent discount for the upfront payment of student contributions. Five of the measures, which I'll go through, were introduced by our government. These are measures which I put in place when I was education minister. We introduce those into the parliament in February, but they lapsed by the time the election came around. I'm pleased that the government is picking up those five particular measures, which I'll go through in a moment, and adding a further measure, which I'd like to discuss as well in terms of our particular position on it. To go through each of those five measures to start with, they were a group of miscellaneous, disconnected measures. The first was to extend the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption to apply until 31 December 2022, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2022. For those who don't know, the FEE-HELP loan fee is the fee which the private higher education providers ordinarily pay and have been paying for quite some time. It's about 20 per cent, which is added to the FEE HELP debt, which a student has to pay. During the pandemic, we waived that additional 20 per cent loan fee, which was applied, and we made the decision at the end of last year to extend that exemption again, in effect waiving that 20 per cent for a further 12 months—until the end of this year. So those higher education providers took that measure on good faith and didn't apply that fee. I'm pleased that the government is now reintroducing this particular measure to make it lawful through this bill. This will help approximately 30,000 students in the process. The second measure is to support the development of microcredential courses by extending FEE-HELP eligibility for students accessing these. This is a substantial measure in this bill, because, as you know, Mr Speaker, the government provides effectively interest-free loans to students to study at a higher education institution, be that a public university or a private higher education institution, typically for full degrees, for a diploma or for a course of six months or more. It hasn't tended to follow that the government would subsidise smaller units of study through an interest-free loan. This measure will introduce an interest-free loan for students who undertake smaller units of study known as microcredentials. It still needs to be a credential which a higher education institution can qualify them for, but it could be a credential for a course of as little as one week. It might be for a month-long course. But it means that a student doesn't have to find the upfront money to pay for that study. Instead, they can get an interest-free loan from the government to undertake that unit of study in order to be able to complete that course. I think that is particularly important right now, when we have labour skills shortages, because we want people to upskill in particular areas to be able to take the jobs which are available. They may only be courses that are of a month or two months duration, or even shorter. So this is a really important measure, which I was pleased to introduce, and I'm pleased that the government is following through on this and putting it in place in this bill. The bill provides $32.5 million in order to achieve that—to deliver those courses to both domestic and indeed international students. I should say that scaling up these industry focused microcredentials was actually one of the key recommendations of the University-Industry Collaboration in Teaching and Learning Review, which I set in place when I was education minister. So I'm very pleased to see that this has been put in place—the most substantial measure, I think, in this bill. I'd certainly say that microcredentials are going to be the way of the future in higher education, and this is a step in the right direction. Complementary to this change is a third measure. The bill clarifies the status of enabling courses in the context of the lifetime student learning entitlement. The student learning entitlement is a lifetime limit on the amount of Commonwealth support a student can receive through a Commonwealth supported place. That's currently seven years. This clarifies that, if you're doing an enabling course, which might be a course such as essay writing or even English language courses and the like, that won't count towards your seven years of Commonwealth-supported-place entitlement. So there are important technical amendments to clarify that measure. The next measure also makes further technical changes, requiring students to provide their unique student identifier to their higher education provider, on or at the time of a place offer, to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. Again, these are highly technical and non-controversial amendments, but they certainly make it easier from an administration perspective. We proposed this, and again I'm pleased that the government is following through on it. Finally, in terms of the measures that the Morrison government introduced and that are being re-introduced here, a further change is to clarify requirements for New Zealand citizens who want to access HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP. The measure basically says that if you are a New Zealand citizen who wants to access HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP, then you have to be a resident in Australia for the duration of the unit of study. That brings consistency across