Mr Speaker, I have a serious issue to raise with you, and I feel it is best that it be raised at the first possible opportunity. Yesterday in the House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took objection to, and indeed gave a personal explanation on, the suggestion made by the Treasurer at question time that she had plagiarised a Wall Street Journal article. Today in the Age it is reported that:
Ms Bishop later conceded to The Age that many of the words in question had been taken only from The Wall Street Journal article and not from Mr Paulson. But she said she was not wrong in her explanation to the House.
If you examine the words of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition actually said to the House, as checked against the tape, you will find that she said, ‘In my speech I was referring to the United States’s plans. In fact, the words I used were the technical explanation from the US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which have been published widely.’ When I checked the Hansard this morning, I found that it records the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as saying something very different.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. Is it appropriate for the Leader of the House to be accusing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this way without moving a substantive motion?
I am waiting—
Mr Pyne interjecting
Order! I do not know what has possessed the honourable member for Sturt since going from the sideboard to the shadow cabinet, but he cannot just prattle on. Quite correctly, when he approached the dispatch box he indicated that he understands this is a serious matter. The point is that I have given indulgence to the Leader of the House. He is setting a scenario. I expect him to then come to some form of conclusion. That might involve me making some sort of comment or decision or it might involve him doing something. I think we should just bear with him. I will listen to him. I honestly do not know where this is going. I have not been encouraged to this position at all. I am listening. The Leader of the House.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Hansard records something quite different in meaning. It records the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as saying:
In my speech I was referring to the United States’ plans, and, in fact, the words I used were a technical explanation of US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan, which have been published widely.
The distinction is quite acute between what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said and what the Hansard records the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as saying. Mr Speaker, I would ask that you examine the tape and report back to the House at your convenience and at the earliest possible opportunity on how it is that the Hansard has been changed on a serious issue in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was giving a personal explanation about plagiarism.
I will seek advice. I think honourable members would agree that the Hansard is produced professionally, as per guidelines. But I will seek advice about the matters that the Leader of the House has raised with me and report accordingly.
I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 13 October 2008. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. Can I, firstly, inform all honourable members that this motion is supported by the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Secondly, I place on record my appreciation of him and others. The presentation of the whips’ report now occurs at a new time line, which gives members more opportunity to be aware of what is contained in the whips’ report and, I confess, it is much easier for me to manage and report to the House.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday, 13 October 2008. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows:
Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 Ms Owens: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins.
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 Mr Ciobo: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ciobo—10 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 Mrs Moylan: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mrs Moylan—5 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins ]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS
Presentation and statements
1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON FAMILY, COM-MUN-ITY, HOUSING AND YOUTH
The Value of Volunteering: A discussion paper on volunteering in the community
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 8.50 pm
Speech time limits—
Each Member—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida, Jemaah Islamiyah and Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of Islamic Maghreb
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9 pm
Speech time limits—
Each Member—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Annual Report of Committee Activities 2007-2008
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.10 pm
Speech time limits—
Each Member—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
2 Mrs Hull: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mrs Hull—5 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Report adopted.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is complementary to the Schools Assistance Bill 2008, which I will also be introducing today.
This bill makes amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005 and the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 consequential on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008.
The bill repeals the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000, which appropriated funding for government and non-government schools for the 2001 to 2004 funding period. As this period has expired, this act is no longer required.
While many of the amendments in the bill are technical or consequential amendments, a particularly important component of the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is contained at item 6 of schedule 1 which continues the operation of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000.
In the first sitting week of this parliament, the Rudd government apologised to Indigenous Australians for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians. At the time, the Prime Minister made the point that this is not the end of the government’s commitment but the start. If Australia is to be truly reconciled there must first be an acknowledgement of past wrongs, but this must be followed up with actions to close the gaps between Indigenous and other Australians.
By putting in place appropriations for another four years under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 the Australian government can continue working with a range of stakeholders to develop and implement innovative measures to close the gaps.
The act provides a vehicle to support what works in Indigenous education.
The act maintains commitments to initiatives such as the Sporting Chance Program, as well as supporting the expansion of intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous students, professional development support to assist teachers to develop individual learning plans for their Indigenous students, an additional 200 teachers in the Northern Territory and the provision of three new boarding college facilities for Indigenous secondary school students in the Northern Territory.
The act will appropriate more than $500 million between 2009 and 2012 for Commonwealth-led initiatives and partnerships aimed at achieving better educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians. In addition, a further $109 million is estimated to be spent over the next four years augmenting Abstudy entitlements through the Away from Base for ‘mixed-mode’ delivery program assisting Indigenous students access tertiary education.
As a transitional provision until other elements of our intergovernmental financial relations reforms are introduced in 2009, the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 appropriates over $160 million across 2009 to 2012 to assure preschool and training providers that the Australian government recognises that Indigenous students need extra assistance if the gaps are to be closed. These appropriations will eventually be phased into the new early childhood and training arrangements. New arrangements for non-government schools are captured through the Schools Assistance Bill whilst new arrangements for government schools will be provided for in the proposed State Finances Bill.
The Australian government is working with states and territories, through the Council of Australian Governments, to develop a shared set of aspirations and policy directions which will provide the basis for our school-funding arrangements and our reform initiatives over the coming years.
The new framework will connect educational investment in schools, teachers and families with a new commitment to transparency. This will involve strengthened reporting systems, against ambitious and clear performance targets including goals to halve the literacy and numeracy gaps within a decade and to halve the gaps in the year 12 or equivalent attainment rate by 2020.
In 2006 gaps between the achievement of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students against literacy and numeracy benchmarks ranged from 13 per cent for year 3 reading to 32 per cent for year 7 numeracy. The $779 million to be appropriated under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 through this bill is only one part of an education revolution being initiated by this government. Social inclusion and closing the gaps will be central to the billions of dollars collectively invested in schools and school communities by the Australian government in partnership with school systems, parents and other stakeholders.
Closing the gaps can be achieved by working together to reveal those approaches that are making a difference for Indigenous students and by effectively implementing those approaches through our partnerships. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 can make an important contribution to closing the gaps between the education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This government came to office with a promise to bring an education revolution to Australia.
Throughout this year, that is what we have been doing, step by step, piece by piece, taking the actions and building the framework that will enable Australian schools to achieve world-class outcomes for the future.
Education is central to the future of our society. It is a central part of building a stronger, fairer Australia, ready to meet future challenges and able to make the most of its talents and resources.
Over the previous 12 years, the Liberal government failed to provide the foundations that Australian schooling needs to succeed in this new century.
In the course of just one year, we have put in place the foundations of a successful, long-term reform and investment program in our schools.
New computers are already in schools, funded by our $1.2 billion program for our digital education revolution.
New trades training centres are also on their way, the first practical steps in a $2.5 billion program.
Our education tax refund, a commitment to parents of $4.4 billion, is available for those essential education expenses incurred since July this year by hardworking families supporting their children’s learning.
We are implementing our commitments. And we are going further.
If this country is to succeed in the 21st century we need a schooling system which delivers excellence and equity for every child in Australia.
This is only possible if the community is confident that governments are applying the same principles of excellence and equity to all Australian schools, regardless of their location or the sector of which they are a part.
Under the previous Liberal government this was not possible.
Under the previous government, schools funding was delivered without regard for overall quality. Instead, schools were held accountable for whether they had a functioning flagpole and whether they put up posters about values.
Australian values are at the centre of everything this government does. But we believe that they should be applied to our policy decisions, not tacked on as an afterthought.
To do that, we have developed a shared agenda for reform in education, focused on improving outcomes for all young people.
Outcomes like school-readiness for young children, progress in literacy and numeracy at every stage of schooling and better qualifications and life transitions for our teenagers.
Through this process of collaborative reform, COAG has agreed national targets to radically improve literacy and numeracy outcomes among indigenous students and increase the number of young Australians attaining year 12 or equivalent qualifications.
These goals will be achieved through a new National Education Agreement, an agreement between governments in Australia that will set the terms of funding and accountability for all schooling over the next four years. Commonwealth funding for government schools does not require specific legislation and is being negotiated through the National Education Agreement, which will be finalised by the end of 2008.
This agreement and the bill being introduced today are complementary and together will show the full commitment of this government to improving educational outcomes for all students in all school sectors.
Together they will deliver the minimum $42 billion for schooling that Labor committed before the 2007 election.
They will establish the framework of accountability, transparency and collaboration between all stakeholders in Australian schooling.
They will focus new resources, through a series of National Partnership payments, on the key priorities that we know are critical to the future performance of our school system.
Those priorities are:
Non-government schools and school systems are vitally important stakeholders in this national endeavour.
This bill establishes the basis on which they will be funded for the next four years within the framework of the National Education Agreement. It will apply to non-government schooling the same principles of quality and accountability, excellence and equity that have shaped our national reform agenda.
The bill continues to provide for targeted funding for teaching of languages other than English, English for new arrivals to Australia, literacy and numeracy and students with special learning needs and for students in country areas.
The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 will appropriate funding of an estimated $28 billion for the non-government school sector for the years 2009 to 2012. This bill will maintain the current SES funding and indexation arrangements, meeting our 2007 election commitment.
This bill also contains two further specific reforms to address our national priorities.
First, there will be additional funding for all non-government schools where 80 per cent or more of the students are Indigenous and for non-government schools in remote and very remote areas where 50 per cent or more of the students are Indigenous. Under the previous government, these schools were not guaranteed the maximum level of Commonwealth funding, despite the fact that they are often serving some of the most disadvantaged Australian children in the most remote and demanding of circumstances.
This measure will provide an estimated additional $5.4 million to these schools. This bill brings together several separate components of funding for schools with indigenous students that were previously funded under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. This change will reduce reporting and red tape for schools and provide them with increased flexibility to focus on the educational achievement of their students. This newly combined Indigenous funding guarantee and Indigenous supplementary assistance will provide an estimated $239 million over four years. For the first time, this funding will be indexed at the same rate as other recurrent school funding. This increased indexation will be worth an estimated additional $24.5 million.
Second, a central element of the bill and funding arrangements for 2009 to 2012 is a simpler, stronger and better focused framework for performance information and reporting. These requirements for non-government schools are part of a new era of transparency in Australian schooling. They will be consistent with the transparency measures for government schools and will help to enable proper understanding of how all schools perform over time and in relation to like schools serving similar student groups.
This bill therefore provides for five activities that are essential to achieving transparency: national testing, national outcome reporting, provision and publication of individual school information and reporting to parents. Non-government schools will be obliged to participate in these activities in a way that is consistent with the wider transparency framework applied to all sectors. In contrast, the school-funding legislation for the previous four-year period imposed by the Liberal government imposed over 20 separate requirements, necessitating an excessive level of regulation, monitoring and red tape.
This bill provides another, major step forward in building a long-term, national approach to schooling in Australia. It will ensure certainty of funding for non-government schools from 2009 to 2012, gives additional support to schools serving Indigenous students and ensures that all non-government schools are part of an Australia-wide strategy to achieve accountable, responsive and high-quality schooling for every Australian child. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Plibersek.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill establishes the Australian government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a key part of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package, which will increase the supply of affordable rental homes, help people save for their first home, lower housing infrastructure costs and build new homes for homeless Australians.
With this bill, the government is delivering on one of its key 2007 election commitments—to increase the supply of affordable rental housing for Australians and their families.
There are now 1.1 million Australian households in housing stress.
Almost 700,000 of these households are renters.
Many of these renters are low- and moderate-income earners.
These are people who are either moving house or cutting back on essentials to keep a roof over their heads.
They are renting in a private rental market where rent rises are outstripping wages growth and inflation.
This is having an enormous impact on families, key workers, young people and pensioners.
The rental affordability pressures are driven by a poor supply of affordable rental properties.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a major supply-side initiative to make rental properties more affordable by encouraging large-scale investment in rental housing for low- and moderate-income earners.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme will create up to 50,000 new rental properties across Australia at a cost of $623 million in the first four years.
The scheme will offer institutional investors and other eligible bodies annual rental incentives every year for 10 years, provided the conditions of the scheme continue to be met.
The incentive is made up of a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution in the form of direct financial support or in kind contribution to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year.
Incentives will be indexed to the rental component of the consumer price index.
The scheme is deliberately targeted at low- and moderate-income households.
Incentives are only available to providers on condition that dwellings are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below the market rate.
More than 1.5 million households will be eligible for tenancies under the scheme, including key workers: entry level police officers and teachers, carers, apprentices, cleaners, hospitality staff and childcare workers, for example.
The scheme provides a new opportunity for all levels of government, the business sector and the not-for-profit organisations to work together to increase the supply of rental housing.
The government expects the scheme will facilitate new and creative partnerships between institutional investors, developers and community housing providers. Involvement of both investors and the not-for-profit charitable sector is crucial to its success.
The scheme also presents a new investment opportunity for investors, creating a new asset class of investment in residential property.
If market demand remains strong, another 50,000 incentives will be made available over five years from July 2012.
The government acknowledges the efforts of the National Summit on Housing Affordability group which, over the last four years, has helped develop the idea on which the scheme is based.
The summit group is a coalition of the Housing Industry Association, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Social Services, National Shelter and the Community Housing Federation of Australia. The group, particularly Professor Julian Disney, Adrian Pisarski, Dr Ron Silberberg and Grant Bellchamber, as well as Carol Croce and Carrie Hamilton, have generously offered their time and expertise to assist the government to implement the scheme.
This bill provides for the making of the National Rental Affordability Scheme by regulations.
The regulations will further the object of the bill, which is to provide incentives to encourage large-scale investment in affordable housing. This will increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households.
It is desirable for most of the administrative detail of the scheme to be in the regulations rather than in the bill.
This provides the government with the necessary flexibility to address changing circumstances, including the process for determining market rent, tenant eligibility criteria and acceptable periods of vacancy, as well as the reporting requirements for the scheme.
The bill provides for the regulations to prescribe a scheme that deals with the approval of participants, the approval of rental dwellings, and provides incentives to an approved participant if certain conditions are satisfied.
Importantly, the bill and the regulations will allow for eligibility under the scheme to be recognised from as early as 1 July 2008.
The regulations are currently being drafted by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing and an exposure draft will be made available as soon as it is prepared to assist with understanding the scope and operation of the scheme.
Further, the bill provides for the scheme to include an allocation process. Under this process, the secretary may make an allocation for a 10-year incentive period in respect of a rental dwelling on certain conditions.
Some of these conditions (the mandatory requirements) are set out in whole or in part in the bill itself. These mandatory requirements cover the conditions relating to eligible rental dwellings, eligible tenants and the maximum rent that can be charged, as well as the permitted vacancy rates.
To preserve the integrity of the scheme, an incentive may be offset or recouped in the circumstances provided for by the scheme. The bill also provides that the scheme may provide for variations, transfers and revocations of allocations.
In relation to receiving incentives, the bill provides for the secretary either to issue a certificate in relation to a refundable tax offset or make a payment. Unless a participant is an endorsed charitable institution, the incentive is to be made available in the form of the refundable tax offset.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme is totally new in the Australian context. It is an innovative approach to reducing the number of Australians living in rental stress.
The government will review the scheme in the early years of its implementation to ensure it is adequately focused on those Australians in rental stress. We will also test whether or not there is scope for simplifying the scheme or reducing the administrative burden on providers, and whether there are evolving issues of noncompliance that need to be addressed.
We may need to make improvements to the scheme before it is expanded.
With this bill, the Australian government is delivering on one of its most ambitious housing reforms—to establish a National Rental Affordability Scheme. The scheme will increase the supply of rental dwellings and reduce the costs of renting in the private market for low- and moderate-income Australians and their families.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Plibersek.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme is designed to encourage large-scale investment in affordable housing.
The scheme offers tax and cash incentives to providers of new dwellings on the condition that they are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates.
The incentive comprises a Commonwealth contribution in the form of a refundable tax offset or payment to the value of $6,000 per dwelling per year, and a state or territory contribution in the form of direct financial support or an in-kind contribution to the value of at least $2,000 per dwelling per year.
The incentive will be provided for a period of 10 years to complying participants, and will be indexed in line with the rental component of the consumer price index.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 establishes the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The explanatory memorandum to that bill provides further information on the scheme.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to enable entities participating in the National Rental Affordability Scheme to claim a refundable tax offset in their annual tax return. These entities include companies, superannuation funds and unit trusts.
The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that state and territory contributions to entities participating in the scheme, whether in cash or in-kind, are non-assessable and non-exempt income for taxation purposes. In addition, the bill ensures that there are no capital gains tax consequences from the receipt of incentives under the scheme.
The bills implementing the National Rental Affordability Scheme fulfil one of the government’s important election commitments.
The scheme aims to assist institutional investors, developers and not-for-profit groups to deliver 50,000 rental dwellings over the next four financial years by creating a new residential property asset class for property investors.
If market demand remains strong, the government will make available another 50,000 incentives for a further 50,000 affordable rental dwellings over five years from July 2012.
The government is strongly supportive of the work of the not-for-profit sector. Where the National Rental Affordability Scheme is consistent with the objectives of a not-for-profit body, the government welcomes their participation.
The sector’s involvement is important to the successful implementation of the scheme. Under the right circumstances, not-for-profit groups could be tenancy managers, developers or owners of NRAS dwellings, as well as being members of consortiums. To ensure their participation, the government is making its contribution available as a cash payment for endorsed charities.
If problems arise as a result of the genuine involvement of the not-for-profit sector in the National Rental Affordability Scheme, the government will consider what steps are required to better assist them to participate in this scheme.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme is one of a number of measures the government is implementing to improve the affordability of housing for families and individuals with low- to moderate-income levels.
Other measures include establishing the Housing Affordability Fund. This fund will be used to streamline development approval processes, and reduce infrastructure charges and regulatory costs.
Another measure is the audit of Commonwealth land to facilitate improved housing supply through the identification of surplus Australian, state and territory land for possible release for housing development.
The government is also establishing the National Housing Supply Council to provide research, forecasts and advice to the Australian government and the Council of Australian Governments on issues relating to the adequacy of housing and land supply to meet future housing needs.
Finally, the government’s program called A Place to Call Home will deliver 600 new dwellings for homeless people.
Full details of the measure in the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Brendan O’Connor.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
The main purpose of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 is to encourage participation and ensure compliance. This will be achieved by establishing a framework for a new compliance system that will make job seekers more accountable for their efforts to find and keep a job. This new compliance system is part of a package of reforms to Australia’s employment services and is intended to replace an ineffective and counterproductive compliance framework that has a number of flaws.
The key reason that these changes are necessary is that the current compliance system has resulted in thousands of counterproductive, non-discretionary and irreversible eight-week non-payment penalties. For the duration of these eight-week non-payment penalties there is no requirement for a job seeker to look for work or to have contact with either their employment service provider or Centrelink. The consequence of this failed approach to compliance, and an obvious defect in the system, is the eight-week separation of job seekers from participation requirements, including looking for work, gaining skills or undertaking work experience.
The indications to date are clear. The former government’s system has failed to prevent noncompliance. In 2006-07 there were around 16,000 eight-week non-payment penalties applied. In 2007-08 this had doubled to around 32,000 eight-week non-payment penalties.
An effective system should result in decreasing numbers of penalties because more job seekers would participate, but these figures confirm that the existing arrangements are not working.
Reform of employment services
The changes to the compliance system set out in this bill form part of a $3.9 billion package of significant and necessary reforms to Australian employment services that commence on 1 July 2009. These reforms are critical because in the last 10 years employment services have been operating under policy and administrative constraints that have failed disadvantaged job seekers, their families and their communities. These policies and constraints have also failed employers who desperately need skilled workers to fill vacancies.
The last 17 years of economic growth has indeed improved the job prospects of thousands of Australians, but for many others the employment outlook has grown more and more bleak.
Against this background, Australia is experiencing skill shortages in a number of critical areas and is looking at a shortfall of up to 240,000 VET qualified workers by 2016. So it is vital for our economy, and to Australia’s future economic growth, that employment services, and the compliance regime that underpins the working age payments system, require job seekers to participate by searching for a job, undertaking training or connecting to other activities that will equip them to enter and remain in the labour force.
Just over 10 years ago, the unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent. Whilst unemployment is now around 4.1 per cent, a significantly higher proportion of job seekers today are highly disadvantaged and long-term unemployed.
The proportion of people on unemployment benefits for more than five years has increased from one in 10 in 1999 to almost one in four today, an increase from 74,000 people in 1999 to more than 110,000 10 years later.
These job seekers are some of our community’s most disadvantaged people. Some are suffering from mental illness. Others have significant language and literacy issues and poor educational attainment. Some have a neurological impairment, and others are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Australians in these circumstances are more likely to overcome an extended period of unemployment if the compliance system encourages commitment rather than the current punitive approach. These job seekers are more likely to find employment by undertaking training or work experience, addressing their non-vocational issues, or actively pursuing work, than they are by disengaging from employment services.
Goal of the new system is participation
The first goal of the new compliance system is to ensure job seekers meet their participation requirements and make every effort to get themselves off welfare and into a job.
The current system provides little deterrence or early intervention. Of particular concern is the lack of an immediate consequence for initial failures to complete activities. Under current arrangements, job seekers who have failed to take part in an activity or program can miss up to a fortnight before any action is taken. Then, after three failures, they get an irreversible eight-week non-payment penalty.
The current system is viewed by many employment service providers, churches, peak organisations and welfare bodies as a ‘penalise first’ approach because it prevents employment service providers from using their professional judgement. Submissions to the employment services review indicated that stopping payment for eight consecutive weeks places job seekers, particularly already vulnerable job seekers, at great risk of disconnection and in many cases has resulted in personal crisis and homelessness. According to Homelessness Australia, ‘up to 20 per cent of people who underwent an eight-week “breach” lost their accommodation or were forced to move to less appropriate housing’. Further, the ‘penalise first’ approach may result in costs to the community in other ways, through imposts on the health, housing and welfare systems, and placing additional pressure on charitable organisations to provide support.
No-show no-pay failures
The new compliance arrangements encourage participation and re-engagement as quickly as possible, in stark contrast to the current system. The new arrangements strike the right balance between participation and penalties for those job seekers who do not comply.
A key element of the new system is a no-show no-pay failure, which aims to instil a ‘work like’ culture to employment services. If a job seeker, without a reasonable excuse, does not attend an activity that they are required to attend, like Work for the Dole, Centrelink will impose a no-show no-pay failure. Centrelink will also impose a no-show no-pay failure if the job seeker does not attend a job interview or if they attend the interview but deliberately behave in a way that would foreseeably result in a job offer not being made.
A no-show no-pay failure will result in the job seeker losing one-tenth of their fortnightly payment for each day they do not attend. This does not affect rent assistance, the pharmaceutical allowance or the youth disability supplement, but it does apply to any supplement the job seeker is receiving for participating in Green Corps or Work for the Dole. As is currently the case, access to health care cards and family tax benefits will not be affected.
Resuming participation will result in a resumption of income support. A no-show no-pay failure means that noncompliance will have an immediate financial impact, but the extent of the penalty will be in the hands of the job seeker.
Connection and reconnection failures
If a job seeker, without reasonable excuse, does not attend an appointment that they are required to attend, for example with their employment service provider, Centrelink will impose a connection failure. Centrelink will also impose a connection failure if the job seeker refuses to enter into an employment pathway plan or does not meet their job search requirements. There is no penalty for a connection failure. Instead, the job seeker will have to attend a reconnection requirement which will involve a further appointment or further job search requirements.
If the job seeker, without reasonable excuse, does not attend the reconnection requirement, Centrelink will impose a reconnection failure period. The job seeker will lose one-fourteenth of their fortnightly payment each day that, without reasonable excuse, they do not comply with the reconnection requirement.
Again, this does not affect any rent assistance, pharmaceutical allowance or youth disability supplement the job seeker receives, but it does apply to any supplement the job seeker is receiving for participating in Green Corps or Work for the Dole. As is currently the case, access to health care cards and family tax benefits will also not be affected.
Serious failures
Eight-week non-payment periods have been retained for job seekers who commit serious failures. A job seeker commits a serious failure if they refuse a suitable job offer or if they have been wilfully and persistently noncompliant.
Centrelink will decide whether a job seeker has been wilfully and persistently not compliant after conducting a comprehensive compliance assessment.
Comprehensive compliance assessment
The role of the new comprehensive compliance assessment is to ensure that the new system is tough on any job seeker who intentionally does not meet their obligations, but it is also able to differentiate when a job seeker is experiencing circumstances beyond his or her control. Job seekers will no longer automatically incur an eight-week non-payment penalty.
A job seeker who incurs three failures for not attending appointments or six days of no-show no-pay failures in a six-month period will be referred for a comprehensive compliance assessment conducted by Centrelink. Employment service providers or Centrelink may also initiate a comprehensive compliance assessment at any other time if they believe a job seeker’s circumstances indicate serious hardship and warrant such a response. During this assessment, Centrelink will look at why the job seeker has failed to fulfil requirements and identify any barriers to employment and possible alternative options. For example, it may be appropriate to refer the job seeker for a job capacity assessment to determine whether or not they have the capacity to meet their current requirements.
A specialised Centrelink officer will consider the job seeker’s compliance history and will talk to the job seeker to find any evidence of personal issues, including those that may not have previously been disclosed. Such issues might include homelessness, physical or mental health problems or domestic violence that may have impacted on the job seeker’s ability to meet their requirements.
This component of the compliance system also recognises that in a decent society fair judgements should be exercised when matters are beyond a person’s control and no bureaucratic process should deliberately leave a vulnerable person without food or shelter, or propel a person into severe hardship, as the current compliance system does.
Providing incentives to re-engage
Another key difference between the current and the new system is that in the current system a job seeker who gets an eight-week penalty must serve it, no matter what. Under the new system, any job seeker subject to an eight-week non-payment penalty for persistent noncompliance or refusal of a job offer can have their payment reinstated if they agree to undertake a compliance activity. This will generally be 25 hours a week of full-time Work for the Dole for eight weeks, but may include other similar activities as appropriate.
No-one who is prepared to reconnect with the system by participating in an intense activity will have to go without income support. Those who are not able to undertake any compliance activity but who would be in severe hardship as a result of the application of the penalty may also have their payment reinstated.
Eight week preclusion period
The current eight-week non-payment period for job seekers who become voluntarily unemployed without good reason or unemployed due to misconduct will be retained. This will no longer be inaccurately described as a penalty but rather it will be described as a preclusion period. Vulnerable job seekers who would be in severe financial hardship as a result of this preclusion period will have their payment reinstated, as is the case under financial case management currently. Unlike financial case management, however, the job seeker will have participation requirements while they are receiving income support payments. They will also have a requirement to access employment services to help them find work.
Fairness
As indicated in the object clause for this bill, it is not intended that anyone who has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with their obligations should be penalised.
Before applying any penalty, Centrelink will be required to talk to the job seeker and consider whether or not they had a reasonable excuse for their actions and whether or not the job seeker had any barriers to participation that might have prevented compliance.
Further, employment service providers will be able to exercise their professional judgement. A provider will not be required to report noncompliance to Centrelink if it is reasonable to believe that compliance action is not the best means of securing re-engagement and would be counterproductive to the job seeker obtaining employment. For example, a provider could negotiate for the person to make up an activity on another day, further reinforcing the importance of participation.
Other amendments required to support the reform of employment services
This bill also makes other minor amendments to social security law that are needed to support the new employment services.
The bill replaces the term ‘activity agreement’ in the current legislation with the term ‘employment pathway plan’. It also permits employment pathway plans to include optional terms which are part of the job seeker’s pathway to employment, but which cannot be subject to compliance action—for example psychological counselling. It also clarifies the operation of employment pathway plans in relation to the broader activity test.
The bill also removes references to stand-alone programs such as the Personal Support Program, that will be integrated into and delivered by the new employment services. Job seekers will retain the benefits currently available.
The bill also includes minor technical and consequential amendments.
This government remains committed to mutual obligation. We believe that those who can work should work and that those who are unable to work should be adequately supported. We believe that this principle is reflected in the fairer and more effective compliance framework proposed by this bill.
Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is a bill to amend the National Measurement Act 1960. This legislation will establish a single trade measurement system for Australia, replacing the current fragmented situation in which each state and territory has a separate system.
The government is committed to reducing the regulatory burdens on Australian business and has embarked on an ambitious reform agenda through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).
COAG has endorsed a business regulation reform agenda designed to advance Australia towards a seamless national economy. In partnership with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, I co-chair the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group of COAG, which has responsibility for advancing the regulatory reform agenda.
COAG’s Business Regulation and Competition Working Group has been directed to deliver early action on the regulatory reform ‘hot spots’ identified by COAG in 2006 and again in 2007. The area of trade measurement is one of the 10 identified regulatory ‘hot spots’.
‘Trade measurement’ is a term that refers to the use of measurement as the basis for the price in a transaction. For example, by measuring the volume of fuel delivered from a petrol pump, a service station determines the total price you pay to fill your car’s petrol tank.
A ‘trade measurement system’ is the term used to describe the infrastructure that is needed to make sure the petrol pump (or any other trade measuring instrument) is sufficiently accurate to give a fair result to the buyer and seller.
In Australia, an estimated $400 billion worth of trade based on some kind of measurement takes place annually. Transactions involving measurements range from simple consumer purchases at the corner shop to complex multimillion dollar international trade deals.
So, why does government need to be involved in these market processes? Well, consider how onerous it would be if traders had to prove to every customer that they had weighed each purchase accurately. Similarly, how difficult it would be for a packing house to prove to each purchaser that their cereal packet is filled with the stated amount. Also, think how wasteful it is for wine producers to sacrifice product to prove that a wine bottle is filled correctly.
A trade measurement system helps overcome these difficulties. It gives confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate and this reduces transaction costs in each trade.
Trade measurement is a classic example of a proper role for government in establishing the infrastructure that makes it possible for markets to operate efficiently and effectively.
But Australia’s current trade measurement infrastructure is not operating as efficiently and effectively as it should. This is why the Rudd government is introducing this historic legislation. We are determined to create a truly national system that will deliver productivity improvements throughout the economy to the benefit of all Australians.
To describe how significant this change to Australia’s trade measurement system will be, let me set out a bit of history.
Prior to Federation, each British colony in Australia had its own weights and measures system. When the Constitution was drawn up, the Commonwealth’s constitutional power for weights and measures was established under section 51, subsection 15. However the scope of ‘weights and measures’ in 1901 was limited almost exclusively to measurements of mass and volume, and trade was very much more a local matter than it is today. Without a pressing need for national administration, the states retained responsibility for their various trade measurement systems.
However, within several decades, the desirability of having nationally consistent rules and practices was evident and has been the subject of a number of reviews and inquiries. Two reviews in particular have been influential.
In 1983, the Scott review recommended a national approach to the administration of trade measurement. The recommendation resulted in drafting of uniform trade measurement legislation. Unfortunately it took more than 20 years for all jurisdictions to enact this legislation. Despite the uniform format of the legislation, practical problems persisted. This was largely because the amendments to legislation were not adopted simultaneously, the interpretation of regulations varied between jurisdictions, and there were different approaches to administration.
In 2006, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs commissioned a review of trade measurement arrangements. The problems identified by stakeholders included unwarranted costs to businesses that operate across borders, different cost recovery procedures in different jurisdictions, different processes for licensing private sector verifiers of trade measuring instruments, and inconsistent advice being provided about trade measurement requirements.
This review concluded that the adoption of a national trade measurement system would deliver a net economic benefit to Australian industry, business, government and consumers. In April 2007, COAG accepted this recommendation.
The National Measurement Amendment Bill gives effect to this COAG decision. And it will create a national trade measurement system that will be administered by the Commonwealth from 1 July 2010.
The bill recognises that many elements in the existing model, the uniform trade measurement legislation, have stood the test of time. The bill adopts those elements where appropriate but frames them in a way that will be responsive to future needs and improvements in business practices and technologies.
The new national system will continue to ensure the accuracy and reliability of traditional trade measuring instruments such as scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges. However, it provides the flexibility for new technologies to be introduced as business or consumers require additional assurance. For example, the price of grain is set by measuring grain protein and both the grain growers and grain receival sites need confidence that accurate results have been used to determine the price.
The new system will set uniform practices for each class of measuring instruments. Traders who operate across Australia will be able to use one set of procedures, rather than meeting different sets in the different states.
The bulk of verifications of trade measuring instruments will continue to be performed by the private sector, with firms or individuals licensed on the basis of competence and integrity. However, multiple licensing for cross-border operation will no longer be required, with one licence being valid for operation across Australia.
Licensees will continue to be responsible for ensuring that their employees are competent to perform verifications. Currently the means of demonstrating competence varies across jurisdictions. In implementing the national trade measurement system, the Commonwealth will develop nationally recognised qualifications for verifiers, providing a harmonised platform for skills development in the workforce.
As in state and territory trade measurement systems, government will perform an inspection function to ensure that traders and licensees are maintaining the accuracy of trade measuring instruments. Trade measurement inspection is a routine activity in business premises, and state and territory inspectors conduct this work without requiring warrants. Infrequently, access to residential premises is necessary and this must occur under warrant. To facilitate an effective inspection regime, these powers have been replicated for Commonwealth inspectors. They will be able to inspect, examine and test measuring instruments, examine and test prepackaged articles, investigate alleged offences, search and seize records, measuring instruments and prepackaged articles, subject to Commonwealth codes covering investigative practices. These inspection procedures have long been accepted in the marketplace as part of the cost of doing business and ensuring fair trading.
The current trade measurement systems also examine prepackaged goods to confirm that packages contain the stated quantities. At the request of wine producers and major packers, this new legislation includes the option for production-line packers to use an internationally agreed system to demonstrate compliance with quantity statements. This system—the Average Quantity System (AQS)—has already been adopted in New Zealand and by many of Australia’s major trading partners, including Japan, the European Union and the United States. AQS is now available to production-line packers to adopt voluntarily in instances where it is a more efficient means to demonstrate compliance and to align with international practice.
The bill provides the heads of power for all the necessary elements in a national trade measurement system. As with the current trade measurement system, the bill provides for the technical and administrative detail required to operate the system to be specified in regulations.
The bill creates the national trade measurement system by amendment of the National Measurement Act 1960. This act already defines technical infrastructure that the Commonwealth delivers to support trade measurement, such as maintaining Australia’s measurement standards and approving the design of trade measuring instruments—and the National Measurement Institute performs those functions. Therefore, it is a logical progression to expand the National Measurement Act to encompass a national trade measurement system and to designate the National Measurement Institute as the body responsible for administering the system.
This government is serious about creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary duplications, overlaps and differences in regulation. In particular, we are determined to remove those inconsistencies that create unnecessarily complex and costly burdens on business.
I am pleased to introduce a National Measurement Amendment Bill that brings these necessary reforms to Australia’s trade measurement system.
Debate (on motion by Mrs May) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Burke.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Dairy Adjustment Levy Termination Bill 2008 will amend the Dairy Produce Act 1986 to finalise the Dairy Structural Adjustment Program. The adjustment program was established in 2000 by legislation supported by both sides of the parliament.
To finalise the program the bill will allow the government to wind up the Dairy Adjustment Authority and the Dairy Structural Adjustment Fund.
The bill makes consequential amendments to remove references to the adjustment program in other acts and repeal of the acts that established the dairy adjustment levy.
The bill clarifies that activities associated with the closure of the program can be considered a cost of the program and that surplus levy funds will be returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Importantly the bill will allow the government to terminate the levy, paid by consumers on fresh milk, in a manner that minimises over collection. In doing so, the passage of this bill will reduce the levies paid by Australian consumers.
Termination of the dairy adjustment levy
The levy has funded a number of adjustment measures to help farmers adjust to the removal of state and Commonwealth government price support measures.
These measures included 32 quarterly payments to around 13,000 individual dairy businesses over eight years. The last scheduled quarterly payment was made in April 2008.
Given the adjustment program has fulfilled its purpose, it is timely to terminate the 11c per litre consumer levy on fresh milk sales, which has funded the program.
Revenue from the dairy adjustment levy is appropriated into a trust fund, which is administered according to statutory obligations, and a statutory funding agreement between Dairy Australia Ltd and the Commonwealth.
Initial outlays related to the adjustment program exceeded income from the levy. The then government decided to use commercial loan arrangements rather than budget funding to meet these initial costs.
While final payments have been made to farmers, the levy continues in order to pay off loan debts.
Once the levy has generated enough revenue to bring the adjustment fund into balance, I can remove the levy under provisions in schedule 2 of the Dairy Produce Act 1986.
Avoiding overcollection
The dairy adjustment levy generates around $20 million per month and takes around 60 days to fully flow from consumers to the adjustment fund.
The act requires the minister to give 28 days notice before removing the levy. But the legislation provides that notice can only be given against receipted revenue.
Because of the notification process and the delay in collections being receipted, levy termination arrangements set out in the act currently would result in around $50 million being collected in excess of what is needed.
It is not acceptable to continue to collect up to $50 million from consumers once the job for which it is collected is funded.
The government is committed to terminating the levy as soon as is practical.
The amendments will allow me to consider levies paid, but not yet receipted into the adjustment fund, when declaring a levy termination date.
It will also allow me to reduce the levy termination notice period from 28 to seven days.
The department will work with milk processors to ensure this happens and that the levy is removed in a seamless manner.
The government expects the removal of the levy to be passed onto consumers. Any complaints or suggestion of anti-competitive conduct in relation to removal of the levy will be dealt with by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Wind-up of the Dairy Adjustment Authority
The Dairy Adjustment Authority was established as a statutory authority under the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio in 2000. The authority was created to make eligibility determinations for payments to farmers under the two largest components of the program.
At the peak of its operations in 2000, the authority had 83 contracted staff and a number of consultants.
The authority now has four part-time staff.
This downsizing reflects that the authority has substantially completed its functions and can now be wound up.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the authority and its staff over the past eight years, particularly Dr John Drinan, who recently retired from his position as chief executive.
Dr Drinan and the authority have worked closely with my department over the past 18 months to finalise the authority’s operations.
From 1 July 2008 the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry assumed the role of chief executive of the authority.
The amendments will allow me to wind up the authority by ministerial declaration after it has completed its 2007-08 annual reporting requirements and transferred its records to the department.
I expect to make this declaration by early next year.
After the authority is wound up, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will assume the powers and functions of the authority. This will primarily include record keeping, reporting on its 2008-09 operations and finalising any outstanding payments to farmers.
Closure of the adjustment fund
The act provides that all revenue raised by the levy must be appropriated to the adjustment fund.
If this mechanism remains in place, all levy collected surplus to the needs of the adjustment fund must be paid to Dairy Australia.
Accordingly, this bill amends the act to allow the minister to stop the flow of levy funds from the Commonwealth to the adjustment fund after enough revenue has been collected and the deficit in the adjustment fund has been eliminated.
The decision on exactly when to stop the appropriation of levy funds to the adjustment fund, held by Dairy Australia Ltd, will be made in consultation with Dairy Australia, having regard to the present debts and future liabilities of the adjustment fund.
Amendments will also provide for the closure of the adjustment fund, for Dairy Australia Ltd to return surplus funds to the Commonwealth following the completion of the program and allow surplus levy funds to be transferred to the Commonwealth.
The closure of the fund will signify the finalisation of the program.
Other amendments
Revenue generated by the levy can currently be spent on a number of legislated activities, including administration of the program.
The bill will confirm that activities associated with the wind-up of the authority are appropriately considered in the administration of the program. Wind-up activities will include transfer of hardcopy files to the department and staffing costs.
I have mentioned that all scheduled quarterly adjustment payments have been made. There are a small number of outstanding payments due to administrative matters like incorrect bank details, and uncertain estate arrangements where a recipient is deceased.
The bill includes a provision to ensure that any outstanding payments to farmers at the time the adjustment fund is closed can still be paid after the authority is wound up. The department will administer these payments.
Until its wind-up, the Dairy Adjustment Authority will continue to finalise the small number of outstanding payments that exist.
Consequential amendments and repeals
A number of acts require amendment as a consequence of the Dairy Adjustment Levy Termination Bill 2008.
Consequential amendments in this bill will remove references to the adjustment program and its various components. Affected legislation includes:
Additionally, the bill allows for the repeal of the three acts that set the rate of the dairy adjustment levy, namely:
Conclusion
This bill will allow the government to finalise the Dairy Industry Adjustment Package.
The package was established to help farmers adjust to the removal of state and Commonwealth government price support measures.
The objectives of the Dairy Industry Adjustment Package have been realised and it is appropriate to both wrap up the administrative arrangements and terminate the consumer levy as soon as is practicable.
I therefore urge the swift passage of this legislation through the parliament and commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mrs May) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Ms Ley moved by way of amendment:
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:
At the conclusion of last night’s proceedings I was saying that the focus in Australia has shifted in recent years to the treatment and the status of same-sex relationships. Much of the heat in this debate which we have heard from the other side, here and in the other place, comes in a reflected way from the rhetoric and the political fights fought in the United States over this issue, particularly over the heated question of whether or not any dealings with the question of same-sex relationships interfere with traditional notions of marriage. As we know, 26 states in the United States of America have now banned so-called ‘gay marriage’ and there is a ballot initiative, set for 4 November, in California, where the Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional right to equal treatment in this area.
What members on the other side of the House who invoke that American heat within this debate fail to recognise, or at the very least admit, is that the circumstances of the debate in the United States of America are fundamentally different from those in Australia. That is because 39, I think, of the 50 states in America, including almost all of the big states, do not have a system of de facto or common-law marriage. That is a very important detail in this debate, because what the government is trying to do in the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008and tried to do in the first bill, which is stuck in a pointless Senate inquiry initiated by the opposition in the other place—is to equate the rights of members of same-sex relationships with the rights enjoyed by members of de facto heterosexual relationships in Australia. Our capacity to do that in Australia does not exist in the vast bulk of states in the United States of America—hence the heat in the debate in that place.
While various states in Australia have tried a range of different approaches to this question—in some states involving registration and in others involving different criteria for recognition—discrimination against same-sex couples by virtue of the status and the treatment of their relationships endures in Australia. That that discrimination happens at the hand of the nation’s government is, I would say, unforgivable.
Consistent with our pre-election commitments, this side of the House is finally acting. You cannot say the same of the previous government. There was a glimmer of hope in about May 2004 when the then Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong, indicated in a press conference that he thought that same-sex relationships should have equal rights in relation to reversionary benefits under superannuation. The glimmer of hope disappeared very quickly because, one week later, the then opposition, the Labor Party, moved a motion in the House that would turn that glimmer of hope into action and every single member of the then government voted against it—just as they had done when the member for Grayndler, now the Leader of the House, introduced a number of private members’ bills over the previous decade to give same-sex couples equal rights to those enjoyed by de facto heterosexual couples. On those occasions, every single member of the now opposition, the then government, voted against the granting of those rights.
As so often happens in these areas, an inquiry by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission cast a very strong light on this issue. That commission engaged in a wide-ranging public consultation before handing down their 2007 report entitled Same-sex: same entitlements. There were some 680 public submissions received and the report runs to about 500 pages—fortunately, with a very useful executive summary at the beginning. That report details a range of examples of discrimination experienced every single day by 20,000 Australian couples and their children, often at the hands of the nation’s government.
The commission, in their report, identified 58 pieces of Commonwealth legislation that involved that discrimination. I would like to quote a couple of examples. In the area of Commonwealth workers compensation, the report says:
… the same-sex partner of a worker covered by Comcare and other federal workers’ compensation schemes is not entitled to lump sum workers’ compensation death benefits. Nor is a same-sex partner taken into account when calculating the federal workers’ compensation sums available to an incapacitated employee.
In the area of tax benefits, discrimination occurs. In some of those areas of discrimination there is financial benefit and in others there is financial detriment. The report says:
Same-sex couples will often pay more tax than opposite-sex couples because they are not eligible for a range of rebates and tax concessions. Further, the same-sex parents of children may miss out on tax benefits intended to help families.
For example, same-sex couples are not entitled to the following tax concessions:
The social security benefits area is the area in which this thing swings both ways. Social security laws treat same-sex couples differently again to opposite-sex couples. For example, a same-sex partner is not entitled to the following benefits: partner allowance, bereavement benefits, widow allowance, concession card benefits and jailed partner’s pension. The report indicates:
Other times the differential treatment benefits a same-sex couple. This is because the law treats the couple as two single people, so a same-sex partner can access benefits normally available to singles.
And the report importantly says:
Several same-sex couples told the Inquiry that they would willingly trade the advantages in social security law for equal treatment under all federal laws.
That has been the feedback that I have received as well. Although some same-sex couples do receive preferential treatment in social security, they would willingly trade that for the removal of other discriminations and the status afforded by the removal of other discriminations under federal laws.
Finally, by way of example, I will mention aged care—an area often not thought about so much in relation to same-sex relationships. In relation to aged care, the report says:
When people enter an aged care facility they generally have to pay certainly daily fees and bonds to fund their care and residence. The amount of those fees is calculated by applying assets and income tests.
A same-sex couple is treated differently to an opposite-sex couple under these tests. In particular, the home of a same-sex couple is not exempted from the assets test as it is for an opposite-sex couple.
As a result, a person in a same-sex couple will generally pay more for residential aged care than a person in an opposite-sex couple.
It was an election commitment by the Labor Party that we would implement in full the recommendations of that HREOC report. We started the fulfilment of that election commitment with the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008which, as I said earlier, is stuck in a pointless Senate inquiry initiated by the opposition.
HREOC identified 58 further pieces of Commonwealth legislation, some of which I have just instanced, that discriminate against same-sex couples. An audit conducted by the Attorney-General, after being elected to govern in November, has identified a number more. Those 58 pieces plus the others identified in the audit are the subject of this bill. Areas covered within this bill include taxation, social security, health, aged care, veterans entitlements, workers compensation, immigration and many, many more. I will not go into the detail of all of those areas covered in the bill. I note that I have had the benefit of listening to the member for Ballarat’s contribution to this, and I do not think I would do the bill justice after her contribution.
I would just say in conclusion that this bill is long overdue. This is long unfinished business that has remained like a stain on the soul of Australia. We are supposed to be a country that fights against discrimination. I am very proud to be a member of the government that has decided to take up this cudgel and do it. This package involves the most significant attack on discrimination against same-sex persons and same-sex couples since the decriminalisation of homosexuality, which started in my state in the 1970s and spread throughout the nation thereafter. I strongly commend the bill to the House.
Once again, I am pleased to rise in support of a bill brought in to meet, as the member for Port Adelaide said, the Rudd government’s commitment to abolish in Commonwealth law discrimination against gay men, lesbians, same-sex couples and their children. First we had the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, which was introduced in May and which, as the excellent new member for Port Adelaide pointed out, is stuck in a useless Senate committee—for what purpose we do not know. I am sure the Greens and Senator Xenophon will not let it lie there forever. I am sure their constituents will be very critical of them if they do and if the Senate is involved in another power grab in trying to assert its importance by reviewing all of these laws. This law, as the member for Port Adelaide points out, is long overdue business that this House should have dealt with years ago.
