That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) eSafety Commissioner recommended a mandated trial of age-assurance technology in her Roadmap for Age Verification, as a way of protecting children from online harm;
(b) Government refused to support the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation and instead backed the development of industry codes as a stopgap measure; and
(c) Government's decision has been widely criticised by leading child and women's safety advocates across Australia;
(2) further notes the evidence of the eSafety Commissioner during Senate Estimates on 13 February 2024, in which she confirmed there were already a range of age-assurance technologies that can be used to protect children from online harm, and that such 'technologies are getting better all the time';
(3) condemns the Government for:
(a) its refusal to support the recommendations of the eSafety Commissioner to support a mandated trial of age-assurance technology; and
(b) failing to support the Opposition private Member's bill for the introduction of such a trial; and
(4) calls on the Minister for Communications to:
(a) reverse her position on an age verification trial and support the Opposition's plan to implement a trial;
(b) announce plans for a new trial within 30 days; and
(c) commence a trial of age verification technology within three months.
There is nothing more important than the safety of children, and there is nothing more important than protecting the safety of children online. Who should we trust on this issue? Who is the top expert in Australia when it comes to protecting the safety of children online? It's the eSafety Commissioner.
About three years ago the coalition asked the eSafety Commissioner to look into the issue of age verification, which is about ensuring that children do not access content that is dangerous for them, particularly pornography, but it can be other things as well. The eSafety Commissioner spent two years looking into this. She came back to the government and said:
… implement a trial of age-assurance technology to protect children from dangerous online content, particularly pornography …
building on the very good work of the member for Fisher and many other esteemed members who were on a committee that looked into this issue some years ago. The eSafety Commissioner said: 'Do something. Run a trial. Mandate that a trial must occur with a view to putting in place a formal system after that trial.'
But what did the government say? The government said: 'No. We're not going to do that. Instead we're going to let the industry write the rules.' The industry here is the pornography industry. That's what the Minister for Communications said. She didn't want to do what the eSafety Commissioner said. She said that, instead, the industry should write the rules.
We brought a piece of legislation to parliament on this very issue last year. It was widely supported across the parliament and was basically saying, 'Let's do what the eSafety Commissioner wants us to do and let's put in place a trial of age-assurance technology.' Pretty much everyone in this parliament, except the government, supported that because it's so simple, it's so sensible and it's clearly the right thing to do. But it's not just people in parliament who want this to happen. Australia's top experts on children's safety want this to happen as well. Tomorrow it will be six months since a group of experts wrote a very powerful letter to the minister asking her to act on the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation. They wrote that letter six months ago. What's happened in response? Nothing. They said:
It is our strong view that the Government has allowed itself to be swayed by industry resistance to an age verification system. Vested interests should not have been put before the wellbeing of children.
Those are very strong words. Who said those words? People, including Robert Fitzgerald, the former Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, did. People like Chanel Contos of Teach Us Consent signed the letter. People like Grace Tame, of the Grace Tame Foundation, signed the letter. People like Alison Geale, the CEO of Bravehearts and, of course, Melinda Tankard Reist, from Collective Shout, signed the letter. Fifty people signed this letter. What did the government do? Nothing. They've had the letter for six months.
Just last month, the eSafety Commissioner was asked about this issue again at Senate estimates. What did she say? She said:
There are a range of technologies out there that are being used for the purposes of gambling and alcohol and can be used to protect children from pornography as well in a way that is privacy protective and enhancing.
Even since we delivered the roadmap in March last year, we've seen even more maturation of the age-assurance industry. The technologies are getting better all the time. And then she said:
The ecosystem is now mature enough that we could architect an age verification trial that would work. The technologies are evolving. The age-assurance industry is maturing. I think the time is right now that we all move forward.
The eSafety Commissioner, as she always does, was speaking in a very clear voice in the interests of keeping Australian children safe. But the minister—this hapless Minister for Communications—doesn't want to do it. There is no reason for that other than that the minister wants to support the industry over the interests of Australian children. That is utterly wrong in every possible way one could look at this issue. It is a shameful decision of this government, fully supported by the Prime Minister. It needs to change, and the government needs to reverse its position and get moving on this issue.
]]>A small number of people would benefit, based on the government's own press release. It's very difficult for the government to argue that this will make a substantial difference, and the government isn't even actually saying that, to be frank. We know that what Australians aspire to is owning their own home. This is about Australians having a share in a home alongside Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, sitting there with them. Let's be frank: that is not what Australians aspire to. Australians don't aspire to sitting around the kitchen table discussing their finances with the Prime Minister as a co-investor in the home.
On the issue of competence, there are so many unanswered questions about this bill. Again, it's great that the minister is here, because I'd invite her to analytically go through these questions. It may be that the minister has the answers but for whatever reason hasn't provided them to the Australian people. I'd encourage the minister to address these questions if she is going to speak on the bill. What is the scheme's eligibility criteria? What happens if you make improvements to your home under this scheme? Will you have to send the government an invoice? Does the government participate in the cost of that renovation, or do you pay 100 per cent? It's a very reasonable question, because that will arise every day of the week. What happens if your income goes above the eligibility rate of $90,000 for an individual or $120,000 for a couple? What will the government do in that case? Will the government force the sale of your home? Will the ATO be auditing incomes to ensure that people don't go over those thresholds? One of the few things that the government has specified in relation to this legislation is the eligibility threshold: $90,000 for individuals and $120,000 for couples. What happens if you go over that? Again, I invite the minister to clearly articulate the answers to these questions—they are the sorts of very reasonable questions that Australians are asking.
