In the News
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:02 AM) —I join with my colleague the member for Flinders to chastise the clumsy nature of this motion. Indeed, it is a concern that a member in this place would bring a motion forward politicising a scientific area in such a way that would not really be to the benefit of that science.
To say that climate change is human induced is to overblow and overstate our role in the scheme of the universe quite completely over a long period of time. I note that the member for Fraser came in here today with a very strong view about how human beings have been the source of all change in the universe at all times. He has joined a long line of Labor backbenchers I have spoken about in this place before—amateur scientists, wannabe weather readers, people who want to read the weather, people who like to come in here and make the most grandiose predictions about all sorts of scientific matters without even a basic understanding of the periodic table, or the elements or where carbon might be placed on the periodic table. So the member for Fraser has joined this esteemed group of people who seem to be great authorities on science.
The issue here today before us is not that climate change is human induced. The member for Flinders has raised the very important topic that I asked the Prime Minister about in question time just a few days ago, and that is: what will the effect of the government’s policies on climate change be on human beings in Australia today? How will a carbon tax do anything for the environment? How will it change the climate of the planet? In what ways would a carbon tax alter the climate of the planet? The answers are of course completely uninspiring and unsatisfying. A carbon tax could not do anything except raise the price of electricity. Hence the nature of my question to the Prime Minister: what would the nature of the rise in electricity prices be for the average household under a carbon tax? The Prime Minister refused to answer that question. I think she refused to answer it because there has been some considerable commentary about electricity price rises under a carbon tax.
IPART recently reported that in New South Wales there will be household increases. Households across Sydney have seen major electricity price increases already impacting their budgets. I want to record here that that is a direct result of a Labor state government underinvesting in electricity generation for over a decade—underinvesting in the necessary generation capacity. At the last state election in New South Wales, thousands or millions were spent on advertisements with young girls skipping over green hills with wind towers in the background. On the re-election of the Labor government they commissioned a new coal-fired power plant. The advertisements show the girls skipping across the green fields with the wind turbines, yet the first decision of the New South Wales state Labor government upon re-election was to commission a new coal-fired power plant.
The reality is that no matter who it is—whether it is Garnaut, the government, the state government or IPART—everybody knows that there will be electricity price increases. These have to be managed. A carbon tax will add significantly to the burden on households across Australia. The question must be asked: how will it benefit our environment? What will it do? We hear a lot of melodramatic language in relation to a motion such as this, and we heard some melodramatic language today. We have heard so many predictions about the future. It is of great concern to me that these predictions will never be held to any standard, scientific or otherwise.
And that is a concern with a motion such as this. In this parliament we do have a great consensus about the climate. We have a consensus that we do need to take measures to benefit our environment. The coalition has a set of policies that are, as the member for Flinders put well, laser surgery in terms of their direct benefit to the environment. They are the kinds of things that will achieve an end that people can look at and say, ‘Well, we are doing something for the planet.’
Of course, some of the great failings of this government, including the Green Loans scheme, set us backwards. Policy failure sets us backwards. Imposing a carbon tax on the economy with the justification being the environment, when the environment is not the goal, will set back the cause of benefiting the environment by many years. So will motions in this House that take us back five years and try to have a debate on a political wedge issue rather than deal with the climate, environment and economic issues of the day, which are how well a carbon tax will benefit other Australians.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:33 PM) —I am happy to speak in this place today in reply to the Governor-General’s address. The 2010 federal election was, of course, a great sea change in Australian history, a time when Australians did stand up for a different vision of what they wanted from their federal government and sought a new direction from it. The reason they did that follows on from what the member for Charlton has just said. He said that any fair-minded member of parliament would need to look at the performance of the government and assess it carefully. That is what voters in the electorate of Mitchell did do at the last federal election. They took a very careful look at the policies, the results and the delivery of services that were provided by the federal government in the last term.