Last month we had the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, which I spoke on in this House, and now we have the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. And they said it could not be done. Many people were cynical that this promise would be kept. I must say that I never doubted it, because I know the Prime Minister and, above all, the attitude of the Labor Party and we made this commitment in the election campaign. Once again, on behalf of the many people of Melbourne Ports whose lives will be improved by these bills, I want to thank the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for bringing these bills forward in such a timely manner.
This bill amends 68 pieces of Commonwealth legislation, spanning 19 different government departments. It seeks to remove from all of these pieces of legislation language which discriminates against same-sex couples and their children. The acts amended by this bill include such diverse and unlike acts as the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act, the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and even the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act. So, whether you are a farmer, a bankrupt, a criminal, a member of the ADF, a seafarer, a pilot, a businessperson or even a former member or senator, you will know that, whatever other fate might befall you, you will now not be discriminated against because you have chosen to enter into a same-sex relationship, nor will your partner or your children or the children of your partner for whom you have responsibility.
Some of these changes might seem trivial, and it might be the case that the language in some of the more obscure pieces of legislation affected by this bill has never actually been used to discriminate against any person or couple, but together these amendments send a powerful message to the Australian community that this parliament will no longer accept or tolerate discrimination against our fellow citizens on the grounds of the choices they make in their personal lives no matter in what area or under what pretext.
But this bill is much more than symbolic in its importance. One of its most important practical benefits will be to prevent discrimination against children of same-sex couples. The member for Cowan pooh-poohed this bill because he said it affected so few people. But obviously if a small number of people are discriminated against, it is as bad as if a large number of people are discriminated against. The principle is the same: children should not be penalised because of life choices made by their parents or guardians. This bill will ensure that legislative provisions which extend rights and duties to children and relatives will also extend to children of same-sex relationships.
As I said in my remarks on the Family Law Amendment Bill, I am pleased that the opposition has decided to support this package of bills. I have seen the comments made by the new Leader of the Opposition on this point. I commend him for his firmness in his opposition to homophobia, which I hope continues with the opposition supporting this bill. As I said last month, the reason we have had to wait all these years to see legislation of this kind is that, unfortunately, the former Prime Minister chose to play populist politics and pander to homophobia rather than accept the position now taken by the new Leader of the Opposition. It is also true that in Victoria the Liberals made promises they did not keep, and it took a Labor government to bring in legislation of this kind.
I know how important this bill is to members of the community in my electorate. I have received many passionate emails from people expressing their gratitude to the new Labor government for fulfilling an important promise that has been delayed for more than a decade. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.
I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate, many of which have been extremely thoughtful ones. I note that the member for Wentworth has previously expressed support for removing discrimination against same-sex couples, and I accept his genuineness in that. Indeed, prior to the last election, he pledged to ‘continue the fight until justice is done’. Again, I accept the genuineness of that statement. In that context, I was a bit disappointed that the Liberal leader did not see this bill as being important enough for him to participate in the debate in the chamber, to support the fundamentals of the legislation and counter some of the more extreme views that some of his colleagues expressed during the debate.
A measure of this debate is the fact that it has essentially been so well accepted in the community as something that should be done and should have been done some time ago. So we would certainly encourage the Leader of the Opposition to engage in the debate in the House and also within his party to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the passage of this legislation as a result of, as I have indicated, some rather extreme views.
I note that the member for Farrer has stated that the opposition supports the underlying principles of the legislation—and we welcome that—but she then sought to qualify that support on the basis of concerns about drafting issues. She also sought to amend the bill during the second reading debate with a motion to insert matters which, quite frankly, are not relevant to this legislation. I will deal with these issues shortly, but I would first like to highlight what appears to be an ongoing strategy the coalition has adopted. It professes to support the fundamentals of the legislation but then it highlights so-called drafting issues as an excuse for qualifying that support and questioning the principles of according equal treatment to same-sex couples.
In contrast, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Kooyong, who spoke eloquently in support of the legislation and urged the Senate to pass the two same-sex bills expeditiously. The Leader of the Opposition should heed the member for Kooyong’s final comments because they were the words of a true liberal. He said:
Debates over wording and semantics have preoccupied us for far too long.
As I informed the House two weeks ago, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008 introduces the second part of historic reforms to amend Commonwealth laws that discriminate on the basis of sexuality. The amendments contained in this bill are required because same-sex relationships are not accorded recognition in a wide range of Commonwealth laws. This prevents same-sex couples from accessing many benefits which are available to opposite-sex couples. This differential in treatment also relieves them of a number of obligations which are commonly imposed on opposite-sex couples. I must say that the general community involved in advocacy of the needs for these changes accepts that there will be beneficiaries and there will be those who will suffer a detriment as a result of these reforms. But the principle is about removing discrimination.
The amendments are also required to ensure that functional recognition is provided, most importantly, to the children of same-sex relationships. We should not lose sight of that fact. The amendments will ensure that children of same-sex couples are not disadvantaged solely because of their family structure. It will also mean that legislative provisions which extend rights and duties to children and relatives will extend to children of same-sex relationships. The bill will amend some 68 Commonwealth laws. These are major reforms which will effectively remove same-sex discrimination from many areas of Commonwealth activity.
The approach taken in the bill is to provide a consistent approach to recognising same-sex couples and their families. The bill will insert a new definition of ‘de facto partner’ into the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. That new definition will apply to de facto relationships where parties to the relationship are of the same or opposite sex. The definition will also specifically and clearly recognise relationships that have been registered under prescribed state and territory relationship registration schemes. People will be taken to be de facto partners on the basis that they have satisfied the requirements for registration under those prescribed state or territory laws.
Introducing equality will on occasions impose burdens and reduce certain benefits, as I have mentioned earlier. However, this is an essential step towards a fairer and more just society rather than one that tolerates ingrained discrimination. For example, same-sex de facto couples will for the first time be recognised as ‘associates’ for the purposes of many Commonwealth market regulation laws. In some circumstances, same-sex couples will be required to declare interests or modify their property holdings in order to comply with these regulatory arrangements. Similarly, same-sex couples will have their social security benefits reduced in some circumstances. This is because benefits paid to couples are often smaller than the amount which would be paid at the single rate to two people. But this is simply equal treatment to that of opposite-sex relationships.
Another aspect of the reform package that I am particularly pleased to introduce is the removal of remnant marital status discrimination—discrimination which has somehow continued for 24 years after the Sex Discrimination Act made it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of the marital status of a person. It is surely time that such marital status discrimination was removed by reforming terms such as ‘step-children’, ‘step-parents’, ‘widows’ and ‘widowers’. Currently, the ordinary meaning of these terms requires that a person be married. The reality is there would be many relationships nowadays for which those terms would be quite simply irrelevant or inappropriate.
Last week I announced that the government would move an amendment to section 60H of the Family Law Act to implement a bipartisan recommendation from the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I would like to commend the excellent work of the senators who were members of that committee and to congratulate them for a balanced and very useful report and, indeed, recommendation. In light of that proposed amendment, the government is considering what options are available to adopt this new approach as a basis for defining ‘children’ and ‘parents’ in other Commonwealth laws that are being amended to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families. I was surprised by claims made by some of the members opposite—for example, the claims made by the members for Mackellar and Fadden stand out—that the reforms in any way undermine the institution of marriage. I say with respect to those members that they are simply wrong. Indeed, it was perhaps disappointing that they went further to suggest that, far from removing discrimination against same-sex couples, we should be discriminating in favour of married couples. It has long been recognised that such discrimination would not be consistent with a fair and egalitarian society. What this bill does is nothing more and nothing less than remove discrimination in circumstances where, I think, the vast majority of fair-minded Australians would say that for too long discrimination has occurred. Further, removing discrimination against same-sex couples, as I have mentioned, does not in any way, shape or form undermine marriage. Marriage is defined in the Marriage Act as being between a man and a woman. That provision was inserted into the act by an amendment supported by both sides of the parliament. It is the view of the parliament and it will remain the law.
The Rudd government’s policy on marriage is very clear and its policy reflects the widely held view in the community that is referred to in that legislation. However, the opposition has claimed that amendments to the Migration Act, for instance, do undermine marriage. So let me just allay that concern. The amendments to the Migration Act do not recognise same-sex marriages whether entered into overseas or otherwise. This is made clear by a new paragraph 5F(2)(b) which requires, for the purposes of the Migration Act, that a married relationship is between a ‘husband and wife to the exclusion of all others’. The ordinary meaning of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ requires the marriage to be between people of opposite sex. In addition, section 88EA of the Marriage Act expressly forbids the recognition of same-sex marriages in Australia. That provision applies to the recognition of marriages for the purposes of the Migration Act. That section is unaffected by these amendments. The irony is that the concerns raised by the opposition centre on a section of the Marriage Act which was in fact inserted into the legislation in 2004 by the then coalition government!
This bill includes a provision, to be inserted into the Acts Interpretation Act, which clarifies that a de facto relationship can exist even if one person in the relationship is legally married to another person in a registered relationship with another person or in a de facto relationship. I understand from the member for Mackellar that she believes this is in some way an endorsement of polygamous marriages. I have addressed this issue previously in the House. But, again for the record, the Rudd government has made clear that it does not support polygamous marriages. Indeed, they are illegal under state and territory legislation. That is the case and it is undisturbed by this legislation. However, obviously there are cases that recognise that it is possible to live in a de facto relationship with a person while still legally married to another person. The legal recognition of such relationships is necessary to ensure that rights are not unjustly denied to a de facto partner.
In determining whether or not one or more de facto relationships exist, the administrator will take into account all relevant circumstances, which could include the nature and extent of common residence and the duration of the relationship. In other words, if the views of some of those opposite were accepted, it would mean that a person in a de facto relationship would potentially be deprived of remedy under the measures contained in this legislation because the party to their now defunct but still extant marriage was reluctant or in some way obstructing the dissolution of that marriage.
The opposition has called for recognition of interdependent relationships. It is true that this bill does not recognise interdependent relationships. As I said in the second reading speech, recognising interdependent relationships raises many complex issues. These are viable issues that it is appropriate for the parliament to consider. It is considering them in a broader inquiry that is taking place. I highlight a few of the complexities involved in recognising interdependent relationships in this legislation. They are difficult to define. There is a lack of reliable data on the number of relationships, dependency and interdependency are a matter of degree and determining where to draw the line would be difficult, and recognising interdependent relationships may not be appropriate in all situations. For example, in the social security or pension contexts it could mean, for reasons that I have set out, that two sisters who lived together would be treated as a couple and receive a lower amount in pension because of their interdependent relationship. While the position of some interdependent relationships such as carers may need to be closely considered by the government, this bill, which seeks to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their families, is not the vehicle to address those concerns.
One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the removal of discrimination against the children of same-sex couples. I am sure all members accept that children have essentially no say in the relationship that is structured or entered into by their parents. Same-sex: same entitlements, the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, identified that discrimination can clearly exist against children. For instance, same-sex couples and their families are denied basic financial and work related entitlements in a wide range of areas. They disadvantage the members of the same-sex couple, and it is self-evident that this may well disadvantage the child in the family. For example, same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to take advantage of the Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the relevant safety nets.
Another example of such disadvantage is the operation of the Life Insurance Act 1995. Under that act a life insurance company can pay out a policy to an insured person’s child without going through probate when the money payable under a policy is below a certain amount. Probate, as we are aware, can be a time-consuming and expensive process. However, there is no specific definition of who qualifies as a person’s child. This means that a child of a same-sex co-father or lesbian co-mother may have to lodge a claim in probate to obtain the entitlement. As I have mentioned, this may well incur additional, potentially significant delay and cost. Removing discriminatory laws may well impact upon the welfare—including the financial welfare—of the children of same-sex relationships.
The issue from the government’s perspective is not about encouraging same-sex parenting but about removing discrimination. The bill does not create relationships that do not already exist. The reforms in the bill recognise real family situations. Recognition is necessary if we as a community are to remove discrimination against same-sex families and, importantly, their children. Further, the HREOC report Same-sex: same entitlements states:
Families headed by same-sex couples already exist in our community. And with the advent of assisted reproductive technology (ART), more and more lesbian and gay couples are having children.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data from the 2006 national census indicates there were approximately 25,000 same-sex couples residing together in Australia—less than one per cent of all couples residing together—and 4,400 children of same-sex relationships. Again, while this legislation will in no way result in the federal legislature entering into the field of assisted reproductive technology, it is a reality that it occurs in various states and territories around Australia, and the failure to recognise that reality has the real potential—not only potential but actuality—to cause disadvantage.
It has given me great pleasure to introduce this bill and the related Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. They have honoured the Rudd government’s election commitment to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and implement the recommendation of the inquiry of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Most importantly, the legislation removes discrimination against a group of fellow Australians—and their children—who have been discriminated against for far too long. In removing this discrimination, we deepen the respect in Australia for the human rights of all Australian citizens.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Ley’s amendment) stand part of the question.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008. I am very pleased to be doing so as the new shadow minister for immigration and citizenship. The coalition welcomes the bill as a sensible measure to address problems that can arise with the notification requirements under the Migration Act 1958. The content of communications between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and their clients may be to do with visa applications or the clients’ future legal status, so these communications are of critical importance. Often these notices require a response or particular action within a tightly specified time frame.
Unfortunately, there have been cases in the past where a very small deviation from the prescribed process has given a client recourse to challenge the legality of the notice itself, even though the communication was received and perfectly understood. Some clients have been able to delay the resolution of their cases by mounting court challenges based on a minor technical error in the notification. There have been a series of cases over the last few years when the courts have determined that small technical defects in notifications amounted to the client not, in effect, being officially and appropriately notified. The then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, described these notification issues as the ‘legal process gone mad’.
This bill will ensure that clients continue to be treated with fairness and that standard procedures will be followed, but with less opportunity to use a wrong postcode or some other small hitch as an excuse to rule the communication as not being received or not requiring the specified response—that is, of course, if the communication has in fact been delivered to the client in the proper time frame.
Put simply, this bill amends the Migration Act 1958 by introducing changes that will clarify the way in which the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal can properly notify clients of decisions. This legislation will, at the same time, ensure that the notification system remains a fair and reasonable process for all of the parties involved.
The provisions of the bill relate to the notification of minors and the deemed time of notification. The bill provides that where the minister or tribunal forms a reasonable belief that an individual has care and responsibility for a minor the minister or tribunal may communicate with that person instead of the minor to notify the individual of a decision about the minor. This is a sensible measure that will ensure a more appropriate handling of applications when an underage person is not part of a combined application, especially when he or she is too young to understand what the notification is about.
Secondly, the bill provides that the deemed time of application provisions will operate despite noncompliance with the procedural requirement for giving a document to an individual, where the individual has actually received the document. Where the individual is able to show that they received the document at a later date, that later date will be taken as the date of receipt. As has already been said, the courts currently require a strict and inflexible compliance with the statutory notification procedures and this has led to delays and costly legal proceedings despite the fact that the client may have received the notice in a timely manner.
This legislation should restore more common sense and give a greater degree of certainty to the notification procedures. With ongoing monitoring, there will no doubt be further evolution of these processes and procedures to ensure they are the most efficient, effective and just and cannot be exploited as a stalling opportunity. I am pleased that this government has realised that the bill as originally presented in the Senate needs an amendment in this House to eliminate what could have caused new complications and the potential for more inefficiency and time wasting.
The original bill as introduced contained a rather nebulous provision that ‘substantial compliance’ with the required contents of a notification document was sufficient unless the visa applicant or other applicant was able to show the error or omission in the document had caused them ‘substantial prejudice’. Proving what constituted ‘substantial’ compliance or prejudice would have been complicated and, of course, highly subjective. I am pleased that the government has recognised that, rather than tightening interpretations or closing loopholes, this provision may have caused us more opportunities for unintended consequences. I am therefore pleased to support the further amendment.
While this is a technical bill which does not fundamentally change Australian immigration policy, it does refer to the business of effectively administering appeals and assuring compliance with our immigration policy. It is therefore a significant and important matter. There are some 46,000 visitors who are currently overstayers in our country. There are another 2,000 or so onshore protection visa applicants waiting to be processed. Clearly our systems of application processing must be transparent, efficient, just and humane. The Howard government left a legacy of immigration law, regulation and practice which has delivered one of the best controlled and managed immigration programs in the world, where the government decides who comes to our country, who is most in need and who is best served by our ongoing protection.
The number of people now arriving on our shores illegally has decreased substantially as a result of the strong but fair policies that the Howard government implemented. This has meant that more of the world’s most needy refugees, including those who have been waiting for years in refugee camps, are given the opportunity to settle here under our refugee or humanitarian programs. I am pleased to see the new Labor government choosing to continue the Howard policies, given they have been very successful in reducing the number setting sail in leaky boats, often exploited by unscrupulous operators. We will never know how many boats sank on their voyages as the people smugglers tried to slip through the back door to Australia.
We need to ensure that places on our humanitarian program go to those with the most urgent need, rather than to those who have the best contacts and capacity to pay people smugglers or to pay for air tickets to Australia. Immigration is, and will continue to be, both a social and economic imperative for Australia. To borrow a phrase from the former Prime Minister, ‘I believe we all recognise that the things that unite us as Australians are much greater than the things that divide us,’ and we are a great nation as a result of generations and waves of migrants coming to our shores, working hard and embracing our great Australian values and traditions.
As the member for the northern Victorian seat of Murray, the most ethnically diverse electorate in regional Australia, I know firsthand the contribution that migrants have made to the social and economic fabric of our communities. As the shadow minister I look forward to working with the government to ensure that migrants to Australia have the support they need and that, in due course, different categories can apply to become citizens.
Citizenship is a privilege, not a right, but I am concerned that nearly a million people who are eligible for citizenship have not yet chosen to take this step. Many are older settlers from the United Kingdom, who arrived at a time when Australia’s citizenship laws and associated privileges, like voting, were different. I encourage the 900,000 settlers who contribute to and enjoy the freedoms and opportunities of our great country to take the final step to become Australian citizens. The Howard government wanted to ensure that English language understanding and a knowledge and acceptance of the values, rights and obligations of Australian citizenship were understood by those who stepped up to take an oath of allegiance to our country. I am pleased this new government has embraced the new citizenship testing and record numbers are now stepping forward. This test will, no doubt, evolve over time to become ever more effective in truly testing the new arrivals’ knowledge of our country and our first language. I commend this bill to the House. It has the strong support of the coalition.
I rise to speak to the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008. It amends the Migration Act to effect three broad policy initiatives of this government. The first is to provide that actual notification will apply if the deemed notification provisions cannot operate. The second is to provide that where the minister, or the relevant appeal tribunal, reasonably suspects that a person has care and responsibility for a minor, who is defined as someone under 18 years of age, then notification of that person equates to notification of the minor, except where an authorised recipient has been validly appointed. The third is to provide that substantial compliance with the required contents of a notification document is sufficient.
Notification as proposed in the bill represents a set of natural justice obligations under the Migration Act 1958 to notify applicants of, amongst other things, visa refusal and cancellation decisions and to provide information on any review rights available as a result of these decisions. The purpose of these amendments is to achieve a notification regime that is simpler, provides greater clarity and consistency and is sufficiently flexible to respond to individual circumstances. These amendments will reduce complexity and deliver more consistent, fair and reasonable outcomes to clients.
At the tribunal level, the obligations under the act relate to notifying merits review applicants of, amongst other things, the tribunal decisions. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, in his report Department of Immigration and Citizenship: notification of decisions and review rights for unsuccessful visa applications of December 2007, drew attention to the difficulties with the notification provisions and their potential to result in the unlawful detention of clients. This bill seeks to clarify some of these interpretations and recommendations by the Ombudsman.
The courts have generally adopted an extremely strict interpretation of the notification provisions and require absolute compliance with these provisions. The courts’ strict interpretation of the notification provisions diverts enormous departmental resources. Highly technical decisions by the courts on notification have undermined the administration of the migration system, thus creating situations where action taken in good faith by departmental officers in respect of a client is actually unlawful as the client was not properly notified of a departmental decision. This bill is the first step in seeking to rectify these issues. A broader series of measures are being considered by the government. The changes that are proposed in the bill will provide a very fair and reasonable outcome to clients in that if they receive a letter from the department or tribunals they can rely on it and act on it. The amendments do not seek to disadvantage clients in any way; rather, they provide clarity and certainty. These changes should result in fewer cases going to court, which should also result in reduced costs to the taxpayer. One thing that this government is concerned about is reducing costs to the taxpayer. Having an efficient administration and tribunal system and having this clarity help reduce costs to the taxpayer. That can only be a good thing.
The act and the migration regulations of 1994—the regulations—contain numerous provisions dealing with the requirements for notification in specific circumstances. These cover the content of the notice, who must be notified, where and by what method. These provisions have created confusion for departmental officers and fertile ground for the courts to find defects in notification. Technical errors can also be relied upon by those clients seeking to delay resolution of their case. Overall, this is a technical cleaning up of various parts of the Migration Act, and it is good to hear that it is something that is welcomed by the other side. This bill will help people have a pleasant experience as they go through their citizenship applications and their migration experience. As we all know, Australia is a multicultural society and has a rich tapestry of cultures. We are all the better for it. The least that this government can do is make the experience of migration as pleasant, efficient and clear as possible. Therefore, I recommend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak in favour of the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008. This bill is an amending piece of legislation designed to overcome technical obstacles in respect of notification. What does that mean? I will not bore the House with the names of all the various judicial decisions but I will refer to a number of judgements and what was said, and I will give a precis of some of the outcomes in that regard, just to show what the problem is that currently needs to be overcome. These judicial decisions concern the way in which the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and certain tribunals deal with what they call their ‘clients’ in respect of visa applications and visa cancellations.
The Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations (Amendment) 1984 set out the provisions for how the department, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal deal with clients in the circumstances. I have had a look at the regulations, the act and the various case law. They specify what must happen with respect to notification and the contents of notification, the methods by which notification is affected and the deemed time of notification and its application. This information can be found in detail in the regulations and in the act. It is quite a complex piece of legislation when you have a look at it—it is a wonder that any individual can actually understand it. The actual notification and the service provisions can be found in the legislation in sections 379A, 379B and 379AA, so we are talking about legislation that is starting to look like the Income Tax Assessment Act—it is quite complex and quite long.
The service requirements are prescriptive and they are technical. Any lawyer who practices in civil litigation understands that service provides a great possibility for disputation; it is pregnant with possibilities. As a lawyer who practised in the area of civil litigation and personal injuries, crime—in my early days—and family law, I always looked closely when service was being affected. How was the method of service being affected? Did it need to be ordinary service, service by post, special service or service to the person personally—actually delivered to their hand? What about a corporate entity? Do you serve the registered office? Where is the registered office? Is service upon the lawyer for the party effective service? All these things challenge litigants, they challenge lawyers who practise in these areas and they are ripe with the possibility for dispute.
In the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court, when service has been effected upon someone and they actually front up to the court itself, they can hardly dispute that they have not been served, because how or why are they there otherwise? If they require an adjournment, it is quite common for courts and tribunals in the federal area to grant adjournments in the circumstances if the person feels that they have not been given enough notice. But, really, the technical difficulties in this piece of legislation and in the regulations are quite extraordinary and they frustrate the whole integrity of the process. They are really an attack on the kind of litigation process that Australians expect will happen—that is, one which will deal with them consistently, deal with them fairly and deal with them in a manner which allows the process to be conducted expeditiously.
The primary purpose of this bill is to clarify and provide greater certainty in terms of the notification procedures. That was said by the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, Laurie Ferguson, in his second reading speech, and I agree with what he has to say. He said in that speech that the service provisions provide ‘fertile ground for the courts to find notification defects’. To rectify these issues, this bill seeks to clarify and improve the way that the department, the various tribunals and other bodies communicate on visa applications. Specifically, it will amend the Migration Act in three broad policy areas. The first is to provide that actual notification will apply if the deemed notification provisions cannot operate. That is fair in the circumstances. The second is to provide that where the minister or the relevant appeal tribunal reasonably suspects that a person has care and responsibility for a minor—in Queensland, where I come from, that is someone who is under the age of 18—then notification of that person equates to notification of the minor, except where an authorised recipient has been validly appointed. The third area is to provide that substantial compliance with the required contents of a notification document is sufficient.
I will not deal with the third area, because it has been flagged with me that the government may be sponsoring amendments to this area and there is some issue in relation to it, so I will deal with the first two areas. Can I say at the outset that this bill is not about to disadvantage or prejudice anyone in any way at all. It is all about certainty, clarity and specificity. It is fair and reasonable to ensure that clients are there and that, if they are present and they receive a letter from the department or the tribunal, they can act upon it and rely upon it.
The bill is necessary to fix technical errors. For instance, if a minister or the tribunal can communicate with a minor’s carer instead of the minor, then, under the changes, it will be lawful for the carer to respond on behalf of the minor. That seems sensible in the circumstances. The bill also makes it very clear that, where a person has actually received a document, they are served. It overcomes the procedural difficulties in those circumstances.
The difficulties with respect to the notification provisions had the potential to, and did, result in significant cost to the Commonwealth government. All litigation can be expensive: expensive to the litigant, expensive to the Commonwealth and, in the circumstances, it is necessary to overcome these problems. This was commented upon by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his report Notification of decisions and review rights for unsuccessful visa applicants in December 2007.
As a former lawyer, I believe that due process is crucial. The right to be heard and to face whatever allegations may be confronting you is crucial. It is what we call ‘natural justice’. It is integral to the integrity of any immigration process system. Correct notification is required to trigger legal rights and obligations and to ensure that consequences for action can be lawfully followed.
The current provisions in the legislation stipulate that notification must occur in a certain way, it must contain certain information and it must be given to a specific person at a specific address in order for legal consequences to flow. Unfortunately, our courts, specifically the Federal Court, have adopted an overly strict interpretation of the notification provisions, irrespective of whether the applicant was actually notified, and I think, sadly and regrettably, it has frustrated the intention of the parliament. Justice Lander, in a 2008 decision, made this very clear. He said:
In my opinion, the provisions of section 422B, which make the content of Division 4A and Division 7A, together with sections 416, 437 and 438, a complete code for the discharge of the Tribunal’s obligations in relation to the natural justice hearing rule, suggests that Parliament intended that there be strict adherence to each of the procedural steps leading up to the hearing. Each of the procedural steps is imperative and must be complied with in the manner described in the Act.
It is interesting, because the decision was a unanimous decision and it held that the actual notification of a hearing invitation, evidenced in that case by the applicant’s attendance at the hearing, was not sufficient to override a failure to strictly comply with every part of the notification requirements in the act. In other words, if the actual applicant turned up to the court, service had not been effected. It is a legal nonsense. It is simply stupid for that provision to remain. In that case, all the applicants appeared at the hearing and a number of them had the chance to present their evidence. So none of the applicants were prejudiced by the failure to strictly comply with the relevant notification requirements.
This literalistic interpretation has led to numerous judgements from the courts which have found that the department and the tribunals have not correctly provided notification of the circumstances. The amendments in this bill relate to how the department and the tribunals communicate with their clients. I hope the onus will shift onto the applicant, to overcome excessive litigation. I do not think anyone in this House wants to see multitudinous cases in this area. It can be very difficult when people talk about migration, and there would be many of us who have had people in our offices talking about the challenges of the migration system. Just last Saturday afternoon I had someone in my office talking about these issues.
The amendments provide that the tribunals are deemed to have validly given notification, in a document, to an authorised recipient even if the document, the envelope containing the document or any accompanying material contains an error or omission that is minor or insignificant, unless the applicant can show that the error or omission substantially prejudices them. That amendment is necessary because of a 2002 decision which found that an envelope containing a notification letter had to be addressed to the noncitizen’s authorised recipient, not the noncitizen care of the authorised recipient. What a nonsense. What a silly thing to decide. It is hardly believable that a court would make a decision like this. That decision affected potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of cases.
Another decision in 2008 arose from the inclusion of an incorrect postcode on two letters sent to a visa applicant by the tribunal, which were received and acted on him. Fortunately, in that case the tribunal affirmed the decision and refused the visa protection. The outcome may, however, be less certain and more precarious in other cases.
The purpose of these amendments is to overcome this silliness in the circumstances. The amendments are about ensuring that individuals do not experience prejudice, that individuals are not disadvantaged in any way and that the court process can continue and go forward. It is not about denials of natural justice. It is about making the whole system simpler. It is about greater consistency, it is about greater integrity, it is about greater clarity, it is about greater flexibility and it is about the streamlining of notification procedures. It is about consistency and it is about reducing complexity. As someone who has practised for nearly a quarter of a century in the legal system, I think anything that achieves that outcome is not only good for the nation but good for the clients I used to have, good for the people in my electorate, good for the taxpayers of Australia, good for our country and good for the future integrity of our migration system. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008. This is a bill which amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal will no longer have to completely strictly comply with the legislation’s notification requirements. The notification requirements of this act deal with how the department and the tribunals communicate with people who are affected by the immigration regime. The act contains a number of detailed provisions specifying how the department and the tribunals can, and in some circumstances must, communicate with visa applicants and people whose visas have been cancelled.
An example can be seen in section 66 of the Migration Act, which provides that the department must notify an applicant of a decision to refuse a visa in a prescribed way. The notification not only is required to contain specific information, such as the criterion or the provision of the act or the regulations that was not satisfied, but also must tell the applicant if the applicant has a right to have the decision reviewed by the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Administrative Review Tribunal and also must tell the applicant when and where the application for review needs to be lodged and similar formal information of that nature. If one goes to other provisions of the act—section 494B, section 379A, section 441A—one can read other prescriptions of methods that are to be used in communicating with applicants, such as directions as to whether it can be by post or fax or other similar formal requirements.
The formal requirements for the way in which the department and the tribunals are to communicate with those affected by the immigration regime in turn lead to other provisions of the act, because effective notification under section 66 will trigger section 494C of the Migration Act, and that provides for a deemed receipt of a document by an applicant within a specified time. That has further consequences under the immigration regime. For example, if a document was sent within three working days of the date of the document to an address in Australia, the present provisions of the Migration Act provide that the applicant is deemed to have received it within seven working days after the date of the document. That in turn will have the consequence that an applicant wishing to have an adverse primary decision independently reviewed must initiate the review process within the time stipulated in the notification, and that is normally 21 days. Failure to initiate the review process within the prescribed time will result in forfeiting the right of review.
All systems for applications to government departments and processing of those applications by government departments and tribunals necessarily need to have formal processes and necessarily require time limits to be specified. The requirements for forms and the requirements for notification in all cases will need to be set out in legislation. What we have in the Migration Act is a particularly complex set of notification procedures, and those notification procedures have been found wanting, I think it is fair to say, in that a series of court decisions over the last several years has demonstrated a degree of unworkability of these notification procedures. Certainly, as has been examined at some length by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has been found wanting in the way in which it has been administering these notification procedures.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, produced two very thorough and thoughtful reports over the course of last year that look at the notification procedures used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship under the Migration Act. The first of those reports, released in June 2007, is entitled Report into referred immigration cases: notification issues, and the second report, released in December 2007, is entitled Notification of decisions and review rights for unsuccessful visa applications. What Professor McMillan found and reported on in these two reports was a range of deficiencies in the way in which the department had responded to difficulties identified by the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and the full Federal Court of Australia in a whole range of decisions, but notably the decision in Srey. It is worth reading some of the comments that were made by Professor John McMillan in those reports. In the June 2007 report, he said:
The legislative and policy framework controlling the notification of decisions is comprehensive and provides clear guidance to DIAC staff. However, the investigation of the individual cases in this report highlighted some recurring problems in the way that DIAC officers implemented the legislative and policy requirements. These problems appear to stem from poor internal administrative processes, a lack of understanding by some DIAC officers of the notification requirements imposed by the legislation and a failure by officers to identify notification deficiencies, and their implications, in a timely manner.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman made similar comments in his later report of December 2007, at the conclusion of his investigation into notification requirements. He said:
The investigation found that DIAC’s overall management of notification of adverse decisions is not coordinated or consistent. There was significant variation in the quality of information presented in notification letters, many of which fell considerably short of best practice standards. In some instances, this limited a visa applicant’s ability to seek review or successfully reapply. In other instances, the information was overly complex, confusing and poorly presented.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman was, naturally enough, focusing on administrative processes used within the department, but he also commented on possible deficiencies in the legislation itself. It is worth quoting from his June 2007 report in that regard. He said:
As a general observation, the prescriptive nature of the notification regime is a double-edged sword. Strict compliance by DIAC with the legislation will be enough to ensure legally effective notification, even if the letter remains unread or is lost in the post. Conversely, a small deviation from the requirements of the legislation can render the notice legally ineffective, even though the notice was received and read.
The deficiencies that the Commonwealth Ombudsman identified in those two reports were at an administrative level and are matters that the department is now, I think I am able to say, attending to. It is certainly something that the new Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in the Rudd Labor government, Senator Evans, has given priority to. It is reflective of the priority being given to this kind of administrative matter that the minister has initiated the amendments that are contained in the bill before the House today.
These amendments will assist in ensuring that, rather than the application of the completely strict letter of the law having dire consequences for applicants for visas or meaning that people whose applications have been refused lose their appeal rights, attention is given to the actual notification of those persons—that is, attention is being paid to the substance or the intention of these types of provisions, which are, after all, only facilitative provisions. These provisions are designed to ensure that people have drawn to their attention, through the processes of the department and the tribunals, matters which need to be drawn to their attention.
Just before going to the particular provisions contained in this bill, I want to comment on the speech on the second reading of this bill that was given by the member for Murray a short time ago. I was sorry to hear her wrongly claiming that the Rudd Labor government had continued the policies of the Howard government in relation to immigration. Indeed, I am sorry to hear any continuing defence of what I regard as the brutal immigration regime of the former government. The member for Murray has clearly not been paying attention to the recent announcements by the minister for immigration, because they make it entirely clear that the Rudd Labor government have put the immigration regime of the former government behind us.
The Rudd Labor government are not going to continue with the imprisoning of children of those who are seeking refuge. We are no longer going to remove people who are seeking refuge to the middle of the Pacific at huge cost to this nation—and that is before one even considers the emotional and physical cost to the people concerned. We are going to use a just and humane approach to immigration matters and to matters concerning refugees henceforth. The Rudd Labor government have already shown this. Australia is going to have an immigration policy and a refugee policy that the nation can be proud of, rather than the immigration policy that we were all ashamed of under the regime of the former government. The approach of the former government to immigration questions has been put behind us, whatever the member for Murray might choose to imagine.
The particular provisions of this bill are directed at a series of court decisions, as I said earlier. They are: Srey v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, a 2003 decision of the Federal Court of Australia; Chand v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, a 2000 decision of the Federal Court of Australia; Vean of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, a 2003 decision of the full Federal Court; Khan v Minister for Immigration & Anor, a 2007 decision of the Federal Magistrates Court; Han v Minister for Immigration & Anor, another 2007 decision of the Federal Magistrates Court; and Pomare v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, a 2008 decision of the Federal Court.
What you see in these decisions of the full Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court are decisions which are directed to the very tight and technical nature of the notification provisions as they presently stand in the Migration Act and are directed at a couple of aspects of those rather tightly worded provisions that this bill is directed to. First of all, the bill before the House will provide that actual notification will apply if the deemed notification provisions cannot operate. That of course is an entirely sensible provision in the circumstances. Provisions of this nature should be concerned with actually notifying the people who need to be notified.
The second provision in the bill before the House deals with the need to notify minors. It provides for the minister and the relevant appeal tribunals, where any of them reasonably suspect that a particular person has care and responsibility for a minor, to notify that person. A minor is defined as someone under the age of 18 years. Notification of that person having care and responsibility for the minor will equate to notification of the minor, except where an authorised recipient of notification has been validly appointed.
These are sensible provisions. They demonstrate that the government is attending to making the immigration regime of this country more workable. Lest anyone be in any doubt about the need to pay attention to the provisions of the act, one should only consider the volume of applications that these provisions potentially can apply to. We can read in the 2006-07 annual report of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that the department processed some 12,000 visa applications every day, and in that year 3,678 applications and appeals to the courts were lodged against departmental or tribunal decisions compared to 3,893 in 2005-06.
This bill introduces provisions that are going to assist in the processing of that very large number of visa applications and will ensure that the processing of applications and appeals to the courts are dealt with in a way that is practical and in a way that pays attention to what is really occurring in terms of notification rather than getting lost in some forest of technicality—to use the words of a well-known playwright: to become lost in the ‘thickets of the law’. Instead, we need to pay attention to practical steps. The amendments in this bill are initial steps, the minister has said, in a broader series of measures that are being contemplated by this government in order to ensure the workability of the immigration regime. They are commendable measures and I commend the bill to the House.
I too rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008, which I believe is an important step in the necessary and overdue reform of both Australia’s migration policies and the administration of those policies. I will just comment briefly on comments made by the member for Isaacs, who I believe spoke very well in support of the need for these changes, but, more importantly, spoke as someone with a great deal of experience as a legal practitioner and a Queen’s Counsel. It was reassuring to hear his comments in support of the legal changes that are required, as he put it, in order to bring about a sensible outcome in the application of our laws. I guess few people would know the court system better than the member for Isaacs. To get his endorsement and support for this bill, I think, says a lot for it.
As a country that was settled by Europeans just 220 years ago and that subsequently has become home for people from across the world, Australia’s migration policies have over the years been the subject of many public debates and policy changes. I have no doubt that we will see more of those changes in the future, as each generation adapts or responds to the circumstances of the era. I want to focus my comments on the present migration policies and practices, much of which are largely a product of the Howard government era. Again, can I endorse the comments of the member for Isaacs in his reflection on those policies, because it is my view, and a view that I believe is shared very widely across the community, that the policies adopted by the Howard government were inhumane, unjust and in urgent need of review.
In speaking on this bill, I particularly want to draw on my observations and my experience as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration—a committee I have been a member of since being elected to this place. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you may well know, the committee has been inquiring into issues relating to detention centres and to the detention of people. On that matter, I acknowledge and commend the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, for the welcome policies relating to detention which he outlined on 29 July. Under the new policies, detention in immigration detention centres is only to be used as a last resort and for the shortest period practicable. Mandatory detention will remain in the following situations: for all unauthorised arrivals, for the management of health, identity and security risks to the community; for unlawful noncitizens who present unacceptable risks to the community; and for unlawful noncitizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with their visa conditions. I believe that most people in our community would agree that they are reasonable circumstances under which a person ought to be detained and that, bearing in mind that national security is of paramount importance to the government, those are reasonable conditions that ought to be applied in order to ensure national security.
As I said at the outset, Australia’s migration policies are in need of many overdue reforms, and this bill is an important step in that process. Certainly there is more to be done, but this is clearly a beginning and a very important step. As other speakers have said, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 so as to clarify the way in which the Department of Immigration and Citizenship communicates with its clients. As the member for Reid, the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural and Settlement Services, said in introducing this bill to the House:
There have been a series of cases over the past several years where the courts have identified technical defects in notification that have created large legacy case loads which have proved difficult, if not impossible, to address through litigation or administrative reforms.
This bill amends the act to increase the certainty in the notification regime while still balancing that with the rights of noncitizens. The new notification regime is simpler, provides greater clarity and consistency and is sufficiently flexible to respond to individual circumstances. It also clarifies issues relating to notification for persons under the age of 18 years—and, again, the member for Isaacs made reference to that in his address.
The member for Isaacs also referred to the Ombudsman’s report, which I too want to refer to. The Ombudsman, in his report Notification of decisions and review rights for unsuccessful visa applicants of December 2007, drew attention to the difficulties with the notification provisions and the potential to result in the unlawful detention of clients. Clarification of the notification process will ultimately result in a reduction in public costs associated with detention, less time in detention and less trauma for those noncitizens and their families. From the public cost perspective, it will reduce the legal costs associated with technical appeals based on the notification process. Again, other speakers have given examples of where this has occurred.
Furthermore, it will reduce the time non-Australians are held in detention, which costs the Australian people in excess of $100 per day for each detainee. In 2006-07, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship raised debts of $28.9 million for the detention of unlawful noncitizens. The highest debt raised during that period was over $340,000 for one family. In one case reported to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the course of the inquiry, the cost was estimated at $512,000 for one person over a nine-year period. Even if these costs are not recovered, for those people who are ultimately granted permanent residency in this country, they have a debt hanging over their heads forever more, which in turn continues to cause stress and trauma to them. The total cost of operating Australia’s immigration detention system in 2006-07 was about $220 million. It is not a cheap exercise. And that amount certainly does not include the cost of the construction of these centres; it is simply the ongoing operational cost.
I would just make some additional comments in relation to costs. On estimates, we have in Australia at the moment about 50,000 people who are in this country unlawfully. For many of those people, at some point in time a notice of some kind will be issued to them. The issuing of those notices, if it is not clarified and if it is not simplified, will cause many, many more occasions where cases are taken to the court simply on the basis of the service of those notices. Right now there are about 1,000 cases before the courts—before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, before the Federal Magistrates Court and before the High Court. My understanding is that it costs Australian taxpayers about $10 million a year just to attend the court proceedings and pay for the costs associated with those court proceedings.
If we can simplify all of these processes, there will be a benefit to the Australian people and there will be a benefit to the detainees, who are obviously looking for an outcome as soon as possible. In addition to the costs, there is also the issue of wasting valuable court time. Wasting valuable court time may be the objective of some of the detainees and perhaps their legal representatives. But, for the others who are waiting in line to have their court case heard, it is simply adding to their trauma and the time that they are in detention—which in turn adds to the cost to the Australian people. So, for all of these reasons, this bill makes a lot of sense.
With respect to the people who are in detention and to their families, there are substantial additional benefits in having matters resolved as quickly as possible. There has been universal agreement amongst community interest groups and detainee support agencies who have had extensive experience of dealing with detainees that detention frequently leads to psychological problems for the detainee and that, the longer the person is detained, the more serious are those mental health problems. Mental health problems often leave a person with lifelong effects, with the person continuing to suffer even after being released.
Importantly, this bill will also have the positive effect of expediting the removal of persons who should be removed from Australia. Prompt removal of such people is one of the most effective deterrents to others who have no right to remain here. Again, this is not simply about assisting those who ultimately do stay in Australia; it is also about expediting the process in relation to those people who have no right to stay here and should be removed. It is a bill that some might describe as having a win-win objective.
Wrongful detention also raises a question relating to human rights obligations. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, speaking on 29 July in respect of the new policies he had announced, said:
On 14 occasions over the last decade, the United Nations Human Rights Committee made adverse findings against Australia in immigration detention cases, finding that the detention in those cases violated the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, wrongful detention gives cause to compensation cases, as we saw with the Cornelia Rau case. On this matter, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report identified that, between the years 2000 and 2006, 247 persons were found to have been wrongfully placed in detention centres. Clearly, the longer a person is held in detention, the higher will be the costs associated with any compensation if that person is ultimately found to have been wrongfully detained. Improving the determination process, which is exactly what this bill does, lessens any liability associated with wrongful detention, because the matters will be dealt with much more expeditiously.
It is my belief that, because of the Rudd government’s new detention policy recently announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, we are unlikely to see the types of wrongful detentions that were identified during the Howard government years and which the Ombudsman reported on.
In closing, I want to quote a couple of comments made by the minister when he announced the policy, because I think they sum up the direction in which immigration policies under this government are heading, a direction which the member for Isaacs quite rightly pointed out is much more humane and much fairer. The minister said:
In future the department will have to justify why a person should be detained. Once in detention a detainee’s case will be reviewed by a senior departmental official every three months to certify that the further detention of the individual is justified.
… … …
Our new model will not solve all of the complex and protracted issues that delay resolution of immigration status. There will still be people in detention, but we should see fewer people in detention for less time. The section 501 character cancellation caseload represents a particularly difficult ongoing cohort. However, our new processes should ensure much better outcomes overall.
The cost of long-term detention and the case against the current system are compelling.
I believe the minister quite appropriately summed it up with those comments, and that is why he has introduced this bill as one of the steps that I am sure we will see in the months ahead for improving the immigration policies by this government—in this case improving the issues surrounding notification for people that are in detention centres. I commend the bill to the House.
I also rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008. I commend the member for Makin and the speaker who preceded him, the member for Isaacs, for their contributions to the debate. As the member for Moreton, I know that the name ‘Moreton’ comes from Lord Moreton, who was a British peer. I know the history of the name ‘Isaacs’—he was the first Australian-born Governor-General and the first Jewish Governor-General. But I am not sure of the history of the name ‘Makin’. I certainly know that Tony Zappia has a strong connection with multicultural Australia himself and has a strong history of supporting the fact that Australia is based on migrants coming from all over the world. That is one of our greatest strengths.
The honourable member for Moreton ought to refer to other honourable members by the name of their electorate and not by their actual name.
I thank you for your guidance there, Mr Deputy Speaker, in terms of my detailing the name of the member for Makin. I take your guidance strongly. Many migrants who come to Australia choose to live in my electorate. In fact, more than one-third of my electorate were born overseas. When I get out and about in my electorate, I see the United Nations, depending on which suburb I go to. There are people from all over the place. In the 10 months that I have been the member for Moreton, I have offered support to hundreds of visa applicants across a range of visa classes, including humanitarian and refugee entry, skilled visas and family visas. When those people come into my office—and I am sure the member for Makin has had similar experience—I hear them telling their personal stories of trying to track down children or siblings or trying to bring a husband or a wife or a fiancee to Australia. It is always incredibly compelling to hear those stories and to see the actual tears, and I realise how important it is that the government in Australia gets our immigration laws correct.
Certainly one of the tougher parts of being an MP is understanding how slow and frustrating the migrant story can be. I have heard compelling stories from each of these visa applicants and their families and now fully appreciate how the decisions made by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship can have a major impact on a person’s life. It can be the difference between a life lived in fear and a life of freedom—a life close to family and loved ones or a life of loneliness on the other side of the world. So I understand how important communication is between the department and an applicant or the appropriate authorised person.
The department is required to adhere to strict notification requirements to advise visa applicants of decisions and provide information about their rights for review and appeal. Particularly in the case of negative decisions—and, unfortunately, I have been involved with some of those negative decisions in meeting with people after they have received them—and in all cases, it is vital that applicants receive correspondence from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship within an appropriate time frame so that they do not miss out on the opportunity to seek review, which is normally allowed within 21 days of receipt of the information about the decision.
The Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994 detail how the department is to communicate with clients. The act and regs cover the content of the notice, who must be notified and by what method. The current regulations, unfortunately, have been a little bit confusing for the department and, due to strict adherence by the courts, have meant that minor errors—almost to the extent of typographical errors—can be used as grounds to appeal immigration decisions.
This bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to clarify the notification procedure and to provide certainty for the department and subsequently for their clients, and should result in fewer cases going to court. Firstly, the bill changes the way the department will communicate with minors—that is, people under the age of 18. The act currently requires that correspondence be sent to the relevant person for the notification to be effective, even when that person is too young to understand the nature of the correspondence. This bill will enable the notification to legally be sent to a recipient who the minister, or the minister’s delegate, believes has the care of and responsibility for that minor. It will still be possible for the notification to be sent directly to the minor where no carer for that minor can be identified. These amendments will help to ensure that the person who has the power and capability to act on a notification is the one who receives it.
The bill also clarifies the notification procedures to overcome the conflicting interpretations that have been delivered by the courts. There have been occasions when a client has received correspondence from the department or tribunal and acted on it but a court has determined that, due to a minor technical error, the client has not actually legally received the correspondence, while other courts have accepted that the client has been legally notified. The deliberations by the courts on these matters have wasted departmental resources and undermined the administration of the migration system. As I said earlier, because it is often a life-and-death situation when you are talking about decisions about people’s loved ones overseas, it is important that we get it right. The bill before the House ensures that clients cannot use a technical error to argue that they never received a notification when they have, to all intents and purposes, been notified. The bill before us will deem a person to be notified where there is evidence that the person received the notice and acted upon it and appears not to have suffered any detriment despite any small technical error.
It is common for visa applicants to have an authorised person to manage their visa application and correspond with the department. It is usually a family member—someone that has gone before them who understands some of the processes—but, if they do not have someone like that that they can turn to, often they will go to a migration agent. In my electorate of Moreton, because I have such a range of people from around the world—some that have come as refugees, some that have come as business migrants and obviously lots who have come on family visas—I am often asked, ‘Who should I turn to?’ That is why in my office we have started compiling a list of the migration agents based in or around Moreton—so that we can provide that information to people. Obviously some agents do it on a pro bono basis, some do it totally for free, some take on the occasional pro bono case and others do it strictly on a fee-for-service basis. There are migration agents and lawyers that do migration work. That is one of the services that we are providing to the people who come to my electorate office. Obviously the department will continue to correspond with the person notified until the department are advised otherwise. Migration agents do great work in helping sort out many complications. This bill goes some way to avoiding the practice of using minor technical and typographical errors to delay decisions through the courts.
As someone of Anglo-Saxon background—I think my background is French, Italian and Irish—it has been an honour to represent Moreton, where we have significant groups of people from all over the world, particularly the Chinese diaspora. We have a lot of Taiwanese along with Hong Kong Chinese, Malaysian Chinese, mainland Chinese and even Fijian Chinese people. We also have a significant African population, especially Sudanese—even to the extent that in Moorooka, the suburb where I live, there is a little African community, with lots of African restaurants. There is also a very significant Muslim population who have come from all over the world but particularly from Zimbabwe and South Africa. I could not forget the New Zealand population, who also make up a significant proportion of my electorate, and obviously the English, Irish and Scottish, the Greeks and many others.
So, obviously, the history of Australia is one of settlement. Certainly for the last 200 or so years, leaving aside the 50,000 or 60,000 years beforehand, we have been a country based on settlement. In a changing world it is important to make sure that we have good connections with these communities—that when the communities from around the world come to Australia they are well settled and have strong roots in the communities of Moreton, Brisbane et cetera. As we have seen around the world all too often, if we do not get the balance right, the mix right, we can end up with violence and devastation and people picking up weapons to attack their neighbours. Thankfully, in Australia we do not have that history—certainly not in the last 50 years. Although, if we look at the settlement of Australia, one of the first things the parliament of Australia turned its mind to was the White Australia policy, they were different times; we have moved on a lot since then. We now have much healthier multicultural communities.
The bill before the House goes some way to preserving some of those basic tenets: that we get on with our neighbours and we accept people from around the world. I do not know the words to the second verse of Advance Australia Fair off by heart—the member for Port Adelaide might be able to help me out—but from memory it talks about embracing those who have come from across the sea because we have boundless plains to share. That is what we are about as a nation: giving people an opportunity in life. We can do so in such a way that we do not have to put children in detention. We do not have to create these artificial bits of Australia in other countries. If people do come to Australia in circumstances that do not involve standing in line and getting a visa in their part of the world, we can still help them as much as possible—check their history, make sure that their health is fine, help them integrate into the Australian community and get them paying taxes as soon as possible. Obviously, we need to cross the t’s and dot the i’s as much as possible, to make sure that this system runs smoothly.
The bill before the House will make significant improvements to the notification regime. It will ensure that the hard work of our immigration department is not undermined by rigid court decisions and it will provide greater clarity and consistency for visa applicants. I commend the bill to the House.
I thought for a moment that the honourable member for Moreton was going to break into song.
Not again! That was a close call.
As I said, I don’t know the second verse off by heart!
I am sure that we will not hear it in the House—not being sung, anyway.
Can I say what a pleasure it is to follow the member for Moreton in this debate, particularly his demographic tour de force of the electorate of Moreton!
You’re always welcome!
Thank you. It is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008. Immigration is an emotive and complex area, fraught with competing interests and the need for a strong system of checks and balances. Whether it involves the reunification of families, the offer of safe asylum to the persecuted or ensuring that Australia has the skilled population needed to sustain our economy, immigration policy has a profound effect on people’s lives, and it is vital that both citizens and noncitizens have confidence in our program. Eleven years of immigration policy under the previous government seriously undermined that confidence and left a legacy of deep distrust in the quality of decision making, ethics of policy and culture of the department. We as a government are committed to overturning that legacy and providing a system that has integrity, transparency and fairness and which balances the needs of clients with the protection of our borders. Already the Rudd government has made great strides in reforming the system. One of our first acts was to dismantle the so-called ‘Pacific solution’—a scheme that was never going to be a solution but was instead a base, populist stunt that cost Australia’s reputation and finances whilst it played politics with the lives of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
Under the Howard government Australia’s detention policy was a source of international condemnation. We have reformed the system to take a risk based rather than punitive approach to detention policy. No longer will Australia bear the shame of children languishing in our immigration detention centres. No longer will being unlawful mean facing years of detention despite posing no danger to the community. No longer will taxpayers have to pay for an expensive, unnecessary and destructive detention scheme. We are still maintaining mandatory detention for those unlawful noncitizens who present an unacceptable risk to the community or who repeatedly refuse to comply with their visa conditions. Unauthorised boat arrivals will still be subject to mandatory detention for health, identity and security checks. This government is committed to protecting our nation from the potential dangers posed by some unauthorised arrivals or unlawful noncitizens, but we are also committed to treating people with dignity. We will only use detention centres as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time.
We have also abolished the temporary protection visa regime—another shameful chapter in the immigration policies of the Howard government. This regime actively prevented refugees from rebuilding their lives by denying them the entitlements and security of permanent residency despite our international obligations. Not only was this a further stain on Australia’s reputation but also it entirely failed to serve its claimed purpose. Evidence shows that the temporary protection visas did nothing to prevent unauthorised boat arrivals, with numbers actually increasing not long after the introduction of the regime.
Unlike our predecessors, the Rudd government is shaping policy that maintains the integrity of Australia’s immigration system whilst ensuring that our humanitarian program is humanitarian in substance as well as in name. This means not using asylum seekers as political toys, not locking up traumatised children and not compounding the suffering of those whom Australia has long recognised a moral and international obligation to help.
We have also tackled the skills shortage. Employers have had the pressure eased by the Rudd government adding an extra 31,000 skilled migrants to the 2008-09 migration program. We have recognised that this record 30 per cent intake increase could put strain on a department already struggling with demand, and so we are working to tighten up processing procedures and improve servicing standards. The Rudd government know that business needs all hands on deck, not stuck waiting at the dock bound up in red tape, and we are actively working to streamline the process for both employers and employees.
We have also taken action to reform the 457 visa program. The Howard government allowed this program to run without sufficient safeguards to prevent the exploitation of temporary skilled foreign workers or the undercutting of wages and conditions of Australian workers. Unlike the Howard government, we believe in responsible government. The Rudd government are committed to ensuring that the 457 visa scheme operates as effectively as possible whilst protecting the rights of overseas workers along with the employment opportunities of our own citizens.
We know that, without strong compliance initiatives, the integrity of our entire immigration program can be jeopardised. We have a zero-tolerance approach to illegal workers and the employers who engage workers without valid visas. We have also increased the use of biometric technology to strengthen further the protection of our borders.
The Rudd government recognise that, to restore public confidence in our immigration program after the damage caused during the Howard era, we need to improve the transparency of the entire system, including at a ministerial level. This is why we have commissioned an independent report into the ministerial intervention powers. Non-compellable, non-reviewable and non-delegable powers have a dangerous potential for abuse.
We have also taken steps to improve confidence in our review tribunals by undertaking a merit based selection of members rather than the minister exercising his or her option simply to re-appoint current members. Unlike our predecessors, this government recognises that a fair and transparent review system needs a fair and transparent selection system of appointments to ensure credibility.
The Rudd government have listened to the concerns raised about the structure and the content of the citizenship test set up by the Howard administration, and we are ensuring transparency and integrity in reform by the establishment of an independent review committee to look into that test. We believe in the benefits of a citizenship test. We also believe it can only be effective and meaningful when it is accessible.
The bill before us today, the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill, continues this government’s work in reforming our immigration system. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, in his December 2007 report Notification of decisions and review rights for unsuccessful visa applicants, highlighted difficulties with the notification provisions of the Migration Act and their potential to result in unlawful detention of clients. This bill is just the first step in tackling those difficulties and is part of a broader set of measures the government is considering.
Notification is an integral part of the immigration processing system and a basic tenet of natural justice. The obligation to explain the reasons for a decision and the rights or obligations triggered by that decision is basic to the transparency and accountability of government. The Rudd government recognises the need for strong procedural safeguards in this important area, but it also recognises the need for clarity, simplicity and some flexibility for individual circumstances. This bill, as the initial stage of a broader package, will amend two aspects of the notification procedures.
Firstly, the bill will provide that actual notification will apply if the deemed notification provisions cannot operate. Timing is crucial here, as review rights must be exercised within strict time limits from the deemed date of notification. This amendment focuses on errors in the method of notification. Currently, if a client has actually received correspondence from the department or a tribunal and has acted upon that correspondence without any apparent detriment resulting from a technical error, the courts can still rule that they have not legally received it due to that technical error. This is not just absurd; it also prevents consistency and certainty of outcomes, wastes valuable resources, and leaves the department open to claims of unlawful detention and unlawful removal. What this amendment will do is clarify the system by ensuring that a legal technicality does not negate what has occurred in fact. This amendment will not corrode the rights of clients. If an error actively prejudices a client exercising their right of review, then it will not fall within the scope of the amendment. This amendment simplifies the system and provides for certainty of outcomes whilst retaining a flexibility that protects fairness.
The second amendment relates to the communication with minors through a person or organisation exercising care and responsibility for the minor. The act defines a minor as someone under 18 years of age. Outside certain circumstances, the current provisions in the act now require that the relevant correspondence be sent to the minor even when the minor may be too young to understand the contents. This amendment will enable effective notification with a minor where the minister, his delegate or a tribunal has a reasonable belief that the recipient of the notification has the care of and responsibility for the minor. This amendment will produce the result that the person most likely to act on the notification is also the person who receives it. This is clearly in the best interests of the child and the effectiveness of our system. Where no-one with responsibility for and care of the minor can be identified, then notification can still be sent directly to the minor.
In broad and in summary, these amendments to the Migration Act will increase simplicity, clarity and flexibility in our notification regime whilst protecting the rights of clients. They will reduce unnecessary depletion of departmental resources and provide certainty and consistency of outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—At the outset, I would congratulate the new shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, the member for Murray, in regard to her role. However, I think it is a bit rich for her to basically argue that what we are seeing here today is part of a continuing Howard government approach to detention policy and immigration. Certainly, the government reiterate that we need to ensure we have a process in this country which maximises the possibility that those who have genuine claims are those who are actually protected by the country. And, of course, as a matter of last resort, there will be detention.
However, when we look at issues such as the onus with regard to whether or not people will be detained, the closure of offshore sites and the definite commitment that children will not be detained, as well as the broad swathe of immigration changes—quite frankly, overwhelming changes in the last few months in that policy area—I do not think that argument really stands up to rational analysis. We are supporting strong border control but a fair and more humane treatment of asylum seekers and those who do need to be detained.
I will not detain the House at length; I understand there are some other pressing matters. The Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008 will make amendments to provisions of the Migration Act 1958 which set out the requirements for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the tribunals to notify a person about important matters such as decisions on visa applications and visa cancellations. The amendments will clarify the way the department, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal communicate with their clients.
Many speakers have repeated ad nauseam the three particular thrusts of change, so I will not reiterate those. I would, however, remind the House that the ‘substantial compliance’ amendment sought to ensure that substantial compliance with the required content of a notice will be sufficient to effect notification. Under this amendment, minor technical errors in the content of the notice will not render the notification ineffective unless the applicant can show that the error or omission substantially prejudices him or her.
Following introduction of the bill into parliament, it became apparent that the provisions relating to substantial compliance produced unintended consequences both in terms of errors in the notification document and also in relation to the compliance operations of the department. Consequently, the government-sponsored amendments withdraw the substantial compliance amendments from the bill. I note in this respect that the amendments regarding actual notification will cover most of the circumstances that have caused difficulties in the past and ensure that a person who is actually notified cannot seek to rely on a technical error in the notification process. It is not expected that withdrawing the substantial compliance amendments from the bill will affect a large number of cases.
The remaining amendments assist in ensuring that notification will be legally effective and provide certainty regarding future action based on notification, while still maintaining fair and reasonable dealings with the department’s and the tribunals’ clients. I commend the bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (12), as circulated, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 22 to 26), omit subsection 379AA(4).
(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 10 to 16), omit subsection 379C(7).
(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 18), omit “(8)”, substitute “(7)”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 29) to page 7 (line 2), omit the item.
(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 20 to 24), omit subsection 441AA(4).
(6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (lines 10 to 16), omit subsection 441C(7).
(7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 18), omit “(8)”, substitute “(7)”.
(8) Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 29) to page 10 (line 2), omit the item.
(9) Schedule 1, item 22, page 10 (lines 23 to 27), omit subsection 494A(5).
(10) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (lines 1 to 7), omit subsection 494C(7).
(11) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 9), omit “(8)”, substitute “(7)”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 28, page 12 (lines 20 to 26), omit the item.
The government proposes amendments to the Migration Amendment (Notification Review) Bill 2008 to ensure that measures contained in the bill operate effectively and as intended. The aim of the bill is to provide greater certainty concerning notification procedures and to ensure that visa applicants and visa holders are effectively informed of matters relevant to their dealings with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
The bill seeks to balance the need for efficient administration against the need for applicants and visa holders not to be prejudiced by errors in the content of documents or in the manner in which documents are given to them. The bill contains three key amendments, one of which is to provide that substantial compliance with the required contents of a notification document is sufficient unless the visa applicant is able to show that the error or omission in the document causes them substantial prejudice.
Following the introduction of the bill into parliament it became apparent that the provisions relating to substantial compliance produced unintended consequences both in terms of errors in the notification document and also in relation to the compliance operations of the department. In addition, the amendments regarding actual notification will cover most of the circumstances that have caused difficulties in the past and ensure that a person who is actually notified cannot seek to rely on a technical error in the notification process.
The amendments remove provisions in schedule 1 to the bill relating to substantial compliance with the notification requirements in the act. The remaining two measures in the bill will assist in ensuring greater certainty regarding notification without causing prejudice to visa applicants and visa holders. I commend the amendments to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced.
Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s requested amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
4 Before subsection 25-1(3)
Insert:
Luxury car tax threshold—general
5 Subsection 25-1(3)
Omit “The”, substitute “Subject to subsection (4), the”.
6 At the end of section 25-1
Add:
Luxury car tax threshold—fuel efficient cars
(4) If the *car has a fuel consumption not exceeding 7 litres per 100 kilometres as a combined rating under vehicle standards in force under section 7 of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989, the luxury car tax threshold is the *fuel-efficient car limit for the year in which the supply of the car occurred or the car was *entered for home consumption.
(5) The fuel-efficient car limit for the 2008-09 *financial year is $75,000. The limit is indexed annually using Subdivision 960-M of the *ITAA 1997.
(6) In indexing the *fuel-efficient car limit, Subdivision 960-M of the *ITAA 1997 applies as if:
(a) the table in section 960-265 of that Act included an item referring to the fuel-efficient car limit and to subsection (5) of this section; and
(b) the reference in subsection 960-270(1) of that Act to provisions of that Act included a reference to subsection (5) of this section; and
(c) section 960-270 of that Act applied, and section 960-285 of that Act did not apply, in relation to the fuel-efficient car limit; and
(d) the reference in subsection 960-280(2) of that Act to the car limit included a reference to the fuel-efficient car limit.
7 Section 27-1
Insert:
financial year has the meaning given by section 995-1 of the *ITAA 1997.
8 Section 27-1
Insert:
fuel-efficient car limit has the meaning given by subsection 25-1(5).
9 Section 27-1 (definition of luxury car tax threshold)
After “subsection 25-1(3)”, insert “or (4)”.
10 Application
(1) The amendments made by items 1 to 3 of this Schedule apply to taxable supplies of luxury cars and taxable importations of luxury cars on or after 1 July 2008.
(2) The amendments made by items 4 to 9 of this Schedule apply to taxable supplies of luxury cars and taxable importations of luxury cars on or after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent (regardless of when contracts for the supplies or importations were entered into).
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
11 Subsection 25-1(3)
After “Subject to subsection”, add “(3A) and”.
12 After subsection 25-1(3)
Insert:
(3A) On and from 1 July 2012 the luxury car tax threshold is the luxury car tax threshold as at 30 June 2012 indexed according to a factor to be determined by the Parliament and to apply from 1 July 2012 or, if such a factor is not determined by the Parliament, indexed annually in accordance with the CPI indexation method provided for by Subdivision 960-M of the *ITAA 1997, calculated using the index number referred to in subsection 960-280(1) of that Act.
(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
13 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply where the contract to make the taxable supply or taxable importation of the luxury car was entered into before 7.30 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 13 May 2008.
(4) Page 3 (after line 27), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 2—Refunds for primary producers and tourism operators
A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act 1999
1 At the end of section 2-10
Add:
(4) Refunds can arise for primary producers and tourism operators in certain circumstances. (Division 18).
2 After Division 17
Insert:
Division 18—Refunds
Refunds under this Division may be available to primary producers and tourism operators for the supply of certain cars.
18-1 What this Division is about
18-5 Refunds for tax borne—primary producers
(1) You are entitled to a refund under this section if:
(a) you have a refund entitlement under this section; and
(b) you are *registered; and
(c) no one else has made a valid claim for a refund in relation to the refund entitlement.
(2) You have a refund entitlement if:
(a) you have *borne luxury car tax on the supply, or *importation, of a *refund-eligible car; and
(b) at the time of the supply or importation you are carrying on a *primary production business.
(3) The amount of the refund for a refund entitlement under subsection (2) is the lesser of:
(a) 8/33 of the luxury car tax *borne by you as described in paragraph (2)(a); and
(b) $3,000.
(4) You cannot have a refund entitlement under subsection (2) for more than one *car in a *financial year.
18-10 Refunds for tax borne—tourism operators
(1) You are entitled to a refund under this section if:
(a) you have a refund entitlement under this section; and
(b) you are *registered; and
(c) no one else has made a valid claim for a refund in relation to the refund entitlement.
(2) You have a refund entitlement if:
(a) you have *borne luxury car tax on the supply, or *importation, of a *refund-eligible car; and
(b) the Commissioner is satisfied that:
(i) you will use the car solely for the purpose of carrying on a business; and
(ii) the principal purpose of the business is carrying tourists for *tourist activities.
(3) The amount of the refund for a refund entitlement under subsection (2) is the lesser of:
(a) 8/33 of the luxury car tax *borne by you as described in paragraph (2)(a); and
(b) $3,000.
18-15 Claiming refunds
(1) You must claim a refund within 4 years of becoming entitled to the refund.
(2) A claim for a refund must be in the *approved form.
18-20 Payment of refunds
If you are entitled to a refund under this Division and you have claimed the refund, the Commissioner must, on behalf of the Commonwealth, pay the amount of the refund to you.
3 Section 27-1
Insert:
primary production business has the meaning given by section 995-1 of the *ITAA 1997.
4 Section 27-1
Insert:
refund-eligible car means a 4 wheel drive, or all wheel drive, *car of a kind specified in regulations made for the purposes of this definition.
5 Section 27-1
Insert:
tourist activity has the meaning set out in regulations made for the purposes of this definition.
6 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply to taxable supplies of luxury cars and taxable importations of luxury cars on or after 1 July 2008.
I move:
That the requested amendments be made.
The Senate last night passed the Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008 with amendments, and the government supported those amendments. The government acknowledges the cooperation of the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding on this important budget measure. The government amendments were made following agreement between the government and the Greens. The amendments establish a new threshold of $75,000 for fuel-efficient luxury cars in the luxury car tax law—that is, fuel-efficient vehicles will pay no luxury car tax up to $75,000. The vehicles eligible for the higher threshold will be those with a fuel consumption not exceeding seven litres per 100 kilometres. The fuel-efficient car limit will be indexed in the same way as the existing luxury car tax threshold. The threshold increase will reduce the amount of luxury car tax payable on these fuel-efficient vehicles. For cars that are currently on the market, in most cases the effect will be to reduce the luxury car tax payable to zero. The fuel-efficient car limit will act over time as an incentive to car manufacturers and importers to get very fuel-efficient cars into the Australian market.
Senator Fielding raised his concerns about the impact on farmers and tourism operators with the government. The government supported Senator Fielding’s amendments to provide a refund of the increase in the luxury car tax rate to eligible primary producers and tourism operators. The government is satisfied that the amendments will not impose undue burden on business and have protections in place to reduce the possibility of abuse.
Senator Xenophon raised his concerns about the indexation of the threshold and the application of the luxury car tax measure to car purchasers who entered into contracts before the budget announcement. The government supported Senator Xenophon’s amendments. The amendments changed the method of indexing the luxury car tax threshold, currently $57,180, in line with CPI from 1 July 2012 unless the parliament agrees to an alternative indexation method. The threshold is currently indexed by the motor vehicle component of the CPI—that is, the CPIMV. The amendments also retain the current 25 per cent rate where buyers entered into contracts to purchase cars before the budget for delivery after 1 July.
The amendments to the Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008 increase taxes on certain vehicles. Overall, the bill and these measures offend the very principles that guide Treasury as set out in its report on the tax system released only last month. Those principles are efficiency, equity, simplicity and low administrative and compliance costs. The luxury car tax fails against every one of these principles. It is inefficient, inequitable, complicated and, therefore, costly to administer and to comply with. Of course, another point is that the government did not tell the people of Australia about this tax hike before the election. The bill as amended is an even greater failure against the Treasury principles. It is, as some of my colleagues have described, a dog’s breakfast.
The existing luxury car tax is 25 per cent. Add to that the GST, which was meant to be the consumption tax, of 10 per cent, and the government now wants to add a surcharge of a further eight per cent—a total of 43 per cent on certain vehicles. The coalition opposed the bill in its original form because, with a strong budget surplus and with a slowing economy, these tax increases are not needed and are not justified. Now the amendments make this an even worse piece of legislation, compounding the complexity and unfairness inherent in the original bill.
There are four amendments. We will oppose the amendment relating to fuel efficiency, which was a deal done between the government and the Greens, as it is fundamentally flawed. It allows a small range of vehicles to be exempted from this additional tax of eight per cent. All the vehicles to be exempted are small, European-made sedans. The list of vehicles that will be exempted provided by the government—not upront but in response to a request by the coalition in the Senate—includes: the Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon, the BMW 3 Series, the BMW X3, the Jaguar X-Type, the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and others, including the BMW 5 Series. These are all vehicles that are exempted under the Labor government’s new proposal. This is the party of the working classes exempting European sports cars but slugging Australian-made cars, such as the Ford Territory or the Holden Commodore, with an additional so-called luxury car tax. Not one car made in Australia will be exempted under the Labor government’s tax—not one. A family who wants a full-size family vehicle or a four-wheel drive vehicle that costs between $57,180 and $75,000 will be hit with the additional tax, but a Labor Party branch president driving a Jaguar X-Type down Collins Street in Melbourne will be exempt. They will be exempt from the tax but the family needing an Australian-made family car will be hit with the tax.
What does Brian Burke drive, I wonder?
Indeed. I wonder what Brian Burke drives. The amendment regarding the backdating was supported in the Senate, so I need not make any further comment on that. The indexation to CPI amendment is a most confusing and irrational amendment. It seeks to index the luxury car tax threshold to the CPI, not to the CPI motor vehicle subset, but not for another four years. If the policy is good, why not do it now? If a policy is worth doing, why is it not worth doing now? The government had no answer in the Senate. I invite my colleague opposite to tell the people of Australia why the government will not agree to index the luxury car tax threshold to the CPI now.
The fourth amendment relates to primary producers and tourism operators and was introduced by Senator Fielding. This is one of the most complicated and confusing exemptions that I have seen in tax policy, and that is saying something. It adds to the complexity and adds to the red tape. There will be arbitrary results that will be grossly unfair to people across Australia. Let me give you an example. If you own a farm and drive a four-wheel drive, you can get an exemption on the basis that you are a primary producer. (Extension of time granted) But if you are working as a fencing contractor, an irrigation contractor, a vet surgeon, a subcontractor or a tradie and you turn up to that same farm in an identical four-wheel drive, you will get slugged with the eight per cent additional tax. How is that fair? The primary producer who owns the farm gets a tax exemption but the worker on the farm gets slugged with the additional tax.
It is also entirely inconsistent with the first amendment relating to fuel efficiency, which was introduced by the Greens. The cars that will be exempted under the primary producer and tourism operator exemption are Toyota LandCruisers and vehicles of that type. People should appreciate that Toyota LandCruisers use fuel at double the threshold of the exemption introduced for fuel-efficient cars in the first amendment. On the one hand the government are supporting small European sedans for their apparent fuel efficiency and exempting them from the luxury car tax and, on the other hand, they are exempting, under the primary producers and tourism operators amendment, Toyota LandCruisers, which use fuel at double the threshold of the exemption. It is totally inconsistent. That underscores the dangers of policy on the run.
What we have had presented to us is a complex, complicated and unworkable mess. The bill should never have been introduced into this House. The luxury car tax increases were not revealed to the Australian public before the election. And yet, without notice and without consultation, the government introduces a bill to increase a luxury car tax that exempts European sports cars and the Toyota LandCruisers, driven by farm owners but not farm workers.
If the government wanted to increase taxes on luxury cars—and it has not ruled out increasing taxes on other luxury goods—why wasn’t the luxury car tax referred to the Ken Henry review into the taxation system? It makes a mockery of the government’s intentions of reforming the tax system. It will undermine the efficacy of the Henry review if this tax is just inserted into the system in an ad hoc fashion prior to the deliberations of the Henry review. How is it that the government can impose a tax without consultation—without sending it to its own tax review—yet cannot increase the single age pension by $30 without sending that off to a review that has to report next year and is going to feed into the Henry review? How is it that the government cannot increase the pension by $30 a week until it has sent it to a review that feeds into another review that will not report until the end of 2009, yet was able to get legislation ready and make a decision overnight to introduce an addition to the luxury car tax?
The fact is that this legislation is a travesty, and the government should be condemned for it. They are making pensioners wait months and months and possibly years for the outcome of a review, yet their own Ken Henry review into the taxation system will not look into the luxury car tax. On the basis of the fundamental flaws in this legislation, the coalition will oppose the amendments.
The defenders of privilege over there are being true to form in their opposition to this increase in the luxury car tax. The Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008 was carried by this House and has been the subject of considerable debate in the Senate. Constructive suggestions have been put forward by the Greens, by Senator Xenophon, by Senator Fielding—by everyone except for the coalition, who have dealt themselves out of any constructive contribution to the federal budget. The coalition is determined to blow a $6.2 billion hole in the Rudd government’s budget. This comes at a time of considerable international financial uncertainty.
Under those circumstances, it is absolutely critical that the budget surplus be preserved intact—that the $22 billion which the Rudd government was able to achieve as a budget surplus be supported by both chambers. And it should be supported by both sides of the House. Those opposite suggest various spending measures from time to time, whether they be spending measures for individuals or spending measures for infrastructure. But the fact is that those opposite are determined to defend the people who drive Porsches and can afford to support this tax increase. Those opposite have chosen, by their actions, to exclude themselves from this debate. They have vacated the field when it comes to the debate about responsible economic management. I call upon them to have a close look at the report issued today by the International Monetary Fund. That report gives a great deal of support to the Rudd government’s budget surplus. It gives a great deal of support to the government’s budget strategy.
What those opposite seek to do, because they cannot accept the verdict of the Australian public on 24 November last year, is to deny the government its budget. On Sunday, on the Laurie Oakes program on Channel 9, the Leader of the Opposition was not quite sure whether $6 billion was a small amount or a large amount; he just knew that was the amount of the hole that he wanted to blast in the budget. It is quite extraordinary—and I say this as someone who is not close to the Australian Greens party, as those opposite would know—that the Australian Greens have been more economically responsible during this debate than the coalition, and that is where they are up to.
There are suggestions of opposition to the amendments that have been carried by the Senate. Those amendments have occurred of course because this is the second time that the Senate has considered this legislation. Had the coalition supported it in full, early on without the exemptions, that would be what we would be considering in the House right now—so their hypocrisy knows no bounds. (Extension of time granted) They have ensured that the minor parties have been in a position to negotiate changes to the government’s legislation. Of course governments like to have their legislation carried unamended—that is the basis on which they put bills up—but this government also recognises that there is a legitimate role for constructive discussion. Considering these amendments, we find we have legislation as amended by the Senate that we can certainly support because it is a part of the framework of the Australian government’s budget.
It is unfortunate that the opposition are not prepared to support the government’s $22 billion surplus—instead they want to make a smash-and-grab raid on the surplus—and that they are prepared to stand up for luxury car owners. That is essentially what their position before the House comes down to. They stand condemned for their position on this, just as they stand condemned for their position on the condensate measures and other measures that are before the Senate in terms of the government’s budget.
This government is determined to act responsibly. It is recognised by the business community and by economic commentators that the budget surplus is important. Today we have support for that from the IMF. This government will continue to act in an economically responsible way by supporting measures which, by having a substantial surplus in the short term, will serve to put downward pressure on interest rates and inflation and will provide for the medium-term and long-term objectives of support for our infrastructure.
Question put:
That the requested amendments be made.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill before the parliament is a non-controversial bill. It has the coalition’s support. It is a bill to amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to incorporate into Australian law a protocol amending the agreement between our government and the government of the Republic of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. The protocol itself updates that existing agreement between both of our governments in the respects I have just outlined. It was entered into originally in 1999. The updated protocol, as the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs made clear in his second reading speech, was signed on 31 March this year.
The existing agreement was negotiated and implemented by the previous government and illustrates our longstanding commitment to encouraging foreign investment and opportunities for Australian businesses in overseas markets. The existing agreement contained a most favoured nation obligation within the non-discrimination article, and the article was triggered—I think the minister pointed this out in his speech—by the renegotiated Australia-United Kingdom tax treaty that came into effect in 2003. Departmental negotiations subsequently commenced to protect taxpayers operating in the other country from discriminatory tax practices, and I am optimistic that this updated protocol will encourage foreign investment and provide further opportunities for Australian businesses in overseas markets. Specifically, as has been outlined in the introductory speech, the protocol that this law will give effect to lower withholding tax rates on interest and royalties. This aligns the withholding tax rate limits for royalties and dividends more closely with the OECD practice.
Since the existing agreement was negotiated in 1999, South Africa has changed its domestic tax treatment of corporate profits, and to address this change, as was outlined, the updated protocol provides a five per cent withholding tax rate for all non-portfolio intercorporate dividends. This provision will be beneficial for Australian non-portfolio investors in South Africa. The updated protocol also provides a 15 per cent withholding tax rate for all other dividends. It brings, additionally, capital gains tax treatment into alignment with the OECD model and also introduces some integrity measures to protect and secure revenue. The protocol facilitates increased cooperation between Australian and South African tax authorities with respect to reducing fiscal evasion. South Africa is Australia’s largest trading partner in Africa. In 2007, Australian exports to South Africa were valued at around $2½ billion. South Africa is also the source of a substantial proportion of foreign investment from Africa.
The negotiations for this updated protocol, as I said at the outset, began under the previous government. The bill gives effect to that protocol in this parliament. It has our support and has the bipartisan support of this House. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak in support of the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. I do so because I come from South-East Queensland and about seven per cent of the people who settle in Queensland come from South Africa. Approximately 80,000 South African migrants live in the western suburbs of Brisbane, the greater Brisbane area and through Ipswich and the Lockyer Valley in the Boonah shire, which makes up my electorate of Blair. They are attracted to the area because of the climate, the lifestyle and the attitudes of the Australian people. I regularly go to citizenship ceremonies in my electorate, and almost invariably South Africans make up a huge proportion of the people becoming Australians.
Since World War II we have welcomed about six million people to our shores, and about 4.4 million of them have become Australian citizens. We really are a multicultural society. Our relationship with South Africa has been longstanding and friendly, and it is not just because of our mutual love of cricket, rugby union and soccer. South Africa is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the Cairns Group and a number of other international organisations of which Australia is also a member.
This bill includes provisions to amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to incorporate into Australian law the protocol signed on 31 March 2008 between Australia and South Africa. The protocol amends the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income. This is an important piece of legislation, because in democratic countries where there is a free press and where there are fundamentally sound economies we need to reduce barriers, which will help advance our cultural and economic relationships. South Africa is a regional superpower, both politically and economically. We witnessed that recently with the intervention of the now retired President of South Africa to achieve some sort of political resolution in Zimbabwe.
About 115,000 South African expatriates live in Australia, and about 7,500 Australians reside in South Africa. It is a fact that in 2007 about 97,000 Australian residents visited South Africa. Regardless of which side of politics has occupied the treasury bench, the relationship between South Africa and Australia has been strong. There have been bilateral agreements relating to extradition, in 2001; defence information, in 2001; air services, in 1995; science and technology cooperation, in 2006; and, of course, double taxation, in 1999 and 2008.
The bill seeks to update the taxation arrangements between our countries and in turn reduce barriers to bilateral trade and investment by lowering withholding tax rates on interest and royalties. Central to this bill is our trading relationship. It is positive that our relationship with South Africa is growing. In 2007, two-way merchandise trade was valued at $3.88 billion. Australian imports from South Africa were $1.35 billion and our exports to South Africa were $2.53 billion. They were mainly in coal, meat and civil engineering equipment. The two-way investment flows between our countries have expanded since the end of apartheid, and there have been great political progress and economic development since the dark days of the Afrikaner regime, which emerged in 1948. At the end of 2007, investment from South Africa amounted to $1.2 billion, and Australia’s investment in South Africa was $893 million, principally in mining, agriculture, infrastructure and services.
The protocol updates the taxation arrangements between our two countries and aligns withholding tax rate limits for dividends, interest and royalties and capital gains tax treatment more closely with OECD practice. The protocol further addresses Australia’s most favoured nation obligation in the existing treaty by inserting rules to protect from tax discrimination taxpayers of one country operating in the other country. It also extends the scope of the existing exchange of information provisions to conform to modern OECD standards and introduces measures which provide for cross-border collection of tax debts.
As the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Assistant Treasurer outlined in his second reading speech, ‘Tax discrimination under other countries’ tax systems can be a significant barrier to outbound Australian investment.’ I agree.
The protocol updates the existing Australia-South Africa tax treaty, which was signed in 1999. In accordance with Australia’s most favoured nation obligations under that treaty, the protocol introduces new rules to prevent tax discrimination. These rules are broadly aligned with international tax treaty practice and protect Australian nationals and businesses operating in South Africa and vice versa. The rules are similar to those found in other, recent Australian taxation treaties.
The protocol also amends the withholding tax rates that may be imposed on cross-border dividends, interest and royalties. Under the treaty, dividends, interest and royalties paid from one country—the source country—to a person who is a resident in the other country will generally remain taxable in both countries, but with certain new limits on the tax that the source country may charge on payments to residents of the other country.
The new dividends article provides for a withholding tax rate limit of five per cent for all non-portfolio intercorporate dividends. This will replace the current zero rate for non-portfolio intercorporate dividends paid out of profits that have borne full company tax. A 15 per cent rate applies for all other dividends. These rates are consistent with the OECD model tax convention.
The revision of the non-portfolio intercorporate dividend withholding tax rate was negotiated in the context of the South African government’s announcement of changes to its system of taxing corporate profits in its 2007-08 budget. These changes include the phasing out of the secondary tax on companies, which is not subject to treaty limitations, and the introduction of a dividend tax on shareholders. The implementation of these changes is subject to renegotiation of dividend withholding tax rates by South Africa in several of its tax treaties, including its tax treaty with Australia.
Australian non-portfolio investment in South Africa will generally benefit from reduced total South African tax on corporate profits as a result of these changes. The protocol will not change Australia’s treatment of franked dividends. Franked dividends paid to South African residents will continue to be exempt from withholding tax.
Source country tax on interest will continue to be limited to 10 per cent. However, no tax will be chargeable in the source country on interest derived by the government of the other country from the investment of official reserve assets or by a financial institution resident in the other country. These exemptions are subject to certain safeguards, which exist and assist to discourage tax avoidance. The general limit for royalties will be reduced from 10 to five per cent. The protocol also provides that amounts derived from equipment leasing, including container leasing, will be excluded from the definition of royalty. Such amounts would be treated either as profits from international transport operations or as business profits. Other features include expanding the list of taxes which can be covered; a redefinition of ‘permanent establishment’, including prescribed time limits for the creation of a permanent establishment where an enterprise operates substantial equipment or is engaged in the exploration for, or exploitation of, natural resources; provisions which align capital gains tax treatment more closely with Australian taxation law and OECD practice; Australia’s taxing rights over Australian real property and the business assets of a foreign resident’s Australian permanent establishment be preserved; and improved integrity measures to provide for a more effective exchange of information on a broader range of taxes, including goods and services tax, and to provide for reciprocal assistance in the collection of taxes.
For those of my constituents who are from South Africa and who run small businesses in my electorate, and who deal with South African companies every day—and there are many, from small business operations in the Lockyer Valley through to Ipswich and in the Boonah Shire—this legislation is a great help to them financially. While the legislation sounds unsexy, it has a big financial impact on my constituents and the many South Africans who live in my electorate.
The protocol, the subject of this bill, arose from the need to meet Australia’s most favoured nation obligations in our existing treaty with South Africa. Tax treaties and like international agreements are extremely important in reducing the barriers between countries and improving international cooperation. Those types of treaties, the protocols that we are talking about here today, facilitate and enhance the movement of people, cultural exchange, ideas and capital. They will do that for a country that we have had a long and established cultural history with as part of the Commonwealth of Nations. This is a country that can only be good for us in the future in terms of our relationships. It is a country that we play sport with, which we deal with, which Australians visit and which my constituents do business with. This legislation before the House not only is good for the future economic development of our country but is vital for the future prosperity of the many South Africans who live in my constituency of Blair in South-East Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak in support of the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. This bill gives force of law to the updated tax protocol with South Africa, signed in March this year. The bill amends the existing treaty to ensure that taxpayers of one country operating in the other country do not experience tax discrimination. Of course, this bill is very important to the 12,000 to 13,000 South African immigrants that come here each year, permanently or temporarily. Overwhelmingly they stay, and for good reasons. I understand that around 75,000 South Africans permanently relocated to Australia between 1995 and 2005. This reflects the Howard government’s commitment to reducing the skills shortage. I also understand that the number of South Africans migrating to Australia last year rose by 10 per cent but still fell short of the 35 per cent increase from the highs established in 2002 and 2003. Last year, 4,293 South Africans successfully applied for permanent residency in Australia, compared to 3,895 the previous year. In 2002, the number soared to 6,538. For two years prior to that, the number topped 6,000. These numbers include 1,395 primary applicants for visas and almost 3,000 members of their families and dependants.
During 2006-07, South Africa was the sixth place for country of origin, with almost 4,000 South Africans migrating to Australia during this period. Australia has recently increased the numbers of places allocated for skilled migrants by 31,000 for the 2008-09 financial year to a total of 133,500 places. This represents a 30 per cent increase from the previous year’s intake. South Africans represent only a small fraction of Australia’s overall migration numbers, however. South Africans make up less than five per cent of the total of new migrants coming under the skilled migration program. By contrast, 25 per cent come from the UK, 16 per cent from India and 15 per cent from China. Clearly, by the interest shown in migration to this country, there is a great affinity between South Africans and Australia. I, for one, welcome the contribution made by South Africans to the great state of Western Australia and particularly within my electorate of Cowan.
I would like to take the opportunity to focus on a particular group of South African people who have migrated to Australia and made their homes in and around the suburb of Noranda in the south-east of Cowan. This bill will be of benefit to them. I refer to the members of the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation. Twenty-one years ago a group of Jewish South Africans determined that they no longer wished to live under the apartheid regime in South Africa. As we all know, Jewish people have suffered through the ages because of their beliefs and faith. The state of Israel has been effectively under siege and the target of terrorism for every year of its modern period since 1948. Given the persecution, it is little wonder that Jewish people are rightly sensitive to such regimes as existed at that time in South Africa.
It was, however, Australia that benefited from their departure, and Perth in particular. There are about 250 families that are members of the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation, with around 220 being originally from South Africa. In looking over the congregation’s website, the historical link to South Africa is abundantly clear. There is even a list of congregation members and where they had their bar mitzvahs, the majority being in South African synagogues. As I said, the majority came to Perth 21 years ago with nothing. They could not take their assets with them and so they started in Australia with nothing. Like every person from South Africa that I have met, they are grateful to be here and are all now Australians. In recent years, more South Africans have come to Perth and joined the congregation. This later group have welcomed the move to Australia, like so many other South Africans, because they have escaped the crime and violence that afflicts that country so tragically.
When the majority arrived 21 years ago, for the first five years they had no rabbi, yet they still gathered to worship and they generated great community strength. They were also well supported by the City of Bayswater, which rezoned land to allow the construction of Noranda Shul in Garside Court, within my electorate. Spiritually, the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation is now principally looked after by Rabbi Larry Brown. I was at his inauguration on 13 July this year. Apart from Rabbi Brown, the congregation also has amongst its membership Rabbi Chaim Davidowitz and Rabbi Shalom Coleman. Both these Rabbis have served the congregation for many years. I would like to comment on the positive leadership of Rabbi Coleman. Although he was born in England, he did serve as a rabbi in South Africa. In preparing for this debate, I had a long look at the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation’s website. I saw on the website a picture of Rabbi Coleman from the Bloemfontein Synagogue’s golden jubilee in 1953. He was at that time the chief minister. Therefore, although Rabbi Coleman was born in England he forms an important part of the South African heritage for the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation.
I also remember when Rabbi Coleman thanked the former Minister for Foreign Affairs after a visit before the election last year. As I recall, Rabbi Coleman spoke about the support provided by Mr Downer and the coalition government for Israel and Jewish people. Apart from the traditional strong and unequivocal support for Israel and Jewish people in Australia always provided by the coalition, last year there was also direct support provided by the former government. This was in the form of a National Community Crime Prevention Program grant of $43,000 to assist in the security arrangements at Noranda Shul. I was informed yesterday that work on a security wall is progressing as we speak.
Apart from spiritual guidance, leadership at the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation is also provided by the president, Mr Ivan Cohen. He is ably assisted by his vice-presidents, Mr Shalom Hadassin and Charles Fridlender. Although the members of the congregation make great contributions to the Perth community, I would like to just pick out Mr Charles Fridlender as an example of such a contribution to the economy of Perth. Mr Fridlender runs Wavtech, a company that won a Telstra Business Ideas grant in 2001 and a Water Industry Award in 2002. Mr Charles Fridlender is the employer of a number of local people and he contributes towards industry and business in the Osmond Park area, which is outside of my electorate. He has certainly been hardworking and a great advocate. He is a person who has greatly contributed to the economy of Perth and Western Australia.
Before closing, I would also like to mention another South African, who is not actually a member of the Hebrew congregation and is not Jewish. Mr Michael Sutherland was recently elected as the new state member for Mount Lawley. Mr Sutherland brings a wealth of experience from his time as Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Perth. I welcome his entry into state parliament and the work that he will do. He is a great advocate for South Africans and people of South African origin. In summing up, I know that for all South Africans and for people of South African origin, this bill will be of great benefit. It will allow them more certainty in the future for their business dealings and I know that it will be welcomed by all people of South African origin and South Africans who operate in Western Australia. I commend the bill and the efforts of South African people within Cowan and within Perth.
I rise in support of the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and to add my comments to the debate, having listened to the member for Cowan and his comments in relation to the large proportion of South Africans that account for his constituency. Whilst obviously it is important for those people, I think that we should acknowledge that this is a big issue in terms of trade more generally for Australia and really does go a long way towards augmenting the very strong bilateral trade relationship that Australia and the Republic of South Africa have.
The bill essentially incorporates into Australian law the protocol amending the double tax agreement that is currently in place between Australia and the Republic of South Africa. That agreement is the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, and Protocol of 1999. The protocol makes a number of amendments and has in large part been triggered by the most favoured nation status clause that exists within the existing double tax agreement between the two countries. In 2003 when Australia entered into the double tax agreement with the United Kingdom—which is the Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains—the most favoured nation status clause within our double tax agreement with the Republic of South Africa required us to take action to update that agreement with South Africa to ensure that comparable terms were passed on to South Africa. The protocol implements a number of technical amendments.
It is worth reflecting on the significance of Australia’s relationship with South Africa. South Africa is Australia’s largest trading partner in Africa. It is our 21st largest trading partner. In 2007, South African investment in Australia was $1.2 billion and Australian investment in South Africa was approximately $893 million. We are a net trade exporter to South Africa. Australia is ranked 12th on the list of South Africa’s principal export destinations, and Australia is the 16th largest exporter of goods and services to South Africa. South Africa has a population of around 47 million people. We have strong bilateral ties with South Africa, and these are evidenced in some of the other bilateral agreements that the two countries have entered into. They include conventions and agreements that relate to extradition, defence information, air services and science and technology. So it is a significant relationship, and the significance is recognised through the existence of the most favoured nation obligation within the double tax agreement.
In considering the impact of the changes, it is worth reflecting on what a double tax agreement is and what the effect of implementing a double tax agreement is—or, in this case, an amendment through the protocol to the double tax agreement. Double tax agreements are entered into by the contracting states and they set out the means by which each of those contracting states is to tax gains that occur either in respect of their residents or in respect of activities that have a source that relates to their jurisdiction. Obviously in a global economy, where flows of money, investment and capital are occurring across borders on not only a daily basis but a minute by minute basis, it is important to avoid double taxation. Individuals, corporations and entities right across the globe would be discouraged from investing in other nations if their productive efforts were to be taxed not only in the country where that gain was to be sourced but also back in their resident country. That would lead to a situation of double taxation. Where the two contracting states have met their obligations in relation to integrity—the integrity of their tax systems, the integrity of the systems that allow for an appropriate flow of information and an exchange of information to combat some of the practices of tax avoidance that might exist—countries come together and seek to allocate taxation rights to ensure that the principle that one should not be double taxed is, at least in general terms, upheld.
