Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to present the Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill No. 1 2020.

The Liberal and National government is steadfast in its support of our farmers and their families, now and into the future.

The flagship program to ease severe financial hardship is the farm household allowance (FHA). This is a package of assistance that includes an income support payment for farmers and their partners in financial hardship, regardless of the cause.

Since its introduction in 2014, over $398 million in payments has been made to more than 13,300 individuals. We are investing almost $2 million each week into rural communities through the program. This investment is possible because FHA is demand driven and uncapped—no-one who is eligible will miss out.

We undertook a comprehensive review of FHA in late 2018. The farmer-led panel made a raft of recommendations to refocus the payment and to make is simpler and easier to understand.

The Prime Minister released the government's response on 27 September 2019. He outlined a comprehensive set of changes that represent a radical simplification of key policy settings and the application process.

Our government has simplified and modernised the process, cutting unnecessary red tape. Since 1 February 2020 couples can apply using the same online form—telling their story once. This means more time for our farmers and their partners to manage their farm and improve their circumstances.

In relation to legislative changes, our government swung into action without delay. We separated the key elements and implemented each of them as soon as they could be rolled out. This is why there are three pieces of legislation—we have a process of continuous improvement.

The centrepiece of the first bill was the relief payment for people finishing their first four years of FHA in the 2019-20 financial year. We also made FHA available for four in every 10-year period. Lastly, we made a significant change to the way income affects FHA. For the first time, anyone whose farm business is making a loss will offset their off-farm income to the limit of $100,000 per couple.

The second bill took the income changes further. Anyone who qualifies for payment will automatically receive the maximum amount. This will give farmers and their partners certainty because their payment amounts won't fluctuate.

We simplified how we count assets. We changed from a two-step test to a single amount of $5.5 million—easier, simpler, better for farmers. Finally, in recognition of the benefits of advice and training, we increased the activity supplement to $10,000 per person.

The Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No.1) 2020 completes the agenda outlined by the Prime Minister. The bill removes the provision in the Farm Household Support Act which reconciles the prediction of annual income with the actual amount received. Predicting income is difficult. Farmers have told us that loud and clear. This change brings FHA in line with the treatment of business income for all other social security payments. An estimate of current income will be used to calculate the rate of payment. The estimate can be updated as many times as needed during the year, but crucially it will not be used to look backwards over the year. This means farmers will not worry that a debt will be raised at the end of the year through this business income reconciliation process.

We are keeping a strong eye on public accountability. Regular sampling of records will be undertaken to ensure the right person receives the right payment at the right time. This approach achieves a balance of compliance activity while minimising regulatory burden. The bill also removes the 28-day time limit to conduct a Farm Financial Assessment. This assessment is used by the case manager to help a farmer identify a course or courses of action to improve their financial situation. While it is important that the farm business is independently assessed to check its long-term sustainability, we want flexibility for the timing. Therefore the time limit will be managed administratively by the case manager, taking into consideration the complexity of the farm business and the availability of the person conducting the assessment. The government has listened, responded and stepped up to help support our farmers now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the House, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (09:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I'm pleased to introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. This bill demonstrates the commitment this government makes to put veterans and their families first and to assist veterans transitioning from military to civilian life. As part of the government's election commitments, this bill will amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 to extend access to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme from two years to five years after a member leaves the Australian Defence Force.

The bill will also amend the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Act 2015 to clarify that former ADF members can make contributions to their ADF super accounts. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families.

Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008. This scheme is designed to assist current and former ADF members and their families who choose to purchase a home of their own to live in by providing a subsidy. It recognises the additional difficulties ADF members and their families have in purchasing a home due to the nature of their service. At present, a veteran generally has access to the scheme within two years of leaving the Australian Defence Force. The amendments in this bill will extend the time after a veteran leaves the ADF when they can apply for a subsidy certificate to five years. The extension of two years to five years will assist veterans transitioning to civilian life by allowing additional time to look for suitable accommodation before applying and accessing the scheme. The current two-year limitation is not always enough time for veterans and their families, and this change seeks to ensure they carefully consider their options after leaving the ADF, without being rushed into purchasing a home for fear of losing their entitlement to the subsidy. This will benefit some 5½ thousand ADF members who leave each year.

Schedule 2 of the bill will amend the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Act 2015 to clarify that when an ADF member leaves the ADF they can continue to make contributions to their ADF super account. The Australian Defence Force Superannuation Act 2015 introduced a new superannuation scheme for ADF members from 1 July 2016. This scheme is an accumulation fund, and Defence makes contributions, for permanent ADF members and reserve members rendering continuous full-time service who are ADF super members, at 16.4 per cent of their salary.

At present, when a veteran leaves the ADF, they can no longer make contributions to ADF Super. Any superannuation contributions from a subsequent civilian employer, for example, must be made to a different superannuation fund.

The bill will clarify that ADF Super members who have left the ADF, and who provided continuous full-time service for an uninterrupted period of at least 12 months, can continue to make contributions to ADF Super. This is consistent with similar changes that have been made to the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan for Australian government employees. This change will be implemented through changes to the ADF Super Trust Deed, to take effect on 1 May 2020.

Minor consequential amendments will be made to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to require ADF Super to obtain relevant insurance products for ADF Super members who are no longer serving in the ADF.

This bill moves to make some small but significant changes to defence legislation that will benefit veterans and their families.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (09:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 gives effect to the commitment made by successive governments to the Australian community to establish a purpose-built National Radioactive Waste Management Facility to permanently dispose of low-level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate-level radioactive waste.

Radioactive waste is generated by the Commonwealth and other Australian entities and is predominantly a by-product of nuclear medicine. On average, one in two Australians will need nuclear medicine in their lifetime. This radioactive waste is currently stored in over 100 locations across Australia. This is neither desirable nor sustainable, as those locations are not purpose-built and some have limited storage capacity.

The successful operation of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility will greatly improve the safety and security of radioactive waste management in Australia. The facility will support the nuclear science and technology industry and bring Australia into line with some of our key international partners.

Furthermore, the amendments in this bill will improve Australia's ability to meet our international obligations by ensuring that our radioactive waste is stored and managed in a manner consistent with the principles under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. This bill comes at the end of a consultation and technical assessment process spanning more than four years, where owners voluntarily nominated their land to be considered for the location of the facility.

In identifying a site, the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator the Hon. Matt Canavan, considered a detailed site assessment report covering safety, regulatory approvals, costs and other aspects of site suitability, which was developed from more than three years of technical studies. The minister also considered a community sentiment report drawing on a range of measures, including community ballots, submissions and surveys.

The site of Napandee, located in the district Council of Kimba in South Australia, has been identified as the location for the facility. The former minister was satisfied that a facility at Napandee will be best able to safely and securely manage radioactive waste, and that there is broad support in the community for the project and the economic benefits it will bring.

There is broad support for the location of the facility in Napandee. The local community of Kimba have indicated their support through community ballots, public submissions, business and neighbour surveys as well as their willingness to discuss, debate and learn about the facility and what it means for their community.

One hundred per cent of direct neighbours of Napandee support the facility; 61.6 per cent of voters in Kimba support the facility; 59.3 per cent of local businesses support it; and 59.8 per cent of submissions from Kimba locals supported it.

Establishment of the facility in Napandee will provide for the safe and effective management of Australia's radioactive waste, and support the long-term social and economic sustainability of the Kimba community. A large number of the submissions received expressed enthusiasm for the jobs and economic opportunities the facility would provide for those living in the area.

While there is undoubtedly broad support for the facility in the Kimba community, it is important to acknowledge that there remain some opposition and concerns about potential agricultural impacts.

Experience around the world is that radioactive waste facilities and farms have succeeded side-by-side for decades without any reputational or market impact on surrounding agriculture, tourism or other community activities.

The common experience of such facilities located in the farming regions of Champagne in France, the Lakes District in the UK, and Elcabria in Spain, for example, is that this industry plays an important role in the life of local communities by creating a new industry, with a diversity of jobs and investment, and strengthening local economic and social development.

In Australian regional communities, this stable and alternative industry would be particularly beneficial in times of drought.

While native title has been extinguished at the site, it is a priority for the government to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage and to engage meaningfully with the Barngarla community to maximise economic opportunities and outcomes for local Aboriginal communities near the future facility. The Commonwealth will continue that engagement as the facility moves into its establishment phase.

The bill also repeals the existing site nomination and selection framework under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 and inserts new provisions which specify the site of the facility.

This revises the approach from making a ministerial declaration to acquiring the site through legislation. Specifying the site of the facility in legislation will provide the parliament with the opportunity to have a say in the decision to progress this vital national infrastructure.

This also provides certainty to the Australian public and impacted communities about the site and allows those communities not selected to host the facility to resume their regular activities and look to new opportunities for the future.

The size of the parcel of land specified in the bill for the establishment of the facility is approximately 160 hectares. This is sufficient for the footprint of the facility, the associated security requirements, enabling infrastructure such as power and water, and community agricultural research and development activities. The bill enables a further parcel of land of up to 50 hectares of the original voluntarily nominated land to be acquired to expand the specified site. This additional land may be necessary to allow for the establishment or operation of the facility should further site-specific technical and cultural heritage investigations determine that more land is required.

The bill also provides for acquisition of land for secondary all-weather road access, and for the identification of certain rights and interests in relation to this land that are not required. People with a right or interest in additional land being considered for acquisition will be invited to provide comment in accordance with the procedural fairness provision in the bill.

Most importantly for the host community, the bill provides for the establishment of a $20 million community fund, which will support the government's commitment to the economic and social sustainability of the facility's host community. The facility is an investment in the long-term safe and secure management of radioactive waste and, once established, is expected to be in operation for 100 years.

The community fund will contribute to sustainable health services, agricultural research and development, enhancements to local critical infrastructure and the further development of the local Aboriginal community economy in the host community.

The community fund is one component of the $31 million community development package that the former minister announced in July 2018 to go to the community chosen as the site for the national facility.

This package also includes the Community Skills and Development Program, which will provide $8 million in grants for four years from acquisition of the site, to assist local workers and businesses to maximise opportunities from the construction and operation of the facility.

The package also provides for up to $3 million from the government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy to strengthen Indigenous skills training and cultural heritage promotion in the successful community.

The bill changes the focus of the fund from a state or territory based fund to a community based fund, enabling the host community to make decisions on how the payment is spent to best support the establishment of the facility and its operation in safely and securely managing controlled material.

Finally, the bill also improves the transparency of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 by making a number amendments to provide clear and objective links between the operation of the act and the relevant constitutional heads of power.

In conclusion, this bill signifies the government's commitment to improve the safety associated with radioactive waste storage and management in Australia. The amendments improve the transparency of the site selection and the mechanisms to support the community that will be delivering public services and infrastructure to the facility.

Importantly, the bill brings to a conclusion a prolonged consultation period, providing certainty and clarity to affected communities, and concluding a search for a site that has been ongoing for more than 40 years.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships) (09:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020.

The Australian vocational and education training (VET) sector is a vital engine that drives the Australian economy. The VET sector supports millions of students each year to obtain skills and expertise for success in future employment and further education.

It provides agile pathways for people to enter the workforce, upskill or reskill.

VET qualifications and training need to be of a high standard to ensure they are trusted by students and employers and benefit the wider Australian community.

Delivering excellence in training lies at the heart of the Australian government's skills agenda. That is why in October 2019, this government announced reforms to the agency responsible for regulating the VET sector—the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).

The government has committed $18.1 million towards reforms to enhance ASQA's engagement with the VET sector and ensure its regulatory approach is fair, transparent and effective. The reforms respond to the Braithwaite and Joyce reviews, which both called on ASQA to adopt a greater educative role and improve its regulatory approach.

The first phase of reform is a rapid review of ASQA's governance, culture and processes, which commenced in November 2019. The review is evaluating the effectiveness of ASQA's internal regulatory practices and processes, including how ASQA makes and reviews decisions. The review is due for completion in March this year and will inform a longer-term program of improvements to support ASQA's continued evolution as a modern and effective regulator.

While the review is ongoing, initial work focused on ASQA's governance. The regulatory experts undertaking the review evaluated the alignment of ASQA's current governance arrangements with best practice guidelines and arrangements of comparable bodies across Australia and recommended a revised model for ASQA to support effective, modern, fit-for-purpose governance.

The revised governance model in the bill draws on best practice for Commonwealth regulators. It replaces the existing three commissioner structure with a single agency head, to be known as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ASQA. This will enable the CEO to perform a role more consistent with that of the head of an agency, including leading ASQA's long- and short-term strategy and making top-level managerial decisions that determine the organisation's objectives, resources and policies. This will be supported by a revised organisational structure which will better allocate and clarify operational responsibilities and improve regulatory decision-making.

Further, the bill establishes a statutory expert advisory council to advise the CEO of ASQA. The advisory council fills a gap at the strategic level. Rather than representing particular stakeholder or jurisdictional interests, the council will provide ASQA with access to expert strategic advice to help it to continuously improve as a regulator while maintaining its independent regulatory decision-making. The council will also create a mechanism for meaningful sector engagement and demonstrate ASQA's commitment to ongoing improvement and learning from the expertise of others.

The members of the advisory council will bring to the table diverse skills, such as expertise in regulation, communications, delivering training, and experience operating a training provider. To ensure the right mix of people and skills, I will seek out the views of the Ministerial Council for Skills before appointing the chair or members to the advisory council.

The advisory council will not be a decision-making body but rather a valuable source of strategic advice, a vehicle for confidential information-sharing and a strong foundation for stakeholder confidence in the regulator.

The revised governance model will enhance ASQA's organisational capability and support best-practice regulation, continuous improvement and effective engagement with the VET sector. The changes will facilitate a shift towards a regulatory approach which focuses on combining educating and engaging with registered providers to foster excellence, and compliance monitoring and enforcement. The revised governance arrangements will hold ASQA in good stead to address future challenges such as changes to its internal practice, enhancements to ASQA's educative role and the significant reform anticipated in the VET sector over the coming years.

To ensure that the minister responsible for VET is able to respond effectively to sector issues, the bill clarifies the nature of directions the minister may issue to ASQA to improve its regulatory processes. The bill provides for the minister to give a broad direction to the national VET regulator in relation to the performance of its functions or powers.

In order to maintain ASQA's independence as a regulator, the amendment specifies that the directions must not be in relation to a particular regulatory decision. This will assist the minister to support and direct ASQA without impinging on the statutory independence of the regulator.

The bill also includes information-sharing arrangements that support use of data collected by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, or NCVER, under the act.

Improved information sharing will support governments and regulators so that the diverse needs and requirements of all Australians, including groups with different needs, such as people with disability and those where English is not a first language, are considered in policy, funding and regulation.

Promoting quality in the system will ensure that VET is valued as a legitimate and reliable pathway enabling individuals to achieve personal and professional development and industry to access a work-ready skills base with consistent, relevant and nationally recognised knowledge and skills.

Quality regulation is integral to ensuring that the training system is equipped to deliver high-quality student outcomes and to efficiently adapt to changing skill needs, labour market fluctuations and developing technologies. These reforms will benefit not only ASQA but also the providers they regulate, VET students, graduates, employers and the Australian economy at large.

This bill is another critical step in the government's reform process to support ASQA's continued evolution as a transparent and balanced regulator that engages effectively with stakeholders and builds quality in the VET sector.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (09:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 extends membership of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan to certain current and former Commonwealth employees who are not otherwise eligible to continue making contributions to a fund run by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.

The PSSap, which was established on 1 July 2005, is the current default fund for new Commonwealth employees and employees of prescribed Commonwealth entities. As a fully funded accumulation scheme, the PSSap provides more modern, flexible superannuation arrangements than the older Commonwealth defined-benefit superannuation schemes, all of which are now closed to new members.