In this place, I have spoken at length about Building the Education Revolution and it just so happens that in my electorate of Mitchell there have been serious problems with federal government service delivery in the BER program. Some members of parliament might say, ‘That’s only confined to one or two schools or a very small percentage.’ If you are in a school community that has been badly affected by government failure then you feel it. Communities in my electorate have certainly felt that failure quite keenly. What am I talking about? Annangrove is an example. I want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition and our education spokesperson, the member for Sturt, who paid a visit to the community in Annangrove during the federal election to launch our national education policy. That community has a school of 90 pupils. It received a BER grant of around $900,000—an opportunity, one would have thought, to make a significant investment in the future of that school for the community.
What could you do with $900,000 to achieve real advancement for the education of those 90 pupils? The school is in a semi-rural area. They asked for new toilet blocks. They asked for more classrooms. They asked for these very important infrastructure upgrades for their community. They were awarded a library. Members here will say, ‘What’s wrong with a library?’ They already had a library. For 90 kids, we have the farcical situation at Annangrove of two libraries sitting right next to each other. The original library has air-conditioning. It is a great little library. It has shelving, connection to the internet and other features. It functions very well. The new library is not air-conditioned, there is no shelving and it is not connected to the internet. That cost $900,000.
There are line items in the BER for expenditure at this school in Annangrove for $60,000 for landscaping. If you ask what landscaping has been done at the school, you will be pointed to a one metre by one metre piece of concrete and 10 plants. It is of great concern to that school. I want to congratulate the P&C president, Donna Hunter, for having the courage to come forward and raise these matters with us. Of course, we have raised this with Mr Orgill and his committee. This is an example of what is wrong with the BER and the delivery mechanisms within the New South Wales government—two libraries for 90 pupils and the new library, which does not work, at a cost of $900,000. Something has gone awfully wrong by anybody’s standards. Members opposite have gone quiet.
I want to talk about another great school in my electorate, Baulkham Hills North Primary School. It just so happens that the president of the P&C at Baulkham Hills North Primary School, Mr Craig Turner, is an architect. When he came across the BER plans for his school—a new school hall; sounds like a worthy project—he found it was going to cost from $1.2 million to $1.3 million. That sounds marvellous! However, the new school hall to be built under the BER was going to fit only 20 more pupils than their existing hall. It was not big enough to hold the whole school. This architect, this representative of his school community—not a partisan political player, not a member of a political party—came to me as the local member and said: ‘Why $1.2 million for this? I can design a building that will house the whole school and have it constructed, and it will deliver the outcome that this great public school needs.’ The answer lies in the bureaucracy and the incompetence of the New South Wales government, and the rigidity of the BER program not allowing enough flexibility for local public schools.
The independent and private schools in my electorate each achieved a great outcome from the money they were granted. They got architect designed structures that were exactly what they needed for their pupils. The local public schools got a template, mandated outcome by the state government that did not provide the best outcome for schools in many cases. While many are grateful—because they have to be grateful for any infrastructure upgrades they get—they did not get the opportunity that they deserved. Why? Because of the rigid and foolish bureaucratic mechanisms within the New South Wales government.
It is the case in New South Wales that there was a big swing against the Labor Party at the election. Perhaps the coalition did not go as well as we could have. I know the member for Dobell will not defend the performance of the New South Wales government because it is beyond defence in my state. State Labor has underinvested in infrastructure—and the top issue in my electorate is the provision of infrastructure. The north-west rail line has been the most bitter failure of the New South Wales government. It was promised, cancelled, promised and cancelled. Also the south-west rail line is a failure.
