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 move the Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020.

The success and competitiveness of Australia's primary industries is underpinned in part by the agricultural levy system. Levies and charges are collected by the Australian government at the request of primary industries, and disbursed to levy recipient bodies, including the 15 research and development corporations, for investment. The levy system allows producers to collectively fund research and development, marketing, animal health, emergency biosecurity response and residue testing for the benefit of their industry. The Australian government also provides matched funding to research and development corporations for eligible expenditure on research and development, up to legislated limits.

Within this framework, levies are imposed and collected on sheep and lamb sale transactions, and at the point of processing and export. Approximately $50 million is raised in levy funds each year and invested for the benefit of this sector by its recipient bodies. These are Meat & Livestock Australia, the Australian Meat Processor Corporation, the Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd, Animal Health Australia and the National Residue Survey.

The sheep and lamb industry contributes $4.5 billion to the Australian economy each year with around 31,000 agricultural businesses involved in sheep and lamb production. Australia is the largest exporter of sheepmeat and the second largest exporter of lamb and mutton in the world. The collection and investment of levy funds through the agricultural levies framework supports the sector's ongoing success and growth.

In July 2019, the Australian government changed the definition of lamb for export purposes to reflect a new definition developed by the sheep and meat processing sectors, following extensive consultation. The new definition is designed to bring Australia's definition in line with other international competitors and provide a definitive signal for producers about when a sheep is no longer a lamb. Under the new definition, a lamb is an ovine animal that is under 12 months of age; or does not have any permanent incisor teeth in wear.

This bill aligns the definition of lamb for the purposes of imposing sheep and lamb levies that are duties of excise with the new definition. A related bill aligns the definition of lamb for the purposes of imposing sheep and lamb customs charges.

Updating the levies definition of lamb reflects the intent of the industry in establishing a new definition, and has the support of the Australian Meat Industry Council and Sheep Producers Australia. It will support compliance with the levies scheme, and improve the clarity of the levy system for the benefit of sheep and lamb producers, processors and exporters.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (09:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020. Levies and charges are collected by the Australian government at the request of primary industries. The levy system allows producers to collectively fund research and development, marketing, animal health, emergency biosecurity response and residue testing for the benefit of their industry.

Within this framework, levies are collected on sheep and lamb sale transactions, and at the point of processing and export. In July 2019, the Australian government changed the definition of lamb for export purposes to reflect a new definition developed by the sheep and meat processing sectors, following extensive consultation.

This bill aligns the definition of lamb for the purposes of imposing sheep and lamb customs charges.

Updating the levies' definition of lamb reflects the intent of the industry in establishing a new definition. It will support compliance with the levies scheme, and improve the clarity of the levy system for the benefit of sheep and lamb producers, processors and exporters.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (09:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is with great pleasure that I move the Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This bill is about protecting Australian agriculture. Australia is a marvellous country—we produce the best agricultural products in the world. We have some of the most diverse and pristine natural wonders in the world. And we love visitors from all over the world coming to see what a great place Australia is.

But we need to be vigilant to protect Australia from an ever-increasing number of pests and diseases that threaten our industries, our country, and our way of life. Biosecurity is critical to Australia. Pests such as the brown marmorated stink bug, which has the potential to decimate our crops and do untold damage to our natural environment, pose a continual threat. Diseases such as African swine fever—some strains kill almost every pig infected—would cripple our $1.2 billion pork industry, as well as threaten our trade, environment and economy.

We are investing millions of dollars into preventing these pests and diseases entering Australia, but we need everyone to do their bit when they come to Australia.

Despite our information campaigns, our videos shown on incoming flights and our information at the airport, not everyone is doing their bit. We ask people entering Australia to accurately and carefully declare what they have in their bags. It's not much to ask, and it's really not very hard. Just declare it.

We have biosecurity officers at the airport to inspect what travellers have in their luggage and assess any biosecurity risk.

These same biosecurity officers continually see serious risk products not being declared on the incoming passenger card. We have seen a passenger arrive at Brisbane Airport with one kilogram of limes and another brought dried citrus peel with them. All of the products tested positive for the citrus canker pathogen. This pathogen would have a devastating impact on our multimillion dollar citrus industry.

Yula, one of the biosecurity detector dogs at Sydney Airport, detected the equivalent of a small shopping trolley worth of undeclared goods in a passenger's baggage: 3.5 kilograms of pork, 4.5 kilograms of millet, nearly a kilogram of dried fruit, almost 10 kilograms of rice and an assortment of fruit, vegetables and spices weighing about two kilograms. None of these goods were declared by the passenger. Pork can transmit African swine fever and foot and mouth disease, and rice can introduce khapra beetle—all of which would be devastating to Australian agriculture.

This bill will enable infringement notices with a higher value to be issued for goods that have not been declared on an incoming passenger card and that pose a high biosecurity risk. This is a response to travellers—whether they be Australian citizens, residents or international visitors—continuing to enter Australia with high biosecurity risk items, such those detected by Yula, and not declaring them.

We've made it as simple as possible: if in doubt just declare it. Having a biosecurity officer check your declared goods takes just a few minutes, and this doesn't necessarily mean you won't be able to bring your goods into Australia. Declaring doesn't always mean having the goods confiscated. It just enables the biosecurity officers to have a look and assess whether there is a biosecurity risk that needs to be managed. And it doesn't cost you to declare something.

The Director of Biosecurity will determine, using scientific evidence and risk analysis, what goods pose a high biosecurity risk and can therefore be subject to a higher infringement notice amount than currently applies. The goods will be listed in a legislative instrument. Before listing goods that have a high biosecurity risk, the Director of Biosecurity must be reasonably satisfied that there is a high level of biosecurity risk associated with the goods or the class of goods.

This tiered approach will highlight to incoming travellers how serious biosecurity is to Australia. This bill introduces sensible changes to help us protect Australia from biosecurity pests and diseases—all we ask of travellers coming to our country is that they take a few minutes to just declare it.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The SPEAKER (09:41): The original question was that the bill be read now a second time. To this the honourable member for Cooper has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:42): I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. Delivering excellence in training lies at the heart of the Australian government's skills agenda and that can only be achieved with a regulatory approach that is fair, transparent and effective and with a regulator that is willing to continually evolve, build organisational capability and engage with the vocational education and training sector.

This bill ensures that the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, has a more effective, modern and fit-for-purpose governance structure. It responds to both the Braithwaite and Joyce reviews, which called on ASQA to adopt a greater educative role and improve its regulatory approach. Further, it aligns with findings from the rapid review of ASQA governance, culture and processes undertaken by regulatory experts and announced by the government in October 2019. The government released the final rapid review on 30 April 2020.

The reforms will ensure ASQA is well positioned to support the VET sector to navigate the current COVID-19 environment and, more importantly, to guide the sector's recovery and regrowth once the pandemic abates. In this context, on 12 April 2020 the Australian government announced measures that provide regulatory fee relief for the VET sector. Certain fees and charges between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2021 will be waived and relevant fees already paid will be reimbursed. This will assist the financially viability of registered training organisations, supporting business operations during the crisis and fostering recovery once travel and operational restrictions are relaxed.

The revised governance model in the bill will also assist as it draws on best practice for Commonwealth regulators and will enable ASQA to better allocate and clarify operational roles and responsibilities and improve regulatory decision-making.

The existing three commissioner model will be replaced by a single agency head to be known as the Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, of ASQA who will lead ASQA's strategic direction and improve efficiency. Starting reform at the top and working down ensures a positive impact on the agency's culture and supports a revised and revitalised organisational structure anticipated as part of the agency reforms.

Further, the bill establishes a statutory advisory council consisting of diverse, multidisciplinary experts who will provide ASQA with access to strategic guidance and direction. For example, members of the council will be drawn from those with experience from public and private training organisations. Significant reform is anticipated in the VET sector over the coming years, and these changes will position the CEO to make the necessary changes to ASQA's internal practices, enhance its educative role and address future challenges.

The information-sharing provisions in the bill support the disclosure of data collected by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to a range of bodies. It is the intention of the bill for the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to be able to disclose information to state and territory departments with responsibility for Vocational Education and Training even where they are also listed on the national register as a registered training organisation. Enhanced information-sharing helps governments and vocational and educational training regulators so the diverse needs and requirements of all Australians are considered in policy, funding and regulation.

This bill is further evidence of the government's commitment to VET sector reform. It is the next stage of measures that will strengthen ASQA to engage more effectively with stakeholders while continuing to improve its regulatory approach and enhance student outcomes. A strong national regulator supports access to quality vocational educational and training.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2020 requested the minister's advice related to a no-invalidity clause and significant matters in delegated legislation. In relation to the invalidity clause, the committee sought advice about section 157(6) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. The act, which, when amended, would operate so that the failure of the national VET regulator to comply with advice provided by the new advisory council does not affect the validity of the performance of the regulator's functions. The minister advised the committee that the amendment is necessary to achieve the desired policy settings for the creation of the new independent expert advisory council.

New section 157(5)(a) makes it mandatory for the CEO of ASQA to consider the advisory council's advice, including reports. However, the amendment to section 157(6) proposed by item 34 in the bill ensures that the decisions of ASQA will not be invalid merely on the basis that the CEO did not have regard to a relevant advisory report or advice. The CEO of ASQA must consider, although not necessarily follow, that advice and information in specific circumstances which is the right policy setting for the advisory council's reports.

The committee also requested information regarding why in relation to schedule 2 of the bill it is necessary and appropriate to leave safeguards for the disclosure of information to delegated legislation. They asked for consideration of whether safeguards can be included on the face of the primary legislation or at a minimum provide that the minister must take the information safeguard rules rather than make them. The minister advised the committee that the information safeguard rules add an additional layer of protection to those already included on the face of primary legislation. The protection of personal information is a serious matter and, if unforeseen issues were to arise over time, the minister could quickly respond to emerging issues in an appropriate manner to the circumstances. The government committed to making the information safeguard rules following the passing of the bill, which also requires that the minister seeks agreement from the Council of Australian Governments skills ministers.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its Humanrights scrutiny report No. 3 of 2020 requested more information to assess whether the information-sharing measure in schedule 2 of the bill is compatible with the right to privacy. The committee considered the gathering of identifiable student data to develop policies which respond to the changing needs of students within and emerging from the VET system as an important and legitimate objective with sufficient protections to safeguard the right to privacy. The committee considered it may be useful to update the statement of compatibility to include the information the minister provided in her response. This action has been taken with the tabling of an addendum to the explanatory memorandum for the bill. I thank the committee and appreciate the time taken to review the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

The SPEAKER (09:59): The question now is that this bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (10:00): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:21): I want to make some remarks—this is a non-controversial bill; I'll say that at the outset, as you can tell by the fact that I don't think anyone else is speaking on it—but I want to firstly make some remarks about schedule 5, which piqued my interest. It gives medical practitioners greater flexibility to prescribe unapproved therapeutic goods. In response to that, I asked some questions. The minister's office—and I thank them for this—set up a discussion with Professor Skerritt, the head of the TGA, which was very informative.

What I discovered—which is not apparent from the bill, because it's incredibly arcane, technical, pharmaceutical regulatory architecture—is that in essence this is a very sensible schedule but it introduces a form of off-label prescribing. That is when a drug has not been approved by the TGA for a purpose for which it's prescribed by a medical practitioner, with very clear requirements for informed consent. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about this. In essence, just to explain the schedule, there's a group of medications, I think they're called special access C medications. They're often either: old drugs that have been taken off by the sponsor because they don't want to pay the annual fee, because there's only a few of them prescribed each year and it's not commercial; or they're drugs which, for whatever reason—usually because they have very small markets and are very rarely used—might have been approved in larger markets such as the United States or the EU, but have never actually been approved for use in Australia. But they have, importantly, been approved somewhere else in the world in a comparable country with similar oversight to the TGA.

What this bill does is, effectively, tidy up the arrangements whereby medical practitioners can get access to these drugs. Currently, a doctor can just prescribe them, but the authorised prescriber scheme doesn't allow for it. What the bill does is allow an authorised prescriber for a certain patient group. They still have to go through ethics committee approvals in their respective specialist colleges and apply to the college. They can go to the TGA and then get an authority, effectively, to prescribe these rarely-used drugs for a particular patient group. But, importantly, the requirement then is that the patient—or, in the case of children, their parents—has to provide written informed consent, which stays on the file of the medical practitioner. I think it lasts for about three years, or something of that order. That all seems quite sensible. It cuts red tape, effectively, for the prescriber, who currently has to fill in a special access form for each individual patient. So that all makes sense.

However, what it raises for me is a really important example of the government actually acting on the requirement for informed consent for off-label prescribing. So I use this opportunity to renew my call to the House for an inquiry into off-label prescribing. Off-label prescribing is, in essence, when you go to the doctor and the doctor gives you a script for a drug for a condition. You might have something wrong with you, whatever it may be, and they're recommending a drug for you for a purpose other than that which the TGA has approved it for. It happens every day, and it's enormously beneficial to many patients. There's no fundamental concern about clinical discretion. But it's also clear that there is a higher risk—I confirmed this with the head of the TGA and I've seen scientific studies—in aggregate where there's no rigorous scientific proof that's been undertaken for the drug to treat a particular condition. The medical negligence lawyers know this and they've been warning medical practitioners for years that they run a high risk of medical negligence in the case of off-label prescribing. There was a study of adverse drug reactions on off-label uses without strong scientific evidence of benefit with over 45,000 patients which found high rates of harm with off-label use compared to on-label use. In one sense it's a small difference—around 20 people per 10,000 versus 13 per 10,000—but when you scale up that to a population level it's very material. Indeed, the TGA's own warnings in Australia say very clearly that they recognise off-label prescribing may be appropriate in some circumstances but recommends that such use only be considered where 'other options are unavailable, exhausted, not tolerated or unsuitable'. The TGA has written to me a number of times confirming that off-label prescribing is not endorsed by the TGA, yet anyone and everyone knows that it's widespread.

My point is not to restrict clinical discretion, despite what some of the response to this in the media has been. I'm not hunting the doctors. My dad was a doctor. I think it's great we don't have lawyers sitting in doctors' surgeries like we do in America and that we've got a pretty high bar. Doctors don't set out to harm people. I get that. But I do believe we should look at a requirement for informed consent in Australia. In essence, with an off-label prescription, a patient in Australia is being subjected to an experiment by their doctor. There have never been any scientific rigorous tests. Drug companies have not run the gauntlet of the TGA to get a drug approved for a particular purpose. The doctor is conducting an experiment on them. It may be an experiment they've conducted many times or that doctors across the country have conducted many times, but it is still not approved, and I believe that Australian patients have a right to be told when that experiment is being conducted on them. That's all. There should be a positive duty on a clinician to tell a patient, 'The script I'm giving you now is for a purpose other than which the drug's been approved in Australia.' I've spent a lot of time with medical practitioners, with the Pharmaceutical Guild, with the PSA, with Medicines Australia and with others, and I think in many quarters there's quiet support for this proposition to at least be tested through a proper inquiry into off-label prescribing. That would promote better quality conversations between medical practitioners and patients. It would allow the patient to decide whether they want to accept that risk and, particularly, to look at the side effects.

I got into this issue in a personal way. My daughter almost died three years ago from a near-fatal blood clot from her ankle to her hip from an off-label drug. I've spoken previously about this and I won't repeat it at length. It was a drug called Diane-35. She'd been prescribed it—and she's asked me to talk publicly about this; I'm not disclosing her medical history—to regulate irregular periods. It's a very common issue for young women. She was prescribed this drug which is only approved for excessive acne and to treat excessive body hair in the case of androgyny, but its side effect is as a contraceptive. It would never be approved as a contraceptive in Australia because it's got a higher risk of blood clots than other more modern contraceptives, but it's widely prescribed by doctors. Anyway, I've spoken elsewhere about that.

More recently, there's the case of antidepressants and youth suicide. There was a study released Monday last week, which I spoke on in the Federation Chamber and which was reported on in the media last week. In essence, it points out that not one antidepressant is approved in Australia to treat depression in children—kids under 18 in effect—yet nearly two per cent of Australian kids are now taking an antidepressant. Correlation is not causation, but in the case of that massive epidemic of off-label prescribing we see over 100,000 Australian kids taking antidepressants, none of which have been approved, and over the last 10 years we've seen the suicide rate per capita in young Australians rise by 49 per cent correlated with a rise in antidepressant prescribing of 66 per cent. The US FDA in 2004 and 2007 looked at the risk of suicidality and suicide ideation and behaviours in antidepressants, and they issued their highest form of warning, black box warnings, in 2004 and 2007 for antidepressants prescribed for young people. In Australia, the TGA decided to not take that action, and they took much softer action in 2005. I think this is a problem. I think after 10 years of data heading in the wrong direction, it's time that we actually had a proper inquiry into this.