This bill ensures that the 'choice of fund' principle extends appropriately to Commonwealth public sector schemes. It allows current and former PSSap members to avoid paying multiple fees to maintain separate funds under different trustees. This bill will support them in saving for their retirement.

In 2017, changes to the PSSap were made to allow former PSSap members to use their existing PSSap account for future contributions if they are no longer in Commonwealth employment and are undertaking employment in which they receive superannuation guarantee contributions.

The bill will further expand the circumstances in which a former PSSap contributory member can use their existing PSSap account in respect of any employment, not just employment that attracts a superannuation guarantee obligation, and to make other contributions, such as non-concessional contributions. PSSap contributory members will also be able to make contributions to their account in respect of any non-Commonwealth employment that they undertake concurrently to their Commonwealth employment.

The bill will also allow certain members of the main Australian government defined benefit civilian superannuation schemes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme who are currently contributing or preserved benefit members to establish a PSSap account where they choose to also have future superannuation contributions held by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation.

The reforms contained in this bill are consistent with the government's broader superannuation objectives to lower the costs that members incur for the administration and management of their superannuation accounts.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (10:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, the government introduces the additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020; and

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020.

These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions.

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $3.310 billion. These bills ensure that there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs—for instance, changes in costs for demand-driven programs. These bills also pay for the first-year costs for measures announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and subsequently announced new measures. This year these bills feature several bushfire-related initiatives that were announced after MYEFO.

I now outline the more significant amounts provided for in this bill.

Firstly, the bill will provide the Department of Home Affairs with $948.4 million to continue implementing the government's border protection policies and support people impacted by the recent bushfires.

Secondly, the bill will provide the Department of Social Services a further $592.6 million for higher-than-expected participation in the Disability Employment Services program and additional emergency relief and financial counselling for communities affected by the recent bushfire emergency.

Thirdly, the bill will provide the Department of Defence with additional funding of $488.8 million, including $87.9 million for the Australian Defence Force's contribution to the bushfire response through Operation Bushfire Assist. Additional funding is also being provided foreign exchange supplementation due to movement in exchange rates, under 'no win/no loss' funding arrangements.

The bill also provides $287.5 million to Services Australia to support individuals, families and communities achieve greater self-sufficiency.

Further, the bill proposes an additional $170.6 million for the Department of Health, including $53.2 million to support access to medicines and medical treatments, $68.2 million in departmental funding to support the delivery of government programs and $30.2 million towards mental, Indigenous and preventative health activities.

The bill also provides $287.5 million to Services Australia to support individuals, families and communities achieve greater self-sufficiency.

Further, the bill also proposes an additional $170.6 million for the Department of Health including $53.2 million to support access to medicines and medical treatments, $68.2 million in departmental funding to support the delivery of government programs and $30.2 million towards mental, Indigenous and preventative health activities.

The bill provides an additional $66.2 million for the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, including for wildlife and habitat recovery in response to the recent bushfire emergency, busting congestion in the environmental assessment process, responding to African swine fever and strengthening the Australian Antarctic program.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements tabled in the parliament.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (10:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020, which was introduced earlier, are the additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year.

This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $2.171 billion. These bills also ensure there is sufficient appropriation to cover estimates variations related to existing programs.

I now outline the most significant items provided for in this bill.

Importantly, the bill provides $1.567 billion to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications primarily for drawdowns for the Commonwealth's loan to NBN Co Limited of $1.2 billion; equity injections of $176.9 million for the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Western Sydney Airport and $166.9 million for the Drought Response, Resilience and Preparedness Plan.

The bill also provides $247.9 million to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, including $235.0 million for loans through the Regional Investment Corporation to farmers and small businesses affected by drought conditions.

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule 1 to the bill and the Portfolio Additional Estimate Statements tabled in the parliament.

I commend this bill.

Debate adjourned.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (10:09): I'm rising in continuation. I began my remarks last night. When the adjournment debate interrupted my remarks, I was just drawing attention to the fact that in a recent survey, in September last year, the Australian Industry Group found that three-quarters of employers they surveyed could not find the skilled and qualified staff they needed for the vacancies that they had. This is a damming indictment on the record of those opposite when it comes to vocational education and training. As I said yesterday, while we don't oppose the particular measures in this bill, they don't go anywhere near restoring the billions of dollars that have been cut from vocational education and training nor the close-to-$1-billion underspend in this area. We have got young people in particular, and workers who are looking at retraining later in life, desperate for an apprenticeship or a training opportunity that would give them the skills that they need to meet the vacancies that employers tell us they have. And yet we somehow can't manage to bring the people who are desperate for a job together with the employers who are desperate to employ them. That is a real mark of the failure of those opposite. It's a skills crisis that is only getting worse, because those opposite don't admit that it's happening, first of all, and have no plan to fix it.

Right across the full range of jobs that we have in our community—plumbers, carpenters, hairdressers, motor mechanics, pastry chefs—there are so many great opportunities and great careers out there, and we're not training people to take them up. Employers wanting to offer good jobs to people with these skills are not able to find skilled workers to take on. This runs the length of our country as well. It is extraordinary that nationally we have fewer Australians doing an apprenticeship or a traineeship today than we did a decade ago. And it's not concentrated in one state or territory; this is right across our country. In every state and territory we see a decline in the number of apprentices and trainees. It's even affecting our defence industry. We've heard today that, despite all the commitments about the local content on the submarine project in South Australia that those opposite originally made, we're really going to struggle to attract some of those jobs to Australia.

On top of this, in December the CEO of Weld Australia told a Senate inquiry into the Australian shipbuilding industry that the nation was not equipped to deliver the next generation of defence vessels. The submission told the Senate that the quality of trades training and the number of maritime engineers are totally inadequate to build new submarines, frigates and patrol boats. How can this be? It's not like it's a surprise that we're going to have these jobs available, that we are investing in these industries in Australia. How can it be that we are not training the Australian workforce to do the work? The Weld Australia submission went on to say that the quality of certificate III apprentices being trained was 'totally unacceptable and not of the required standards for the defence industry' and that 'repeated submissions to consecutive defence industry ministers have been ignored'. This really is as damning as it gets. It's at the heart of Australia's economic and national security interests.

Under those opposite, there are 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees. The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or a traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago. Businesses can't get the skilled staff they need. More people are dropping out of courses than finishing them. There are almost two million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed—they want more hours of work—and yet the Prime Minister has no plan to fix the skills crisis that he created. He's got no plan to support jobs or lift the wages of those who are employed. As always, the Prime Minister would rather hide from the problems than face them. He thinks he can fix them with a marketing campaign rather than actually investing to train Australians for Australian jobs. The Prime Minister would rather spin, deflect and bring in celebrity ambassadors than really tackle the real issues before us. And he wants to blame young Australians and their parents and pretends that they are turning their noses up at jobs in trades. That's simply not the case. There are many people—young people, in particular, and workers mid-career who want to retrain—who would love an apprenticeship, if only they could get one.

There's no substitute for proper funding in this sector, and there's no substitute for leadership. Australia's TAFE and training system is sorely lacking in both. Consequently, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government:

(1) has failed to fix the problems in the vocational training sector; and

(2) instead has:

(a) cut TAFE and training by over $3 billion;

(b) presided over simultaneous crises of youth unemployment and skills shortages;

(c) failed business, which is struggling to fill the skilled roles they have on offer; and

(d) also failed young people desperate for work, who are unable to fill those positions because they have missed out on opportunities for training".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Kearney: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (10:16): I am pleased to rise to speak on a matter of education when we have a group of students sitting up in the gallery. From here, they look quite young—probably still in primary school. I'm sorry if I have just offended you by calling you primary school students. All of you have the options when you leave school to follow vocational education or higher education, to get an apprenticeship or to go out into the workforce. You live in a wonderful country and you've got opportunities available to you. So I hope that you realise that you do live in an absolutely wonderful country.

I'm really happy to speaking in support of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019. Australia's capacity to grow, compete and thrive in an increasingly global economy is dependent on employers and all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances, being able to access and use the right skills at the right time. A strong VET sector, sitting hand in hand and alongside a strong higher education sector, is critical to our economy and to helping prepare Australians for the workforce opportunities of today and the future. Equally important—I would actually say more important—is having the opportunity to acquire useful skills and to be able to pursue employment and work opportunities using those skills. That is vitally important for individual and societal wellbeing. Australia and Australians cannot afford to be left behind in this time of rapid change, a time of escalating digital transformation and disruption. We need to be adaptable and we need an accessible high-quality VET sector that is innovative, robust and responsive to industry needs and ever-emerging gaps.

The size and significance of the VET sector was highlighted in the Braithwaite report of 2016. There are 4,500 RTOs delivering 1,400 qualifications to around 4.2 million students. Private RTOs deliver VET to approximately 58 per cent of students, TAFEs deliver to about 18 per cent and community education providers deliver to nine per cent. VET is also provided by universities, schools, enterprise providers and combinations of providers. In response to the Braithwaite report of 2016, the government fully acknowledged the importance of the VET sector in Australia and for Australia. And, in a suite of actions since then, the government has undertaken the steps of implementing the recommendations from the Braithwaite report and the later Joyce report. A number of those recommendations were in relation to the VET regulator, ASQA.

This bill picks up on the recommendations regarding amending the legislative framework to ensure that the regulator works with the RTOs to lift quality in the sector, while placing only a proportionate regulatory burden on them. Of course, this is all to ensure that our RTOs are of the highest quality and are able to deliver desirable student outcomes. The changes proposed in this bill are part of the government's $18.1 million commitment to supporting reform of the national VET regulator, including its engagement with the sector, and to ensure that its regulatory approach is fair, transparent and effective.

The bill includes a number of provisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, including strengthening registration requirements by requiring organisations to demonstrate a commitment to and capability of delivering quality training. Obviously this is key to the sector. It also clarifies that the standards in relation to VET accredited courses are ongoing standards that must be met the entire way throughout the registration period —not just at the beginning, not just at the end, not just at the time that you are audited. The bill also facilitates electronic sharing of data with prescribed bodies and streamlines sharing of data between ASQA, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research and tuition assurance scheme operators. It also—and this is a critical element—enables the Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment to release information to the public about training by registered training organisations and the outcomes and experiences of students attending RTOs and employers of those students. This is an initiative that has been introduced successfully into the higher education system and is actually a vital element of transparency and a very important tool to enable students, before they make a choice as to where they go, to ascertain what other people are saying about that particular course and that particular provider. The bill also increases transparency in other ways by making public the release of audits by the regulator, so the regulator can make audit reports available.

The minister and assistant minister have been meeting with state governments and VET providers across the country and have undertaken an extensive consultation process to listen to the issues that are of most importance to providers, to industry and to students. In fact the assistant minister recently joined me in my electorate of Curtin for a roundtable dialogue with a number of VET providers who are located in Curtin. He had the opportunity to discuss their views and listen to their feedback. The government has responded to concerns raised throughout this consultation process, and this bill has responded to and addressed some of the concerns which have been raised.

One such concern raised by some stakeholders was the potential that, if ASQA released audit reports, this would have a negative impact on the sector. They queried whether the audit reports are suitable for the public domain. Because of earlier consultations with states and territories on this, care has been taken in the bill to ensure that ASQA is not required to immediately publish audit reports once the amendments in the bill commence. The government is going to continue to work with stakeholders on identifying appropriate information to include in published reports. Audit reports will be published only after this consultation phase has occurred.

Another concern stakeholders raised, which was actually based on a misunderstanding, was that a provider's registration would be able to be cancelled with immediate effect. This is not correct. The amendments in the bill do not change the natural justice requirements in the act that ensure providers are notified of ASQA's intention to cancel and that provide time for RTOs to respond to the notice. The amendments provide ASQA with flexibility and discretion in determining when cancellation would take effect, so as to minimise the impact on students, because it must be student-centric and student-focused in this regard.

The coalition government, as I said earlier, is committed to ensuring that Australians have the right skills for the workforce of today and tomorrow. We are committed to ensuring that we are equipping Australians with the skills they need for good, secure jobs. In 2019-20 we are investing over $3 billion in VET, which includes $1.5 billion given to the states and territories every year through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development; $1.1 billion to fund the government's own skills program, including employer incentives and support for apprentices; and $0.175 billion to the states and territories via the Skilling Australians Fund to support increased apprenticeship and traineeship numbers.

The government's skills package is contributing to an increase in Commonwealth funding to VET over the budget forward estimates. Funding under the NASWD is going to grow to an expected $1.6 billion in 2022-23. Funding for the Commonwealth's own programs is expected to be about $1.3 billion by 2022-23, and funding for income-contingent VET loans is going to be about $0.6 billion in 2022-23.

I am extremely passionate about VET pathways for our students and ensuring that we have a strong and responsive VET sector. In my electorate of Curtin we have over 16,000 people undertaking VET qualifications. This is likely to continue as people look to upskill, to reskill and to adapt to changing times and needs. We need to make sure that we provide them with the pathways they need to succeed, and this bill forms part of the considered, comprehensive and vital changes being implemented by this government. We are committed to and excited about the future of VET in this country.

Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (10:26): Labor will not oppose the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019. The bill reforms the operations of the Australian Skills Quality Authority, the VET regulator. Labor has always and will always support a strong, transparent and properly resourced regulatory framework for ASQA. The bill will strengthen the powers of the regulator to enhance student protections. It improves transparency in ASQA's audit process and will assist in moving ASQA towards a more informative and educative approach to compliance.

Key amendments will impose a new condition of registration that requires RTOs to demonstrate a commitment and the capability to deliver quality vocational education and training. They will strengthen and clarify existing ASQA powers, with stronger civil penalties and powers to make directions. They will require publication of audit reports and enable public sharing of information on RTO performance to improve transparency. They will expand ASQA's scope to adopt a more educative approach to lifting quality in VET, and they will shift ASQA to a full cost-recovery model.

As the member for Sydney noted, we do have concerns about the shift to a cost-recovery model. It was not recommended in the Joyce review, and it may mean that some providers will have to pass the cost of ASQA's services on to students who can least afford it. This is just about the last thing that VET students need. Stakeholders in the sector noted their frustrations with the lack of consultation on the legislation, and there remains some uncertainty as to how many of the changes will work in practice. There is concern about making significant changes while an internal review into ASQA's operations is yet to be finalised. It is incumbent on the government to get this right. The VET sector needs to know how it will work.

I want to put on record why Labor will always support ASQA's strong regulatory framework. It's because we have seen, sadly, the sector almost ruined by scandals and rorts: students who were not even aware they had been signed up to do courses; students enticed into courses that provided scant education and no job prospects but offered enticements like free iPads. RTOs have collapsed, taking with them student dollars and leaving the students saddled with debts. I've heard story after story of young apprentices and trainees being left in the lurch by dodgy RTOs, left with no qualifications and no job, and out of pocket for thousands of dollars. It breaks their hearts and it breaks their parents' hearts.

At a time when we as a nation are screaming out for skilled workers, it's a travesty that this government has neglected the VET sector and our youth. But it is not only our youth. There are many other workers needing reskilling to get a job after they lose theirs or have been made redundant. Think of the workers in the automotive sector. They had good, solid jobs. They were highly skilled workers with decent pay and conditions. Those jobs have gone, on the whim of a Treasurer and his government. Thousands of skilled workers employed directly by the car companies themselves lost their jobs, as did many more thousands in the supply chain or services companies that serviced the automotive sector. Research shows that, when an industry collapses or is shut down, one-third of workers manage to get a similar job, one-third end up in casualised, less skilled, low-paying jobs and one-third never work again.

Planning for full employment, in particular in the face of sectoral change, is complicated but necessary and can be done. Reskilling and retraining are the most important parts of that puzzle for getting those workers back to work. The VET sector, TAFEs, RTOs, community colleges and group-training organisations all have a role in ensuring that we have maximum employment through skilling, reskilling and lifelong learning. In a world where people no longer have a job for life, where workers are more likely to move through the workforce and where technology changes at a rate faster than we can keep up, we must have an agile, comprehensive and valued VET sector.