What we did see in the election campaign was that great, famous commitment of Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister to build a rail line in Sydney. Her advisers on that day—because it was done on that day and it was done on the back of a coaster—really failed her. There is one thing that you do not do in Sydney, and even the member for Dobell would acknowledge this: you do not come out as a politician and say, ‘I am going to build a rail line in Sydney.’ Nobody believes you. Why? We have had a state Labor government for 16 years that has promised rail lines, including the Parramatta to Epping line, and delivered billboards which said, ‘Coming soon.’ They had cranes up the top of Epping and bulldozers parked on the side of the road. It was a great PR stunt before a state election. Of course, once the election was over the bulldozers were moved, the cranes were cancelled and the billboards came down. We never heard of the Parramatta to Epping rail line until the federal election. Fancy that. Three weeks out from election day, Julia Gillard says, ‘I’ve come up with an idea to move forward, to move Sydney forward and that will be the Parramatta to Epping rail link.’ It sounded like a worthy initiative. It probably lost them just enough votes to lose the seat of Bennelong. I say to the voters of Sydney and New South Wales ‘thank you’ because we need to punish bad governments. They need to be dealt with harshly. And there is no worse example of a bad government in Australia today than the New South Wales state Labor government. It deserves to be punished. It deserves to be sent a very serious signal—governments in this country cannot be allowed to get that bad ever again.
Is the federal government now going to commit to building the Parramatta to Epping rail line? My colleague the member for Bennelong is actively seeking the answers to those questions affecting his community at Bennelong, and also affecting my community within Hills Shire. But we do not have any answers yet. Is this a promise that is going to be cancelled? Is this a pre-election commitment that is going to go by the wayside? We are about to find out. We will maintain the pressure on this government to deliver the money and the commitment to upgrade infrastructure in Sydney.
There is no doubt that under the Rudd and Gillard governments that Sydney has missed out on vital infrastructure funding. There is no allocation of money for infrastructure in the biggest city in our country. There was money for some studies on the metro line, but the incompetent New South Wales Labor government cancelled the metro line and had to, humiliatingly, return the $51 million for the study to the federal government. There were no other infrastructure funding provisions in any of the budgets of the Rudd or Gillard governments—none in Sydney, our biggest city. It is the city most underinvested in infrastructure in Australia. This is the city we are asking to take the bulk of our migration. This is the city we are trying to urban consolidate—pack in people without the adequate infrastructure to provide for those people. No wonder voters in Sydney are sceptical about immigration. No wonder it has been given a very bad name. My family are migrants to this country. They came here in the waves of migration after World War II and they have worked very hard and built a great life for me and my family today, and I am very grateful to them. That is the experience of so many people in Sydney. Yet, why are so many people in Sydney so concerned about immigration. It is not so much because of the people, the humanity; it is because of the policies of government that have crammed so many people into so little space without the proper infrastructure provision, and there is no better example than the city of Sydney.
The federal government fails to provide infrastructure money even when it lauds its infrastructure funding programs all around the country. There may very well be places where it is funding infrastructure but in Sydney it is not. The communities of Sydney continue to be ignored at both the state and the federal level. And that does mean that we have to change what we are doing in the Sydney basin. Indeed, it will lead to further scepticism about immigration and our migration program because Sydney cannot afford to continue to be the recipient of so many people without provision for them. That is something that has received a lot more attention in recent times.
The coalition did have a clear position on so many issues at the last election, including water protection, repaying our debt and ending waste in government. Ending waste in government was, I think, a theme that really resonated with the community. People knew that under the Howard-Costello years not only was debt repaid, not only were the finances put in order but also provision was made to fund future obligations of the Commonwealth government, particularly Commonwealth superannuants, but also to fund, through the Future Fund, other commitments of the federal government to ensure that there was a financial base.
In Mitchell, this could not be more critical. In my electorate, I have the highest proportion of families with dependent children in Australia. The average income is one of the highest in the country, but we also have one of the highest rates of mortgages—I think we are second—and of McMansions in the entire country. That is a very homogenous society: families with mortgages on over-high-average incomes, but using nearly all of that income, of course, to service mortgage debt. Most cash, as we know, is being put into paying off those mortgages. In the last year, there have been seven interest rate rises—even though the current government said that it was going to do something about interest rates. That is of very serious concern to my electorate.