For the first time, actually, in the decade or so, this issue has been raised by some—and it's quite controversial; it's disputed within the mental health community of Australia. The paper was co-authored by the professor of psychiatry from the University of South Australia. These are not fringe dwellers or nutters. They have a fundamentally different view of this issue to the doyens, the mental health establishment professors McGorry and Hickey, and Beyond Blue, headspace and Suicide Prevention Australia—all the people who've been recommending this epidemic of prescribing. And that's fine; the scientists should contest it. I'm not an expert. But the point is that, with 10 years of data heading in the wrong direction, the suicide rate going up and the prescribing rate going up, to the point where Australia now has the second-highest rate of antidepressant use across the whole population of any country in the world—second only to Iceland—it's time that we had a proper look at this.

In that regard, I'm really pleased with the health minister's response to the speech that I made last week and to the paper. The health minister indicated to The Sydney Morning Herald that he'd asked his department to review the results of the study and have an inquiry into this matter, though the extent of that inquiry is as yet unclear. The study raised issues not just in regard to the dispute about prescribing; it also raised significant issues in regard to the quality of prior research that had influenced the TGA's response to the issues raised in the FDA warnings and challenged the veracity of the advice of the prominent Australian suicide prevention experts and mental health organisations.

So I welcome the health minister's inquiry, but I would also welcome his advice, whether to the House or shortly, as to what the terms of reference for this review are, what the time frame of the review is, what age demographic is to be analysed, and whether antidepressant use and suicide data is to be analysed. Since I made the speech and since the media reporting last week, I've been contacted by many people across Australia from all age groups reporting concerns around this issue. Will the review consider the quality of research that informed the prior TGA responses to the FDA warnings? Will the review consider the veracity of the advice of prominent Australian suicide prevention experts and prominent mental health organisations? Who will be conducting the review? Will there be an opportunity for public submissions to the review? How, if at all, will the authors of the study be consulted in the review? They stand ready to assist, contribute their views and explain their paper. I note that it was a peer reviewed paper in a proper psychiatric journal. What's the reporting deadline for the review, and will the review report be made publicly available? I'd welcome the minister's advice on that.

I've previously outlined other examples of off-label prescribing which are of concern. Shamefully for this nation, one example of off-label prescribing is the use of sedatives in aged-care settings. I understand the difficulties around informed consent with dementia patients and emergency settings and all that kind of stuff, and of course you can provide for sensible exemptions, but there have been calls for some time for this kind of examination of off-label prescribing and of whether we can do a better job of regulating it. Given that the minister announced in, I think, November last year that medicines would be the ninth or 10th national health priority, this broader issue of off-label prescribing is an important issue that could easily be looked at through an expert inquiry.

In closing, I make the point that I welcome the minister's commitment to review the issues raised about suicide in young people and the link, or possible link, with antidepressants. But I do think there's a broader issue around the regulation and oversight of off-label prescribing in Australia. Ultimately, I don't think the TGA is responsible for this. It goes to an issue of clinical practice, and current clinical practice. Before I spoke about this in the previous parliament, I actually consulted with former member Dr Kerryn Phelps, who was in cautious agreement with some of the propositions I was putting forward but did agree that they should be tested through an inquiry and that there was enough of an issue to merit a proper examination.

Current clinical practice in Australia encourages doctors to discuss medication risks, but, as I said, there is no duty to tell patients when they're being given an off-label prescription. I think this is wrong. I think Australians should have the right to be told. That's what I would want to be told if I went in to see a doctor. What I think most people would like to be told is that the drug they're being offered or asked to take is not approved by the TGA for the purpose for which it's being prescribed. In that regard, one approach would be to have AHPRA, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, look at the basic medical law and strengthen the requirement on clinicians to provide that informed consent. Other countries do this. It's important to note that several European countries, including France, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden, require doctors to advise patients when they're being given off-label drugs so that they get that informed consent and, I would hope, have those better-quality conversations. I don't see any reason why we couldn't adopt a similar model here in Australia. As I said, you've got to carve out sensible things for emergencies, although there are particular issues with paediatrics because of the difficulties in getting ethical approval to conduct clinical trials on children. But, for example, in the case of the antidepressants, you've got 10 years of real-world data. If you're collecting the right data, after some years you can do a retrospective analysis which goes close to approximating a clinical trial. I spoke to Medicines Australia about that, and they agreed that, if the right data was there, that real-world data can be looked at.

My colleague the member for Dobell is a pharmacist, and pharmacists have a critical role also in that chain of events before a person actually takes a medication. They're often the last check in that chain, and so, as part of a proper look at off-label prescribing, I would suggest that we consider a requirement to notify pharmacists when a prescription is off-label, at least for the first time, so that at the pharmacist's counter they can have that extra minute or so talking about the side effects. I know that if my daughter had had the opportunity to be warned about the higher risks—she's like Saffy from AbFab: she's very sensible; far more sensible, they say, than her parents—I think she would have made a different decision about whether to put that drug in her body before getting on a long-haul flight, and she'd be in a very different situation now.

Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:36): I rise to speak in support of the Morrison government's amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 contained in this bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. The coalition government has a proud record of prioritising the health and wellbeing of all Australians, which has been particularly evident in our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government has also listed over 2,400 new medicines, worth around $11.6 billion, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This has only been possible because of the coalition's prioritisation of the health of Australians and our responsible economic management since 2013. The fact that 30 new or amended medicines are listed each month is indicative of the coalition's focus and commitment to improving the health of all Australians, including people in my electorate of Robertson. This bill strengthens Australia's ability to list medicines on the PBS.

(Quorum formed) It strengthens Australia's ability to list medicines on the PBS, reducing delays for Australians who are trying to access new medicines and navigate regulatory hurdles.

One of the key features of this bill is the harmonisation of the key medical device definitions in Australia with those recently adopted by the European Union. These changes will assist in minimising the delay for Australian consumers in accessing new medical devices as our standards will now be in line with the EU. This means Australians can access world-class and affordable health care sooner. In April 2017 the EU introduced significant reforms for medical devices and in-vitro medical devices. These reforms better address technological and scientific advances in the medical industry over the past 20 years. In considering these new regulations, the Department of Health's expert panel for the review of medicines and medical devices regulations recommended that the regulation of medical devices in Australia should align whenever possible with the EU framework. This bill will support the expert panel's recommendation by updating key medical device definitions, which will clarify regulatory requirements for industry sponsors and manufacturers.

Another significant change this bill will make is to allow the secretary of the Department of Health to provide early, non-binding specific advice to sponsors of medicines about the safety, quality or efficacy of their products. These registerable medicines are typically classified as higher-risk medicines, which are mostly dispensed by prescription and over the counter. As there may not be enough guidance available on these complex medical products, this bill provides a mechanism for sponsors to seek early scientific advice about certain aspects of a medicine before they formally apply to register the medical product on the PBS. This will mean that the time taken to register higher-risk medical products on the PBS, some of which will assist Australians with complex medical needs, will be reduced. It will also provide greater certainty and clarity for sponsors looking to list a promising new medicine.

The bill will also introduce a targeted data-protection regime for access listed medicines, to encourage innovation in Australia's complementary-medicines industry. This provision supports another recommendation of the Department of Health's expert panel. This recommendation suggested that incentives be introduced for medicine sponsors to invest in innovation, which will in turn increase the competitiveness of complementary medicines in Australia.

In my electorate of Robertson I've witnessed firsthand how the Morrison government's strong economic management has benefited those suffering from medical conditions, with them able to access new medicines listed on the PBS. I've also seen why it's important for us to make it easier for Australians to access the medicines they desperately need and to reduce the barriers for sponsors of medicines by applying for their registration on the PBS.

In August last year I was pleased to welcome the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, to the Central Coast to announce the delivery of a third linear accelerator at the Central Coast Cancer Centre. During the minister's visit there we met with a patient receiving treatment for brain cancer. He told us how the Morrison government's listing of Avastin on the PBS dramatically reduced his treatment costs. This is a medication that blocks a cancer cell protein which allows cancers to grow in blood vessels. It starves the protein. Over 900 Australians living with this aggressive form of brain cancer now benefit from Avastin being listed on the PBS. Without the subsidy, it would cost up to $31,200 per course of treatment. Instead, cancer patients like the one that the minister and I met at the Central Coast Cancer Centre now receive prescriptions at the cost per script of only $6.60 for concession card holders and $41 for general patients.

The coalition government's strong record on the economy to date has ensured the continued investment in lifesaving medicines on the PBS. This stands in stark contrast to the last time that Labor was in office, when they deferred listings of new medicines on the PBS. This bill will make it easier for medicines to be listed on the PBS and to ensure Australians receive access to new medical devices sooner. In concluding, I would like to thank the Minister for Health, who I notice is in the chamber, for his ongoing support for the people in my electorate of Robertson who are suffering from severe health conditions. I particularly commend him for his leadership in strengthening Australia's healthcare sector, especially during the current global pandemic.

In closing, this bill makes important amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to support the delivery of the highest quality health care for Australians. This bill will assist in decreasing the waiting times for Australians to receive new medical devices as well as reduce the regulatory barriers for medicine sponsors in listing promising new products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (10:45): I want to thank all of those who have spoken on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. The member for Bruce made important points about antidepressants, and I have referred that matter to the TGA, and I also look forward to receiving the response. It's about making sure that people have access to medicines that can help protect them and help them through what can be the most difficult of times in a way that is safe and not merely a default which avoids the necessary therapy, cognitive behavioural support and mental health support necessary to deal with so many cases. It's about getting the appropriate treatment for the appropriate condition.

I also want to thank the member for Robertson. She, in particular, has been a great advocate for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As she noted, over 2,400 medicines—approximately one per day—have been listed on the PBS during our time in government. They're medicines such as Avastin and Tecentriq. They're medicines for spinal muscular atrophy. They're life-saving medicines for conditions. These have been immensely important. She mentioned Avastin, which would have cost up to $31,000 per treatment over the course of time. It's now available for $6.60. We will continue to list all of the medicines that the PBAC approves.

One of the things which I do want to highlight to the House is that from time to time there will be companies that seek to astroturf. Astroturfing is where a company refuses to abide by the legal requirements and conditions set out by the PBAC. They will attempt to support a patient group with funds to try to pressure the government to bypass the legal requirements. The government cannot bypass the legal requirements. One such case that I do want to call out is the improper practice of Eli Lilly. Their practice has been improper and inappropriate. They are denying patients access to Emgality, a medicine for migraines. This is Migraine Awareness Week. Their behaviour is improper and inappropriate, and they're seeking to avoid the legal requirements. Today I am calling on that company to stop denying patients access to this medicine and to meet the legal requirements, which are mandatory. They are mandatory because of safety. They are mandatory because of efficacy. On this day, this company must abide by the legal requirements and should stop their practice of denying their patients access to a medicine which has been approved by the PBAC but for which they refuse to meet the legal requirements. It is, in my view, unethical and inappropriate and we are calling it out.

Against that background, this is landmark legislation. This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to implement a range of fundamental measures to support the health and wellbeing of Australians. In particular, the bill introduces measures to improve access to therapeutic goods for Australians, encourage innovations, reduce regulatory burden and enhance patient safety by removing barriers to efforts to alleviate medicine shortages.

In relation to improving access to therapeutic goods, the bill amends a number of medical device definitions to more closely align Australia's regulatory framework for devices with the European Union framework. As most devices supplied in Australia are manufactured overseas, reducing differences between the two frameworks is designed to minimise delays in device sponsors and manufacturers seeking marketing approval in Australia after European approval.

The bill enables the secretary to provide early scientific advice to sponsors of registrable medicines, mainly prescriptions and over-the-counter medicines, about prescribed aspects of the medicines' safety, quality or efficacy—exactly the things which I referenced in relation to the work of the PBAC in approving medicines for the PBS—to assist sponsors to understand the level of information needed to support a successful application for marketing approval. This measure will reduce delays in access to new medicines that stem from industry uncertainty about aspects of supporting information for such products, particularly for generic medicines in relation to bioequivalence studies. The advice will guide sponsors and help them reduce the incidence of rejections and the time and cost of developing evidence that is not needed.

The bill also removes a barrier for promising new medicines to access the new provisional registration pathway, which was introduced in 2018 to provide access to medicines that provide a major therapeutic advance over existing treatment options for very serious conditions. Other measures in the bill address issues of delay and interruption for operators of clinical trials who need to make variations to the terms of their approvals and improve flexibility for authorised prescribers seeking to supply unapproved goods to their patients, and the measures encourage investment through the introduction of a targeted data protection regime for the clinical trial data for assessed listed medicines.

It is my view that, in addition to the legislative amendments, we have a unique opportunity in Australia. Australians have done it hard through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they have been magnificent. As a result of those successes in helping to flatten the curve, not only have we saved lives and protected lives in Australia but we have still further enhanced the standing of Australia's medical system, health system and medical research system. As a consequence, there is a unique opportunity for Australia to further advance our clinical trial capacity. The world wishes to practise clinical trials in Australia whenever possible. So we are seeking to work with the states on a one-stop-shop for clinical trial approvals. If we can expedite that pathway, we can give more Australians earlier access to breakthrough new therapeutic medicines, build jobs in Australia and build the medical sector still further.

The bill also enhances patient safety by removing a criminal offence that has been the subject of concern that it may be a disincentive to sponsor some potential alternative products to a medicine that is in shortage by identifying if they are able to arrange for the supply of their products to help alleviate the effects of the shortage. It is part of the general process of making drugs, devices, medicines, therapeutic procedures and implantables available to more Australians at an earlier time. It wouldn't have happened without the work of the TGA, the department, the Medical Technology Association of Australia, Medicines Australia and my office. I particularly want to thank my medicines adviser, Sam Develin; my budget adviser, Belinda McEniery; and my legislative adviser, Chantal D'argaville. Altogether, they've played a very important role. I thank the members for their contribution to the debate on this bill, and 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 Dobell 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 words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (11:02): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (11:02): I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2020.

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (11:03): Labor won't oppose the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act and makes a number of changes to the legislation around higher education funding. While a lot of these are technical in nature, the bill does include a more substantive provision which waives the 25 per cent loan fee usually paid by full-fee-paying university students. It waives that fee for six months from April.

The bill also gives the Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment the power to determine certain students who due to an administrative error in the student identification system have exceeded their HELP loan limit. The secretary will be able to allow these students to repay the excess amount through the tax system. In light of the fact that an error has been made, this is a sensible way of dealing with that error. Labor has sought and received from the minister a commitment that each of the 475 students who fall into this category who've been affected by this overpayment anomaly will be contacted directly by the department and advised of the changes, how those changes will affect them and any relief or redress that is available to those students.

The bill also extends the Unique Student Identifier regime to all higher education students, requiring that all students commencing from January 2021 and all students from January 2023 have a unique identifier in order to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. We have long supported the expansion of the Unique Student Identifier across higher education. We know that this should reduce the likelihood of future overpayment anomalies.

And of course Labor welcomes any relief a six-month loan waiver will provide to full-fee-paying undergraduate students, even if this relief only applies to a small group of students—it's better than nothing. Even if the relief is meagre and piecemeal of course we won't oppose it. It does amaze me, though, that in the context of this generational crisis facing our higher education sector that this is what the government is presenting to the parliament: a bill with the minimum possible assistance to students mixed in with technical changes and administrative clean-ups. It's a bill that doesn't even begin to acknowledge the enormous financial challenges facing our university sector, nor do anything—take any steps—towards addressing them.

It's not like the government is unaware of these problems. Universities Australia has been saying for many weeks now that 21,000 jobs are at risk in our higher education sector. For months Labor has been urging those opposite to support jobs in higher education, to keep the universities afloat and to keep Australians working. We're open to what that assistance might look like, but we are very clear that assistance is necessary. Sadly for those who are working or studying at university, and for every Australian who benefits from our universities—from their teaching and their research—the government has chosen to ignore these problems. It's chosen to let our fourth-biggest export earner fend for itself. In fact, the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to exclude universities from the assistance available to other businesses and other sectors during the COVID-19 crisis.

The government has repeatedly changed the rules to make sure that universities are not eligible for any assistance and to make sure that university staff, uniquely, are blocked from accessing wage subsidies. And we've seen those terrible forecasts playing out now. What we see before us is a slow-burning catastrophe, with universities shedding jobs, closing campuses and shutting courses. Some of the worst consequences of course are being felt in regional Australia. We've already learned that hundreds of jobs are going in Geelong and Warrnambool. Deakin is losing 400 jobs—so far. Central Queensland University has announced 280 job losses and three campus closures: Sunshine Coast, Yeppoon and Biloela, and jobs—hundreds of jobs—are at risk in Rockhampton as well.

Across Melbourne and Bendigo, La Trobe University is shedding jobs and, unfortunately, this is just the beginning of what will be a rolling crisis in coming months. The impact of these losses in regional communities is devastating. If we're talking about a small town or even a large regional centre, if we take out a few dozen jobs from, say, Rockhampton, people will feel that. They'll feel it right across that local community and that local economy.

Universities support 14,000 jobs in regional Australia and help to underpin the local economy in countless towns. Across the board, we're looking at tens of thousands of livelihoods being destroyed. We're talking about academics, tutors, administrative staff, librarians, catering staff, grounds staff, cleaners, security guards and many, many others. All of them have bills to pay and families to support. It is incomprehensible that the government has gone out of its way to exclude these workers, and it has continued to change the rules to make sure that these workers will not be covered by JobKeeper.