the ditch between New Zealand and Australia: you have to be a resident here, just as an Australian citizen, if they want the equivalent assistance while studying in New Zealand, has to be a resident in New Zealand. Again, I don't think this is particularly controversial. It has support from both sides of the chamber and has a start date of 1 January 2023. A further measure that was in the bill that we introduced earlier this year, which lapsed, isn't in this bill. That was legislative changes for the initiatives that help rural doctor and nurse practitioners by providing a debt reduction for rural doctor and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. I have been assured, though, that that particular measure, which is an important one, will be dealt with in a separate bill later this year. I look forward to seeing that particular measure in a separate bill, and we will support that measure if, indeed, it replicates what we supported at the beginning of the year. Last but not least—this is the new measure—the bill gives effect to the government's election commitments to end the 10 per cent higher education loan program HECS help discount from 1 January 2023. In plain English, what that means is for some time there has been a mechanism whereby if pay your HECS fees upfront you get a 10 per cent discount on those HECS fees. Over the years, that's been put on; it's been taken off; it's been put on; its been taken off. As it stands presently, you only have to pay $500 of your HECS contribution upfront to get a 10 per cent discount on your total HECS amount for that year. We introduced that particular measure through the Job-ready Graduates Package back in 2019. The government has decided to remove this measure through this bill, so students will no longer have that choice. They will no longer have the choice to pay $500 upfront and in the process have a full 10 per cent discount on their HECS contribution for that year. Ideally, that measure would stay in place, but we are not going to stand in the way of this going ahead. It does have a very significant savings attached to it—close to $144 million—and, given the context of the budget, where the government is increasing the deficits year-on-year over the next four years, in an extraordinary manner, this is a savings measure which we will support in this particular context. They are the six measures outlined in the bill. As I said, five of them are identical to the measures we introduced. That bill lapsed, so we are pleased those measures are being reintroduced. There is a measure in relation to rural doctors and nurses that is going to be introduced in a separate bill in a few weeks, which we will support, should it replicate what we introduced at the start of year. And then there is this new additional measure getting rid of the 10 per cent HECS discount, which was an election commitment, and we are not going to stand in the way of that proceeding, given the significant savings which that provides to the budget. We won't stand in the way of this bill. In fact, we will be supporting this bill, given the arguments I have just outlined. Debate adjourned.
Victoria: Infrastructure | Private Members' Business | House debates
and it just means people drive further along until they get to the next one. They also won't be funded. There's the Rowville-Monash rail, with $475 million allocated. That would have finally...
and it just means people drive further along until they get to the next one. They also won't be funded. There's the Rowville-Monash rail, with $475 million allocated. That would have finally connected Monash University to the rail line. It was there. It's been on the books for decades. It has also been axed. Have a look, though, at what has been funded. They've neglected the east. They got rid of the East West Link. They scrapped all these projects. What have they funded in this budget? I'll take you through some of them. We have the one that the member for Lalor was just referring to, the Ison Road overpass, in the member's own electorate. There's another one over in Corangamite, a marginal Labor seat. There's a further one, Camerons Lane interchange, in a marginal seat in McEwen, up in the north. There's a further one in McEwen for the Macedon and shire roads—another Labor marginal seat. There's another one for a business case upgrade in the Labor seats of Hawke and Gorton. There is one little project—$10 million only—for Gippsland, a safe National Party seat. Effectively, the money's been taken out of the eastern and south-eastern suburbs—as they always do, as they did with the East West Link scrapping—and put into Labor seats in the west and north, with one exception: $2.2 billion for Dan Andrews' pet project, the suburban rail loop, a project that will go from Box Hill down to Cheltenham—which no-one ever takes—for $35 billion. It hasn't been cleared by Infrastructure Australia. The business case didn't stack up. The Auditor-General found that it only got a 50c return for every dollar invested. But it's Dan Andrews' pet project on the eve of an election so that one gets funded as well. It's a disgrace, and the eastern and south-eastern suburban residents have been left out, yet again, by the Labor Party.
If ever there was an example of the Labor Party neglecting the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne it is this year's infrastructure budget by the new Albanese government. When you look...
