In the News
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:44 AM) —I rise today to support the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [2011]. I am happy to report to the House also in my capacity as Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety. In that committee we have been hearing from witnesses about the problem of identity theft and identity fraud across a wide spectrum of businesses, individuals, families and, in particular, children—which is the focus of our inquiry at the moment.
Having heard witness after witness speak about the problem of identity crime in Australia, it does make a very compelling case for legislation of this nature to ensure that we have a modern and relevant framework of laws in place to deal with the emergence of new technologies and crimes using the medium of those new technologies. I do commend the government for good legislation which sets up a legal framework to deal with the challenges of a new era. In this place we should support the use of law, especially criminal law, to set a benchmark for what we regard as right and wrong in our society and to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to go after criminals, to prevent crime and to deal with the consequences of online crime. Hearing from different Federal Police authorities and representatives from other agencies about the nature of the problems they face, I think it is the case that the law is not adequate at the moment to meet these challenges, and the improvements that have been well covered by many previous speakers are very much needed.
Identity crime is a serious crime. We have heard many different statistics. I think it is telling that we heard that the AFP reports that $4 billion a year is lost in identity fraud and identity crime. We have heard from members and senators of their own experiences and anecdotes in relation identity fraud. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that, in 2007 alone, 800,000 people, or five per cent of the population aged 15 and over, fell victim to at least one instance of fraud. Of course, I would assume that is only set to grow.
I do not intend to speak for long today, except to say a few things. In my own electorate I have been approached by constituents, especially parents of younger constituents, who have been victims of identity theft and crime. As I said, children are the particular focus of our inquiry in the joint committee on cybersafety. This is a growing area of concern where we face children having their identity stolen, whether it be by so-called friends or acquaintances or whether it be by people unknown to them, and then the perpetrators either embarrass those children or engage in cyberbullying, cyberstalking or other abusive forms of behaviour online.
I find that all the attempts by government and other agencies to deal with these problems tend to be a little inelegant. Whether it be internet filtering or other proposals which tend to be reactive, they do not tend to address the problem at its cause—and we have heard much evidence that this is a behavioural and educational problem rather than a technological or legal one. What is very important to understand about the nature of this crime is that the law is not in place at the moment to help us to adequately address crimes against children online. So this bill in particular, which improves the ability of our enforcement agencies to deal with identity crime, is very important in making progress on this issue. I have had dealings with all the major social networkers and the big internet providers, both through the committee and also as a representative of my electorate, and they often have very good enforcement regimes in place but they go only to a certain point. While they tend to deal with an immediate problem inside their own network or space, they do not then take the further step of adequately dealing with the perpetrator of a crime—and stealing a person’s identity and using it for whatever purpose is a serious offence. We have had laws in the Criminal Code for some time which deal with fraud, and I think it is very important that we keep pace with the technologies that we see today and continue to legislate in this area to ensure that the criminal law is adequate for our agencies.
I do think it is important to record that the varying nature of criminal activity and organised crime is moving very swiftly. They do keep up with technology. We have seen in the past week reports of criminal agencies using BlackBerries with their secure networks to engage in crime in this country. That is why I think it is important to support good legislation in this place, and I think the government ought to be commended for continuing the previous government’s push to ensure that our legislation is sufficient. I support the bill.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (6:47 PM) —I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak on the National Broadband Network Companies Bill 2010. Listening to the contribution of the member for Shortland highlights why we in the opposition have grave concerns about the idea of a massive, legislated government monopoly being able to do the job that the market could do, and probably should do, in this instance. If it were up to the member for Shortland, for instance, we would pass a motion that Lake Macquarie council send out a few council workers and all of our problems in life would be fixed!
The story of Australian progress, ingenuity, innovation and risk and return is that of the market and the operation of the market. In Australia today, most Australians access the broadband that they want and that they need at a reasonable price. The economy has developed to a point where most businesses access the broadband that they need and that they want at a speed that suits their business. Of course, what government is for is to deal with those situations that the market cannot, a concept that seems to be totally foreign to those opposite in this legislation before the House. This bill is not to deal with black spots in major cities. This is not a bill to deal with rural and regional areas that cannot be funded by market risk and return. This is a bill to create a massive government monopoly across the entire country, to 10 million homes.
