Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

He has transformed into a black hole—disappeared. Thank you very much, Member for Gellibrand. The second thing that we noticed is that digital transformation has come under the same minister as the Department of Human Services. The other thing we noticed—this one was slipped out, for people in the know who watch this—is that we heard this news in late December:

The Department of Human Services' high-profile chief information officer Gary Sterrenberg will depart the agency … after more than six years in the role … It leaves arguably the most technology-intensive leadership position—which involves looking after the IT operations of Centrelink and Medicare …

This was very quiet. It is a very big departure. For those that follow this process outside—and I accept that there won't be many that will—I tell you what: as has been observed to me, if you're a senior public servant in the Commonwealth, you used to get yourself acquainted very much with financing and build your skills up there, but what's now also going to be required is a commitment to not just having digital literacy but understanding how IT will transform the way public sectors operate and the way departments operate. We lost a big one here, and it was slipped under the carpet. This person, with so much experience—who's contentious, I might add; he had his fans and his detractors—certainly disappeared. They are very interesting changes: Angus Taylor is gone, Michael Keenan gets responsibility for DHS and digital transformation, and the CIO of Human Services quits—huge within there. When we see all the things that this government has done in this space, the impact on digital transformation—the census, robo-debt, problems with the child support agency, the ATO website going down over a dozen times with no explanation as to why, and accountants being affected by this—it is just terrible.

I'll tell you the other thing that's looming on the horizon that is going to drive small business nuts, and this is another area of the digital economy that is already causing concern. The government's domain registry body, auDA, is now revolutionising the way in which web addresses in this country, particularly for small business, will be managed, and small businesses are now demanding answers about the introduction of these new domain names, with a former non-executive director of that domain registration body warning 'the rollout of the new domains could result in a long period of "David and Goliath" battles for web addresses', because there will be a concern that 'organisations that registered ".com.au" sites after April 2016 would have to apply and potentially fight it out to claim the equivalent .au domains', which 'could cause significant financial and time costs to small businesses'. As one person who responded said:

It smacks of an idea hatched in a pub after far too many beers.

Another said:

It is common knowledge the dominant and most aware extension in Australia is .com.au. Why disrupt this and cause confusion and chaos in our ecosystem?

Josh Rowe, who previously served as a non-executive director of auDA, said that he had been 'waiting for a solid explanation from the organisation about why ".au" domains are necessary'. He said:

I'm quite open minded about being able to be convinced there is a need, but the issue is, no case has been put forward.

Again, not content that they're stuffing up digital transformation in their own backyard, the government now want to affect the way in which some of their decisions impact on small businesses in this country. They'd better get this sorted out quick smart. SMEs do not have to have visited upon them the kind of calamity that we've seen in the federal Public Service when it comes to digital transformation and the way that tech issues are being managed. That should get sorted out really quickly.

In my last two minutes, talking about big lots of money, I have to say I am watching with increasing interest the amount of money that is going into the second Sydney airport. We've already had $3.5 billion dedicated in this infrastructure package to support it. When the government couldn't get Sydney Airport to take on the role of monopoly operator of all airport infrastructure in this country, they said they would put $5.3 billion into the airport. This is going to be a 24-hour facility and it is going to run completely differently from what happens on the other side of the city. It will be flights over Fairfield roofs and flight-free over Kirribilli in terms of the way that this will be done. I watch, as I have said, people standing in rows of five deep on railway platforms on the western line, waiting to catch a train. Then they have to potentially stand on that train for 50 minutes. I see in the weekend papers that the government is planning to spend up to $30 billion on the north-south rail link, between Badgerys Creek and Rouse Hill.

Western Sydney residents love seeing greater public transport access, because they are frustrated to their back teeth about congestion on our roads. But what they want to see is a comprehensive plan for people movement across the region; they want to see how they will be able to move around. Bear in mind, they are spending 50 minutes on that train at the moment. The claim on the weekend is that it will be 50 minutes from Badgerys Creek airport to the city. Yeah, right! Let's see that happen. You can't even get people from Doonside to the city in 50 minutes and you reckon you're going to get that on a congested rail line. The other thing is that $10 billion is being loaded up on this facility, and we don't have flights plans. People don't know where this airport is going, and there is no jobs plan about the jobs that will actually be created for Western Sydney residents. We deserve more for the money that is being spent.

See this speech in context