If ever there was an example of the Labor Party neglecting the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne it is this year's infrastructure budget by the new Albanese government. When you look at what they did, effectively they cut so many projects from the eastern and south-eastern suburbs and placed a lot of money back over into the west of Melbourne—and, funnily enough, into their seats, many of which are marginal seats. I want to go through some of those key projects that have been cut. These are projects that, in many cases, have been on the books for decades and which, in many cases, have been prioritised by VicRoads themselves for more than a decade yet they have been cut from the budget. The money was there. We finally delivered the money for these projects but they've been cut. Let me take you through them. Perhaps the most obvious one is the duplication of Wellington Road. This was prioritised by VicRoads almost 15 years ago. The reason is that it was at capacity then. Back in 2016, there was a study done that showed 20,000 cars on this road every single day. It was full and, believe me, there's been a lot more traffic since. It's also had, in the five years up until that point, well over 100 crashes with many serious injuries and one fatality. It's a very dangerous road. It also happens to be the major evacuation route from any fires up in the Dandenongs. So it's a critically important road to be duplicated, and that was the funding that we got to get that to happen. Incidentally, the Labor Party matched the exact same funding. What have they done now, though, in this budget? That's gone. They promised it. We promised it. Money now gone. I'll also go through other projects that they've cut. There's the Dorset Road extension. There's been $80 million allocated. It's been on the books for decades. We finally delivered the money. This Labor government cut it: money gone. There's the Napoleon Road duplication, desperately needed for all of those residents who travel that road from Rowville or Lysterfield and further afield. They know it's desperately needed. It's gone. There are the commuter carparks for Boronia and Ferntree Gully. These are desperately needed, because they get full early— Gov ernment members interjecting—
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I will start my speech today by pointing out that the Prime Minister misled this parliament in his remarks in relation to this childcare bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper...
I will start my speech today by pointing out that the Prime Minister misled this parliament in his remarks in relation to this childcare bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. He came into this place and said that we were opposing this bill, when the member for Moncrieff, our spokesperson on this issue, categorically said in her speech on the second reading that we would not be opposing this bill. If the Prime Minister had any decency, he would come into this place and correct the record, because he was indeed misleading this parliament. We are not opposing this bill, because we do not want to stand in the way of families getting access to higher subsidies, but we do have concerns with this bill, and this is why we have moved the amendment which the member for Moncrieff put forward. Our concerns are fourfold. We have concerns that this will add to childcare inflation. We have concerns that this doesn't add to any supply of childcare places despite spending $4.5 billion. We've got concerns about workforce shortages which already exist and will just be exacerbated by this bill, and we've got concerns about this bill adding to the structural deficit of the budget when we know the budget is in serious deficit already and is going to get worse under this government, according to its own budget papers. I'll go through each of those in turn, but before doing so let me just say that the coalition has a very proud record in relation to child care. We doubled the spending when we were in office, to over $10 billion per annum. We supported 280,000 more children in the childcare system than there were when we first came to office. Women's workforce participation in this country hit record levels under our government, in part because of the childcare policies which we put in place. We gave access to child care, through various programs which we instituted, to dozens of locations which otherwise would not have had any access at all to childcare services. Most importantly, though, we did all these things and achieved all of these outcomes without adding to inflationary pressure. Indeed, in the last 12 months, as a result of our childcare policies, out-of-pocket expenses for child care came down by 4.6 per cent. Inflation was going up in almost every other category, according to the ABS, but in child care in the last financial year it came down by 4.6 per cent, a remarkable achievement. That will be the benchmark upon which we now measure the inflationary impacts of this policy that the Labor Party has introduced. This brings me to my first concern about Labor's new policy, and that is that it will indeed add to inflationary pressure. Inflation is arguably the most pressing economic challenge facing the country at the moment. It has risen to over seven per cent, according to the budget papers' own figures, and so a responsible government should be doing everything it possibly could to remove those inflationary pressures, because inflation just means that what people earn does less—doesn't purchase as much as it used to be able to purchase. In other words, people are poorer in real terms. That's what inflation does, and we've got inflation of seven per cent. But, instead of the government taking all possible means to reduce inflation, they're actually adding to inflationary pressures, in part through this bill, because it's putting $4.5 billion more into childcare demand, when there are already massive supply constraints in place, which I'll outline in a minute. And, as any person who has studied any basic economics knows, if you add to demand but you don't increase supply, prices go