One of the great things about Mitchell is that we have so many small businesses in the Norwest Business Park. It is a very entrepreneurial and innovative community. But those small businesses are suffering, as they are across the Sydney basin. When I speak to my colleague the member for Macarthur or to the member for Hughes, they tell a similar story about this Christmas: small businesses are finding that there is less cash in people’s pockets as the cost of living escalates and as interest rates also take money out of those pockets.
That is why we are so concerned about banking and financial sector reform. The reason we are—though there is some scepticism opposite—is that, in the life of the Howard government, banks did not raise their rates outside of Reserve Bank movements. This is a very critical point to understand. That was not through a legislative instrument. That was not an informal agreement. That was not an unwritten agreement with the federal government or Peter Costello. And it was despite an Asian financial crisis, a tech wreck, and many serious world and local economic challenges.
There are many reasons and factors. When you have serious and competent professional people managing your economy, the CEOs of the banks have no choice but to take those people seriously. There has been a marked change in the attitude of the banks towards the federal government. Peter Costello had an arrangement and an understanding with the banks where they knew that they would not move interest rates outside Reserve Bank movements—and that was not by legislative instrument or by pressure but by force of respect and personality and ability: ability to manage the economy and to communicate why interest rates should not be moved outside of Reserve Bank movements. That was a very successful formula during that period.
That is why we have put forward our nine-point plan. It is a plan for the future. It is a plan to ensure that small businesses in Mitchell are able to access finance from banks. People in small business, when they talk to me, speak in a very concerned fashion about how they cannot access finance. With the taxpayer now underwriting the major four banks—which, of course, continues to need to be looked at—we need to look at how we re-encourage competition in the banking sector. How do we get competition in finance so that people can access finance again? If the government is not prepared to look at that, or not prepared to do anything about it, then it should adopt the opposition’s policy, its nine-point plan, to ensure that we have competition in the banking sector. It is vital for there to be competition in funds and to not just have all the money locked up in the big four banks. It will mean pressure on interest rates. It will mean pressure on fees, charges and services. Competition—so important to so many things—is one of our keynote policies.
I want to turn now to some other key factors affecting Mitchell and to local issues within the campaign. I want to thank and congratulate my friends in the Indian community in Sydney. The Indian community, at the last election, being dominated by very hard-working small business people, adopted the view that it was time to seek a better alternative in government. We had many successful functions with the Indian community. We visited their temples in Wentworthville. They were very encouraging of the deputy opposition leader, Julie Bishop, who made a visit to my electorate—for which I was very grateful—to hear about their key issues. The Indian community in Sydney is very concerned about those key issues: competent management of the economy, and the performance of the federal government in doing something for small business and ensuring that we have a safe and well-funded infrastructure program for the Sydney basin. So I do want to thank and congratulate those members of the Indian community who came forward and worked so closely with us to ensure that there was a good understanding of coalition policy and that people had a genuine choice within the Sydney basin.
It is, of course, a great scandal in Australia that, when an incoming government is sent a strong signal by the electorate of, ‘You have got your settings wrong. You have failed us so badly,’ they do not heed the messages from that very strong signal. In fact the opposite has occurred. What I find most distressing about this current government is that from the outset the Prime Minister has flagged her intention to abandon all of her core election promises. She has even had the gall to say to the electorate, ‘We are going to abandon our core promises. We are going to go down a different path.’ That signals that we now have a government that is run by a minority group: the Australian Greens. One of the great features of this parliament will be to what extent the Greens dominate the agenda of the Australian government going forward. I do not think, if they are allowed to dominate in the way they have been dominating in the first session of this parliament, that things will improve in Australia.
The government’s vaunted carbon tax, which of course they swore they would not implement in the election campaign, of course now becomes a core commitment of this government. We did not hear a lot about climate change in the election campaign. That is because in the world today and in the Australian community there is a growing—I hesitate to use the word ‘scepticism’—concern about the validity of the climate change argument and about whether the political takeout of climate change has been the correct one. There is a very big difference between what the scientists tell us about climate change and what the politicians say. Issues are regularly hijacked by politicians for their own benefit. I would suggest that in this case there is a growing view in the world today that climate change has been hijacked for political benefit by left-of-centre political parties.