It is beyond me why the Prime Minister is so determined to abandon these workers. At this point it's hard to view this inaction as anything other than a deliberate attack on Australia's higher education system and at a time when we are relying on our brilliant university researchers to help us cope with the COVID-19 health crisis. We're relying on these researchers to help us find a vaccine or treatment for COVID-19, yet the same people we're relying on can't rely on their Prime Minister to help them keep a job. The Prime Minister's $60 billion stuff-up with JobKeeper means that there is absolutely no excuse not to support people in the higher education system. University jobs can be saved, but only if the government comes to the table, sits down with universities and treats university staff with the same respect with which it would treat people in other sectors. If I were in government right now, I wouldn't want to look back in coming months and think about the thousands of jobs I could have saved but chose not to.

This bill also has some measures that relate to our vocational education and training sector. Again, these are generally sensible changes, but they really only work around the margins of the system. And of course our vocational education system is absolutely critical to our economic success as a nation. Vocational education is more critical now than ever, as we enter the first recession in three decades. Minor adjustments, as we find in this bill, are just not going to achieve what we need in the sector, and there certainly needs to be a much more genuine commitment to proper resourcing for vocational education. You cannot rip money out of vocational education year after year and expect vocational education to improve in the face of that. You can't systematically underfund vocational education and then ask vocational educators to meet the complex and evolving skills challenge that a sophisticated economy like Australia's has.

But this is exactly what this government has been doing. It has spent seven years cutting TAFE and training budgets while also, on top of the cuts, underspending the money that has been allocated for vocational education. Since coming to office in 2013, those opposite have cut $3 billion from TAFE and training. And, as we learned earlier this year, on top of that $3 billion that was cut, almost $1 billion that had been set aside for vocational education and training has not been spent—$3 billion cut and $1 billion underspent. You cannot remove that sort of funding from a sector and expect it to thrive. You can't remove that sort of funding and not expect standards to fall.

This was happening already, before COVID-19 made this crisis even worse. In fact, according to a survey by the Australian Industry Group, three-quarters of Australian businesses were already struggling to find the skilled workers they needed to expand and grow. That was three-quarters of businesses that wanted to employ Australians but could not find the qualified workers they needed in order to expand their operations. What a tragedy that is: before COVID-19 we had almost two million people unemployed or underemployed, yet three-quarters of businesses said they couldn't find the skilled staff they needed in order to expand.

We're in a recession now, and what was a serious problem before has become a crisis. Nowhere is this more serious than in the collapse of apprenticeship numbers. Even before COVID-19, Australia had lost 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships since those opposite came to government. And, according to new modelling from the National Australian Apprenticeships Association, we're set to lose another 100,000 by December. We are talking about losing 2,000 apprentices and trainees every week for the rest of this year. That is 2,000 Australians, most of them young Australians, who will not get the opportunity of getting the skills they need to have a secure, decent job that can put a roof over their head, that can support a family in years to come. But it's also 2,000 skilled workers that we are taking out of our economy as it begins to recover, as we hope it will in the not-too-distant future. We cannot afford the loss of these skilled workers if we want to repair our economy.

If the Prime Minister does nothing about this crisis and lets the training pipeline collapse without support, we could lose a generation of apprentices and trainees. It's already beginning to happen. Between January and April this year we saw a 73 per cent decline in apprentice job ads. We know from past recessions that a five per cent increase in unemployment results in a 30 per cent decrease in apprenticeship commencements. That would be a disaster for young Australians and it would reverberate through our economy for decades to come. It's all very well to talk about renovations and construction projects, but you actually need the tradies and the apprentices to build them.

So what is the Prime Minister's response to this crisis? Well, we heard it at the National Press Club last month and, sadly, it's just another exercise in marketing and spin. The Prime Minister's so-called JobMaker scheme involves no new funding, no time line and no new detail at all. In fact, the speech involved pretty much no new substance at all. Like other recent policies from the Prime Minister, it is a shallow response to a serious problem. It is a marketing-led recovery that he is relying on. It is certainly not enough to address the crisis in apprenticeship numbers or to revive our TAFE system.

We on this side are happy to support sensible legislative change in this area, but we need to go much, much further than the tweaks that this legislation proposes. We need to offer our universities and our TAFE and vocational education systems much more than is proposed in these bills because this country is confronting its most serious economic crisis in a generation and education will be a critical feature of repairing our economy. We are, as all of us know, experiencing the greatest economic transformation of our lifetime. We need a well-resourced training system, offering meaningful skills and development to meet this future head-on. Unfortunately, after seven years of this government, the coalition seems very little interested in building the system that will help us respond to this crisis. We won't oppose these changes but, with the scale of our challenges, we need much, much more.

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 has damaged the quality of Australia's world-class post-secondary education system by:

(1) cutting billions from universities, slashing research funding and locking students out of tertiary education;

(2) cutting billions from TAFEs and training, presiding over a dramatic decline in students undertaking vocational education; and

(3) failing to develop a long-term policy for the Australian post-secondary education system".

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

Ms O'Neil: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

(Quorum formed)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (11:22): 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. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:22): I am pleased to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 and to support the amendments moved by the member for Sydney. Education exports are an integral pillar of our economy, worth over $37 billion to the Australian economy in 2018-19. Australian exports dependent on international travel, such as tourism and education, have been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 crisis due to the global recession and the ongoing travel restrictions aimed at flattening the COVID curve. International education in particular bore the brunt of the coronavirus outbreak, with the primary market of China cut off from Australia universities since 1 February, but also important markets like India, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and all through our region.

International education, including universities, vocational education and English language schools are Australia's largest services export industry and fourth-largest export sector overall. The Australian Bureau of Statistics trade in goods and services figures for April this year show the catastrophic impact COVID-19 has had on Australia's education exports. Tourism related service credits, including the education exports, fell $730 million, or 18 per cent, in a month. If you look at the data, you can see that the international education sector has fallen off a cliff.

The university sector alone is anticipating revenue losses of between $10 billion and $19 billion from 2020 to 2023. Universities Australia has estimated that there will be around 21,000 jobs lost over the next six months. This will continue into 2021 if international students are not able to return at this point. Yet the government refuses to extend JobKeeper to the tertiary education sector. This government went out of its way to exclude universities from the JobKeeper package. Of course, not all universities were excluded. Some private universities got some assistance. Torrens University, Bond University, the University of Notre Dame and the University of Divinity were all granted an exemption and are able to access the JobKeeper program, but there was nothing for Australia's public universities, nothing for struggling universities in regional Australia or universities based in regional centres such as the University of New England, Central Queensland University, Southern Cross University and other unis such as La Trobe and Charles Sturt University with campuses all throughout the regions. There is nothing for those universities. In fact, there is nothing in the COVID response of this government for those public institutions which educate Australians as well as provide the means for our largest services export industry. There was some assistance, a very minor amount—$100 million—in this context of regulatory relief to be shared between the universities and the vocational education sector, but that, of course, will go nowhere to cover the shortfall being experienced by universities in this pandemic. All the government has done in substance to help is to simply confirm existing pre-COVID funding arrangements. It's like the Clayton's COVID response: the higher education package you want to announce when you don't really want to help the Australian university sector at all. And it's going to cost jobs. It's already costing jobs. The member for Sydney already mentioned this morning that 14,000 jobs in regional areas are going because of the inability of this government to get over its ideological bent against Australian universities.

We hear in this place, and outside of this place, constant refrains for increased local manufacturing capacity and Australian-made goods. The community at large want more things made in this country, as do I, as do people in this chamber. Of course, Labor will always continue to advocate for increased local manufacturing capacity that complements and builds upon our comparative advantages—in particular, high-end manufacturing through investment in research and development—instead of specific industry subsidies. However, any such R&D will depend on the strong higher education sector that this government is determined to see crash. University research, as many know, is heavily subsidised by international student revenue and will face significant cuts without government intervention. This government, as I've said and as we all know, has refused to intervene.

On top of this, the government's ham-fisted approach to our trading relationship with China has placed further pressure on our higher education export sector into the future. Letting rogue backbenchers speak without any measure and lead the debate in this place on China shows a shocking abrogation of their responsibility to lead by the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister.

The Prime Minister also took time out to tell international students to go home. This is going to have lasting reputational damage for Australian institutions. We had, at our feet, a chance to place higher education in Australia—and that export industry—as being the safest place in the world in the global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. But international students around the world know that this Australian government will not hesitate to abandon them in a crisis. Such an erosion of trust is unforgivable. The Victorian and New South Wales governments have stepped up to help international students, but the lack of support here in Australia offered by our federal government to international students is sorely lacking compared to what national governments in Canada and the UK have undertaken to do. They are our competitors in a very competitive international education market.

These countries helped these income-generating international students, but this Australian government left international students homeless and hungry. It's a disgrace—and I don't like to use this word very much—and it's 'un-Australian' as well for international students who are stuck here. There are no planes; they can't simply go home. The nations they come from have restrictions as well; it's not as simple as just telling people to go home or to rack off, but that's what this government has done to the people who provide our largest services export industry with billions of dollars into our national economy.

Despite what the Chinese ministry might say, Australia is a safe place for international students, and we hope that international students come back. But, quite frankly, we can't count on that when, in a crisis, this mob simply tells international students to go home when there are no means to do that. I would call upon the government to immediately act to repair the damage they've done to our relationship with the international students and those communities overseas which want to send their children to study here in due course, when we've recovered from the pandemic and it's safe to do so. But a lot of work will need to be done on recovering our international reputation in this area.

I've spoken a bit in the last few months about the need for diversification in our export markets. Quite frankly, a lot of people have spoken about that. This is important, in particular, in international education. Earlier this month, of course, we saw the spectacle of the Prime Minister finally discovering India. Just at the point when our government would want to think about taking our relationship with India far more seriously than cricket, curries and Commonwealth, all we got was the Prime Minister making 'Scomosas' to patronise the Indian community with. Australia's 700,000-strong Indian-Australian diaspora must have been rolling their eyes in embarrassment; likewise the business community, with its strong Indian links.

The real shame of this is that the government was presented with a blueprint for serious economic engagement with India two years ago. Two years ago—that's when the distinguished former head of DFAT, Peter Varghese, presented his report, An India economic strategy to 2035, to the government. This report has since then been gathering dust, and only a handful of the 90 recommendations have been acted upon. Peter Varghese found that no single market over the coming decades offered more opportunities for Australia than India, and he stressed that a stronger productive Australia-India relationship would have education as the flagship of that bilateral relationship. It is a massive economy and will only become bigger in coming decades. We know that the demand is already there, that Indian parents are eager to send their children overseas for a quality education and that many are looking to Australia.

I have a few quotes here from the Varghese report. I don't think the government has read it, so I'm happy to read some of the recommendations into Hansard. As Peter Varghese has said:

There is no sector with greater promise for Australia in India than education.

Australia's future growth and prosperity will be driven by our ability to generate and attract the 'best and brightest'.

Getting education right is also critical for India to maximise the potential of its demographic dividend.

India cannot meet the demand for education on its own.

As a world-class education provider, Australia is well placed to partner with India across secondary, university and vocational sectors.

And what have we seen? Very little.

And while I'm on the subject of international education and diversifying our markets, I want to make a bit of reflection on our relationship with our nearest neighbour, if you're from Western Australia: Indonesia. This week, I wrote to the Minister for Education and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment to express my grave concern that the Australian Consortium for 'In-Country' Indonesian Studies, known as ACICIS, may soon be forced to close unless it receives urgent financial assistance. In my former role at the University of Western Australia and as chief operating officer of the Perth USAsia Centre, I saw firsthand the immensely valuable work of ACICIS in providing an accessible pathway for Australian students to study in Indonesia. ACICIS is also the backbone of the New Colombo Plan, as it sends Australian students to Indonesia.

Former foreign minister of this country the Hon. Julie Bishop would be absolutely appalled that the government is failing to help with the operating costs of ACICIS. ACICIS gets funding from the federal government, but that funding cannot be used for operating costs. It can only be used to facilitate the exchange of students, and, of course, that money does not became available at this time, because no-one is able to travel. So, in the meantime, this excellent organisation, which is a consortium of more than 30 Australian universities and which has run on a shoestring for 25 years, continues to run on a shoestring, yet this government will not help it make ends meet in this time of crisis.

More than 3½ thousand students have studied in Indonesia through the consortium since 1995. ACICIS alumni now hold significant positions in government, the academy and business. It would be astounding and it would be a scandal if this government failed to support this organisation just weeks before the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement is set to come into force. It will do our relationship with Indonesia a terrible disservice to not support this important organisation in its time of need.

I have, of course, asked the Minister for Education to ensure that ACICIS receives the financial supports it needs. I have not yet received a response. I hope I will, and I hope ACICIS will receive a response to the request it has made for support from this government. You can hardly believe we could get to this position in a country where a government has expended enormous effort on its relationship with Indonesia—not before time, I might add. It was a Labor government that started the negotiations and the preparations for the IA-CEPA. We had some concerns, but we fully supported that agreement going through this parliament and being ratified as part of that important diversification of our markets.

We know the value of student exchange. The students of today are the leaders of tomorrow. Australian students going to Indonesia today will have a greater understanding of Indonesian culture, its education systems and its governmental systems. Likewise, we want Indonesian students to come to Australia, when they can, to learn more about us. This is a vibrant democracy. It's a massive democracy to our north. It will be one of the four largest economies in the world by 2050, alongside India, yet this government won't put forward some few hundred thousand dollars to help an organisation such as ACICIS, which does tremendous work and has operated for 25 years. I call on this government to support ACICIS in its time of need for the advancement of Australian international education and our relationship with this important trading partner.

(Quorum formed )

Dr HAINES (Indi) (11:40): I rise today to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020, with a particular focus on schedule 4, which forms part of the Higher Education Relief Package this government has introduced with the intent of supporting universities and other higher education providers throughout the coronavirus pandemic.

Even before the pandemic I was a keen advocate—I remain a keen advocate—for reforms in the higher education and VET sectors to ensure all Australians, and in particular rural and regional Australians, have affordable access to further study and skill development opportunities. For years, higher education and VET students who have accessed FEE-HELP or VET student loans to defer their tuition fees have been subjected to a loan fee of 25 per cent or 20 per cent respectively. This is a straight-up student loan tax that is over and above the amount students borrow for their course and applies disproportionately to students for no discernible policy reason. Schedule 4 of this bill, which temporarily removes this FEE-HELP loan fee, is a step towards making higher education more affordable. And, frankly, it's a step which could have been taken before the pandemic. I also note the similar temporary relief the government will provide to those taking out VET student loans to undertake a diploma or higher qualification with independent RTOs and public TAFE colleges.

Under these measures, prospective VET and VSL students who may be considering commencing or returning to study may in fact be incentivised to study in semester 2 this year. This is good. These types of incentives are needed in rural and regional Australia, even outside of the pandemic. I commend the government for doing this and I encourage them to continue to do this. People living in rural and regional Australia have much lower educational outcomes than our city cousins. We're less likely to complete year 12, less likely to gain a qualification at certificate IV level or above, and less likely to apply for or accept a university offer. This is not because students from rural and regional Australia are less able; it's because students from rural and regional Australia face so many more barriers.

The government's own Napthine review found that high school completion rates are 80 per cent in metropolitan areas and 65 per cent in rural areas. It found that people that grow up in regional Australia are 40 per cent less likely to get at least a certificate IV and 50 per cent less likely than their peers to gain a bachelor degree or above. In my electorate of Indi alone, I know that our rate is half the state average for completing bachelor degrees or higher. Even VET enrolments are increasing faster in metropolitan areas than in regional areas, and it's this lack of training opportunities that is holding us back. The unemployment rate for those with a certificate III or above is 3.9 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent for those without one. And many of our young students are forced to move to metropolitan areas to study and subsequently face higher costs for relocation, but so often lack support to do so. Many students simply never reply because they know their family can't afford to send them.

We have excellent regional universities that, with the right investment and development, could really transform our regions, but they too need support. We also know that there's insufficient career advice guiding students towards courses that could make sense for them. Again, this was shown in the Napthine review, the government's own review. This affects groups with extra disadvantage especially hard, like low SES students and students with disabilities, and pushes study and skill development opportunities further and further out of their reach.

This government has also fundamentally misunderstood how regional universities structure their operations and finances when compared to metropolitan universities, particularly the Group of Eight. The decision to exclude universities from the JobKeeper package left regional universities like those in my electorate, La Trobe and Charles Sturt, reeling. La Trobe is facing a revenue slump of $400 million to $520 million by the end of 2022. Regional universities and the entire university sector are facing more than 21,000 jobs lost, even under these measures, which is a drop in the ocean of what's actually needed and has always been needed.

I can't emphasise enough the vulnerability of the regional universities in this time of pandemic. One wonders if the government would have been better placed to understand the unique position, needs and ambitions of regional universities and skills development opportunities if it had acted on the recommendations of the Regions at the ready report to build a white paper that includes a clear national regional higher education strategy. Yet, this government has stalled on the release of the expert panel review of that report and its recommendations for well over a year now. We could have been halfway along the course.