The member for Shortland spoke about the ACCC. The provisions of this legislation effectively cripple any form of competitive tension or process in this market space until its eventual privatisation—and I will get to that in a minute. What this bill will do is mandate that you cannot compete. Prices will be regulated. Technology will be regulated. Let us go over that one more time: technology will be regulated by this bill. You would dare not invest your capital in a new form of emerging technology in broadband provision because there would be a massive government monopoly which says you must maintain a technical standard equivalent to the National Broadband Network. What the legislation is doing is effectively putting a lid on innovation, on advancement in technologies.
When we see articles from the United States, we see that President Obama—and this is something which those opposite should take careful note of—is talking about innovative, forward-looking wireless solutions. I am not simply talking about wireless solutions. But he is talking about new technologies and the advancement of a modern economy. I regard Australia as a modern economy that should be allowed to advance. Investment should be encouraged in broadband, internet and other technologies to allow new and emerging technology to flourish. Jeffrey A Eisenach wrote an article in the Australian last week highlighting three differences between Obama’s plan and the National Broadband Network. He says:
The most obvious difference is that the NBN is focused almost exclusively on fibre, while Obama spoke of deploying “high-speed wireless”.
… … …
A second … difference is that the Obama administration’s broadband plan depends almost entirely on private funding. While the NBN will cost Australian taxpayers about $36 billion …
He then points out that Obama’s whole stimulus plan was only about US$7.2 billion. Jeffrey Eisenach then points out, and this is what I want to highlight:
The third, and perhaps most profound, difference lies in the US decision to let technologists and markets, rather than politicians, choose the most efficient technologies.
Listening to the contribution of the member for Shortland, I am reminded why we would allow technologists and businesspeople to make these decisions rather than politicians. When I hear the contributions of those opposite I am reminded that the expertise in this House in terms of the broadband provision is of such a low level that the pontificating remarks of government members about the technology in this bill amount to very little. They really know very little about the provision of infrastructure in this National Broadband Network—how to do it effectively and what it requires to provide for, in a commercially acceptable way, the needs of the market in Australia today.
Today we have seen that the National Broadband Network will cost taxpayers 24 times as much as South Korea’s and deliver just one-tenth the speed. I am not simply raising these concerns to say, ‘This will be a total disaster and it is a pie in the sky’. I think these concerns are valid, because the structure of the government’s bill and the structure of what the government is doing in the Australian marketplace is taking what is a reasonably working, effective market based system and turning it into a massive government monopoly underwritten by the taxpayer. That is a key concept: it is underwritten by the taxpayer. That is a big risk.
The government refers in this bill to the ‘eventual privatisation’ of this asset. It is acknowledging that it is probably a worthy goal to allow the market to recommence provision of broadband in Australia one day—one sunny day in the future. The government is acknowledging that one day, when this government is well out of office, it will be a good idea to privatise it. Maybe it will be Bob Hawke or Paul Keating reincarnated going on a privatisation splurge, but not this government. This government says it is the government’s role to take the risk on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, to put people like the member for Shortland in charge of national broadband network policy, not the experts, the technologists and the business investors, the people who make these decisions every day for a living. That instinct in the Australian Labor Party is completely and utterly foreign to me, and I think it is foreign to the success of the Australian market and our emergence as a modern and dynamic economy.
We have proposed a series of amendments to this bill and I support these amendments. I think at a minimum we can try and make a bad bill better. I think these amendments do that. If you are going to accept that the government will be the single biggest provider of this technology and this service to the economy, you must have the appropriate scrutiny—not ‘should’, not ‘could’; you ‘must’. If you are asking the taxpayer to take the risk on $36 billion of infrastructure investment, then you must have proper scrutiny of this massive government asset. But what we have seen from this government is a continual attempt to evade scrutiny on this, the biggest single investment in Commonwealth history. We have seen a continual attempt to evade the opposition’s comments that we should have the highest levels of oversight on this particular asset. This is a warning to the future. Without the highest levels of oversight, of government scrutiny, on the biggest single investment in Australian history, you will have very unsatisfactory outcomes.