What are the reporting obligations once somebody enters into one of these shared equity obligations? What happens if you're in this relationship with the government as a co-owner in your home and you fall behind on your mortgage payments? Unfortunately, that happens. There are a lot of people feeling the pressure of the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis at the moment, and unfortunately some people are falling behind on their mortgage payments. That does happen; that's a fact of life. What happens in this scenario? Does the government force you to sell your home if you get behind in your mortgage payments or does the government step in and contribute more to help ensure that you and the collective group that own this home don't fall behind? It's not clear at all from the legislation. Again, it may be information that's available. It may be that the minister knows the answer to these questions—perhaps not; I don't know. But, if the minister does know the answer, I would very much encourage her to share that answer with the Australian people. As a society, how would people know whether they would want to participate in this system if they don't know the answers to these most fundamental questions?
How many of the places will be in each state and territory? Who will be participating in the scheme, because obviously you need lenders to lend the money in the first place? There are a lot of questions here. We've got a lot of delay, we've got a flimsy piece of legislation that doesn't say a lot, and we've got a long list of very reasonable questions which are entirely unanswered. That's not a good state of affairs.
We are seeing that so much from this government. We're seeing it in relation to the cost-of-living issues, where the average household is so much worse off than is was in May 2022—because, realistically, who in Australia would say that they are better off than when the Albanese government was elected? I don't think very many people would. Yet the Prime Minister said before the election—I think in relation to this very piece of legislation—that mortgages would be cheaper. Actually, interest rates have gone up on 12 occasions. He said, some 97 times, that electricity prices would be $275 less for a family. That hasn't happened, and he said a whole range of other things that haven't turned out to be true.
It is very difficult to have confidence in this legislation when you contrast it with the performance of the coalition government in this most important area of housing policies, where some 60,000 first home buyers were supported by the coalition through the Home Guarantee Scheme, the home loan deposit scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. These were really important policies that helped so many people into homes. And the crucial HomeBuilder program, during the depths of COVID, assisted when the building industry was in the gravest of situations. The coalition government developed the HomeBuilder policy, under which some 137,000 applications were made, generating $120 billion of economic activity. It was a hugely important piece of policy by the now shadow minister for housing, demonstrating his depth of expertise in this area. And it worked—it actually happened and it worked. What have we got from this government in housing policy? We've got round tables, consultation committees and press releases, but we don't have any substance, and ultimately what matters is substance.
Again, I invite the minister to address those very reasonable questions about how this policy will work. If the minister says that this is a substantive policy then address the questions. What happens if you make improvements to your home? How do the economics of that work, Minister? Will the government invest in home improvements, or will it only be the homeowner? How does that change the relativity of who owns what percentage of the home? What happens if you start to earn over and above the thresholds? Will the government audit you, and will you become ineligible? These are very, very sensible questions and if the government's answer is, 'Well, we're not going to talk about that,' how can Australians have confidence? These are very simple questions and they're the questions that Australians are asking. It's concerning that we see so much time has passed in this area and we then have a bill which comes forward which is very thin in nature, and it doesn't address these very sensible questions.
In that situation, how can this parliament support such a bill? It is reflective of an entirely failed policy area—housing—by the Albanese government.
]]>It really goes to a general question of competence. Really, there's nothing more important than competence. If this is such a crucial matter as the Prime Minister said, why has it taken the minister so long? It's good that the minister's here to participate in the debate, but it's a very slow-moving area of policy under this government. We see lots of, frankly, very shallow headlines about housing and housing accords and all the things that the government is going to do in relation to housing, but what actually happens? The answer is: basically nothing. Virtually no homes have been built or contributed to by this government, and we see this extraordinary delay and drift.
I think it's really quite characteristic of the general delay and drift that we're seeing under this government. Of course, in 2023 so much of the government's energy was absorbed in the Voice debate, with the very substantial expense of more than $400 million that went into that Voice debate and a lot of distraction, unfortunately. What that meant was that on issues like housing policy, which I think we'd all acknowledge are very important—it's a very important issue in my electorate and right around the country—basically nothing has happened.
If the government can point to tangible things that have actually happened as opposed to broad, generic statements, press releases or self-congratulatory talking points, that is fine. But that's not the case. In recent times, we've heard the Premier of New South Wales say that the government's housing targets certainly won't be achieved in the largest state, or even get close to being achieved. We've seen that the government has made an announcement about how many homes it's going to build, which will require the states to do a lot of the heavy lifting, without the states making the same commitment. It's really a bit of a debacle, because so little is actually happening. I would really welcome the government pointing to something and saying, 'This has actually happened in housing policy,' because so little—virtually nothing, in fact—has happened. It is an indictment on this government.
An honourable member: They had a lot of roundtables.
This is a government that never saw a roundtable that it didn't like. They love roundtables, consultative processes and forums, but what about Australians who are struggling to get into the housing market? That's a lot of Australians. This is a really important area, and it requires a seriousness of purpose that we're just not seeing. We saw such an extraordinary lost opportunity through 2023, with so much time lost by this government.
The specifics of this scheme are very troubling. The first important point is that, even on the government's own calculations, this scheme would only be open to 10,000 households per year and would cost $5½ billion. That's a very substantial cost, and a very, very small number of people would benefit. Of course, that 10,000 is the number in the press release. What we know of this document is that, if they say a number, you're going to want to apply a discount to that number. It's probably not going to happen.
Of course, the most infamous example of that is the Prime Minister's statement some 97 times before the election that the cost of electricity would decline for the average family. That the cost of electricity would decline by some $275 is an important issue—
]]>In the 2021-22 budget, the Morrison government committed a record investment of $2.3 billion into mental health and suicide prevention. One of the really important initiatives was the establishment of Head to Health—more than half a billion dollars provided in that budget. That set Head to Health on the path of being what would ultimately become the even larger mental health organisation that headspace is today.