This protocol makes a number of specific technical changes that go a long way towards addressing those particular issues. I note that one of the key elements of the protocol is to update the provisions in relation to the prevention of tax discrimination. The protocol introduces new rules in this regard. They broadly align with the international tax treaty practice and protect Australian nationals and businesses operating in South Africa—and vice versa. It is a measure designed to ensure some freedom of investment between the two countries.
In respect of dividends, I note that there are some changes brought about as a result of article 5 of the protocol, which, in effect, substitutes new provisions in article 10 of the original double tax agreement. The new dividends article provides for a withholding tax rate limit of five per cent for all non-portfolio intercorporate dividends. That replaces the existing zero rate for non-portfolio intercorporate dividends where those dividends are paid out of profits that have already borne the full rate of company tax. A 15 per cent rate applies for all other dividends.
It is important to note that these measures really do bring about some harmonisation with the OECD model tax convention. The changes that have been made in respect of non-portfolio intercorporate dividends, and the withholding tax rate that is applicable therein, were negotiated in the context of the South African government’s recent announcement, in their 2007-08 budget, of changes that they are making to their system of taxing corporate profits. These changes include the phasing out of the secondary tax on companies, which is not subject to treaty limitations, and they will be introducing a new dividend tax on shareholders. The implementation of these changes to domestic South African law is subject to the renegotiation of dividend withholding tax rates by South Africa in several of its tax treaties. In particular, that involves the tax treaty that exists with Australia.
Australian non-portfolio investment in South Africa will benefit; I think we will benefit greatly from the reduced total South African tax on corporate profits which will be brought about as a result of these measures. Franked dividends paid to South African residents will continue to be exempt from withholding tax, which is standard practice right across the international tax arena.
In terms of interest, article 6 of the protocol, which effectively amends article 11 of the double tax agreement, relates to the taxation of interest. Source country tax on interest will continue to be limited to 10 per cent. However, importantly, there have been some changes that ensure that no tax will be chargeable in the source country on the interest derived by the government of the other country or from the investment of official reserve assets or financial institutions resident in the other country. This is a particular exemption that is commonplace in some of the other more recent double tax agreements that Australia has entered into. Those exemptions will, of course, be subject to safeguards to discourage tax avoidance.
The general limit for royalties—perhaps the most typical example of those payments is payments in respect of the granting of intellectual property rights—will be reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent. The protocol provides that amounts derived from equipment leasing, including container leasing, will be excluded from the royalty definition. These amounts will either be treated as profits from the international transport operations article or under the business profits article.
In addition to these measures, the protocol also contains an expanded list of taxes. It contains a refined definition of ‘permanent establishment’. It contains provisions which align capital gains tax treatment more closely with Australian law and the OECD practice. Significantly, improved integrity measures are contained within the protocol to provide for a more effective exchange of information on a broader range of taxes, including the goods and services tax. I note that this particular agreement was entered into prior to the implementation of the goods and services tax in Australia. This is a standard measure that is being introduced into all of our renegotiated tax agreements.
That is a summary of some of the key elements, in a technical sense, that will be implemented by the incorporation of the protocol into Australian law. It is worth noting that this particular agreement has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and the committee has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. In the course of its deliberations the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties engaged in a fairly extensive process of consultation. I note from the national interest analysis that has been prepared in respect of this agreement that Treasury sought comments from the business community regarding issues that might be raised during the negotiations with South Africa. That involved consultations with the Tax Treaties Advisory Panel which, of course, includes members such as the Business Council of Australia, CPA Australia, the Corporate Tax Association, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the International Fiscal Association, the Investment and Financial Services Association, the Law Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Taxation Institute of Australia. In addition to that, there has been consultation with the state and territory governments through the Commonwealth-State Standing Committee on Treaties. So there has been extensive consultation.
I would like to turn to the broader issue of withholding taxes and comment also on some of the developments in relation to this government’s efforts to establish Australia as a financial services hub. It is important to understand conceptually what withholding tax is. We have double taxation agreements which seek to allocate taxation rights but, notwithstanding the particular provisions of any double tax agreement, where income is derived in a country that is not the country of residence of the particular individual or entity that is deriving that gain, it is commonplace throughout the tax world for the source country to seek a share of the income tax that might be secured by the government in respect of those gains. The easiest way to do that is to impose a withholding tax.
I note the recent comments of the shadow Treasurer on some of the other measures that this government has pursued in relation to very significant reductions in withholding tax rates and distributions from managed investment trusts. In responding to the Treasurer’s ministerial statement earlier this week, the new shadow Treasurer made the following statement:
It is symptomatic of a government that … says it wants to promote Australia as a financial services hub and then reduces withholding tax for foreigners.
Implicit in that quote is the notion that there is some contradiction between the two propositions—proposition A being to try and secure a place for ourselves as a financial services hub, and proposition B being a desire to reduce withholding taxes. I cannot for the life of me see where the contradiction exists. There is no such contradiction. In fact, if you were looking for tangible ways to attract greater investment to this country, one of the key means would be to reduce withholding taxes. That has been universally acknowledged right throughout the financial services sector.
The first plank of the financial services hub initiatives was the reduction in withholding tax rates, which was implemented as a result of legislation that passed through the parliament earlier this year. This government has taken the existing rate of 30 per cent—one of the highest withholding tax rates in the world in respect of managed investment trust distributions—and is in the process of implementing a staged set of reductions which will ultimately reduce that withholding tax rate to 7.5 per cent in future years. It will be reduced to 22.5 per cent in the 2008-09 year and to 15 per cent in the 2009-10 year. In that year it will be a final withholding tax, as opposed to a non-final one. In future years we foresee reductions down to 7.5 per cent.
The significance of these measures cannot be underestimated, because they send a very clear message to international capital that Australia is a very favourable destination in which they may choose to invest. One of the strongest signals that we can send is the taxation regime that is in existence. If we combine that measure with the continued revision of our double tax agreements, of which the incorporation of this protocol forms an integral part, we see that the government is very much committed to ensuring that the taxation requirements that are imposed domestically, but also those that have effect on international investors, will create a regime that will attract as much investment in Australia as possible.
We have here before the House a very significant example of Australia’s bilateral relationship with South Africa. It is a relationship that we value, and by implementing this protocol we are making good on the most favoured nation obligations contained within the double tax agreement. I commend the bill to the House.
The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 will modernise and enhance the bilateral tax arrangements between Australia and South Africa. Furthermore, this bill will be a part of our commitment to refocus Australia’s trade policy to help lay the foundations for our future prosperity. This will be a new tax protocol, building on the existing Australia-South Africa tax agreement which we entered into in 1999. Through the ratification of this bill, Australia will maintain its most favoured nation obligation in the existing treaty whilst accommodating changes to South Africa’s domestic laws.
Australia’s relationship with South Africa is well founded and continues to strengthen. This bilateral agreement on the double taxation mitigation strengthens a relationship that is framed through a number of other agreements that Australia maintains with South Africa. These agreements include the air services agreement, the agreement covering extradition, the defence information agreement and the science and technology cooperation agreement. Both countries are also collaborating on a range of projects relating to climate change, through the Australia-South Africa Climate Change Partnership. Australia and South Africa also have a history of cooperation across a number of international forums. Most importantly of late, Australia and South Africa have continued to play a key role in setting the agenda for multilateral agricultural negotiations and pressing the World Trade Organisation membership to meet its full, far-reaching mandate to set World Trade Organisation arrangements through the Doha Round of trade negotiations.
South Africa is Australia’s largest trading partner in Africa. In 2007, two-way merchandise trade was $3.88 billion. This represents a significant slice of Australia’s total trade with sub-Saharan Africa, which in 2007 was $5.22 billion. This is a very significant relationship. It is imperative that, with any nation that we have a significant relationship with, we have well-structured and current policy frameworks to nurture and foster those relationships. With domestic changes there is a carry-on effect in bilateral agreements. These changes need to be addressed promptly to maintain the nature of agreements and provide ongoing support and security in the area of trade and investment. In reviewing the policy frameworks to incorporate domestic changes, there is an opportunity to mitigate problems such as double taxation and prevent fiscal invasion in relation to income flowing between Australia and South Africa. Tax discrimination in other countries’ tax systems can be a significant barrier to Australian investment opportunities. Through this agreement, the prevention of discriminatory tax practices is enacted and the provision of non-discriminatory articles addresses the most favoured nation obligation that we currently have.
The bilateral economic and trade relations between Australia and South Africa continue to grow. South Africa is Australia’s largest and most dynamic market in Africa, and South African investment dominates investment from the African continent to Australia. Importantly, whilst this bill brings the fiscal bilateral agreement with South Africa up to speed, it also brings closer alignment with the standards set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Provisions within the new protocol include a five per cent rate for all non-portfolio incorporated dividends, a 15 per cent rate for all other dividends and an amendment to the withholding tax rates applying to those dividends. Australian non-portfolio investment in South Africa will generally benefit from reduced total South African tax on corporate profits as a result of these changes.
In responding to the needs of both Australian and South African business and ensuring the protection of Australia’s revenue base, the new protocol includes a number of other key changes. The new protocol updates the capital gains treatment so that it aligns more closely with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development norms to assist trade and investment flows between the two countries. The new protocol modernises the exchange of information provisions to conform to the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation standards that currently exist. This allows the tax administrators of both countries to share tax information. The new protocol also introduces integrity measures which will provide for the cross-border collection of tax debts. Australian non-portfolio investment in South Africa will generally benefit from a reduced South African tax on total corporate profits as a result of these changes.
The treaty has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which has recommended that binding treaty action is to be taken. By preventing tax discrimination and providing certainty in the tax treatment of cross-border income flows, there is a reduction in compliance burdens on taxpayers. Australia is meeting the challenges proposed in the changes to South African domestic fiscal laws. Australia must also rise to conform to current international standards. This is sound economic practice.
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Corangamite will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Treasurer’s comments in this place yesterday:
… there is a need for very substantial action when it comes to the base rate of the pension.
Why won’t the government do something now, right now, for the pensioners who deserve that action?
I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that in the May budget the government did act to assist Australian pensioners. In the May budget the government did act to increase the utilities allowance and provide a $500 cash bonus for age pensioners. As the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, made clear in the parliament yesterday, pensioners are receiving, as this parliament sits in this period, indexation for a single pensioner of $15.30 per week and $128 from the new utilities allowance. The government provided these additional payments because we recognised that it is very tough for Australia’s pensioners. These were new arrangements not provided by the previous government: the increased utilities allowance and the $500 cash bonus provided in this government’s budget in May.
As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, there is a comprehensive review being undertaken of the age pension. The opposition indicated when this matter was before a Senate committee that it understood the need for a review in this area. I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition, as was dealt with in this House yesterday, that the proposition that the Leader of the Opposition put before this parliament would not have addressed the needs of two million pensioners, including carers, couples and people with disabilities. It would have even failed to include 13,000 single carers and disability pensioners who are over age pension age. There was no indexation of the $30 and there was no understanding of the way in which a variation like this relates to other changes in payments to pensioners.
The government is getting on with the job of delivering practical measures to help Australian pensioners now. The government is engaged in a comprehensive review of the circumstances of Australian pensioners and our pension system. The government has made that perfectly clear. The government will respond when that review is completed.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister outline the need for responsible economic management to see Australia through these difficult global economic times?
As members of this parliament are well aware, and as many Australians are thinking and talking about, we confront the most difficult global economic circumstances in a quarter of a century. We have seen major falls in the United States stock market. Global stock markets have fallen by more than 20 per cent since the recent round of instability began and markets continue to be volatile. Overnight the US Treasury Secretary testified before the Senate Banking Committee. He urged support for the US government’s plan for major financial institutions and he stated that, to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets that threaten American families’ financial wellbeing, the viability of businesses, both small and large, and the very health of our economy, the measures taken in the US were necessary.
The US Federal Reserve chairman also noted overnight that difficult conditions are likely to persist. He said:
Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress.
These are difficult circumstances, but it is important to understand that this nation is better placed than most countries to deal with this turmoil. We have a strong, well-regulated banking sector. Australian businesses are continuing to undertake record levels of investment. We have taken further steps to strengthen Australia’s financial markets and we have built a strong surplus, which we need more than ever as a buffer to help withstand these challenges.
The Treasurer and I today commented on the release of the most recent International Monetary Fund report on this country’s circumstances. It noted that this country does have a prudent fiscal policy and it noted, with approval, the budget surplus settings of the government. It also noted the well-regulated nature of our financial markets and it welcomed the government’s major reform agenda working through the Council of Australian Governments to achieve profound reforms that will make a difference for this nation’s future. Intergovernmental agreements can be complex, but for Australians this is about better schools, better hospitals, a national approach to climate change, a national approach to homelessness, working together to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage for Indigenous Australians and working together for a seamless national economy. These are the major issues of our time, and we are working to bring this profound round of reform to this country.
The government is also working through the Senate to deliver its budget. And, of course, in delivering that budget—in delivering that all-important surplus—we continue to face obstruction and economic vandalism from the Liberal Party. It seems even with a new leader the Liberal Party is intent on derailing the government’s fiscal policy direction. To take one example of this—though, of course, we have heard of many—the position of the Liberal Party on the Medicare levy surcharge shows just how out of touch it is with the needs of this nation to deliver a budget surplus and just how out of touch it is with Australians. This is a measure that would provide 330,000 Australians with up to $1,500 in tax relief per year—a tax cut for those working Australians—and the Liberal Party is standing in the way of it.
Mr Turnbull interjecting
And the Leader of the Opposition has just confirmed that he is standing in the way of a tax cut for 330,000 Australians. Can I say to the Leader of the Liberal Party, now known in this House as the Merchant of Venice: that is a pound of flesh, and he should consider the circumstances of those Australians. Rather than continue to reaffirm that he will stand in the way of that tax cut, he should do something for working Australians and enable them to get that $1,500.
Order! I remind the Acting Prime Minister and all members that members will be referred to in this place by their titles.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Cook Islands led by the Speaker of the Parliament, the Hon. Mapu Taia. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that internal government documents reveal that the government considered and rejected a $30 a week increase in the base rate of the pension in April this year, does the Acting Prime Minister stand by the government’s description of an extra $30 a week as a ‘stunt’ and a ‘ploy’? Acting Prime Minister, who is engaged in hypocrisy now?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Firstly, can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the document which I take him to be referring to—a document that has been in the media—is not a document that can be characterised in the way that he has characterised it. This is a document which summarised stakeholder views. Yes, there were a variety of views, and we know that there are pensioner organisations pushing for an increase in the base rate of the pension. None of that is new. This is a document that canvassed stakeholder views and a document that concluded that this was a complex matter and required a comprehensive and thorough-going review.
On the question of hypocrisy, which I have been invited to comment upon, can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is for him to explain to the Australian people why he ruled out an increase in the base rate of the pension as Liberal Party policy in May this year only now to engage in the questioning that he is engaging in in this parliament—a fundamental shift in the Leader of the Opposition’s position from May this year until he assumed the opposition leader’s chair. We know of course that, when he was shadow Treasurer, he ruled out the very policy he now says that he stands for.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the conclusions of today’s International Monetary Fund assessment of Australia’s economy and financial institutions?
I thank the member for Solomon for his question. We did receive the IMF report early this morning. It is a report card on the resilience of the Australian economy—a good report card on the government’s plans for it. Like the government, the IMF is saying that we can expect some slowing as a result of the fallout from the global financial crisis. But the report also adds weight to the government’s view that, whilst we are not immune from global difficulties, we are certainly well placed to withstand the fallout. If I could just quote from the IMF report, this is what the IMF executive directors have said about Australia’s strength through responsible economic management:
Looking ahead, Directors considered that the sound macroeconomic framework should permit Australia to weather the global downturn and to contain inflationary pressures.
The IMF report also went on to give the government’s reform effort a very, very big tick. The report strongly commends the government’s budget—
Opposition members interjecting—
No, it does not. Unfortunately for those opposite, it does no such thing. Until they put up their hands over there for inflation at 16-year highs, they cannot claim any of the credit. They can claim no credit whatsoever. This is what the IMF had to say on the economic settings of the May budget:
Saving some of the revenue from the commodity price boom in three new funds will take pressure off monetary policy in the near term and enable increased … investment over the medium term.
That is what they had to say about our investment funds. The IMF go to great lengths to point out that capacity constraints in the Australian economy have been responsible for inflationary pressures and, because they were left unattended for so long by those opposite, the result was inflationary pressures in the economy. That is why the IMF have given the government a very big tick for attending to those inflationary pressures and for expanding the productivity capacity of the Australian economy. They went on to say this about the agenda:
… if implemented fully, the broad reform agenda should enhance the flexibility of the economy and lift productivity and labour force participation.
They also went on to talk about the quality of Australia’s banking and regulatory systems, and I quote again:
The banking sector is sound with stable profits, high capitalization, and few nonperforming loans.
On this side of the House we do welcome the IMF’s assessment, and we cannot understand why it is not welcomed by those opposite. Those opposite have been walking around talking about bipartisanship. You would have thought that they would be supporting a responsible surplus if they wanted to be bipartisan. They would not be up in the Senate vandalising the surplus; they would be getting behind the government and they would be getting behind our surplus and they would be voting for it in the Senate. So, on one hand, the phoneys over there want to argue that they are responsible and that they want to be bipartisan and, on the other hand, they vandalise a surplus which is absolutely essential for Australia at a time of global uncertainty.
We certainly do welcome this report, its support for our long-term agenda, its support for our reform agenda in education, infrastructure, business deregulation, climate change and tax. This government is doing everything it possibly can to keep striking a responsible balance between relief for families, support for pensioners and the long-term investment future of this country. There is only one thing that stands in the way of that: the vandalism of the Liberal and National parties up there in the Senate. It is about time we had some responsible behaviour from those opposite. Until they behave responsibly, all of their protestations about standing for responsible management are as phoney as their support for pensioners.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Does the government believe that over 70,000 veterans who fought for our country and 700 widow B pensioners whose husbands made the ultimate sacrifice are not worth a $30-a-week increase in their pensions to offset the rising cost of living?
There is a certain aspect of this question which the opposition has once again got wrong. The figure of 70,000 single-service pensioners the shadow minister has referred to actually takes into account a number of different groups. In fact, if we go to veterans who are single service pensioners, only around 35,000 are included in the definitions that the opposition sought to put forward in their motion. Some 28,000 of that figure of 70,000 are in fact on partner service pensions. They are overwhelmingly the widows of veterans who had qualifying service and who have of course passed away. They do not qualify as war widows. The definition put forward in the proposal by the opposition specifically excluded them, because it referred to veterans only.
This government, in its policy when in opposition, led the way for the then government to address issues with respect to the maintenance of the incomes of our most disabled veterans. This government, both in opposition and in government, has led the way to address some of those longstanding issues. There is more to do, and the government has made it very clear that there is. But the fact of the matter is this: the opposition put forward the figure of 70,000 single service pensioners but, when you go to the detail of what they proposed, they are only covering half of that number. Once again, they have left out thousands and thousands in a rush to put forward a policy option which does not deal with the inherent problems that they say they are dealing with. Once again, they have missed the point.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. What challenges face the Australian financial services sector? Does the current situation present any opportunities for the sector, and what is the government doing to harness those opportunities?
All members of the House would be aware of the turbulence that has convulsed world financial markets throughout the course of this year. One of the world’s oldest investment banks has filed for bankruptcy, the US government has tipped billions of dollars into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the world’s largest insurer has been nationalised by the United States government and, across the United States and Europe, markets continue to suffer unprecedented turmoil.
A key challenge for the government and for our independent regulators is to remain vigilant in the face of these overseas events. Our prudential regulation is amongst the best in the world, as was recognised by the IMF overnight. So we are well armed, but we are not bulletproof in this turbulence around the world. But even in adversity there can be opportunity. In these troubling financial times there will be opportunities for Australia. In these turbulent times investors will be looking for a safe place in which to invest their funds, and Australia fits the bill. That is why the government continues to take concrete steps to transform Australia into an international financial services hub. It is a government priority to make Australia a leading financial centre in Asia.
Tomorrow I will be introducing legislation into the House to reform the way the tax act deals with managed funds—an important step in promoting Australia as a financial services centre. Of course, these changes all flow from our reduction in the withholding tax on budget night—a very important reform that has been widely welcomed. I would have thought it would be something that would be welcomed on both sides of the House, but unfortunately that is not the case.
I am asked to report on challenges to the financial sector, and one of the challenges is the shadow Treasurer’s complete lack of understanding of economics. The Treasurer has informed the House of some fundamental errors by the shadow Treasurer, and it is with a heavy heart that I have to report yet another error by the shadow Treasurer. In her now infamous speech on Monday, she said this at the dispatch box:
It is symptomatic of a government that is unsure of where to go or how far to go. This is a government that says it wants to promote Australia as a financial services hub and then reduces withholding tax for foreigners.
I even checked the Hansard this morning and it is still there. Sometimes mistakes can tragically disappear from the Hansard but this one is still there. She came in in full flight, the Wall Street Journal in one hand and a pair of scissors in the other, and off she went to launch an attack on our withholding tax policy. This is an initiative which has been widely welcomed across the financial services sector. Stephen Dunne, the managing director of AMP Capital Investors, said:
Reducing the withholding tax for foreign—
investors—
… will strengthen Australia’s competitiveness as an … investment centre.
Mr Keenan interjecting
Order! The member for Stirling!
The Investment—
Mr Keenan interjecting
Order! The member for Stirling!
and Financial Services Association said:
It sends a very positive signal to the financial services sector and will enhance our industry in the Asia Pacific region.
Mr Keenan interjecting
Order! The member for Stirling!
It said:
It will … encourage more young people to enter the industry.
Mr Keenan interjecting
Order! The member for Stirling is warned!
Cutting the withholding tax rate is an integral part of our strategy to promote Australia as a financial services hub. The shadow Treasurer completely lacks understanding. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer may attempt to blame the Leader of the Opposition, like she has this morning on the other little mistake in the same speech, the other little mistake which saw her cut and paste from the Wall Street Journal into the Hansard of this parliament. The policy of the shadow Treasurer appears to be: if you tax them they will come. That is the investment policy of those opposite: if you tax them they will come. Yet again we dip our hand into Bishop’s bag of blunders and out comes another gem. It is just as well that the shadow Treasurer is not a baseball player, because she would have found out on day 1 that it is three strikes and you’re out.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to a speech by the Assistant Treasurer published on the Assistant Treasurer’s website on the issue of the Treasury bond market and dated 4 June 2008. I also refer to a speech by the Treasurer given in this House on 18 June 2008. Given that the Treasurer’s speech contains eight paragraphs lifted directly from the speech of the Assistant Treasurer—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will go to her question.
I ask—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can conclude her question when the House comes to order.
Mr Speaker, I ask: who is the Treasurer and who is the assistant?
I do thank her for that question. Madam, it would be hardly surprising that the Assistant Treasurer and I would say the same things. We are members of the same government. I was not aware that you had moved countries and taken up residence in the United States. Now we have—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order.
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, I do know that you need a distraction because there has been a lot of action happening today. I would just like to quote from the Australian online today:
… the offending paragraphs of background were provided for her speech from the leader’s office.
Is that true? Who provided it? It says provided ‘from the leader’s office’. It continues:
Ms Bishop was understood to be “ropeable” about the error but willing to take the public flak rather than blame others.
The blame game is everywhere on that side of the House today. She has been caught out. She has got no excuse for it.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why are changes to the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds necessary?
I thank the member for his question. Obviously I informed the House yesterday of a changed proposal that is being put to the Senate when there is a debate on the Medicare levy surcharge. We have of course been encouraging senators to support this proposal. But I noticed that the new shadow minister for health, the member for Dickson, came out of the blocks very fast yesterday to say that this was outrageous and a proposal that he would not support.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to comments made by the new shadow minister for health in August 2006, when, as the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Dutton revealed the numbers of taxpayers who were being hit by the Medicare levy surcharge and revealed that they had doubled since the introduction of the measure in 1997. This was not a passing comment; this was a detailed answer to a question on notice. The member for Dickson, the new health spokesperson for the opposition, conceded that in 1997, when this measure was first introduced, 167,000 people were paying this tax and by 2001 198,000 people were paying this tax and by 2002 it was 235,000 people—and it was very good of the member for Dickson at the time to take the House through these numbers—next it was 282,000 and, by 2004, it was up to 362,000. As we know from other tax office figures, by 2005-06 there were 465,000 Australians paying a tax because the previous Howard government was too lazy to change the tax thresholds. So we know there is an opportunity for the member for Dickson, the new health spokesperson, and the new Leader of the Opposition to note ‘Rudd’s $1,200 health savings’ as headlined by the Daily Telegraph, which I am holding.
The opposition has a choice: do they want to support $1,200 in tax relief for many average working families or are they going to keep opposing this measure? When the new Leader of the Opposition made his first speech after having become the Leader of the Opposition, he told his first press conference:
I know what it is like to be very short of money. … I know Australians are doing it tough and some Australians, even in the years of greatest prosperity, will always do it tough.
The Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity now to provide relief to those very many families who are doing it tough. He can direct his senators in the other place to vote for this measure, and 330,000 people will immediately benefit from it. It is time for the opposition to stand up and say whether they are for tax relief or not. Is the Liberal Party any longer a party that supports tax relief or not? There will be an opportunity to vote for this in the Senate today, tomorrow or in the coming days, and the Leader of the Opposition and the new shadow minister for health and ageing can provide that relief to 330,000 people. They should do it now.
My question goes to the Minister for Health and Ageing and follows her previous comment. Given the government’s revised Medicare levy surcharge thresholds, will the minister inform the House how much private health insurance premiums will increase as a result of these changes? How many people—in particular, how many of the 360,000 older Australians with private health insurance earning less than $30,000 a year—are now expected to drop out of private health insurance and move into the public health system?
I am particularly pleased to answer this question, and I congratulate the member on his new position. I have to draw the line at being asked a question of great concern for our public hospital system. If I recall correctly—maybe people on this side of the House will be able to help me here: which government was it that pulled a billion dollars out of our public hospital system? It was the opposition. And which government—
Mr Speaker, on relevance: a past minister who told the parliament the truth is entitled to a detailed answer. But I bet she hasn’t got it; it is just more pensioner-bashing!
The member for O’Connor will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for O’Connor then left the chamber.
As I was asking: which government is it that in the first nine months of coming to office has put an extra billion dollars into our public hospital system, $600 million into elective surgery and millions of dollars into nursing—all issues ignored by the previous government? What I am sure the new shadow minister is aware of is that private health insurers do make requests to government to increase their premiums each year. That premium round is due at the end of the year. They start putting in their submissions to PHIAC and others, the actuarial studies are done and, by February or so, we will be asked to approve those premium increases. I have made it absolutely clear that I will take a very dim view of any insurers who think that adjusting—
Mr Hockey interjecting
Order! The minister is answering the question.
I am trying to answer the question. I am not particularly being provided with the opportunity by those opposite. We know that, when it comes to private health insurance and investment in our public hospitals, those opposite always want to go for the cheap line. They never want to look at the actual statistics. They never want to look at the actual detail. They do not care about the working families who would get tax relief through this measure. They do not want to have an explanation of the premium round increases.
How much will they rise by? Answer the question!
The member for Dickson has asked the question. The minister has the call.
If the shadow minister—
Answer the question!
The member for Dickson is warned!
I wonder whether, if I speak slowly enough, he will get thrown out. It seems like he is going to approach being the shadow minister as someone who just wants to interrupt and never wants to actually hear the answer to the question. As the shadow minister knows, the premium round will be dealt with in the new year. We have made very clear that we will take a dim view of private health insurance funds who think that a tax whack for working families is an excuse to try to jack up their premiums. We will take a very dim view of that and we have put them on notice of that. But, if we want to look back at the premium rises that occurred under the previous government year after year after year so those who were in private health insurance paid more and more and more, courtesy of premiums always ticked and flicked by the previous government, he can go back and look at those figures.
Of course it would not be appropriate for me to predict what applications private health insurers will make to the government. It is a matter for them. It is a matter for us then to assess. It would not be appropriate for us to try to make some estimate today, as the shadow minister well knows.
My question is to the Minister for Trade. What do the Mortimer report and the report of the International Monetary Fund tell us about Australia’s trade performance? Is the minister aware of any recent statements in relation to Australia’s trade performance?
I thank the honourable member for his question and I know that the member understands the fundamental importance to his electorate and to the nation of lifting our export performance. The Mortimer report and the IMF report both have a pretty simple message: first, that trade is essential for jobs and economic growth. Both reports then go on to say that we have to lift our export performance. Mortimer says that if we do not lift our exports foreign lenders will not keep servicing our ballooning foreign debt, and the IMF report says that unless we lift our exports our current account deficit just cannot be sustained.
I am also asked what Mortimer has to say about our recent trade performance. He gives it a damning scorecard in terms of the previous government’s performance. It failed on export growth. Since 2001, the export volume growth rate has fallen to a quarter of that in the 1990s. It failed on productivity growth, achieving zero productivity growth in 2007, after productivity grew rapidly in the 1990s. And it also failed on infrastructure investment, which, according to Mortimer, substantially limited export volumes and competitiveness. That is the reason that the previous government recorded 72 consecutive months of trade deficits. No government in the history of this nation has done as poorly as that. So far as Mortimer is concerned, two-thirds of our cumulative trade deficit, $92 billion worth, was incurred in the last five years of the previous government—and it managed that performance despite the resources boom.
I am also asked if there are any recent statements on our trade performance. Well, there are. They were made the other day by the new shadow Treasurer, and she is the one in this place who wants to be judged on her economic credentials. She actually thinks the Howard government’s legacy on trade was a great one.
Yes!
That is certainly not what the records show. But on Monday—I think her first intervention since her appointment to the job—she had this to say:
The diversification of our exports has reduced the volatility of the terms of trade.
In that single sentence she is wrong on three key economic fronts. First, as Mortimer points out, the terms of trade effect is caused by strong world demand, not by the diversification of our exports. Second, we did not get a diversification of exports under your term of office in government; in fact, we narrowed our export base. The services sector rate of growth in exports fell from 8½ per cent to two per cent, and—
Why?
Because you did not have the right policy. And the manufacturing export growth went backwards. Third, as to the reduced volatility in the terms of trade she is simply wrong. There has been strong upward movement in the terms of trade over the past five years. The shadow Treasurer has been accused of plagiarism in this place. I do not make that complaint in terms of that statement because, quite frankly, no-one else would be silly enough to make the mistake of getting three economic facts so wrong in one sentence.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the recent $5 billion in profits this quarter of Australia’s big four banks, which is an increase of more than 15 per cent. How many second-tier providers of mortgage finance, who were keeping competitive pressure on the big four banks, have stopped lending, leaving the big four banks with 90 per cent of the mortgage market and record profits? What is the government doing about the prime residential mortgage-backed securities market which provided that much-needed competition to the big four banks?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for her question. It is true that the banks have been very profitable in Australia, particularly in the first quarter of this year, and that is why I was so absolutely insistent earlier this year that if there were to be a cut in the official RBA cash rate then that cut should be passed on.
Answer the question!
I will answer. I am going to go all the way through it. This is a very important question. It is one that the government is very, very concerned about and has been very active on. But you have got to understand the background. It is quite complex, and those opposite may have some difficulty understanding it. It is true that the big banks have been very profitable, and that is why the government was absolutely insistent that if there were a cut in the cash rate then that should be passed on—and it was passed on, and that is a very good thing. But the government is concerned about the degree of competition in the mortgage market, and that is one of the reasons we have been so insistent on putting in place a bank-switching package, something those opposite could not manage to do in over 12 years.
It is also the case that the securitisation market has dried up because of events in global markets. That is true as well and that is producing a situation where the market is less competitive. Of course, that outlook changes by the day and by the week, given events in global financial markets. That is why I have made it very clear on a number of occasions publicly that should further action be required to put further competitive forces into that market then the government would take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time. We acted earlier in the year when it was very clear there was not enough liquidity in the market. There were not enough government bonds and we put more out there. We brought legislation into this parliament to issue further government bonds—
That is nothing to do with it.
Well, the current Leader of the Opposition thought it was a good idea at the time—something you could not manage to do. The current Leader of the Opposition understood the need to put more liquidity in the market, and we did issue more bonds. We also, in that legislation, gave authority to the government for the AOFM to be more active in the area, should that be required. We stand ready to take further action in the mortgage market to make it more competitive so that Australian families out there get a fair deal. That is the government’s position.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister please update the House on the government’s program of regulatory reform in the wake of today’s report from the International Monetary Fund?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question. Those opposite, who lay claim to economic credibility, should take a long, hard look at this report, the latest International Monetary Fund report on Australia’s economic performance. The International Monetary Fund strongly endorses the government’s economic strategy and importantly has commended the government on its long-term reform agenda. The IMF report says the directors considered that:
… if implemented fully, the broad reform agenda should enhance the flexibility of the economy and lift productivity and labor force participation.
The report goes on to say:
Successful implementation of further reforms would enhance the economy’s flexibility, lift productivity—
hear, hear!—
and foster labor force participation. Reform is essential to take full advantage of the mining boom that is centered on Queensland and Western Australia, that will require capital and labor to move from other states.
The Rudd government is helping to create the conditions for sustained, low-inflationary economic growth. The government is pursuing an ambitious long-term reform agenda aimed at restarting productivity growth. This follows a decade of squandered opportunity when productivity growth after the boom times of the 1990s slipped away until, last year, as mentioned by the Minister for Trade, it not just had fallen to a low level, not just had slowed but had stopped. It had ground to a complete halt. It was zero.
The government is investing in an education revolution to restart productivity growth. We are working, through the Council of Australian Governments, to reduce regulation in 27 different areas of reform. We are doing this to advance Australia towards a seamless national economy as called for by the Business Council of Australia. As the IMF says, this government’s reform agenda will help lift productivity growth, because today’s productivity growth is tomorrow’s prosperity. I note that the newly elected Leader of the Opposition said, on 19 September, just the other day:
There is a need for bipartisanship and a constructive approach to the economy.
I invite the opposition leader to support the Rudd government’s program of long-term economic reform as endorsed today by the International Monetary Fund.
My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the government preparing to slug farm employees, harvesting and other contractors who are already battling the drought, and hardworking doctors and vets serving rural communities, with an extra tax, ranging from $1,100 to $4,050, on the cost of a Toyota LandCruiser?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I gather that the opposition feel compelled to continue to justify their vandalism of the government’s surplus up in the Senate. It is the case that the government’s proposal does not affect dramatically the bulk of purchases of cars in the rural sector.
What about farm workers?
So a ute is a luxury car, is it? Mr Speaker, those opposite introduced the luxury car tax. Let us be very clear about where it came from and what its origins were. Let us be very clear that we increased it in the last budget as a measure to build a strong surplus. I believe it was a fair measure—a small amount of money that many people buying luxury cars could afford to pay. We have had a constructive discussion in the Senate with the minor parties and the Greens and, as a consequence of that, this bill has passed, despite the reckless—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Treasurer having the call is not an opportunity for nine or 10 people on the left to talk over him at the same time.
All the chatter is to hide their deep embarrassment about their activities in the Senate. They are up there defending Porsche drivers, up there defending the drivers of luxury cars, against the interests of the Australian people and lower interest rates for working families and farmers. That has been the consequence of their actions in the Senate. Interest rates will be higher for longer as a consequence of their attempts to raid the surplus and also the reckless spending that they have now committed to. The Leader of the Opposition, in a 20-minute press conference on day 1, spent $20 billion—$6 billion in raiding the surplus in the budget and a further $14 billion. The opposition now have the hide to come into the House and complain that a few people buying top-end vehicles are paying too much tax.
We reached a sensible arrangement with the minor parties in the Senate. There has been more economic responsibility in the little fingers of the Greens and the Independents and the minor parties in the Senate than there has been in the Liberal and National parties. This is going to continue, apparently. The Leader of the Opposition is going to pay a very high price if he is going to continue to wreck the budget in the Senate, because it will be clear to everybody who is economically irresponsible in this country and who has a responsible approach to budget management. The IMF have given this government a very big tick today, and the opposition is trying to demolish it.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister inform the House about the upcoming National Police Remembrance Day?
I thank the honourable member for Werriwa for that question and, of course, acknowledge his very long history representing police, particularly during his time with the Police Federation of Australia. National Police Remembrance Day is observed by all jurisdictions and on Monday, 22 September a number of speakers from all sides in this House supported a motion by the member for Werriwa to mark 29 September as National Police Remembrance Day. I am sure that the House would also want me to express support for the 50,000 men and women of Australia’s police forces who work in Australia and in our region to protect the lives of those who live in our civilian environment.
It is shocking to realise that, in the past 20 years, 111 police officers have been killed on duty. This means on average nearly six a year. Unfortunately, it is mostly young officers who have their lives cut short while they are serving their communities. Out of those 111, 88 were constables. That means that the majority of those who lost their lives were under the age of 30. There were officers like Glenn McEnallay, who was ambushed and shot at close range by four men in Sydney in 2002 while he was sitting in his patrol car. Glenn McEnallay was 26. Last month marked the 10th anniversary since Victoria Police officers Gary Silk and Rod Miller were brutally gunned down during a stakeout to catch two armed robbers. Their funerals, many will remember, touched the nation and, as a recent newspaper article on that anniversary mentioned, most police officers can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first learnt of that double murder. It is also important at this time to recognise the risks faced by officers serving offshore, who serve in unpredictable and often hostile environments.
This year, for the first time since 1944, there have been no police deaths on duty in Australia. Hopefully, we can reach the end of 2008 without that situation changing. If you put your life on the line for the protection of the public on a regular basis, then you are performing a public service of the highest order. It is a level of selflessness that most of us never have to contemplate.
In 2006, more than 700 police came to Canberra from every state and territory to witness the commemoration of a national monument to recognise the service of Australian police officers who have died on duty. At the time of its dedication there were 719 names commemorated on individual brass touchstones. Next Monday, five new historical touchstones which date from 1884 to 1999 will bear the names of additional police deaths that have been discovered through ongoing research. It is obvious enough that police are essential to the fabric of a civilised society, and we must continue to show our support for the work they do. They have a unique status, and that is reflected in the exercise of powers that the community permits them to uphold the law. Confidence in the proper use of those powers is essential.
The Police Federation of Australia, through its president Vince Kelly, has asked that the government give serious consideration to the creation of a national police service medal for serving police officers. The government has, of course, been very willing to examine that request in more detail. While I understand there is quite a lot of work to be done to advance that proposal, I am pleased to advise the House that the government is working closely with the relevant authorities to clarify the formal requirements and to consider the necessary protocols in detail. I believe we have to talk to the palace about these things.
At this time of remembrance it is also appropriate that we give consideration to how we do recognise serving officers. I hope to be in a position to provide the House with an update on the matter of a national police service medal in the not-too-distant future. We thank the thousands of men and women in state and territory police forces and the Australian Federal Police who serve our community so well and confront risky, difficult situations on a daily basis.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: on behalf of the opposition I strongly associate the coalition with the remarks by the Minister for Home Affairs about National Police Remembrance Day. The courage, heroism and sacrifice of police officers in the course of their duty are a heavy price that they pay to ensure that we live in a safe society. Representing and leading a party room which has a number of former police officers in its ranks, we are very pleased to associate ourselves, as I said, with the minister’s very generous and eloquent remarks.
My question is to the Treasurer. Why is an X-type Jaguar excluded from Labor’s increased luxury car tax but a Toyota Landcruiser for a shearer is not?
There are a couple of issues here. First of all, the vast majority of four-wheel drives are not impacted at all; and, secondly, there were some fuel-efficient measures put into the bill because of the unconstructive attitude of those opposite.
Opposition members interjecting—
And, if those opposite want to be critical of that, it is entirely their fault.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on the procurement of the joint strike fighter? Why is it important for the government to consider this acquisition carefully and get it right?
I thank the member for Blair for his question. His electorate, of course, is home to one of Australia’s primary Air Force bases and he, better than most in this place, understands how important it is for Australia to maintain its superiority in air combat capability in our region and how important that is to Australia’s national security. He also understands that the government’s next investment in our next generation of air combat aircraft will be the single largest Defence investment ever made in the history of the Commonwealth, with up to $16 billion in outlays.
So this is a decision that we absolutely must get right. Despite the best, and reckless, efforts of those who sit opposite, the government will not be pressured into making a decision on the run. We saw that practice from the former government with respect to air combat capability. We saw the public debate and controversy generated by that approach to these important issues when they ran headlong into a rushed decision on the purchase of the US Super Hornets from the US Navy.
Let us go back to that process for one quick moment. That spirited debate about air combat capability emerged prior to the last election because the former government failed to properly plan for our future air combat capability. Rather than plan for and anticipate the possibility that the F111 may need to be retired early, the former government simply sat on its hands. And then, of course, off the back of a report, when it was clear that the F111 might need to be retired early, the government subsequently ran into a very quick decision to purchase the Super Hornet so as not to be accused, in an election year, of allowing an air combat capability gap to emerge—determined, in an election year, not to be charged with that important charge. And, of course, the way in which the Super Hornet purchase was entered into was not so much about our national security but about saving the political bacon of the then Prime Minister and those who sat behind him. There was no comparative analysis done with other aircraft—no proper analysis done whatsoever. Indeed, in a sense, an analysis would have been useless, because to meet its political needs the former government directed RAAF to deliver an interim aircraft by 2010, and the reality was that there was only one aircraft in the world that could have been delivered into Australian hands by 2010—that, of course, was the Super Hornet. That is what the lack of a planning process leads you to in these important areas of defence capability.
After the election, as promised, the new government reviewed the Super Hornet purchase and in the end, given all the circumstances, came to the conclusion that, as a filler, the Super Hornet was more than capable of meeting Australia’s defence needs. But we did not just leave it at that. We determined to work hard in securing better value for taxpayers’ money, securing aircraft more cheaply and securing aircraft with greater capability. These changes are now being put into effect and, as a consequence, the taxpayer will secure better value for money.
There is only one fifth-generation combat aircraft in service across the globe at the moment, and that is the F22 Raptor flown by the United States of America. The only fifth-generation aircraft that might emerge on the market in coming years is of course the Joint Strike Fighter. The government does not yet have any guarantees about the capability the Joint Strike Fighter offers, nor about when that capability, if possible, may be delivered or what the cost of that aircraft will be. So we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the former government, not to be rushed into a decision, particularly given that we do not have to sign up to the Joint Strike Fighter until some time around mid next year. There is no rush to enter into this contract. So we will take our time with this decision to ensure that taxpayers get value for money and that the Defence Force, the RAAF in particular, gets the capability it needs to keep the country safe and secure.
Yesterday we took receipt of the Mortimer report on defence procurement in this country. Mortimer appealed for a more rigorous approach to these capability decisions. Yesterday the opposition supported the Mortimer review; today, through their defence spokesman, they want to throw all that rigour out the window. So I have some advice for the opposition leader: this debate coming from the opposition’s ventures about our air combat capability does us no good. It is no good for our national security and it is certainly no good for our commercial interests as we go, as a development partner, into further negotiations about the Joint Strike Fighter. We are entering into a commercial arrangement and the assistance from the opposition does the country no good whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand that this is not like going down to the local Rolls Royce dealer to buy the next model. Even if it were, not even the Leader of the Opposition would stump up the cash for the latest Rolls Royce without first getting some assurance of what capability it delivers, what the price will be and when it will be delivered. Leader of the Opposition, I suggest you pull them into line.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Can the minister confirm that he personally has been told of investment projects that have already been lost to Australia because of the great uncertainty embodied in the government’s green paper on an emissions trading scheme?
I thank the honourable member for the question and in doing so indicate that the government is in detailed discussions with a range of industries about the nature of the green paper going to the development of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. The government are serious about not only getting the scheme right domestically but also making sure that we pull our weight internationally—hence the government’s commitment to work with like-minded nations on clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage. It is also fair to say that, in giving proper consideration to these matters, industry have raised their concerns. It is a genuine green paper process, and our responsibility is to take those concerns on board so as to guarantee that we produce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which is right economically, in terms of ensuring that Australia is still an attractive place for investment, and also guarantees that we make progress in accordance with our election commitment on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. How will the government’s election policy to deliver new first home saver accounts help young Australians buy a house?
I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. I know that she is one of the keenest and hardest-working doorknockers in this House. The fact that she has doorknocked more than 45,000 homes in her electorate in the last few years would have shown her that her electorate actually has a lower than average rate of homeownership. I am very pleased to tell her and to tell other members in the House about the first home saver accounts that Australians aged between 18 and 65 will be able to open from 1 October.
It is worth reminding the House that this government inherited historically low levels of housing affordability. When the Howard government came into office, the average home cost about four times the average annual wage. By the time they left office, it was about 7½ times the average annual wage. That of course made homeownership a distant dream for many young people. Many of them stopped saving because homeownership seemed so far out of reach. Saving a deposit is particularly hard when rents are high because of course it is very difficult to be putting money aside as well as paying higher rents.
This government has been working very closely with the financial services industry to help set up these first home saver accounts, which Australians aged between 18 and 65 will be able to open from 1 October. I am very happy to report that the ANZ Bank, the Commonwealth Bank, AMP and 17 other deposit-taking institutions will have accounts registered with APRA to open from 1 October. In a week’s time, hundreds of thousands of young people will be able to set up one of these accounts and start saving a deposit.
These accounts provide a very strong incentive for young people to save rather than to spend their money because for every dollar they put into this account, up to $5,000 a year, the government will give them 17c on every dollar invested. For example, if a couple save $5,000 a year, they will receive an $850 contribution from the federal government. If a couple are both saving, they will receive $1,700 from the government on their savings. On top of that, earnings on the accounts will be taxed at the special low superannuation tax rate of 15 per cent. That means that a couple on average earnings putting aside 10 per cent of their income into individual first home saver accounts would be able to save more than $88,000 after five years. The very important thing about this is that that is about $13,000 more than if they had been putting the money into an ordinary savings account—a very important difference. These accounts will help people who would otherwise find it difficult to save a deposit for their first home.
One of the great innovations of these accounts is that other family members—parents, perhaps grandparents—can also contribute to these accounts and see that government contribution as well. Particularly parents and grandparents, who are worried about whether their children and grandchildren will ever be well settled in a home of their own, can make these contributions, perhaps helping a young person set up an account on their 18th or 21st birthday. If grandparents, for example, put $100 into one of these accounts for someone’s 21st birthday, the government would contribute $17 into that account.