I come from the Labor Party. That means that I have a vision for VET. Imagine a sector where courses are reworked to reflect new and traditional skills, where teachers are offered secure jobs with good pay, where the best of the best can be attracted to teach, where students are proud to have secured a place at a prestigious TAFE, where they have delivered qualifications that have set them up for life, where students have state-of-the-art equipment and world-class amenities, where qualifications are equally valued with the university sector, where dual qualifications may be possible across the university and TAFE sectors, where businesses compete for collaboration and opportunity, where they open their doors of expertise for people to be trained and where business does their bit for ensuring a future with a productive, skilled workforce. Imagine Australia as a world leader in vocational education and professional standards and growth.

Sadly, we do not have that. It is still just a vision. But we need a framework to set this up. We need a regulator that has a compliance role, for sure, but also a role in education, enabling, transforming and evolving the training organisations. We have a vision for TAFEs and the VET sector, one where they are vital, robust and valued. This government does not. It gives a lot of lip-service, but it doesn't really do anything useful. Yes, we support this bill, but it is just a tinkering in a sector that is crying out for significant reform.

For almost seven years the government has shown a palpable lack of leadership. We're now finally seeing some piecemeal reforms in response to a flurry of quite disconnected reviews, but it's too many wasted years with still no clear vision. The Productivity Commission says the VET system is a mess, the BCA are calling for fundamental reform, and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has called the government's commitment to VET 'lukewarm at best'. The Chief Scientist doubts the system is equal to the challenges posed by a rapidly-changing technological future. Business concerns in relation to skills shortages cannot be addressed with a 'business as usual' approach to skill acquisition, vocational education and TAFE.

Consider this: TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of supported students are lower now than they were over a decade ago. This is despite an increased number of jobs requiring vocational skills. There has been $3 billion in federal funds slashed from the vocational training system, and we learned last year from the federal education department's own data that the Liberal government have failed to spend $919 million of their own TAFE and training budget over the past five years. The Liberal government's $1 billion underspend included incentives for businesses to take on apprentices, support to help people finish their apprenticeships and a fund designed to train Australians in areas of need. These programs are crucial for young people getting their first start in life.

The result? The number of Australians doing an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago, and we have more people dropping out of apprenticeships today than completing them. There has been an almost 10 per cent increase in the number of occupations facing skills shortages—all that, while we have 1.9 million Australians looking for work or looking for more hours of work, and we've got three-quarters of Australian businesses saying they can't find the trained and skilled staff they need.

In my electorate of Cooper, there's an engineering firm that makes intricate metal parts for machinery, and they cannot get apprentices. The ones they have trained have gone on to great higher paid jobs as they have matured with their skills. The owner has no problem with that. He understands he is passing on knowledge and skills to the economy broadly. In fact, he is very proud of his legacy and he knows where many of his apprentices have gone. He would be happy to take on new apprentices but he can't get them. We have a textile manufacturer exporting high-end denim wear to the US and the UK who cannot get machinists and quality cutters—no-one trains them anymore.

I am a nurse. In fact, I did a Bachelor of Education as well as my nursing qualification so I could play a role in the education of future nurses, of enrolled nurses and of carers. I've had experience in both receiving and delivering quality vocational education, and it starts with a commitment to the end goal of skilled workers through collaboration with industry, trainers and government. That connection between industry training organisations and government has broken down. In fact, in many ways, the VET sector has divided and moved away from industry. It is no longer supplying the skills that industry demand, nor is it providing the quality of skills required. In fact, the VET sector is a perfect example of market failure—where the marketisation of the sector created the provision of cheap courses that served neither the workers' interests, nor industry's interest nor the economy's interest. Everyone from the BCA through to the Australian Council of Trade Unions is calling for intervention to restart the process.

Of course, there are many wonderful registered training organisations out there that work very hard day in, day out, but unfortunately the system is failing them and they are finding it harder and harder to do their jobs. The government's response has been pathetic. It is not listening; it is tinkering. It just doesn't care.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (10:36): I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Sydney. Labor does not oppose this bill, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019, which seeks to reform the operation of the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, the national VET regulator, to strengthen its powers, enhance protections for students and improve transparency to assist RTO compliance.

The proposed reforms largely implement recommendations of independent reviews that've been supported by the sector. The amendments will impose a new condition of registration that requires RTOs to demonstrate a commitment and the capability to deliver quality VET; strengthen and clarify existing ASQA powers, with stronger civil penalties and powers to make directions; require publication of audit reports and enable public sharing of information on RTO performance to improve transparency; expand ASQA's scope to adopt a more educative approach to lifting quality in VET; and shift ASQA to a full-cost recovery model.

Stakeholders in the sector support the intention of the bill but express their frustrations with the lack of consultation on the legislation. Consequently, there is some uncertainty as to how many of the changes will work in practice. One proposal which is of particular concern to Labor is for ASQA to move to a full minister-directed cost-recovery model. This may result in some providers passing the cost of ASQA services on to students. This change contradicts the recommendations of the Joyce review which stated:

It is important that ASQA be adequately resourced to perform the guidance and educative role and to perform its role more generally. In many jurisdictions there is an understood difference between parts of the regulator's activity that should be directly funded by the regulated through cost recovery arrangements versus what are broader activities for the 'public good', and should therefore be government funded.

The Joyce review specifically noted that the 'Australian Skills Quality Authority should be specifically resourced to provide broad education and guidance to the VET sector.' We will monitor the adequacy of funding of ASQA to make sure it can perform its regulatory and educative tasks.

Labor has always backed a comprehensive regulatory compliance and education framework for ASQA. Following the large-scale rorting of VET FEE-HELP, ASQA's work is crucial in ridding the sector of dodgy providers. Labor supports a fair and considered approach to reforms. We support changes that improve ASQA's responsiveness to students, communities and employers but reject changes that attempt to weaken ASQA's regulatory framework.

Such a framework is necessary to give students like Heather from Berkeley Vale in my electorate the help they need to deal with dodgy providers. Heather contacted my office because she had enrolled with an online vocational college to complete a certificate III in individual support. Heather had decided to pursue a career in aged care because she understood there were good job prospects on the coast in aged care. She paid $3,000 upfront for her course, and everything was going well until she started looking for a work placement. Her online vocational education provider had promoted itself as providing excellent work placement opportunities. Heather said that, each time she contacted an aged-care employer, they were enthusiastic about giving her a work placement, and then they'd find out which college she was enrolled with and suddenly withdraw their offer. She then started asking them directly why and eventually was told they don't provide placements for students from that college. The college had also promised support finding a work placement but that wasn't the case. Heather said, 'I was basically told it was my responsibility to find an internship and the internship was necessary for me to complete the course.'

She decided to make an informal complaint to the VET provider with the support of my office to prompt the college to deliver on its promises and what she had paid for. She said she found the whole experience stressful and wished she had enrolled with TAFE, which was supported by the employers she wanted to complete an internship with. She was considering taking her complaint to ASQA or simply cutting her losses and moving to TAFE. She told me that she felt ripped off and that she had been misled by the college about its ability to deliver work experience, which was necessary to complete the certificate III. This is just one of the many examples of why ASQA needs stronger powers to support students like Heather to get a fair go and get what they paid for.

The unfortunate thing about this bill is that it is just another tweak from a third-term government in its seventh year not prepared to deliver genuine reform to overhaul the vocational education and training sector. It does nothing to address the damage to vocational education that has occurred under this government. They've slashed funding to TAFE and training, and we've seen a fall in apprentice numbers resulting in a shortage of tradies, apprentices and trainees. The impacts of these cuts are being felt particularly in regional and remote Australia, in places like my electorate of Dobell. I recently surveyed local small business owners and operators, and you won't be surprised that they named skills shortages as one of their major concerns for business growth. At the same time, the Central Coast youth unemployment rate, which has ranged from 9.2 per cent up to as high as 19 per cent since the late nineties, remains stubbornly high. Central Coast business owners need skilled staff. Local young people want the skills for a steady job and a secure future. The missing part of this picture is affordable, high-quality, local vocational education and training.

The Morrison government's cuts to TAFE are making it even harder for young people—and people at any stage in their working life on the coast—to get the skills they need and that local employers want. And this is a problem nationwide. While the Australian Industry Group says 75 per cent of businesses surveyed are struggling to find qualified workers they need, there are about 1.9 million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed. We are experiencing an underemployment and unemployment crisis at the same time as we are experiencing a crisis in skills. Does this government just not get it or do they just not care? Do they care about young people from the coast? Three billion dollars: that is the amount this government has cut from TAFE and training. Young people in the regions, like the Central Coast, are bearing the brunt of these cuts.

As I've said, we have a major shortage of Australian tradies, and this is happening at a time when tradies will be needed for emergency recovery from bushfires, floods and storms. Under the Liberals, there are now 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees across Australia and 37,000 fewer in New South Wales, and there is a shortage of workers in critical services, including plumbing, carpentry and motor mechanics. The number of Australians taking up an apprenticeship or traineeship is lower today than it was a decade ago. There are more people dropping out of apprenticeships and traineeships than there are finishing them and gaining their qualifications. There is a nearly 10 per cent increase in the number of occupations facing skill shortages. The Liberal government either doesn't really care about people looking for work, the unemployed, the underemployed and those seeking skills, particularly in regional remote Australia, or doesn't have the capacity to do the work that needs to be done to build better post-school education. Fiddling at the edges of the system won't address the problems that undermine vocational education and training in Australia today.

Unlike Labor, the government does not understand the critical role of TAFE as a public provider, the value in skills and apprenticeships, or the value of the hardworking and dedicated TAFE teachers. My dad was a TAFE teacher. He was a builder and engineer. He spent many years teaching at TAFE in Ultimo in Sydney and in Newcastle. He got a real sense of satisfaction and pride from teaching engineering at TAFE, the quality of the courses that were provided and the calibre of students who graduated.

In my electorate of Dobell we have two TAFE campuses: Wyong, which offers courses in plumbing, which my brother Eddie did; and electrical and automotive trades at Ourimbah, which offers courses in building and construction. Local students and young people tell me that local TAFEs are now no longer offering the range of courses they need, forcing them to commute. Higher fees and travel costs mean that many can't afford to finish their training. Face-to-face hours have also been slashed. Where courses are available locally, the facilities are aged and outdated and funding isn't being made available by the federal or New South Wales governments to provide local students with the learning environments they need for the skills of today and tomorrow. It could cost as little as $1 million to upgrade a building at Wyong TAFE so that students have the facilities which are taken for granted on other campuses in bigger cities. I committed to this in the May election, and I call on the government to match this commitment. It's urgent. The effect of competition policy and privatisation in the VET sector, coupled with chronic underfunding, has had devastating effects in communities like mine. Too often we have seen dodgy providers overload with students for a quick profit then go belly up, leaving students out of pocket and without the qualifications they need. What will it take for this government to act? It needs to act now.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:46): I stand to support the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019 and the amendment moved by the shadow assistant minister. Labor is not opposing the bill. We support it. There are some sensible changes in this bill. It largely implements the recommendations from the independent Joyce and Braithwaite reviews into the sector. It does address some of the frustrations felt by the RTOs with the existing system, and it adds to an information and education approach to compliance. There are sensible changes, and we support them.

But we have some concerns, as usual, with this government. The devil is in the detail. Firstly, the bill moves to a full cost recovery model for auditing. This goes directly against the recommendations of those independent reviews. They have had independent reviews and taken them on board, but when it comes to costs, no, they won't follow that; instead they'll pass those costs on to the training organisations, against the recommendations of the independent reviews. Of course, what will the training organisations do? How will they recover those costs? They'll pass them on to students and families. Labor is very concerned that this full cost recovery model will push providers into passing costs on to students and that will increase the price of training. Just as we want more students, more young Australians getting into training and taking on these courses, this government is going to make it even harder by making it more expensive to get training.

The government, if it's going to say that that won't happen, needs to make sure that it doesn't happen. It needs to monitor the situation and ensure that these organisations don't do it. But given the track record of this government, I doubt that that monitoring will happen. I think what we will see is that full cost recovery will occur, training organisations will pass those costs on to students, and that will be the end of the matter. I do hope that we don't see students dropping off the perch as a result when it comes to taking on training, but I fear that could be a consequence.

We need to ensure that the reforms to the skills quality assurance system don't allow any drop in quality. In the past, we've seen this government being very slow to act on quality issues when it comes to training. That has done serious reputational damage to the sector. Over the last few years we've seen what a mess has been made of the training sector. Labor has a longstanding commitment to make national TAFE the central pillar of training in this country. TAFE has the runs on the board when it comes to providing proper training and qualifications for students. Of course it has to be funded properly, and I'll come to that. But we see what a mess has been made of training in recent years, with a number of basically sham contractors and sham organisations going belly up and leaving students in the lurch. We need to make sure that quality is looked after. We will not oppose measures that enhance student protections or address provider concerns.

At it's heart—and this is why I do support the assistant shadow minister's amendment—this bill does not come even close to fixing the real mess that this government has made of Australia's TAFE and training system. That is at the heart of this. As useful as these reforms which are before us today in this bill are, they don't really go to the heart of Australia's training system. At the heart of the training system in Australia is the lack of funding under this government.

Our country sits on the doorstep of a continent to our north that is going through one of history's greatest economic transformations. South-East Asia, Asia and India are going through massive economic transformation and we are in the box seat in this country, to take advantage. Our young people can take advantage of those opportunities that are on our doorstep not just overseas but also here in Australia. They are perfectly placed to benefit from the extraordinary growth that's going on around us, and yet under this government we have seen 150,000 fewer apprentices go through the books than previously. What an absolutely wasted opportunity under this government to provide proper training and proper apprenticeships for young people. At a time of extraordinary growth and opportunity, this government has been asleep at the wheel.

We need to be training young Australians in the skills and the qualifications that are required to meet the opportunities to our north, such as in the engineering, construction and maritime industries. There are almost too many to mention, but, unfortunately, this government has just not grasped those opportunities. It has spent the last seven years not just neglecting but destroying our TAFE and training system. If it was just a case of wilfully letting it go, that would be one thing, but it has actually have cut funding over seven years to TAFE and training in this country. The numbers involved are absolutely shocking.

As we learnt last year from the federal government's own data, the Liberals have failed to spend $919 million of their own TAFE and training budget over the past five years. That means the government budgeted nearly $1 billion for TAFE and training and they didn't spend it. They had it in the bucket to invest in TAFE and training, but thought, 'No, we don't need to spend that.' They claim it's because there has not been enough demand from students and families to take up those places. What absolute rubbish! I can tell you that in my electorate there are heaps of kids who want to take up TAFE and training opportunities, but, for all sorts of reasons, whether it's cost, availability or accessibility, they've been unable to take up those opportunities. Instead of assisting kids into these training opportunities, which will put them on the pathway of a better life, this government pocketed that money to go towards its budget numbers. It's all sitting there. It's all sitting in the government's bank account, supposedly earmarked for TAFE and training, doing nothing. And that's on top of the $3 billion that has already been ripped out of the system. We have TAFE campuses falling apart across the country because of rampant capital underinvestment by this government. We've got state governments closing campuses and ending courses all while this nearly $1 billion—$919 million—remains unspent, because there has been 'less demand than forecast'. What an absolute joke. What an absolute abrogation of the responsibility of a national government. This is neglect, pure and simple.