Head to Health is about providing free community based support for people who are struggling with mental health issues who perhaps aren't getting the support they need through the hospital system but who need more support than can be provided simply through GPs and local psychologists. In time there'll be more than 100 Head to Health centres around the country. It's very pleasing to see that the Albanese government is continuing to roll out those Head to Health centres. It's something that we're very proud of.
A very serious but extremely important topic is what's known as aftercare. This is when people are released from hospital after a suicide attempt. In Australia a few years ago only about half of people who were discharged from hospital in that most serious of situations actually received follow-up care in the community. These people are in a very serious situation. Through the agreement with the states and territories, all states and territories and the Commonwealth committed, both in word and in financial deed, to make that universal so that 100 per cent of Australians will get at least three months support in the community upon discharge in that most serious of situations. I'm very proud that we were able to do that.
Eating disorders are another issue that touches so many families in Australia, and the commitment of the Morrison government to establish a world-leading research centre into eating disorders was also a very important achievement of this period.
Prime Minister Morrison was extremely genuine and sincere in his desire to have a very positive impact on the mental health system in Australia. He can be proud of his legacy.
]]>It's not that surprising, because they outsourced this piece of legislation to the Greens. This was the Greens idea, of course, and the government enthusiastically went along with it. They even helped the Greens draft the bill. So they helped the Greens draft the bill; they worked with the Greens on the bill but then they claimed they didn't understand they were actually criminalising the activity.
Government officials in Senate estimates have confirmed that the government and the department were aware of this amendment. I'll read directly from what those officials said:
The department was aware of the amendment. It had provided advice to government on the drafting of the amendment and assisted with the drafting of the amendment …
So the government's fully aware of the amendment on this so-called right-to-disconnect issue and nobody realised. The minister for workplace relations didn't realise. The Leader of the Government in the Senate didn't realise. Nobody in the government leadership team realised that they were about to walk into the Senate and vote to criminalise people who may breach this new provision. It is absolutely extraordinary!
It's no surprise that there has been so much condemnation of this. The CEO of Wesfarmers Group, Rob Scott, who employs 120,000 people, said:
But what has now happened is we've created additional red tape and complexity in what is already a very complex workplace relations system.
That can't be good for anyone. He goes on:
We're reducing flexibility, we're making it harder for harder for businesses to comply. And that can ... not only bad for businesses, but bad for wages over the long term.
On top of all that, the government accidentally criminalised any breach of this provision. The government wants to add complexity. It wants to add red tape. It wants to make it effectively harder for people to comply.
But do you know what it wants to do most of all? What the government wants to do most of all is curry favour with the Greens. The government needs the Greens to get legislation through the Senate. So when the Greens come up with something like this, including this extraordinary provision to criminalise breaches, the government goes along with it.
It's a terrible indictment on the incompetence of the government. We will not be opposing this amendment because it seeks to cure this extraordinary incompetence, but what an extraordinary reflection this is on the chaotic incompetence of the Albanese government.
]]>This bill is part of a concerning family of legislation that has been put forward by this minister, the Minister for Communications, within this realm of telecommunications law—none more concerning than the extraordinary and historically remarkable, and not in a good way, bill that was put forward in relation to misinformation. Last year, the minister released an exposure draft of telecommunications legislation that would seek to give the regulator power to reach into the operations of digital platforms and make assessments about misinformation. The huge issue is once the government is defining what misinformation is in a democracy, you are on very shaky ground indeed.
When the minister released that exposure draft, she said: 'This is all about ACMA. It's all about the regulator.' But what we learned, through a freedom of information application just before Christmas, is that the minister, under that exposure draft, in fact has the power to personally order an investigation into allegations of misinformation into Australians and into digital platforms. It's there in black-and-white in a letter that the minister wrote to the Prime Minister but did not release, and the Prime Minister's delegate, the assistant minister, wrote back and said: 'Great idea! Let's do it. Let's give the minister the power to personally order investigations into allegations of misinformation.' In a democracy, of which we are one of the world's very greatest, that is an extraordinary thing to do. The minister had to withdraw that legislation because it was so appalling and because of the backlash from pretty much every section of Australian society. We are told that it will be coming back before this parliament in the not-to-distant future, and I expect we will see a titanic battle when that does occur.
That's just one of the important areas of telecommunications legislation that's being debated before this parliament and in this chamber. It's an extraordinary piece of legislation. Despite a lack of legislation in telecommunications, this minister ignored—in fact, worse than ignored; explicitly decided to go against the very clear recommendation of the highly respected eSafety Commissioner to implement a system for age assurance technology online. What would that do? It would help to keep Australian kids safe from the most appalling and dangerous online content. If a digital platform can just say, 'We didn't know how old that person was, sorry; Australian kids were exposed all this horrendous content, but we didn't know how old they were so it's not our fault,' then it's very convenient for the digital platform.
What the eSafety Commissioner has said is we should trial a system of age assurance technology, a similar concept age verification, where we say, 'If you are going to be providing content like pornography or other content that is potentially dangerous to children, you need to verify age and you need to ensure you're not providing this to kids.' What could be more sensible than that? What could be more unifying than that? Frankly, what Australian would say that was a bad idea? Well, I know one Australian who thinks it's a bad idea, and that's the Minister for Communications. Despite the very clear recommendation from the highly respected eSafety Commissioner, this Minister for Communications said, 'No, I don't want to do that. Let's leave it to the industry.' But what's the industry we're actually talking about here? It's the pornography industry. So, whilst Australia's leading child safety experts came out and condemned this decision of the government, do you know who welcomed it? The Eros Foundation—representing, as they do, the pornography industry—welcomed it. Great. Well done, Minister Rowland. So you've got 50 leading child safety and women's safety experts on one side and the Eros Foundation on the other, and the minister says, 'No, I don't want to go with those child safety or women's safety experts, I don't want to support Grace Tame of the Grace Tame Foundation, I don't want to support Chanel Contos of Teach Us Consent and I don't want to support Bravehearts or the Daniel Morcombe Foundation or the extraordinary array of experts who spoke out on this issue.' The minister said, 'No, I'm not going to do that.'
