Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If you've been in place long enough, what's old is new again. It should not be particularly surprising that from time to time governments of both political colours will determine that there is a point at which we are going to attack red tape. I remember my friend the former member for Kooyong being very energetic, doing his red tape 'bonfire of the vanities' routine in times past. Only Josh Frydenberg could get a lot of media coverage pushing for red tape reduction. He did a very good job on it. We swore that we would cut it back. I liken this process to weeding—you do one cut and then you have to come back again, months or years later, to attend to the growth of red tape. For bringing this on, I hold to account Ezra Klein, the US writer who has written the book Abundance, which I have in my Audible list of books to listen to on my drive to Canberra. I haven't quite got to it yet, but apparently he's made some sort of impact. Now it's the thing for us to reimagine red tape reduction, and that's what we're doing. But it is about getting the balance right on red tape reduction, because one person's cut to red tape is another person's cut to protections and to systems that have been put in place in response to issues that the public have raised.

Do I think it's a bad thing for governments to cut red tape? Of course not. I think it's important that we always find efficiencies in the way that we do things, efficiencies that will improve the way we use the resources required to get things done and the speed at which we provide services to the general public. I think it's always important that the public sector in particular rethink its approach to getting things done, and it doesn't matter which side of politics is in government. If I may put it in rather stark terms, in many respects the Public Service sees the political parties as renters: at a certain point in time they occupy a bit of real estate, but the systems will always go on and will always stay the same. It is incumbent on whichever political party forms government to look at whether or not those systems are fit for purpose, and clearly one aspect of that is looking at red tape. Off the back of people reading Abundance we've had this surge in focus, which is great, but let's see what it actually yields.

'Tell us once' is great. Governments of both sides have been pursuing this for a decade. We have had hand-on-heart commitments by the other side of politics, when in government, that they would get this right, supported by a public service that said in all honesty that said they would get this done. Here we are 10 years later, again committing to do this. Do I think this is wrong? No. I think it's very good. I think it's important that the general public are not left on hold for an extended period of time, waiting for service, when contacting Services Australia. I think it's a good thing, as the population gets more digitally savvy and can work with these systems, that they need only provide information once—that a system captures and records information once, not multiple time, when a member of the public wants to engage with and get action from a federal government department.

This isn't a challenge just for government, by the way. Red tape also exists in major corporations, where people are forced time and again to provide information to organisations in order to obtain a service that they desire. The notion that government is awash with red tape and the trope that it is an inefficiency of federal government—I don't think people need to believe that. Big organisations develop a multilayered approach to getting things done. It's not guaranteed that the private sector always does it better than the public sector. It is a challenge, but if we get 'tell us once' right it does make a difference to the general population.

What is also important is that systems for recording data are modernised. Again, regardless of what side of politics is in power, there is the challenge of the amount of money we dedicate to the turnover of antiquated IT systems. It costs a lot of money to get that done, and sometimes governments decide they won't do that, or they'll defer it—yet again. Again, we've seen both sides of politics doing this. Some of those bodies exist within the remit of Services Australia or like bodies, where the money hasn't been put in place. So, you can cut the red tape as much as you want, but if the system, particularly a legacy system, takes time to accurately and efficiently record that, it is going to be a challenge. Again, I make the point that what is said in theory—cutting red tape, the idea that we'll make it easier for the general public—is all very good, and we all support it. But we also need to make sure we make the investments in the systems to make that happen. That is critically important as well.

The other elements of this bill that are noteworthy relate to some of the changes that have made in schedule 4, part 6, around improving energy performance and that there'll be measures to introduce demand flexibility as a new object of the act. Demand flexibility would be enabled, and consultation would occur. This aligns with the National Energy Performance Strategy and reflects our commitment to the evolving regulatory framework with the emerging energy needs and technologies.