We have seen their evasion of the proposal to have a review by the Productivity Commission; yet ironically this legislation calls for a review by the Productivity Commission. When we get to that one sunny day when the Labor Party says it is now a good time to privatise the asset, we will call in the Productivity Commission, but not before we ask taxpayers to take on the risk of this massive single monopoly, the biggest investment in Australian history. If this sounds like a compelling argument to anybody out there, this is a compelling argument. It is no good to the Australian taxpayer to call in the Productivity Commission when attempting to privatise this asset in the future and not have them look at it now. If you can sense a little outrage in my voice, I can tell you that I am against big government monopolies when we do not need to have them.
This bill restricts the ability of anybody to invest in the future of broadband provision, and that is another one of my great criticisms. Finishing on that scrutiny point—my colleague the member for Ryan raised this point quite accurately—the NBN Co. will be removed from critical pieces of government legislation designed to provide an adequate level of scrutiny, such as the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and, of course, freedom of information laws. These are tenets of our democracy, things that make us Australian and democratic, unlike many of the countries we see deteriorating around the world. This big government monopoly, funded to a level that has never in Australian history been sought from the public purse, will not be subject to key scrutiny pieces of legislation like the Public Works Committee Act and freedom of information laws. It sounds awfully bad for the Australian taxpayer. It sounds like somebody is trying to hide the level of risk. And you wonder: why the rush to evade all of this scrutiny?
Our amendment seeks to prevent the damage that will be done by the so-called level playing field provisions, or what is termed the ‘cherry-picker provisions’. I have spoken to people in the market space and I have read contributions from voices such as the Alliance for Affordable Broadband who have a lot of common-sense things to say about what you need to do and what kind of structure you need to have in your legislation to ensure that you do not stifle innovation in this space. Governments do not innovate. I have never been a believer that government is the way to produce advances in technology or innovation. It is the market that provides these innovative forces, and competitive tensions are one of the best ways to produce these. But here we have a bill before us that mandates prices and reduces returns, preventing private investment in new networks. We have a great concern about this.
Over time, if this legislation goes this way, what you will see is Australia falling further behind. It may make an initial leap on somebody’s ratings around the world but, if you do not have encouragement and incentive to invest, innovate, create and move forward in the technologies of the future, you will fall behind. And we know today’s world moves so fast—much faster even than when I was growing up or when most members here were growing up. Mandating to 2020 the kind of technology that Australia will have and, importantly, preventing other technologies from emerging, I think is a critical mistake in this legislation. It is something that will take Australia backwards.
Of course the bill will make it harder. When we reach that one sunny day when Paul Keating is reincarnated and wants to privatise assets—not this Labor government, because ‘privatisation is bad’—when privatisation is ‘good’ again, when we get some more free-market Labor Party members, which is a day I look forward to, this bill will make it almost impossible to sell. In the coalition’s amendments the member for Wentworth has come up with the right formula in terms of preventing the government from shooting itself in the foot and making this asset very difficult to sell.
Debate interrupted.
Recent media reports regarding comments made by the Leader of the Opposition during his 2010 visit to Afghanistan have been taken out of context and did not bear the interpretation that a media report placed on them, said the Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke.
“As someone who has known and worked with Tony Abbott for many years, in no way would he ever diminish the sacrifice of those who have served in Afghanistan,” Mr Hawke said.
“No Member of Parliament would ever flippantly pass comment about those who have died in the service of our country. Any interpretation of such, deliberate or not, is wrong and only serves to create a media circus over the sacrifice of members of the Australian Defence Force.”
Mr Hawke said he welcomed all views expressed to him, and was reassured that the majority of comments being made to him from local residents, and being made by people right around Australia, understood the context in which Mr Abbott’s comments were made.
“Each day the men and women of the Australian Defence force experience difficult and sometimes dangerous situations defending our country,” Mr Hawke said.
“They work in extreme climates, putting in long and exhausting days, often going without sleep and living off basic food. They are away from their family and friends and endure fatigue and hardship in their duty.
“Any suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition would be flippant to diminish the service and sacrifice being made by the members of the Australian Defence Force is bizarre. Tony Abbott is dedicated to working for a better Australia and continues to do so,” Mr Hawke said.
The terrible floods in Queensland and Northern New South Wales have had a profound effect for Australians right around our country, including in the local Mitchell community, said the Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke.
“While we tend to be focussed on the issues and challenges we face in our local community, the devastation caused by these floods has provided a stark demonstration of the power of nature and how lives can be changed forever through the fluctuations and whim of the weather,” Mr Hawke said.