The coalition, in this very chamber late last year, moved a suspension of standing orders to make the minister do that, because the minister was refusing to do that. The vehicle through which we can change the conduct of ministers when they behave in this way is, ultimately, this chamber. So we brought legislation to this chamber to say, 'No, Minister, you must conduct this trial. You don't want to do it—we're clear on that—but you've got to do it because the chamber's going to tell you to do it because we should be backing the eSafety Commissioner and backing the safety of the children of Australia.' This legislation was widely supported in the parliament, including, from memory, by all of the independent members of parliament and the coalition. But every single member of the government voted against it. I suspect that many members of the government, if they'd had an opportunity to reflect on what it was they were voting against, would have had real concerns with the very unfortunate position that this minister had put them in, which is an unfortunate reflection on the priorities and the conduct of this minister.
We're also seeing another very important issue in telecommunications legislation. AI has become something of a buzzword and a bit of a cliche in political debate, but the challenges around AI are very real—both in a positive sense in relation to the incredible opportunities that AI can create but also in relation to the risks. The concerns about potential malevolent uses of AI are legitimate concerns and serious issues and they need to be considered very carefully. If you are ultimately going to say, 'We need to take some action to defend against those worst-case scenarios in AI,' the way you do that is, I think inevitably, through some form of legislation or regulation in the telecommunications and internet space.
However, for reasons that are entirely unclear, the government has not made the Minister for Communications the minister responsible for AI. So we have this very odd situation where what is quite clearly the biggest long-run challenge—both in a positive sense and in terms of the risk that faces us in relation to the development of technology and the telecommunications sector in Australia—is around AI, but the minister who is responsible for the regulation of this area is not actually involved in leading the government's response. The minister is reduced to a supporting role with lots of other ministers, which doesn't make any sense at all. So there are a lot of concerns about what is going on in this portfolio, and particularly with these issues around telecommunications.
From the government's perspective, the most significant entity when it comes to telecommunications is the NBN. It's a hugely significant entity. And what we're seeing under the watch of this minister are some very concerning trends with the NBN. This is important.
In 2023, for the first time in its history, excluding new developments at new greenfields sites—where, of course, the NBN customer numbers will always grow—the NBN lost 43,000 customers. Across what they call brownfields, across satellite, the NBN lost 43,000 customers. That's on a net basis. And the rate of loss is increasing. In the five weeks to 1 February, we saw the NBN, outside of greenfields, lose another 5½ thousand customers. In fact, in those five weeks, from its satellite business, the NBN lost two per cent of its entire customer base in one month. Imagine that. There are some on this side of the chamber—I'm standing next to one right now—who have experience in actually running a business. Imagine if you lost two per cent of your customers in one month—big problems. The NBN's satellite business lost two per cent of its customers in the five weeks to 1 February.
What the government says is: 'Well, those NBN customers are going to move across to the NBN fixed wireless product. That's what they're doing. It's all a very orderly process.' There's a bit of a problem with that, because in the five weeks to 1 February the NBN fixed wireless business also lost customers. If the two per cent who'd left the NBN satellite business were going to the NBN fixed wireless business, then that number should have gone up, but it actually went down.
It remains to be seen whether this minister has any sort of strategic view on the NBN. It's not clear that the minister does. I think the government sees the NBN as a high-vis photo opportunity. But this is an incredibly important entity which is owned by Australian taxpayers, and what we are seeing for the very first time in its history under the watch of this government is that, apart from those greenfields developments, where the numbers will always grow, collectively, the other customers are going down—by 43,000 in 2023, by 5½ thousand in just the last few weeks.
The minister did talk, in fairness, about the satellite losses. A year or so ago, the minister said, 'Alright: there are some issues in satellites, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to convene a round table.' A round table was convened. Academics were invited. But when you're going up against Elon Musk and his Starlink business, frankly, you need a little bit more than a government led round table. But that's pretty much all we've got from this minister.
There are very significant problems with the NBN, and it is concerning that we don't really see the minister actually engage in any of these more strategic questions about the future of this incredibly important entity, an entity which, under this government, had a negative cash flow of $1 billion in the last six months. In the prior six-month period, the six months to the end of December 2022, the negative cash flow was around $600 million. So it has gotten $400 million worse in 12 months under this government, and $1 billion of cash has gone out the door in the last six months. Again, the response from this government is, 'Here's a high-vis photo opportunity,' and that's about it. Serious issues require serious stewardship. We're not really seeing that at all.
We do need to talk about the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This is a bill that builds upon a process that was started by the coalition government when, back in 2020, we established the regime of what are known as statutory infrastructure providers, or SIPs. The NBN is the biggest SIP. It's not the only SIP; there are other, smaller SIPs as well. They're basically entities that provide internet services to homes, businesses and so on. There are a number of rules, sensible rules, that apply. If you're going to hold yourself out as a statutory infrastructure provider, there are certain things you need to be able to do. There are certain penalties if you don't do those things, and there are certain requirements.
This bill seeks to build upon some of those existing requirements and take some further steps. For instance, it would bring in private networks into the SIP regime, which, to date, has not been the case. A private network is when a property developer—usually—creates a localised telecommunications network for a particular property development. Sometimes in the past those networks have not been included and, as a consequence, consumers have not been able to get the protection of the SIP regime when things go wrong. The government says we should extend the regime to include those private networks, and we think that is sensible. A number of others are modest and sensible changes to this bill.