I would urge every young Australian who has a job, even a part-time job, to think about putting $20 a week into one of these accounts. By starting small and saving regularly not only do these young Australians develop a habit of saving that will serve them well later in life but also the wonder of compound interest will work on that money so that, by the time they are looking to use that money for a deposit, they will have a nice little nest egg. I will conclude by using the words of best-selling financial commentator and columnist, Scott Pape, who wrote:
… the First Home Saver Account rewards first home savers for developing a long-term savings plan.
… … …
Anything that instils the importance of savings at the start of a young adult’s life can only be a good thing.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Given that this week Australia is hosting in Canberra the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, set up in 2003, why has the Prime Minister spent yet another $100 million duplicating this body just to give him something to talk about when he is in New York?
The Australian community would be concerned at the manner in which the opposition is seeking to undermine the confidence of the Australian community and our genuine endeavour to actually develop a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which guarantees that we can do the right thing at home whilst doing the right thing internationally. In that context, I remind the House that on Monday this week the Prime Minister clearly indicated that our endeavours domestically and internationally to make real, practical progress with respect to the development of low-emissions coal technology are exceptionally important.
The legislation currently before the Senate going to the issue of offshore carbon sequestration is part of the jigsaw that will enable us to make real progress in accordance with the expectations of the Australian community. The reason they expect us to make progress on this front is that they understand that, unlike what would have occurred with those on the other side of the House, we do not want the lights going out because we are a nation dependent on electricity, 80 per cent of which comes from coal fired power stations. That effectively means that we have to work with business, non-government organisations and like-minded countries and pool our resources in the best possible capacity domestically and internationally to get this low-emissions coal technology correct. It also means that we have to pull together a genuine international commitment with all nations working together to put those resources on the table, because time is running out.
I remind the House that it was the G8 meeting held in Japan only a couple of months ago that actually said that we have to have 20 projects in place by 2010, with a view to demonstrating their commerciality by 2020. That is why the Prime Minister, on behalf of Australia, a nation that is dependent on coal for electricity to a large extent, and a nation that does well with respect to the export of coal, worth an estimated $43 billion this year, understands that we have to adopt a leadership position—unlike the failure on the other side with respect to leadership both in opposition and in government.
The Australian government is about putting in place a capacity to do the right thing, to guarantee that we have a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that is relevant to the challenges of the 21st century both at home and abroad. I would have expected more of the former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, because he understands the significance of this. But I simply say it sadly reflects not on him but on the lack of leadership of the member for Wentworth, who ought to know better as a former minister for the environment.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister advise the House on the importance of the government’s nation-building agenda and any recent endorsements from international organisations of this approach? Why is consistency in economic policy important for a strong economy?
I thank the member for Throsby for her question and for her ongoing interest in infrastructure. Last week I spoke about the widespread support from the business community for the government’s infrastructure agenda. Today the highly respected IMF have become the latest body to endorse the Rudd Labor government’s approach. The IMF have said in this report—
Is that what they said?
This is exactly what they have said. I will quote directly from them—and attribute the quote to them. They said:
Directors welcomed the establishment of three new funds for longer-term spending on health, education, and infrastructure, with contributions to come from the 2007/08 and 2008/09 surpluses.
They went on:
Saving some of the revenue from the commodity price boom in three new funds will take pressure off monetary policy in the near term and enable increased infrastructure investment over the medium term.
There you have the IMF acknowledging that Labor have put in place our surplus with a purpose.
But I am also asked about the importance of consistency in economic policy making for the Australian economy. Earlier in question time we had a question to the Treasurer from the shadow Treasurer. In her question the shadow Treasurer referred the Treasurer to a speech by the Assistant Treasurer dated 4 June and published on the Assistant Treasurer’s website. She then went on to refer to a speech given by the Treasurer in the House on 18 June 2008, thereby clearly giving the impression that there was no connection between the two. She indicated that the Treasurer’s speech was made in the House but the Assistant Treasurer’s speech was just available on the website. If the shadow Treasurer was being fair dinkum she would have stated—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek to table the speech from the Assistant Treasurer’s website and the speech that I referred to.
Order! That is not a point of order. The Leader of the House has the call.
It’s called Hansard! Both speeches were for the same bill. It was a bill from the Treasury—a Treasurer’s bill. As is absolutely standard procedure, as the Treasurer was not available at the time to give his speech the Assistant Treasurer gave the second reading speech on behalf of the Treasurer. That is why you have an Assistant Treasurer!
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This defence of the Treasurer’s plagiarism does not go to the question that he was asked.
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Leader of the House is responding to the question.
I am responding to the issue of consistency of economic policy, which is not understood by those opposite. So you had a speech given by the Assistant Treasurer on behalf of the Treasurer, and then in the summing up of the bill the Treasurer also gave his own speech—nothing extraordinary there at all. Both speeches, on 4 June and on 18 June, were on behalf of the Treasurer of Australia. Not surprisingly, they were consistent—just as the Assistant Treasurer in the former government used to give speeches to bills on behalf of the Treasurer in this House. The fact that they tried to pretend that there was no connection between the two, the fact that they did not try to table the said speeches, is very interesting. They have been caught out.
You can understand why they are worried about a debate about consistency in economic policy. You can understand why they have been so defensive, because this is now the sixth gaffe in some three days—two a day is the average of the member for Curtin. When it comes to plagiarism, when the member for Curtin became the shadow Treasurer she did not ask for extra staff—she asked for an extra photocopier in her office! The fact is that the shadow Treasurer was caught out—caught out plagiarising, and then caught out doctoring Hansard. This is what the Australian online says today:
Today Coalition sources confirmed the offending paragraphs of background were provided for her speech from the leader’s office—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. He was asked about consistency in economic policy. This has nothing to do with the question.
I will listen carefully to the minister for infrastructure and I suggest that he brings his answer to a close.
The fact is that consistency in economic decision making is important, because they have none over there. When caught out, the shadow Treasurer has attempted to shift blame to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If this is a matter relating to Hansard, then the Leader of the House asked a question of you earlier this morning. You are reporting at a later hour. Therefore, surely, this anticipates your decision.
Order! I will be listening carefully to what the minister for infrastructure says—to the relevance to the question—and, as I said, I suggest that he brings his answer to a close.
That is another offence that I have not raised here. The fact is that the Australian report says:
Ms Bishop was understood to be “ropeable” about the error but willing to take the public flak …
No, not willing to openly say that it was the opposition leader’s fault—just willing to background it. And the opposition leader’s—
Order! The minister will bring his answer to a close.
statement has been ‘no comment’ about the responsibility for that.
Mr Speaker, in advance, can I apologise for my voice. My question is to the Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport. Minister, I refer to the tragic incident that unfolded in Finland yesterday where, it is reported, a gunman shot and killed 10 of his fellow students and then turned the gun on himself. More chilling is the fact that he had allegedly posted warnings of this on the internet just previously. Minister, as the Minister for Youth, what action have you taken to ensure that the parents of Australian children have confidence that instant communication tools like the internet and mobile phones are being used appropriately and not for cyberbullying, social grandstanding and virtual menace?
Thank you very much to the member for his question. I am upset that you had to move back there to be able to get a question up! But it is a very serious issue, and I would like to answer this, because I think that what this parliament needs is to be spending more time talking about issues affecting Australian young people. That is one of the reasons why this government recreated the portfolio of the Minister for Youth after the previous government abolished it. And it is one of the reasons why we have been working very hard to set in place programs to make sure that we can look at the impacts of a whole range of different issues on young people in Australia.
In regard to the particular issue that you brought up about communications, obviously the minister for communications has a very important role, also, in monitoring these issues, because we know that it is not only young people who are using the internet or who are the victims, sadly, of cyberbullying and a number of other issues. But what we are doing is working right across government to make sure that we can see that every portfolio is tackling how that particular area is impacting on young people. In fact—though I would not like to pre-empt the announcement—tomorrow we will be having some more to say about the creation of the Office for Youth.
As I mentioned earlier, the previous government abolished the position of minister for youth. They also de-funded many of the operating programs when it came to young people and cut back on the departmental resources to make sure that young people were getting a fair go from the government. What we will be announcing tomorrow is the creation of the Office for Youth. Their role will be to look across government—whether it be the health department, the communications department or the education department—to make sure that we can see, right across government, all the programs that are being put in place for young people—
Opposition members interjecting—
I realise that the opposition do not want to hear about what we are doing for young people—so much so that, when we had the last round of estimates, do you know how many questions were asked about young people? Not one. The opposition could not bother turning up to estimates and asking one question about young people. We have got a question; I am trying to answer it, and I am trying to outline the fact that this government—
Mr Schultz interjecting
Order! The member for Hume! The minister has the call.
takes very seriously making sure that young Australians have access to resources and making sure that we have adequate programs in place right across the board. We, on this side, recognise that there is a massive generational divide when it comes to the issues affecting different groups of Australians and that young people are actually facing a whole range of issues, like those that you mentioned, with the internet, with cyberbullying and with text messaging, and we need new responses to that. That is why we need a bureaucracy that is set up to cater for it, and that is why we need a portfolio allocated to addressing these issues. Your government abolished it; ours has put it back in place. We are setting up the Office for Youth so that we can work on this particular issue—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister has the call.
Mr Robb interjecting
The member for Goldstein!
It is a genuine question.
If you can perhaps just zip it for a minute, then I will answer your genuine question.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order!
If the member opposite wants to play politics with this, that is fine; I will tell you the genuine answer.
Honourable members interjecting—
The House will come to order!
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is only truly to aid you. This is a very serious issue and I truly want to hear the answer to this question.
Honourable members interjecting—
From both sides of this House. Could I ask the minister to please refer her points to, in particular, cyberbullying and mobile phone access being used for bullying.
I have some great sympathy for the member for Macarthur. He at least has been trying to sit there and listen to the answer. I hope that his colleagues on both sides will do the same.
You are right. This is an absolute tragedy, what has happened recently in Finland. We want to make sure that we put in place every mechanism to prevent any similar tragedies in Australia. That means that we need to tackle this at a number of levels. We need to tackle it within communications and we need to make sure that we have got protections in place, but also we need to make sure that we are regularly engaging with young Australians and that we are making sure that we give them a voice in these public discussions about the issues confronting them, which are quite unique to their generation and which many members of this parliament did not have to deal with when they were growing up. That is one of the reasons why this government has acted to establish the Office for Youth. We will be next week launching the Australian Youth Forum, which is a way that we can have continual dialogue with young people so that we can—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting
‘Another talkfest’ says the member for Macarthur.
Mackellar.
Mackellar, sorry. I apologise to the member for Macarthur.
She’s nothing like the member for Macarthur!
I take that on board. The member for Mackellar says, ‘Another talkfest.’ We on this side of the House think it is hugely important that we include young people and that we hear firsthand from them what it is that is happening within their own communities, that we give them credit for the fact that they have a number of different problems and different experiences and different perspectives to what we have had before, so that we can ensure that there are government programs and policies in place to react to them.
What are you going to do?
I have just outlined two things that we already have done which the previous government never did, and we are going to ensure that we continue to work with young Australians to make sure that we can respond to the changing issues that they have before them, something which the previous government was never able to do because it abolished the portfolio and then took away all of the resources which had been allocated to it.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister update the House on the latest developments around the Australian technical colleges?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. I know that he is deeply interested not only in the future of Australian technical colleges but in all aspects of the government’s education revolution. Can I say, on the education revolution generally, that this morning I was able to introduce into the parliament some important legislation which fits in with the government’s education revolution agenda. Towards the end of this year, we will enter the new national education agreement, an agreement for government and non-government schools, an agreement to lift the quality of schooling in every school around the country. Today I was able to introduce into this parliament the funding component for non-government schools, some $24 billion. Importantly, I was able to announce that schools that are teaching Indigenous students will benefit from new resources, new investments, the maximum rate of government contribution and new indexation arrangements, because we want to make a real difference to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
The member asked me about Australian technical colleges. I thank the member for his question because it seems to me important to indicate to the House something that the new shadow minister for education unfortunately does not understand. The shadow Treasurer is not the only new shadow minister to get off to a bad start. The shadow minister for education was on Sky TV being interviewed about his new portfolio yesterday and clearly did not understand the economic and financial problems of Australian technical colleges. This House yesterday noted the member for Bradfield’s facility with statistics, something that is well known in this House. He is a man who is very good at remembering numbers. When he was the minister for education, he announced the Liberal Party’s proposal to create 24 Australian technical colleges. When he did that, he announced a number of numbers related to that. I suspect he can remember them in his head now, but just to remind him and certainly to inform the member for Sturt, who clearly is not aware of these numbers: the member for Bradfield said that these technical colleges would assist more than 21,000 students at a cost of $289 million over four years.
Well, there is a problem with that. The problem is not the ability of the member for Bradfield to remember those numbers; the problem is in the delivery of them, because here we are, four years from when that promise was made, and we have enrolment of 4,300 students, not 21,000, and the budget has blown out to $440 million. That is a training cost of $100,000 a student. In a further assault on the already tattered economic credibility of the Liberal Party—in tatters because of its budget strategy, in tatters because of the gaffes of the shadow Treasurer—now the shadow Treasurer is joined by the shadow minister for education, who went on to suggest this was a good training model and we should be aiming to get to 21,000 students, at a cost of $100,000 a student. This is economic vandalism writ large—the shadow minister for education joining his colleagues in a morass of economic incompetence.
The government is moving to better training arrangements, which will certainly be more cost-effective and will certainly cover more students. I am pleased to be able to say that arrangements have been made for the future of three technical colleges. These will be better arrangements and certainly more cost-effective for the long term. The newly elected member for Lyne played an important role in this development and led a delegation to see me. He would know that the ATC in Port Macquarie is moving to be the Newman Senior Technical College. It will be moved back to the Catholic school system. In Western Sydney, the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation will run the college there. In the electorate of the member for Wakefield, who asked me this question, the ATC will become the Regional Catholic Technical College. These are long-term solutions for the future which will enable training in those communities under better and sustainable arrangements.
The arrangements we make for the future of ATCs are in addition to our $2.5 billion investment in Trades Training Centres in Schools. Once again, in the interview yesterday, the new shadow minister for education indicated he does not quite get it when it comes to figures either; the shadow treasurer is not alone. When it comes to figures, he said in respect of a $2.5 billion investment, ‘big figures mean nothing’. He might like to tell that to the schools in his electorate who are now invited to apply for a $300 million funding round. He might like to say to those school communities—and those school communities in Liberal seats around the nation—that he says, as the shadow minister for education, that $300 million available now for school applications and school proposals does not mean anything.
Mr Pyne interjecting
The shadow minister has just called out, ‘It’s a joke!’ He might want to say to the schools that benefit from this $300 million that their aspiration to have state-of-the-art trades training facilities is a joke. This government is renewing trade training facilities around the country. We have already distributed money that will benefit 96 schools. They have already succeeded in the first round of applications and there is $300 million more there for a training solution.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this answer has been going for 6½ minutes. In opposition, the now Acting Prime Minister said answers should not go for more than four minutes. She has blathered on for 6½ minutes. She can make a ministerial statement.
Ms Gillard interjecting
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister has indicated that she has finished her question.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that Google now offers a free petrol price tracker site which allows motorists to search for the cheapest petrol in a given area? In light of this development, will the government abandon its plans to spend over $20 million of public money on its much maligned Fuelwatch scheme?
Fuelwatch provides information for motorists to get the cheapest possible petrol. The difference between the cheapest and the most expensive petrol in Sydney today is 22c a litre. I cannot tell you where to find the cheapest petrol—
Go to Google!
and I cannot tell you where to find the most expensive because the private sector sites that the honourable member refers to have only a selection of petrol stations, not all of them. Lots of people understand that. The people of Western Australia understand that; Fuelwatch has been in operation there for eight years. Perhaps that is why the Liberal Party in Western Australia promised to keep Fuelwatch at the last election. Perhaps that is why Colin Barnett, the new Premier of Western Australia, has said, ‘I will not touch Fuelwatch; it works.’ We have the Western Australian Liberal Premier saying he will keep Fuelwatch and we have had the Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales promising Fuelwatch because Fuelwatch will work. If Fuelwatch is defeated in the Senate, the only people in Australia with the benefit of Fuelwatch will be the only people living under a Liberal government, the people of Western Australia. It shows what hypocrites honourable members opposite are.
My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation. How is the government improving employment services for job seekers and how will this address Australia’s skills shortage?
I thank the member for Shortland for her question. I know she has a great deal of concern for job seekers in her electorate and, indeed, for those people who are unemployed and looking for work. We have recently gone through a round of consultations with employers, employer bodies, employment service providers and others to make sure we have a system in place that will be effective and that will ensure that there is training that will allow those job seekers to acquire the skills that employers are crying out for in this country. I know the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in this place that we do not have a skills shortage, that we do not a skills crisis in this country, but unfortunately employers in this country know better. They have told us that they cannot, in some circumstances, fill existing vacancies. They also know that their training, delivered by the previous government, was in many respects deficient. The employer body in Victoria, VECCI, made clear that the training that was provided to some job seekers was, in fact, deficient. They referred to some those training services as Mickey Mouse courses. This government is very focused on ensuring that the training delivered to job seekers ensures that they acquire skills employers need. That is why this government will roll out 253,000 training places for job seekers over the course of the next five years. We are going to ensure that those job seekers, particularly those who have been denied access to training because of the failures of the previous government, are given opportunities.
I know that, when the member for Wentworth became the Leader of the Opposition, he said that he would like to see people in this country being given opportunities. This government is about providing practical opportunities for those job seekers, some of whom are on the margins of our society. We know the previous government was obsessed about marginals, but over the last 10 years they cared not a jot about those who were marginalised. We on this side of the House are concerned for all Australians. We want to provide opportunities for all Australians, including job seekers who have been left out by not being provided the right forms of assistance that they need. We need to turn around the real problem we have with the very long term unemployed. In 1999, one in 10 job seekers were on the very long term unemployment list. Now, almost one in four are on the very long term unemployment list. That is why we need to ensure that there is sufficient training, proper assistance, mentoring and other forms of assistance that will give to those people who have not been given opportunities the opportunities they need to make their lives more productive for themselves, their families, their communities and this nation.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The minister may proceed.
During question time I was asked a question by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Curtin, about two speeches—one given on 4 June by the Assistant Treasurer in this House on 4 June and one given by myself in this House on 18 June. Both speeches were about the Commonwealth Securities and Investment Legislation Amendment Bill 2008a piece of legislation which the government supports strongly and which is very important in the context of the current global economic uncertainty that we face. Of course, the second reading speech was given by the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Bowen, on my behalf.
He didn’t say it. It wasn’t on his website.
Well, you haven’t done your homework again. It was given by the Assistant Treasurer on my behalf because I was overseas. Naturally, for such an important piece of public policy, the speech was of course given by the Assistant Treasurer. But of course upon my return, regarding this legislation as importantly as I did, I participated in the summing up. I vividly remember participating in the summing up because the member for Wentworth was in the chamber and, you would be surprised to hear, we had a friendly chat across the table about this piece of legislation. In fact, we had had a number of phone calls about it. So all of this is an elaborate camouflage to hide the embarrassment of the member for Curtin. As usual, it is the cover-up that really pings them.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the minister is seeking to add to an answer. In that context, he cannot debate the question.
I will listen carefully to the Treasurer.
This farce from the member for Curtin is part of an elaborate cover-up to cover up her embarrassment at her plagiarism. You cannot plagiarise your own speech. It is simply impossible to plagiarise yourself. It is absolutely impossible.
Mr Hockey interjecting
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer will bring this to a conclusion quickly.
The second reading speech was given, as it should have been, by the Assistant Treasurer on my behalf. I summed up in the House because it was a bill to which I attach great importance. The member for Curtin is simply out of touch and out of her depth.
Mr Speaker, during question time the Treasurer, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Nationals, said that the coalition introduced a luxury car tax. According to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics and my knowledge of it, the Labor government, under Hawke and Keating, introduced the luxury car tax in 1986 and increased it again in 1990. Would it be an appropriate time to ensure that the Treasurer does not mislead the House and corrects the record?
The member for Maranoa knows that that was not a question to me about administration.
Earlier today the Leader of the House raised with me the Hansard record of a personal explanation made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. House of Representatives Practice states:
Control over the published content of the Hansard reports of the House resides in the House itself.
In practice, staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services produce the records of debate and, in relation to the editing of material, follow the procedures set out at page 604 of House of Representatives Practice. In relation to the matter raised by the Leader of the House, I am advised that the changes requested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were considered by Hansard to be relatively minor in nature and seeking to clarify meaning without altering the sense of words used in debate. On this basis, in line with House of Representatives Practice, Hansard included the changes in the published proof.
Mr Speaker, are you aware that House of Representatives Practice indicates that, certainly for personal explanations, there is a much higher standard of accuracy expected? It goes back to the Profumo case, in the United Kingdom, where it was held that, unlike in the banter of parliament across the chamber, for a personal explanation there had to be a higher level of accuracy held. Have you given consideration to that?
I have nothing to add to the statement that I have made.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 4 of 2008-09 entitled Performance audit: the business partnership agreement between the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and Centrelink.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
I have received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for the Government to respond to rapidly growing pressures on single age pensioners, single service pensioners and Widow B pensioners
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Prior to the last election the Prime Minister spent months and months telling the Australian people—pensioners, in particular—that he was on their side and that they would be priority No. 1 once he was in the Lodge. But after 10 months in government, 10 months sitting on the government benches, those opposite have abandoned older Australians. Let me read to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from a Labor Party media statement, dated 13 June 2007, available on the Labor Party website. It says:
Most older Australians struggle to make ends meet on low fixed incomes such as the aged pension …
It goes on:
Older Australians are the lifeblood of the nation. They protected us during World War II and through their hard work they have built our national prosperity.
I say credit where credit is due. I agree completely with those sentiments. Older Australians are our national treasures. They worked hard, they fought wars, they made sacrifices that we take for granted today. They deserve our respect and support in their senior years—unconditionally!
I know those opposite are avid supporters of opinion polls and focus groups and I know they love the media. In fact, wasn’t it former Prime Minister Paul Keating who referred to them as ‘tea-leaf-reading, focus group driven polling types’? Opinion poll after opinion poll and media story after media story are giving the government one, simple, unambiguous message: pensioners need your help and they need it now. So these tea-leaf-reading, focus group driven polling types—the mob opposite—are really not getting the message. I have got news for the Prime Minister, even though he is not here; for the Acting Prime Minister; for the Treasurer; for the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; for the Minister for Ageing, who is at the table in this House; and for all those sitting on the government benches: as much as they would like it, this issue is far from dead and buried. Pensioners right across this nation are outraged that this government not only has failed them—as if that isn’t bad enough in itself—but does not care about them either. I would be outraged too. What a slap in the face to the many thousands of single age pensioners, single service pensioners and widow B pensioners in this country. The Prime Minister travelled to Niue for the Pacific Islands Forum last month, and there he was in all the photos, like an emperor sitting on his throne. I can just imagine what he was mumbling to himself as he looked down from his throne: let them eat cake! That is what it has come to, except it is not cake but baked beans that our pensioners are living on.
This government just does not get it. We have got the Harmer review, we have got the Henry review and we also had the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Reviews and reports do not put food on the table. Our pensioners cannot eat reviews. Increases in the cost of living are placing enormous pressures on our pensioners. Let me tell you about a few items you are likely to find in any pensioner’s shopping basket. Pensioners buy bread. I am sure we all agree bread is not a luxury item. How much do you think the cost of bread has risen by in the first six months under the Rudd government? By 3.2 per cent. What about tea and coffee? These are also not luxury items and are beverages enjoyed by many pensioners across the country. How much has the cost of tea and coffee risen by in the first six months of the Rudd government? By 3.6 per cent. And the list goes on. The cost of butter and margarine has gone up 7.6 per cent. The cost of pharmaceuticals have gone up 12.1 per cent. The cost of electricity has gone up 4.6 per cent. The cost of petrol has gone up 14.6 per cent. I have not even mentioned the rises in rents and general living expenses.
The government are well and truly aware of these rises in the cost of living, and they are well and truly aware of the pressures these rises place on our pensioners. Struggling pensioners are crying out for immediate action, and the government are ignoring them. Those opposite ask why the opposition have left out some groups in our call for a $30-a-week rise in the single age pension, the single service pension and the widow B pension. I have got news for those opposite, who sit in the seats with the power to do something about this. The opposition’s measure is about helping thousands of older Australians; it is about helping those who are most in immediate need of assistance. Single age pensioners live on $273 a week. I ask those opposite: how far does that go?
The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and a few others on the back bench have admitted they could not live on $273 dollars a week, yet they have the power to do something about it. They have the power to tell our older Australians: ‘You know what? You’ve done our nation proud. You deserve a certain standard of living in your retirement, and we’re going to do something about it.’ Those on this side of the chamber recognise that. Those on this side of the chamber are saying just that to our pensioners.
The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs claims the opposition is ignoring two million pensioners. The minister should think very carefully before throwing that accusation around. Perhaps she has not noticed that, while we on this side of the House have committed to taking the first step—that is right: the first step but by no means the last—towards helping pensioners who desperately need assistance, the minister and her government are ignoring every pensioner in this country. I have a simple solution: do something, not nothing, about it. They do not even have to do the work; we have written the bill already.
Instead, what do we get from the government? We have the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs calling the opposition’s motion ‘a stunt’ during question time on 22 September. We have the member for Blair on the same day saying:
This motion is a stunt—pure and simple.
Yesterday during question time the Treasurer said:
We have this ploy on pensions in the House today …
First it is a stunt; then it is a ploy. Obviously their focus group responded better to the use of the word ‘ploy’ than ‘stunt’, so Lachlan Harris updated the talking points.
Here is the clanger. Here is the truth of the matter. Here is how those on the government benches really feel about pensioners:
This is not real work; this is meaningless politics from those opposite.
Who said that yesterday in this place? It was none other than the Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler. This government is out of touch. It did not take it long—just 10 months. We have an ageing population. We all know that is a fact—it is something we all agree on—but, with the way the Rudd government is leading this country, we will have a sick ageing population. This government is putting the health and welfare of older Australians at risk. Why? For what purpose? For a review and yet another review.
We left them with a robust surplus. Start using it responsibly. There are more than 5,900 single age pensioners in my electorate of McPherson. In the neighbouring electorate of Richmond, the electorate of the Minister for Ageing—the member for Richmond is in the House today—there are more than 7,300 single age pensioners. When I return home at the end of this week, I know what I will be saying to the pensioners of my electorate. Has the Minister for Ageing decided what she will say to the single age pensioners, single service pensioners and widow B pensioners of her electorate? She should seriously think about it.
I read today in the Daily News that there will be a pensioner protest rally outside her office when she returns on Friday. That is something for her to look forward to. I am not sure the minister will get the message, though. There was a pensioner rally in Tweed on 30 June. Both the minister and I attended that rally, and she certainly did not get the message then. The chief executive of National Seniors Australia, Michael O’Neill, told the Age newspaper that he would be encouraging the 280,000 members of his organisation to contact their local MP to demand an explanation.
This is what it has come to—pensioners in revolt. They stripped on the streets of Melbourne earlier this year to vent their anger. They wanted their message heard because it was falling on deaf ears. This is why the government’s actions—or inaction—are so baffling. They say they could not live on $273 a week; they acknowledge how tough pensioners are doing it right now; yet, in some bizarre attempt to reassure pensioners, they tell them to stop whingeing because they were paid the seniors bonus and the utilities allowance in the 2007-08 budget.
After the May budget the Prime Minister hit the airwaves, extolling the virtues and benefits of the budget for pensioners. In Melbourne he said:
… in the case of seniors, they have been provided with $900 per year more than they were in the previous budget of Mr Howard …
The Treasurer had the same thing to say in Perth, and the minister for families said the same thing in Brisbane. Even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McLucas, gave it a red-hot going over, speaking at a pensioner rally in West End.
Let me set them all straight, courtesy of Dennis Atkins writing in the Courier-Mail on 24 May this year. He writes:
Of that claimed “$900 extra”, $500 was a repeat of the seniors’ bonus introduced by Howard last year. The rest was the $393 increase in the utilities allowance from the Howard government’s $107 to $500.
But there is more. Atkins goes on to say:
This means the net increase for the majority of seniors from this Budget was $7.50 a week which would buy a regular Big Mac meal.
Pensioners are a smart lot. They can see right through this government’s spin. They know exactly how poorly they fared in this year’s budget. Let me read to you from a letter to the editor of my local newspaper, the Gold Coast Bulletin. The letter writer says:
Things might be going swimmingly well in Wayne’s world. However, in the world of Australia’s aged pensioners it is a daily struggle to survive as they drown in a sea of ever-increasing food prices, sky-high petrol hikes and electricity, water and gas prices that produce a standard of living that can best be described as being on the breadline.
Every pensioner in this country understands they do not have the support of this government. How can they have confidence in their local Labor member and their government when they so blatantly slap them across the face and say, ‘No, you are not deserving of help; you are not deserving of assistance from this government’? As those opposite head back to their electorates this week, they should ask themselves whether the pensioners living in their electorates should cancel Christmas this year. This government will have a lot to answer for if the most vulnerable people in this country cannot afford to celebrate Christmas. Will the Prime Minister be the Grinch Who Stole Christmas?
This government is running out of time. It has the opportunity, it has the motive, it has the power and, dare I say it, it has the obligation to do something for the pensioners of this country—and do it now. Those opposite promised pensioners the world prior to the last election—the world—and all they have delivered is a can of baked beans.
It truly is amazing. We had 12 years of inaction from those opposite—they are all leaving the chamber now. When they had an opportunity to act, what did they do? Absolutely nothing. What has the member for McPherson been doing in relation to these issues in the last 10 years? We see that the member for Warringah, the shadow minister, is not here today. We know that is because he is not interested in pensions; he has made that pretty clear. Indeed, we had 12 years of inaction from those opposite across a whole range of issues. It was not just pensions; there was health care. The only thing we had action on was Work Choices. They were the party of Work Choices; that is what they gave us. But when it came to pensions they did nothing.
But the Rudd Labor government is committed to taking decisive action when it comes to assisting pensioners. There is no question at all that many pensioners are doing it tough. We acknowledge that. Many single age pensioners are struggling to meet rising living costs for things such as rent, petrol and food—we certainly know that. But other pensioners are struggling too, including half a million carers and people with a disability, who only have their pension of $281 a week to rely on. In their rush to score political points, the opposition forgot about two million Australian pensioners. They did not care about them. Carers, people with a disability, wife pensioners and pensioner couples will be excluded from the scheme that the Liberals and Nationals have put forward. What about those people? Where do they rate in this scheme? Absolutely nowhere. The plight of around half a million single pensioners and people with a disability, carers and widows in exactly the same financial circumstances as single age pensioners, living on $281 a week, have been totally ignored by the opposition. What are they saying to them? When they go back to their electorates, what are they saying about those two million people who are being completely ignored?
We know that pensioners need some extra help. That is why we increased the utilities allowance to $500 a year and decided to pay the instalments every three months. It is also why, for the first time, we extended it to the disabled and carers. This fortnight, pensioners, age pensioners, carers, disability support pensioners and veterans will receive their third quarterly instalment of $128 to help with their bills. While the opposition has forgotten about carers and people with a disability and has left them behind, this fortnight, because of this new government, they will receive an extra $128.
The government’s position on pensions has always been clear. In opposition, Labor instituted a Senate inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures facing seniors. Indeed, the first recommendation of the bipartisan—
Mrs May interjecting
Order! The member for McPherson was heard in silence.
The member for McPherson is very keen to hear about the recommendations from the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry, so I will just refresh her on that. Its recommendation was:
… the Government review the suitability of the base pension levels through economic analyses of amounts required to achieve at least a modest standard of living for retired Australians, with particular consideration given to the adequacy of the percentage rate for single older people receiving the age pension compared to couples.
On budget night, the government acted on this bipartisan recommendation by instituting the Henry review of tax and welfare. We understand the urgency of this and that is why we acted. The government has asked Dr Jeff Harmer to complete this matter as part of the Henry review and report back to the government by no later than February next year. The pensions review is well underway with over 600 submissions.
During the Senate inquiry, and since that time, we have received many, many calls from different seniors groups, disability groups and carers groups to improve pensions and payments in those submissions. This range of views shows that the pension system is very complex, and that is why we have to analyse it properly. There are many different positions. Many different proposals are being put forward, and we have to look at them. This confirms that the responsible course of action was to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the pension, not just provide some quick political fix that excludes two million pensioners.
The government is being very responsible and the opposition are playing really cheap politics. The opposition’s private member’s bill was just a very cruel political stunt, an act that pitted pensioner against pensioner. The Liberals and Nationals had 12 years to fix the pension system. When they had the power to act the opposition did absolutely nothing, and now all they can do is play cheap politics with a really important issue for millions of Australians. In fact, when they had a chance to do something last year when they were in government, what did the Howard cabinet do? They voted against raising the base rate of the single pension. We know the opposition are playing cheap politics here, because their proposal leaves behind two million pensioners.
Not only was the bill that the opposition put forward unconstitutional but so many of its policies were also fundamentally flawed. Because of their absolute haste to cobble together this quick fix, the bill they put forward was riddled with flaws. It had not been properly thought out, just cobbled together. The opposition’s proposed increase was not even indexed, and its value eroded over time—yet another mean and tricky Liberal and National parties scheme. It also created serious inequities in the pension system, which was very unfair. They have not been able to explain these inequities or why they have come about. They have just put it all together and so many people totally missed out. They know that people have missed out, they know that there are inequities, they know that it is not fair—but they do not care. They do not care at all that they were misleading Australian pensioners in their rush to score these quick political points.
Unlike the opposition, the government is determined to get it right for the long term. We have made a down payment on reform with some immediate assistance for pensioners. That is why we increased the utilities allowance to $514 a year and decided to pay the instalments every three months. This fortnight, all pensioners—age pensioners, carers, disability support pensioners, widows, wives and veterans—will receive their quarterly utilities allowance instalment of $128 to help with their bills. As well, all single pensioners will this week get the regular pension indexation increase of $15.30. So we have taken immediate action. We have increased and extended the utilities allowance. We have increased the telephone allowance to $138 for those with a home internet connection. We have also paid cash bonuses—$500 to seniors, $1,000 to those on carer payment and $600 in carer allowance—because we know that those pensioners are doing it tough.
But, when it comes to reforming the pension system, we know that it needs a lot more than the quick fix that the Liberal and National parties have put forward. That is why we are having the comprehensive review and why we have had over 600 submissions in relation to it. All these views will be taken into consideration because the government is absolutely focused on reform and on getting it right for the long term, not on a political quick fix.
Earlier, the member for McPherson referred to my seat of Richmond, and I would like to raise the issue of the number of people there who will miss out under the Liberal-National Party scheme. Indeed, there are 17,772 pensioners in my electorate of Richmond who will miss out under the Liberal-National Party scheme. They have been totally forgotten. That is a lot of people. Let us have a look at the electorate of the member for McPherson. How many people in her seat would miss out? It would be 12,652. What is she going to tell those people?
Mrs May interjecting
She is saying she cannot do much for those 12½ thousand people. She will have to go back and talk with all of those people and explain it to them. The member for Moncrieff is in the chamber as well. Indeed, in his seat 12,213 pensioners are going to miss out. You can speak to each of those people about that. I raise, too, the seat of Cowper, where we have 19,430 people missing out—a huge number. Even in the seat of the Leader of the Opposition 7,131 people are absolutely missing out because of the unfair scheme that the coalition have put forward.
This government is acting. The previous government were inactive when it came to a whole range of issues—not just pensions but health care as well. They ripped $1 billion out of our hospitals and health care. We are committed to fixing that by putting $1 billion into that and $600 million into elective surgery—
Mrs May interjecting
I hear the member for McPherson raising the issue of Murwillumbah hospital. I note that she has raised this issue a number of times in the House. Indeed, the Nationals Senator Fiona Nash has also raised it. I find it quite interesting that they have raised this. As I said before, this government is putting massive amounts of money back into our hospitals after the inaction of the previous government. We also have the $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund. We are very proud of that commitment.
As the member for McPherson and Senator Nash know, service delivery is a state issue. Maybe the member for McPherson and Senator Fiona Nash think they are in state parliament. We know Senator Nash is keen to run for a state seat and has her eye on the Tweed. That is why she flies into Tweed and flies out again.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on the issue of relevance. It is clear the minister has run out of things to say about pensioners. She is talking about senators running for state seats.
There is no point of order.
The issue here is one of responding to the rapidly growing pressures on these people. One of the biggest pressures on pensioners is health care. That is why we have committed massive funds.
It’s about dental care too.
A very good point has been raised about dental care. That is a huge issue for pensioners. Perhaps the other side should be passing legislation allowing hundreds of thousands of Australians to access decent dental care. The position, particularly in your electorates, is that there are people—hundreds of thousands of people throughout Australia as well—who cannot access decent dental care.
They could under the Medicare scheme that you abolished.
The member for McPherson had her turn earlier.
In fact, the previous government abolished the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. You are the ones who left pensioners out there unable to eat because they could not get their teeth fixed.
Not true!
Order! The member for Riverina is warned!
We have a plan in place to reinstate the Commonwealth dental plan, and if the Liberal and National parties passed that then many hundreds of thousands of pensioners would be able to actually get their teeth fixed. It is shameful that that has not happened. You are stopping those people getting their teeth fixed.
I will also raise a couple of issues in relation to aged care. I am proud to be the Minister for Ageing and proud of the fact that this government is putting in $40 billion over the next four years. Interestingly, the member for McPherson hardly ever raises aged care and issues surrounding it, but we are very proud of our commitment. We have certainly increased funding right across the board. Aged care is one of the growing pressures for many pensioners, but we have a major commitment to it. We have had 12 years of neglect when it comes to aged care. I talked about a number of other issues before, such as pensions and health care, but in aged care as well we are fixing the neglect of 12 years. We are investing more money to have more beds available. Indeed, we have also increased the number of spot checks, and the accreditation agency now has a greater role to make people—
More bureaucracy, more red tape.
The member for McPherson is warned!
I make no apologies to anyone in the House for standing up for older Australians when it comes to their health and safety.
Opposition members interjecting—
I can hear opposition members mocking. Well, I make no apologies about this. We make sure that older Australians are safe, no matter where their nursing home is. We have increased the accreditation standards as well.
In the couple of minutes I have left, I will talk about how a lot of veterans are being left out under the opposition’s scheme. They have left so many people out, and I listed some of the problems before. The opposition claim that this measure includes 70,000 veterans, but the opposition’s definition means the figure is actually 35,000. So they have left out a heap of veterans as well. A huge number of people have been left out—two million people right across Australia.
The member for McPherson asked earlier about the rally that will be held in my electorate on Friday. I certainly will be there speaking about the very decisive action that the Rudd government has taken since it came into government after 12 years of nothing from the Liberal and National parties. Since we have been in government there has been very decisive action. We have increased the utilities allowance, the telephone allowance and the bonuses that are being paid, and we are having a comprehensive review of our pension system to get the whole process right.
The opposition left things in disarray. They did not care. They cobbled together this political quick fix. But a lot of people are very angry that that little fix left out two million people. They can see through it to what it is. We are committed to taking decisive action. We are committed to getting the system right. We are committed to making sure that we have in place comprehensive reform of our pension and taxation systems, and we are doing it for the long term. All we see from the opposition is this political quick fix approach to things. We are committed to the long term, to tackling the challenges of the 21st century, and one of those is making sure we get this right. (Time expired)
What does the Labor government have against pensioners? Another very important question is: why will the Labor government not help pensioners cope with the increased cost of living? We have all heard the rhetoric, but the simple fact remains that the government have an opportunity to help pensioners and they are refusing to do so. The coalition is not sitting on its hands when it comes to helping pensioners. The most important people in this debate are the thousands of pensioners waiting for solutions. The Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 was passed in the Senate on Monday night. This bill helps the most vulnerable pensioners: the single age pensioners, the single service pensioners and widow B pensioners.
Members on this side of the House have been out and about talking and listening to pensioners, asking what issues are facing them. But the Labor Party are in denial. They make excuses and they talk a lot of hot air—just like their election promises. Let us reflect on Labor’s election promises and the expectations they raised in the community that they had the solutions to rising petrol prices and rising grocery prices. Labor promised to ease the pressure on working families, but they failed to mention pensioners. What is the solution? An inquiry—let’s talk some more! It does not report until March 2009—again, waiting and watching. This pension review adds to more than 165 reviews, committees, inquiries and consultations that the Rudd government has commissioned. It is obvious Labor does not have an answer, and pensioners have to wait 12 months before they get any help from the government.
The coalition has provided a solution now. Decisive action is needed more than ever, and the coalition’s bill to increase the single age pension, the single service pension and the widow B pension needs to be supported immediately. Pensioners need help today. We have started with the single age pensioners, the single service pensioners and the widow B pensioners because they are the most vulnerable. The current single rate of pension is 60 per cent of the combined couple rate. It is lower than the average for major OECD countries, which stands at 63 per cent. The proposed increase of $30 per week would bring the single age pension in line with the OECD average. By failing to support a $30 increase, Labor must have the view that these pensioners do not need an increase. Labor is saying that these pensioners are doing okay and can wait a year or maybe longer—who knows?—before they can get help. Labor is watching and waiting, watching and waiting.
Labor appears to lack understanding. Older Australians’ contribution to this nation is immeasurable. The members opposite should pay attention. Almost half of older Australians aged 65 to 74 years provide unpaid assistance to someone outside of their home. One-third, around 33 per cent, provide volunteer services through community organisations. Twenty-nine per cent are actively involved in other community organisations and support groups of various kinds. The community could not move forward without the contributions of these older Australians. What about the grandfathers and grandmothers who care for their children while their parents work just to keep a roof over their heads? In these uncertain times, pensioners need to know that someone not only is listening but also cares about their circumstances and is prepared to act. Labor, by its refusal to adopt the increase of $30, fails these tests. Labor does not have the answers and will not even address the question, ‘When are you going to help single age pensioners, single service pensioners and widow B pensioners?’ Let us look at the 700 widow B pensioners. By refusing to support the coalition’s solution to assist pensioners, is the Labor Party saying that these 700 widows do not matter?
Of the nearly 900,000 single age pensioners, whose payment is 60 per cent of the combined couple rate, how many are now, as we speak, selling their cars, their assets, and their lifelong memorabilia just to put food on the table? For the many thousands of single age service pensioners this is just another example of how little the Labor government care about the contribution our oldest service men and women have made to this country. In question time today, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs failed to explain why he would not support the $30 rise for these pensions. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs prefers that all pensioners miss out. Are the pensioners the coalition is proposing to help worth it? They are. This is another failure to act by Labor. They may acknowledge the problem, but then they ignore it.
On Monday in question time, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said that the coalition’s urgent relief bill was ‘a stunt’. What about easing the cost-of-living pressures that continue to build for pensioners? The minister obviously prefers to do nothing. How does that help anyone? The veteran community deserve better. These people have laid down their lives for this country. They have made great sacrifices in carrying out their duty and responsibility, and help for this community should not be labelled a stunt. Such a statement diminishes their value. Responsibility for pension and entitlement payments lies squarely with the federal government. It is a matter of urgency that this increase is given to single pensioners.
But the coalition has stepped in. While the government dithers and waits for the outcome of another review, the coalition has taken decisive action and put forward a solution. The coalition when in government had a strong record of helping older Australians. It was the coalition that introduced the bonus programs in relation to pensioners’ utilities and telephones and the $500 bonus because we recognised that government funded pensions and allowances are the main source of income for most people aged 65 and over. These people do not have the capacity to find extra to cover the rising cost of groceries, fuel and other living expenses. Pensioners are having to cut back on their social outings. They cannot afford to put fuel in their cars.
It was the coalition that introduced the bonuses program, which Labor opposed but now claim to be their idea. It was due to the coalition government’s sound economic management and strong leadership that the incoming Labor government came into government with a fiscal surplus of $22 billion. It is a surplus which Labor are not willing to share in these tough, financially uncertain times with Australia’s most vulnerable individuals. The coalition left Labor with a healthy surplus and no government debt. Yet the government disparage the coalition’s action in trying to help single age pensioners, single service pensioners and widow B pensioners. The coalition started with this group of pensioners because they are the most vulnerable in the community.
The pension review background summary Australia’s future tax system shows that the age pension rate for single, living alone homeowners and single renters, whether in public or private accommodation, was below the relevant budget standard. These people do the least well as they do not have the economies of scale. Overall, the cost of living has increased by 4.5 per cent in the 12 months to June 2008. The coalition have taken action by introducing a bill to give the most vulnerable pensioners an increase in their pension, and we do not intend to stop there. The coalition are concerned at the defiant stance by Labor— (Time expired)
The coalition’s speeches on this matter of public importance so far have been ill conceived and disingenuous. Pensioners are important. Older Australians are important. The greatest miracle of the 20th century in Australia is the fact that we are living 25 years longer than we were 100 years ago. But this matter of public importance is not about older Australians. This is not about a beauty parade to show which party respects older Australians more. The debate as presented by the coalition has been artful, insincere and a mere tactic.
To support my contention that the speeches made by the coalition are disingenuous, I have five propositions. First of all, the debate by the coalition implies that nothing is being done. That is not true. Secondly, their proposition ignores far too many people who deserve public discussion, political support and leadership from both parties. It is not fair. Thirdly, their debate fails to accept any responsibility for 12 years of inaction. What a blessing it must be to belong to a political party that have amnesia when in opposition—so that everything that happened when they were in government should not be held to account. Not a good proposition. Fourthly, the debate by the coalition has triggered scepticism in other people, third parties, about the coalition’s commitment—based, I have to say, on the evidence of their last 12 years of government. Fifthly, the coalition’s debate falls short of the real issues.
The Rudd government knows things are tough. You cannot fix 12 years of neglect overnight, but there are things on the scoreboard already: $600 to the carers allowance; cash bonuses—$500 to seniors and $1,000 to those on carer payments; $514 to the utilities allowance—$128 quarterly. And this goes to all pensioners, not just some pensioners—people on the DSP, the widows, the wives, the veterans, the carers and the aged. The telephone allowance has gone up to $138, so that those older people who are able to be on the internet can actually get their costs paid for. We have seen the regular pension indexation increase by $15.30. We have extended the utilities allowance to people on the carers payment and the DSP. And the list goes on.
Labor in opposition instituted the Senate inquiry into cost-of-living pressures facing senior Australians. A bipartisan report tabled on 20 March 2008 recommended:
… that the Government review the suitability of the base pension levels through economic analyses of amounts required to achieve at least a modest standard of living for retired Australians, with particular consideration given to the adequacy of the percentage rate for single older people receiving the age pension compared to couples.
On 20 March the bipartisan report was tabled and on budget night we acted, with the Henry review on taxation and welfare. In recognising the urgency of the pensions issue, the government has fast-tracked the review by asking Dr Jeff Harmer, the very capable secretary of the FaHCSIA department, to complete this part of the review and report back to the government by February next year—and this is already well underway. There have been 600 written submissions and 250 oral submissions. We are getting on with business.