“Many Hills residents have been in touch with me regarding these floods, moved as I have been by the awful news footage and the stories of tragedy and destruction.
“There has also been great encouragement in the attitude and spirit of many people caught up in the floods. There is admiration for those who have pitched in to help their neighbours, friends, and often strangers—whose only association is being a fellow Australian in need.
“Throughout these floods I have relayed to those whom I have been in contact, including my Parliamentary colleagues representing those affected communities, that the Hills community is thinking of them and supports them.
“I am greatly encouraged that once the waters have receded those affected will face up to clean-up and rebuilding with determination and little fuss.”
Mr Hawke said support offered to those affected by the floods included from Her Majesty the Queen, to Australians in every state and territory.
“The awful reality is that many Australians are going to be struggling to rebuild their lives following this flood tragedy,” Mr Hawke said.
“Thank you to those Hills residents who have already made donations to help. To those residents who have been meaning to make a donation, I strongly encourage you to do so soon.”
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:30 PM) —This week the member for Melbourne moved a motion in relation to gay marriage which has received widespread coverage throughout Australia. I thought it timely to put on the record on behalf of my constituents some of my thoughts and also my early consultations in relation to this matter. I want to start by expressing that I do not hold a view that people should not be treated equally under the law and in relation to their financial arrangements or in relation to their relationship outcomes by the Commonwealth government. However, I think that there are those institutions in our society today which have formed the bedrock of our success as a nation.
My electorate of Mitchell has the highest number of couples with dependent children of any electorate in Australia today. I can tell you that it is a very successful formula to have married couples with children living in communities in a way that is for the purpose of bringing up children. It does lead to a great flavour in my suburbs for people raising their children. It is the case that the coalition believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. It sounds obvious, but it always has been. I think that these attempts to alter the definition of marriage or to implement radical change to this important construct at such a time in our national debate are ill thought out and unhelpful.
There is the idea that we need to achieve equality. We are not a society of equality. We are not a society that seeks complete equality for all of our citizens. It is not a goal that we will ever achieve and it is not a goal that I believe is worthwhile. We certainly seek equal opportunity. We certainly seek the equal opportunity for every citizen to gain what they can from our society in a free and unimpeded way. However, there are those constructs and important institutions that provide a platform for our stable society. Marriage is one of those. Indeed, while it is the case that many marriages today end in failure and an increasing rate of those marriages are not successful, it is not the case that there is a powerful or persuasive argument for radical change to such an important institution.
Marriage has been one of the foundational institutions of our society, especially for the bringing up of children. There is nothing that I have heard in this debate that has been brought forward to alter that very important view. This is not a view about financial entitlement. This is not an argument about people accessing rights that they are entitled to. This is about an institution which has always existed under a certain definition which some people are now seeking to alter and to access for their own purposes.
However, I think there is an important role for marriage to play. It is something that I want to defend. Family, I believe, is the most important institution in our society. Families take different shapes and they have different forms. Different religions and cultures have always come to the conclusion that the family is one of those bedrock institutions. Our society in Australia today is built on the institution of heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman.
That does not mean that there is not a case to be made for civil unions. It does not mean that there is not a case for other forms of partnerships or relationships to be recognised by the government. In fact, that is a worthy objective. It is something that would see the support of many members in this place in order to move with the times. However, I can say from the consultations in my electorate so far that I have received much correspondence greatly concerned about the institution of marriage and redefining it in a way that would alter its basic substance and composition and ultimately lead to it changing in a way that would have a radical effect on our society.
It is also the case in New South Wales that the government recently passed a law to allow for gay adoption. This is another unusual and radical move in the view of many when it is almost impossible for loving couples, men and women seeking to adopt children, to obtain an adoption today, which is of grave concern. By saying, ‘Now we want to allow gay adoption without having gay marriage,’ we certainly are proceeding down a path of radical change to the composition of our society without much thought and in a way that does not seem to be well supported by any evidence or any view that this will improve the quality of outcomes for children or the family unit.
In concluding I want to say to the member for Melbourne that he does not need to move a motion to tell us to consult, because the people of Australia are consulting with us. They are communicating their view and, from the electorate of Mitchell, they are saying to me that marriage is an important institution. It is a traditional institution between a man and a woman, and a radical alteration is not required at this time.