It's not just the decaying infrastructure or the shrinking course options. What this government has caused is a loss of faith in Australia's TAFE and training systems. I remember maybe 40 years ago, when I was a young fella, that TAFE and training was something to aspire to. People had faith in TAFE. They had faith in the technical colleges. They knew that, if you didn't want to go on the pathway to university, you got on the pathway to an apprenticeship or a trade, and TAFE was the way to get there. You could be sure that the qualifications you got would help you get a good job. You would be provided with the skills you needed to get a good job. This government, through its wilful neglect of the sector, has absolutely destroyed that reputation. We have, by the defence industry—just as the defence budget is increasing—a submission from Australian shipbuilding to say the quality of certificate III apprentices currently being produced was 'totally unacceptable and not of the required standards for the defence industry'. What an absolute indictment of the current training standards under this government that the defence and shipbuilding industry feels that the current levels of training are not up to standard to work on Australian manufacturing. That is an absolute disgrace.

This hasn't happened by accident. This government's $1 billion underspend has been on incentives for businesses to take on apprentices, support to help finish their apprenticeships and a fund designed to train Australians in areas of need. That's what they've underspent on. They've underspent on programs that are meant to help get kids in these schemes. They've underspent the money. I don't understand their methodology at all.

I come to my own state. All signs show that the TAFE and training system in Tasmania is not working. As I've said, on a national level we have 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees. In Tasmania between 2013 and 2018—that's a period covered entirely by Liberal governments, both here in Canberra and in Tasmania—we had a decrease of 12.52 per cent in apprentices. There have been 12.52 per cent fewer apprentices over those five years than previously. That is 1,200 fewer apprentices being trained in the skills that our state needs to continue to grow.

What happens when you don't train young people in plumbing, carpentry, electrical engineering and all the skills you need for construction and road building and to keep the economy moving? What happens when you don't have the skills being trained locally? You bring the labour in from overseas. If employers can't get young people trained in these jobs, they put their hand up and say to the government, 'We need temporary visas to bring people in from overseas.' And that's an absolute indictment when we have the current levels of youth unemployment. We see workers coming in from overseas on temporary visas taking up jobs that young Australians should be getting qualifications in. It's an absolute failure of policy.

We have a mass shortage of critical trades—carpenters, plumbers and mechanics—and unacceptable unemployment and underemployment rates in my state. In September last year Tasmania's jobless rate was 6.7 per cent and our underemployment rate—as we know, they are people who may be employed for one, two or five hours a week and desperately want more work—was 10.6 per cent. That is the worst in Australia. I remind you that this is the worst in Australia at a time when the Liberal government in Tasmania is telling Tasmanians that we're in a golden age. We're in a golden age in Tasmania, yet underemployment in my state is 10.6 per cent!

Our workforce participation rate is 60.3 per cent. That means that a lot of people are looking for work and more work. It's worse if you're a woman. In the 12 months before September 2019 more than 5,000 full-time jobs were lost in my state. At a time when we have a $919 million underspend in TAFE and training, 150,000 fewer apprentices and a record number of people coming in on temporary work visas, we have seen 5,000 full-time jobs lost in my state. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if we train more local young people in the skills for local jobs then we won't need to bring as many people in from overseas.

We have seen interstate and overseas plasterers, plumbers and electricians brought in to work on the Royal Hobart Hospital upgrades. We have seen the Cattle Hill Wind Farm in my electorate and a lot of other major projects bring in workers from interstate and overseas because they can't source locally skilled labour. That locally skilled labour should be provided by local TAFEs and training organisations. What a wasted opportunity by both the state and federal Liberal governments.

Because of our failing TAFE system and the poor quality of our VET courses too many people are unable to explore the pathways that will provide them with the foundation on which they can build their skills and find new jobs in an economy that is changing and resulting in the disappearance of low-skilled jobs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed the local supermarket's push to get people to use the self-serve check-outs. You might think it is a small thing, but for every person who goes through a self-serve check-out that's a person not being served by someone with a job. If you don't go to a cashier and you do it yourself, that's one less job. I'm not the only one—I make a point of never using a self-serve check-out. No matter how inconvenient it is, I make sure I stand at a check-out with a cashier. And when the supervisors come up to me and say, 'Sir, would you like to use our self-serve check-out?' I say: 'No, thanks. I'm protecting jobs. I'll stay here.' Hopefully, if more people do that, that will force those supermarkets to put on more cashiers and stop this rampant use of auto check-outs, because I know what's happened on the mainland. In Sydney, where my brother lives, they used to have self-serve check-outs and they'd have enough people to manage it. Of course, what they have done now is cut all the staff. All the staff have gone. All the cashiers on the check-outs have gone. Now they've got long queues on the self-serve check-outs, so it's no quicker than it used to be. People have been trained to use a self-serve check-out; meanwhile the supermarkets are saving millions of dollars in lost jobs.

The point here is that these low-skilled jobs that employed people—good jobs for people with low skills—are going. They're being automated out. Automation is taking over, and they're going. So, in conclusion, I would just like to say we support this bill before the House, but I do support the assistant shadow minister. It's a very good amendment. This government needs to be held to account for its dismal failure towards Australia's TAFE and training system.

Dr ALY (Cowan) (11:01): I've been a TAFE teacher, a university lecturer and a university professor and I've managed some registered training organisations in the past. Let me say, I'm very proud of Australia's world-class training and education system. I think that that's particularly reflected in the case of a constituent of Cowan, Mr Anthony Di Cristofaro, who lives not very far from me. Last year he was awarded the Apprentice of the Year at the WA Training Awards. Anthony took the time to write to me at length about his story and to tell me about his struggles to get an apprenticeship, what he went through and the incredible resilience that he showed in sticking with his apprenticeship. Just two weeks before he started his apprenticeship, his mother was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Anthony has three children, so he became a primary carer for his mother as well as looking after his three children while also trying to complete this apprenticeship. He is now a very successful carpenter. Anthony's story reminds us of the importance of a world-class training system and the importance of ensuring that we have a well-regulated training system so that people like Anthony who want to retrain, who want to become skilled, can do that.

I also want to speak to this as a mother. As a mother, let me say this: there is absolutely nothing more disheartening than watching your child's dreams disintegrate and feeling powerless to do anything about it. I see that when I have fathers coming to my office who have sons or daughters who want to take up apprenticeships and they want nothing more than to see their child succeed in acquiring those skills. But I hear these stories of how these young people have had to give up their dreams because they can't access the apprenticeships and the traineeships that they want to access because of cuts to our public training system.

This bill goes some way to achieving some form of regulation in the training system. It imposes a new condition of registration that requires registered training organisations to demonstrate a capability and commitment to deliver quality vocational education and training, which we on this side know is very important. Labor, of course, supports a strong, robust and effective vocational education and training system.

The bill strengthens and clarifies existing ASQA powers, with stronger civil penalties and powers to make directions. Importantly, the reforms follow some widespread frustration among registered training organisations about the way in which ASQA currently conducts some of its audits. These include concerns about an audit culture that focuses on minor issues that don't necessarily impact on the quality of teaching and learning, and concerns about the variability of treatment of providers by different auditors. I have another example from my electorate of Cowan. In this case an RTO in the construction industry failed compliance with ASQA on some minor admin and website errors. As a consequence, they were deregistered. The impact of that was that, in this particular case, 140 students who completed their training were left without a qualification.

I certainly welcome a more robust approach to RTOs and to quality in our vocational education system. Labor's position on this is that we will always continue to back a strong and comprehensive regulatory compliance and education framework for ASQA, particularly following the widespread rorting of the VET FEE-HELP program. We recognise ASQA's vital work in attempting to rid the sector of low-quality and unscrupulous providers, but, there needs to be some form of standardisation in the way in which ASQA approaches its duties to ensure that providers that are providing quality vocational education and training aren't punished for minor errors and that compliance is based on the quality of education and training that's being provided.

While we support a fair and considered approach to the ASQA reforms and we support changes that improve ASQA's capacity to ensure a responsiveness to students, communities and employers, we will not support any changes that attempt to weaken their regulatory framework. We'd like to monitor the implementation of these and other forthcoming amendments to the regulatory arrangements. The shadow minister has spoken about that at length as well.

In talking about the importance of vocational education and training to Australia's education system and its contribution to education, skills and employment, it would be remiss of me not to mention this government's failure to adequately fund and support our public vocational education and training system. Members before me have spoken about the decrease in the number of apprenticeships and traineeships. In my electorate of Cowan the largest number of people employed are in the trades. That has fallen quite dramatically since this government has taken power. I know that is not due to natural attrition. I know that because, as I said in my opening remarks, I have parents and young people coming into my office seeking out apprenticeships and traineeships, seeking out vocational education and training courses that are no longer available at their local TAFE. As a university professor I used to get prospective students come to me. The first thing I would say to them is, 'Why do you want to do a university degree?' I held, and I still stand by this, that not everybody needs to go to university, not everybody wants to go to university and not everybody should go to university. We need a strong vocational education and training sector to train a whole range of skills that aren't provided by the university sector. I gave the example earlier of Anthony, who was the WA Apprentice of the Year. He started out studying for a degree in psychology, I believe, and then changed to commerce. Then he decided that university just wasn't for him. That's not an unusual story. I see a lot of young people and older people who start a university degree and decide that it isn't for them. They want to do a trade. They want to acquire a skill. They rely on our vocational education and training sector to be able to acquire what they need to enter the workforce and be productive and participate in our economic life. It is vitally important that we continue to provide that service for people who are looking for jobs, for people who want to acquire a skill and for people who want to enter a trade, particularly in the construction areas. This is what we need. This is what it means to have a comprehensive education system that affords an opportunity for every Australian to participate fully in the social and economic aspects of our society. It shouldn't just be about universities. It should also be about vocational education and training.

A strong economy requires a skilled workforce. It requires a workforce that is able to meet the demands of industry, and our VET sector is best placed to do that. It is best placed to be really responsive to the demands of industry as those demands change. We need to support our VET sector, particularly public vocational education and training, to ensure that students walk away with a high-quality education that gives them the best opportunity for meaningful employment. I've said this before in this House and continue to hold by this: vocational education and training is an important pillar of our community. It's not just part of our education system; it's part of something that Australia can be proud of. We export education, we export VET, and we should continue to do so.

But I want to make mention of this government's failure to ensure that we have a strong public vocational education and training sector. As somebody who worked at TAFE, I continue to keep up with people that I worked with at TAFE: teachers and managers at the different TAFE campuses where I worked before I entered the university sector. What I'm hearing from them is that many TAFEs have had to reduce the number of course offerings they have. This has meant that they have had to lay off some of the teachers or casualise a lot of their workforce. This is a direct result of this government's track record on training, which, quite frankly, has been appalling—quite appalling.

To me, it appears very clear that the government don't respect vocational education and training, at least not in the public sense. They don't know how to support our VET sector, and it shows. It shows. They have a strong record of cuts to the VET sector, to our public TAFEs. They have a strong record of failing to ensure a robust VET sector. While the bill, which we are supporting here today, goes some way, in terms of the regulation of private RTOs, it does nothing to restore the public vocational education and training sector, which, at one point, was a real sense of pride for Australia.

I remember travelling—about eight years ago, now—to the Gulf States on a business mission and talking to people there who were keen to tap into our expertise on vocational education and training, particularly Australia's TAFE model, the VET sector model, of being responsive to industry needs, and the construction of our training programs. I'm afraid that that's gone. I'm afraid that we've lost the capital that we had to export education, to be a world leader in vocational education and training. And I'm afraid that it's as a direct result of this government's failure to adequately fund the TAFE sector and their ignorance of the TAFE system.

We have fewer apprenticeships and traineeships available today. As I said, while we support these reforms, because they contribute to a more robust regulatory system for RTOs, Australia still has a long way to go to regain the reputation we had as a world leader in the VET sector. I implore this government to turn their attention to the public TAFE system, to recognise the importance of VET in our education system for our employment sector, and, particularly, to give hope to those young people who want to take up a trade, who want to learn a skill and who want to contribute to our economy.

Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships) (11:15): I rise to sum up the debate on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019. I'd like to thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate on this bill, which will ensure that the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, is positioned to safeguard and enhance the reputation and integrity of Australia's vocational education and training, or VET, sector. I'd also like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for its consideration and scrutiny comments on the bill, contained in Scrutiny digest 1 of 2020.

Last year this government committed $18.1 million to support the reform of ASQA. These reforms will ensure that regulation of the VET sector is transparent and effective and is aligned with modern best-practice models of governance and engagement. This bill is the first tranche of changes to ASQA, which respond to the recommendations from the 2018 Braithwaite review of the regulator's primary legislation and the 2019 Joyce review of VET, to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose.

This bill supports ASQA's move towards transparency, ensuring it is a balanced regulator that builds quality and capacity in the VET sector. These measures ensure the regulator has the necessary powers to scrutinise registered training organisations, RTOs, and ensure that only those RTOs genuinely committed and adequately resourced to deliver quality training to students will be allowed to operate. Where ASQA must cancel an RTO's registration for noncompliance with the VET quality framework, the amendments provide ASQA with flexibility and discretion in determining when cancellation or refusal of registration takes effect so as to minimise the impact on students. In practice the amendments will allow providers in some circumstances to continue operating for a period while students complete their training or arrange to transfer to another provider.

It is critical for ASQA to follow standard regulatory procedures so RTOs are afforded the principles of natural justice and decisions are supported by sound evidence. There are existing natural justice requirements in the NVETR Act that ensure providers are notified of ASQA's intention to cancel and provide time for RTOs to respond to the notice. These remain unchanged by these amendments, and the RTOs will continue to have access to appeal processes.

Improved transparency of regulatory actions will occur with the public release of RTO audit reports once an appropriate format for these reports has been consulted on and agreed. This important measure will improve VET sector confidence in the ability of the regulator to make appropriate, consistent and proportionate regulatory decisions. Expanding information entered on the publicly available national register and enabling ASQA to share information electronically with those responsible for administering laws to the VET sector will assist students to make informed enrolment decisions and provide employers with better information about training quality. Further technical amendments in the bill support ASQA to be a more responsive and efficient regulator and facilitate improved engagement with the sector.

I understand the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, has written to the chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Helen Polley, to thank the committee for its scrutiny comments, made in Scrutiny digest 1 of 2020. The minister has responded to the committee's request for advice in relation to several issues in the bill. Having considered the observations and comments made on the bill, no amendments were considered appropriate.

This bill is the first step in a suite of measures the government is bringing forward to enhance ASQA's regulatory approach and ensure Australia's ongoing capacity to deliver quality VET training to meet the needs of a growing, skilled economy. Once again, I thank all the members for their engagement, feedback and scrutiny of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sydney has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Sydney be agreed to.

Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships) (11:27): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (11:27): In accordance with standing order 216, on behalf of the Privileges and Members' Interests Committee I present the report concerning the registration and declaration of members' interests during 2019.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:43): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) evidence provided to the Senate indicates that NBN Co reduced regional investment by $200 million between 2018 and 2022 relative to the 2019 Corporate Plan;

(b) this decrease in regional investment was concealed in the 2020 NBN Co Corporate Plan; and

(c) NBN Co has given three contradictory and unsatisfactory explanations as to why investment in regional networks was reduced;

(2) further notes significant concerns that the Government is introducing a broadband tax in the name of regional funding, while reducing regional investment in broadband networks in the NBN 2020 Corporate Plan; and

(3) calls on the Government to restore the funding allocation for investment in regional NBN networks".

Labor supports the establishment of a statutory infrastructure provider regime outlined in this bill. The proposed framework will provide additional certainty that, as we move beyond the initial rollout of the National Broadband Network, every Australian premise can continue to access a high-speed broadband connection. This is a natural extension of the arrangements Labor put in place nearly 10 years ago through a statement of expectations issued to the NBN board. The statement of expectations required NBN Co to make high-speed broadband available to all Australians regardless of where they live or work. This will continue to happen and this bill provides that certainty.