The second reason that I think that the coalition’s criticism of the government is unfounded is that they neglect two million other pensioners. I do appreciate the coalition raising the MPI to the extent that it lets me talk about Australians with a disability—a particular passion of mine. There are 13,000 people over the age pension age who are on carer payments or the disability support pension. These people would miss out under the coalition’s proposal. There are over one million couple pensioners who would miss out on the payment under the coalition’s proposal. There are more than 730,000 disability support pensioners who would miss out under the coalition’s regime.
Opposition members interjecting—
The interjector says, ‘Make an amendment.’ It is your motion; you do the work. We have already got a plan to assist all these people, and we are not going to be distracted by the makeshift tactics of the opposition. Furthermore, we have 78,000 single age pensioners living in public housing who will lose a quarter of this mythical increase in charges. In my own electorate of Maribyrnong, in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne, 8,700 couple pensioners would miss out under the coalition strategy rather than our strategy, and 1,100 carer payment recipients and 4,800-plus DSP recipients would also miss out. This is the problem with the coalition proposition: too many people miss out, because they do not understand a lot of the issues around pensioners.
The third reason why the coalition’s propositions are disingenuous, mischievous, erroneous and artful is that 12 years of inaction failed to achieve very much. It is pretty easy to spend someone else’s money, I suggest to the opposition. I have had a look at what the weekly rate was when Paul Keating was defeated and the Howard government came in. It was about $173 per week. During the time the coalition were in government—11 years and eight months—the pension increased by a total of $97. Now they are in opposition, they can be friends to all, because they do not have to try to sort out the long-term strategy for all pensioners.
If they want to talk about inaction, why is it that they never talk about the disability support pensioners? In Australia in the last 20 years, the plight of the disabled has been one of the public policy disgraces of Australian politics. Why is it that people with a disability, those on the pension, have lower homeownership and lower educational outcomes? The fastest growing pension in Australia was the disability support pension under the old government, because of the low unemployment rates. I suggest that the coalition’s proposition is belated, tardy, overdue, past due and delayed, when they had the power to do something that they failed to do.
Many others do not believe the credibility of the opposition. Dr Peter Sloan, the spokesperson for the Down Syndrome Association of Australia, said:
Why is the Opposition treating 714,156 Australians like second class citizens? People with disabilities are finding it just as difficult as retirees to support themselves on the pension.
The Director of Queensland Advocacy Incorporated, Kevin Cocks, said:
While age pensioners deserve attention and focus, the opposition’s failure to include disability support pensioners in their plan at best suggests this is cynical policy on the run; at worst a fundamental lack of compassion.
The President of People with Disability Australia, Robert Farley, said on 22 September, ‘People with a disability are very much the forgotten people in this proposal.’ And the list goes on. Nicole Lawder, CEO of the Deafness Forum of Australia, said:
The disability support pension is the main source of income for people with a hearing loss who receive a Centrelink benefit. So this review is of a vital concern to those who are deaf or have a hearing impairment—
our review! She continued:
Deafness Forum is very disappointed with proposals for legislation that excludes DSP and carers.
Joan Hughes, CEO of Carers of Australia, said:
People on carer payments and disability support pensions are equally affected by the rising cost of living and are equally deserving of relief.
It is not acceptable to say you will consider these groups at some unspecified time down the track. Their need is immediate. I have a letter from one of the many people who write to me about the plight of disability support pensioners. It says:
I am receiving an invalid pension due to chronic emphysema. Normally I don’t complain but it’s come to the stage where I can no longer live a quality life. After paying my bills such as rent, electricity, gas and phone, and hire fees on my washing machine and fridge, I have a mere $90 a week to live on.
It is not enough, I suggest to the opposition. I do not dispute that the opposition is interested in the aged. I am not going to have a debate about that. I am sure all of the members of parliament care about the aged. But it is not enough to care. That is a condition precedent to improving the plight of not just the age pensioner but all pensioners. You have to be effective.
In the world where I come from, everyone could get up and make a promise to people. But the people who really matter are those who can deliver on the promise to people who do the hard work. I suggest that the coalition’s propositions are stopgaps. They are makeshift contrivances which lack the long-term interests of the people who are hardest up in society—not just the age pensioners but all these other groups. Why on earth are we having a competition between different groups of pensioners on who receives the coalition’s love and attention? I would suggest that all these groups—as will happen with the Harmer review, and the commitment of the Rudd government and Minister Jenny Macklin—get the benefit.
I would like to leave the last word to Belinda Epstein-Frisch, spokesperson for Family Advocacy, who said on 20 September this year:
The opposition’s concern for the plight of age pensioners is a strategy designed to demonstrate compassion for people on Struggle Street. If this concern was real, people dependent on the disability support pension would also be within their sight.
Regretfully, the coalition is merely contriving, acting and distorting rather than taking the best interests of all Australians into account.
It is quite extraordinary to witness the evolving narrative that has been attached to Labor’s plans for pensioners. It almost beggars belief that we hear a certain speech from the Labor members on a continual basis. The alcopops tax was all about solving teenage binge drinking, and now the narrative is all about blowing a $6 billion hole in a budget surplus. Where has the concern gone for the teenage binge drinking? It has gone to the same place the concern has gone for the age, service and widowed pensioners. I will tell you where the concern is: it is nowhere, because they had the opportunity to change this and they chose not to.
I will explain why they have chosen not to. I had a media release come into my electorate from Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. In that press release the minister talks about how many pensioners in the Riverina are being ignored by me. She says: ‘By contrast, this fortnight the Australian government will pay all age pensioners, carers, veterans and disability pensioners’—and she goes on to say she delivers coalition policy. Then she says: ‘On top of the regular pension, the indexation increase will mean this’—coalition policy, Minister. Then she goes on with a prize statement. She says: ‘That’s because Mr Turnbull and Mrs Hull are more interested in a political quick fix which will exclude two million pensioners around Australia from a pension increase.’ Surprise, surprise, Minister. The minister has denied more than three million people an increase. She has denied everybody an increase.
In fact, I have sitting right here beside me the member for Gippsland. When the member for Gippsland was running for election, Labor actually decided to show up. They did not show up for Lyons and they did not show up for Mayo, but they did show up for Gippsland. The candidate ran a very strong campaign on pensioners’ issues. It was a very caring and strong campaign because he cares about the pensioners, the disability benefit recipients and all of those people in the electorate of Gippsland. Yet there was a six percent swing against the Labor Party on this very strong issue. So let us say that the Labor Party have most certainly let down pensioners right across Australia.
The minister’s press release says, ‘By contrast, the government understand that all pensioners in Riverina are under financial pressure.’ They understand it but will do nothing to help. This minister, Jenny Macklin, has failed dismally in two cases. She failed when Treasury put the documents before the cabinet of which she was a part—which costed exactly the same proposal and policy that the coalition has put in here. She failed to stand up for the pensioners and say, ‘Yes, give them $30 per week as single pensioners’—exactly the same policy. She failed once in her own cabinet. She failed a second time, in this House yesterday, when she failed every pensioner in Australia. She may accuse me of failing some of the pensioners in my electorate, but she has failed every pensioner in Australia.
We have seen the audacity of this media release, from a minister, delivering all coalition policy and quoting coalition policy. We had this little interlude here of ‘mean and tricky’. How mean and tricky can one get? Going to an election, like Mr Rudd did, saying, ‘We’re going to make life better for you all, we’re going to fix this problem and pensioners are going to be better off under the Rudd government’—that is mean and tricky. When you then skip over to the United States of America and announce millions and millions of dollars that could have gone into this pension increase to get people out of this problem in the short term, it has nothing to do with a strategy.
The previous member said, ‘The Labor strategy is this,’ and, ‘The Labor strategy is that,’ but Labor do not have a strategy. They have a review and then they will have another review and another committee and another consultation— (Time expired)
Earlier this year, the member for McPherson said on a radio program that there should be an immediate increase to the pension. An hour later on the same radio program the then shadow Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, contradicted her, saying that it was not in fact the opposition’s policy at all. I have the transcript here and I could quote from it, but I think others have already quoted from it, and time is short. I want to move on.
Earlier this month the former Leader of the Opposition announced the proposal for the increase to the single pension in a speech in Queensland. Less than two weeks after this—last Monday—the private member’s bill was tabled. On the same day, they suggested raising the taper rates on single pensions. On the Sunday before this, the Leader of the Opposition proposed to include single service and widow B pensioners, during a television interview—in fact, I think that was when that announcement was made.
So we have the situation where one day it is an increase to the single aged pension, the next it is an adjustment to taper rates and on another day it is an increase in the single service pension and for widow B pensioners. I ask: what could possibly be next? It is inconsistent, it is policy on the run and, sadly, it is playing with pensioners’ expectations. It is playing with people’s lives out there as this crazy debate being run by the opposition is continued.
Like previous opposition policy in this area, this MPI is bringing us to the point where we can discuss the inadequacies and anomalies that are created by this opposition’s mad policy. And I will say why I call it mad: it is mad because, as other speakers have said, it is ignoring those 700,000-plus people on disability support pension. It is ignoring those 133,000-plus people who are on carer payment. But it has carefully included 700 widow B pensioners. You should include them, but why include 700 widow B pensioners and exclude nearly a million recipients of DSP or carer payment, not to mention the many couple pensioners that will be missing out on this? The opposition have also used a figure from the DVA website of 70,000 to 71,000 people that they want to include in their proposal. But that figure is wrong because it does not represent accurately what their bill describes.
I have to say that I am getting a little bit angry about this. I have sat here day in and day out—and again today through this MPI and question time—being accused of things as a member of this government. We are being told that we do not care. We are being told that we are doing nothing. We are being told that we voted against a $30 increase and therefore we are immoral members of the parliament. We are being told that we are refusing to help pensioners. Let us look at a little bit of the reality before all this excitement gets us carried away. We have an income support system in this country that has evolved over decades and decades. It is very complicated. The interactions and interconnections between all of those different payments are very relevant to this debate. We are sincerely concerned with the level of income that many of these people are asked to live on day to day—the carer payment, the disability pensioners, the elderly single pensioners, the elderly couple pensioners and all of the connotations that are contained in there. We are concerned about it. To say we are doing nothing is just such an outright untruth that it is disgraceful politics.
I notice that the member for Greenway, the member for McPherson and the member for Riverina are, sadly, now not in here. They are probably out there writing their misleading, spinning press releases and again maligning this government and what the truth of this debate really is. The truth of it is that a pensioner who is paying government rent would lose 25 per cent of that $30 straightaway on their rent. A person on an age pension, and who happens to be in a nursing home, would lose 85 per cent of that $30 immediately, because that is the structure for paying rent or living costs if you are in a facility care situation. I have not heard anyone from the opposition explain how that will work. I have not heard one person opposite explain to me how any of the people I am referring to actually get $30. They do not get it; they lose a proportion of it. The opposition are playing a game of ignorance against the reality of the situation. They are accusing us of untruths. Sadly, and I think worst of all, they are playing with people and their lives purely to make a political point, and I condemn them for it. (Time expired)
Order! The discussion is now concluded.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Debate resumed.
By coordinating our international policies to complement changes in our domestic policies, we solve common problems and hindrances to trade and investment opportunities. Given the importance of trade to our economic prosperity, it is critical that our bilateral agreements are updated with our partner states to meet the challenges of changing domestic policies. This is essential to our trade policy approach. We have to ensure that Australia is productive enough and competitive enough to take advantage of our market access gains.
I would like to bring to this debate some important information that was raised with the release of an independent report into Australia’s export policies and programs. The Mortimer review, as it is colloquially known, was conducted by David Mortimer AO and Dr John Edwards. The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 reflects the sentiments in section 4.6 of the Mortimer review:
The review received a number of comments from stakeholders on Australia’s current system for taxation of overseas income. Many argued that the system has failed to keep pace with the changing nature of our trade and the internationalisation of business and that its complexity often leads to inadvertent evasion of tax.
The Mortimer review recommended that there be a concerted effort to strengthen coordination and delivery of trade policies and services. This bill is indicative of Labor’s commitment to provide a strong voice for business in developing trade and investment priorities and programs and to secure growth in Australian trade group bilateral agreements.
We have signalled a broadening of our export base, with a strong focus on services and investment. This commitment to refocus Australia’s trade policy is paramount, laying the foundations for our future prosperity. It is imperative that Australia secures trading opportunities, due to the failure of the previous federal government. Under the previous government, despite the resources boom, net exports made a positive contribution to economic growth in just two out of the 11 years they were in office. That is right: two out of the last 11 years in office. This has led to the increase in our net foreign liabilities. It is in Australia’s best interests that bilateral economic and trade relations with South Africa continue to grow.
The majority of the deterioration of Australia’s trade balance under the previous government was in the last five years, when they had the benefit of a major resources boom and very favourable terms of trade. I think the previous government really missed an opportunity to further develop Australia’s trade opportunities.
We have an opportunity now to make sure that protocols are in place to reduce barriers to bilateral trade and investment and to lower withholding tax rates on interest and royalties for Australian business and investment. This government will not miss these opportunities. We must take these steps to redress the failings of the previous government. We must take steps to redress the 72 consecutive trade deficits that we inherited from the previous government.
This is trade reform which is very important for our continued growth as a community. We, as a nation, are competitive enough and productive enough, I believe, to take advantage of the opportunities that this bill presents. An increase in exports will be necessary to stabilise net foreign liabilities and to avoid a potentially painful readjustment process in the future. The challenge is not only to take advantage of the opportunities but also to help secure economic growth in a sustainable way for our overseas and bilateral partners. It is vital that we secure our international business culture in this country to improve our performance. It is vital that we take the lead in the trade liberalisation agenda with our international trading partners. Our region can become a very substantial economic powerhouse within the global economy. Fundamentally, it also means that we have to diversify our trade base to harness much more of the huge potential that this nation has, to provide, in the long run, benefits to consumers and to build stronger relationships with our trading partners.
It is imperative that we get the frameworks right, boost economic growth and set the nation up for sustainable prosperity beyond the resources boom. This is a new era of economic reform. In just 12 months we have already made a huge down payment on our commitments to improve Australia’s trade performance. We have a strong resources and agriculture base. These are the things we share strongly with South Africa. But a strong resources and agricultural base will not solely support us in the long term, and the failures of the previous government in providing long-term structural trade policy must be reversed. We are taking those opportunities. The challenge for us here is to take up those opportunities and really deliver for our nation. Let us secure a strong economic growth for our future. This bill does that, and I commend it to the House.
It is my great pleasure to be here speaking today and following on from the member for Corangamite. Since the member for Corangamite and I were elected to this place, this is the first time that we have spoken consecutively in the House of Representatives, which leads to the conclusion that five o’clock today really is Geelong hour in the House of Representatives—as, of course, we very much know that five o’clock will be Geelong hour at the MCG this coming Saturday! We take this as a portent for what is to come in the next 72 hours.
I rise to speak in support of the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008, which will incorporate into law the 2008 protocol agreement between South Africa and Australia relating to taxation and amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953. The protocol that was signed earlier this year enhances and updates the existing Australia-South Africa tax treaty, which was first signed in 1999. This new protocol will assist in promoting trade between our two nations. It will also assist in providing communication and better cooperation between the tax agencies in South Africa and in Australia. It will also encourage greater investment by each country in the other. It will do this specifically by lowering the withholding tax rates on interest and royalties which are related to trade. This bill comes before the House of Representatives having first gone to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which recommended that the bill be passed through the parliament and that the protocol become law in Australia.
Australia and South Africa share much within their history. Both countries had European settlement occur in the context of the British Commonwealth. The Boer War was in essence the first major conflict that Australians fought in as Australians. After that war many Australians stayed in South Africa, and in 1904 the South African census recognised over 5,000 Australian settlers. In this country we saw the first wave of South African immigration to Australia around the 1850s, when approximately 1,500 South Africans came to Australia in pursuit of gold—and approximately half of those South Africans ended up living in my home state of Victoria. Today it is estimated that there are 115,000 South Africans who reside in Australia and, correspondingly, that there are 7½ thousand Australians who reside in South Africa.
Australia and South Africa established diplomatic relations with each other back in 1947. Of course, those relations soured following the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 and subsequently during the apartheid era. It is to this country’s great credit that, throughout that time, Australia strongly opposed the apartheid government in South Africa. Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser spoke out vigorously against apartheid, particularly at the 1977 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Scotland, where he argued that the Commonwealth should become institutionally opposed to apartheid. Bilateral relations between our two countries have been enhanced since 1994, with the first post-apartheid all-party elections and the introduction of very strong democratic institutions into South Africa. It is of interest that, since 1994, Australia has provided $120 million worth of development assistance for this, in a sense, emerging democracy.
Australia and South Africa have also worked very closely together on defence issues since 1994, despite our contrasting geography, being in different longitudes of the world. The chief of staff operations for the South African National Defence Force visited Australia in August 1996 and, since then, there have been numerous visits back and forth between our two defence forces. We all remember the Australian Defence Force in 2001 praising the South African National Defence Force for its help in apprehending an illegal fishing vessel which had fled Australian waters.
At a parliamentary level there has also been a lot of discourse and connection between our two countries. There have been significant parliamentary delegations and ministerial visits since 1994. The first was undertaken by the current member for Fraser, the then Minister for Trade, Bob McMullan, back in March 1995. Under the Howard government, there were nine official visits by ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including the Prime Minister, John Howard, in 1999. There have also been four parliamentary delegations since 1997. The current Speaker of the House, the member for Scullin, represented Australia at the 118th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Cape Town in April this year. South Africa is the only African member of the Cairns Group.
But the legacy of apartheid has not been easy for South Africa to shake. South Africa still confronts many difficult domestic issues as a result of apartheid. There are large income disparities and there is high unemployment in South Africa, and there is, as in Australia, a skills shortage. The skills shortage in South Africa is caused, in part, by the brain drain which occurred during the apartheid era. I mentioned earlier the differing numbers of South Africans in Australia and Australians in South Africa. The very large number of South Africans in Australia is an example of that brain drain.
There are also regional issues which make South Africa’s domestic circumstances all the more difficult, particularly as it borders Zimbabwe and experiences the current Zimbabwean crisis, which has seen a significant influx of refugees into South Africa. That and other issues, such as the rate of HIV-AIDS infection in Africa, have made for very difficult circumstances for the South African government and governmental resources.
I say all of that because, despite all of those challenges and difficulties, post 1994 South Africa has prospered and become the political and economic powerhouse of Africa. South Africa currently is ranked 28th in the world in terms of GDP. World Bank statistics measure South Africa’s GDP at US$227 billion. South Africa is by far Australia’s largest trading partner on the African continent. Overall, the two-way trade between South Africa and Australia equates to $3.88 billion annually. South Africa currently accounts for about 1½ per cent of the Australian export market, or $2.5 billion. That figure represents what has been a year-by-year growth in trade with South Africa of about 10½ per cent. Right now, South Africa is our 16th largest merchandise export market overall. Australia supplies 1.8 per cent of South African imports and, correspondingly, we are the 16th largest importer into the South African market. The major Australian export items into the South African market include medical equipment, including veterinary equipment, which accounts for $814 million; coal, which accounts for $173 million; meat, which accounts for $57 million; and civil engineering equipment, which accounts for $47 million. In addition to that, Australia also exports $347 million worth of services to South Africa, the vast bulk of which is really made up of inbound tourism to South Africa.
In terms of investment, the ABS puts Australian investment in South Africa at $893 million, but really that represents only the tip of the iceberg because in fact a lot of companies do not report their investment figures to the ABS on account of commercial confidentiality. To give you a sense of how large the actual figures are: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has estimated that Australian mining companies have approximately $15 billion invested in South Africa. Some companies—for example, Aquarius Platinum and BHP Billiton—are involved in platinum mining. GRD Minproc is involved in providing engineering services to the mining sector. International Ferro Metals is involved in both chrome mining and the ferrochrome process for amalgamating iron and chrome into ferrochrome. Mineral Commodities is a company which is involved in both nickel and chrome mining in South Africa. Palabora Mining, Rio Tinto and Riversdale are all involved in copper mining in South Africa. Tawana Resources is involved in diamond mining in South Africa.
Other Australian organisations that are involved in South Africa include Monash University, which has a campus in South Africa, and Macquarie Africa, which invests in infrastructure projects in that country. To that end, a very significant company based in my electorate of Corio in Geelong is the Costa Group. The former chair of the Costa Group, of course, is Frank Costa—and, to return to the earlier theme, he is the current President of the Geelong Football Club, so my best wishes at this moment absolutely go to Frank and the team. I know that he is sitting very nervously in the lead-up to Saturday. The Costa Group is a very significant Australian company, and it currently provides logistics for a major supermarket chain in South Africa called Pick n Pay. Costas in turn employ 850,000 South Africans locally in South Africa. So there is a very large Australian company based in my electorate that has very significant interests in South Africa.
Australia is South Africa’s 12th largest export market. It represents two per cent of South Africa’s exports and it accounts for $1.35 billion in trade. The principal merchandise items that are being exported out of South Africa into this country are passenger motor vehicles, which account for $663 million worth of exports; motor vehicle parts, which represent $47 million worth of exports; pig iron, which represents $45 million; and transport vehicles, which represent $39 million of exports out of South Africa into this country. Australia also imports $303 million worth of service items from South Africa, and again that is principally made up of South African tourists coming into this country. In terms of investment, at the end of 2007 South Africa had $1.2 billion invested in this country. That gives you a sense of the economic ties which exist between our two countries—they are very significant indeed. This only highlights the importance of this bill before the House today.
The protocol which is the basis of this bill was signed by Australia’s High Commissioner to South Africa, His Excellency Mr Philip Green, and the Acting Minister of Finance in South Africa, the Hon. Ms Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, in South Africa on 31 March of this year. The bill amends the existing taxation agreement, which, as I said earlier, first came into being in 1999. The new protocol was prompted by the need for Australia to meet the most favoured nation obligation which exists in the 1999 taxation agreement. What that in effect meant was that there was an undertaking given by Australia to South Africa that it would have the most favourable terms possible in our international relations. Australia and the UK signed a tax treaty in 2003 which enhanced the relationship between us and the UK and which bettered the existing position between Australia and South Africa. The most favoured nation obligation clause obliged both countries to renegotiate the tax agreement, which then led to the protocol which was signed this year.
The principal measures contained in the protocol, and which are therefore contained in the bill before us today, are amendments which govern withholding tax rates levied on dividend flows between Australia and South Africa. These provide for a five per cent withholding tax rate for non-portfolio intercorporate dividends, which is a very long term that basically means that companies which have a more than 10 per cent interest in a company in either country have their withholding tax rate applied to the dividends which derive from that child company, if you like, at five per cent. In terms of portfolio holdings in the normal course of holding shares in a company, the withholding tax rate will be 15 per cent for dividends derived from those share portfolios. These changes and those rates conform with existing OECD norms and they also reflect the situation which exists in South African domestic law.
The new protocol also contains a number of other measures which are significant. It will provide for much greater sharing of information between the tax agencies in South Africa and Australia. It will provide for much greater cooperation, particularly between the two tax agencies, in cross-border tax collection. It will provide for much greater consistency in the arrangement that we have in relation to tax with other countries around the world. The new tax agreement with South Africa will be much more in line with the various arrangements that we have with other countries around the world. Importantly, the protocol will provide for the insertion of a non-discrimination article. This will have the effect of preventing any discriminatory tax practices which exist in either South Africa or Australia. The protocol, which leads to the bill, will also give rise to an expanded list of taxes which the agreement applies to.
The passage of the bill through the parliament in the spring session would allow for the enforcement of the new protocol by the end of this year. That is particularly important given that South Africa has already completed all its domestic requirements for enacting the protocol in its jurisdiction and in a sense is now waiting for us to do the same.
In conclusion, Australia and South Africa, as I stated, have shared a very long and fruitful history. It is important that we build upon that, and that is what this bill will seek to do. This bill will absolutely assist in enhancing the already significant two-way trade between South Africa and Australia. In doing so, it will facilitate much greater investment opportunities for Australian companies in South Africa and for South African companies in Australia. It will also decrease the taxation barriers which exist between the two countries. That is very important in the context of the Rudd government’s commitment to ensuring that Australian exporting companies have every means available to them to export their products into a global market—in this case, the South African market.
in reply—I thank all members who have contributed to this debate—not least the member for Corio, although I am sure his opening remarks do not have the unanimous support of the House. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has expressed a strong pro-Hawthorn view at the dispatch box, and there will be various views around the House. Of course, those of us who are disenfranchised because the Sydney Swans are out of the action may sit on the sidelines. But I am sure the member for Greenway will join me in supporting the new Western Sydney team when it comes into operation.
I thank the members for Casey, Cowan, Blair, Lindsay, Corangamite and Corio. As honourable members have outlined to the House, the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 gives force of law to a new tax protocol with South Africa. The new protocol, which was signed in Pretoria on 31 March 2008, modernises and enhances the bilateral tax treaty arrangements from 1999. This bill will amend the text of the existing South African tax treaty in the International Tax Agreements Act 1953. Australia’s and South Africa’s bilateral economic and trade relations continue to grow, as the member for Corio indicated. South Africa is Australia’s largest and most dynamic market in Africa, and South African investment dominates investment from the African continent into Australia.
Tax treaties facilitate trade and investment by minimising tax barriers between treaty partner countries by relieving double taxation, preventing tax discrimination and providing certainty with respect to tax treatment of cross-border income flows, thereby reducing compliance costs on taxpayers. Accordingly, the new protocol updates the taxation arrangements between Australia and South Africa to enhance Australia’s relationship with South Africa by reducing barriers to bilateral trade and investment by lowering withholding tax rates on interest and royalties.
The South African tax protocol delivers on Australia’s most favoured nation obligation in the existing tax treaty to provide for rules to prevent tax discrimination. Tax discrimination under other countries’ tax systems can be a significant barrier to outbound Australian investment. The protocol inserts a non-discrimination article which prevents discriminatory tax practices between the countries. The protocol was also prompted by proposed changes to South Africa’s domestic taxation law of corporate profits. The protocol amends the withholding tax rates applying to dividends, providing a five per cent rate for all non-portfolio intercorporate dividends and a 15 per cent rate for all other dividends. These changes align with the OECD norms and address South Africa’s changes to its domestic law system of taxing corporate profits. Australian non-portfolio investment in South Africa will generally benefit from a reduced total South African tax on corporate profits as a result of these changes.
In responding to the needs of both Australian and South African business and in ensuring protection of Australia’s revenue base, the new protocol also includes a number of key changes. It updates capital gains tax treatment so that it aligns more closely with the OECD to assist trade and investment flows between countries. It modernises the exchange of information provisions to conform with OECD standards, allowing the tax administrations of both countries to share tax information. It also introduces integrity measures which provide for cross-border collection of tax debts.
The new protocol will enter into force once both countries have advised that they have completed their domestic requirements, which, in the case of Australia, includes the enactment of this bill. This treaty has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which has recommended that binding treaty action be taken. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on a bill that amends legislation relating to family assistance, child support and veterans affairs. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 provides three schedules for further budget measures and other measures affecting the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Veterans’ Affairs, and Human Services portfolios. Schedule 1 relates to the maternity immunisation allowance and aligns the maternity immunisation allowance with the National Immunisation Program regarding payment of the allowance. Schedule 1 also extends eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from overseas. These amendments will be reflected in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, referred to as the family assistance act, and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, referred to as the family assistance administration act, and will commence on 1 January 2009.
The second schedule amends the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and relates to the partner service pension entitlement. Schedule 2 is a budget measure that ceases eligibility for the payment of the partner service pension to those partners of veterans who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached age pension age. There are two parts to schedule 2. The first measure is to introduce a cut-off point when eligibility ceases. The second measure is to reduce the eligibility age to 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension, or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This measure is a good thing, but it is evidence of Labor not understanding the veteran community when they introduced the legislation earlier in the year and increased the age eligibility. It is proof of policy on the run.
Additional amendments in the schedule make minor changes to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act consequent upon the enactment of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. It is expected that this schedule will commence from 1 July 2009, and the forecast savings in the first Labor budget are expected to be approximately $77.8 million over four years.
Schedule 3 removes a number of anomalies in relation to the new child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. Minor amendments to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, referred to as the assessment act, and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, referred to as the registration and collection act, are set out in seven parts covering percentage of care, publication of reasons for decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, departure from assessments, terminating events, reducing rate of child support under minimum annual rate assessments, overseas liabilities and crediting prescribed payments. The amendments will ensure a more balanced and flexible way of working out child support payments and will affect all parents who receive or pay child support.
Reforms to the child support system were announced by the coalition in 2006 and received bipartisan support. The reforms were introduced in July 2008. Amendments in schedules 1 and 3 are welcome and build on initiatives introduced by the coalition when in government. The coalition successfully increased the funding for and rates of immunisation. In 1996, the coalition built on the National Immunisation Strategy, which evolved into the Immunise Australia seven-point plan in 1997. By that time, the coalition had introduced the pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccination programs. In 1995, immunisation rates for children from birth to six years were as low as 52 per cent. Since the introduction of the Immunise Australia program, childhood immunisation rates have increased to an all-time high, with over 90 per cent of children aged 12 to 15 months fully immunised.
In 1996, Australian government expenditure on vaccines was $13 million and by the following year expenditure had increased to $443.2 million—a 34-fold increase. The coalition in government was serious about reducing childhood diseases and ensuring Australia was a healthy nation, and this continues. For an immunisation program to be effective, the coalition knew that parents had to participate. The first initiative directed towards parents was to provide a bonus through a restructured maternity allowance. From 1998, this payment was paid in two instalments, the first at birth and the second at 18 months. The second payment is known as the maternity immunisation allowance. The allowance paid to parents is a strong incentive to ensure a child’s immunisation program completes the five key childhood immunisation milestones—at two, four, six, 12 and 18 months of age.
A second initiative introduced in 1998 was directed towards parents in relation to childcare rebates. From 27 April 1998, families applying for childcare assistance and the childcare cash rebate were required to demonstrate that their child was fully immunised. On 1 July 2000, both childcare assistance and the childcare cash rebate were replaced by a new payment called the childcare benefit. Provisions were made for parents who do not have their children immunised due to medical contraindications or conscientious objection.
Schedule 1 introduces a split payment by paying the maternity immunisation allowance, MIA, for children who meet the 18-months and four-year-old immunisation requirements. Currently, eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance is limited to children up to the age of two and is paid only once. Schedule 1 introduces split payment and extends eligibility for children up to the age of five. Schedule 1 also introduces eligibility for children born outside Australia and adopted prior to entering Australia. The adoption process does not have to be finalised at the time the child enters Australia, but the child must be entrusted to the care of the person adopting the child by an authorised person and arrive in Australia while under the age of 16.
I return now to schedule 2, an amendment which the coalition opposes. The new amendment seeks to contain certain budget and non-budget measures that affect veterans and their families either receiving or eligible to receive the partner service pension entitlement. These veterans and their families are getting a very poor deal from the Labor government. While this government adjusted its budget upwards, with projected gross savings of $77.8 million by the proposed changes to veterans entitlements in schedule 2, ordinary Australians—partners of veterans—faced with changed family relationships will, if this bill is accepted without amendment, from 1 January 2009, have to adjust their household budget downward as a result of those changes. In the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008, presented by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the government abandoned veterans’ partners and planned to cut off the pension from partners who had separated from, but did not divorce, their veteran partner. Veterans and their families already have had to adjust their household budgets because of the increased cost of living. This bill will add further financial pressure.
Why is the government going against its own policy in relation to veterans entitlements and the partner service pension? It is important to make this point: the partner service pension is not a pension in the sense of a welfare payment; it is an entitlement paid in respect of, and acknowledgement for, the veterans’ special circumstances—the intangible effects of war that may result in premature ageing, loss of earning power through illness or injury and the many other pressures of service in the armed forces. Veterans and their families, particularly spouses and partners, have given much to this nation, in many instances laying their lives on the line. They have sacrificed much. We pay tribute to partners and spouses who love and support our veterans.
The effects of service, especially for those who have served in war zones, vary from person to person, but there are effects just the same. The coalition acknowledges and respects the sacrifices veterans and their families have made in the service of this nation. In the Labor government’s budget 2008-09, they made a commitment to being responsive and meeting the needs of a changing ex-service community with a focus on aged care, World War II veterans and the needs of younger veterans and members. This was touted as a key focus, but the Labor Party do not respect veterans and their families; otherwise, they would not strip away entitlements and force people who are already in stressful circumstances through relationship breakdown onto welfare. This is especially true of partners who separate and where there may be children involved. Under this bill, these separated partners will be forced to find a job or to go onto Centrelink payments. That is welfare. That is another cut that hurts the defence community deeply. The veterans community and the coalition agree on this point. A service pension is not a welfare payment; it is an entitlement. It is acknowledgement of the sacrifices and special circumstances of defence families, of veteran families. We should be grateful for these wonderful men and women who rise to whatever challenges are thrown their way and do a job that we cannot do. The Labor Party are not grateful and lack understanding of our veteran community.
Eligibility applies to those partners who are separated by illness or who separate but do not enter a marriage-like relationship with another person for up to 12 months after separation. Once the 12 months are up, the payment is cut off. The coalition, back in May 2008, criticised the government for raising the age eligibility, and rightly so. The criticism is as valid today as it was then for the way in which the age eligibility threshold was changed from 50 years of age to 58.5 years of age for women and to 60 years of age for men and now back again. This was no incremental jump but a gigantic leap that shifted the financial goalposts for many families that had planned for that pension. Why did the government do this? To save money, they say.
But I put to the government that the real reason is to shift veterans entitlements from the department’s budget onto welfare payments. It was a slash-and-burn decision with no consideration for the emotional, financial or social impact on vulnerable partners. This is typical of a Labor government that does not have a good record of economic management and is desperate to get some traction on economic management but has no idea that this is not the way to go. It has made a mistake by lifting that age threshold and is now caught in the backlash from the veterans community. Just as Labor is suffering a backlash by refusing to support the $30 per week rise for single age pensions, single service pensions and widow B pensions, this bill denies a benefit to partners of veterans after they have separated. This is short-sighted at a time when cost-of-living pressures, fuel, groceries and rent—and the list goes on—are placing significant burdens on veterans, their partners and their families. When they are separating, both partners in or both members of a relationship face challenges. This is a time when such government action can further exacerbate the challenges faced by all concerned. The coalition opposes the changes to the partner service pension where people are separated but not divorced. The coalition strongly believes that veterans and their partners, the men and women who support our veterans, are entitled to special entitlements and support as a way of recognising the contribution and sacrifice that our servicemen and servicewomen have made in service to our country.
During the election campaign, the current Prime Minister promised the veterans community that veterans would not be worse off under a Rudd Labor government. This bill makes a mockery of that election promise. In the very first budget of the Labor government these two measures ripped $113 million out of veterans entitlements. How is that ensuring veterans are not worse off? Their partners, once the couple are separated, only have 12 months of support before they have to apply to Centrelink. There is immediate termination of the partner service pension payment if the veteran enters a new marriage-like relationship.
Since 1962 Australia has been engaged in war zones in Vietnam, from 1962 to 1975; Somalia, from 1992 to 1994; East Timor, from 1999 to 2003; Afghanistan, from 2001 to the present; and Iraq, from 2003 to the present. This time frame of 1962 to 2008 is 46 years. Consider servicemen or servicewomen who married sometime in those 46 years or who are in a marriage-like relationship and who are now reaching the age of 50. They have to endure another 8.5 years or 10 years before they are eligible for income support. What happens if they separate when their partner reaches the eligibility age? If the veteran begins a new marriage-like relationship, the former partner has to immediately find a job or apply for Newstart, which is a welfare payment to support people while they look for a job. With the shift upwards of eligibility thresholds for the age pension, the gap between Newstart and the age pension is problematic and adds further financial pressure to the distressing situation of a broken relationship. How can the Labor Party do this to people? I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment in relation to the changes to the partner service pension.
The final part of the bill is schedule 3, and I have already covered a number of amendments to the new child support system. It is worth reflecting on what these changes will mean to the parents, either payers or payees, in this system. The new Australian Child Support Scheme commenced on 1 July 2008 with bipartisan support. Schedule 3, which deals with child support, makes minor technical amendments but will ensure the system is more transparent and equitable. The amendment as to percentage of care will enable the registrar to determine changes in the percentage of care undertaken by a parent to be reflected in the child support assessment. Another amendment allows internal review decisions of the registrar that are reviewable by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to be communicated to a person authorised by the secretary to undertake publication in a de-identified form to ensure privacy of a party or a witness to the proceedings. A third minor amendment relates to mechanisms to amend child support assessments, where appropriate, to take into account high childcare costs for non-carer parents. This is necessary because currently a non-parent carer, unlike a parent, is required to provide income details for child support purposes.
A fourth amendment clarifies circumstances in which the administrative assessment of child support will terminate. Reducing the rate of child support under minimum annual rate assessments will now be able to be done by the registrar where a minimum annual rate has been assessed and the parent’s income is below the formula for a 12-month period. In the case of parents with additional overseas liabilities in reciprocating jurisdictions, those liabilities are reflected in the new child support formula. It allows the registrar to issue a departure prohibition order in respect of outstanding child support obligations where appropriate. The final amendment to the child support system clarifies the rule whereby prescribed payments, such as school fees or necessary medical expenses for the child, can be credited in substitution for payment to the registrar.
These amendments are welcome improvements to the child support system. Reforms to the child support system were initiated by the coalition in response to concerns raised by paying parents and payee parents in the system. The reforms were adopted by the Rudd Labor government. The amendments proposed in schedules 1 and 3 of this bill are acceptable to the coalition. Schedule 2 is being opposed by the opposition. I now move the foreshadowed amendment circulated in my name:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading the House:
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I will be talking in particular about schedule 1 in relation to my support for this legislation. The bill will provide for certain further budget measures and other non-budget measures affecting the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs portfolios. The measures allow for the payment of the maternity immunisation allowance in two instalments and extended eligibility for children adopted from overseas, the ceasing of the payment of the partner service pension for married partners who are separated but not divorced and minor technical amendments to child support.
I will now look at the bill in a little more detail, paying attention in particular to schedule 1. Schedule 1 makes amendments to better align the maternity immunisation allowance with the National Immunisation Program by paying the allowance in two equal payments for children who meet the 18-month and four-year-old immunisation requirements. Recipients of the maternity immunisation allowance may also be eligible if they have an approved immunisation exemption for their children. Exemptions may be granted if there is a conscientious objection to the immunisation or if there are medical reasons why the child should not be immunised. The maternity immunisation allowance is currently a one-off, lump sum payment of $236.70. It is paid for children immunised to the level recommended for an 18-month-old child. The payment must be claimed on or before the child’s second birthday and is not means tested. The payment was designed to provide an incentive to encourage parents to vaccinate their children before the age of two years. The payment is indexed twice a year—in March and September. The maternity immunisation allowance was paid to around 247,000 children in 2006-07 at a cost of $56.2 million. It is estimated that 38,500 of them were the children of parents who had valid immunisation exemption reasons, including 2,500 children of conscientious objectors.
The measure of paying the allowance in two equal payments aims to increase the proportion of four-year-old children in Australia who are fully immunised. The existing single lump sum payment provides an incentive for parents to have their children immunised at 18 months but does not provide a similar incentive for parents to have their four-year-olds immunised. As at 30 December 2007, 93 per cent of children aged between 24 months and 27 months were fully immunised. The proportion of older children who are fully immunised is lower, with approximately 88 per cent of children fully immunised at the age of six. Vaccinations for four-year-olds, as recommended in the National Immunisation Program, currently include diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio. The maternity immunisation allowance is also given if a child is stillborn or dies before reaching two years of age.
The bill will also extend the allowance to children who are adopted from outside Australia who enter Australia before turning 16 and are immunised appropriately after arrival. It will also make minor modifications to the rules for determining entitlement to the allowance. This particular part of the schedule is very close to my heart. I was adopted from New Zealand when I was three months old. Obviously the allowance was not available at that time, but there are considerable expenses for parents adopting children from overseas. It is a very welcome thing that those people who go through the difficult process of adopting children from overseas—and I must say that New Zealand is probably one of the easiest countries from which to adopt someone—will be able to make sure that their children are equally protected when they are in Australia. It is also important for Australian-born children that this happens because, with higher rates of immunisation, the diseases against which children are immunised are less likely to spread throughout the community. So it is a very important amendment to make sure that children who are adopted from outside Australia are also entitled to this allowance.
These amendments commence on 1 January 2009. After this date, parents and carers with children who meet the immunisation requirements for an 18-month-old will be paid the first maternity immunisation allowance payment of $148.40, which is indexed, when the child is aged between 18 months and 24 months. The second payment of $118.40, which is also indexed, will be available when children have received their vaccination at four years of age, or have an approved exemption, and must be claimed on or before the child’s fifth birthday. The payments will be indexed twice a year. In practice, the second instalment payment will be higher than the first, due to the subsequent indexation. Parents who have received the full immunisation payment for their children prior to implementation of this measure will not be able to claim the payment for immunisation at four years of age.
I can understand the position taken by conscientious objectors when it comes to immunisation, and I respect their right to object, but I must point out some of the very many positives that have resulted in Australia from past and present immunisation programs and just how important it is that immunisation does take place throughout the community in relation to these particular diseases. While the risks associated with the diseases are high, the risks linked with vaccination are low. It is important to remember that vaccines are many, many times safer than the diseases that children are vaccinated against.
Some vaccines have to be adjusted or updated over time. The oral polio vaccine, OPV, has been replaced with an inactivated polio vaccine, IPV, on the basis that the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from OPV now exceeds the risk of catching naturally occurring polio. This change in comparative risk has come about only because polio has been eliminated from Australia, with no naturally occurring polio cases reported in Australia since 1978. This is a very good thing and is a direct result of previous immunisation programs that have made naturally occurring polio nonexistent since 1978.
Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis, which occurs as a result of receiving oral polio vaccine, is extremely rare, occurring on average once in every 2.4 million doses of vaccine delivered, but can result in significant, ongoing paralysis. Since IPV replaced OPV in the United States in 2000, cases of vaccine-associated paralysis—which previously numbered eight to 10 cases per year in the United States—have been eliminated and the United States has remained polio free. IPV provides protection against all naturally occurring types of this disease worldwide, including here in Australia. Children are vaccinated in Australia against polio at two, four and six months and at four years of age.
Let us have a quick look at some of the other diseases which once had a far greater incidence in this country but, through immunisation, have been made far more rare and no longer impact on our children in the large numbers that they once did. Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria called Bordetella pertussis. This disease is highly infectious and most serious in babies. The disease is spread through droplets in the air and it can develop from windpipe infections into lung infections, known as pertussis pneumonia. Symptoms include coughing and ‘whooping’, which can continue for a few months. Complications of the disease include a lack of oxygen to the brain, leading to brain damage and possibly death.
Pertussis is a vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination recommended for routine childhood immunisation is listed on the National Immunisation Program schedule and funded for children under the Immunise Australia Program. People in high-risk occupations, such as health and childcare workers, are urged under the program to consider receiving a booster against pertussis. In my previous role as the National Secretary of the Health Services Association, we always used to say to our members and all health workers that this was something that they should be very aware of, and we urged them to make sure that they participated in a vaccination program so that they were safer when looking after the sick in our country.
No doubt most members are familiar with tragic stories of Australians, young people in particular, who have died or been left permanently scarred or disabled by meningococcal infections. Meningococcal diseases are caused by a number of different strains of a certain bacteria. Meningococcal diseases include meningitis, septicaemia, pneumonia, arthritis and conjunctivitis. It takes between one to 10 days after infection before symptoms show. Symptoms of meningococcal meningitis include high fever, headache, neck stiffness, nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light, confusion, irritability and drowsiness. In Australia, meningococcal infections caused by strain C are vaccine preventable in all age groups, including babies and young children. Infections caused by strains A, C, W135 and Y are vaccine preventable in older children and adults. Vaccination recommended for routine childhood immunisation is listed on the National Immunisation Program schedule and funded for children under the Immunise Australia Program.
Diphtheria is another vaccine preventable disease, classed as an acute illness. Toxins produced by a bacteria that causes diphtheria affect the respiratory tract, the nervous system, the adrenal glands and the heart muscle cells. Spread by droplets or direct contact with wounds and materials soiled by infected persons, diphtheria takes two to five days after infection for symptoms to show. The disease mainly affects the respiratory tract but skin can also become infected. The bacteria form a membrane of dead, white blood cells in the upper respiratory tract, causing breathing difficulties. The diphtheria toxin can cause severe nerve and heart damage. Vaccination recommended for routine childhood immunisation is listed on the National Immunisation Program and funded for children under the Immunise Australia Program.
A number of immunisations are required in the first few years of a child’s life to protect the child against the most serious infections of childhood. The immune system in young children does not work as well as the immune system in older children and adults because it is still immature. That is why more doses of vaccine are needed for children. In the first months of life, a baby is protected from most infectious diseases by antibodies from his or her mother, which are transferred to the baby during pregnancy. When these antibodies wear off, the baby is at risk of serious infections and so the first immunisations are given before these antibodies have gone.
Another reason why children get many immunisations is that new vaccines against serious infections continue to be developed. The number of injections is reduced by the use of combined vaccines, where several vaccines are combined into one shot. The common side effects of immunisation are redness and soreness at the site of injections and a mild fever. While these symptoms may concern parents and upset their children at the time, the benefit of the immunisation program is protection from disease. More serious reactions to immunisations are very, very rare.
That is some of the background as to why immunisation is so important in the lives of Australians. Diseases which were once thought to be the normal risks of everyday existence in this country, such as polio and tetanus, are now fully preventable thanks to vaccines and immunisation. The changes made possible through this bill will give parents an incentive to have their four-year-olds given the recommended boosters before they start school and should result in many Australian children having a better overall level of immunisation.
There are other elements of this bill which I will touch on briefly. Schedule 2 of the bill contains amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 that will give effect to the 2008-09 budget measure to cease eligibility for partner service pension for those partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses and who have not reached pension age. Under current provisions, a non-illness-separated spouse loses eligibility for the partner service pension from the date from which they enter into a marriage-like relationship. These amendments extend circumstances to lose eligibility to 12 months after the date of separation or when the veteran partner enters into a marriage-like relationship. These amendments commence on 1 January 2009.
Further amendments will set the eligibility age at 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than the special rate but above the general rate disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. These amendments would only commence upon royal assent.
The bill also makes minor amendments to the child support legislation, notably to address anomalies in relation to the child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. These changes include reflecting changes in care of less than 7.1 per cent in the child support assessment in certain circumstances, allowing the publication of de-identified reasons for decisions in child support cases by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, allowing either parent to apply for a departure from assessments in high-cost care cases, and allowing departure prohibition orders to be enforced for overseas maintenance liabilities.