But on the point of competence, which is so important in government, this bill is reflective of another real trend we are seeing in this portfolio area. Broadly, you have two categories: failing or drifting. I have run through a number of the failing areas and this one I think, in fairness, is more in the drifting category. When I say 'drifting' I mean the minister has a bit of a problem here, because when the minister released this bill and consultation process back in August of 2022, she announced a new round of public consultation on these laws related to the SIP regime. She invited submissions on the draft bill and had a relatively short consultation period. People had to have their submissions in by the end of September '22. The minister said she pledged to introduce the bill into parliament by the end of 2022. It's 2024 now, so 2022 was quite a long time ago. The minister missed January, missed February, missed March, missed April, missed May, June, July—you're familiar with all the months. Only right at the end of 2023 did this bill materialise and, when it did, it was a bit of a surprise to the sector and stakeholders because they had not been consulted since 2022. It just sort of sat somewhere, piling up in the minister 's office, and this bill has come forward right at the end of 2023. It is a very real concern why it would take that long.
Broadly, we on this side support these provisions. There is an area where the Senate needs to do some work in reviewing the provisions of this bill. It creates a division which enables further reporting by ACMA on the performance of telecommunications companies. That is sensible at the high level but there are concerns that the bill has been very sloppily drafted and doesn't take account of the different ways that different telecommunication companies report these matters, and there is a risk of confusion in the marketplace on the lack of clarity about reporting that comes as a part of the bill.
The Senate committee will look into that and consider any sensible amendments that the Senate may put forward. Broadly, we do support this bill. We are disappointed that it went nowhere for a year. We are gravely concerned about the conduct of this portfolio overall in telecommunications regulation and, frankly, more broadly, leadership but we do not propose to oppose this bill and we look forward to any amendments or further discussions that may come from the Senate inquiry.
Debate adjourned.
]]>Today, the NBN revealed that it lost more than two per cent of its entire satellite customer base in one month, January 2024. From 28 December 2023 until 1 February—just a few days ago—the NBN lost 2.3 per cent of its entire satellite customer base. Think about that: about one in 50 net NBN satellite customers walked away in a period of just a few weeks. Imagine if that happened to a business, if you lost one in 50 of your customers in just a few weeks. It is an absolutely shocking result.
The government says that NBN satellite customers will move to its fixed wireless product. There's a bit of a problem with that, because in that period the fixed wireless product lost customers as well. During that period, from 28 December to 1 February—so the last five weeks—the NBN lost even more members from its core brownfields product, which refers to existing homes. During those five weeks, as the NBN revealed in the data it released just a few hours ago, the NBN lost on a net basis more than 3,500 customers. This is on top of the large decline that we saw in NBN customers in 2023 in these key categories. In the brownfields category in 2023, the NBN on a net basis lost 35,000 customers. That was the first year that it had ever lost customers in the brownfield segment. Its satellite business on a net basis lost 12.5 per cent of its entire customer base, getting smashed in the market as Australians looked elsewhere. If you exclude the greenfields developments, which continue to grow, the NBN suffered a loss of 40,000 customers in 2023, the first year in its history where it has lost customers outside of new housing developments. That first year occurred entirely on the watch of this quite hapless communications minister.
The great news that Minister Rowland welcomed in October was that prices in the NBN would be rising by up to 10 per cent, and, when they did, people left. Since the price rise announcement on 17 October, the NBN has lost from the brownfields business, on a net basis, 17,000 customers. That's an annualised rate of about 50,000 customers. The rate of loss is going up and up. In July, prices are going to go up again. The great news that Minister Rowland welcomed will see NBN estimate its charges rise by more than four per cent, which obviously will then be passed on to consumers.
The question that has to be asked here is: what is going on? The NBN—the National Broadband Network—which has gained customers every year since its inception in 2023 lost tens of thousands of customers, excluding those greenfield sites. As the satellite business collapses, the government's response is to convene a roundtable of academics. As Australians reel under the cost-of-living crisis, the government backs in further price rises for the NBN. It's a very serious situation and something that has to be addressed.
]]>There are some things that we didn't know about the legislation and only actually discovered through a recent freedom of information request. Remarkably, the minister forgot to tell Australians that in regard to the powers in this bill, which all of the documents released by the government say relate to the regulator, the minister actually has a personal power to order investigations into allegations of misinformation. So we have a minister who is able to say, 'Go and investigate this person because I believe that they have been involved in misinformation.' That is an outrage. This is the letter to the Prime Minister where the minister makes that request. And the response from the representative of the Prime Minister is, 'I agree to your request for additional policy approval.' It is a disgrace, and this bill must not be allowed to proceed.
]]>There are good people in this parliament. I think everyone in this parliament wants to do the right thing on these issues. I know that, when the member for Fisher chaired this inquiry, there were people from all parts of this chamber who backed this 100 per cent. We want a vote on this, because we want everyone to stand with the eSafety Commissioner on this issue, stand against the pornography industry, back this incredibly sensible recommendation and get on with protecting Australian kids.
]]>That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Banks from moving the following motion immediately—
That the House notes:
(1) the protection of children from online harm is a fundamental responsibility of government;
(2) in 2021, under the former Coalition Government the eSafety Commissioner commenced work on a roadmap for age verification technology;
(3) this work arose from the recommendations of the bipartisan Protecting the Age of Innocence inquiry, chaired by the Member for Fisher;
(4) in March 2023, the eSafety Commissioner provided its report, which recommended a trial of age assurance technology to help keep children safe online;
(5) the Albanese Government has refused to implement this recommendation, instead leaving the issue of age verification up to the pornography industry through the development of industry codes;
(6) more than 45 children's and women's safety advocates have strongly criticised the Albanese Government for its refusal to implement the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation on this issue; and
(7) therefore private Members' business notice No. 31 relating to a Bill for an Act to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, and for related purposes standing in the name of the Member for Banks being called on immediately and debate on the second reading proceeding for a period of no longer than two hours, after which any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.