It is not lost on anybody that after more than a decade in power through the 1990s and 2000s the Liberal-National Party had left Australia in a broadband backwater. It was Labor who carved out the principle that all Australians should have access to modern communications infrastructure. It was Labor who stood up for the regions not with rhetoric but with a considered policy to deliver universal access to high-speed broadband, universal pricing and investment to make that a reality. The Liberals and Nationals tried to prevent it. They did nothing to promote competition. They did nothing to promote investment. They privatised Telstra as a vertically integrated monopoly. The only thing promoted by the Liberals over that sorry period was stagnation and higher prices in our regions. Labor, in government, put an end to that mediocrity.

One of the things that galls me is that the government is today seeking to progress a broadband tax—supposedly, in the name of regional funding. Yet we recently learned that in the 2020 corporate plan, regional investment in the NBN was actually reduced by $200 million. This is despite NBN Co incorporating revenues from this unlegislated levy into their corporate plan. It raises a legitimate question: why is this government progressing a broadband tax in the name of regional funding while cutting regional NBN investment at the same time? Why did the government try to conceal this funding reduction in the NBN corporate plan? The fact is that the information that would've revealed this funding reduction was left out, despite it being regularly published in the previous corporate plans. We only found out because the Senate sought access to the data, which clearly shows a $200 million reduction of capital expenditure in the fixed wireless network.

The legislation we in the House are considering today seeks to introduce a new broadband tax on the telecommunications sector. On 28 November 2019, the Senate referred the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry. But before I go into the bill, it's important we cover some of the history.

Prior to the 2013 election, Malcolm Turnbull and others were encouraging private companies to compete directly with the government owned entity. They didn't do this out of principle; they did this because they wanted to wreck the NBN. They wanted it to fail because it was a Labor conception. Then, 10 days after the 2013 election, TPG announced it wanted to expand a fibre-to-the-basement network in inner city areas to up to half a million homes. As you would expect, this created alarm, both within NBN Co and subsequently within the government. They understood—as anyone with common sense understood—that if TPG began cherrypicking profitable parts of the fixed-line NBN footprint, then the economics of the project would come unstuck. This was not in the interests of taxpayers, and it was not in the public interest, given that the NBN ship had already sailed. The concept of what was to become the proposed broadband levy was given to the government initiated Vertigan review in 2014, which examined different options to offset NBN's losses in fixed-wireless and satellite networks.

The Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts claimed that the government adopted this levy because it was a recommendation of the Vertigan review. He said:

The legislative package to be introduced shortly implements the recommendations of the Vertigan Review which reported in 2014.

That is not entirely accurate. Allow me to quote what the Vertigan review actually said:

By far the best option for funding any ongoing subsidy would be through consolidated revenue. Among other advantages, that would allow Parliament and the public to assess in an ongoing way the benefits of using taxpayer funds for this purpose rather than others. However, should that option not be adopted, the panel recommends that, if an ongoing subsidy is required and its minimum amount can be reliably determined, a single, annual, broad‐based industry levy, covering both voice and broadband services, be imposed to fund that subsidy. This would be similar to the current arrangements for the Universal Service Obligation (USO), which are outlined in Appendix 3.

So let's make two things clear. First, the Vertigan review did not recommend a levy on the industry and consumers as its first preference. Its preference was funding from consolidated revenue. Second, the levy recommended by the review was a broad based levy. The bill before us does not propose a broad based levy. What the government have done is design a levy with a narrow base in order to produce a high charge. They have done this for the purpose of preventing competition. Then the industry has had to put up with the unedifying spectacle of the minister writing an op-ed pretending that this bill is about being pro-competition. This brings me to an important point.

The coalition has built an inferior NBN for $51 billion. It has cost more to build than the original fibre network. It costs more to operate. It offers slower speeds. It's less reliable. It requires more funding to upgrade. It would not have been necessary under the original plan. It is more exposed to competition. As of a fortnight ago, Australia had fallen to 68th in the world for broadband speeds and fourth-last in the OECD, according to the Speedtest Global Index.

Even as recently as yesterday, the ACCC took what can only be described as a direct swing at the performance of fibre to the node, following its latest broadband speed monitoring report. I point out that fibre to the node is actually the most prevalent fixed-line technology in regional Australia. The ACCC stated—and it wasn't subtle; it was very direct:

… many high speed fibre to the node (FTTN) connections still don't come close to performing as promised. The results show that about a quarter of those consumers on FTTN connections, who are paying for high-speed 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps plans, still did not receive anywhere near their full plan speeds, at any time.

Mr Sims, the ACCC chairman, went on to say:

This Measuring Broadband Australia data clearly shows that too many consumers with FTTN connections are not receiving the speeds they are paying for.

So the very valid question that Australian consumers should be asking, including those in rural and regional Australia is: why has this government built a $51 billion network that is still not delivering the speeds that Australians are paying for?

I note that at a speech to CEDA last year the minister said:

We are going to need to rely on and boost competition to make sure that our fixed networks continue to upgrade and stay in tune with world developments.

Yet the legislation proposed by the minister directly contradicts that statement. It actually achieves the opposite. It's the sort of doublespeak that the industry is sick and tired of and that consumers are sick and tired of. The industry expects better than this.

The government is asking this sector to believe this legislative package, headlined by a new broadband tax, should be seen as a gift to improve competition. While it might be inconvenient to concede that the primary reason the government instigated the levy was to deter TPG from cherrypicking inner-city basements, given the negative impact this would have on the economics of the NBN, most of industry and Labor support that objective. I've always been upfront about that. I believe it's in the interests of taxpayers and in the long-term interests of the project. Yet, from the outset, the government have been too insecure to acknowledge this as an objective of their policy. Instead, to give the appearance of having a more neutral purpose, the levy was expanded into greenfields networks.

The greenfields networks don't cause revenue leakage to NBN Co. In fact, if it wasn't for operators like OptiComm, peak funding for the NBN build would be higher than it is today because the NBN would have had to fund construction in those areas by itself. How does this supposedly pro-market, pro-investment Liberal Party reward them? With a tax on their operations and on their customers. Furthermore, the levy was also extended to enterprise markets. Not only is there no revenue leakage for NBN Co but we have a situation where NBN Co often causes revenue leakage to the incumbent. This was captured well in a submission by Optus, which noted:

… the provision of services to enterprise and government customers over non-NBN networks does not displace any NBN Co revenue or preclude NBN Co from making sufficient revenue from its metro connections to internally cross-subsidy the fixed wireless and satellite networks.

Labor's focus was on introducing a legislative amendment to help grandfather existing greenfields networks built before 1 July 2019 until the policy could be revisited at a later time. We did not consider the retrospective application of the levy to be fair, as greenfields did not pass the test of causing revenue leakage to NBN Co.

So, as I recently noted, I was surprised to see the minister, in an opinion piece, characterise this exemption as a pro-competitive measure agreed between the government and Labor. It is almost as though the government, which has no credibility on this matter, is trying to cling to Labor and claim that we're on some sort of unity ticket when it comes to competition policy. The fact is this: the greenfield exemption was a Labor amendment that had the backing of crossbench senators. To imply that it was worked up and somehow agreed between the major parties is a disingenuous description of what occurred. The government chose to adopt this amendment because Labor had secured the votes to pass it. Further, if the government considers the ALP amendment to be pro-competitive then what does that say about the original bill?

On that note, I'll run through some of the comments made by the industry itself—firstly, from Vodafone:

Not only will the RBS perpetuate the trend of opaque and anticompetitive telecommunications policy, it will chill investment in both fixed and mobile telecommunications infrastructure …

Senator Urquhart, at the Senate committee's public inquiry on the bill, asked Opticom:

… Will the broadband levy increase or decrease the incentives that you have to invest?—

Opticom—

… It would decrease.

Again, Senator Urquhart, at the hearing, asked of Telstra:

… will the proposed levy increase or decrease the incentives that private sector carriers have to invest in their own fibre infrastructure?—

Telstra—

… I think logically it would decrease those incentives …

In its submission to the Senate inquiry, Vocus stated:

The likely effect of limiting the RBS charge base exclusively to fixed-line high-speed broadband services will be to further incentivise private-sector investment in mobile and fixed-wireless services (which will increasingly be capable of undercutting NBN prices, as they will not be subject to the RBS levy), and to further disincentivise investment in fixed-line services …

Internet Australia, in its submission, stated:

In many respects the new RBS is anti-competitive in structure and scope, and designed more to prop-up the NBN funding regime than to enable open and transparent infrastructure competition to improve and advance broadband service availability in regional and remote areas.

I now want to run through Labor's position on the bills.

For starters, Labor supports the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill. By and large, it's sensible, and, for the reasons I outlined earlier, Labor will support it. The broadband levy that is being proposed by this government is highly regrettable. The criticisms levelled at the government's levy design by the ACCC, the Productivity Commission and industry are fair criticisms. It is distortionary. It is anti-competitive. It has been poorly designed. It does present legitimate implementation issues. It is all of those things. That is why Labor pursued an amendment—which has been incorporated into the bill—to reduce the impact of the levy on greenfield consumers. But I want to put on the record that we do have outstanding concerns about the levy, as do many others in the sector.

Our first concern is a lack of transparency in relation to the modelling upon which this levy is based. Explanations given by public officials about why the model has not been updated have been unsatisfactory. I genuinely do not understand why the government simply don't do this. There's broad agreement that the modelling on which the levy is based is out of date. They've had two solid years to update it, and at every opportunity that reasonable request has been ignored. The BCR issued its first consultation in May 2015, with the government responding in December 2016. As a result, the legislation we are now debating is based on work performed half a decade ago when NBN's fixed-wireless and satellite network rollouts were still in their infancy. Today, some five years later, the fixed-wireless and satellite networks are largely complete. The real-world costs are better understood, particularly in relation to fixed wireless, which has been more expensive than originally envisaged. The existing costings are out of date, and there is general agreement that they should be updated.

Taking all this into account, Labor will introduce an amendment in the Senate to require an updated RBS model to be produced. We will consider putting this exercise in the hands of the ACCC. The modelling should be independent, transparent and based on the best available data. Stakeholders have a right to expect the highest standard of transparency in relation to a taxation bill. There was broad support for this additional transparency during the public inquiry.

The second concern relates to the grant-making mechanism. Both NBN and non-NBN networks will be subject to a levy that is collected by the ACMA and then paid back to NBN Co through a departmental grant. In accounting terms, we are not talking a trivial amount of money. All up, the levy is $800 million per annum. The question is: what happens when that $800 million flows into NBN? What we do know is that NBN Co does not need $800 million a year to operate and upgrade the fixed-wireless and satellite network going forward. It does not even need close that to that amount. The question is: where does that access money go? The answer is that the surplus, in effect, goes wherever NBN Co wants it to go. The money comes in and likely will be washed through an account with an endless pool of historical non-commercial losses. An NBN accountant, presumably, then takes out a pen, signs a piece of paper and declares the excess revenue offset a historical loss that NBN Co probably never intended to recover anyway. Then the money goes straight back into the core business.

There is no requirement to spend the surplus tax revenue on regional networks, even though that is the impression this bill has created for some stakeholders. If NBN Co wants to direct it towards the HFC cost blowouts, then that's where it will go. If they want to spend it on IT systems, that's where it will go. In practice, this all appears to be permitted.

This is not a criticism of NBN Co itself. Rather, it is an observation that the bill before the House is not a regional funding mechanism. It is an administrative charade. It deters cherrypicking and raises a bit of new revenue. Yet look at how much legislative complexity and red tape has been created to give the illusion that it is a funding mechanism. How did the government manage to develop such a nonsense? This is the same directionless overreach that undid the spectrum review. It's the same mediocrity that plagued the USO review, whose only output was a new acronym. The sector deserves better than this. Consumers deserve better. Regional Australia deserves better.

The final concern I have is about who bears the burden of the enterprise levy. This government is imposing a wholesale tax on telecommunications providers supplying enterprise markets. Enterprises are arguably the only bunch getting a good deal out of the NBN under the multi-technology mix. Prices for enterprises are coming down because of NBN having entered an already crowded market of competitors, yet the best idea this government could come up with was a levy on the incumbent telcos. The competition in the enterprise market means that providers are strongly competing to win customers or to avoid losing them. This makes it difficult for the levy to be passed through to enterprises, which have more of a capacity to pay it. NBN Co stated before the public inquiry that they do not price the levy into their enterprise products because their pricing is dictated by the market. This suggests that the industry will likely bear the brunt of this levy. So we have a situation where consumers will pay higher prices as a result of the government's tax, whereas the telecommunications industry will likely take the brunt on behalf of large enterprises. That simply doesn't seem right. In my view the industry should not have to absorb the government's enterprise tax from their bottom line. We can't see an immediate or effective legislative solution to this, but it's an issue that the government is urged to give consideration to.

In conclusion, as I have noted, for Labor to oppose the levy outright would hurt the long-term economics of the NBN, which is not in the public interest, and this is consistent with our position in the previous term of the parliament. That is why Labor pursued an amendment to reduce the impact of the levy on greenfield consumers, which has been incorporated into the bill, and will continue to reserve the right to pursue other measures, as I've indicated, when this matter comes before the Senate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Catherine King: I second the amendment.

Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (12:05): I'm pleased to be able to rise in this debate on two separate but related bills, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019. Labor supports the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill and the establishment of the statutory infrastructure provider regime outlined in it. The regime will provide additional certainty that, as we move beyond the initial NBN rollout, every Australian home and small business will continue to have the right to access a high-speed broadband connection. You'd hardly expect Labor to have an issue with this, given that it flows naturally from the arrangements that we put in place a decade ago through the statement of expectations issued to the NBN Co board. The statement of expectations at that time required NBN Co to make high-speed broadband available to all Australians, regardless of where they live or work, and this bill provides certainty that that will continue.

Labor wants today what it wanted a decade ago when we conceived of the National Broadband Network. We want every home and every small business in this country to have access to reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband. When the Rudd government was elected in 2007, Australian internet speeds and access badly languished. They really languished. The average connection speed was about two megabits per second, which ranked us shamefully low in global speeds. Today the internet is profoundly woven into our lives. It's very hard to overstate its influence. In the 1980s the author and journalist Tom Wolfe coined the phrase 'Masters of the Universe' to describe the potency of a new generation of young, ambitious Wall Street bankers. Today the new 'Masters of the Universe' reside in Silicon Valley.

The Howard government, though, apparently never saw this coming. The internet launched five years before that government was first sworn in, and they proceeded to ignore this increasingly central phenomenon for more than a decade. The Rudd government's sorry inheritance in 2007 was a telecommunications infrastructure in this country that had badly suffered through neglect and indifference, infrastructure that lacked a vision and imagination leading its rollout, infrastructure so inadequate that Australia was handicapped, and not just economically. It was what the Rudd government sought to address through the National Broadband Network. It was Labor that asserted the principle of universal access to modern technology—to fast, reliable internet.

Those opposite were fiercely opposed to this principle. Those opposite called it delusional. We really had to drag them, kicking and screaming, into the future. Labor understood the importance of the internet. We understood that it was world-changing technology, and the fact that we lagged behind much of the world in our access to it was an imperative to be remedied by the government. Labor understood its influence and acknowledged that its influence would only grow, sometimes in ways that we couldn't yet imagine. It would change the way that we consumed, sold, exported, imported, taught, learnt and communicated. It would change the way we listened to music and watched films. It would change the way we created and received news and would have ramifications for health, finance and even dating. It would have ramifications, really, for every component of our lives. This is how fundamental the underlying infrastructure was.