To briefly recap, this bill makes changes that will, firstly, restructure the maternity immunisation allowance to bring it more closely in line with the National Immunisation Program. The reasons why this needs to be done and why immunisation is so important have already been outlined. The first partner service pension measure in the bill will cease eligibility for those partners who have separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses and who have not reached pension age. Under this measure, eligibility for partner service pensions will cease 12 months after separation or if the veteran enters into a marriage-like relationship. The second partner service pension measure is to set the eligible age of 50 years for partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of less than the special rate but above the general rate of disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Australians have the second longest life expectancy, next to Japan, with Australians living an average of 81 years. Immunisation programs have played an important role, though they are not the sole determinant in this. It is vitally important for the future health of the nation, not only in making sure that we live longer but also in terms of the quality of life that Australians live, that immunisation programs are supported and encouraged so that we can have higher rates of immunisation. This will make sure that children are not made vulnerable to the various diseases that in past generations caused so much heartache and loss. It is vitally important that these immunisation programs are supported. It is vitally important that the amendments in this bill are supported so that young Australians, and those who are adopted from overseas and become Australians, are given the maximum encouragement and maximum opportunity to participate in our immunisation programs that bring about a healthier and longer-living citizenship in this country. I commend the bill to the House.
In rising to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008, I first want to speak to the part of it dealing with the immunisation provisions, particularly as they apply to adopted children. During the last parliament, I chaired the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, and we brought down a most important report entitled Overseas adoption in Australia.
One of the recommendations that we made—and I am very pleased to see that it was referred to in the second reading speech—was that:
The Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.
The reason we made that recommendation is that obviously some children were adopted when they were older, and also there were some children for whom the adoption actually took place in another country before they came to Australia, such as those coming from China. It was a great inequity—one of a number that we identified in that report.
We also made some very serious recommendations to make it easier for Australian couples to go through the process of being vetted and having their files sent to countries where we have adoption agreements. We recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade take over the negotiations of adoption agreements between Australia and other countries instead of the piecemeal way in which this process had been conducted for years, whereby various states had different responsibilities for various countries or, more specifically, for particular orphanages or agencies within that country. It was a most inefficient and unfair way of dealing with things. The degree of fear that was encountered by many people who were wishing to become adopting parents was such that some of them pulled out of giving evidence to our inquiry for the simple reason that they thought their file might be lost or pushed under the desk and that they would not be assessed in a timely way.
There is a great yearning of parents and would-be parents in Australia to give love and comfort to children whom they adopt from overseas. The committee was of the very firm view that adoption was a legitimate way of forming or adding to a family but that this was against what it found existed in the bureaucracy, which was an anti-adoption attitude. Hopefully, largely from the former government’s acceptance of this report and also from this government’s implementation of many of the sections of the report, we will see those children who are able to come to this country have love in their lives and an expectation of a good life fulfilled.
I am very warmly reminded of the words of one of our youngest witnesses, who was aged 14. She came from Ethiopia. Her testimony was, very simply, how wonderful it was for her to be in Australia and to be loved. Had she remained in Ethiopia, her life expectancy would have been 39 years of age, but here, in Australia, she was able to have a long life expectancy. She was also able to choose a career that could venture from a model to a pop idol to a chef. She was a remarkable young lady and had formed wonderful friendships. She is a splendid Australian. That story is, I think, one that we want to see repeated. So I am very pleased to see that provision included in this legislation.
When I read the title of the bill—the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008—I see not one word relating to veterans. Yet this bill is implementing a harsh withdrawal of veterans entitlements. When I was shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, I found the provision for this in the budget papers, hidden away in the hope that people might not notice it. The provision that is being made law in this legislation will take away the service pension of a partner or spouse of a veteran where the veteran and their spouse remain married but might be living apart for reasons that are not illness related. I have heard some heartfelt descriptions of how this will impact on people’s lives. The spouse or partner of a veteran will lose their service pension when 12 months have expired or when the veteran enters into, as the current legislation states, ‘a marriage-like relationship’. However, when the same-sex legislation is passed, this legislation will also include a veteran moving into a de facto relationship. De facto relationships will encompass same-sex relationships as well as heterosexual relationships or marriage-like relationships.
Last night, in a speech during the second reading debate on the same-sex legislation, I said that both sides of parliament acknowledged that marriage holds a special place in our society, and I also unashamedly said that marriage should be discriminated in favour of. That is not to say that questions of financial fairness and equity should not be dealt with. But the fundamental point needs to be stated and upheld. Once this legislation becomes law and once the same-sex legislation start date occurs, which is 1 July 2009, you could literally have a situation where, for a wife of 30 years who is still married to a veteran and where the veteran, for whatever reason, establishes himself either in a de facto heterosexual relationship or a de facto homosexual relationship, the wife of 30 years would lose her service pension and the new partner, be they of the same sex or of the opposite sex, would be eligible to take that pension. That is not fair, it is not reasonable and it is certainly a whittling away of veterans’ entitlements.
Let me read part of a letter that I have received. This woman writes:
My husband is 63 and I am now 61½. In the recent issue of the Veterans Affairs newspaper sent to all recipients of benefits from the Department of Vets Affairs, it was advised on page 4 that legislation is proposed to cease payment of the partner service pension to separated partners of veterans and that those pensions already being paid will cease from the 1st January 2009. This is the only notice I have received to alert me to this fact.
I feel I am being cast aside with no consideration for my age and without any acknowledgment of my contribution to the care and support of my veteran husband over so many years, through the most difficult of times and circumstances at great personal and financial cost.
We are still married and we are still close. We are just unable to continue to live together. I firmly believe that my individual circumstances are what they are because of the fact that my husband served his country when called upon to do so.
In April of 2007 I was interviewed personally for the Australian Vietnam Veterans Family Health Study, an epidemiological study of the health and welfare of Australian veterans and their families. This research is designed to look at what impact service in Vietnam had for their families.
She has participated, yet she has been jettisoned. Because she is 61, she will not be eligible to move to the social welfare pension—the old age pension. She continues:
My income without the partner service pension and concessions will not be sufficient to maintain a quality of life while honouring the financial commitments that were made whilst I fully expected the income from the service pension to continue.
This is a woman who says, as I read out, that her circumstances are because of the service that her veteran husband gave for our country.
I made a strong statement as shadow minister that we in the opposition believe we have a contract with our veterans. We say, ‘You men and women who serve our country and put your lives on the line, we will look after you for the rest of your lives.’ That is a contract that we make. It is not welfare. What we give to them is an entitlement. Only our men and women in service uniform can be ordered into a situation where they know death is inevitable—not police, not firemen, not all the other people in civilian life; only our service personnel. We owe them a great debt. The term ‘veteran’ is one to be revered. It is something that is earned. Therefore, after the Prime Minister made the statement before the election that veterans would not be worse off under Labor, he has lied to those people by taking away these entitlements in this legislation. Earlier he took away an entitlement for a female partner of a veteran to be eligible for the service pension at age 50. In one leap that was put up to 58½ and for men up to 60. And it will continue to rise to bring it in line with social security.
There are people around who want to see veterans entitlements rolled into social welfare. We stand firm against that. Yet what we are seeing is entitlements being morphed into social security. In Budget Paper No. 2 this particular change to the law was said to originally represent a saving to the government of $77 million over four years. That was read down to $39 million because a great proportion of those people would be moved onto social security. The entitlement is morphed into social security. There are those who are not eligible to be moved onto those entitlements, and so they do not know how they are going to cope—as with the person whose letter I just read out.
The estimated saving to the government according to the financial statement in the explanatory memorandum is now being pushed up to $40 million over four years. But there is a little concession from the earlier amendment that was so punitive to the veteran community. On the question of no longer being entitled to a partner service pension at the age of 50, the explanatory memorandum states 50 will be the eligible age for:
… partners of veterans who are in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or who have … 80 or more impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The Veterans’ Entitlements Act disability pension rates affected by this measure are:
That is so restricted that the cost to the budget is $1.2 million over four years. In other words, the saving that was set out in Budget Paper No. 2, which if my memory serves me was in the vicinity of $33 million over four years, is now being adjusted by $1.2 million. In other words, the vast number of people who were affected remain affected. We put up an amendment to negate the changing of the age from 50 to 58½ for women and 60 for men for that earlier legislation. The government did not accept our amendment.
I note now that the new shadow minister for veterans’ affairs has moved a pious amendment condemning:
… the government’s stubborn determination to insist that from 1 January 2009 partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached the age for the age pension, will have their partner service pension eligibility cease 12 months after being separated or immediately if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship …
I do hope that we move a stronger amendment along the way, because this is taking away veterans entitlements.
When I speak about the duty and the obligation that we have to those who have served our nation, one group of veterans whom we treated abominably were Vietnam veterans—veterans who found that their wives at home would not be served in shops, who found that their children would be bullied in the playground because their father was serving in Vietnam, who came home but would never put on their resume that they had served. I remember the incident when a young soldier was reported as having been killed and one of the anti-war protesters rang the family and said he got what he deserved and threw red paint over the house. The stories are horrendous. When you talk to the vets, you know how bad it was. New Zealand has apologised to their Vietnam vets, and I believe we should apologise to our vets here in Australia.
In order for that apology to be meaningful we have to bring out into the light of day how bad it was, how Dr Jim Forbes, who went on to be a Treasurer of this nation under Gough Whitlam, used to rile up the demonstrators to attack our serving personnel. How disgraceful is that? I believe it would not happen in this day and age. The Labor Party wanted to take away their medals. It was just the most appalling set of circumstances, which have to be outed in order that an apology would mean something.
These people suffer today. These are the people, Vietnam vets, who will be immediately impacted by these changes that this government is making—this government, which promised veterans it would not take away entitlements and that veterans would not be worse off. These are the people who will be affected—as are the veterans who are now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, the younger veterans. These are the people that these provisions will impact upon. It is a mean-spirited government that would attack veterans in this way and take away their entitlements. As I said, I do believe particularly that we owe our Vietnam veterans.
Thank you for that note, Member for Aston. One of my colleagues has said that I said ‘Jim Forbes’, who was a very honourable minister in the coalition. I do apologise for making that error. Of course, it was Jim Cairns I was speaking of.
As I conclude my remarks on this bill, it is with great pleasure that I see the report on overseas adoptions accepted and legislated for. But it is with a great sense of sadness that I see entitlements for our veterans being taken away and see that, for those who will get some sort of benefit, they will now simply be social welfare beneficiaries.
It has really amazed me at times, in the 10 months since I have been here, to hear the voices of some on the opposition benches. I wish that some of their constituents could hear what they say at times about those people in same-sex relationships and those people who are living in non-marital relationships. We have heard hysteria at times from those opposite—not from all of them but from some—in relation to family life, as if those on this side of the House do not live in families, do not appreciate the pressures that family life can bring, do not have children, do not pay mortgages, do not love their children, do not love their relatives and do not live in society and the community. It is extraordinary the way that they go on. We heard stuff from the member for Mackellar previously about polygamous relationships, and criticising our side, in relation to so much of our legislation, as if it is antifamily. It is nonsense that our legislation is antifamily or that this government is antifamily.
This particular piece of legislation is about family relationships; it is about veterans issues; it is about helping and encouraging people to take better care of the health of their children. So I speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It is an omnibus bill. I want to speak on it for two reasons. Firstly, I want to speak on the bill because there is a large veterans community in my electorate of Blair, where RAAF Base Amberley is. It is about to become a superbase. Amberley is a place that people want to be posted to, and they often buy homes in Ipswich and, if they get posted to other places, come back to Ipswich to live after they retire. We have a big veterans community in the Ipswich area and in the Lockyer Valley and the Boonah Shire close by. Secondly, I want to speak on the bill because of my background as a family lawyer. The bill has three main elements: the maternity immunisation allowance instalment and extension of eligibility, the cessation of the partner service pension to some married but separated partners, and changes to the Child Support Scheme in relation to the formula and departures from assessment.
I want to commend the member for Dobell for his longstanding interest and service in the health sector. He has stood up for the rights of working men and women. And he has a deep, abiding interest in their long-term welfare. He spoke very well in relation to the maternity immunisation allowance issue.
Currently, the eligibility for the MIA is contingent upon the child being under two years of age and then the MIA is paid but once. The MIA is a non-income-tested, one-off payment, and it is designed to encourage parents to immunise their children. If parents receive the baby bonus, then the MIA commonly is paid when the child is 19 months old. If parents are not paid the baby bonus, they need to formally claim the MIA on or before the child’s second birthday. It is a fact that, sadly, immunisation rates for Australian children are higher when they are two years of age than when they are going to school. It is probably understandable in a sense: when you have a baby you are really more careful, and you think that children, by the time they go to school, are a little bit more robust. I think we all think that of our children.
This bill contains a budget measure to align the allowance with the National Immunisation Program. The change in this bill will ensure that the MIA is paid in two equal payments for children who meet the 18-month and the four-year immunisation requirements. Further, it will extend the eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from overseas who enter Australia before turning 16 years and who are immunised subsequent to migration to Australia. The change follows the recommendation of the 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into adoption of children from overseas. That committee recommended, at recommendation 10, that:
The Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.
I am pleased that the minister is taking heed of that recommendation and putting that in this bill.
The member for Dobell went through a number of the different diseases which the National Immunisation Program recommends that children should be vaccinated against. There is a need for vaccination for four-year-olds. There is a need for vaccination in relation to whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles, polio and the like. It is important for parents to vaccinate their children. It is something that every dutiful parent should take notice of in the circumstances.
I have had a lot of discussions with the minister on the issue of partner changes in relation to Veterans’ Affairs. The situation is that from 1 January 2009 any spouse of a veteran who has been separated from that veteran for 12 months or more will cease to be eligible for the partner service pension. Eligibility will also cease if the veteran has entered or enters a marriage-like relationship with another person. It is a fact that people separate and move on. This measure does not affect partners who are over age pension age unless the partner enters into a marriage-like relationship or divorce. That is the current policy. The measure will not apply to a spouse who is separated from a veteran simply because of illness. That is a fact for a lot of people who are married to veterans. A spouse of a veteran who has separated because of illness remains a partner of that veteran even if, say, the veteran is in a nursing home. That is the case. They will not be disadvantaged by this measure.
The minister informs me that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is writing to each of those separated spouses who might be affected by this measure to advise of the change and provide assistance in seeking alternative income support arrangements for those who require it. My understanding is also that a special team in the department has been established to ensure individuals have their circumstances properly considered and are fully informed of any options which are available to them in respect of income support. Spouses who lose eligibility for a partner service pension under the measure contained in this bill may be eligible for an income support payment paid by Centrelink. These payments include Newstart allowance, widow allowance and disability support pension. It is interesting to note that the disability support pension is paid at the same rate as the partner service pension. I understand also that special teams have been formed to help in the transition of these arrangements to Centrelink.
It must be noted that, under the age pension situation for a partner of a veteran, it is estimated that there will be around 580 partners of veterans under age pension age. This number includes spouses of veterans who may be assessed as separated due to illness and therefore will not be affected by this measure. Thirty-four per cent of the 580 partners are now in receipt of less than the maximum rate of partner service pension, as they have other income and/or assessable assets. For those people over age pension age, it is important to note that it is estimated that only around 590 separated partners will be over the age pension age, and they will not be affected by this measure on 1 January 2009. The age pension and the partner service pension are paid at the same rate, so these 590 partners will continue to receive their pension paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. So you can see that there will be very few people affected in the circumstances—and a lot of alarmism is being preached by those opposite.
The third element of this bill deals with child support reform. There are a series of what have been described as minor changes in relation to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. It is important to think about child support because Australia has been a leading light throughout the world when it comes to child support. It is not commonly known that, at common law, a parent owed no duty to provide financial support for a child that was enforceable by litigation. Statute has long intervened in the circumstances to provide civil liability for financial support of children by parents enforceable by court action. The Family Law Act, at section 66C, establishes a legal duty to maintain a child and creates the legal obligation to pay child maintenance. A court exercising jurisdiction under that act, namely the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court, is constrained by section 66E of the Family Law Act from making a child maintenance order if an application can properly be made for an administrative assessment of child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act.
The principal object of the Child Support (Assessment) Act is to ensure children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. The assessment act therefore creates and quantifies that liability and the subsequent debt but does not create the debt. It does not determine any question about legal rights or obligations in the circumstances, but it may operate to create future obligations. Though an application under the Child Support (Assessment) Act creates obligations, it is the case that both parents should contribute financially to their children, and they should do so to the extent of their respective abilities, taking into consideration their needs. It is the case that, if a person is unhappy with an administrative assessment of child support, they can apply for a review, or the Child Support Registrar can seek a review of that decision, to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In each case it is looked at to see all the facts before it, and a full and frank disclosure must be made by all the parties in the circumstances.
The SSAT is a very important legal process. The whole business of making sure that people pay child support is a legal process that can be quite cumbersome and costly for people. An appeal can be made from the SSAT on questions of law by way of an application to the Federal Magistrates Court under section 110B of the registration and collection act. That is why it is important for the SSAT to have the body of precedent that has been created and for there to be nonidentification of parties but authorisation for case law to be developed so people can actually see the kind of relevant decisions in case law precedent which will help them to avoid going to the SSAT in those circumstances. That is what this bill does in one of the aspects of the child support amendment. Child support amendments are important, and we have seen a remarkable unanimity between both sides of politics when it comes to seeking child support amendments. In fact, we have seen a big change from 1 July this year. Those changes built on the recommendation of the 2005 independent Ministerial Task Force on Child Support, which was established as a result of the House of Representatives report Every picture tells a story.
Stage 3 of child support reform came on 1 July this year. As a result of stage 3, there has been an analysis undertaken by the Australian government of the 691,000 cases—so you can see that child support affects a lot of Australians and their families. About 37 per cent of payees and about 51 per cent of payers have had net increases in household income as a result of the reforms. About 49 per cent of the payees and 33 per cent of the payers have had net reductions—that is, they have paid less overall. About 13 per cent of payees and 16 per cent of payers have had no change in their child support or their family tax benefit as a result of the reforms. Most of the people who have received changes of assessment in child support have had an adjustment of sometimes less than $10 a week and sometimes up to about $20 a week.
It is important that the government back up these changes with tough enforcement measures—and they came into operation on 1 July this year—to make sure that parents who have child support obligations pay their full amount of child support and that they do so in a timely way. It is important that we collect more child support because that puts less pressure on the Australian taxpayer, and it is important that parents who have the children fulfil their responsibilities not just financially but in a parental way as well. In my work as a family lawyer it never ceased to amaze me how often people would say that they were paying too much child support when the amount they were paying was far less than the Australian Institute of Family Studies said should be paid to meet the real cost of maintaining children.
The reforms we are talking about here will make changes to calculations of the percentage of care that will reflect agreements that are made by way of a consent order or child support agreement and will reflect the reality of people’s experience. The second part of the child support changes permits the publication of reasons for decisions by the SSAT, and that is extremely important, as I have said. The SSAT is required to provide reasons for its decision to parties seeking reviews and of course to the registrar. The amendments provide that the SSAT will not be prevented from communicating its reasons to authorised persons or from publishing them. That is important. It is also important that people’s privacy be maintained, and this bill takes that into consideration—as well as witnesses, who do not want to be dragged into the process and have their names plastered around for public identification and comment.
The third aspect is an amendment that will permit either parent to apply for a departure order in circumstances where the real cost of caring for children should be taken into consideration. Under section 117(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, if it is just and equitable and otherwise proper, parents can have regard to making applications for what is commonly called a departure order. The high cost of maintaining children was often taken into consideration but only for one of the parties. The child support reforms mean that not just the carer parent but the other parent can have the reality of the care of the children taken into consideration. So that is an important measure in all of the circumstances. It is a just measure.
The final thing that I want to say is that the government is extending the departure prohibition orders to overseas maintenance liabilities. We have entered into foreign treaties, we have signed treaties in relation to overseas child maintenance and the Hague convention on child abduction, but it is important that we in this country fulfil our obligations and enforce child support no matter where it is assessed—in our country or overseas. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. I would like to share with the House the real-life impact some of these measures will have on veterans and their families, such as those from my own electorate of Forrest. To begin with I would like to acknowledge the courage, the loyalty and the commitment to our nation that our veterans display while serving in many theatres of war around the world. It was and is these men and women who fought for our nation, our beliefs, our freedoms and our security. We thank and acknowledge these people on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and honour the memory of their fallen mates for their ultimate sacrifice for our country.
The Prime Minister said on Anzac Day this year, ‘There is no higher calling than to wear the uniform of Australia.’ He thanked the veterans and their families for their services to Australia. I could not agree with the Prime Minister more. As a nation, we are indebted to these brave people and their families. Yet here we are in the House of Representatives of Australia with the Labor government proposing to reduce veterans entitlements.
Unless you have been to war, you cannot truly understand the effect fighting in a war has on an individual. The transition from life in a war zone to peacetime life is an immense challenge for many returning service personnel. Issues which arise include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicide, as well as a raft of other emotional and/or mental illnesses—not to mention the impact of physical wounds. Furthermore, returning service men and women must relearn how to live within their family and their community—at times, no mean feat. They have to rediscover their family and try to integrate back into the lives of those they left behind. Not only that—veterans continue to live with their experiences whilst at war. It is no wonder these brave people encounter problems upon their return.
But it goes much further than just the individual. A veteran’s whole family must readjust as well. The family takes the strain of these mental, emotional and physical impacts that weigh on the veteran. Our continuing support for these families is crucial. The Labor government must not turn their back on our veterans and families after all they have done for this country and for us. Certainly those people who fought for our country in uniform should be recognised for the service they provided to this country. So too should their partners be recognised for supporting them, for the time they kept the family together while their husband or wife was actively serving away from Australian shores, and they should continue to be recognised for keeping their relationships together when our defence personnel returned home.
This is often underestimated. Consider the Vietnam vets specifically and what they endured both while they were away and when they came home—they were certainly not always the same person physically, emotionally or mentally as the one who went away. The strain on partners to keep those relationships together is very difficult to quantify, and I do not think it can be quantified. Most partners certainly tried to keep the relationship alive and the family unit together. However, some couples ultimately, after perhaps 30 or 40 years, came to the point where they could not support each other anymore and subsequently parted. Such a move is always hurtful to families and partners who have to start a new life. Some never cope and some never recover. Some hang on to their long relationships, never wanting to completely sever those ties or file for divorce.
The previous government did recognise the commitment and dedication that partners gave to veterans, with the payment of the partner service pension as an entitlement. After all that our veterans and their partners have endured on behalf of Australia as a whole, I am appalled that this government wants to change the eligibility rules for the partner service pension and cut out those very deserving partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouses. Currently, separated partners are eligible for the partner service pension until they divorce or commence a new marriage-like relationship. This is a fair and reasonable policy. But the Labor government’s proposal will cast aside those partners who are now into their middle years and currently do not reside with their veteran spouse for whatever reason—some of which I have outlined earlier. It will simply cut them off within 12 months of this bill becoming legislation.
The Rudd Labor government proposes that, from 1 January 2009, partner service pension eligibility will cease 12 months after the date of separation unless either partner commences a new marriage-like relationship beforehand. Partners who separated from their veteran spouse before 1 January 2008 will lose their partner service pension eligibility from 1 January 2009—three months away.
Many partners are ill equipped to enter the workforce. Many more have not worked outside the home for most of their adult lives, often because of the problems endured by the veteran in the family. They have often spent their lives working in the home, looking after their husband and children, happy to have the service years over, enduring whatever ailments their partner’s tour of duty has created.
This government is out of touch with real people and does not understand or respect partners of veterans who have served our country well. Indeed, these partners have actually saved the government a great deal of money by keeping their family units together for as long as they have, as well as supporting their husbands during a difficult period of their lives. There was no government recognition or assistance in those early years after Vietnam.
The government’s legislation is forecast to save $40.6 million over four years on this measure alone—that is, the government will take $40.6 million from those hands. Additional amendments proposed by the government will further erode veterans entitlements. This government intends to increase the age eligibility for the partner service pension, which was previously 50 years of age, to 58.5 years for women and 60 for men. There is also another proposed amendment that will allow partners to continue to receive the partner service pension from 50 years of age if their veteran partner falls into a new disability category. The government was shamed into this after receiving a backlash from the veteran community—and rightly so. Both these proposed changes to veterans entitlements were announced in the budget, and the government stated that the changes would provide gross savings of $77.8 million over four years. I would challenge this savings figure because I do not believe the government has taken into account the number of affected partners who will move onto other government income support through welfare.
I believe the proposed changes in this bill are too severe, unjust and unfair to married recipients of the partner service pension who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse. I would like to share with the House the plight of one of my constituents in my electorate of Forrest who is in a state of shock, distress and basically depression due to the extreme adverse financial impact these changes will have on her life. She is one of those ‘real people’. My constituent was married to a Vietnam veteran for almost 40 years. For the last four years she has been living apart from her husband. She had been married for just over 12 months when her husband was sent to Vietnam. When he returned, they tried to recapture their life and they looked forward to a long and happy marriage. But this was not to be.
When they married, they married for life and were determined to maintain a happy family for their three children. As her husband became more withdrawn and uncommunicative, their personal relationship suffered. Achieving a happy family home became almost impossible. My constituent was a stay-at-home mum. Her job was running the home and small farm, bringing up children and caring for her husband. When circumstances required, she undertook cleaning and other odd jobs to provide for extras and education for the children. Her veteran husband was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and, at 50 years of age, was classified a TPI and a service pensioner.
Without the social stimulation provided by employment, her husband became even more isolated. When the children left the family home, life became increasingly difficult for the couple. Their personal relationship deteriorated until there was little or no communication left between them. With the tension of silence too hard to take, they made the decision to live apart. This decision was not made lightly, as family was, and still is, of great importance to both parties. After so many years together, husband and wife now life apart and alone. As a result of having children together, however, they will always have a relationship. In 34 years of marriage, my constituent spent only one year with a husband who was not affected by war service. She has spent those years of her life living and working in difficult circumstances and, in many ways, she has suffered as much as her veteran husband. Her view of the reason for the change in eligibility—that is, ‘to ensure that a person’s income support entitlements are paid based on their own circumstances and not on a relationship that may have ceased many years ago’—is that it is not only appalling but also insulting.
In the four years that my constituent has lived alone, her entitlement has always been based on her own circumstances, and any income earned has been taken into consideration. During her married life as a full-time homemaker, she had very few opportunities to develop a career, and her limited paid employment was in unskilled areas such as cleaning and general farm work. And we must remember that she was living with a veteran with problems. Her lack of self-confidence from years of emotional deprivation makes the thought of being forced into retraining programs through Centrelink quite terrifying for her. My constituent is devastated that, at this time in her life—she is in her mid-fifties—when she has finally found some kind of quiet peace of her own, she will be forced to make a whole new life. After suffering a continual erosion of self-worth and rejection over many years, she cannot even begin to envisage her future.
I am most concerned about how many other women in circumstances like those of my constituent, who have suffered most severely in a relationship with a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, are going to cope with the loss of this entitlement. I would remind those opposite that we are dealing with people’s lives—real people. I believe these proposed changes to eligibility for partners, are unjust and unfair and show no respect for the deserving partners. Their veteran spouses may have gone to war for several years but, in some instances, veterans’ wives and partners have been suffering ever since. My constituent is one of the vulnerable real people affected by this change. I respect the veterans and their wives or husbands. I oppose the changes to the partner service pension for separated but not divorced partners, and I support the amendments moved by the member for Greenway.
I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 because it is a bill that directly benefits some of our youngest Australians. I think that is particularly important. The member for Dobell gave a great speech on this bill. He has a long and proud history as National Secretary of the Health Services Union and has a great interest in this area. I think he is a real benefit to the House. The member for Blair also gave a great speech; I commend them both. This bill provides for three important changes. The first is to the maternity immunisation allowance, the second is to partner service pensions and the third is to child support. All three directly affect my electorate of Wakefield. Wakefield has young families, a strong and vibrant veteran community and also an extraordinarily large number of both payers and receivers of child support. You can see the very great changes to the structure of society and the structure of families in Wakefield.
One of the great challenges for government in the future will be how it responds to constellation families. We have fewer nuclear families than we once had and, increasingly, we have constellation families where people do not have just one family; they have sometimes two or three. They have biological children and stepchildren, and they have a multitude of relationships. These family relationships do not always fit neatly into government programs. Child support is one of those areas that we are trying desperately to improve, but it does not always fit that well into people’s personal situations. This bill is an attempt to improve that situation and to have some regard to people’s personal circumstances. As I said before, how we respond to those changes will be one of the great challenges of modern government.
These changes reflect a government that is concerned about advancing Australians’ living standards but is also aiming at balancing the books and maintaining budgetary and economic responsibility. We know that you cannot improve people’s lives by funny accounting or by Peronist policies. The opposition want to pretend that we can be all things to all people, that we can just promise everything to every group, that there is a magic pudding out there and that you can take a spoon, dip it in and keep dipping it in just like in Norman Lindsay’s book. My mum used to read The Magic Pudding to me. The member for Fadden is a great believer in the magic pudding; he seems to be for everything. The Howard government had the magic pudding policy. They kept on spending and spending, and the IMF picked up their explosive rate of spending in the last couple of budgets, which fuelled inflation. That is a matter of record and history now. It is obviously costing those on fixed incomes in particular greatly.
Mr Haase interjecting
We are waiting for the Senate to pass our Medicare surcharge tax cut to working Australian families, couples and singles. We are waiting on the other place to pass our budget, and I would just encourage members opposite to do that.
The first of these reforms is the change to the maternity immunisation allowance, the MIA, to bring it in line with our National Immunisation Program. In 2006-07, the maternity immunisation allowance assisted with the immunisation of almost a quarter of a million Australian children at a cost of $56.2 million. That $56.2 million is very well spent. It helps families. It assists people who have young families. It assists those in school, because it prevents diseases from damaging our young people. It represents a significant contribution to 270,000 Australian families. People want a health system that is focused on maintaining health and preventing disease rather than responding to it. Families know that prevention is better than cure. They know that immunisation is far better than being sick, going to hospital or visiting a doctor later on—all of which take extraordinary amounts of time out of a family’s life and are distressing. Immunisation is an essential part of effective healthcare policy. In particular, it is important for parents who are concerned about protecting the health of their children.
In Wakefield, there are almost 10,000 children under the age of six. Obviously we want to make sure that they are inoculated against preventable diseases. The level of immunisation in Wakefield is about 93 per cent, which is a great achievement. It is a high rate and one that we want to improve. There are a lot of young families in the area, so having high immunisation rates is particularly important. The mid-north region includes the lovely town of Clare. It is great wine-growing territory—I know the member for Adelaide has been to Clare and tried the wine on occasion. Clare has some great tourist opportunities. That area has had the biggest increase in early childhood immunisations of any division of general practice in South Australia. So it is great to see that a vibrant country region can lead the way in immunisation in South Australia. It is a record which I am sure other parts of South Australia envy, and it is something that the electorate of Wakefield can be proud of. We would like to improve those results in the future and get even higher rates if we can.
The current flaw in the maternity immunisation allowance is that it is delivered as a lump sum payment. Any sort of payment has an effect on people’s behaviour. As the payment is available without means testing, on or before a child’s second birthday, most parents aim to provide standard immunisations for their child at around 18 months. By providing the lump sum there is an incentive for parents to get those immunisations at the 18-month mark but no incentive, and importantly no reminder, to get the second round of immunisations at age four.
We know that taxation policy and social security policy—anything that involves a payment—alters the community’s behaviour. If we are interested in eliminating this flaw and driving up the immunisation rate for four-year-olds, this bill will assist to do that. We know that immunisation rates for two-year-olds are significantly higher than for school-age children. Ninety-three per cent of children aged two are fully immunised, but that drops to 88 per cent by age six. So it is clear that some families, caught up in work, school and all those pressures that are on families these days, do not follow up with immunisation to the four-year-old mark. If people do not follow up their child’s immunisations, the policy is less effective over time.
With many older children missing out on the second round of immunisations, as recommended in the National Immunisation Program, the prevalence of illnesses like diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio in the Australian community is affected. We want to eliminate those diseases. Polio went through a lot of families of the baby boomer generation. My own aunts and uncles and my grandparents’ family had a spot of it themselves. It was a very distressing disease but one that my generation—generation X—have happily missed.
This bill eliminates this flaw by providing an incentive for parents to secure those recommended immunisations and as a result will increase the proportion of four-year-olds who are fully immunised. Under these measures, from 2009 parents and carers who have children that meet the immunisation requirements for an 18-month-old will be paid the first half of their maternity immunisation allowance payment, currently $118.40 and indexed, when the child is aged between 18 months and 24 months. The second maternity immunisation allowance payment will then be available when the child has received its vaccinations at four years of age and must be claimed on or before the child’s fifth birthday. By changing the method of payment, families still get the benefit but the pattern of payment will help to enforce and change behaviours and make sure that we drive up immunisation rates for that second group of children. Those payments will continue to be indexed twice a year, so in practice the second instalment will be higher than the first, due to subsequent indexation.
This bill does more than just provide incentives for a more effective National Immunisation Program; it also increases support for families with children who are adopted from overseas. Currently some older adopted children are excluded from the program due to their age. Under this bill they will have access to the program within two years of arrival in Australia. With more and more families adopting from overseas this is a very important measure.
This measure reinforces the fundamental purposes of the maternity immunisation allowance—namely, to support the immunisation of all children in Australia, whether they are born in Australia or are newly arrived through adoption. The measure itself is a recommendation of the bipartisan 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into overseas adoption in Australia. It is good to see the work of committees being incorporated into the law of the land. It is nice to know that all those committee meetings that we attend with such vigour, hearing from experts and from those who are most affected by the legislation that we enact, are worth while. It is great to see that their work is incorporated into the law of the land. It makes for better practice in the House of Representatives and ultimately better law.
This bill also provides for changes to the partner service pension, which will require some readjustment in the community. The first change is to cease eligibility for partners of veterans who are separated but not divorced after 12 months of separation or if the veteran enters into another marriage-like relationship. The second measure recognises that a partner of a veteran who is a recipient of less than the special rate but above the general rate disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act should have a lower eligibility age for the partner service pension. Under these amendments that eligibility will be set at 50 years. These changes will contribute to a responsible budget and responsible measures to ensure that our repatriation system is strong and equitable into the future.
The bill before the House today also makes changes to the child support legislation to address anomalies in relation to the child support formula reforms that commenced this July. As I said before, these changes are important to make sure that people pay their child support, but they also enable changes in people’s circumstances and lifestyle to be reflected in adjustments to their child support assessments. The nature and pattern of people’s families change, as do their proportion of care obligations and their income, so these child support formula reforms are very desirable. Anything we can do to make the system more responsive to people is important.
These are important measures and they fulfil the community’s expectation of what a caring and responsible government does. This bill supports parents in ensuring their children have access to proper preventative health care. We are endeavouring to make our system of supporting veterans more responsible and responsive to their needs. We are also aiming at making the child support mechanisms more responsive to the community’s needs. For these reasons I support the bill before the House.
I rise to speak to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Schedule 1 of the bill, the maternity immunisation allowance, clearly encourages parents to immunise their children and especially extends the allowance to cover children adopted overseas. Immunisation is important, and schedule 1 of the bill is clearly supported. Immunisation works to prevent disease, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Immunisation is available against 23 diseases through the National Immunisation Program. Australians can be protected from diseases such as whooping cough, rubella, measles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and even good old influenza. I am a supporter of immunising our communities. I congratulate the over 88 per cent of families who immunise their children. I know it is hard. I have a three-year-old and a one-year-old, and I take my children to get immunised. I took my poor little boy when he was six months old; his face went red and he let out that little squawk, but I understand how important it is.
Schedule 3 concerns child support. It is quite often said that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and the Rudd government demonstrates this again. Clearly, schedule 3 is supported. But it is schedule 2 that I have a significant problem with. This nation has a contract with its veterans. It is an unwritten contract—it is not spoken loudly in the halls of parliament or elsewhere, but it is a contract nonetheless—that says: ‘You will train, you will be led and you will fight. We will put you in harm’s way. Some of you will pay the ultimate price and will die. Because of that service, because you love country more than self, because you are not afraid to face this country’s adversaries and to fight for the freedom we take for granted, our contract with you is that we will have a range of entitlements that we will preserve.’ That is the contract with veterans.
In my military career and my time serving in operations overseas, if someone did not pull their weight or went back on their word, we said that they were ‘jack’—that they were a ‘jack man’. I stand here today and say to Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, and to the government: you are a government of ‘jack men’—
Outrageous!
because you have stood and looked veterans in the eye and said, ‘We are going to strip your entitlements away.’ That government is ‘jack’ in my language and it is ‘jack’ in the language of our veterans. Last year, the government had the hide, the audacity, the blatant effrontery, to say to the veteran community in its 2007 election policy document, which I can only imagine now is a farcical piece of fairytale trash—and I will quote in case you are a little hard of hearing on that side—on page 5:
Labor understands the impact of rising costs of living and the importance of ensuring that entitlements do not erode in value.
Member for Dawson, are you a little hard of hearing, sir? Do I need to say it again for you?
Mr Bidgood interjecting
Your document, put out under the name of your leader, now the Prime Minister, said that entitlements will not erode in value. Today, your idea of ‘not eroding in value’ and that of the rest of the nation are slightly different indeed. Six months after you put out that fairytale and you conned the nation and you promised the veteran community and looked them in the eye, you produce a budget which has resulted in this piece of legislation that is increasing the pension age for partners of veterans from 50 to 58½.
Veterans’ families plan their futures carefully. They take into account this contract that the government has with them, this unspoken agreement that entitlements will be there. Life in the military is hard. Veterans have to move city. They train. They spend extended periods of time away from loved ones. It is expected by veterans and, indeed, their partners that they will be safe in the knowledge that their government will look after them. These measures are in place to demonstrate a small part of our gratitude for those who fought for the freedom that we take for granted. Any measure to take them away is condemning these families, in some small part, to further stress and hardship. I find it appalling that this government would look veterans in the eye through their pre-election policy document and boast about protecting entitlements and, in the same breath, strip them away.
On 14 May, I stood in the House to express my abject disgust with this government for considering policy that would exempt veterans from claiming entitlements. For almost three months now, the government has denied the issues and has finally backflipped on taking away all partner pensions from 50 to 58½. It has changed it now so that the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate, who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—partners of veterans affected by these measures are those where the veteran is in receipt of a general rate disability, extreme disablement, intermediate rate disability or temporary special rate—are provided for. Whilst I welcome the backflip, I am still appalled that the government has not moved to change the other $113 million it is ripping out by cancelling the partner pension if a partner separates from a veteran within 12 months.
I have spoken in this place before about the important role of the partners of service men and women. They are left to hold the family fabric together, sometimes for great periods of time—for World War II veterans, in many cases, it was up to five years. For anyone to look a veteran or their partner in the eye and take away their rights is abhorrent. The families and partners of service men and women have made enormous sacrifices for this country. Families are required to move constantly around the nation. Service men and women are constantly sent overseas. Veterans often come back with a range of disorders, both physical and mental. Punishing veterans and their families by removing the pension of the spouse or partner of a veteran after they have separated for 12 months to save $113 million is woeful. It is the act of a ‘jack man’. It is the act of someone who looks you in the eye and says, ‘I will be there,’ but you know damn well that, when the bullets start firing, they will be nowhere to be seen.
This government is running on a two-year surplus of $40 billion, thanks to the outstanding work of the member for Higgins and the previous Howard government. This government should be thankful for the previous government’s fiscally responsible management. The previous government worked tirelessly to put Australia in good economic standing. This government seems to think that the opportunistic seizing of veterans entitlements equates to not eroding the value of veterans entitlements. I think veterans would rather this government looked them in the eye and said, ‘Thank you very much for your service; we are going to preserve your entitlements—all those things that you knew would be there when you served and sacrificed for your nation.’ I would rather the government just said, ‘Thank you for preserving the freedom that I live under each day.’ I would rather this government said to the partners and families of veterans, ‘Thank you for allowing your husbands, your wives, your sons and your daughters to go and serve and fight in our name to protect our freedoms.’
I would rather the government actually honoured their election commitments. Could you imagine that? I would rather they honoured their election commitment which said, ‘Labor understands the impact of rising costs of living and the importance of ensuring that entitlements do not erode in value.’ I would rather the government just did the right thing. But, no, they have not. After looking veterans in the eye, they have moved to punitive measures to take away entitlements.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs further promised to convene a council. The purpose of the council was to ‘give Australia’s veterans and ex-service organisations a voice at the highest level of government and a greater say with decision makers’. For the last 10 months, while this council has not existed, I have heard the pleas of veterans and their families—and that has not been through a council. Clearly, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has other things to do—for example, calling the coalition’s move to increase the base pension by $30 a week ‘a stunt’. Obviously that is far more important than setting up a council—which he promised to do—to more clearly hear the views of veterans. I can only assume that the reason that this minister has not gone forth and set up this council, as he promised to do, is that his level of concern is perhaps not as high as he verbals in the House—but, then again, a mere six months after they broke their election promise so flagrantly and so egregiously, it is no wonder.
The veteran community have been screaming for assistance, but clearly their pleas are falling on deaf ears—and they can only fall on deaf ears if the minister and the government are not listening. But, then again, if they cannot even keep a simple election promise within six months, I suppose listening would not help anyway. If veterans cannot express their concerns and needs directly to their member of parliament or the minister then there is more wrong with this government than their pleas falling on deaf ears.
The Rudd Labor government went to the election giving veterans and their families a misguided impression of where they stood on veterans entitlements. Veterans have been duped by this government. They have been given the impression that they will not be worse off under this government—yet, clearly, they are now $113 million worse off. There is no way for your hollow men to spin that. The budget figures are patently clear. They are $113 million worse off.
What do you say to a partner of a veteran who has come back with a range of disorders and whose marriage cannot continue to work because of a range of issues but who has been with the veteran for 20 or 25 years, caring for him? What do you say to a partner who, every day, goes and meets with her previous husband, caring for him and taking care of his needs, but cannot live in the same house and they are now separated? Suddenly, after 12 months, you are going to rip away the pension from that partner. You are going to look that partner in the eye and say, ‘I know you care daily for the needs of the veteran and I know you have been together for so long and that, due to a range of post-traumatic disorders and other conditions, you cannot continue to live together and you are separated, but we are going to take your pension away.’ Are you kidding me? Have the hollow men infected the front bench so much that your empathy and degree of understanding of what is right and what is wrong have become shallower as a consequence? Every veteran in this great country of ours who voted for this government has an absolute right to feel a great deal of misapprehension, to feel like they have been dudded.
The coalition has always supported the veteran community and strongly believes that the veteran community should be exempt from a range of budgetary cuts. We have a contract with our veterans that says, ‘We put you in harm’s way and we will preserve your entitlements.’ The sacrifices that veterans have made have not lessened over time. What they have done on the battlefield and the operational fronts across the theatres of war has not lessened over time. The sacrifices that partners have made on behalf of their veteran spouses have not lessened over time. What partners of veterans have done since their veteran partner came home has not lessened over time. The post-traumatic stress disorders and other illnesses that our veterans suffer have not lessened over time. The community’s high regard for our veterans has not lessened. The great resolve of the community has not lessened.
But, clearly, the way this government views veterans has lessened. The government’s view of this unwritten contract that ‘if you go in harm’s way, we’ll take care of you’ has lessened. Clearly, this government’s view of the sacrifice that veterans have made overseas and the value of that to the freedom that we hold has lessened, and that is sad. That is a great tragedy for this House to face. The saddest part of all this is that Labor is not only eroding the value of veterans entitlements with the legislative changes I have spoken about but also eroding the value of our veterans’ commitment to this country. Veterans would say: ‘You promised that you would not erode the value of veterans entitlements. That was your promise to the veteran community, and within six months your budget is ripping $113 million out of the veteran community.’ In the language of the military, that is a ‘jack act’. You are simply a bunch of ‘jack men’ and should stand condemned.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I am delighted to speak in the House tonight and continue the theme that my good friend the member for Fadden has been speaking on—that is, the policy ineptitude of the Labor government. I want to specifically focus on the pensioners of Queensland, particularly the pensioners in the Ryan electorate. I think they have really been dudded by the Rudd Labor government. These are Australians who have paid their taxes all their working lives and are now in their elderly years and are entitled to a certain lifestyle—a lifestyle of dignity and contentment. These are challenging economic times, and the government has at its disposal a $22 billion budget surplus. For those who might be listening to this debate, especially from Queensland and the Ryan electorate, this $22 billion surplus is a legacy of the Howard era. This money is the result of strong economic leadership from the Howard government. However, we constantly hear in the parliament these days that the Labor government delivered this surplus. But, of course, any thinking person would realise that after only a matter of months in office there is no way that the Rudd government could have produced a $22 billion surplus.
I want to remind pensioners in the great state of Queensland that the federal opposition very strongly support a $30 increase for single age pensioners. It is not a lot of money, but it would make an enormous difference in their lives. For the Rudd Labor government to oppose this increase is terribly mean spirited. In these tough economic times, to vote against this measure proposed by the federal opposition really says something about the Rudd Labor government.
They have spoken frequently about working families. They have spoken strongly about trying to represent people who need the help of government. Yet a significant group in the Australian community, our pensioners, who need help are being deprived of it. It would be $30 a week extra on top of the $273 a week they now receive. It is something that this wealthy and generous country could afford. I think the taxpayers of Australia would not want to deprive our senior Australians who receive $273 as single age pensioners.
In the months ahead the coalition will continue to remind our electorates and the electorates held by Labor members in Queensland that Labor voted against a $30 increase that we proposed. In the months ahead I will certainly be letting single age pensioners in the Ryan electorate know how the government voted on this. There are 2,818 single age pensioners in the Ryan electorate in Queensland. I will be meeting with them and I will remind them of Labor’s position on this important issue. I am sure that they will remind their friends who live across other Queensland electorates such as Bonner, Brisbane, Dawson and Longman of how their local members of parliament voted. I notice the member for Longman is in the chamber. I wonder what he will say to the pensioners in his electorate. How many single age pensioners live in Longman? There are 5,567. I suspect they will not be too pleased about how their new local member stood up for them when it counted most. To the people of Longman who might be listening, I encourage them to contact their local member—
Mr Sullivan interjecting
I don’t quite know why he is interjecting and preventing me from raising this. People in the electorate of Longman will soon be made fully aware by Liberal and National Party members of the stance taken by the Labor government on the $30 measure proposed by the coalition. (Time expired)
I think there is one thing that the member for Ryan will not be telling his electorate—that is, this evening in the Senate the coalition voted against changes to the Medicare surcharge levy and a $1,200 tax cut for people who are doing it tough. It will be an enormous disappointment to the people in my electorate, in the electorate of the member for Longman and, I suspect, in the electorate of the member for Ryan. This is something that would have given relief to thousands of people. For some young families, it would have meant a tax cut of up to $1,200. That is a lot of money. To give you an idea of how much money this is, it is about double the benefit that was received from a cut in interest rates only a few weeks ago. If you have an average sized mortgage, a cut in interest rates of 25 basis points would put $50 back in your wallet or purse. If the opposition had done the responsible thing, if they had been in touch with the people they say they represent, they would have voted the right way in the Senate this evening and given people a $1,200 tax cut. But they did not do that.