up. Even the Treasurer should know that, even though he's only got a PhD in studying Paul Keating. He should understand that basic concept—that, if you increase demand without increasing supply, prices will go up. This is exactly what is happening with this childcare bill—$4.5 billion of extra demand will be put on the system, and we're already seeing prices go up. Fees started to go up as soon as the Labor government was elected, on the basis that people knew that this would be coming. So we're seeing this across the board already. These fee increases will continue. I think that they will eat up much of the $4.5 billion in additional subsidy which this bill puts in. So, over time, parents actually aren't going to be much better off, despite a $4.5 billion slug on taxpayers, because fees will just rise and gobble up the benefit that they otherwise would have got from this additional childcare subsidy. This happened when the Labor Party were in office last time. When you look back at the figures, fees went up 53 per cent in just the six years that they were in office. It's just going to happen once again. The Minister for Education, in his second reading speech on this bill, promised this place that fees would not go up. He actually said that this is 'a multibillion dollar boost to productivity and participation—without adding to inflation.' Well, I tell you what: we will be watching. Parents will be watching very closely, and we will be holding him accountable, because basic economics says that he is wrong. Our next concern is that this package does not add a single childcare place in the country—not a single place—despite spending $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. And we have many areas in the country where affordability is not the issue; it is access overall which is the issue. In fact, as the Leader of the National Party just mentioned, in the previous address, the Mitchell institute did a study on this, and it found that 35 per cent of the population live in an area described as a childcare desert, and those are regions where there are three children for every one available place. So 35 per cent of the population live in such a childcare desert. Many of those are in the regional areas. Anybody who has been to the regional areas knows exactly this problem. Almost every regional town has this problem, where it's the supply at all of childcare places, as opposed to the affordability, that is the issue. This bill expends $4.5 billion but does not add a single childcare place—not a single one. This is in comparison to the initiatives which we put in place when we were in government, which were specific programs of funding to enable new facilities to be built in regional areas, in particular, to add to the supply. Our third concern is what this does to workforce shortages. This bill, again, does nothing in relation to the shortage of educators working in childcare centres. Labor has no plan to address this. We know that there is already a shortage of 7,200 early childhood educators right now. Goodstart, which is the largest provider in the country, told the Senate inquiry last week that we're going to need another 9,000 workers to deal with the demand which this bill creates. We are already short 7,200 workers and this bill will create a further demand for 9,000 workers. So 16,200 workers are somehow magically going to appear to work in these childcare centres. It's simply not going to happen. The Labor Party says, 'We're putting more money into the universities for more early childhood training places.' I'll tell you what, their plan is for only 14,069 places. There's a 16,200 shortfall. This is basic maths, which that side of the chamber have real problems with. They have problems with economics and with mathematics, because they can't understand that we have massive workforce shortages. They are doing so little to address this. What happens when you have workforce shortages and supply constraints? You add to demand and prices go up. That's what happens. I'll take interjections from those opposite who say, 'It's all our fault because we didn't process the visas.' I thought those opposite were about training people in-house, training people in the country. Finally, I point out the budgetary impact of this decision. It's $4.5 billion over the forward estimates. It's structural expenditure as opposed to temporary expenditure. We have a significant deficit already. This budget that was delivered last night bakes in additional structural expenditure to the budget at a time when we need to actually be curbing expenditure. This is also a considerable concern we have in relation to this. We want to be assured that the stage 3 tax cuts, which we promised and which Labor promised, actually get delivered. They can be delivered while maintaining sensible budgetary settings. If they keep adding to the structural deficit, they won't be able to deliver those tax cuts. Adding to the structural deficit, they won't be able to maintain sensible budgetary settings. It simply doesn't work. They have to get control of the budget. Adding structural expenditure—almost unlimited structural expenditure—doesn't do that. We have these concerns and we point them out in this chamber, but we won't be opposing the bill for the reasons I articulated at the start and for the reasons which the member for Moncrieff articulated in her second reading speech contribution. The bill does provide $4.5 billion in additional expenditure for the childcare system, but there are concerns and that is why we are moving this amendment. We have concerns about the inflationary pressure, about workforce shortages, that it doesn't add a single childcare place, despite spending $4. 5 billion, and that it adds to the structural deficit of the budget. I commend the amendment. I hope the parliament support this amendment but we won't be opposing the bill in its substantive form.
Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The coalition supports the passage of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022. In 1999 an agreement was reached between the Commonwealth government and Energy...