It was only last week that I stood in this place and urged the government to support an amendment that would ensure regional Australia was included in its National Skills Commission, based on specific recommendations of the Joyce review. Including regional Australia explicitly in that bill would mean the government would have clear data and analysis on workforce development needs and opportunities in the regions. It's only with that data and the accompanying analysis that it can know exactly how regional universities and vocational education providers operate. It would make sure that future emergency measures, like those contained in this bill, understood regional Australia. But, instead, sadly, the government voted that amendment down.

So, while welcome, the measures in this bill are piecemeal and too little too late. This relief was always needed in rural and regional Australia, not just in the middle of a pandemic. The irony is that this government has been told time and time again what it could be doing for rural and regional Australian education. I really encourage the government to move swiftly on the key recommendations of its own report, the Napthine review, which are no more urgent than now. That report urged the government to uncap places at regional universities and develop new, innovative VET offerings focussed on practical learning and technical skills. In his second reading speech, the member for Wannon said:

The bill gives effect to the government's commitment to provide certainty to the higher education sector, so the sector can remain agile while meeting the needs of industry and contributing to the economy.

With respect, this measure, which will only last for one semester, does not exactly fortify our universities and provide a reliable level of certainty. Even the Higher Education Relief Package at large, which includes some regulatory relief for education providers, cost reductions, short online courses and a temporary funding guarantee under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, is not enough. Universities Australia have warned that Australian universities now face a projected revenue decline of between $3 billion and $4.6 billion.

The demand for thriving regional universities has never been greater. The Universities Admissions Centre in New South Wales have stated that 14,669 students have applied to start university in 2021, compared with 7,824 students at this time last year. That's a phenomenal jump of 88 per cent. The Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre and the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre are also reporting rising demand, with some applicants wanting to start their courses as soon as August this year.

I will not stand in the way of this bill, but I want to remind the government that it must do more than suspend a disproportionately applied student tax that has no discernible policy rationale for six months. Reform in this sector should not be about relief; it should be about ambition, transformation, opportunity and optimism. I will continue to advocate in this place for this kind of future for higher education and for vocational skills and training. I shall do so, always and especially, for rural and regional Australia, and I call on the government to do the same.

(Quorum formed)

Dr ALY (Cowan) (11:52): I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. But first I want to raise this: I don't believe this bill does much at all in the way of reform, as previous speakers have pointed out. It makes a few technical amendments, and there are a few things such as extending the unique student identifier and some schedules around the repayments of debts, but I echo the sentiments expressed by the member for Sydney. I agree with her that I am completely bewildered that, at a time when the university sector is facing an absolute crisis that could potentially see the closure of Australian universities and a diminishing of Australia's standing as a destination for world-class tertiary higher education—one of our largest exports—this is what the government has come up with, in terms of reform of the university sector. It is absolutely beguiling that this is what the government has put forward.

I also point out the fact that none—not a single one—of the members from the government side has taken the opportunity to stand here today and talk about higher education and universities, despite the fact they have some very, very well-respected people in their caucus—for example, the member for Curtin—who have worked at universities, and despite the fact that many senior Liberal politicians have benefited from the Australian university system and have multiple degrees. I didn't know, for example, that the Treasurer has four university degrees. Collectively, I think they have more degrees than a thermometer—that's a good joke, isn't it? There you go: ba-boom!

Quite seriously, I find it quite extraordinary that nobody from the government side is speaking on this bill, either to defend it or to stand up for universities and the valued place that they have in our country. But, at the same time, I'm not really surprised, because since the election of this government in 2013 universities and university students have been under constant attack with cuts, attempts at fee deregulation, policy chaos and uncertainty.

The 2017 MYEFO decision to cut $2.2 billion from universities and to recap undergraduate places, and their changes to the Higher Education Loan Program were both reckless and unfair. Some 200,000 students will miss out on the opportunity of a university place over the decade because of this government's cuts and capping of places. Not only will this devastate our economy and our society, but I want the House to think for a minute about the missed opportunity here for students who miss out on a place at university. And it's not going to be the students who go to wealthy schools, live in wealthy areas and have wealthy parents that are going to miss out; it's going to be the disadvantaged students—students in rural and regional areas; students who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; and women, who, like me, sought to return to work and upgrade their qualifications by going back to university. They're the ones that are going to miss out on places.

This government has buckled down on its contempt, its cuts and its strangulation of universities by failing to extend JobKeeper to universities at this time. I stand here as somebody who comes from the university sector, and it has been devastating for me to see my colleagues at the various universities that I've worked at facing the prospect of losing their jobs and also the closure of university campuses, the cutting back of the course offerings that universities are able to provide to students and the absolute uncertainty and insecurity which university staff face.

What does it mean, that the government has resisted, time and time again, our calls to extend JobKeeper to universities? I want to be very clear here: it's not just the professors and the academics who are going to suffer and lose their jobs. In fact, if you are fortunate enough, like I was, to be a research professor, it's really your own research revenue that guarantees your tenure at a university. However, if you are—like many of my colleagues—employed on a casual basis or on a rolling one-year contract to deliver lectures and tutorials for different units at university, you face unemployment. But it is not just those people. It's the cleaners, it's the admin staff, it's the ground staff and it's the students. Like I said, it's the most disadvantaged students who are going to be cut first because these cuts and the failure of this government to boost and support the university sector through these unprecedented times means that those smaller universities are the ones that are going to go first: the universities that cater to the most disadvantaged domestic students. And I'm not talking here about universities that cater predominantly to international students because they're forced to take on that business model because of progressive cuts by this government. I'm talking about those smaller universities that serve communities and that serve regions. They also serve as a place of belonging for people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and who, without those universities, would not have had the opportunity to go to university at all.

I stand here as a product of one of those smaller universities. I am a product of Edith Cowan University. And the only reason that I was able to go back to university, to build myself up and make a life for myself and my children, is because I had the opportunity to get a university degree through Edith Cowan University. I was able to go back as a mature age student, upgrade my qualifications and, then, not stop there but continue to upgrade my qualifications again and again. But I was given that opportunity through one of the smaller universities—the kinds of universities that will suffer exponentially under this government's cuts and their continued unwillingness to support one of the sectors that we should be incredibly proud of, and that we are incredibly proud of. Australia's higher education system is world-class. But that's at risk.

But this coalition's antagonism towards universities and towards research is nothing new. We had the unprecedented intervention by the then Minister for Education in 2018 where he vetoed 11 grants that had been recommended by the Australian Research Council, predominantly for research in arts and the humanities—in history, music and art history. I've been a recipient of three Australian Research Council grants, a Discovery grant and an Early Career Researcher grant, and, just before I was distracted by a parliamentary career, I got another ARC Discovery grant. I know what it takes to get one of those grants. I know what you have to do to get one of those grants. I know how long it takes to write a grant proposal. I know the kind of research backing and publication backing that you need to have in order to be successful in getting one of those grants. And I can tell you, Acting Deputy Speaker Andrews, it is no mean feat. It is quite celebrated at universities when one of their researchers gets an ARC grant, because they are difficult to get. The process, the criteria and the ways in which grant applications are assessed are by a panel of experts. It is a panel of peers who actually understand what the research is about and who know how to assess a grant application. And yet along comes the Minister for Education and, with the sweep of a pen, he vetoes proposals that were deemed to be quality research proposals by a panel of experts in the subject area of the research. Now, if the Minister for Education came to me and said that he was an expert in 19th century Russian literature, and that he had therefore deemed that a particular research proposal should be rejected: fair enough. But I doubt that he's an expert in those areas. This government's contempt for research, their antagonism towards the university sector and their abject failure to support one of Australia's greatest exports in education put at risk our world reputation in this space. In doing that, it risks our engagement with the world.

Education is one of the ways in which we engage with our region and with our world, through partnerships between universities and dual PhDs where a student can start a PhD at one university in, say, Toulouse and then finish it here in Australia. We're not just talking about students from China who come here for a business degree. We're talking about research. We're talking about collaboration. We're talking about soft power. We're talking about Australia's standing in the world and in our region. Education is one of the primary avenues for expanding that engagement and for increasing our soft power.

Parts of this bill refer to 'reform'. I would say there's no reform in this bill. This government likes to talk a lot about reform, but this bill just tinkers around the edges. It's a few technical changes here and there.

Mr Dick interjecting—

Dr ALY: Yes, absolutely, as the member for Oxley says, it is 'window-dressing', much like a lot of the bills that I've stood up to speak about over the past two weeks. Tinkering around the edges, a few minor amendments here and there and—bang!—it's called reform. What kind of sorcery is this? It's not reform. It's not reform at all. If the government were serious about reform, they would devote investment into the university sector. They would talk about investing in our higher education, investing in the future of Australians, investing in the aspirations of young Australians in rural and regional areas—young Australians in areas in Cowan like Wanneroo, which has one of the lowest year 12 finishing rates—and investing in the people of Australia and the future of Australia in our region and in the world by investing in the university sector. This bill just doesn't cut it.

(Quorum formed)

Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:09): I'm delighted to see that there are members of the government wanting to tune in to what I'm going to say about their cuts to TAFEs and universities. I only wish some of them would have the guts to actually stand up and speak on the legislation they have put before the House. But as they slink away, back to their offices, the lazy Liberals will once again not want to defend their appalling record with university funding and higher education allocations and their lack of commitment to vocational education and training.

I take every opportunity in this House to speak about the future of higher education funding, because I know, representing a growth corridor and some of the fastest-growing suburbs in Australia, in the south-west of Brisbane and Ipswich, how vital it is that our national parliament focuses on higher education expenditure. If we are to remain competitive, if we are to remain ahead of the curve when it comes to higher education, then this government needs to start listening to the alarm bells that are being rung across the sector and across the community.

The Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 makes provision for fee-paying university students to have a 25 per cent loans fee waiver for six months, obviously due to the COVID crisis. As the shadow minister, the member for Sydney, has indicated, Labor welcomes the small amount of fee relief that the bill provides for that small proportion of full-fee-paying undergraduate students—that six-month waiver of loan fees. So, there's no question that Labor will be supporting this bill. But in the larger scheme of things, this bill makes very minor adjustments to a sector that requires a comprehensive, genuine and enduring reform package.

That's why today I am strongly supporting the second reading amendment, which I would ask all members of the House to consider and to indeed vote for. If those opposite, who claim to support the university sector, really believed the words they uttered they would ensure that due recognition be given to the cutting of billions of dollars from universities, as is indicated in the second reading amendment; the slashing of research funding; and, certainly in examples from my own community, students being locked out of tertiary education. We've clearly seen, due to the cutting of billions from TAFEs and training, a dramatic decline in the number of students undertaking vocational education. And I think the most important part of the second reading amendment is item (3), which is:

failing to develop a long-term policy for the Australian post-secondary education system.

The bill also gives the secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment the power to determine that certain students, due to having more than one Commonwealth higher education support student number, have exceeded the HELP loans limit and to allow these students to repay the resulting excess debt amounts through the taxation system. The bill also extends the Unique Student Identifier regime to all higher education students by requiring students commencing from 1 January 2021 and all students commencing from 1 January 2023 to have a USI in order to be eligible for the Commonwealth assistance. Finally, the bill includes a range of measures that are technical in nature.

But what the bill doesn't do is identify some of the systemic problems that we have identified and that the shadow minister, the member for Sydney, has highlighted today. The coalition government's diminishing of the quality of Australia's world-class higher and vocational education system should be condemned. As I've said, they've cut billions from universities by recapping undergraduate places and have slashed research funding. Since the coalition government came to power some seven years ago they've also cut TAFE and training budgets.

I know that in my home state of Queensland this has had some dire consequences, coupled with the fact that, unfortunately, between the years of 2012 and 2015, in the failed coalition government of the Newman experiment, which was a disaster for vocational education in Queensland, we saw everything from the potential shutting down of campuses to a number of TAFEs across the state being gutted by cuts in funding. But one of the saddest parts of that era, under the conservative government in Queensland, and which we're still rebuilding some five years later, was the frontline workers who were dismissed.

The Newman government came to power promising that no worker's job would be under a cloud or a threat, and yet one of the first actions they undertook was to sack TAFE teachers. I remember a number of local residents in my own community at the time, when I was serving as a Brisbane City counsellor, coming to me and saying: 'We cannot believe we've lost our jobs. All we want to do is help—particularly, students from non-English-speaking backgrounds and people from diverse backgrounds—to get into TAFE and secure long-term employment.' Thankfully, a number of those state measures have been reversed, and I pay credit to the Palaszczuk government, and particularly to the Minister for Skills and Training Development, the Hon. Shannon Fentiman. She has made it her mission, as the minister for TAFE, to really inject the lifeblood back into our TAFE sector in Queensland. In my own electorate, just down the road from where I live, we have some fantastic TAFE facilities located in Inala. I've often visited those facilities and have remarked on the level of commitment by the educators there, and also their enthusiasm and energy, that students—many from non-English-speaking backgrounds—are benefiting from in our world-class TAFE system in Queensland.

But it shouldn't just be left to one government to deliver the heavy workload. It should be a national approach from a Commonwealth government which really invests in TAFE and vocational education and training. One of the saddest parts of what I want to put on record today is the number of apprentices in the Oxley electorate, which has collapsed since the government took power. There are 1,707 fewer apprentices in the Oxley electorate now as a result of this government's lack of investment in higher education and vocational education and training. That's a 47 per cent drop—that's a huge drop! As the member for Oxley I should be here celebrating and acknowledging an increase, and I think that any fair-minded person in this chamber would want to see the number of apprentices increasing. Do you know what? I'd just be happy if it stayed the same, if we just kept up with growth. But instead we've seen a fall of 1,707 apprentices.

In my earlier remarks, I said that I represent fast-growing suburbs, and it is fantastic to see infrastructure—led primarily by the state government—out through the Springfield and Springfield Lakes corridor under the leadership of the Springfield City Group, who are doing a fantastic job in providing some of that infrastructure. But they can't do it alone; they have to have a partnership with a Commonwealth government that's really interested in investing in training and infrastructure. I know, from visiting a whole range of businesses in that corridor—everything from manufacturing, food processing and new emerging microbusinesses all throughout the Wacol, Richlands and Carole Park industrial estates—how hard those businesses are working, particularly under difficult circumstances with COVID-19. But when I've met with them—and I was delighted to have the shadow minister, the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, accompany me to a local business just before the COVID-19 crisis really kicked in—I've heard firsthand about what those businesses need. There's everything, including giving them their infrastructure needs to get their product around the south-east. The one thing that they kept telling us over and over—and continue to keep lobbying me on—is that they need support for trainees and apprentices.

A couple of weeks ago we heard the Prime Minister reveal at his Press Club speech that he had woken from his slumber and realised that we had a skills crisis in this country. You would think that, after seven years, this government would not take it lightly, but there we have it. We heard that this was a priority for the government. I don't know why it took them seven years to work that out.

We on this side of the chamber understand and have always understood that TAFE provides a critical role to the public by providing value through skills, apprenticeships and hard work, particularly through the passionate work of our hardworking TAFE teachers. Unless this government takes this seriously, we could potentially lose a generation of traineeships and employees. So my plea to the government today is this: start taking the sector of vocational education and training more seriously in this country. We know that we are desperate for more apprentices. We know that the businesses—and I speak from a lot of experience of engagement with businesses and the chambers of commerce in my area—are crying out for leadership in this area.

But this bill also, in the second reading amendment, describes the lack of funding for the university sector. I'm really pleased that I have a lot to do with the University of Southern Queensland in the Springfield area, and I pay tribute to the vice-chancellor there, Geraldine Mackenzie, who is an outstanding leader that I know a number of members on both sides of the House respect. She and the university have a vision that that campus, alongside the Ipswich and Toowoomba campuses, will become world leaders. They are doing fantastic work in the area of aerospace and a whole range of telecommunications and communications on that campus, but they are desperate for this government to ensure that more support is given to our university sector. This is even before we get into the issue of support for students who call our country home while they do their studies.

I spoke in the House twice last week about the appalling way the Morrison government has treated foreign students, particularly our international students, that are really struggling under COVID. I've met with church groups—in particular, the Riverlife Baptist Church located at Seventeen Mile Rocks in my electorate—who are filling the gap that the government should be filling. A number of these students who are either studying at university or are doing further education have just been completely cut off. They're unable to leave Australia and return home due to international restrictions or they've yet to complete their studies. They're, of course, unable to have any support through JobKeeper or jobseeker. The industries where they were working part time have collapsed and are not back on their feet, so they've been literally left in limbo. It's not because the government could do something about it; they have chosen, deliberately, not to do something about it. I stand here today to condemn the government for its lack of support for international students at our campuses across the community. It is not good enough. We as a nation have to remember that many are our neighbours that need our friendship and support.

The university sector is struggling thanks to this government who won't allow the universities to access JobKeeper. They are struggling, and we know a lot more has to happen. Today's bill is a very small step, but I'm here to tell the government that I will continue to hold them to account to make sure that our university and higher education system get a fair go under this government.

(Quorum formed.)