This is an absolutely outrageous decision by the Albanese government. There is nothing more important than the online safety of children. This is one of the defining issues of our era. Every single parent in Australia worries about this. It's an immensely significant issue.
Back in 2020 the member for Fisher chaired a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry, by members from all parts of this House. One of their key recommendations was to pursue age verification technology to stop children from accessing dangerous content. Our government asked the eSafety Commissioner to investigate this issue. The eSafety Commissioner, the person in this country who has more expertise than anyone else on these matters, spent two years looking into this issue, and in March she presented a report to the government. Her key recommendation was to conduct a trial of age assurance technology to protect children, principally from pornography and other forms of dangerous content, and then mandate and prescribe age assurance technology. That's what the eSafety Commissioner said.
What did this government say to the eSafety Commissioner? 'No, we're not going to do what you, the eSafety Commissioner, want us to do. But do you know what we are going to do? We're going to do what the pornography industry wants us to do.'
Many things in politics can be explained, but what the Minister for Communications did defies all explanation. Here's what the minister decided to do: not implement the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation. No, don't do that. Instead, leave the matter up to the industry! The industry in this case, of course, is the pornography industry. What an extraordinary thing for the Minister for Communications to do. Immediately, the children's safety and women's safety experts of Australia stood up and condemned this decision by the government. Of course, we're talking about such a serious issue, and the government's own National Plan to End Violence against Women and Childrensays:
With pornography now overwhelmingly consumed online and via mobile devices, it is both prevalent and pervasive, perpetuating sexist, misogynistic and degrading views about women. This is a serious concern in addressing the drivers of violence against women and children.
That's absolutely right. That's a reason why this is such an urgent issue that must be debated by the House.
An activist group called Collective Shout organised 49 advocates and experts in children's safety and women's safety to say what they thought about this issue. Here's what they said:
Early porn exposure harms developing sexual templates, contributes to damaging stereotypes, the development of sexist ideas, the normalisation of violence against women and a rise in child-on-child sexual abuse.
This is a very serious matter. Then the experts went on—and this is a damning indictment on the Albanese government—to say:
It is our strong view that the Government has allowed itself to be swayed by industry resistance to an age verification system. Vested interests should not have been put before the wellbeing of children.
Who signed that letter? Forty-nine experts. One of them was Robert Fitzgerald. You know who he is? He was the former royal commissioner into child sexual abuse. He signed that letter, as did the author Maggie Dent; Chanel Contos of Teach Us Consent, who does such tremendous work in this area; Alison Geale, the CEO of Bravehearts; the Daniel Morcombe Foundation; author Steve Biddulph, an expert in this area; Professor Clive Hamilton; Grace Tame of the Grace Tame Foundation; and Anna Bowden, the CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children Australia. They all signed this letter, saying:
It is our strong view that the Government has allowed itself to be swayed by industry resistance to an age verification system. Vested interests should not have been put before the wellbeing of children.
That's what they said.
And you know who else had something to say about it? Anne Hollonds. Anne Hollonds is the National Children's Commissioner. Her job is to stand up for the rights of children, to look after the welfare of children and to basically speak up for kids, who often can't speak up for themselves. Anne Hollonds, the National Children's Commissioner, said:
If child wellbeing was a national priority, we would act on e-Safety's plan to trial ways to protect young kids from online porn. This would help to reduce child sex abuse, youth crime, domestic and family violence.
That's what the National Children's Commissioner said.
But you know who did actually welcome it? The Eros Association, who speaks for the pornography industry. Graeme Dunne from the Eros Association, on the day the minister announced this decision, appeared on the ABC and said, 'We've always advocated for a sensible approach, and that includes what the government is recommending today.' That's what the Eros Association said. So 49 of the most eminent people in Australia—if you were to define 'eminent', do you get any more eminent than the royal commissioner into child sexual abuse? It's extraordinary. Forty-nine of the most eminent experts in Australia—people who are passionate about protecting our children and passionate about issues relating to women's safety—condemn it. The Eros Association says it's good. This is the situation we are in under this extraordinary Minister for Communications.
But it's not only about the Minister for Communications, because there is a very obvious question that springs to mind: what is the Prime Minister doing about this? Is he backing the Minister for Communications on this, against the advice of Australia's top experts? What on earth is going on? There are basically two scenarios here. One is that the Prime Minister doesn't know what's going on and what his minister is doing—
]]>That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill requires the minister to act on a clear recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner to implement a trial of age assurance technology to protect children from dangerous online content, particularly pornography.
Age assurance is a similar concept to age verification.
This bill would require the Minister for Communications to implement a trial of age assurance technology precisely as recommended by the eSafety Commissioner, and report to the parliament on its progress every six months.
It's a sensible approach which exactly mirrors what the government's own eSafety Commissioner recommended.
What it's about
What this would do is actually require pornography sites to ensure that people who are under 18 do not access their content, and there's a long background to this.
There was a bipartisan parliamentary inquiry, chaired by the member for Fisher back in 2020, called Protecting the age of innocence that called for this to happen.
In 2021 the coalition asked the eSafety Commissioner to conduct a review into this very serious issue of protecting kids online, and after a two-year process the eSafety Commissioner came back to the government in March and said:
Develop, implement, and evaluate a pilot before seeking to prescribe and mandate age assurance technologies for access to online pornography.
This was a very, very clear recommendation all about protecting kids.