The Howard government, however, didn't care, didn't know or didn't understand. Labor is proud of the vision the Rudd government offered to Australians in the form of the National Broadband Network—proud, particularly, of its principle of universal access. So the National Broadband Network was born. It was an ambitious, nation-changing project, but one with a simple motto: do it once and do it right. That meant connecting the vast majority of homes in this country with high-quality fibre-to-the-home connections. Fibre is quick and enduring. It lasts and is futureproof. The network was simply too important to be compromised by political expediency or ignorance, but, unfortunately, that's exactly what has happened. In 2020 we have a network that is badly compromised. Having neglected the internet up to 2007, the coalition government has now neglected the National Broadband Network. Those opposite aren't great friends with the future.

In 2013 the degradation of the NBN began when the coalition was elected. This occurred with forewarning to the Australian public. When Tony Abbott gave Malcolm Turnbull the communications portfolio in 2010, he told the Australian public that Malcolm Turnbull would 'demolish the NBN'. Those were his written instructions and, sadly, he got to it when they won the 2013 election. It was one of the few election promises that they really did keep.

When Malcolm Turnbull came into the communications portfolio with the ignorant boast that he could deliver Australia a completed network much faster and much cheaper, he was wrong. He was badly wrong. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government stopped an at-scale national rollout of the NBN. It stopped an at-scale rollout of a high-quality, futureproof, fibre-to-the-home network in favour of what they called a multitechnology mix—'a dog's breakfast' might be a better description for it—in which a patchwork of legacy networks were sweated throughout the country to cover the nation. They didn't just set out to retain the ageing legacy copper wiring for a fibre-to-the-node network deployment but actively started buying new copper to roll out across the nation, putting Australia on our own as the country investing in the past. It was like a nation greeting the arrival of the automobile age by purchasing new fleets of horses and carriages. They did it anyway and they boasted of saving money, except that they didn't. If your home wasn't utilising the old copper system, it was serviced by a mix of inferior fibres of HFC and the like. This requires future upgrading, unlike in the original plan. And guess what? The multitechnology mix is costing big dollars. NBN Co has calculated the multitechnology mix will cost $200 million more per year to maintain and operate while reducing revenue for NBN Co by $300 million compared to the original fibre-to-the-premises plan—that's an absurd half a billion dollars in the NBN Co's economics.

The legacy of the coalition government in this place is perverse. They promised to offer Australians a network that was completed more quickly than that proposed by the previous Labor government and offered faster speeds and lower cost, but it struck out on all three fronts. The decision to badly compromise the network has actually cost Australians more. We now have a poorer network at a greater cost. We've seen evidence for this this very week. The ACCC's latest broadband speed monitoring report is a scathing indictment of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's multitechnology mix. In a statement accompanying the release of the report, the ACCC couldn't have been clearer when it stated:

… many high speed fibre to the node (FTTN) connections still don't come close to performing as promised. The results show that about a quarter of those consumers on FTTN connections, who are paying for high-speed 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps plans, still did not receive anywhere near their full plan speeds, at any time.

The ACCC Chairman, Rod Sims, went on to say:

This Measuring Broadband Australia data clearly shows that too many consumers with FTTN connections are not receiving the speeds they are paying for …

This is the faster, cheaper NBN that the coalition government has delivered. It's a perverse outcome and a perverse legacy.

In 2013 the coalition was elected on a promise to complete the NBN in three years time at a cost of $29.5 billion. It was fanciful. Fast forward to 2020 and it's still not complete and the price tag is now more than $50 billion. That is $20 billion over budget and four years behind the schedule the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government promised the Australian public. It's a $51 billion network that can't even deliver the broadband speeds that Australians are paying for. Get this: in 2007, when Labor inherited the badly neglected telecommunications infrastructure bequeathed to it by the Howard government, Australia's internet speeds had roughly ranked 50th in the world. Today we're 68th, according to Ookla's global index. It's really poor company; it's the definition of a perverse outcome.

To add insult to injury, those opposite have neglected our regions. They watched NBN Co build too few regional wireless towers, so existing ones became overburdened, increasing congestion and slowing connections to regional mobile users. They did this to save money when their costs started mushrooming, and they bragged about it. What they didn't brag about, incredibly, was what we discovered in October last year—that NBN Co had cut $200 million from the fixed wireless network for the regions. This information wasn't publicly disclosed; indeed, it was deliberately hidden from where you would expect to find it, in the corporate plan. It wasn't disclosed until we came across this information in answers to a question on notice. This is typical of a government without a plan and a Prime Minister who can't be straight with the Australian public.

What's happening here is that the regions are being neglected so the government can desperately try to bandage their haemorrhaging costs, which brings us to the second bill before the House, the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019. I've worked in the Australian telecommunications sector, in one role or another, for near on a decade. If there's one thing that I've learnt from this space it's that, when you're dealing with the complex technological and regulatory legacies of this sector, when you change something in one spot you generally break something in another. The Australian telco sector, as it stands today, reflects decades of technology and policy trade-offs. These trade-offs interact with each other, so changes in the way that things work in one area have consequences for superficially unrelated areas elsewhere.

A good example of this is the trade-off between costs and pricing for telecommunications services in our cities and our rural and regional areas. When Labor conceived of its plan for a national broadband network, it understood the simple fact that in a country this large, with very low population densities in some parts of it, the costs for delivering services to our regions would be significant. The cost of a regional connection would be high, but we wanted it to remain affordable, so we rolled the NBN out based on a cross-subsidy model—that is, that metropolitan areas would pay a little more than their service costs so that the regions could acquire a service at a cost that was affordable. This cross-subsidy model generated $700 million and reflected the historic way that we've managed the higher costs in the bush against those in the cities in the Australian telco sector. It's an egalitarian settlement—perhaps not the most optimal form, from a purist's perspective, but the most workable in an Australian context.

There are those opposite, however, who have always wanted to play the purist in this space and unwind this egalitarian settlement. It was disappointing that, prior to the 2013 election, the Liberals encouraged other companies to deploy networks and compete directly against the NBN, in full knowledge that this would undercut the NBN Co business model—the city-regional cross-subsidy that has formed the basis of the Australian settlement on telecommunications policy for decades. But the ideologues in the Liberal Party have always chafed at this settlement, and they periodically break out from this settlement and start pushing positions that would break it and force the bush to wear the higher costs of telecommunications services on their own. Indeed, before the last election the minister repeatedly flirted with the desirability of infrastructure competition with NBN Co in the cities. What the National Party thought about this flirtation by the Liberal Party with breaking this NBN cross-subsidy, to the detriment of rural and regional Australia, remains unknown. Presumably they were too busy fighting each other to notice it at the time. But the minister played footsy with a development that would sabotage the NBN Co business model, and now they are introducing this new broadband tax to protect themselves from the consequences of their own flirtation. Now the minister wants to impose a new broadband tax on Australians who are on those competing networks that he wants encouraged. Like his leader, the minister can't be straight about this. But Labor will be upfront about what this bill actually does.

The bill will apply a new broadband tax of $7.10 per month on households and businesses connected to a non-NBN Co broadband network. It will add at least $84 to the annual bill for up to 500,000 residential and business services. This coalition tax on broadband is a new thing. It wasn't originally part of anyone's plan for the NBN. As I said earlier, the previous Labor government didn't contemplate having a broadband tax on top of an internal cross-subsidy. It was one or the other, not both. Yet now the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government wants both.

You might ask what has changed to prompt this. Well, you can observe what hasn't changed. The cost of a fixed wireless and satellite network had not changed at the time this new broadband tax was proposed. The cost is effectively what was forecast. What has changed is the damage that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's multitechnology model has done to the financials of the NBN Co. According to NBN Co's own analysis, this inferior multitechnology mix will cost $200 million more per annum to maintain and operate and will generate $300 million less per annum.

The effect of this new broadband tax will primarily be to add a price signal that deters duplication of NBN Co infrastructure in the cheaper city areas, enabling the cherry-picking of NBN Co revenues that can be applied to ensure universal access to broadband in rural and regional areas. I can understand the rationale for this. It is fair enough and it is why we're letting this bill go through the chamber unopposed. The shadow minister raised issues with this that we will address in the Senate. We will confront it at that time. That will be an issue for the Senate at that time.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:20): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019 and cognate bill, and the shadow minister's amendment. A reliable broadband network has become critical for the majority of Australians, as the member for Gellibrand has noted. We rely on the internet for work, for banking, for communication, for leisure and for shopping. It has become a vital, intertwined, ingrained part of our connection to our community and to the wider world. Unfortunately, too many people in Australia, especially in regional Australia, do not have the same ability as those in the city to enjoy the benefits of the internet—what we call the digital divide. Unfortunately, under this government the divide has become wider, not narrower, as a result of the lack of telecommunications infrastructure and regional black spots. More needs to be done to ensure that every Australian who wants to access the internet can have it.

I've spoken many times in this place on the government's record on the NBN. The NBN is a national telecommunications infrastructure program, which was instituted by Labor, and which, as the member for Gellibrand has noted, the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, instructed his shadow communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to 'demolish' if they were to come to government. It is one of the few promises they have sought to deliver, because that is indeed what they have done to the NBN. They have demolished the foundations of what should be one of this country's greatest infrastructure builds. They have absolutely smashed it. I will come to the how of that later.

The legislation before the House today does two key things. It legislates certainty that all premises in Australia can continue to access broadband beyond the NBN rollout. It legislates a guarantee similar to the telecommunications guarantee we've legislated, which ensures that every Australian has access to a telephone line. This does the same for broadband. This gives it certainty. Labor supports this. We always have. These bills also, perhaps controversially, introduce a telecommunications levy of $7 per month onto the bills of households and businesses that get their broadband from non-NBN networks. This cost, of course, will go to the wholesalers, but, as we know, they'll pass that cost on to their customers—so, $84 a year in higher internet fees for people who get their internet from non-NBN providers. Labor is supporting that—with some reluctance I must say. We know we need to support this, to be a constructive opposition. The NBN Co business fundamentals demand it because of the changes that this government has wrought on NBN Co. Under Labor, this levy would not have happened—this internet tax would not have happened, because we had baked-in cross-subsidisation internally. We would not have required this. In his speech, the member for Gellibrand, with his deep background in telecommunications, explained, perhaps much more eloquently than I can, the reasons for this. He explained that we would not have done this because we had baked-in cross-subsidisation beforehand. But, under this government, there is internal subsidisation, and now they are going to slug consumers as well.

The truth of the matter is that there needs to be a legislative standard in Australia where we guarantee universal access to broadband, no matter where you live, particularly as we near the point where NBN Co is likely to be privatised. We need to ensure that coverage is not motivated by making money but is instead about ensuring there is a comprehensive network that ensures accessibility, no matter where you live. I represent an electorate that is remote and regional and I get complaints every day, still, about people's lack of access to the NBN, whether it is slow service or the like. I've got a range of what the government calls multi-technology-mix customers in my electorate, with fibre to the node. I've got constituents with fibre to the premises, which was rolled out under Labor. I don't get any complaints from them, let me tell you. I don't get any complaints from people in fibre-to-the-premises areas. I do get complaints from people in fibre-to-the-node areas, because the copper's degraded or they're too far from the exchange, or because of the slow service. I certainly get complaints from people on the fixed-wireless service—the towers—because essentially there are too many people on those towers, and of course internet use has increased so much over even the past five years, with 4K coming in, and HD, and people are streaming services and businesses have higher use of data.

Businesses and homes that are on fixed-wireless towers are just crunching the availability of hardware on those towers, and what we are seeing is the constant need to upgrade fixed wireless, and it just can't keep up with the demand, because this government has underinvested in fixed wireless. The fact that they secretly took $200 million out of the fixed-wireless network is an absolute disgrace—the shortcomings of the fixed-wireless network. If any aspect of the NBN system needs more investment, it's fixed wireless. Yet they took $200 million out of it and didn't want to tell the public about it until it came up in Senate estimates. I think a Tasmanian senator, Senator Anne Urquhart, had a principal role in that, and hats off to her for winkling that out of the NBN.

There remains plenty to do with the NBN. Under this government NBN speeds in this country have slipped, to see Australia now 68th in the world. We are behind countries like Kazakhstan and like Cape Verde, in Africa. Just think: Australian tourists go overseas, to developing nations, and get much better service in those countries than they do here in Australia. It is an absolute indictment on this government's lack of regard for telecommunications and particularly the NBN. In what should have been a game changer in terms of accessibility and speed, the NBN promises have been a disappointing disaster—another demonstration of how the Liberals simply have not grasped the opportunities that modern telecommunications can deliver, and not just for households and consumers. Sometimes as politicians we get wrapped up talking about movie streaming and leisure for people in their homes. But there is the cost to the economy, to business, of not having a fully serviced NBN with fibre at the heart of it. It is a terrible shame.

As the member for Gellibrand mentioned, in 2007, when Labor came to power under Kevin Rudd, the average internet speed was two megabits per second. That's unthinkable now. Yet I remember the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, saying, 'We'll never need more than five or six'—I think he said five or six, or some ridiculously slow speed; that we'd never need more than that. And we've well eclipsed it. On that side of the chamber they regarded Labor's then promise of universal access to be 'delusional'. That's what they called it—delusional. They just didn't get it. So, from 1996 to 2007, when they were in government, they did nothing, as the internet was taking off around the world and the importance of the internet became more clear to people. I was working in the media at that time, and I saw firsthand how the internet became more integral to our newspapers' operations, first for information gathering and then for sending pages via the internet to the printer. That's how quickly it developed. Yet over the period of that government they did absolutely nothing in terms of fixing the internet infrastructure for this nation.

So, in 2007, Kevin Rudd came along, saw what needed to happen and, from a standing start of nothing, the NBN was created. Of course, these things take time to develop. The genesis of the NBN took time. So that got underway. There were a few hiccups along the way, with asbestos being found in the Telstra pits. A lot of regulatory changes were required. Then Tony Abbott came along as the opposition leader and ordered Malcolm Turnbull to demolish Labor's NBN, because he wanted to make a political point. Frankly, Tony Abbott just didn't get it. I can sort of forgive Tony Abbott, to some degree, because he literally did not understand the importance of the internet. But I won't forgive Malcolm Turnbull, because he did understand. He did understand the importance of the internet, but he was more interested in his own political future than the future of the nation. He knew how important fibre was going to be at the heart of the internet. We know that he personally invested in fibre overseas, whereas here at home he was quite happy to foist upon the nation a substandard multitechnology mix that had, at its heart, 19th century copper.

So they didn't get it then. Over the period of this government, what we've seen happen with the NBN is a complete underinvestment—an absolute underinvestment in technology and an underinvestment in political will to give Australians the internet and the broadband that they deserve. In remote and regional Australia the digital divide is just getting worse and worse. Under Labor, regional areas were the first to get fibre to the premises: places like Sorell in Tasmania, my state, and the town of Smithton, places you wouldn't have thought would be the first to get the latest technology available. That's where fibre-to-the-premises internet was rolled out. We did that for this reason: we said that the regions deserve to have the same internet speeds and quality as the cities do.

I think people in this country are used to the idea that, whenever something new and flash comes along, it's always the cities that get it first. It's always Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. They tend to get the best stuff first. That's where most people live, so they get the flash stuff. Labor in 2007 said: 'Hang on. We want to close the digital divide. Let's give it to the regions first. Let's make sure the regions get the best internet, because the cities have got pretty passable ADSL at the moment. They've got pretty good internet. They can get by for a while, but those people in the regions have nothing. So let's put the good internet out there.'