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:27): Thank you to the government for coming in for my speech—it's very nice of them. I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. I'll say up-front that Labor will not oppose this bill. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act, HESA. The funding of higher education in Australia is predominantly provided through that piece of legislation.

The measures this bill implements include measures which give the Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment the power to determine certain students who have exceeded the HELP loan limit. It will allow those students to repay the resulting excess debt amounts through the taxation system. The current loan limits for HELP debts are $106,319 for most students and $152,700 for students studying eligible medicine, dentistry, veterinary science and aviation courses. The department has identified 475 students who have exceeded the loan limits. The total of excess debt is $5.9 million. This legislation is necessary so that students are not directly pursued for their debt by education providers outside the current taxation system.

It is only fair that students who have exceeded their student loan limit through an administrative glitch are given an opportunity to repay that debt over time, rather than be pursued for a lump sum that they cannot possibly pay unless they win Gold Lotto. How did the students exceed their loan limits? Students with multiple student identifiers have been able to exceed the loan limits without realising they were racking up enormous debts beyond the limit of the HELP system. To prevent this happening into the future, this bill gives effect to the government's 2019-20 budget measure to extend the Unique Student Identifier regime to all higher education students. All students commencing from 1 January 2021, next year, and all students from 1 January 2023 will have a USI, a Unique Student Identifier, to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance under HESA. Labor has consistently supported the expansion of the USI across higher education. It is time. This should reduce the occurrence of students exceeding their loan limits.

This bill also gives students an exemption from the requirement to pay the 25 per cent loan fee for units of study with census dates from 1 April to 30 September 2020. This will help students finding it tough financially through the COVID-19 pandemic. This will be a welcome relief to students whose income from casual work has all but ceased during the pandemic. The department has advised that up to 50,000 higher education students and 20,000 VSL students might benefit from this measure, so it is not insignificant.

This bill also makes a technical correction to ensure that all students enrolled in aviation courses that enable graduates to obtain commercial flying qualifications, whether through VET or higher education, will be able to access the higher HELP loan limit. And hopefully they are doing that through a reputable organisation, such as those connected with Archerfield Airport in my electorate.

In addition, this bill changes the name of the University of Western Sydney to Western Sydney University, making it consistent with state legislation and the university branding.

As I said previously, Labor supports this bill. But the measures in this bill make only minor adjustments to the sector, a sector that right now actually needs a comprehensive, genuine and enduring reform package and support package. Sadly, the quality of education in Australia has diminished under the Liberal and National parties over the last seven years. What we have seen is billions cut from universities by the re-capping of undergraduate places. We've seen research funding slashed. Funding to TAFE and training has also been cut significantly, some would say to the bone in certain areas but particularly in some rural areas.

We now have a national shortage of tradies, apprentices and trainees. We see a Prime Minister running around looking for tradies to get into shot with to try and counterbalance the argument that flows from the cuts they've put into universities, TAFE and training. So we see, sadly, that the Liberal and Nationals parties do not value education. If they did they would deliver a genuine reform package that overhauls the higher education sector, a package that properly funds both vocational training providers and universities to deliver the education and services that their students need, reflecting what this nation needs.

The 2017 MYEFO decision to cut $2.2 billion from universities re-capped undergraduate places. Because of that MYEFO decision 200,000 students will miss out on the opportunity of a university place, particularly significant for the rural parts of Australia—200,000 students! This will devastate our economy and our society. If the Liberals had their way students would already be paying $100,000 for a university agree. They have forced students to pay off their HELP debts earlier, when they earn as little as $46,000—just $9,000 more than the minimum wage.

Labor understands the importance of higher education and education generally. Labor understands that it is the great transformational policy, that great opportunity in life, for our best and brightest to be of service to this nation. That's why when Labor was in government we uncapped university places. I know that greater participation in higher education not only is good for the student but is good for the Australian economy and good for the nation generally.

Students who were already missing out on university places before this pandemic now have tougher circumstances lined up against them. We see in the aftermath of the pandemic that there is even greater demand for places. This government is doing nothing—nothing—to support these students. They are denying them a place at a university at a time when the unemployment queues are actually getting longer. That's not a turn of phrase. If you walk or drive past the Centrelink offices you will see that.

The re-capping of university places has devastated participation rates in higher education. How is it fair that a student in the North Shore of Sydney is five times more likely to go to university than a student in the Moreton Bay region of Queensland? Perhaps we should blame the federal representatives—but I couldn't possibly comment on that—but obviously something needs to change.

Investing in Australian universities is good for all of us. The minister himself acknowledged that productivity improvements in the sector can increase economic growth by $2.7 billion a year. But the Morrison government doesn't value the university sector and it is deliberately throwing the people who add value to that sector under the bus. This government is sitting by and watching as universities shed jobs, close campuses and cut back on courses and degrees. In fact, this Morrison government has gone out of its way to exclude universities from COVID support. The Morrison government has repeatedly changed its policy to stop university staff accessing wage subsidies and it's putting thousands of jobs at risk.

We've already learnt that hundreds of jobs will go in Geelong and Warrnambool—Deakin University has indicated that 400 jobs will go. In Rockhampton, Central Queensland University has indicated 180 jobs will go and, particularly, I point out that that will involve closing three of their campuses: one on the Sunshine Coast, one at Yeppoon and one at Biloela—areas, which have LNP representatives, that are going to be devastated because they're big parts of those communities. Across Melbourne and Bendigo, La Trobe University has indicated jobs will go as well.

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of a sector-wide crisis. In my discussions with vice-chancellors we clearly see—and I've done Zoom meetings all around Australia with vice-chancellors—that it is tough now and about to get a hell of a lot tougher, particularly if overseas students are not able to access courses for 2022, and those flow-ons will continue for a very long time.

The impact of these losses on regional communities will be particularly devastating. Universities support 14,000 jobs in rural Australia—and I'm sure the member for Lingiari would agree on how significant Charles Darwin University is in the Northern Territory. They help underpin the local economy in so many of those regional towns. Across the board we're looking at tens of thousands of livelihoods being destroyed. We're talking about academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, security and all the other jobs associated with universities—all people drawing a wage with families who rely on those wages, with bills to pay, mortgages and so many other commitments to meet.

So, why has the Morrison government gone out of its way to exclude these workers? It's like an anti-intellectual push that befits a Donald Trump or someone like that, a populist, not somebody who actually understands the value of investing in education and the economic benefits that flow from it as a former Treasurer should understand. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to abandon these people connected with the higher education sector and the TAFE and training sector?

At this point, this action seems like a deliberate attack on Australian higher education. This has never been Labor's approach to universities and it never will be. Labor's priority will always be that university education should be accessible to all, making sure that we get our best and brightest in front of the opportunities that come from university. No-one's education should be limited by their background, location or their credit card limit.

Labor boosted investment from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We opened up the system, uncapping places giving an additional 190,000 students a spot at university and the life opportunities that flow. This decision was driven by our commitment to improving Australia's productivity—something that has been flatlining for too long—and to breaking down disadvantage and inequality in the system. It succeeded in bringing in new people to university. We saw Indigenous enrolments go up. We saw more Australians with disability entering the system. I point out to the National Party: we saw people from rural and remote areas going to university.

Why is this important? Education helps create jobs that bring higher wages and a better quality of life for all Australians. This should be the guiding principle of Australian education policy rather than short-term budget savings that actually damage what's coming over the horizon. We need a vision of equity and productivity supported by funding and resources. Sadly, this is not a vision shared by this myopic Morrison government, a government that is watching thousands of jobs go, campuses close and is doing nothing to stop it.

The Liberals have neglected the skills and vocational training sector as well. As I mentioned earlier, there's a national shortage of tradies, and it is no wonder. We see that the Liberals have slashed $3 billion from TAFE and training. There are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees and there is a shortage of workers in critical services, including things like plumbing, carpentry, hairdressing and motor mechanics. If no action is taken immediately by the Morrison government, another 100,000 apprenticeships and traineeships will be lost by the end of 2020. This is a disgrace, and it's young people who are getting near the end of their schooling who are going to miss out.

The failure of this government has a real effect on people's lives. That is the tragedy of their neglect—their neglect of universities, their neglect of higher education and their neglect of vocational education and training. This government doesn't care enough or have the capacity to do the hard work that needs to be done to build a better post-school education system.

(Quorum formed)

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:43): I too would like to make a contribution to this debate about something pretty important: education. So I do seek to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. However, in saying that, I would give way to a single Liberal who wanted to stand up and defend this government's record on higher education. But, alas, as you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, not a single Liberal is prepared to come and defend the record of this government on higher education.

In terms of the legislation before us, from the outset I can say that we will be supporting its passage. But that's just the start of the debate, which really does go to this government's record when it comes to higher education. When it comes to the tertiary sector, our universities and our TAFE are the things that are important for the future of our nation. What we have before us is really just fiddling on the edges. This is a tweak being applied by a third-term government that refuses to deliver comprehensive, genuine reform for higher education and for vocational education. It is looking at administrative matters in the main but nothing that goes to genuine reform of this sector.

In essence the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the VET Student Loans Act 2016, and it makes three fundamental changes. Firstly, the bill will give the Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment the power to determine certain students who, due to having multiple Commonwealth higher education student support numbers, have exceeded the HELP loan limit, and allow these students to repay the resulting excess debt amounts through the taxation system. That is a good thing and it is obviously supported by Labor. This is a favourable measure. It removes the possibility of a situation where the education provider, in fact, has to pay the government and then go about pursuing the debt from the student, which would be inappropriate. It would be problematic in the extreme, because, as I understand it, the amount of the debt recovery could be up to $12,000 per student. So that's a good measure.

Measure No. 2 in the bill extends the Unique Student Identifier regime to all higher education students by requiring students commencing from 1 January 2021 and all students from 1 January 2023 to have a Unique Student Identifier in order to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance under the act. A similar requirement is imposed on all VET student loan recipients who will also be required to have a USI number by 1 January 2021. It is hoped that this measure will prevent instances of multiple student identifiers which would result in HELP debt under the cap.

Thirdly, and importantly, the bill provides undergraduate students seeking FEE-HELP loans with an exemption from the requirement to pay a 25 per cent loan fee for units of study with census dates from 1 April to 30 September. This provision is aimed at reducing the financial burden on students impacted by the current pandemic.

Whilst these are good measures, reasonable, dare I say, and well thought out, the legislation is still tinkering around the edges of higher education. The government simply refuses to deliver genuine reform to overhaul the system of higher education and to provide the funds necessary for both our universities and our vocational education providers to do what they are supposed to be doing—that is, developing our human resources for the future and applying their skills to ensure that we have the skill sets that we need for the future Australian economy. I don't need to remind too many people in this House that it has taken seven long years of this government for us to get to this stage. But don't forget that, during that seven long years, they have neglected higher education. They have taken $2.2 billion of funding out of our universities, effectively re-capping our undergraduate places. That in itself is putting in jeopardy the prospects of some 200,000 students who will probably miss out on a university education because of this government's cuts to Commonwealth funded places.

In electorates like mine and the member for Chifley's in Western Sydney—and no doubt this applies elsewhere—the impact of the coronavirus on our local economies has been pretty devastating. As a region, we've experienced significant unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. We're seeing enormous social and economic disruption. At this point, during this pandemic, the government are denying additional support for our tertiary sector, a sector which has been particularly hard hit, given that some of our universities rely particularly on overseas students and research capability. But for the universities operating in our area, particularly the Western Sydney University, that's not really applicable, but they still are having the funds denied to them.

I'd just like to read what the vice-chancellor of the Western Sydney University, Professor Barney Glover, had to say recently. He was talking about Western Sydney and he said: 'For Western Sydney, the university is part of its very fabric. Alongside one another, the community, business and university have helped transform our region. This has changed the narrative from one of disadvantage to one of promise. That regional compact is vitally important, but the work is far from finished.' Here is the head of the university, knowing its place in a wide economic centre such as Western Sydney: education is so vitally important.

Far from being just a major employer—or employers, when you take TAFE into account—our tertiary education sector is integral to the sustainable development of our regions. Institutions such as the Western Sydney University and TAFE colleges out there in the west are critical for developing the pathways of many of our young people to be ready for those jobs of the future. They are pretty significant things. We know that, if the Liberals had their way back in 2013, they would have been introducing at that point $100,000 university degrees. They have already forced students to start paying their HELP debts when they're earning as little as $45,000, which is only around $9,000 more than the minimum wage. My electorate is overrepresented with families from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and, for them, a debt like that becomes pretty significant. As a matter of fact, it becomes a barrier to study. How is that about lifting people out of poverty? How is it that we apply a regime like this which acts, as I say, as a barrier to education, when we know education is a great enabler? We want to see greater participation in higher education, not less. In contrast, this government want to slam the door shut on universities and to more than 200,000 students. This is the track record of a government that love to talk big when it comes to education but in fact do little.

It's the same mob opposite who have diminished TAFE over the whole period of their government since 2013—three terms. They don't recognise that TAFE plays such a fundamental role for our young people and also, in doing so, for the growth of our local economies and, as a matter of fact, our national economy. They have spent seven years cutting the funding to TAFE and training by ripping $3 billion out of the system while underspending on the promises they'd already made to the sector. The Liberals failed to spend $919 million out of their budget on TAFE training over the past five years alone.

I'll just go back to Professor Barney Glover again. He was talking recently about the need to lift the cap on Commonwealth funded places for domestic students. This is where it does become very relevant to what we're talking about now. He went on to say, 'Lifting the cap would allow the university to work hand in hand with our TAFE sector and industry partners to rapidly strengthen the skills within our region to enhance productivity at a time when it needs it most.' I think that's exactly right. This is not just about universities and not just about TAFEs; this is about our higher education sector being able to do what we expect them to do, and that is to deliver the skill sets to our young people that are going to be so vital for our future.

The situation, I think, only gets worse when we look at the impact of the coronavirus on our respective regions. As a result of the government's lack of commitment to vocational education, we have now seen 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees, which will deliver a shortfall in our skilled workers for the future. We have seen them in our critical trades areas. These are not areas where it's easy to go and manufacture people to just come and take their places. What this mob have done—and they have continually acted this way, ever since the mining boom, when we didn't have that skill set—was run to fill our critical skills shortages by short-term overseas employment visas. Why is it incumbent on a government to do that with our critical trades, whether it be our welders, our diesel mechanics, our carpenters or our plumbers? This is something we have a sovereign interest in. There's no point in those opposite wanting to talk about sovereign interests without addressing the basic issues. It's not all about trade; it's about making sure that we have the capability to be productive and competitive. Therefore, we need that skill base and we need to be able to develop it. We need to be able to develop it through our own resources—through our own universities and our own TAFE colleges.

I tell those opposite: we want genuine reform. But, the thing is, to get that, you need a vision. This mob opposite does not have a vision when it comes to higher education. A government that cuts and diminishes the significant role of universities and vocational education simply has no role in our future. We need a government that is going to look to the future of our young people. As a matter of fact, doing so addresses the future prosperity for our nation. Every dollar you commit to education is an investment in the future of our nation.

I note that Labor is supporting the passage of this bill, but I do call on the government to sit down, do a bit of navel-gazing and look for genuine reform, not just tinkering at the edges and calling that reform to higher education or tertiary education. We want genuine reform of this industry. We want to make sure that we have the young people skilled so they can actually take the jobs of the future. We want this. That would be something our nation can be proud of.

(Quorum formed)

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (13:00): I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Sydney. This bill is primarily to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, or HESA, to implement a range of measures across the higher education sector. A key provision of the bill gives the secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment the power to determine that certain students, due to having more than one Commonwealth higher education student support number, have exceeded the HELP loan limit and to allow these students to repay the resulting excess debt amount through the taxation system. The department became aware of this problem during a data-cleaning process conducted in the second half of 2019. According to the department, HELP loan limits have been exceeded by 475 students, totalling $5.9 million. The average debt above the cap is $12,389; the median is $7,480.

If the provisions in the bill are not enacted, education providers will be required to repay the government, and providers will be free to pursue the debts with students outside of the current taxation system. This could lead to students being pursued for debt recovery of lump sums. The minister responded to a series of questions from the member for Sydney about the impact of the bill on students who may have exceeded the loan cap with dodgy VET FEE-HELP debt. Of the 475 students who have exceeded the loan cap, 128 have some level of VET FEE-HELP debt. Some of them hold those debts with Careers Australia and Phoenix, two of the most notorious VET course rorters. The member for Sydney has been given guarantees by the minister that the department will contact and support these students. This is welcomed.

The bill also gives effect to the government's 2019-20 budget measure to extend the unique student identifier, or USI, regime to all higher education students. Students must have a USI in order to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. The extension of the USI regime is likely to prevent further instances of multiple student identifiers and any resulting HELP debt above the cap. Also, the bill provides undergraduate students who are seeking FEE-HELP loans with an exemption from the requirement to pay the 25 per cent loan fee for units of study with census dates from 1 April to 30 September 2020. The application of this provision is aimed at reducing the financial burden on students who are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and it's welcomed by Labor. The department has advised that up to 50,000 higher education students, including full-fee-paying students at public universities, and 20,000 VSL students might benefit. This bill makes several other minor amendments around consistent census dates, definitions of vocational courses and the naming of universities.