The coalition supports the passage of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022. In 1999 an agreement was reached between the Commonwealth government and Energy Resources of Australia, known as ERA, that, upon the completion of mining activities at the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, ERA would take charge of rehabilitating the Ranger mine site. Mining at Ranger ceased in January 2021 and remediation is already underway. The current framework allows ERA to undertake remediation work until January 2026. More than 20 years ago, it was believed that ERA would need only five years to complete rehabilitative work on the site. As a result, the authority set out a 'cease of operations' for mining works in January 2021, with the authority lapsing on 8 January 2026. However, following consultations with the previous and current governments, it was concluded that, to fully rehabilitate the site to higher contemporary standards, ERA would require more than the five years provided to complete the rehabilitation and monitoring required. This bill extends the legislative framework surrounding the rehabilitation, ensuring that ERA can complete rehabilitation, close out the site, continue monitoring and return the land to the traditional owners. The bill does not provide any authority for further mining on the site, which follows ERA's commercial decision to not pursue any further mine site extensions in 2015. Rather, the bill's primary purpose is to enable the long-term remediation and monitoring of the site. Primarily, it amends the legislation to allow the remediation authority to be milestone based rather than time based, keeping the onus on the responsible company to complete the rehabilitation. The coalition supports all mine rehabilitation being completed to high standards—and Australia has some of the most stringent environmental and rehabilitative standards and processes in the world—and supports ERA fulfilling their obligation to properly remediate the Ranger mine. The authorities created under this legislation will allow for the progressive close-out of areas of the mining lease. This means that, as portions of the lease are considered to be fully rehabilitated, the lands can be returned to the local community sooner. The Ranger uranium mine has served the country well, over its years of operation, creating economic benefits for the country and local community and providing jobs and employment services to the local population and the wider Northern Territory. As Ranger's operations have come to a close, the focus is on ensuring that the affected areas, which are small in size, are fully rehabilitated, to ensure protection of our natural environment. Traditional owners, the Northern Land Council and other Northern Territory bodies are supportive of the bill and have expressed their support for ERA fulfilling their obligations set out under the Atomic Energy Act to rehabilitate the Ranger site. The coalition began the process of engaging with ERA over the rehabilitation of the Ranger mine under the previous government and supports this bill proceeding, in order to guarantee that Ranger can be fully rehabilitated by ERA over the coming years. We commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.
Aston Electorate: Infrastructure | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise to express my grave concern that the new Labor government is about to abolish $5 million of funding which had been budgeted for the Tormore Reserve in my electorate. For those that don't...
I rise to express my grave concern that the new Labor government is about to abolish $5 million of funding which had been budgeted for the Tormore Reserve in my electorate. For those that don't know, Tormore Reserve is in Boronia. It's home to the Boronia Hawks Football Netball Club. It's in the poorest part of my electorate, where there's higher than normal unemployment and where there are, unfortunately, some of the issues associated with lower socioeconomic areas. We are doing everything we can to encourage people to participate in sport as a mechanism to get them off the street, to be engaged in the community and to be mentored by older people. This a great club that does great work, and they deserve a proper pavilion. This is $5 million, which was a budget decision. It wasn't an election commitment of ours; it was a budgeted decision. Yet there has been no action taken by the Labor government to try to do anything to see this through. My deep concern is that the Labor Party is about to scrap this funding. I'm also concerned that the Labor government is about to scrap the funding for several road projects in my electorate. This is money that has been set aside for years. It is budgeted money and it's going towards projects which have been on the books, in some cases, for decades, and we finally had the money to see these projects through. The state Labor government has stalled on these projects for years now. My concern is that the federal Labor government is now going to use the upcoming budget to scrap the funding of these projects. These are projects such as the Dorset Road extension, which has been on the books for decades, and the duplication of Napoleon Road—a desperately needed duplication in my electorate. I'm concerned that they may even scrap the $475 million allocated for Rowville Rail. This is, again, a project which has been on the books for decades and is desperately needed. We have almost half a billion dollars allocated for the first instalment—to have rapid public transport through to Rowville—and, again, we're hearing nothing from the federal Labor government and, indeed, nothing from the state Labor government. We need these projects. Constituents in outer eastern Melbourne, residents in outer eastern Melbourne, deserve to have these projects seen through and delivered. I'm calling on this new Labor government to deliver on those projects, to work with their comrades at the state level—there's an election coming up—and to get these projects done.