The reason I'm supportive of this is that right now, just as the latest trend is to read Ezra Klein's text on abundance, the other big idea is that we'll improve our technological capabilities by allowing many data centre flowers to bloom in this country. A lot of US tech players are very keen to set up a raft of data centres across this country. The promise is that if we get these data centres built it will be a good thing for our capability in areas such as artificial intelligence and what that might unleash for the nation. That's all great in theory, but it's a basic theory. It doesn't necessarily guarantee that.

If we are going to cut red tape and we are going to bring these data centres online a lot quicker, we also need to know that they use a heck of a lot of energy, particularly if they are platforms supporting the operation of generative AI, and that we will need to stagger the way these centres are built. Right now we are going through an energy transition. Right now it is terrific to see that renewable energy is, more and more, forming the energy generation base of this nation. But a lot of these data centres tend to soak up a lot of energy use, which has become a hot topic in the US, where a lot of these centres are getting built. The concern is that there's a lot of investment in this for the benefit that comes out and the amount of energy that gets chewed up as a result.

Louisa Kinnear, from the Australian Energy Council, makes that same point. She says:

In the US, data centres are a major source of demand growth resulting in shortfalls of energy capacity. The US consequently faces a dilemma -in a time where it can take many years to develop and build new energy assets, how can it service this rapid uptick of energy demand while keeping energy prices affordable?

She goes on to say:

Australia too is grappling with the extent to which data centres might drive future demand, although we are not seeing the levels of demand growth being experienced by our American friends.

Not yet. A number of major US tech firms that are experiencing the types of problems Ms Kinnear has identified have sought other jurisdictions in which to set these data centres up. For instance, Amazon and Google are looking to set up new data centres. Obviously other generative players would be looking to do the same. So, this is something we need to keep tabs on. If we are boosting renewable energy supply and we are seeing that new supply getting taken up by new centres, that's an issue. It is also a challenge in that we have a target of building 1.2 million new homes by 2030. We also have a raft of state governments that are undertaking infrastructure investment and rolling out that investment in different parts of the country. So there's a demand on skills availability between the housing sector and infrastructure.

The building of these new centres is not a small thing. It does require skilled people to be able to undertake that construction work. So it's not just a call on energy; it's a call on skills as well, particularly if that occurs in regional areas, where the ability to call on those skills may not necessarily be available. So I do think, as much as we obviously value the role of data centres supporting local business—and I think there is a case to be made that a lot of these firms could do more to demonstrate the residual benefit to Australian industry of that processing power through their centres—and there is a benefit there, we should also be 'eyes wide open' on the challenges. Letting it rip in terms of data-centre development in this country sounds great on paper. It doesn't necessarily guarantee a smooth energy transition. You've got to ask the question about what it does in terms of skills.

Because data centres use a lot of water as well, you've got to make sure that that resource is available, bearing in mind that it should not be assumed that, just because water systems are available in cities, that is an equal and standard case in our regions. Water supply is obviously, in different parts of the country, just as big a concern. So the fact that there is a demand flexibility incorporated in this omnibus bill is very important, and, if it is a measure that can provide for a sharper, clear-eyed assessment about the way in which we roll out the construction of these new data centres, I think it will be a valuable thing. I say this as someone who very much values the role of technology and, in particular, its uptake by Australian business. But getting it right and getting the balance sorted out is very important. Having measures like this in the bill, if they allow for a much more measured and balanced approach to the rollout of these things, so they don't become an issue like in other countries and so we don't import that issue into our own country, is very important.

I'll leave my remarks at that. I think the bill is an important way in which to send a signal about being able to reduce the number or the range of regulations that are put in place. I suspect, in time, we'll probably also have a fresh look at 'one in, one out' rules when it comes to red tape—that is, if you are bringing in a new set of measures, where are you reducing measures elsewhere so that that is a constant way in which you improve on the growth or counter the growth of red tape? That is something that has been embraced in times passed. In the UK, the Blair government championed this. We did have some of that here in this jurisdiction, particularly at the federal level. Whether or not we reinvigorate that approach is another question altogether and probably a question for another time. But it is worth considering. So I certainly commend the bill to the House, and I am grateful for the chance to make a contribution on it.

See this speech in context