Labor supports the bill. It will ease the stress for these students, worried that there might be a knock at the door from a debt collector. It will give some relief for a significant number of students around HELP loan fees in these difficult COVID times. However, this bill highlights yet again how this government serves up minor regulatory housekeeping when major reform is needed. Here we are, providing some minor relief to students, while in the meantime universities are predicted to shed 21,000 jobs by the end of the year. And what real help have our 39 universities had from this government? 'Zero, zip, zilch!' is the answer to that. Worse than that, the government have gone out of their way to change the rules to deny universities access to JobKeeper. Labor continues to call on the government to save university jobs.

You may not believe that education, at $36 billion, is our fourth-biggest export after iron ore, coal and natural gas, and $26 billion of that comes from our university sector. The effect of COVID-19 on university research is predicted to be devastating. On 6 May the Rapid Research Information Forum, chaired by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, released a paper about the impact of the pandemic on Australia's research workforce and its capacity to support our recovery efforts. It concluded:

Australia's research workforce will be severely impacted by the pandemic and the effects are likely to be felt for an extended period.

The forum said that, of the 22,000 full-time equivalent job losses, an estimated 7,000 could be research-related academic staff. It also said:

Income to universities, medical research institutes, publicly funded research agencies, CRCs, and the industrial sector is suffering from the loss of foreign students and a sharp decline in business research spending and philanthropy.

To try and make ends meet as budgets contract, universities are reducing the number of casual teachers and increasing the teaching loads of permanent staff, further limiting their research capacity.

These impacts are greater than during the 2008 global financial crisis and are being observed internationally.

…   …   …

Domestic and international post-graduate students comprise 57% of the university R&D workforce.

The forum also estimates that 9,000 international research students will not resume their research in 2020 and said:

Industry sectors may experience a reduced capacity to innovate given that universities perform approximately 43% of all applied research in Australia.

A decline in innovation may limit economic growth by slowing the development of new technology, skills, and efficiency gains in service and production processes.

These are the Chief Scientist's words, not mine. This is absolutely devastating as we approach a post-COVID recovery. The Prime Minister can spin like a whirling dervish about building manufacturing capacity and diversifying supply chains, but if our R&D is decimated then we have little prospect of doing either effectively.

And still this government does nothing to help universities. There is no funding rescue package and no access to JobKeeper. But we shouldn't be surprised. There have been recent news articles about how vindictive certain coalition MPs are about universities and about how universities need to be punished for not dancing vigorously enough to the government's tune on foreign interference on campuses or on support for the government at election time. Well, the government is certainly punishing the universities now. Over the last decade, this government has pushed for universities to be more entrepreneurial and to take more and more international students. Those students have been a cash cow. Universities did a brilliant job, to the extent that over $12 billion was taken by universities last year in direct fees compared to $6 billion in 2014-15. But now the bottom has fallen out of the international student market and the government refuses to help, despite universities predicting a loss of up to $4.2 billion this year and a loss of $16 billion by 2023.

International student income has, of course, masked the decline in the Commonwealth's own contribution to universities in general and for research. The impact of the government-imposed freeze on Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding in 2018 and 2019 is obvious. Even by 2018, with the growth in international students, CGS funding accounted for only 21.9 per cent of all university funding, while international student fees accounted for 26.3 per cent. This rapidly growing income from international students has been subsidising domestic teaching and, more alarmingly, the growth in research and training. In real terms, the Commonwealth contribution to universities under the coalition has declined from just under $9.5 billion in 2014-15 to only $9.4 billion this year. This is despite the total number of Australian students studying at universities increasing to over 50,000 in the same period.

What we will probably face with this crisis is a renewed push by universities to deregulate university fees, making degrees even less affordable—a move rejected twice by this parliament in recent years. Labor will continue to oppose $100,000 degrees. We will undoubtedly face increased marketing and poaching campaigns by universities to enrol more domestic students with an adverse impact on regional unis and VET.

The drop in Commonwealth effort is even starker when it comes to research. Since 2008, the universities have almost doubled their contribution to research from $3.6 billion to $6.8 billion. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth total contribution has only increased modestly from $3.4 billion in 2014 to $3.65 billion in 2018. According to Universities Australia, up to $3 billion may now be lost from R&D budgets due to COVID. In a recent opinion piece, UA called on the government to invest more in research, writing:

The first man to set foot on the moon, Neil Armstrong, said: 'Research is creating new knowledge.'

That knowledge is the raw material that makes new ideas, new technologies and entire new industries that will generate economic success and create the new jobs vital to Australia's future national recovery.

Without extra government help, we know for sure that there will be many fewer of these skilled researchers in work in one, two or even three years from now.

UA noted that the recent Deloitte Access Economics paper estimated that for every one dollar invested in research another five dollars is added to GDP. In 2016, almost half of all university R&D funding in higher education was spent in three crucial areas: medicine and health sciences, 28.4 per cent; engineering, 10 per cent; and biological sciences, 9.2 per cent. These are the key areas we will be relying on to help us rebuild our industry, our economy and our society post-COVID. Yet, what is this government doing? Nothing.

Finally, I want to speak about the effect on the regions. In my own region around Geelong, our university is Deakin University. They are a vital player in building our region, collaborating with manufacturing and developing new technologies. They have developed the Institute for Frontier Materials, Carbon Nexus and ManuFutures—amazing incubators for new manufacturers. Deakin have been brilliant for our region, and I love them to bits.

We know that universities are vital to regional Australia. Universities employ tens of thousands of staff. While only 23 per cent of metropolitan university graduates ever work in regional areas, 73 per cent of all graduates from regional universities stay and work locally. I note that young people in regional areas have only half the higher education attainment rate of people in metropolitan areas, so universities are a vital tool in closing the economic and social development gap in regional areas like Corangamite.

During this COVID crisis, Deakin have made over 400 positions redundant, and that is only the beginning. Shamefully, Deakin have deliberately rejected a brave and responsible deal negotiated between Universities Australia and the National Tertiary Education Union to cut wages in return for saving jobs. They are going straight to redundancies. The NTEU should never have been put in that position. There will be a protest by staff against those job cuts outside Deakin, in Geelong, this Friday. I say to all of those staff and NTEU members that I support you—all power to you!

In quieter times, we might have pondered whether universities have invested the revenue from international students wisely. We might question whether they should've kept some of it for a rainy day, but that misses the point that the coalition has failed to fund universities and research properly. Now is not the time to reflect; now is the time to help. These job losses should never have happened. This vindictive, visionless government should have stepped up to the plate with a rescue package and access to the JobKeeper subsidies for universities. They should be wearing the blame for these job losses at Deakin University, Central Queensland University and many others.

I haven't got time today to speak about the tragedy of the VET sector—the $3 billion in funding taken out of this sector by the coalition over the last seven years, the 140,000 fewer apprenticeships and trainees since the coalition came to office and the severe skills shortages in critical trades. Again, this government has no idea and no plan for the VET sector, just as they have no idea and no plan for universities. It is about time they did.

(Quorum formed)

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (13:18): The Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement various schedules across the higher-education sector. Schedule 1 will give effect to the Australian government's measures to require all students commencing studies next year to have a Unique Student Identifier number in order to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance under the act. Schedule 2 will allow the department to resolve debt collection problems arising from an administrative error. This bill will streamline administration in our education system, and I support that. I also support schedule 4 of this bill, which, as a result of COVID-19, provides undergraduate students seeking FEE-HELP with an exemption from the requirement to pay the 25 per cent loan fee for units of study with census dates from 1 April to 30 September 2020, thereby reducing the financial burden on these students during that period. I note that this will assist many local students in Warringah, including those studying at the International College of Management.

But this bill also raises important issues when it comes to education, skills and our economy in the post-COVID-19 world. Prior to COVID-19, I was concerned our economy was losing its competitive edge. GDP and wage growth were slowing. Labour productivity, an essential driver of both, had also stalled. Many people, especially the youth in Warringah, were rightly stressed about their future and finding good employment. COVID-19 has amplified these concerns and put our economy into recession for the first time in 27 years. The young generation of Australians finishing school this year face unprecedented headwinds and uncertainty, including a contracting labour market and high living and education costs, as well as unaffordable housing.

But COVID-19 has also provided opportunities by accelerating trends towards developing new knowledge and skills in areas like digitisation and automation, both high-wage areas. Provided we have the right policy settings in our tertiary education sector, we can harness these shifts and unleash a new wave of economic growth, higher living standards and full employment for our youth.

According to a recent report by Pricewaterhousecoopers, prior to COVID-19, 75 per cent of businesses reported they were concerned about the shortage of digital skills within their industry. This is consistent with my experience. In Warringah last year I talked with several start-up entrepreneurs who were struggling with the lack of skilled employees that they could access. COVID-19 has put further demand on digital skills as many organisations have been forced to shift to remote work and diversify their product and service offerings.

After restrictions set in, businesses quickly needed to upgrade their IT infrastructure and remote-working capability of employees; to shift their product offerings online; and to improve their service delivery. The experience with remote work environments through COVID-19 will likely generate increased demand to deliver an effective, remote experience for employees, which is likely a reality for the foreseeable future.

So we need digitally-savvy employees who can work in a digital space with the skills to collaborate online efficiently and effectively. We need to take advantage of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to lead the way in digital business and developing technologies. But machines and technology cannot do everything and, according to the Business Council of Australia, the future of business will also require emotional and social capabilities, or soft skills. Travel restrictions have put a halt on our immigration intake, which has previously supplied high-skilled labour in these areas. Australia should turn and rely on our internally-sourced labour to fill these needs. This means we need an efficient and effective tertiary education system to supply these high-skilled workers.

What are the barriers in relation to tertiary education? The costs are high. Our tertiary education system, prior to COVID-19, faced significant obstacles which have only been compounded. High tertiary education costs existed. They have now made access to important post-COVID-19 courses prohibitive. A student entering a graduate course in artificial intelligence could be expected to pay up to $90,000 for a course. The government has recognised this and, in the short term, is offering a 25 per cent fee exemption, provided for in schedule 4 of this bill in relation to deferral. The government has also announced discounted six-month online courses in information technology, engineering and mathematics. I suggest that these measures should be extended past the six-month courses and be incorporated over the long term.

The Productivity Commission's 2017 report, Shifting the dial: 5 year productivity review, raised concerns about declining admission standards, increasing student attrition rates and declining graduate outcomes in higher education under the demand-driven system. The Productivity Commission also found in a series of surveys that employers were not satisfied with the quality of recent graduates and that university students were not satisfied with the teaching in their courses—many did not even complete their courses. So kids and parents are rightly questioning the value-add of these expensive courses.

The Productivity Commission found that to improve these outcomes the tertiary education sector must improve the relevance of the skills and knowledge that are taught during their degrees and better match students to universities and courses that suit students' long-term interests, thereby reducing wasted education investments. KPMG, in their Reimagining tertiary education report, recommended that the government improves information available to support the operation of the tertiary education marketplace and assist students to make good educational choices. To achieve this, consistent with the research of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, the Mitchell Institute and the Vice-Chancellors of the dual sector universities stated that we need to consider tertiary education holistically, not just universities or vocational education and training independently but as a unified sector, to address issues of relative spaces, funding, policy and regulatory coherence. By improving these measures, this could also lead to lower amounts of HELP debts expected to be repaid by students and to lower dropout rates and switching between courses.

Prior to COVID, our tertiary sector had already been suffering from increased demand for services and decreased government funding, leading to poor outcomes. Government funding of the Australian tertiary education system has received successive reductions in funding through the Commonwealth Grants Scheme and research block subsidies. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in 2017-18 announced that Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding would be frozen for the 2018-19 year—that was a change that did not require legislation—and that increases from 2020 would be contingent on providers meeting performance targets. In August 2018, the parliament passed legislation to reduce the repayment threshold for HELP and introduced a lifetime borrowing limit. And the MYEFO for 2018-19 announced reduced funding growth for research block grants, a key component of university research funding.

There is clearly a difficulty if we are going to equate tertiary education with a business model. As growth in Australian government funding has contracted, overseas student fees have accounted for an increasing proportion of university revenue growth. University finance data from the DET shows that from 2016 to 2017 overseas student fees accounted for 64.2 per cent of total university revenue increases.

The lack of policy coherence between VET and universities is problematic. The Australian Industry Group, citing the Business Council of Australia, stated that preparation for the jobs of the future requires all the education and training sectors to operate as one system, and that this continues to act as a barrier to the creation of the responsive, integrated education and training system required to sustain economic growth in a changing world. The Bradley review highlighted that the efforts to resolve this have had limited success. To resolve this, the first act of the new National Skills Commissioner must be to outline how the government can better coordinate government policy in this area.

We are facing an unprecedented challenge through this crisis. It has exacerbated many of the underlying systemic issues with the economy. Our youth are facing daunting headwinds for their future prosperity and opportunities. And yet the crisis also offers opportunities to accelerate trends towards digitisation and automation. If we reform our tertiary sector to reduce costs for education, to place students more efficiently, to rectify funding disparities and to create a uniform policy framework between VET and the university sector, we can fill skill shortages in the high-growth, high-wage areas that will be the foundation of Australia's future prosperity. So whilst I rise in support of this bill, I call on the government to do much more in this sector.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:29): In the exhaustive time I have to make a contribution—

An honourable member interjecting—

Mr HUSIC: Well, then I'm fortunate that I've only got a minute! There are a number of aspects in this Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 that I want to comment on, particularly in picking up on some of the elements relating to some of the fee relief that's being provided and particularly as that relates to technology. I hope that I'll be able to expand upon that in my later contribution, post the matter of public importance.

It is important for us to note that Labor is supporting, the opposition is supporting, the amendment bill but that there are things that do need to be pointed out with respect to the overall investment in tertiary education in this country because there is a concern that the role that tertiary education will play in terms of enriching human capital will be boosted by greater investment, not less, in this area.

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

Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (16:38): I move:

That the amendments be disagreed to.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:38): Something extraordinary has happened this week. For the third time in three days, an identical proposition has travelled from the Senate to this House and sought our agreement. That proposition is that we remove a discrimination which currently exists within our corporate law, which enables some of Australia's largest companies to avoid the sorts of scrutiny and transparency that apply to every other like company in the country. It's not right, it's not fair and it's not in the public interest, and this House should agree with the amendments that have been moved and agreed to in the Senate to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020.

It is worth noting that we have now approached the 25th year of the existence of a measure which was supposed to be both temporary and transitional—the 25th year. And as the member for Fenner said in his contribution yesterday, a measure that was once supposed to be a grandfathering provision is now a great-great-great-great grandfathering provision!

It is about time that this government and this House agree to a proposition which was recommended to the government five years ago to be incorporated into our law. When it made that recommendation, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission said this:

The lack of availability of public financial reports reduces transparency about possible indicators of tax avoidance or tax minimisation.

There can be no clearer example of clear advice to government and the inability or the unwillingness of government to accede to that advice.

If the majority of members of this place were to be coupled with the majority of members of the other place, I have no doubt that this proposition would be moved into law. If you are going to adopt a proposition which, on its face, is completely opposite to the public interest and if you are going to adopt a proposition which is completely opposite to that which has been recommended to you by the corporate regulator and if you are going to refuse to accept the recommendation from a Senate committee that has spent several years investigating the matter, the very least you could do would be to come into this place and explain why.

Yesterday, we gave the assistant minister at the table the opportunity to explain why his government was refusing to accept this proposition. The day before, we gave the assistant minister the opportunity to come here and explain why they refused to accept this proposition. On the first time it appeared before this House, the assistant minister refused to speak but tabled a document. The document had this to say:

The House will not pre-empt the Government's response to this recommendation as part of its response to the Senate Economics Committee's corporate tax avoidance reports.

That report is five years old. We've had three elections, three Treasurers and three Prime Ministers since that report was given to the government. We are still waiting. Glaciers move faster than this government on adopting a report from that Senate committee—a report which adopts the recommendation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Many members opposite may not be aware of what they're going to be coming into this chamber to vote on. They are about to refuse a proposition that says that we should not have laws which discriminate against one group of companies and another group of companies dependent on the date they are incorporated. They are going to vote to maintain a proposition to level the playing field between one group of companies and another group of companies. And you may ask: why does this matter? Transparency always matters in corporate affairs. It matters to creditors, it matters to investors and it should matter to the members of the company, but it also matters to taxpayers. At a time when this government has managed to more than double the debt that they have inherited—debt this week clicked over at $673 billion—it's incumbent upon them to ensure that every corporate pays every cent of tax that they are required to pay.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:43): In The Mikado, the Lord High Executioner sings, 'I've got a little list,' and the coalition have a little list as well. Their little list is of their mates that they would like to avoid public scrutiny. That's what they're doing with this vote that we are about to have in this place. Yet again, for the third time in as many days, they are going to come into this place and defend the indefensible. Why do I say it's indefensible? It's because none of them are standing up to defend it. None of them are saying 'boo' as to why they are taking this extraordinary action. They're too ashamed. As the member for Whitlam says, they are hanging their heads, hoping the issue will go away.