Labor was howled down by those opposite. Those opposite, who claim to represent regional Australia, were the first to howl it down. They said: 'This makes no business sense. This costs so much more.' But what we have found out, of course, is that their claims about Labor's NBN costing so much more than what their system would cost is an absolute lie. They have foisted upon this nation an NBN of different technologies—copper based, cable, you know, all sorts of technologies that they've rolled out—which are substandard, certainly substandard compared to what Labor would have introduced. Labor would have had 93 per cent of the population getting full fibre. Yet their NBN has ended up costing about the same as what Labor's would have cost. The Labor NBN would have come in at around $50 billion. That's exactly where we've landed with this mob, with what is even now a substandard mix. No sooner is the NBN starting to be finished, four years behind schedule and $20 billion over budget, than they're already having to upgrade. They're already having to go back into the pits and renew the copper. They're already having to fix things up. Homes and businesses that are on fibre to the node are finding that it's not servicing their needs, so they're having to call in the technicians and say, 'Look, we need better internet.' They're having to pay through the nose to get the better fibre to the premises. The costs of the substandard internet that those opposite have foisted upon this nation will be much greater than if they'd simply continued with Labor's fibre-to-the-premises rollout.

It's one of the greatest infrastructure failures in the history of this nation—how far this government has put this country behind, not just for households but for the economy and the opportunity costs for the regions. Businesses are not able to expand in the regions, because they are dependent on good internet. They have to go to the cities because that's the only place where you can get the fibre to the premises that they need to compete in the world. It's a litany of failures on that side. We support the bill before the House, but we also have the amendment, just to point out some of those failures.

I want to quickly mention this broadband levy. As I said, it is a Liberal government broadband tax. It's a $7-per-month tax on internet services. It will impact consumers. They're levying against the providers, but it will impact consumers and businesses. It will especially impact people in the regions and first home buyers. They say they are doing this to protect regional broadband. If they were really interested in protecting regional broadband then they wouldn't have stripped out $200 million from fixed wireless, which was an absolute disgrace. And they've done nothing, absolutely done nothing, as NBN Co has overloaded the fixed wireless towers in regional areas, leading to slow speeds and congestions.

We support these bills, but this government should not escape the deserved odium for what they have done to what should be one of the greatest infrastructure achievements of this country, which they have just demolished—in their own words—and turned it into an absolute disgrace.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (12:35): I rise to speak briefly in support of these bills, with a few stories of reservation. With the NBN rollout at 98 per cent, and due for completion in June this year, the last parts of rural and regional Australia—the so-called hard-to-reach places—are finally being connected. The NBN provides significant economic and social benefits in regional communities. It boosts productivity, employment and innovation. When I visit small businesses and large producers in Indi I am always impressed by how quickly these people pick up on the opportunities of the NBN. I've seen online recruiting agencies for rural practitioners. I've seen jewellery manufacturers. I've seen rural telehealth to support emergency departments in far remote places of my electorate. I've seen people engaging in online learning who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to get a university degree, and I'm really happy about that. But we have to keep an eye on NBN. We have to make sure that the quality of our NBN services is, indeed, what we truly need in rural Australia and is equal to what other Australians receive.

The poor quality of telecommunications in rural and regional Australia is a long story. I won't tell you the whole story, but it is a long story. Historical underinvestment and metro-specific policy over decades means rural and regional communities are still struggling for reliable access and lagging behind in digital literacy. Nowhere has the legacy of this underinvestment, and the subsequent fragility of these services, been more evident than in our recent bushfires. With mobile phone towers and radio transmitters incinerated, whole communities were isolated for weeks.

With the rollout of NBN almost complete, the conversation will shift now from access—the hardware, the line to the premises, the satellite installed on the roof—to quality. Does this service do what I need it to do? Is it affordable? Rural and regional Australians know that being connected is only the first step. Historically we pay a high price for poor-quality services. As the government moves now to deliver these telecommunications reforms, we need to ensure that the product actually meets the needs of the customers outside the capitals and allows regional Australians to fully participate in the digital age.

Today I will address the two parts of these bills which go directly to these issues. Constituents in Indi access the internet via fixed wireless and satellite networks at rates many times the national average. Indeed, my own home, only three kilometres out of Wangaratta, receives internet this way. These methods suit rural areas with low population density, where it's not cost-effective to install a physical line. But, still, these arrangements are expensive, costing an estimated $9.8 billion over the next 30 years. The regional broadband scheme, which this bill introduces, sets up a funding arrangement for these services by requiring carriers to pay $7.10 per month for each premises with superfast broadband. This change is an improvement on the current system, where NBN cross-subsidises the investment through opaque internal accounting.

I'm pleased that advocates for rural and regional telecommunications support this move. These include the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network; the Country Women's Association; the Isolated Children's Parents' Association and the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition, whose members include the National Farmers' Federation and Better Internet for Rural, Regional and Remote Australia. I am concerned, however, that the new fee imposed by the scheme will increase the cost of broadband. It's up to the carriers and retailers to decide whether to pass this charge on to the consumers. The government has reassured us that 95 per cent of consumers will not experience a price rise, and for the remaining five per cent, competition will put downward pressure on these prices. I sincerely hope this is in fact the case and that the goal of equitable cost-sharing is not used as an excuse to price-gouge customers, customers like those in my electorate.

Access to the internet is becoming as essential to daily life as access to electricity or water. It's now the government's main channel for interacting with citizens. This includes Centrelink reporting, the ATO and myGov. Yet this access is meaningless if it's unaffordable, particularly for low-income families. Coverage has to be universal not just on paper but in the reality of people's lives.

I welcome the second part of these bills. That's the introduction of the statutory infrastructure provider obligations on NBN Co and other carriers. These obligations will ensure that all Australian premises are able to access superfast broadband services of 25 megabits per second or better. If it's not reasonable to connect premises via fixed line, the provider must provide a fixed-wireless or satellite technology solution. On fixed-wireless services, voice services for consumers must be supported.

All people in Australia currently have guaranteed access to a telephone voice service through the Universal Service Obligation. This change helps build on that and provides consumers with certainty that all people in Australia, no matter where they live, have access to high-speed NBN. This news will be very welcome to constituents of mine who access the NBN via satellite or fixed wireless, but I must say that these services still fall far below what they need, and I'd like to share just a couple of their stories.

A constituent who lives near Cudgewa wrote to me expressing his frustration with the service he receives by satellite, the only NBN service available for his property. He and his partner are both undertaking university study by distance, online, to further their careers. They both actively volunteer with community groups and committees. But the current monthly data caps placed on NBN satellite customers mean they routinely run out of data. This places them at a huge disadvantage with regard to their ongoing education and involvement with the community groups that they serve. They've tried getting a bigger package, but they can't purchase any additional data, due to the NBN Fair Use Policy. As he told my office:

I'll cut to the chase, I truly feel like a second class citizen, I am disadvantaged simply due to my location, as I stated those in very close proximity to us have access to far better technology at a fraction of the cost. Whilst we are left short every month, I feel for those in more remote areas who rely on this technology for their children's education.

Another example is the experience of the Outdoor Education Group, or OEG. They're based in Eildon. OEG provide challenging, hands-on experiences for schoolkids, giving them the opportunity to get outdoors and go beyond their comfort zones through activities such as rafting, bushwalking, camping and high- and low-rope courses. OEG is hugely successful. It has over 200 staff, a revenue of $20 million and camps right across Australia. To date, they've educated and cared for two million students. As you can imagine, when you're operating between locations and corralling hundreds of children, fast and reliable internet is absolutely essential not just for business but for safety. In their location of Eildon, fixed-wireless internet is the service available to them. Yet, in a 10-day period last September, for seven days there was no connection during business hours. The accountholder was not notified, and there was no clear advice on when the disruption would end. Staff were forced to hotspot using their phones, which meant they couldn't access the internal server, severely impacting on their productivity. The outages are completely unacceptable. As OEG told my office:

… This seems unbelievable to me and totally discourages businesses from operating in regional areas, NBN do not answer to anyone and are being very quiet about what is going on and what has been causing the issues I have mentioned, especially moving into summer and being in a bushfire prone area of the state.

I don't believe a reasonable person could expect a business to run efficiently with these vague notifications, particularly an organisation that is regularly conducting interviews and meetings via the internet.

That was a direct quote. The NBN has also recently reduced OEG's upload speeds by 50 per cent. Upload speed is crucial, as most of their work is done between different offices, and they rely on cloud based applications, with data frequently uploaded as work is saved. After a meeting between myself, NBN and OEG, I was pleased that NBN agreed to schedule outages before OEG's busy period, commencing in February this year. OEG is a huge, successful employer which has made rural and regional Australia its home base. We want and we need more of these businesses outside of our capital cities so our regions can prosper. Extensive issues with NBN outages cause headaches and difficulties for regional businesses. How many other potential businesses decide that they simply wouldn't take the risk of moving to regional Australia?

Of course, I can't stand here and talk about NBN without at least mentioning mobile phone black spots too, because they still remain. The famous Oxley Bush Market, which celebrated its 40th anniversary in November 2019 and last month won the Rural City of Wangaratta's Community Event of the Year, struggled with connectivity issues, which meant using EFTPOS to sell wares was a gamble. How much more commerce could the 175 stallholders conduct if they just had reliable reception? I conclude by saying that I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network and I am absolutely committed to keeping a close eye on the rollout of the NBN to ensure rural and regional Australians not only get NBN but also get the quality NBN they need.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:45): I note with interest that there are no government members who wish to speak on this legislation, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019. The two most significant national projects the Morrison government was entrusted to deliver for all Australians were the NBN and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Both have been dismal failures of this government. They were national rollouts that the previous Labor government had done the groundwork for. Indeed, all of the difficult work in respect of the preparation was already done. The failure of the Morrison government to roll out both the NDIS and the National Broadband Network on time and on budget, and to meet community expectations, highlights this government's incompetency. This is a government now in its third term. It has had plenty of time to settle in, to carry out whatever reviews it thought it needed at the time it came into office and to deliver on the election promises it made to the Australian people. It has failed to do so.

Under this government, now in its seventh year, the NBN rollout is a mess, with consumers raising concerns and frustrations about NBN connections and services every day. The coalition decided, in their wisdom, to change Labor's National Broadband Network rollout, claiming the coalition rollout would enable the NBN to be delivered faster and cheaper. After seven years they have failed on both counts. Costs have blown out to $51 billion, the rollout is four years behind schedule and the service is failing to meet community standards on so many fronts. I have lost count of the number of people who have contacted my office over the years with NBN difficulties.

The Morrison government's National Broadband Network rollout has been badly designed, which is why this legislation is now before the House. They are trying to fix another problem—the problem of funding. That also goes to the services that are being provided, and it's a funding problem that arises because of the very structure of their rollout. In today's society an internet connection is no longer a luxury. It's not an option; it is a necessity. Nearly all business, including government services, is transacted through the internet. Without the internet you cannot get on with your normal daily life anymore.

The two major entities that have responsibility for enabling National Broadband Network connectivity are Telstra and NBN Co. Both have been the subject of thousands of complaints each year to the telecommunications ombudsman. In 2018-19 there were 132,387 complaints. Some might argue that those complaints have dropped from the previous year. My view is that, if the complaint numbers have dropped, it's simply because people have given up complaining, because they know that it ultimately results in no action. Both Telstra and NBN Co have a monopoly over their service sector and can be very difficult to deal with, particularly for people with limited communication skills or who are not familiar with new technology.

I was recently contacted by a local person who has extensive knowledge in the telecommunication sector, a person who has spent considerable time not only to put together his thoughts on the NBN—and Telstra, for that matter—but also to look at things that could be done to improve the services. He listed for me 12 issues that need to be addressed, and I'm going to go through them, one at a time.

First: poor technical support from overseas call centres, staffed by people who often have limited training and no understanding of the Australian context. Frequently, there are deficiencies in their technical language capabilities. Second: physical cabling failures and limitations within the copper network used for the last section of the fibre-to-the-node technology. Third: high prices for services compared with other countries. Fourth: packaging of services by providers into bundles which cannot be broken down into separately priced items to permit customers to make a fair comparison with their competitors. Fifth: obfuscation of costs and constraints in marketing of products and services and in contracts, which might be discovered by consumers only when a problem arises. Can I say, that seems to be a common problem. When a problem arises and someone then goes back to their contract, they suddenly find out that the problem that they have encountered is not the responsibility of their provider or of NBN or of Telstra, and there is a backwards-and-forwards process in respect to who it is that they need to get on side to fix the problem.

Sixth: providers often phase out bundles as the contracts expire and replace them with much more expensive options. Seventh: selling services such as internet access with speed boost, yet failing to purchase sufficient bandwidth from NBN Co to meet the demand of their customers—again, a common problem. Eighth: providers refusing to provide access to technical data on the modems and equipment they provide to customers, limiting options for consumers to solve problems themselves or to turn to third parties for technical support. On that issue alone, I fail to understand why the technical data relating to modems and other telecommunications equipment is not made available to all people so that people can either get on with doing their own repairs and maintenance or whatever it is or get a technician of their choice to come in and do it, yet that is not the case. Ninth: failure to disclose the full ramifications when transferring to the NBN, including the potential need to rewire existing home or business telephone networks, with limits on how many handsets can be connected to the modem and limitations with location of phone outlets. Again, I see homes and I speak to people who have connected to the NBN and then suddenly find that they cannot have the same phone system in their home that they had before the NBN connection. Tenth: consumers are also not always aware that in most cases standard landline services will not work during a power outage, and the previous speaker spoke about that in her own community, as a result of the bushfires. It's a serious problem, because many of the people who are now connected are older people who rely on their telephone, and not only to make calls; quite often they might have the emergency alarm systems also connected through the same system and, if it fails, there is no way of anyone knowing if they are in need. Eleventh: some users who only want a basic landline service end up paying more than they need to for bundles with large data allowances. Twelfth: when encountering technical difficulties, consumers often get caught between their internet service provider and NBN Co, with each saying the problem is the other's fault. I referred to that earlier, and it seems to be one of the most common problems we encounter, certainly in my community. The difficulty in navigating through all of the various parties is something that I can only empathise with consumers about. It is sometimes near impossible to get through to them. Indeed, some of the people who have come to my office have done so as a last resort because they have exhausted all of the options they believe they have in getting the problem resolved. And, inevitably, after they come to my office, we're able to get someone from NBN to perhaps coordinate the services required and get the issue resolved. But it's never easy.

Other issues that have also been raised with me, or my office, include that, when switching over to the NBN—which many consumers have needed to do to maintain their phone or internet access—some have had to choose between paying a higher monthly cost or accepting a service that is inferior to what they had. Many consumers who received the NBN by HFC experienced significant delays in the rollout, or technical problems. Consumers sometimes experienced lengthy delays trying to transfer to the NBN and sometimes lost phone or internet services for extended periods during the transfer.

Lastly, often home security systems or personal alarms are not compatible with the NBN and would not function in the event of a power outage. I realise they can get a battery back-up in some cases, but, again, if you're not familiar or conversant with new technology, you might not have done that. Whilst there is an NBN scheme to assist with the costs of replacement, there are some limitations and there will still be some out-of-pocket costs to the consumers. Many of these issues have been caused by or exacerbated as a consequence of the government's multi-technology mix rather than Labor's original plan for fibre-to-the-premises coverage, which would have covered around 93 per cent of the nation.

Other speakers have referred to the internet speeds. The New Daily recently reported that Australia's broadband internet ranked fourth slowest in the OECD world—fourth slowest. In global internet speed rankings, Australia has fallen to 68th of 177 countries. These are recent figures; these are not old figures. Whilst the government might dismiss those figures and come back with some excuse as to how they are not correct and the like, I say to the government that the reality is that there have now been too many reports showing that people are not getting the internet speeds or quality of service that they were led to expect.

Reliable, high-speed, world-class internet services are important for the nation and they're important for business productivity and efficiency. They are an essential service. They should no longer be treated as something that consumers have choices about; it is part of the world and the life that we live. If we cannot deliver the services that both residents and businesses need, we as a nation cannot move forward, and nor can we be competitive with the rest of the world. This legislation, I know, tries to address some problems. But, quite frankly, this government stands condemned for the failure to roll out the service that this country needs in 2020 and the failure to deliver on the promises it made to the Australian people.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:58): I am pleased to sum up the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2019 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2019, and I express my thanks to all parliamentary colleagues who have spoken in this debate.