Child Care | Statements by Members | House debates
The coalition has a proud record in relation to child care. We doubled spending on child care to over $10 billion per annum. We supported 280,000 more children in child care per annum than when...
The coalition has a proud record in relation to child care. We doubled spending on child care to over $10 billion per annum. We supported 280,000 more children in child care per annum than when we first came to office, and women's workforce participation reached record-high levels. Most importantly, we did so through targeted approaches which reduced inflationary pressures on child care. In fact, in the last financial year, childcare out-of-pocket costs came down by 4.6 per cent. This is in contrast to Labor's last time in office, when fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in just six years. Labor's childcare plan, introduced today, will inevitably see fees skyrocket again and erode most of the promised benefits for families. This is because the package will add to demand but does not address the waitlists for services, the workforce shortages or the significant regional gaps. When introducing the childcare bill today, the minister promised that Labor's plan would not add to inflation. Australian families will be holding him to this promise.
Research Commercialisation | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that in Government, the Coalition invested significantly in research and development, including an estimated $4.3 billion in 2020-21 through the education...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that in Government, the Coalition invested significantly in research and development, including an estimated $4.3 billion in 2020-21 through the education portfolio; (2) acknowledges that: (a) Australia stands internationally as one of the highest performing contributors to foundational research, being responsible for 2.7 per cent of the world's scientific output, compared to being home to 0.34 per cent of the world's population; and (b) in terms of research translation and commercialisation, Australian does not meet the same high performing reputation; (3) further notes that the previous Government: (a) agreed in February 2022 to a ten-year Research Commercialisation Action Plan to drive greater utilisation of research and collaboration with industry; and (b) budgeted $2.2 billion to support its Research Commercialisation Action Plan to boost Australia's economic recovery, including: (i) $1.6 billion for Australia's Economic Accelerator to establish a stage-gated program to support translation and commercialisation in the six National Manufacturing Priority Areas; (ii) $243 million for the Trailblazer Universities Program to select universities to partner with industry to work on research; and (iii) $296 million to support greater collaboration through 1,800 industry-focused PhDs and 800 industry fellowships over ten years; and (4) calls on the Government to commit to implementing the Coalition's Research Commercialisation Action Plan in full and on-time, first with introducing legislation to establish Australia's Economic Accelerator. Research commercialisation was a strong focus of the coalition government in our last term of governance. Why is that? In part it's because it goes to the heart of our economy, because when we do good research and we translate that into new products, new ways of doing things and new industries then we're growing the economy, we're creating new jobs and, ultimately, we're improving productivity. Indeed, it is one of the very few ways that you can improve productivity. Australia produces excellent, world-class research. We punch above our weight in that regard. But we don't do as well in translating that research into commercial products. This was our main focus, which I was leading, in our last term of governance. For example, when you look at the number of papers written over the last 20 years, we've massively increased the number of publications. In 2000 there were 23,000 papers published by universities; by 2020 there were over 100,000 papers published. But when you look at the commercialisation metrics over the same 20 years, they had barely changed. So what did we do? We took a very concerted effort to address this particular problem. We established an expert panel of 10 members—the most brilliant researchers, business minds and university leaders—who provided guidance to us on what ultimately became the package of measures which we introduced. That passage was called the Australian government's University Research Commercialisation Action Plan, released in February of this year. It lays out a comprehensive set of reforms to completely shift the dial in this area, unlike anything that had been done before. We backed the plan with money—$2.2 billion over the next decade—and we aligned the priorities around the six modern manufacturing strategy priorities, such that all of the initiatives and priorities of the government as a whole became those six modern manufacturing priorities. The cornerstone of that plan was the $1.6 billion Australian Economic Accelerator. That's a 10-year investment in a competitive funding program where universities will, with their commercial partners, go through a series of stage gates. You start by applying for small amounts of money early on in the process, and gradually that amount of money increases as you get to stage 3. At stage 3 there can be contributions of up to $50 million made—they'll be done by CSIRO and they'll be done on an equity basis from them. The second major element, which is already underway, is called the Trailblazer Universities Program. This was largely modelled off successful initiatives overseas, scaling up existing centres of expertise and industry collaboration. The aim was for these trailblazers to be world leaders in a particular area of focus—again, aligned with the modern manufacturing priorities—and that has taken off. We had so many fantastic applicants that we actually increased the number of trailblazer universities and the amount of money that we put in. Already, the results have been absolutely outstanding. Those six trailblazer universities that we supported have already established 170 industry partnerships, and more than 60 per cent of those partners are in small- and medium-sized enterprises. The trailblazers think they will create, through these initiatives, over 7,000 jobs. On top of this, we supported more industry PhDs and more industry fellowships so that academics can make a whole career out of research commercialisation, just as they can make a career out of publishing pure research. We also reformed some of the other research programs to support this overall objective. We want our research to be terrific but we want it to be relevant for Australia and we want it to be translated into new products, new technologies and new industries. That's what this package will do. My call on the government is to get on with the job of putting the legislation through to implement the Economic Accelerator. I believe they support it. But just get on with it so that these universities can get on with the job.