There are sensible and competent things we can do to help the environment. The coalition had a plan for some direct action to do practical things that would benefit the environment and not just implement new taxes. If the way to solve the environmental situation in the world today is to raise tax, why wouldn’t everybody be for it? If all we had to do was apply new taxes, charges and fees, that would be a very simple way to fix things. Of course the reality is that new taxes, charges and fees will not produce environmental benefit.
The government abandoning the promise not to implement a carbon tax is going to resonate with the electorate. People do not want a carbon tax on the back of rapidly rising electricity prices, particularly in New South Wales. That is after a decade of underinvestment in electricity generation by the New South Wales state Labor government. The privatisation of electricity tore two or three state Labor governments into pieces over the electricity generation question of how much they were to invest in electricity. We are already paying the price with massive increases in electricity prices. Utility prices in Sydney are probably the most common concern. Yet this government proposes to implement a major new tax that will, of course, push up the price of electricity rapidly. It is of grave concern that the Greens may well continue to dominate the Australian government agenda for the years ahead.
I want to say a big thank you to the people of Mitchell for the opportunity to represent them in this place for the next three years. It is a great honour. I am grateful to them for the support they showed me at the last election and I pledge to work in their interest and to ensure that we get better infrastructure and services in the north-west of Sydney, and that our economy and finances allow people to get ahead, allow businesses to generate employment and opportunity and allow our families to affordably live in the Sydney basin and to have a bit of room for their kids. I thank you for the opportunity.
Sitting suspended from 12.53 pm to 4 pm
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (6:24 PM) —I rise to oppose the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010. It is no surprise to coalition members that one of the first agenda items of the Gillard government is the introduction of a compulsory fee for students of $250 per annum, and indeed the provisions of this bill index that fee so that this tax on students will continue to rise. Considering what we have seen in the first tranche of legislation from this government, it is fair for us to assume that the taxation of students, imposing higher fees and charges on those seeking to further their education, is indeed the top priority of the Australian government. That is very disappointing—every student in the country can look at this and say, well, this is the most pressing priority of this parliament. Ensuring that this fee for services is charged is something that this government regards as more important than the so-called greatest moral issue of our time, climate change; it is more important than financial services reform and relieving pressure on families. We have to rake in more money from students allegedly to provide services.
I note that similar legislation failed twice in the previous parliament. It was rejected because it was seen, quite rightly, as an attempt to reimpose compulsory student unionism. The government now argues that this bill is somehow better because all it seeks to do is charge a $250 fee, and it prescribes how that can be spent by university administrations. I do not see how it is better. I do not see how it is better to say that now a university administration can charge this services fee and then spend it in the ways prescribed by this legislation, and that that will produce a better outcome than having a body controlled by students doing it. It seems to me to be an odd and specious argument.
It is interesting to note that these services, being the justification for this fee, are paid for whether the student wants them or not. It is important to note that this is actually written into the legislation. Subclause 19-37(5) states:
(5) that a higher education provider requires a person enrolled, seeking to enrol, with the provider to pay for a period starting on or after 1 January 2011 to support the provision to students of amenities and services not of an academic nature, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of those amenities and services;
That is exactly why I oppose this legislation. We are levying students to pay for services, as it says here in the legislation, regardless of whether the person chooses to use any of these amenities and services. There could be nothing more ridiculous than levying these people in this way. The member for Parramatta spoke about people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I came from western Sydney; I actually grew up in North Parramatta and Carlingford. I went to Sydney University and I know that many of my friends and I found that the ability to go to university was hindered by compulsory unionism and the $300 to $400 fee paid every semester to the university union. Yet it is argued that somehow the levying of a fee for services and amenities that students might not use will benefit people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We really understand what this bill is about. It is revitalising what Labor student activists have always sought, and that is what they define as activism on campus; having student life. That is code for taking money off hardworking students and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to support political activism.