The government waited five months after receiving that recommendation and then—what did the Minister for Communications do at the end of the five months?—said, 'No. We're not going to do it. We're going to reject the recommendation from our own expert who has spent two years looking into this absolutely crucial and fundamental issue.'
Why on earth would the government not take action to protect kids as recommended by the eSafety Commissioner? What the government said instead is, 'Let's leave it up to industry. Let's leave it up to industry codes'—literally, industry codes to which the pornography industry itself will contribute. Now, this process is going to take years, whereas the eSafety Commissioner says, 'Get on with a trial of this technology now.'
And the government says the technology isn't ready. Well, tell the UK that, because just four weeks ago the United Kingdom legislated for age verification technology. It is now law in the UK for age verification technology to be in place for children to be stopped from accessing specifically pornography, specifically material related to self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.
It's in the statute books of the United Kingdom today. Our government in Australia, the Albanese government, says the technology's not ready; let's leave it up to the industry themselves to write some codes that'll take years.
The government's own national plan to address violence against women and children says this:
With pornography now overwhelmingly consumed online and via mobile devices, it is both prevalent and pervasive, perpetuating sexist, misogynistic and degrading views about women. This is a serious concern in addressing the drivers of violence against women and children.
That is in the government's own report.
Some of Australia's most eminent experts have very strongly criticised the government's decision. Here is what the experts said in a letter organised by Collective Shout:
It is our strong view that the Government has allowed itself to be swayed by industry resistance to an age verification system. Vested interests should not have been put before the wellbeing of children.
That's a strong statement. Who said it? Well, 49 people signed that letter, including: Robert Fitzgerald, the former commissioner of the royal commission into child sexual abuse; author Maggie Dent; Alison Geale, the CEO of Bravehearts; the Daniel Morcombe Foundation; Chanel Contos from Teach Us Consent; Grace Tame of the Grace Tame Foundation; author Madonna King; author Steve Biddulph; and Anna Bowden, the CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children Australia. They all signed that letter.
What did Anne Hollonds say? Anne Hollonds is the National Children's Commissioner specifically charged with looking after the interests of Australian children. What did Ms Hollonds say in relation to the government's decision not to implement this very clear recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner? That is what Anne Hollonds said:
If child wellbeing was a national priority, we would act on e-Safety's plan to trial ways to protect young kids from online porn. This would help to reduce child sex abuse, youth crime, domestic and family violence.
That's what the National Children's Commissioner said. So there's been condemnation by dozens and dozens of experts.
Do you know who did welcome this decision by the Minister for Communications and the Albanese government? Not child safety experts and certainly not Bravehearts, the Daniel Morecombe Foundation or the former commissioner of the royal commission into child sexual abuse. They didn't welcome it at all but the exact opposite. Do you know who welcomed it? The Eros Foundation, which speaks on behalf of the pornography industry, which we know is responsible for so much damaging and degrading material that is being consumed by Australian children every day. The Eros Foundation welcomed Minister Rowland's decision, but dozens of our top child safety experts condemned it. Something is very, very wrong here.
Conclusion
Where is the Prime Minister in this? Does the Prime Minister know the decision that his minister has made? You would hope so; he is the Prime Minister. So, if he knows about it, that means he must support it. How can the Prime Minister support such an appalling decision which has been so roundly condemned by experts? The basic question is: what on earth is going on here?
The parliament should support this bill because this bill forces the minister to take action. The minister, for whatever reason, hasn't wanted to take action. This bill says, 'You have to.' It says: 'Like it or not, you've got to get on with it. You've got to do what the eSafety Commissioner wants you to do and what all of these very eminent experts want you to do and conduct this very important technology trial.' That's why this bill should be supported. It's incredibly important. This is one of the defining issues of our era—the way we respond to issues of child safety online. I strongly commend this bill to the House. I have a little time left which I want to cede to the member for Fisher, who was the chair of the original inquiry that started this process in 2020.
]]>The minister for immigration knew there was a strong chance this would happen. The Minister for Home Affairs knew there was a strong chance that this would happen. The Prime Minister, presumably, was advised that there was a strong chance that this would happen. What action did the Albanese government take, during those 5½ months, to protect the Australian community and ensure that preventive orders were put in place to stop these people from being released into the community? Nothing.
The government can't say this is the High Court's fault. The High Court has its role, and it will do what it will do. Governments, ultimately, are responsible for the safety of the Australian people. Here, we've got ministers who knew for months that 80 or 90—and we learned today it could be hundreds of people—of the most serious criminals in this nation were going to be released as a consequence of this High Court decision. What did they do? Nothing. Who's responsible for the situation we face today? It's the Albanese government.
We saw, in the West Australian, a couple of days ago, the reality of the release of these people into the community. There's talk of conditions and so on, but what did the West Australian find? They are coming and going as they please on the streets of Perth with no supervision. They have the capacity to go out there and do, frankly, whatever they want to do. These ministers come into parliament and say that there are conditions and say that they're taking steps, but the West Australian found absolutely the opposite. We also know, from the reporting by the ABC that numerous people were released into the community without visas at all. Poor old Minister Giles, the minister for immigration—we need to extend the definition of the word 'hapless' for that individual, because what we have seen in this chamber in the last few days has just been shocking, and I think it will be remembered for years and years to come. He has refused to provide clarity to this parliament, despite saying that he would, about the precise nature of the individuals that have been released into the community.
We see them come in today with the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. A few days ago they were saying, 'Look, there's nothing else that we can do,' despite having had six months to think about it. A couple of days later, they're saying, 'Well, there is something we can do, so we're to going bring something in.' But the bill they bring into parliament is weak and ineffectual and goes nowhere near far enough.