Child Care | Questions without Notice | House debates
Why isn't Anne Aly answering this? She's the childcare minister. She's been sidelined.
Address | Death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Ii and Accession of His Majesty King Charles Iii | House debates
A little over a month ago I was speaking to the assembly at Boronia Heights Primary School as we officially opened the ring of trees planted around the oval to mark the Queen's jubilee. I said to...
A little over a month ago I was speaking to the assembly at Boronia Heights Primary School as we officially opened the ring of trees planted around the oval to mark the Queen's jubilee. I said to the children that the trees and the accompanying new seating were to honour and to recognise one of the most remarkable people of the last century and that, hopefully, in years to come, children will sit on the marked chairs and reflect on who she was and her incredible service. Today, with the Queen's passing, I have no doubt that this will occur, as it will occur at the hundreds of existing monuments to Her Majesty and the many more that will be erected in the months and years ahead. This will occur not just because of who she was and her longevity as a monarch but because of the values she represented and those we may have lost. The longevity of the Queen's reign is remarkable in itself. Few of us in this parliament were even born when she came to the throne in February 1952. She was the longest-serving English monarch in history. She witnessed 16 Australian prime ministers, from Menzies to Anthony Albanese, and 15 British ones. As senior journalist Paul Kelly notes, 'At every juncture she upheld constitutional propriety.' She loved our country. She visited often, but she always respected the wishes of our nation. Even when Prime Minister Paul Keating informed her of his desire to become a republic, she replied impeccably, saying: I will, of course, take the advice of Australian ministers and respect the wishes of the Australian people. When she became Queen, it was almost a different world both here and globally. We were just 10 million people. We were a relatively inward-looking country then. We were largely monocultural. Television had not even come to our shores. Today the world is so different, with the internet, globalisation, modern multicultural society and alternative powers. But through it all the Queen endured. She was the constant in our lives for 70 years. She was the North Star—or, in our case, the Southern Cross—that was always there no matter what social and cultural change was occurring beneath our feet. Through all seven decades, she practised and exemplified a constant set of values: of faith, of stoicism, of grace and humility, of duty above self, of love of country and above all of service literally until her dying days. And these values did not deviate over seven decades. With her passing, do these values also die or at least diminish? British author Douglas Murray wrote that she seemed at times 'to be single-handedly holding back so many ugly forces challenging these values'. Deep down, is this the reason that so many of us deeply mourn her passing? Is it not just because of the loss of an incredible servant leader but because of the potential loss of the values that she represented—the official passing of an age, the official cutting of the last link to our greatest generation. I hope our fears are not realised, and perhaps the reflections occurring today and at monuments of Queen Elizabeth in the future will cause us actually to be more like her. I'm sure her son, King Charles III, will continue to serve and honour the legacy his late mother has left behind, and we wish him well. In the condolence motion for the passing of the former monarch, King George VI, the Queen's father, on 7 February 1952, in this very place Prime Minister Menzies said of the newly crowned 25-year-old: As she goes through her sorrow to her great responsibilities it would be the wish of all of us to say to her that we have faith in her ; that … we are resolved to do all that we may to make her reign as rich and kind and good and memorable as that of her illustrious father. That faith was more than warranted. Her reign was richer than anyone could have possibly imagined. I thank Queen Elizabeth for her service. May she rest in peace.