These bills implement a comprehensive three-part package to improve the regulatory framework for the supply of high-speed broadband, by amending separation rules and creating new supply and funding arrangements. These bills will improve the provision of high-speed broadband in Australia, firstly, by making carrier separation rules for high-speed residential networks more effective but also more flexible and giving carriers greater scope to invest in superfast networks and to compete. Secondly, they improve the provision of high-speed broadband by introducing new statutory infrastructure provider obligations on NBN Co and others to support the ongoing delivery of high-speed broadband services. Thirdly, these bills establish the Regional Broadband Scheme, which will provide transparent and equitable long-term funding for NBN Co's satellite and fixed-wireless services in regional and remote areas.

Access to the National Broadband Network is estimated to have contributed $1.2 billion to Australia's GDP in 2017, excluding the stimulus effect of the rollout. Once complete, the NBN is projected to boost Australia's GDP by $10.4 billion per annum.

The government's reform package embodied in these bills is designed to allow all Australians to participate and share in the social and economic benefits of one of our country's largest infrastructure projects. Consumers will benefit from the statutory infrastructure provider measures, the purpose of which is that all Australians can access high-speed quality internet services. The rules set out baseline standards for the services: peak download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second and peak upload speeds of at least five megabits per second. The services also need to support voice communication on fixed-line or fixed-wireless networks.

Consumers in regional Australia will benefit from the Regional Broadband Scheme, which establishes a transparent and equitable long-term funding arrangement for NBN Co's fixed-wireless and satellite networks. These networks are improving business, social, educational and health outcomes for regional and remote Australia. The Regional Broadband Scheme will require all carriers to pay $7.10 per month for each premises on their network with a high-speed fixed-line broadband service. This charge is capped at $7.10, indexed to CPI, to provide greater regulatory and investment certainty and to support market competition.

The Regional Broadband Scheme will level the playing field by spreading the cost of Australia's investment in regional and remote broadband services equitably across NBN Co and NBN comparable networks. Importantly, the costs of NBN Co's fixed-wireless and satellite networks are built into NBN Co's existing pricing model over time, so establishing the Regional Broadband Scheme will not produce any one-time price shock for NBN customers. In combination with the statutory infrastructure provider regime, the Regional Broadband Scheme will give confidence to residents of regional and remote Australia that essential affordable broadband services will be available to them and will remain available in the future.

The package of measures set out in these bills strengthens competition, but it recognises that in a competitive market all participants should contribute towards the cost of providing loss-making broadband services in regional and remote Australia. There has been recognition of the potential need for a levy to support the provision of loss-making broadband services in regional and remote Australia since the initial implementation study for the NBN was carried out in 2010. The Labor Party and representatives of that party have been on the record saying that they accept that a levy might need to be introduced. In its 2010 Statement of Expectations to NBN Co the then Labor government said it was considering introduction of a levy to prevent opportunistic cherrypicking.

The package of measures set out in these bills delivers important outcomes for consumers, and that is why these bills are supported by consumer groups and by regional stakeholders, including the National Farmers Federation and the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition. These bills also deliver important outcomes for industry, with more opportunities for competition at both the network and retail levels. These important reforms are a critical step towards all Australians having access to the affordable, high-speed quality internet services they need to fully participate in today's digital society. I commend these bills to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Greenway be agreed to.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (13:11): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (13:12): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to,

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:13): I rise to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020 and move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) the financial difficulties facing Australian parents juggling young children and work;

(2) the Government’s repeated cuts to family assistance and programs designed to support children and parents; and

(3) that women continue to do a disproportionable share of work in the home and raising children, as well as facing a significant gender pay gap".

Australia's national Paid Parental Leave Scheme is a proud Labor legacy. Its purpose is to allow parents to take time off from work to look after children in their critical early months of development—critical to their health and to the development of both birth mothers and children. Labor implemented this initiative to enable women to continue to participate in the workforce and promote equality between men and women and the balance between work and family life. It provides two payments: parental leave pay; and dad and partner pay.

Through Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme we signal to employers and the Australian community that it is business as usual for parents to take time out of the paid workforce to care for a child. Importantly, it enables the participation of child-bearing age women in the workforce. A high workforce participation rate is important in the context of an ageing population and helps to address the gender pay gap—particularly for those women with low and middle incomes, who have less access to employer funded parental leave.

There are around 300,000 births in Australia each year, with parents of about half of those using Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme to take leave from their workplace and care for the newborn. Almost 150,000 parents a year benefit from the national Paid Parental Leave scheme. Now, in its eighth year, the government has at last recognised the importance of this scheme and moved to improve its flexibility so that more women will finally have the access they deserve—because parents, both mothers and fathers, shouldn't have to sacrifice their careers or their career progression simply because they want to look after their children in the most formative and critical years of their development.

Labor has always believed that paid parental leave is critical to closing the gender pay gap. We know that women are usually the primary carers of children, but it shouldn't just be up to them; men should feel supported, empowered and encouraged to play an equal role in that too. Last year I mentioned to this chamber the KPMG report that found that stubborn gender stereotypes continue to harm the careers of women, especially those who opt to care for children and elderly family members. This is why the gender pay gap continues to persist. I don't need to remind the chamber that women in Australia earn an average of 14 per cent less than men.

We're also very conscious that, in our communications in relation to this particular piece of legislation, we're going to specifically mention stillborn babies as well. I know that's implied in 'newborns', but we think it should be specifically mentioned as a sign of respect, and of practicality as well.

I don't need to remind the chamber—except maybe the Treasurer, who on 9 September last year said that the gap had closed—that the gender pay gap has remained stubbornly high over the past two decades, with any minor improvements attributed in large part to the resources boom. Lasting and sustained progress in closing the gender pay gap requires a fundamental culture change, and it requires genuine leadership. Labor has a proud record of fighting for equal pay for all Australians. When we were last in government this included ensuring businesses with more than 100 employees prepare and lodge a report containing information relating to gender equality indicators. Labor also delivered funding to support the equal pay case for social and community service workers, delivering a pay rise to 150,000 workers.

On the other hand, the Morrison government, after six years, still does not have a genuine or substantive reform plan to close the gender pay gap. If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were genuinely serious about fixing the gender pay gap, they would oppose cuts to penalty rates. The vast majority of workers who had their penalty rates cut were women. The cuts to penalty rates are exacerbating the gender pay gap as well as making it harder for women to pay the rent and cover the bills.

Paid parental leave also allows mothers and fathers to look after their children in their most critical developing years, not only without sacrificing their career progression or ability to work but also by enabling them to do so without eating into their savings. Parents should be able to care for their children as well as make ends meet. Labor knows that families are doing it tough, especially young families. We know that they are struggling to keep their heads above bills and groceries and rent, yet the government has absolutely no plan to help them. The cost of living is going up, and our young people are worrying about how or if they will start or support a family.

Last year, I mentioned the report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which painted a very anxious and uncertain future for younger Australians. It showed—and this shouldn't come as any surprise, except maybe to the government, who seem oblivious to the struggles of everyday Australians—that homeownership is more out of reach for younger Australians than ever before and one million Australians are now living in housing stress. But there is little wonder that young people are struggling to own their own home: housing prices continue to soar; many haven't seen a pay rise in a long time; and wages are stagnant. As a result, many are seeing more and more of their income being sucked up by rent.

Our young people are also finding it harder and harder to get a job. Youth unemployment is more than double the national average. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, new apprenticeships are at their lowest in two decades. Many Australians, especially younger Australians, are finding that when they do find a job they are simply not receiving enough hours at work to get by. Under this government, two million Australians are looking for work or looking for more work—with one million underemployed. Almost one in five, or over 130,000, Newstart recipients have a job but do not receive enough hours or income to get them off the payment.

This bill will change the paid parental leave rules to allow an 18-week block to be taken as paid leave or to be taken over two years. The bill will change the paid parental leave rules by splitting the 18 weeks of public paid parental leave into a 12-week paid parental leave period and a six-week flexible paid parental leave period. The 12-week paid parental leave period in total will be available only as a continuous block but would be accessible by the primary carer at any time during the first 12 months, not only immediately after the birth or adoption of a child. The six-week flexible paid parental leave period will be available at any time during the first two years and does not need to be taken as a block. Labor will be closely watching the government's implementation of this amendment. These changes will apply to parents claiming for paid parental leave for a child who is born on or after 1 July—and, of course, I once again make the point about stillborn babies.

Labor supports the changes in the bill. We hope they will enable more women to consider careers and roles historically dominated by men. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme is a proud Labor legacy. We will always support improvements to it that increase support for parents who need it. We will always support improvements that close the gender pay gap and make it easier for young parents to raise and care for their families. But the reality is that young families are doing it tough, and they are right to ask: why doesn't the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government have a plan? Why doesn't the Prime Minister have an agenda or a vision to make things easier for young families?

The Prime Minister is very obsessed with devising new ways to harass and prod younger Australians who are simply trying to enter the workforce and build a life for their families. This government has plans to cut Newstart by doubling the liquid assets test wait time. It has splurged millions on sports rorts but has cut millions from emergency relief. The Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government and their refusal to stimulate the economy are creating an economic environment that is making it so difficult for young Australians to raise and build a life for their families. Of course Labor supports the bill, but we have every reason to be sceptical about the government's competence and ability—the government who brought us robodebt, MyHealth and the 2016 census. We are right to have serious concerns about this government's ability to properly implement and effect these changes, and we will be monitoring it very, very carefully. And, as I said, I have moved an amendment that will be dealt with at a later point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Thistlethwaite: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:26): I rise to speak in support of the Morrison government's Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020, which will provide more flexibility for working mothers and their families to access paid parental leave by amending the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. These amendments will allow mothers of newborn or adopted children to use an initial 12-week period of paid parental leave before taking up their remaining entitlement of six weeks any time over the two years after birth or adoption. The bill focuses on increasing women's workforce participation, which was one of the outcomes of the women's economic security package released in 2018. The amendments are in addition to the government's changes to the work test in the Paid Parental Leave Act in October last year. Should this bill be approved by the parliament, parents of children born on or after 1 July 2020 will be able to access the flexible option.

Nearly half of all mothers in Australia are accessing paid parental leave each year. Of those 179,000, it's expected that approximately 4,000 parents will choose to take up this new flexible option. I've long been a supporter of the Paid Parental Leave scheme and the changes the coalition government has made to support working mothers and their employees. Back in 2014 I shared with the House the words of hundreds of business owners in my electorate of Robertson who expressed some frustration with the former Labor government's attempt at a paid parental leave scheme. They told me at the time how it was creating an additional workload for their business and their struggles under the weight of red tape and regulation.

So, today I'm pleased to be part of a coalition government that is introducing amendments to support expectant parents who are small-business owners or self-employed. These measures will provide greater flexibility and more choice for primary caregivers in easing their transition back into the workforce—something this House wholeheartedly supports and encourages. Under the current legislation, taking the maximum 18 weeks off with their newborn in one continuous block could result in a significant financial blow to their business. The bill before the House today will change this system and mean that an initial 12 weeks can be taken to look after their child, and the remaining six weeks or 30 days used flexibly until the child turns two. This flexibility will allow more to return to work and transfer their remaining paid parental leave entitlement to their partner, who will take on the role of primary carer. Alternatively, they may choose to use their remaining paid parental leave to support a part-time return to work. This means that a parent can return to work three days per week and have the option to receive paid parental leave on the two days that they're not working.

As a member of the coalition government I firmly believe in more choice and more flexibility for working families, and this bill will allow for the Paid Parental Leave scheme to be tailored to a family's circumstance and to encourage greater uptake of leave by secondary carers, who might not otherwise have had the opportunity to spend quality time with their children. As a mother myself, I am passionate about giving women and families choices when it comes to returning to work after having children. I'm aware from speaking to families within my electorate that everyone's circumstances are different.

Annemarie is a mother of five and the owner of Night Nannies, which has been running as a small business on the Central Coast since 2005. She told me about the immense pressure of keeping her business open after becoming a new mum and how these policy changes would have benefited her. She even recalls taking a work call on her hospital bed a day after having her baby, highlighting the competing pressures of parenthood and running a small business. Annemarie said that the flexible return-to-work options would help families that use her service in transitioning back to the workforce.

This bill will allow small-business owners to take up their remaining paid parental leave when it suits them and to spend quality time with their child at a different stage of their development. I believe that enabling families, and particularly primary care givers, to have more control over how they use their parental leave will greatly help small businesses, while also helping to relieve pressure on families. I'm proud to be part of a coalition government that is providing more flexibility to ensure that families—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:25): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report 2 of 2020.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr PERRETT: by leave—I am very pleased to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights second scrutiny report of 2020.

This report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law, as required under the committee's statutory mandate. It sets out the committee's consideration of five bills introduced into the parliament between 4 and 6 February 2020, and legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 4 December 2019 and 8 January 2020.

As members know, the committee's mandate, as set out in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, is to examine legislation for compatibility with human rights: defined to mean the rights contained in the seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. In understanding how human rights are to be applied, the committee has regularly looked to the way in which UN human rights treaty bodies have interpreted the treaties, as well as to the interpretations by comparable regional, international and domestic human rights courts of other countries. While none of this is binding on how the committee carries out its scrutiny function, it can assist the committee in gaining a broader understanding of the content and application of human rights.

Where a provision in a bill or instrument appears to limit rights, the committee considers whether any limitation is reasonable, necessary and proportionate. To do so it asks three key questions:

whether the limitation is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective;

whether there is a rational connection between the limitation and that objective; and

whether the limitation is proportionate to that objective.

In undertaking its task, the committee has access to specialist human rights law advice, which guides the committee as to the application of these legal tests on a case-by-case basis. The committee's deliberations need to be underpinned by this legal advice, as having full consideration of well-established legal tests and precedents assists the committee to accurately identify the rights engaged by legislation and the permissibility under international law of any limitation on these rights. While we as parliamentarians are well equipped to consider debatable questions of whether a measure appears to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, we do so based on this important legal advice. This is vital to ensure the legitimacy of the process of technical legislative scrutiny.

Where further information is required to determine these question, the committee writes to the relevant minister seeking clarification. In this report, the committee seeks further information in relation to one legislative instrument, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019. This instrument amends the way in which Australian airports, and aircraft, are categorised for security purposes. This would permit the use of advanced security screening measures, including body scanners, at domestic airports. This may engage the right to privacy, because body scanners produce an image of a person's body, and may reveal objects contained under clothing, or within a person's body. These measures may also engage and limit the right to freedom of movement, as a person who does not agree to undergo a body scan would be prevented from proceeding through the airport and boarding a flight for 24 hours. The committee is seeking further information as it is unclear how much detail of a person's body would be displayed to a security screening officer, including whether it would reflect a person's body weight; reveal a physical disability; or reveal the presence of personal health equipment such as a pacemaker, colostomy bag, or prosthesis. The committee is also questioning whether alternative security screening processes are available where a person doesn't wish to submit to a body scan.

The committee has also made concluding remarks in relation to the Disability Discrimination Regulations 2019, which prescribe a number of state laws as being exempt from the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. This appeared to engage a number of human rights.

The Attorney-General has now provided this advice. The committee commends the work done by the Attorney-General in conducting consultation to consider whether each of these exemptions are necessary. However, the committee is concerned that it has not been demonstrated that the exemptions are, in each instance, a proportionate means of achieving the stated objectives. In particular, it is not clear that providing a blanket exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act is the least rights restrictive way of achieving the stated objectives, or that there are sufficient safeguards in place. The committee also considers that it has not been demonstrated that a person who has been discriminated against would always have access to an effective remedy in relation to that discrimination. The committee has drawn these human rights concerns to the attention of the Attorney-General.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 2 of 2020 to the House.