The fact is that the issue will not go away. This provision was grandfathered in 1995 and had been intended to be in place for a year or two. The Howard government made it permanent and the mob on the other side want to maintain it. They have no rational reason for arguing in favour of it. In 2015, ASIC said very clearly that such a list 'reduces transparency about possible indicators of tax avoidance or tax minimisation'. The firms on this list are not tiddlywink firms. They include Baiada, Tangaratta, 7-Eleven, Linfox and Suttons Investments. They include firms, as Tom McIlroy from The Australian Financial Review has said:

… linked to billionaire rich listers Anthony Pratt, Kerry Stokes and Bruce Gordon, along with firms controlled by the Myer family, transport magnate Lindsay Fox, and private hospital giant Ramsay Health Care.

They include entities linked to Transfield, Tobin Brothers, Bob Jane, Jones Lang LaSalle, Sealey, Inghams and Dymocks. It includes billionaire investor Alex Waislitz's Thorney Opportunities Ltd and leading hedge fund Portland House Group among others.

In listing these firms, I'm not casting aspersions on them, because they couldn't get off the list even if they wanted to. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tried in 2018 and was unable to do so. So the fact is that this list only exists for one purpose—to prevent the proper public scrutiny of private firms. We're not asking much in asking the government to remove this exemption. We are saying that these firms, which are old firms—because, by definition, you had to exist in 1995 to be on the list—should be on the same level playing field as other private firms in Australia. We're asking for a level playing field, which is, of course, a Labor value but once upon a time was a coalition value too. But the coalition won't defend it and can't defend it. The once-great party of Menzies has become the party of 'the dog ate my homework', the party unable to come in here and back up with words what it is about to do with its vote.

Labor has been utterly consistent on this issue. In 2015, we voted for Ricky Muir's measure to get rid of the grandfathered list. The Greens voted with the Liberals at the time, but a few years later the Greens had a change of heart and put up an amendment and we voted with them at the time. We, again, believe that these 1,500 firms should be treated like every other private firm in Australia. Again, today, we are consistent with the position we have held since 2015, voting to say: 'Enough's enough. Let's get rid of the grandfathered position. Let's put these 1,500 firms on the same footing as all other firms in Australia.' In so doing, we are ensuring that integrity is returned to our tax system. It is only fair that these firms be treated as other firms are treated. It's what ASIC has called for.

The government have no rational reason for their position. They tabled a desultory note in which they said their reason for not responding was that there was a Senate report that they hadn't yet responded to. When was that Senate report handed down? 2015. Their only reason is: 'We are voting against it because a 2015 report recommended it and we haven't got around to responding to that report.' The party of Menzies has become the party of 'the dog ate my homework'. They have no reason for voting the way they did. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame for this secrecy provision which protects some of the richest firms in Australia.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be disagreed with.

Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (16:57): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:01): As I indicated earlier this afternoon with respect to this bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020, Labor has indicated that it won't oppose the bill. There are a lot of straightforward measures contained within it, particularly around full-fee-paying university students having a 25 per cent loans fee waived for six months due to coronavirus. The bill also includes a range of other provisions that are largely technical in nature, extending the unique student identifier regime to all higher education students by requiring students commencing from 1 January 2021—and all students from 1 January 2023—to have a USI in order to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance under the HESA scheme, and all VET student loan recipients from 1 January 2021. We've also welcomed the fee relief that the bill provides for—such as it is—for that small proportion of full-fee paying undergraduate students that a six-month waiver in loan fees will provide. There are a number of different things in this bill that we've been quite happy with.

But, as I said in the contribution that I made earlier, we are concerned that, at a time where we need to be building up the range of skills of Australian students, both younger and older, we need to see more of an investment in those skills—be it through the tertiary pathway or through the VET vocational pathway. This is particularly true—and a number of contributors from this side of the House have focused on this—of the major skills shortages that exist within the tech sector, where we do not have enough skills and where we import a lot of skill simply because there aren't Australians with the skill set that is required by the tech sector in this country. While it's noted that we don't have enough people going through the tertiary sector to gain those skills in areas of high demand, particularly right now in the artificial intelligence area, we should be looking at what other countries are doing—for example, in the UK, where they are quite open about funding more PhDs in the artificial intelligence arena to ensure that they've got the skills to compete in that space. I notice that Professor Toby Walsh of UNSW has been saying publicly that we should be doing that. It's something that I've argued in recent weeks that we should be doing. We're losing a lot of talent to either China or the US because people feel that they don't have any options here—that their skills aren't being valued and aren't being put to use, in an area where we need to do that. We do need to see more of that happen. I absolutely agree that we should be funding more there, not just in the tertiary arena but in VET, where we should be encouraging more skills development in the information, communications and technology arenas, and we're simply not doing that. It is stunning to me that, at a time when businesses are crying out for skills, they can't get them. We're not investing enough here and, with the borders being shut, we've got a lot of firms that are unable to access talent that can come in from overseas now as well. It's a big issue.

I also notice that in this bill there is provision for some consequential or some straightforward procedural changes to allow for the University of Western Sydney to rename itself Western Sydney University. I am the first graduate of what is now Western Sydney University who has been able to serve in the House of Reps. I'm very proud of my old university. I'm proud of the fact that the Hawke reforms of the late eighties allowed for the emergence of the then University of Western Sydney. The then minister, John Dawkins, pioneered and argued for a lot of the colleges of advanced education to be converted into universities so that we would have an increase in school retention rates. That is something that people on this side of the House are very proud of. Bob Hawke championed those retention rates going up so that, instead of three out of 10 kids, we would have seven out of 10 finishing year 12. If you have that lift in retention rates you will hopefully see that extend into tertiary education, and you need to have the institutions of learning in those areas where you see greater growth, so the Hawke government championed that occurring in my part of the world. We saw retention rates increase, and then we saw more kids going on to university. The old Nepean College of Advanced Education was converted in part into the University of Western Sydney. I first attended the Kingswood campus, and then they opened Werrington and brought in Hawkesbury. These were important moves. We saw a big investment in tertiary education in my part of Western Sydney, which was fantastic.

The University of Western Sydney, now Western Sydney University, has grown, but I have to say that I am concerned that it is not growing in accordance with the growth that we've seen in our part of the world. It is a matter of deep concern to me that Western Sydney University did not take up the opportunity to set up a stronger presence within the local government area of Blacktown, which is one of the biggest LGAs in the country. More students leave this local government area to go to campuses outside of the Blacktown area. Western Sydney University has spectacularly failed to provide a campus in our area. I note the presence of the member for Berowra because of his connection to the university I'm about to mention. I have to say that it was quite stunning, though welcome, that the Australian Catholic University, to its great credit, has agreed to open a campus in Blacktown. I am impressed by that. Given that the member for Berowra has an association with that university, I speak very highly of ACU for their commitment to making an investment in the future of the young people of Blacktown and to doing that. But, to their great credit, they're not just limiting themselves to the central business district of Blacktown. They are, for example, committed to doing outreach in parts of the Chifley electorate such as Mount Druitt to ensure that kids in Mount Druitt are encouraged to take on tertiary education. ACU is making the commitment to do that in our part of Western Sydney, and it is simply staggering to me that Western Sydney University does not do that and did not have that faith.

I am genuinely concerned that what has happened is that Western Sydney University has focused principally on Parramatta, which is now at the edge of where the bulk of growth is happening in Western Sydney. They've had some focus in south-west Sydney, but other universities are now coming in and recognising the potential of the region and are investing in it. I have to question why the leadership of Western Sydney University is letting the grass grow under its feet in such spectacular fashion.

We have 200,000 people that are moving into north-west Sydney. While the Hawkesbury campus, which is largely focused, importantly, on agriculture, is doing tremendously and has had a legacy and proud tradition of a lot of work in this area, I don't think Western Sydney University has flagged any intent to expand or provide an additional campus in the north-west growth sector where 200,000 people, as I said before, are moving in. I don't think there's any real plan—and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong—to expand vocational education within that part of Western Sydney. Specifically, I'm talking about Marsden Park through to Schofields and Riverstone. I actually think this is the Bermuda Triangle of Sydney development. You've got 200,000 people moving into that part of Western Sydney, and yet there's very little focus on providing the supporting infrastructure or services in that area.

I note the presence of the shadow infrastructure minister, who I've spoken with about improving infrastructure in that part of Western Sydney, but we also need to see hospitals built. The New South Wales government has said that it'll build a hospital in north-west Sydney around Rouse Hill. We'll be interested to see when that actually occurs. We need to see additional services—for example, the building of further schools so that we have educational support for those 200,000 people that are moving into north-west Sydney so that their kids can go on to secondary schools that also need to be built. We need to have TAFEs or vocational education providers, plus a university campus in that part of north-western Sydney to make sure that we've got education and training happening right there on the ground. I'm genuinely concerned Western Sydney uni will be absent from all that. They will just focus on Parramatta and south-west Sydney, and they'll completely neglect north-west Sydney.

We can have some consequential amendments, as are delivered in this bill, sure, and we can facilitate the name change getting recognised, terrific. But Western Sydney University has to be more than a name. It cannot just say it's Western Sydney in name and not fulfil the ambition that drove its creation in the first place, which is to ensure that young people in our part of the world can defy the low expectations that are set because there's this belief that the socioeconomics won't justify the investment. That is just patent garbage. There are a lot of young people in our part of the world that have a lot of talent and need to have that talent twinned with a serious investment by governments at federal and state level—and, in particular, institutions like Western Sydney University—to make that a reality. And I would call on Barney Glover, who heads up Western Sydney University, to demonstrate his commitment to growth in our part of Western Sydney and to show us what his plans are.

Western Sydney does have a presence at the old Nirimba site, but it's largely administrative. Again, if that has changed and I haven't kept track of it, I'm more than happy to be corrected. I'm happy to be wrong but, if I'm right and it's not there, that has to be fixed. Certainly, Western Sydney uni can do that and should do that. Because at the moment, all I see is a lot of focus on Parramatta, a lot of focus, potentially, on Bankstown and a lot of focus on south-west Sydney. But, again, this whole group of people, this huge residential growth in north-west Sydney, is being neglected.

It's not good enough, and I'm absolutely committed to standing up for people within the Chifley electorate but also in the surrounding areas, joining up with people, to make sure that young people's ambitions are not neglected and that we do make the proper investment in their future and in our area to ensure that we've got the talent there. It needs to be backed up by economic opportunity, if we get the infrastructure right, and the bringing of businesses into that part of the world so that we have local jobs for local people and the local jobs are actually filled with people who've been trained up either through TAFEs or universities in that part of the world. There is absolutely no excuse for that not to happen now. I would rather us make the investment at this point in time instead of playing catch-up down the track. The test is whether or not Western Sydney will continue to have other universities—like the Australian Catholic University, like the University of Wollongong, which is nipping at their heels, or the University of New South Wales or the University of Sydney—coming into Western Sydney to do the job that Western Sydney University won't do. It's an absolute tragedy that that's occurring, but that's competition, and if it spurs Western Sydney to do better, than I'm all for it.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (17:15): Can I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Chifley, who's nicked off.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr SNOWDON: Oh, he is here! I do want to acknowledge the member for Chifley. I should say that the vice-chancellor you referred to, Barney Glover, was with CDU in the Northern Territory prior to going to you, and it is CDU that I want to talk about very shortly.

As others from our side have mentioned in this debate, including the shadow minister, we support this legislation and can see some merit in many of the proposals within it. However, I do draw your attention to the amendment which was put by the shadow minister. It gives us the opportunity to talk about the billions cut from universities, the slashing of research funding, the locking of students out of tertiary education, the cutting of billions from TAFE and training, the presiding over a dramatic decline in students undertaking vocational education, and the failure to develop a long-term policy for the Australian post-secondary education system.

It's not my intention to speak at any length, but I do want to, particularly, talk about the impact of the cuts that have been made by this government—the billions of dollars of cuts to universities—through the re-capping of undergraduate places and the slashing of research funding. I say that as someone who lives in the Northern Territory, where we have one university, the Charles Darwin University. We have the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, which is an organisation dedicated to opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia and, most particularly, in the Northern Territory. What we know is that since the election of this government in 2013 students in universities have been under constant attack with cuts, attempts at fee regulation, policy chaos and uncertainty: 200,000 students will miss out on the opportunity of a university place over this decade because of the government's cuts and capping of places. This will have a devastating impact on our economy.

As we know, regional universities are really important in a number of ways for local communities—most importantly for the local economy, but also in providing educational options and opportunities and research opportunities for people who live in those regions. If you think about the north of Australia, you isolate James Cook University in the east and you look at what's happening in the west. There's not much happening north of Geraldton, I have to say, in terms of the provision of tertiary education. We've got Charles Darwin University operating out of Darwin and operating a campus in Alice Springs. It's very important for the people who live in those communities to be able to have access to tertiary education and to TAFE—the provision of services out of Charles Darwin also includes TAFE services.

Historically, when young people from regional communities, isolated farming communities and pastoral properties were aspirants for higher education, they had to leave town, leave their communities and leave the Northern Territory to get access to that higher education. That's still the case for many. When we talk about the impact of government expenditure cuts, it makes it really difficult for universities like Charles Darwin to provide the range of courses that they should be able to provide for the student population they seek to attract. As the Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University, Professor Maddocks, said:

At the end of 2017 the Australian Federal Government, the Minister for Education, capped all funding for Australian universities for domestic undergraduate places. That means, ultimately, that fewer students can be enrolled year-on-year, and that's the current environment we've faced.

We know that the CDU has a growing net deficit. In 2018, it was $21 million; it's higher now. But we know that the funding cap on the Commonwealth grants scheme, which froze university funding at 2017 levels from 2018 to 2020, has been crippling for the university. There's no need for this. If the government had its eye on the ball and was concerned, as it says it is, for opportunities for all Australians, particularly those who live in regional communities across this country, the very last thing it would do is inhibit opportunities for people to attend university by cutting university places. Yet, sadly, that is what it's done. As Professor Maddocks has said in the past, 'When you constrain our income, the costs of delivering education and training continue to rise.' We know that, when your budget is constrained and costs are increasing, the relative impact on your educational outcomes has got to be heavy. That's what has happened in this instance.

What we need to impress upon this government is that the best way to improve the life opportunities for young Australians is to make sure that they've got access to a high-standard university opportunity, whether they live in Western Sydney, in Darwin in the member for Solomon's electorate, across the Northern Territory or, indeed, across northern Australia. We can only do this by making sure the funding is properly put in place. We know that Charles Darwin say they've lost over $30 million in federal money over the four years that I referred to earlier. That's an eight per cent decline in their funding. We do have to change the way in which we deal with these universities, but we've got to make sure that we're doing it for the purposes of improving the opportunities for young people, particularly, to attend universities and get the qualifications they require to be able to get a decent job. That's what this is about.

When we're looking at places like the north of this country not only are university places and university courses extremely important but TAFE is also. What we've seen this government do is emasculate skills training across this country by attacking apprenticeships. We've now got 140,000 fewer apprenticeships and trainees and a shortage of workers in critical services, including plumbing, carpentry, hairdressing and motor mechanics. In communities like mine, these basic skills are really very important. If you're a young person who is living outside of Darwin, in particular—but not only Darwin—you've got no other opportunity but to travel somewhere else to get your training. What we've got to do is make sure that the TAFE services are available and accessible for all Australians, and they should not be burdened with the costs that have been applied as a result of the decisions made by this government. The Liberals have cut $3 billion from TAFE and training. The government clearly don't care enough. But I say to you: if you want to improve the opportunities for Aboriginal people living in remote parts of this country, particularly in Lingiari, then what you will do is make sure they've got decent access to TAFE-type services. Currently, they do not. And you'd make sure that the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education was properly funded so we could provide a better range of courses and a fuller range of services.

These are decisions that this government could make today, and I ask it most sincerely to do so. And we're not only talking about opportunities in traditional areas of education. In the health space, for example, we're talking about providing opportunities and access to training for Aboriginal health practitioners, who are vital in delivering primary health care across the north of Australia, particularly in my own electorate of Lingiari and in the minister's own electorate. I know Durack reasonably well, having travelled around it quite a few times. But you would appreciate the importance of making sure that, for people who don't have access to higher education or TAFE-type services, their life opportunities are severely limited. We've got to make sure that that doesn't happen, and we've got to make sure that this government sees what its responsibility truly is and to remedy the cuts they've made by ensuring that we get a number of opportunities available in the TAFE sector for apprentices and in higher education to the level they need to be at in order to meet the demands of the community.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (17:25): I'd like to thank those members who have spoken on the Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020. The bill implements part of the higher education relief package, the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For a period of six months, from 1 April to 30 September, the loan fee that applies to undergraduate students accessing a FEE-HELP loan for their studies will be removed. Undergraduate full-fee-paying students who may have been affected by the COVID-19 crisis will be given an incentive to either begin or continue to study in semester 2 of 2020, therefore supporting higher education providers to continue to support student enrolment. Through this measure, the government demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that Australians are able to upskill and retrain, even during these difficult times.