This legislation says that you are not allowed to use the money levied to finance federal, state or local political candidates. Of course what is missing in that definition is a reference to third-party political campaigns or entities. Clause 19-38(4) lists a number of things that a university may spend this compulsory fee on. What is not prohibited by this legislation and what is not prohibited in section 1 is funding of third-party campaigns, such as those by organisations like GetUp! that seek to influence the political debate and to change the nature of our society. I think that that is quite deliberate. That is a deliberate move by this government to leave out third-party campaigns, unions and other organisations. In part 4, what we see is that helping students obtain employment or career advice or help from unions is not prohibited by this proposed legislation in the House today. We all know the reason for that: the transferral of hard-earned student dollars to unions and third-party organisations to engage in the political debate.
What we have seen since the introduction of the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism regime has been students having their own money to use to choose their own goods and services on campus. Those services have continued to be provided in a fashion that is in line with the demand for them on those campuses. If anyone here in this place is seriously suggesting that the union on any single campus in this country provides better food than a private provider could or is seriously suggesting that their childcare services were better than those of private providers or that other services that can be easily provided by private providers—especially in metropolitan areas—were better provided by a student union then I would like to hear that argument. That was not the experience at the University of Sydney. In fact, union-provided food was regarded universally by the student body as a bit of a joke; it was a constant source of amusement over many years. And it was not a service that could not have been provided by independent providers on campus at a better standard and at a cheaper price.
The words ‘regardless of whether a student wants or needs a service or amenity’ are written into this legislation. That is the key flaw in this particular bill.
Proposed section 19-38(4) states that subsection (3) does not prohibit expenditure for certain purposes. It also reveals what I think are several flaws in this proposed bill. Once again, the government is picking the winners on campus—what activities can be funded and what activities cannot be funded by this fee. Once again, we see a nanny state approach to all the legislation that comes before this House from this government: ‘We will decide what services students need.’ And of course there is a list.
When you look at this list, it is not simply confined to health services or childcare services—the things that we hear so much about from those opposite. We know the statistics. What we are talking about is one per cent of students or less who need or use those services. We are not talking about the vast bulk of students; we are talking about a very small minority. On this list, there are things like supporting debating by students. We are actually charging people from low socioeconomic backgrounds $250 to support debating by other students. Is that a service that is so vital and so desperately needed that we need to fund it by a compulsory levy whether a person needs that service or not?
Let us have a look at what else is on this list. We are supporting artistic activities by students. Yes, of course we would be. The Labor Party would of course compulsorily levy people who work very hard to go to university so that some students can engage in what they describe as art. Who will decide what that artistic activity is? We do not know that. But we do know what kind of quality of art it will be. And we will be paying for it. When you look down this list, it is not a list of vital do-or-die services without which there would be people out on the streets or children not cared for. It is art. It is debating. It is all of those sorts of things.
Even sport and recreational activities are problematic. I want to address this very briefly. I am a big supporter of sport. I play sport. I use sports services. And I pay for them. This concept that somehow the general population of the student body, which includes many students who have to work or come from average backgrounds, has to somehow subsidise elite rugby and other sports on any campus in this country has always been a flaw in compulsory unionism. It remains a flaw in this legislation before us today, as sport is exempted. Taking the hard-earned money of one group and giving it to another group to support their chosen activity is a problem. There is nothing wrong with sport on campus. It is a fine tradition and institution. But if money is taken off others without their choice or consent then it is a very flawed system. We are going back to this idea that the government will decide what services students need, and particular people with an agenda inside this government will continue to prescribe lists like that in proposed subsection (4).
We also see in here a list of advocacy and other services. These are things that, as the Labor Party’s drafting in this bill suggests to us, students may not want and may not need. I would suggest again that 99.9 per cent of students will never want or need these services, and yet all students will be required to pay for them, for a small amount of activity.