Australians need to know this government had five months, at least, to prepare for this. This government didn't do that. They can't get around that; it's on the public record. The High Court of course will make decisions, as courts do, but governments are here to lead. Governments are here to protect the safety of the Australian community. They've shamefully failed to do that, and they must be condemned.
]]>For some 40 years, a Vietnamese language school has been held at Bankstown Girls High School, just outside my electorate. It was great to attend the 40th anniversary celebrations on 21 October. There were wonderful performances by the kids. It was great to see Trong Ho. There were so many parents there, teachers from the school. Long-term supporters, such as Mr Quang Luu AO and Mr Thuat Van Nguyen, who of course is so well known for founding the Sydney children's festival. It was a tremendous day, and a great testament to Bankstown Girls High School as well for supporting the Vietnamese language school for some 40 years.
Lugarno FC is a legendary club in our area, and it was great to attend its presentation morning on a very hot Sunday morning on 22 October. Sue Dick, the club's president, has been involved in the club for decades and is a tremendous pioneer for football generally and for women's football in our community. It was great to see Sue there. The irrepressible Bec Harrison, the registrar, was there. Former president Michael Jarevski was there, as were so many others—people who come together to make Lugarno FC the very special place it is. Congratulations to all the kids who received awards on the day, and well done Lugarno FC for another great year.
On 24 September, a new event was held at Connells Point. The Connells Point Community Markets Day is the brainchild of Patrick Wedes, who's a busy man because he's also president of the Pinnacle club in South Hurstville where he's overseeing a major renovation. In his spare time, he set up this fantastic market day that was attended by hundreds of people. There were rides for the kids; there were lots of great stalls; there were farm animals—the whole thing. There were lots of people having lots of fun. It was a great thing for Connells Point. Well done Patrick and the community, and I look forward to this being an annual event.
]]>(d) a method of a kind determined by the Minister by legislative instrument for the purposes of this paragraph
Basically, that means any means of exchange determined by the minister in the future could be prohibited.
We are concerned about that for a number of reasons. Firstly, something of that significance, where we are seeking to restrain Australians on how they use legal currency, is something that generally should come through the parliament. We think, as a point of principle, that's the right way for this to be done. If there is a proposal in the future to ban another form of legal exchange, it should come back to the parliament because it is a significant thing to do to affect the rights of Australians in that way.
We particularly note that this is a question of ministerial discretion, so ultimately we must consider the facts before us. Were this to come into place, the Minister for Communications would have that discretion. We're concerned about that in general but particularly concerned given that we have seen, on numerous occasions, failures of judgement by this minister—and that judgement is effectively what comes into play here through clause 15. We have seen that failure of judgement most notoriously in relation to the misinformation bill, where the government has begun the process of walking that back, of delaying the bill, of taking provisions out of the bill because it is, frankly, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever put before this parliament. That was a judgement of the minister because the minister published that legislation, and you don't publish legislation because you think it's a bad idea; you publish legislation because you think it's a good idea. That was the judgement of this minister, so we are anxious about that judgement.
We're also anxious about the judgement, as we said, as it pertains to the Mobile Black Spot Program—a tremendous program created by the coalition, that has helped thousands of Australians to access vital mobile connectivity in regional and rural areas. We saw this minister shamefully politicise this program, with some 74 per cent of sites being allocated to Labor electorates, even though Labor held only a third of seats in rural and regional Australia. It was patently wrong, and so much so that it has really captured the attention of the Auditor-General, who is now very carefully going through all of the facts and all of the information in relation to this program. He said he'll come back by May next year. He is conducting a very thorough and forensic investigation into this very sorry episode relating to the Mobile Black Spot Program. That goes to judgement as, indeed, does the minister's inexplicable decision to fail to implement the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation to implement a trial of age verification software to protect children from dangerous content online. The eSafety Commissioner wanted to do that. The pornography industry doesn't want that to happen. They welcomed the minister's decision not to proceed with that trial, but the minister has been roundly condemned by dozens of experts.
]]>(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 24), omit "currency;", substitute "currency.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph 15C(4A)(d).
Earlier this week, in the House, I flagged that the coalition in general supports this bill, which largely acts on recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into the regulation and the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia, chaired by the member for Fisher and the report of which was published in November 2021. We support this bill and the measures it takes in relation to credit cards, digital wallets and digital currency, but we do have a particular concern relating to the power that the bill gives to the minister to ban methods of payment that are not specified in the legislation. I've moved amendments to remove this power from the minister.
Specifically, clause 15 states in proposed paragraph 15C(4A)(d):
a method of a kind determined by the Minister by legislative instrument for the purposes of this paragraph
Basically, that says a minister could, in the future, effectively ban any method of payment that they chose. We don't think that's appropriate because it gives a very wide latitude to the minister. Given that the method of payment would be a legal form of currency, it's a substantial thing to stop Australians from having the right to use that currency, and it's something that should properly come before the parliament rather than being via the minister. The bill doesn't simply says it bans any form of currency determined by the minister; the bill sets out a number of specific methods of payment—appropriately—but then has this catch-all at the end that basically says 'and anything else the minister determines'. We don't think that's appropriate. We think it's overreach and we think it should be deleted.
We'd have that concern with any minister, to be frank, but particularly with the minister that we have. It is ultimately a question of judgement of the minister, and this is a minister who has demonstrated a lack of judgement on numerous occasions, whether they be the issues relating to the politicisation of the Mobile Black Spot Program, the appalling misinformation bill which, in the judgement of this minister, was appropriate to put forward to the Australian people, or, indeed, the judgement of the minister to reject the recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner to conduct a trial into online age-verification technology in order to protect children from dangerous material. For those reasons, we do not think this is appropriate power to be given, and that is why I move those amendments.
Debate adjourned.
]]>