The bill also enables the implementation of the government's decision to extend the unique student identifier, the USI, to all higher education students. By replacing existing student identifiers with the USI, students and providers will have access to a single identification system. To support a single identification across the tertiary education system, the bill will require students who are accessing Commonwealth assistance to have a USI. With almost all students who are in tertiary education using the USI, we will be able to monitor and collect unprecedented data to better inform education programs and policies. In addition, through the USI, students will be able to move between VET and higher education more easily, encouraging ongoing engagement in education and lifelong learning, personal development and career aspiration.

The bill also introduces measures to validate loans for students who have been assigned multiple Commonwealth higher education student support numbers to prevent unfavourable financial outcomes for providers and students. Following the passage of the legislation, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment will make best efforts to contact the affected students as soon as is practicable. The correspondence will contain information on their situation and the effect of the legislation and will also include information on how to challenge debts that may be inappropriate or incorrectly allocated. Additional information on managing financial hardship and the income-contingent nature of the HELP scheme will be provided to ensure that students are aware of their obligations and any course for redress or relief where required. The Minister for Education has written to the opposition to confirm this. I thank the opposition for their constructive engagement on this bill.

The bill also clarifies the point in time that a student's HELP balance is taken to be reduced to ensure consistency across the HELP and VET student loan programs and makes minor amendments that streamline and improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act. Once again, I thank all the members, in particular on behalf of the Minister for Education, for their contributions with respect to debating these measures and supporting the government's continued commitment to the higher education sector and its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.

The SPEAKER (17:38): The question now is that this bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (17:39): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (17:39): The Labor Party will be supporting this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Continuing the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2020. We will support it because it implements Labor policy. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to continue the Office of National Rural Health Commissioner and expand its functions—in fact, this bill makes the office permanent. Under the existing legislation, the office will expire at the end of this month. As the House will recall, the Labor Party has long suggested that the role should be made permanent. The honourable member for Ballarat is in the chamber, and she made that view clear when she was Labor's health spokesperson. It has been our consistent position. In the debate on the bill which established this commission, through our spokesperson the member for Makin, Labor argued strongly that the many challenges in rural, regional and remote health could not be addressed in just three years, and that the commissioner's role should be a permanent one. The government has consistently rejected that argument, although we have moved amendments at various points to implement it. We are very glad that the government now shares our view.

In addition to continuing the office, the current bill expands the commissioner's functions. Until now, the commissioner has been focused on the establishment of the National Rural Generalist Pathway, a very important new program to train GPs and one that has our support. But the commissioner's role should really be more expansive than that. I particularly welcome the fact that the commissioner will now consider the entire health workforce, including, very importantly, allied healthcare professions like nursing. Allied healthcare professionals across the board will now be within the remit of the commissioner. I also very much welcome the fact that non-statutory deputy commissioners will be appointed to ensure a focus on nursing, allied health and, most importantly, Indigenous health. These are all welcome developments, so we will be supporting the bill. We note that this has come very late. The government has left it to the last minute to continue the role of the commissioner—it expires in just a fortnight. But I'm sure the Labor Party will be constructive in facilitating the passage of the bill through both houses of parliament to ensure that the role can continue as it should.

This also gives us the opportunity to focus on rural health in more general terms. While I am sure every honourable member would like to see health outcomes improve in rural and regional Australia, the Labor Party do have very real concerns about the way the government is going about this. This was a matter of some interest in question time today, when again the minister for regional health denied that there had been any bulk-billing cuts. He said there are changes to the maps—yes, but some areas have been taken out of the rural bulk-billing incentive scheme, and that is, for them, a cut. On Monday, I visited Queanbeyan with Labor's particularly outstanding candidate for Eden-Monaro, Kristy McBain. People in Eden-Monaro face the same challenges accessing health care as other people in rural Australia. They travel too far, they wait too long and they pay too much for health care. Queanbeyan is not a hamlet, it's not a small village, but nor is it a big metropolis; it's not Mosman, it's not St Kilda—it's not inner-city. It has real regional challenges.

The government's own figures show that people in Eden-Monaro paid an average out-of-pocket cost of $39 to see a general practitioner—that's up 30 per cent under this government. To see a specialist the average out-of-pocket cost is $96—up a staggering 50 per cent under this government. So one in eight people in the Eden-Monaro area are forced to skip Medicare services because they can't afford them. I asked the minister about this today, and he said there are no cuts. You'd think the government would actually want to make the position better, but they're making it worse.

The 2018 budget announced a number of changes and, again, everybody, I think, would have the intent of improving access to medical services in rural and regional Australia. It's a very important priority for me; I've made it a priority in my time in the portfolio. I've spent a lot of time going to rural and regional areas. That's one of the reasons why I'm so concerned about some of the government's impacts: because I've seen the impacts firsthand.

My last interstate trip before the restrictions came into place was to Maryborough in Queensland, where I visited a doctor's surgery impacted by the ROMPs changes of the government—the abolition of ROMPs. I asked at that doctor's surgery in Maryborough: how long would it take to see a doctor if I rang today for an appointment? If I was feeling unwell and I needed to see a GP, when could I see a GP? The answer was two weeks—two weeks before the people of Maryborough could see a GP. Some people will get better in those two weeks. Some will get a lot sicker in those two weeks. A lot of people will experience a lot of pain and discomfort in those two weeks. It's really not good enough, and yet the ROMPs changes have impacted on Maryborough and up and down regional Queensland and regional Australia.

On the bulk-billing incentives, which have impacted on Queanbeyan, the government initially claimed that just 14 areas were affected, but at Senate estimates we found out that there are actually 433 areas that have seen cuts. These areas have seen a 34 per cent reduction in incentive payments, down from $9.65 to $6.40—these are the cuts that the minister tries to gloss over in the parliament that are recurring.

In places like Queanbeyan, GPs have built their practices and their business models around these incentives. They've been told that they were there, and now they've been taken away. Many GPs say that this threatens their ability to bulk-bill and some say it threatens their viability altogether. Again, although it's a slightly different program, I have seen GPs' clinics closed in Maryborough. I went to one with a sign on the door—shut, closed down, gone due to changes in government policy. These things have real impacts on both availability and costs.

Kristy McBain and I visited the Queanbeyan GP Super Clinic on Monday. It opened in 2012, following a $5 million grant by the then Labor government—it's a very good clinic; I was very impressed with the set-up. But earlier this year the clinic announced it would have to increase its fees. It said there were two main factors: the government's long-running Medicare rebate freeze; and 'the removal of Queanbeyan from the rural and regional classification for bulk-billing incentives by the Commonwealth government'—their words, not mine. These are doctors with no political axe to grind—I've no idea how they vote; don't care. They're just calling it as they see it, and they see the impact of government policy. This is an area where already one in eight people skip Medicare services like GP visits due to cost, and the government is making it more expensive. Kristy McBain's called on the government to reconsider these changes, and I'd agree with her: the minister should be doing that.

The second change is the longstanding district of workforce shortage—it's a different program but very relevant. Doctors who trained overseas are in a bonded position in Australia and can only claim Medicare benefits in defined rural areas. The government's changed the system for defining those areas, and there can be a case for changing these things from time to time. I don't argue in this House that the DWS system was perfect. The intent of the new system indeed is one I agree with. I welcome the fact that the new system takes into account socioeconomic circumstances. That's sensible; that's compelling. But, again, they're having huge impacts and in many instances I can only assume that the impacts are unintended.

The areas that were district of workforce shortage are no longer in many instances the new distribution priority areas, and that's having an impact. For example, Yass—we heard a bit about Yass in the parliament today, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall, on a different matter—has struggled to attract and retain doctors even when it was a district of workforce shortage. That'll be tougher now that it's no longer a DPA. So the government is really letting down the people of Yass, and they're particularly letting down the mothers of Yass.

We asked the Prime Minister today whether it's acceptable for women to be giving birth on the side of the road on the way to Goulburn and/or Canberra hospitals, their nearest birthing hospitals, which is happening. The Prime Minister's answer was, 'That's why we're upgrading the Barton Highway.' I almost fell off my chair, I've got to say! I think honourable members on both sides probably did. I've been here 16 years. I've heard some weird stuff. That's right up there. That's right up there in the weird stuff I've heard from the mouth of a Prime Minister—to say that's the reason they're improving the Barton Highway. The member for Ballarat will point out that, actually, our policy is better for the Barton Highway than theirs. But, even giving them some credit for doing something on the Barton Highway, to suggest that that will help the women who are giving birth on the side of the road is weird. Are there going to be birthing lanes? Are there going to be little signs? What's the upgrade which is so relevant to giving birth on the way to Canberra and Goulburn hospitals?

The government should fund a new maternity ward at Yass hospital. I suggest that would be a better policy solution than upgrading the Barton Highway, which should be done but for different reasons. Two hundred mothers a year from the Yass Valley are currently forced to travel to Canberra or Goulburn to give birth. Too many of them don't make it in time and give birth on the side of the road.

In conclusion, again, I understand the intent of the government's rural health strategy. The intent is one that I am very focused on, and it will be a very strong element of Labor's policy at the next election. But we will hold the government to account for the impact of their changes on regional Australia, wherever they be. Up and down the coast, in different areas, they're having a negative impact. They need to be accountable for that, and we will hold them to account. That's why 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) expresses its concern at the Government's cuts and changes to regional health; and

(2) calls on the Government to reconsider those measures".

I commend this second reading amendment, and the bill, to the House.

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

Mr Snowdon: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Member for Lingiari. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after that be 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (17:52): I want to thank the government for allowing me to speak now, because I'm supposed to be at the Privileges Committee—not as a subject! So I give my apologies. I won't be long. It gives me great pleasure to support this legislation, the Health Insurance Amendment (Continuing the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2020. As the shadow minister pointed out, we're pleased to do so despite the fact that it's a belated arrival at this point by the government. I think that the position of this Rural Health Commissioner is extremely important and note the changes that have been made in the context of the functions of the commissioner under this legislation.

It's worth actually reflecting upon them. I won't go through all of them, but some are as follows: to provide advice to the rural health minister; to develop, align and implement Commonwealth strategies—as you'd expect; to develop and promote innovative and integrated approaches to the delivery of health services; to identify opportunities to strengthen and align health workforce training; to strengthen and promote regionally based, patient-centred approaches to the delivery of health services to those areas that take into account the needs of communities, families and individuals in those areas; to undertake research and collect, analyse, interpret and share information about a process for improving the quality and sustainability of access to health services; and to consult with the following persons and groups: health professionals, state and territory government bodies, industry, non-profit and other community groups and other health stakeholders.

I want to make some observations about that because, in the context of my own electorate, and given my own knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal health and the role of Aboriginal community based health organisations in the delivery of primary healthcare services across this country, most particularly to regional and remote communities, it is important that we see the priority that should be given to ensuring that the consultation, which is referred to here, includes working with Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and their communities. I say that for a range of reasons, the most important being that they're the fundamental drivers of change in the delivery of primary health care in the bush. In my own communities, we're talking not about one or two health services; we're talking about a range of health services that work across the Northern Territory.

I was actually driven to write a few of these organisations down today just to check how many of them there are, but it is quite a large number if you include Nganampa Health Council, which is the community based health organisation that works in the APY Lands of South Australia, and if you then go to the primary healthcare delivery organisations in the Northern Territory working not only in Alice Springs but also in Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek. There are organisations such as Danila Dilba in Darwin, Central Australian Aboriginal Congress in Alice Springs, Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation in Tennant Creek and Wurli Wurlinjang in Katherine. There are organisations such as Miwatj Health, which provides primary healthcare services to all the major communities of large areas of north-east Arnhem Land. Then, if you look at the work that is being done by other health services, there is Ampilatwatja Health Service, the Utopia health service, the Pintupi Homelands Health Service, Katherine West Health Board and Sunrise Health Service, and the list goes on.

If you had any understanding of these organisations, what you would note about them is that they are fundamental to changing lives and to making sure that the life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are a lot better than they have been. But it requires dedicated purpose. It requires ensuring that investments are being made in rural and remote health. In the context of this legislation, it requires looking at the role of the Rural Health Commissioner to reinforce the value of the role and make sure the commissioner has the resources that are required.

I say that in the context of the COVID pandemic and the issues that have confronted people right across this country. And I point out that, given the role of these Aboriginal health services, working in conjunction with the public health officials of the Northern Territory government, and the work of the Northern Territory government's own health clinics in remote parts of this country and the work that is being done in a policy sense by closing the Northern Territory borders and working with the federal government, using the Biosecurity Act to prevent travel into remote communities, it has been 72 days since there has been a COVID case in the Northern Territory and 28 days since the last patient recovered in the Northern Territory. That's phenomenal when you think about the potential impact of this virus on remote communities. The member for Durack would understand what I'm talking about. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you'd be fully aware of what I'm talking about. Given the poverty that strikes at the heart of many of these communities—the overcrowding in housing et cetera—it was anticipated that there would be, and there was contingency planning done around, a very, very dramatic impact of this virus on the bush. In fact, in the Northern Territory, I'm not sure that we've had any case of an Aboriginal person getting COVID.

I know of the enormous amount of work that is being done by the health services—not only the Northern Territory government's own health services but also, most importantly, the Aboriginal primary healthcare providers, the ACCHOs—to ensure that there are proper pandemic plans for every community. I've seen some of these pandemic plans, and they involve the communities integrally. When we look at those, and we know how much we rely upon these Aboriginal community controlled organisations and indeed public health generally in the bush, we are taken to the question of ensuring we've got the health workforce able to deliver the services.

One of the issues that has bedevilled remote communities in rural health in this country for many years has been the capacity to attract and retain public health professionals. I want to point out that the dedication and longevity of the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and some of the public health offices in the Northern Territory that I am aware of have been really important in achieving the outcomes across the public health domain. But when we acknowledge the importance of the work which is being done in the COVID space, we've got to appreciate that this is effectively a partnership between the Commonwealth government, in this case, and the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations to achieve this outcome, and it's to their great credit.

The work which is being done by the Northern Territory government—by the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, in his leadership and by the minister, Natasha Fyles, and her public health officials—with the NT Commissioner of Police in getting these plans put in place and protecting the Northern Territory community is monumental. To think that we haven't had a case in 72 days is monumental and really important. I understand there are people in this place who are bemoaning the fact that the Northern Territory government still has its borders closed. I can tell you that it's very strongly supported by a large section of the Northern Territory population. They can see the merit in ensuring there are not a lot of people coming into the Territory, and it's one of the reasons that we've been so successful. Of course that will change, I'm anticipating, over the next month or so. But lessons have been learned here.

We need to be understanding that, even though we haven't had a case in 72 days, there is contingency planning in the case that there may be an outbreak in the future. It's important, again, to understand that the people who have ventilated the views about this and developed the contingency planning are those very same organisations in partnership with the Northern Territory government public health officials, and this contingency planning is really important.

I've been regularly briefed by Northern Territory government officials, Aboriginal health services and public health around what's been happening. It's taken them quite a while, but it's very clear that they've developed very comprehensive contingency planning for the possible sad eventuality—and we hope it will never happen—of an outbreak of cases in one or two Aboriginal communities or a number of Aboriginal communities and how they might deal with that. Their response relies upon, as I say again, the professionalism and the expertise of the public health officers who have done all this work. We need to say thank you to them for continuing that work.

I'd say that the health commissioner, as he goes about his work over the next little while, appreciates and understands that we can learn a great deal from what's happened and what's worked. But his role, as I see it, is in part to advise the government of the need to make sure that we have a comprehensive plan for rural and regional health—something we don't yet have. But, if we did have such a plan, and if we were developing such a plan, it would need to understand, comprehend and accommodate the issues around Aboriginal primary health care and the Aboriginal community controlled health service organisations, who provide, in my view, the best examples of comprehensive primary health care in the country. We need to make sure they have the resources they require to be able to undertake their work effectively. So I say to the government: 'Here's an opportunity for you. You've done the right thing about this health commissioner. What we want you to do now is sit down with the health commissioner and with the community generally—the health professionals, the doctors, the nurses, the Aboriginal health workers and the allied health professionals across the country, all of whom are in great demand in the bush—and work with them and the community to develop a comprehensive rural and regional healthcare plan.' Of course, that should also include the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

It's been a privilege to be able to speak in this debate and, more importantly, to be able to highlight the importance of the Aboriginal health services. Most importantly, we need to understand the priority we should be giving to making sure we've got appropriately skilled and appropriately trained health officials in the bush, whether they're doctors, nurses, allied health professionals or, most particularly, Aboriginal primary healthcare workers, including Aboriginal health practitioners, who are fundamental to the operation of the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. And we need to reinforce the value of training people in the bush. I know it's something which has had the attention of this place in the past, but, if we can make sure that we train people in the bush, I can guarantee you we'll get more people who are trained as professionals staying in the bush. I want to commend the work that's being done in that space at Alice Springs Hospital, for example, and at Charles Darwin University, in training medical practitioners.

It's been a privilege to offer a contribution here, and I apologise again to my colleague the member for Mallee for jumping in her place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I thank the member for Lingiari for his contribution and give the call to the very patient member for Mallee.