I want to turn to some other events in relation to this legislation. There has been a huge rush in bringing forward this legislation before the House today. I have spoken about this being defeated two times before in the previous parliament. But the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training rushed its inquiry into this legislation. That committee had a government majority and they gave just six days for people to make submissions, thereby denying many individuals—students or other people around this country—the right to say what they think about every student being charged a compulsory fee for services and amenities that they may not want or need. The stated reason was the rush to put this bill through before the 2011 academic year. But when I look at the list of reasons I do not find that compelling.
We know what this is about. We know that political activity has dropped on campuses. The funding of third-party political organisations has dropped on campus. That is a good thing. People on campus are now free to vote or not vote in elections and to participate or not in political life. What we see in the voting returns on campuses around the nation is that very few students vote for these organisations. They do not choose to participate in political activity. That is the way that it should be. We should not force or compel people to pay a fee for services that they may not want or need and then have that money given to a political organisation that they may not support or may not choose to be involved in. It ends up being for the edification of those people involved in politics. I am one of those people, but I do not support this.
I want to record that, in their submissions, the Australian Liberal Students Federation, led by Sasha Uher, made a fantastic contribution to this debate, highlighting many of the practical reasons why this legislation will be detrimental to students around the country. University campuses are no different than any other part of our society. The concept that this bill will somehow improve standards of services for people when you are taking $250 out of the pockets of every student is flawed.
This bill means $250 less for textbooks, study materials, transport, the cost of living and, at best, means more HECS debt. This is where you come to the very odd position taken by the Labor Party: they oppose HECS and HECS debt increases when, really, HECS is designed in the understanding that education is an economic asset and improving your education improves your ability to obtain remuneration in our economy today. Therefore, we say you ought to make a contribution for the economic asset that the government is giving you and that society is providing you with. It is a reasonable and fair scheme that is working well.
But the Labor Party of course do not agree with the principle that you ought to make a contribution to your own education and that if you are going to receive such an economic asset and do better in your life you ought to return something to the system. Then they say, ‘We have in this legislation a provision which says we will have a fee help scheme.’ We do not need a fee help scheme if there is no compulsory fee. We do not need a fee help scheme if we allow people to have the $250 back in the first place to make their own decisions about student services and things on campus. When you think about every provider in this country that would be keen to get onto a campus to provide their goods and services at the cheapest rate they possibly could—because you are talking about young people, young consumers, people who will set their consumer behaviour for life—it is a golden opportunity for our campuses and universities. One of the great concerns of the coalition, and one of my great concerns as a coalition member, is that in our university and private sector funding for universities we do not encourage the system they have in America—scholarships, private sector involvement, more money being generated into education—which is the way to go.
There is no disguising what the Labor government is up to in this legislation. They see the taxation of students as one of their first priorities for the new government. This is the new paradigm: higher taxes and charges for our young people in Australia. I am happy to oppose this bill.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (1:47 PM) —Remembrance Day marked the 92nd anniversary of the signing of the armistice which ended World War I. On November 11, at 11 am, many of us stopped what we were doing to remember the sacrifice of more than 102,000 Australians who have been killed in war. On the Sunday before this year’s Remembrance Day service, many local veterans and people from across the community in my electorate of Mitchell also gathered at a service in Castle Hill. It was deeply moving to see the respect and sincerity that so many in our community hold towards those who have served and continue to serve our country.
It was, however, extremely disappointing to learn that Remembrance Day was largely ignored by some universities and government agencies and by many in the corporate sector. One interstate government agency, for example, regarded the observance of one minute’s silence as ‘potentially culturally offensive’, until community sentiment led to a change of heart.
It is so important that, so many years on from World War I, we continue to remember this important sacrifice of so many Australians. Our men and women in uniform continue to serve in often difficult and dangerous environments. This year the names of 10 Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan were added to the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial.
I join the calls of my colleagues, particularly Senator Michael Ronaldson, in ensuring that government agencies and departments, in particular, continue to ensure that Remembrance Day is observed on the 11th of the 11th at 11 am and that, even so many years later, we do indeed take seriously the sacrifice of so many brave Australian soldiers.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (7:38 PM) —I want to thank the member for Braddon for raising the trifecta of reasons as to why we ought to have a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. The insulation scheme is a fantastic reason why we should think, pause and carefully consider the impact of government decisions before we take them. The Building the Education Revolution scheme and the absolute rush to get projects out and handed to the New South Wales government meant that, in my electorate of Mitchell, we had two libraries built for a school of 90 pupils at the cost of $900,000. That could have been prevented by a cost-benefit analysis, by rationally examining how we were going to deliver those services.
The cost of the National Broadband Network represents the single biggest expenditure of any project in Australian history, so the member for Braddon has really raised the trifecta about why we are here today. If it were the case that, as those on the government side are consistently stating this place, the member for Wentworth’s objective was to delay or even to destroy the National Broadband Network, why would he be urging the government to do a cost-benefit analysis to consider the benefits versus the costs of implementing this program responsibly? If that were the case, the member for Wentworth would not be suggesting a deal which said, ‘Let’s pause and reflect, from a serious perspective such as that of the Productivity Commission, on how this could work, how it could be delivered and how we could best provide this broadband service to Australians.’
The experience of the member for Wentworth in business and investing leads him to understand that we need to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. We need to pause at these junctures when we have such a massive expenditure plan and say, ‘Let’s have a look at what we will get for that investment, because otherwise we will end up with a government program just like the insulation scheme or the BER where money is needlessly wasted and time and effort is spent delivering services that could have been delivered in a much better way.’ We have heard from our rural members here today that rural areas will not get the services they need even with an expenditure of $43 billion—the member for Calare is exactly right.
Why are we doing that? I come from an inner-city electorate, and there is pair gain in my electorate. I heard the member for Wakefield talking about pair gain, and of course that needs improving. Yet many inner-city areas are well serviced—there are people who do not need 100 megabits per second—while there are rural and regional areas that definitely need those services, and I endorse the remarks of those who say, ‘Why would we spend $43 billion and not service those areas of Australia where it is very difficult to provide these services in the free market?’
There is a large role for the market in the provision of broadband and telecommunications. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite of the experience of the member for Braddon that telecommunications in this country have been progressing in a fashion that has allowed people to better afford goods and services from telecommunications companies over time. It is not the case that the market is failing so badly that we need a massive government monopoly through an injection of money of $43 billion, a sum beyond the wildest dreams of any single investor or other provider of services in this country’s history. That is not just my view; we have heard in question time about the views of the OECD, but we have not heard about the fact that the OECD has this week criticised the NBN monopoly and called for a rigorous analysis of this $43 billion. Why wouldn’t they? The sum of $43 billion is a lot of money in anybody’s language, and it is very unusual for the OECD to call for such an analysis of a domestic policy.
The Alliance for Affordable Broadband, the AAB—which represents a cross-section of the telecommunications industry and includes in its membership infrastructure based carriers, fibre, wireless and carriage service providers, all of whom have things to gain and lose through the National Broadband Network—has written an open letter today begging the government to consider the cost-benefit of the NBN. The AAB’s members say that they can provide services in a reasonable and cost-effective way to much of Australia. In addition, the Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, has proposed an innovative scheme that has been tried in other major cities around the world.
So there are plenty of options here; there are plenty of reasons to pause and consider. The member for Wentworth’s objective in suggesting we do so is not to destroy the NBN. If a cost-benefit analysis would destroy the National Broadband Network, perhaps we ought not to be proceeding with the NBN. Perhaps the government ought to pause and think about that. Doing a cost-benefit analysis is a worthy task. The Productivity Commission can do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and taxpayers can get the peace of mind that they deserve.