Mr Sullivan interjecting
There have been a lot of mistakes made over the last few days, and I do not want to be critical of people who make mistakes because we all make mistakes; we are all human. The problem is not that the shadow Treasurer did not know what the cash rate was. I think the problem is that she did not know the consequences of 10 consecutive increases in the cash rate and the problem that has brought for the people in my electorate and for people all across the country.
Mr Sullivan interjecting
Member for Longman, 10,000 people lost their homes last year. They understand what 10 increases in the cash rate means, and they certainly understand the problem that that creates.
The plagiarism gaffe is another example along a similar line. I do not criticise the shadow Treasurer for being caught red-handed. The problem is not that she chose to steal someone else’s work; the problem is that she did not fess up when she was caught. She did not admit that she had made a mistake or apologise for it. She blamed her staff. The lesson is: do not cover up. The cover-up is always worse than the original offence.
If you do not know anything about tax or tax policy then it is probably best not to talk about withholding tax. In her first speech as shadow Treasurer, she said:
This is a government that says it wants to promote Australia as a financial services hub and then reduces withholding tax for foreigners.
As if that is a bad idea! I thought that cutting withholding tax would be a good thing if you wanted to set up Australia as a financial services hub.
We received a report overnight from the IMF that had some interesting information about our economy. It identified the productivity constraints in Australia that the Reserve Bank had identified on 20 occasions and the problems that those have created for our economy. It also made the point that the fiscal policy that this government has implemented is providing the flexibility that the Reserve Bank needs to do its job—the necessary flexibility to take pressure off interest rates and off the people whom we represent and want to help out.
The IMF report also showed that, if there were anywhere you wanted to be in a global financial crisis, it would be Australia. No-one is immune to this crisis, and it would be foolhardy to think otherwise. There is a saying that, when Wall Street sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Wall Street is pretty sick at the moment. Peter Costello was talking about this on Lateline last night. He made the astute point that the global financial crisis is a symptom of regulatory failure. No-one is immune to this, but we are better placed than most to deal with it. Our big four banks have AA credit ratings. Our financial services regulation model is the envy of many countries. Our strong budget surplus will provide ballast to help us weather this financial storm.
The IMF report also talked about the support that a prudent fiscal policy will provide to monetary policy. This will make it easier for the Reserve Bank to lower rates and take pressure off working families. In these uncertain times, we need to create budget certainty; that is the responsible thing to do.
People can forgive mistakes. We can forgive someone the mistake of not knowing the cash rate. We can forgive someone for reading the Wall Street Journal when they have nothing else to say. We can forgive someone for not knowing that cutting withholding tax is actually a good thing. But what we cannot forgive is the impact of irresponsible behaviour, and we saw irresponsible behaviour from the coalition tonight in the Senate. Their kicking a hole in the surplus will make it harder for the Reserve Bank to cut rates. Their voting against the Medicare surcharge levy reforms will deny young families in my electorate and all across the country the chance of a $1,200 tax cut. Thousands of people in my electorate will be bitterly disappointed with the decision taken by the opposition in the other place. It just shows how out of touch they are. (Time expired)
Just three weeks ago I received an inquiry from a pensioner living within the mighty electorate Fadden who had a raft of medical issues. This gentleman is an insulin dependent chronic diabetic. He had recently experienced a mini heart attack and was suffering from infected gums—an infection which his doctor had informed him was contributing to his already myriad health problems.
This man had spoken to his doctor and to a dentist, and they both informed him that a program which had existed under the previous government but which had been scrapped under the merciless current government could have helped him. Thankfully, this gentleman did not take that as gospel and contacted my electorate office. We were able to inform him that, while the government had announced that it would discontinue this program in March 2008 and that all funding would cease on 30 June 2008, the coalition had kept the program alive to benefit all Australians. The program in question is Medicare dental.
The coalition government introduced the Medicare dental scheme in September 2007, and it started in November 2007. Between its introduction and the end of April 2008, the scheme had provided 311,943 dental services. The scheme allowed people with chronic and complex health problems where dental health was a contributing factor or complication to access private dental treatment following a referral from their GP. Patients could receive up to $4,250 worth of dental treatment and therapy over two years. Following a disallowance motion, introduced to the parliament by the opposition, dental services under Medicare will continue to be available. This moribund government cannot try to cancel the program via the same piece of legislation until at least the end of December.
The gentleman managed to have all his teeth removed under the Medicare dental scheme, despite the Rudd government’s best efforts. His overall health is so much improved as a result, Madam Deputy Speaker, on which I am sure you would join me in saying ‘well done’. His teeth were rotten to the root. There is no question that this gentleman’s dental health had a negative impact on his general health.
This is not the only inquiry I have received at my office from local constituents concerned about the future of their dental health. A woman recently inquired on behalf of her daughter, a sufferer of both lupus and multiple sclerosis and a recipient of the disability pension. Due to dentists and doctors being misinformed by the government as to the status and future of Medicare dental, this woman found it difficult for medical practitioners to consider her case.
A 59-year-old woman on the disability pension also contacted my office this month. She suffers from chronic asthma, high blood pressure and chronic gum disease. Her teeth are so rotten she is scared to eat even an apple. This woman would also not be covered under the government’s new scheme but, thanks to the coalition’s measures, she is able to seek treatment and recompense.
I have received many other inquiries and complaints from people in my local area as a result of the confusion over the status of this program. People in the northern Gold Coast area have been very vocal in their support of Medicare dental. I am tremendously pleased that the program has continued to be in play and be available to people through to December 2008 at a minimum. The opposition will be doing everything we can to keep the program going and delivering dental care to those who desperately need it. I urge the government to reconsider its position on Medicare dental.
How interesting it was to hear one speaker in the adjournment debate criticise the government for not providing their pension increases while the next speaker on that side tells the story of two pensioners in his electorate who would not be recipients of the pension increases that the opposition brought forward. But I do not want to talk about those issues tonight. I want to talk about the Burpengary State School, in my electorate.
Last Friday I had the very great pleasure of visiting Burpengary State School to present the school with an Australian flag to replace one that had been stolen from their flagpole the previous week. I cannot understand why somebody would want to steal an Australian flag from a school, but somebody did and so a visit was arranged.
The Burpengary State School has served the local community for over 128 years. It is an integral part of the community, although when it was established one can reasonably assume it would have been in the middle of farmlands. The school was established in the 1880s by families who would rightly have been considered as pioneers, particularly in that area, as it would have been quite a distance from Brisbane then. But these parents were pioneers in another sense. Back in 1880 they understood that their children’s lives would be made better by receiving a decent education. That is of course still true today, and it is why this government is proceeding with an education revolution to make sure that children today get a better education.
While I do not really want to single out any of the students of the school, I thought it was fitting that for this year, the 129th year of the school, one of the school captains is a descendent of the pioneering families from the area, the Litherlands.
Essentially a small rural school for 100 years, the urban growth that has happened in my part of the world in the last 20 years has seen this become one of the biggest primary schools in Queensland. I know that the school principal, Ms Paula Passi, is particularly proud of the school’s heritage. In keeping with that heritage, the school’s mission today is to ensure that each and every one of its more than 1,100 students receives the best possible education they can provide. Also in keeping with that heritage, the school has a strong and vibrant P&C, which is heavily involved in the school and helps to provide a number of the facilities that the school needs.
By coincidence, the school received its NAPLAN, or National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, the day before my visit. The results are worthy of giving an airing here tonight. Across the three grades tested—years 3, 5 and 7—Burpengary State School achieved results above the national benchmark in all of the five areas assessed—reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy—except for one of the years’ groups falling just short of that national benchmark in reading. Let me repeat that: in 14 of the 15 matters, Burpengary State School was ahead of the national results and significantly ahead of the results achieved for Queensland in all 15. Clearly, Ms Passi and her staff are doing an excellent job in the area of fundamental primary school education.
I was also particularly impressed by the quality of the two school bands on display at the senior parade. Music is an interest of mine, bordering on a passion in some areas, and I was particularly impressed to learn that the students playing in the junior school band had only begun to learn their instruments this year. On the parade I was impressed by the number of year 5 students who received their citizenship certificates, which meant that they had spent the whole term without running into trouble with any of their teachers; by the number of students who received awards for their work in the national science competition; and by the number of high-achieving athletes, whose efforts were acknowledged at the school. I think it is also worth noting that the school will shortly be able to capture from their roofs in excess of a million litres of water, which they can store in tanks and transfer as needed to the school oval, which was built with Investing in Our Schools funding, to make sure that that oval is properly watered at all times. This is a great school serving a great community in what I believe is the greatest part of our country. (Time expired)
I wish to raise the issue of broadband and Telstra. Improving broadband access is high on my list of priorities, and this is an issue over which Telstra and I have had a tortured past. While there have been some successes, there still remain several black spots throughout Canning, largely because of the diversity in the geography and topography. Just to give you an idea of what an issue it is in my area, it is fair to say that it is probably the primary issue that people contact my office about. I will continue to fight for better coverage and a better deal. As I have said previously, I will support any arrangements that result in better service and better coverage in my electorate. The Rudd government must outline what they are going to deliver and when. Canning residents do not deserve to be left behind in internet technology.
Most recently I have raised with Telstra the lack of ADSL availability in Seville Grove, which by the way is in a metropolitan area. It is hard to believe in this day and age that metropolitan areas have black spots. Despite it being a highly populated and growing outer metropolitan area, it is a black spot. Canning Vale is also an area with a number of concerns that my constituents have brought to my attention. They are unable to access ADSL, while their neighbours can. This is also in the metropolitan area. Pair-gain lines remain problematic and dial-up services in metropolitan areas in this day and age seem quite ridiculous. In the more regional areas of Canning, service in parts of Mundijong, Keysbrook, Serpentine, Pinjarra and Halls Head are extremely patchy.
When I recently contacted Telstra with a range of queries about local services, I was met with the response that improvements in the area are unlikely in the near future. Telstra advised:
With respect to ADSL availability it is unlikely that any further upgrades to pair gains and or RIMS will take place in the near future. As you know the Commonwealth Government has requested responses from companies to the National Broadband Network and the RFP [Section 11.1/ includes a ‘gag’ order that prohibits bidders from making public statements about the RFP or the process.]
So it was a bit of a cop-out. While Telstra are complying with government orders, this is of no comfort to my constituents whose services, if any, are just not up to scratch. If only they would put Jeff Booth in charge I am sure we would have a more proactive approach, because he is the only one in Telstra that I have seen deliver at any time.
The recent resignation of Telstra’s public policy manager, Dr Phil Burgess, has come as no surprise to me. One of CEO Sol Trujillo’s ugly amigos has flown the coop. However, I understand that Dr Burgess will be retained as a consultant to Telstra and as a personal adviser to Mr Trujillo—no doubt at some higher price—and will take the time to write a book about his three years at Telstra. That’s it: he has trashed Telstra, grabbed his money, and run home to the good old USA.
I have spoken before about the long list of US executives imported by Trujillo. It is extensive—and expensive, I would imagine—and includes operations boss Greg Winn. Mr Trujillo came here with a five-year plan to cut costs, improve performance and introduce new technology. That is good in theory, but I remain critical of the results he has achieved in his time.
Telstra has just recently announced that it will axe some 800 jobs in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane as a result of a restructure. In 2005, Mr Trujillo committed to axing 12,000 jobs by 2010. Telstra has already cut more than 9,000 jobs. It may be good for Telstra’s shareholders but is certainly not for the workers. People who are losing their jobs would find it hard to take that the big boss took home in excess of $13 million last year, plus cash bonuses and share options. Even Greg Winn took home $11 million last year.
Last month the company announced a $3.6 billion annual profit. Despite profit being up by 13.5 per cent, mum and dad investors are not being rewarded. Dividends are stagnant, as are share prices. For example, today the share price of Telstra was $4.31—it had hardly shifted. Meanwhile, Telstra’s shareholders continue to foot the bill for Mr Trujillo’s overseas travel budget, including private jets, first class fares and lavish accommodation with all the extras. And don’t forget the Telstra executives road show tour, which cost more than $1.7 million plus expenses. Trujillo is a well-known supporter of and large financial donor to John McCain’s US presidential campaign. The Sydney Morning Herald suspects that a number of his amigos are also financing this campaign. (Time expired)
I rise today to make a heartfelt plea to road users in the Northern Territory to take more care. The Northern Territory road toll is currently at 58, compared to 35 at the same time last year. This is a horrendous toll of human life. However, the human toll is not just the 58 souls that we have lost; it is a toll on the families and friends who are left behind. I do not think I have ever witnessed more torment, anguish and pain than I have seen when visiting a family on the day that one of their loved ones was lost in a car accident.
I lost a friend on 27 October 2004. Michael Edwards died while travelling as a passenger in Darwin after a night out with friends. Known affectionately as ‘Wally’, he is sadly missed. He was the loving father of two daughters and partner of Jodie, and a fantastic brother to Tim and Patrick. But what tore my heart out the most was the impact that his death had on his mum and dad, Jackie and Stem. They are still two of the most outstanding people I know. However, the pain is still etched on their faces. They do not laugh as loudly as they used to. They miss their son. I remember the call I received from Patrick on the morning Wal had died. I am still haunted by that conversation. I was shattered, as were many other people. Wally was just 32 years of age.
My plea is to the young drivers on our roads. When you get behind the wheel, think of the two people in your life who love you without conditions, the two people who have put bandaids on your knees, changed your nappies, rocked you to sleep, blessed you when you sneezed, hugged you when you lost, celebrated your wins, read to you at night, checked under the bed to make sure there were no monsters, dried your tears at your first failed relationship, taken you on driving lessons and cooked you Sunday roasts—your mum and dad. Consider the pain and suffering, the absolute torment and despair, they will feel should you not take care.
I think that all in this place will support my plea to all drivers, as we head towards another festive season, to slow down, take extra care, nominate a sober driver and wear a seatbelt. Christmas is a time of celebration, love and happiness, not a time of despair, sadness and funerals.
The government is providing funding of $17 million over five years for an innovative new national driver training program for learner drivers, in line with our election commitment. This includes bringing forward $1.5 million into the financial year to enable the early commencement of the program. One of the first steps will be the world-first, interactive website and a pilot trial in Tasmania.
Young drivers are over-represented in serious road crashes and are particularly vulnerable during the early stages of solo driving. In fact, young people go from being some of the safest drivers on the road when they are on their L-plates to being some of the most likely to have a car crash the moment they get their Ps. Nationally, nearly a third of people killed on Australian roads are aged between 16 and 25, yet they represent only 15 per cent of the population. Research has shown that increasing the quality and variety of supervised driving can lead to reduced crash risk after licensing.
Once implemented, keys2drive will provide learner drivers and parents or mentors with a free professional driving lesson from an accredited instructor; support parents and mentors with instructional material and practical guidance on how to provide effective supervision and training to a learner driver; establish an interactive website which will offer short instructional videos, guides on handling various road terrains and weather conditions, and the location of the nearest accredited driving instructor; and, finally, deliver the country’s first ever national accredited scheme for driving instructors. The Rudd Labor government is committed to making our roads safer for all drivers, and keys2drive is a practical way of equipping young people with the skills they need for a lifetime of safer driving.
In conclusion, spare a thought for the emergency workers such as police, firefighters and paramedics who arrive at the scenes of these accidents and who are also working to prevent road fatalities. All Australians need to address their behaviour on our roads so that we can enjoy a safe and happy festive season.
Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the security of aviation and maritime transport and offshore facilities, and for related purposes. (Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008)
to present a bill for an act to amend legislation in relation to temporary residents’ superannuation, and for related purposes. (Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes. (Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in Pricing) Bill 2008)
to present a bill for an act to amend the Water Act 2007, and for related purposes. (Water Amendment Bill 2008)
to move—
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 22 September 2008, namely: National Portrait Gallery forecourt sculpture.
Yesterday in the House of Representatives the Labor government voted against the proposal by the coalition to increase the single age pension by some $30. Single age pensioners in this country receive $273 per week, and the opposition believes that a $30 rise is affordable and desirable. I certainly believe this. Last night we voted for this very strongly and very convincingly. The ALP government, led by Mr Rudd, voted against it and, in my opinion as the member for Ryan, this is mean-spirited. The Australian budget surplus is some $22 billion, left by the Howard government—an enormous amount of money. Certainly it means that this country can afford to take care of our much-deserving pensioners. We are a rich nation. We can afford this. We must take care of all those Australians who are less fortunate than us. This includes those on pensions—especially those on single age pensions—and I would even say we should be taking care, in particular, of people such as carers, who do an enormous amount of wonderful work in our community. We are a rich country. We can afford this. We have a $22 billion surplus and I certainly will be letting the pensioners of my electorate of Ryan know that I voted for the $30 increase in the House of Representatives yesterday and that the Labor government used its numbers to vote against the $30 increase.
The Rudd government say that they are for working families. It is quite significant and quite interesting that we never hear them say that they are for pensioners. They say one thing—that they are for a certain group in the community—but they do not say that they are for people such as pensioners. Mr Rudd, of course, is in New York attending meetings there. I suggest that he should be in this country attending meetings here, speaking to Australians less fortunate than himself and less fortunate than many others. I, for one, have no qualms at all in saying that this country should be a global nation and that we should have a Prime Minister that is global in outlook. I am certainly global in outlook and all my colleagues are global in outlook, but the point that we are making is that this is not the time to be going to New York to talk about Australia seeking a spot on the United Nations Security Council. This is not the time to be going to Columbia University and to be speaking to African leaders about trying to get their votes. Mr Rudd, as Prime Minister of this country, should not be speaking to African leaders. He should be speaking to pensioners throughout the length and breadth of this great country, and he certainly should be speaking to the pensioners of the Ryan electorate. I will be letting them know that his government voted against the $30 rise that we in the opposition proposed very, very strongly.
In the last two months there has been much recognition and commemoration of the men and women who served and sacrificed themselves to defend our nation during World War II. I would like this morning to add a tribute to those women who are not always remembered with that honoured group—I refer to the Australian Women’s Land Army, active from 1942 to 1945.
For the duration of the war, the Australian Women’s Land Army consisted of between 2½ thousand and 4,000 women. Some were as young as 16. They volunteered and were recruited to work the farms and factories left empty while men were off at war. They served and sacrificed themselves so that production and management on the home front continued. The Australian Women’s Land Army functioned in military style and precision. The women were supervised by land army matrons. They wore uniforms, they were rotated around a number of manual tasks, they lived in dormitories, they were assigned leave passes and they were confined to barracks for undisciplined behaviour. It was, in every sense, an army. An initial six-month probation period determined their ability to manage the intensely physical task at hand.
These women never served overseas, nor were they required to wield a weapon, a pen or a bandage, but their strenuous physical work was essential to the war effort. If our farms had failed, so too would our fighting forces. These women made sure that Australian civilians and the armed forces continued to eat.
Mrs Peggy Williams, a Bennelong constituent, is the President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Women’s Land Army. She was recruited at the age of 16½. I am inspired by the stories that she has told me of the Land Army. Peggy is one of many women who believed it was her patriotic duty to feed the troops—a task more important than the sprained ankles, the aching muscles, the broken ribs and the sheer exhaustion which resulted from the demanding physical labour of primary industry. Her stories detail wonderful camaraderie, strength, determination and a lot of fun as well. I salute Peggy’s efforts and the efforts of all members of the Australian Women’s Land Army.
An important point of history is that, in 1942, Prime Minister John Curtin recommended that the Australian Women’s Land Army be recognised as the fourth service. The War Cabinet gave its approval in 1943, but unfortunately the Land Army was not formally constituted under the national security regulations until 1945 and, thus, never validated by parliament. The end of the war brought demobilisation of the Women’s Land Army and the abandonment of the service recognition recommendation. Members of the Land Army have campaigned long and hard for the recognition of their efforts, and it remains unforthcoming. But to date their struggles have gained the opportunity to march on Anzac Day, the opportunity to join the RSL in 1991 and access to the Civilian Service Medal. In 1944, Prime Minister John Curtin stated, ‘Freedom is a condition that has to be bought and paid for’, and the Land Army has done that. (Time expired)
On Saturday I attended the closing ceremony of the Evangelical Soccer Association of Western Australia. The association was created in the year 2000 as a way that young Christians could enjoy and gain the benefits of competitive sport without having fixtures on Sundays. I also make the point that the ESA of WA is an example of how all the positives of competitive sport can be achieved without reliance on alcohol for social or funding purposes. The ESA have chosen a Christian model that does not exclude, but rather provides a moral guide for generations of boys and girls.
Many soccer clubs—I would say the majority of clubs—in Perth have their games on Sundays, which conflicts with the day of worship for Christians. Beyond ensuring that games will not be played on Sundays or on other days such as Easter Friday or Christmas, the Evangelical Soccer Association also encourages the appropriate responses and interactions on the sporting field. In this way, faith and sportsmanship have been combined for a very positive overall result.
Although there are clubs all over Perth, within the Cowan electorate, I have the Greyhounds and the Kingsway United Soccer Club. At Saturday’s closing ceremony, I was once again impressed with the organisation and the values that the ESA of WA practices. It is always a very well run event. Prayers were said on several occasions by the ESA’s Chaplain, Peter Burne. Trophies were presented to all the champion teams. Individual presentations were made to both teams in each of the finals. And probably most important of all, every competitor from every club received a participation medal. Having coached junior sport for many years, I always knew that for the effort they put in, apart from the enjoyment of the sport, competitors needed some memento of the season.
I think that the Evangelical Soccer Association of WA is an excellent sporting organisation. They do things very well. Although I know the participants appreciate the association, its volunteers and administrators, I add my voice and say: well done and please keep up the good work. I congratulate and thank the soccer association’s executive and committee for the successful 2008 season and the great work the association does. The President and Chairman, David del Pino, and his wife, Eleni, have been tireless workers over many years for the association and players. I also thank Roger Edland, Secretary; Samantha Hodge, Treasurer; Avril Web, Registrar; Peter Burne, Chaplain; Peter Wagener, Referee Coordinator; Carl Overbye, North Zone Representative; Craig Danfield, Coach Coordinator; Brendan Lindstrom, Adult Competition Coordinator; and Chrissy Haddock, Management Committee member. I should also thank Sonshine FM radio for their support of the Evangelical Soccer Association. Once again, I say well done to the ESA, and all the best for 2009.
Yesterday I had the privilege of receiving a delegation from the Whitehorse City Council—known to you as well, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke—led by the mayor, John Koutros, and the CEO, Noelene Duff. This council delegation had travelled to Canberra to present the Springvale Road-Whitehorse Road detailed improvement study, a report to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Anthony Albanese. The report was formally handed over to the minister for his consideration following a meeting to discuss the recommended option. This detailed report has been more than a year in the making and was prepared for the council by Maunsell Australia.
The report examined eight different options for dealing with the congestion at Melbourne’s busiest railway crossing, as measured in terms of road traffic and train frequency. The Springvale Road railway crossing in Nunawading has, for the second time in a row, been rated by the RACV as Melbourne’s No. 1 congestion red spot. This follows on from the same rating in 2004—and, this being a biennial survey, that means it has come up each time. The report also found that the crossing is a major black spot, with 32 level-crossing incidents over a five-year period, including three collisions between vehicles and trains. The crossing has been ranked the most dangerous of all of the 1,872 railway crossings in the state of Victoria, with the highest risk assessment ranking, as determined by the Australian level crossing assessment model of May 2008. With an average traffic flow of 67,000 vehicles per day in 2007, the Springvale Road boom gates come down repeatedly to allow the 213 scheduled daily train services to pass through. With the great increase in demand for public transport in the east, many of these trains are packed full and, with the planned increase in Melbourne’s train fleet, there may soon be even more trains bringing down the boom gates and causing extensive delays for motorists, buses and pedestrians in the near future.
The Rudd Labor government is committed to improving one of the most congested intersections in Australia. The recommended option in the report involves a grade separation of the railway crossing by lowering the rail tracks below Springvale Road, along with a new train station at Nunawading and other major improvements to safety and public transport in the area. The next step is for the government to assess and make a decision on the recommendations as soon as possible. After that, it will be up to the Victorian state government to develop a business case for approval to commence the works. We have already committed the amount of $2 million in this year’s federal budget to provide funding for the next stage of the planning process. This funding is part of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment of up to $80 million which, along with the state government’s involvement, will free up transport in this vital eastern corridor.
I rise this morning to add my voice to the chorus of voices coming from the National and Liberal parties this week on behalf of pensioners, particularly the pensioners in my electorate of Mitchell. There are 3,000 single age pensioners in the electorate of Mitchell, and I can record in this House today that they are doing it tough. They are doing it tough because of inflation and its effects on prices. In my community, which is sometimes referred to as an affluent community, the rental market in particular, because of state government policy, is causing enormous pain to pensioners, as are housing affordability and prices in general. Indeed, it is the case that since the election of the Rudd government the cost of living has soared. Basic commodities such as milk, jam and honey have gone up 3.6 per cent and the cost of fuel is up 14.5 per cent. This hits hardest the people who can least afford it.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric this week from the Labor Party. Indeed, they say they are hundred-year advocates for pensioners—a 100-year record of service. Yesterday, those 100 years went out the window. It is heartless bureaucracy and mindless machinery to oppose our sensible and decent plan to increase the rate of the single age pension by $30 a week. Arguments that suggest that two million people will miss out ignore the fact that this will provide important and immediate relief for a million single age pensioners, single age service pensioners and widow B pensioners. Thirty dollars a week is a meaningful and important measure for them, and they need it now. They especially need it now in my community of Mitchell, where they are facing rentals shifts. In one building alone in my community of Castle Hill, rents for the entire block of units were lifted by $150 in one hit—for every person. That kind of rental pressure is causing the biggest problem to pensioners.
I do not think it is an appropriate response to say we are going to have a review, a report, a committee and an inquiry, and then we are going to have a review and a report and a committee on the inquiry. We really need to do something on behalf of pensioners now. We need to work very hard in this place to ensure that those who can afford it least do receive the benefits of a strong economy and a $22 billion surplus.
The party of justice and compassion has abandoned those key qualities, and the coalition’s sensible proposal of $30 a week needs to be really seriously looked at. One year from now a $30 increase will make no or little difference to pensioners in my electorate. Indeed, if you look at the record of the last coalition government it is the case that, when the circumstances warranted it, we acted. We acted to tie the single age pension to 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings; we acted when there were pressures. The pressures are coming; they are real in my electorate—those pressures are prices, rents and inflation. The government has failed to address those cost-of-living pressures. They need to address the matter of pensions. (Time expired)
On the weekend, 15,000 people converged on Paul Keating Park to celebrate the 10th annual Bankstown Children’s Festival. The children’s festival helps to build a cohesive society, breaking down the barriers between cultures and bringing children together. The festival represents everything that Bankstown is about: a proud home to people from over 130 different countries who speak more than 60 different languages and a cosmopolitan and cohesive community where being Australian is not about where you come from but where you are going. Building a new Australia starts with our children playing together and living in harmony. That is why I am so pleased to rise today to thank the organisers of this important event.
Since the festival began 10 years ago, the numbers of children and parents attending the festival has soared from 4,000 to 15,000 on the weekend. It has grown every year, largely due to the hard work and commitment of its founder, Mr Thuat Van Nguyen OAM. His dedicated team of volunteers—Colin Platt, John Pestana, Gurpreet Singh, Mike Weatherly, Graham Tomkinson, Louise Tran and many more—helped to make Saturday a great success. This is not an event that takes a couple of weeks to organise. The committee are already back at work organising next year’s event. Together they are helping to build a better local community—a shining light to the rest of the world.
On the weekend the children enjoyed making lanterns and they got involved in poster competitions, rides and activities, lion and dragon dancing. There were table tennis competitions and, of course, a fireworks finale. This year the festival also included for the first time a healthy food and education cooking area, where children were taught how to make rice rolls and falafels. But the highlight of the day had to be the children’s parade, where young people dressed in traditional costumes from all around the world and marched together into Paul Keating Park in a celebration of youth and cultural diversity. The festival has a proud home in Paul Keating Park, a park named after a man with a deep commitment to a cosmopolitan and cohesive Australia. Kevin Rudd outlined his commitment to a cohesive Australia in his first speech as Prime Minister elect. He said he would be a ‘Prime Minister for Indigenous Australians; Australians who have been born here and Australians who have come here from afar and have contributed to the great diversity that is our nation, Australia.’ Earlier this year he honoured the sentiment of Paul Keating’s historic Redfern address when, as Prime Minister, he apologised to the stolen generations. On Saturday we witnessed a new generation, brought up with the same principles of social justice espoused by Paul Keating 16 years ago. They are the ones who are building a better Australia.
The long-term goal of the organisers of the children’s festival is for the festival to continue to grow and reach out to other areas of Sydney and eventually become a nationwide festival as a celebration of diversity in our country. If the weekend is anything to go by, they will be successful.
I note the member for Blaxland talking about the Paul Keating Park. Parks are good; I have only had a road named after me, and roads get you somewhere! So they are both good.
I draw the attention of the House to the inequitable situation of a large area within the electorate of Barker unable to receive SBS television and the full range of ABC Radio services—something that most Australian take for granted. The district council of Tatiara has a population of a little over 7,000 and is one of the largest local government areas in South Australia—some 6,525 square kilometres; far bigger than many federal electorates, I might add, but also about 10 per cent of the electorate of Barker. Tatiara is located in the Limestone Coast region of South Australia. It has the main service centres of Bordertown and Keith with three smaller townships of Mundulla, Wolseley and Padthaway. Tatiara means ‘the good country’ and the district is fortunate to have an abundance of good underground water, a low unemployment rate, excellent facilities and a great lifestyle.
The economy of the district is firmly based on the agricultural and pastoral industries, chiefly the production of grains such as barley, oats, wheat and canola and stock such as sheep and cattle. In some areas there is extensive underground irrigation, which has facilitated the growing of small seeds, flowers, vegetables and olives, and many seasonal workers are employed in the buoyant viticulture industry making great wine.
The ability to receive SBS television and the full range of ABC radio services such as Triple J, often taken for granted, is denied to Tatiara residents. Earlier this year I wrote to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy requesting an extension of SBS’s digital television service to Tatiara. The minister’s response, several months later, was that the populations of 2,581 and 1,089 in Bordertown and Keith respectively in the 2006 census are insufficient to warrant plans to extend the reach of SBS television. The minister failed to take into account that the small towns of Wolseley and Mundulla, only a few kilometres away from Bordertown, would indeed bring the population of Bordertown to more than 3,000 and make it eligible.
SBS television provides multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society. It is disenfranchising to exclude rural and regional Australians from this service and I call on the Rudd Labor government to allocate infrastructure funds to improve radio and television services in the area.
At one of my recent regular Saturday morning street corner meetings I had the great pleasure of meeting Ms Eunice Kermode. Ms Kermode is one of the Coeliac Society of South Australia’s most passionate volunteers and has spent 26 years in service to the organisation and to coeliac sufferers in South Australia. I rise today to note the important contribution of volunteers such as Ms Kermode and of the Coeliac Society of South Australia. In doing so, I note that there are similar societies across much of the rest of Australia who are doing almost as good a job as their South Australian colleagues.
The society is a not-for-profit charity that promotes understanding and general awareness of the problems coeliac disease sufferers face and provides a support network to help sufferers with dietary treatment and the management of their disease. They currently have more than 1,300 members in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Ms Kermode informed me of the difficulties her son and all coeliac sufferers face during their lives. The disease is estimated to affect one per cent of the population, but it is not widely recognised and often goes undiagnosed. It is an autoimmune disease that leads to the flattening of the lining of the small intestine. If coeliac disease goes untreated, nutrients are poorly absorbed, often resulting in complications which include osteoporosis caused by calcium malabsorption, infertility, miscarriage, depression and other problems.
The only effective treatment for the condition is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Following a gluten-free diet can be enormously difficult for sufferers of coeliac because gluten is found in wheat, barley, oats and other cereal grains. Many foods, condiments and drinks, including bread, pasta, cakes, pastries and even beer, cannot be consumed. However, as the work of these societies continues and awareness grows about coeliac disease, more and more places are catering for gluten-free diets.
Ms Kermode has kept some very detailed and interesting records of the work of the Coeliac Society of South Australia by maintaining copies of their first cookbook and other publications from the past 26 years. I have been pleased to be able to work with her and make contact with the Mortlock Collection at the State Library of South Australia, which will now be trying to find a permanent home for Ms Kermode’s collection of the history of coeliac disease in South Australia. The work of individuals like Ms Kermode and all those at the Coeliac Society of South Australia has increased public awareness of coeliac disease and, as such, has improved the lives of thousands of South Australians diagnosed with the disease. I commend their contribution to our community to the Parliament of Australia and thank them for their great service.
I want to pay tribute to the Goulburn Valley Vietnam Veterans Association, who are in a part of Australia which has had one of the worst droughts on record for over five years. On Saturday night they gathered together in the Tongala Hall to raise funds to support an extraordinarily important effort being made in Cambodia: the work of Tony Bower-Miles as he tries to deactivate the six million mines that still remain in Cambodia. These are mines that are disabling children and that are making sure some land remains unusable or unproductive—a legacy of the war some 30 or so years ago.
The Goulburn Valley Vietnam Veterans Association, led very ably on this occasion by Gwen and Graeme James, decided, despite their hardships in surviving this drought, to go all out to try and raise at least $7,000 to help buy landmine detectors and body armour and also to contribute to the orphanages in Cambodia, where some of the disabled children who have stepped on these mines end up, so that the children can at least be cared for in their early days.
I am very proud to be a patron of the Goulburn Valley Vietnam Veterans Association. They have worked very hard to support one another, particularly those who need special counselling and support as a result of the legacy of their war effort. The veterans’ contribution to Australia was enormous at the time of the Vietnam War. As we know, Vietnam veterans were often, until very recently, not given the proper regard that they should have been given, and the lack of that regard when they came back led to a great deal of anguish and ongoing issues of distress.
The Goulburn Valley Vietnam Veterans Association had a fantastic time on Saturday night at the Tongala Hall. The use of the hall was donated by the Campaspe Shire. All of the goods for auction, the door prizes and the raffle items were donated by local businesses. The people there enjoyed themselves, knowing that while they are doing it so tough they were contributing to good work in Cambodia. I acknowledge in particular the efforts of Tony Bower-Miles—himself of course a Vietnam veteran—to make the world a safer place for children. I commend the incredible compassion and hard work of all involved. It was a great night and they raised over $7,000. It might not sound like an enormous amount in the scheme of things but in a drought stressed community like mine it is an enormous effort. I am proud to be the patron of that group and I commend their effort as an example of people being great Australians.
I rise today to speak about the National Secondary School Computer Fund and, in particular, the benefits that this policy has provided in my electorate. This is part of the broader education revolution being undertaken by the Rudd Labor government, and it will benefit thousands of children in my electorate by giving them the skills they need to succeed in life. I would like to congratulate the three schools in my electorate that received funding under the National Secondary School Computer Fund in the first round of applications, which was announced earlier this year.
The Lighthouse Christian College is a Christian co-educational private school located in Keysborough. It is ably led by the principal, Mr Tim Rogers. The Lighthouse Christian College received 64 computers in the first round of the grants. Last Friday the Lighthouse Christian College celebrated its 20th anniversary, and I was honoured to attend and to be invited to deliver an address at that function. It was a joyful celebration of the achievements of the school. The school community has taken this school from a collection of demountables in empty paddocks at Keysborough in 1988 to the thriving school it is today, with nearly 1,000 students.
The second local recipient of funding under the policy was Mount Hira College, an independent co-educational school also in Keysborough, with strong links to the Turkish community. Mount Hira received 18 computers. Members will be interested to know that Mount Hira was established only in 2000—very recently—but has grown into a thriving school in that short period of time.
The other school in my electorate that received computers was the BEST Centre in Noble Park. This is a small independent school that looks after students who have had difficulty settling in regular schools. It is run by the long-established and wonderful Victorian institution Berry Street, which is a community organisation that looks after thousands of young Victorians every year. The BEST Centre received some 26 computers.
All of these schools have welcomed the provision of computers to their schools, which is of course directed at bringing schools with a computer-to-student ratio of one to eight up to a target ratio of one to two. I know that there are very many schools in my electorate that are looking forward to the second round of the computers in schools program. That round is going to be announced later this year, and applications close on 9 October. The program will continue to deliver benefits to children throughout my electorate by providing them with skills for life.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I speak in support of the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008, which extends AusLink in terms of its operation as well as in its scope and duration. This bill clears the way for the funding under AusLink of heavy vehicle facilities, including off-road facilities that will improve both driver safety and amenities for truck operators. It also provides further funding for the Roads to Recovery program through to 2014, a program under which the local governments in the Fremantle electorate will receive $1,116,697 in the 2008-09 year.
The legislation being considered works to complement, and of course depends upon, the reform that is contained in those bills that effects an appropriate increase in the share of cost borne by heavy vehicle road users. Of course I support those changes, which are fair, reasonable and progressive. As a matter of general economic principle, I am in favour of using a full-cost approach in the assessment and formation of government policy. Not only does this mean that costs are properly and fairly attributed, and therefore properly considered in terms of what constitutes the full extent of effective government support, but it also provides the opportunity to assess the competitive footing on which relevant industry alternatives currently exist and, what is more, the basis on which they might compete if appropriate government support were determined on a full-cost basis.
When it comes to transport and freight policy, it is only right and sensible that road freight be considered with all the costs associated with it taken into account. This may have the effect of making rail freight more competitive and, notwithstanding the fact that road and rail are often seen as the only real domestic freight options, it may be part of a set of prevailing circumstances, including the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which sees a renewal of coastal shipping in Australia. Domestic shipping has fallen into an unnecessary decline in this country, with a range of consequences which in my view extend to the question of Australia’s transport sovereignty and security.
One aspect of the national land transport program that I particularly want to mention is black spot funding. As the Chairperson of the Western Australian Black Spot Consultative Panel, I am only too aware of the range and importance of road projects that this program supports. In Western Australia, the work funded this year will include 46 projects in both rural and urban areas to a total value of $5.927 million. In my role as chairperson of the consultative panel, I of course welcome all the funding that has been delivered and that will continue to be delivered to those Western Australian roads identified as requiring safety improvement. As the member for Fremantle, I am pleased that black spots in Banjup, Yangebup, Hamilton Hill and East Fremantle are being addressed under the program.
I want to take this opportunity to recognise the work done by my predecessor in the role of Chairperson of the Western Australian Black Spot Consultative Panel, Senator Eggleston, and I thank him for his contribution. One of the key aspects of this bill is the funding it enables through definitional change for heavy vehicle safety measures, including the provision of rest stops, decoupling areas and monitoring technology. This forms a part of the Rudd government’s heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. Like the Black Spot Program, this particular funding recognises that road transport, for all its advantages, has associated non-economic costs, the most significant of which is counted in human lives.
As the representative of the electorate that contains the port of Fremantle, I am only too aware that freight transport is a critical economic and community issue. The movement of containers by truck into Fremantle port continues to be a matter of contention between port users on the one hand and metropolitan residents on the other, and there is a long history of simplistic political pointscoring by the Western Australian Liberal Party in relation to what is a complicated issue.
I support the outgoing Western Australian Labor government’s approach to supporting the port’s freight needs while looking to minimise the community impact of road freight. There has been an increase in rail freight out of Fremantle port as a result, and I would dearly like to see that matched in the coming years by an increase in domestic coastal shipping. I refer those members who are interested in the shipping aspect of freight policy to the current House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation, to which I made a submission.
As someone who believes, in broad terms, that the transport policy answers lie in the policy challenge of decreasing our reliance on road freight and road use, I also take this opportunity to welcome the government’s budget commitment of $1.3 million for a freight monitoring and coordination technology project, called Network Intelligence, which will improve the efficiency of road freight movements between Kewdale and Fremantle Port. This is certainly an example of government supporting an initiative in the expectation that we can make things better in many cases by simply being prepared to do them smarter. In addition to the modifications that are planned for the High Street-Stirling Highway intersection, and the improved dual-carriageway section of Leach Highway west of Carrington Street, these initiatives will improve community safety and decrease the truck noise associated with the existing road freight into Fremantle port.
This bill extends the operation of AusLink into the area of heavy vehicle safety and monitoring and expands the scope of the Roads to Recovery program. I welcome these measures as part of the Rudd government’s heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. It is too easy to keep building more and bigger roads and to keep subsidising road use, whether through the politically expedient excise reduction madness of those opposite or through a failure to apply a full-cost approach to road transport analysis. The hard road, if you like, is to acknowledge the fact of ever-diminishing oil resources, not to mention the carbon pollution aspect of road use, and to begin the long and difficult process of changing the way we transport freight and ourselves in Australia.
It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. I note the large number of members who have spoken on this bill, which I believe is reflective of how vital the concern of roads is to our electorates, particularly in a nation with our geography. It is good to remind ourselves of the two key aspects of this bill. Not only does it expand the amount of funding available for Roads to Recovery by $350 million out to 2014—a massive injection of $1.75 billion—but it also amends the definition of ‘road’ to expand the concept to include truck rest stops, which are so vital to the safety of our roads. There are also the other measures in the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package that the government intends to implement, which has $70 million worth of funding associated with it. I will come back to that point later in relation to my own electorate of Eden-Monaro.
I think my electorate is very illustrative of the essential nature of roads to the fabric of our social lives, to safety and to the economy. It is noteworthy that there was, just this morning, a fatality on the Monaro Highway. My heart goes out to the family of the victim involved. It highlights what a challenge the roads are in Eden-Monaro. Not only do we have many winding roads and no dual carriageways to speak of in most of the electorate but we also have seasonal challenges, such as the snow and ice conditions during the winter months, which quite often extend into a great part of the year. I certainly have faced this challenge myself many times. I nearly lost a campaign worker last year whose car slid off the road in the snow and ice on Laurel Hill. His car was a write-off. This situation is of great concern to families who have kids who have to travel up to Canberra, for example, for TAFE studies and the like. Not only do we have these conditions but many of the roads in Eden-Monaro are very primitive—dirt roads, in fact. Anybody who has travelled the Doctor George Mountain Road, the Tantawangalo Mountain Road, the Eden to Towamba road, the Springfield Road or the Brindabella, Bobeyan or Araluen roads will know what I am talking about. These are significant safety challenges as well as impediments to our economy.
We depend a great deal on these roads. It is an electorate that has a large amount of large-scale haulage in the logging, timber, dairy and livestock industries in the region and also in our tourism. In fact, a lot of our tourism is being held up by these minor road impediments. An example of that is the fabulous Yarrangobilly Caves, over on the South-West Slopes, which is a magnificent tourist venue with huge potential. I recommend all Australians go and visit this site, where there are 300 caves, massive natural cathedrals, warm springs and a beautiful old 1930s guesthouse. The road from the sealed road to the actual site is very difficult for coach access, so we cannot actually get seniors bus tour packages involved to get people to Yarrangobilly.
Similarly, we have been trying to promote employment and industry amongst our Indigenous communities in Eden-Monaro. One of the great ventures near the town of Eden is the Jigamy Farm project, which Pastor Ossie Cruse, a great Indigenous leader of the area, was instrumental in getting up and running. The problem is that the access road to that project, once again, is not suitable for bus access. So roads are critical to improving our economic situation in Eden-Monaro.
One of the things that really shocked me during the election campaign last year was what I call ‘the great Howard road hoax in Eden-Monaro’. It is this politics of hoax that I really hope comes to an end soon, because we are obviously seeing manifestations of it in relation to the pensions issue and in statements that the member for Goldstein made yesterday in relation to the Googong Dam issue, which I will come back to. The example that I give to illustrate this hoax is that last year the Howard government would turn up, in relation to a road project, in fact highlighting the situation that over 12 years we had not seen any effort—or any improvement to these critical road pieces—and it was always the blame game, the politics of pointing at the state and saying it was their responsibility. No effort was gone to to sit down around the table and actually work through these issues to see what each party could bring to the table.
The modus operandi of the Howard government in the lead-up to the election was to come out with a small bag of money and say, ‘Here’s some money to fix Gocup Road,’ let’s say. The figure they had on offer in that situation was $11 million. Then they would say: ‘Okay, that’s it. Gocup Road will be fixed now. We’re going to deliver that if we’re re-elected.’ But the reality was that no effort had gone into sitting around the table with the state government. The road had not even been declared a state road and there was no agreement on what it would actually cost to fix the road. I made no comment on Gocup Road during the campaign for that reason—I did not want to mislead the electorate about the time line or ability to deliver that project.
Since then, we have discovered a great deal about the Howard government not having sat down with the state government. So their indication to the community that they had this somehow sealed away with the state government was completely misleading. It simply had not happened. Since the election, the member for Riverina and the state member for Wagga Wagga have been saying in the press that somehow the Rudd Labor government stole the $11 million that was set aside for Gocup Road. That simply was not true. There was no $11 million set aside at all, so this is completely misleading the community.
In relation to Gocup Road, I sat down and started doing the actual work that you need to do to deliver a project like this. I have held stakeholder meetings involving Visy; the Tumut and Gundagai councils; Carter Holt Harvey, who run the mill at Tumut; and the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority. There had been no discussion and no planning done by the Howard government. It is serious because, by 2010, it is estimated that six million tonnes of wood product will run along the road, doubling from the three million tonnes that was travelling along that road in 1998. It is a serious economic and safety concern. We have decided that we really need to have our facts, because there is disagreement over the amount of money required to fix the road. In some quarters $23 million was suggested. The Roads and Traffic Authority was suggesting $60 million.
We now await Softwoods Working Group’s output, which is going to tell us exactly what volume of traffic we can expect and what the focus and forecasts are for transport productivity. Their report should be produced within the next month or so. Following that, we will have an estimate by the Road Traffic Authority in New South Wales as to the actual costs and work estimates that will be needed to actually do the work. From there, I am determined to sit down with the state government, our colleagues and the minister at the federal level to work out a way forward for the Gocup Road. That is how these things should be done, instead of the election stunts that we saw last year.
That type of stunt was repeated again in relation to the Kings Highway. One of the beefs I had over the Headquarters Joint Operations Command Project out near Bungendore was that it was obviously a purely political ploy to put a project into a marginal electorate. When it was first mooted, not many people in Defence that I knew considered it to be an ideal site for such a headquarters. But, worse than that, the infrastructure aspects around it were not taken care of at all, so roads and water were not initially factored in to the imposition of such a significant project. Then last year, when this became a very significant factor to the local community, the Howard government again said, ‘Oh well, we’ll throw in $8.2 million to fix the Kings Highway.’ That $8.2 million would have been effectively useless in relation to doing anything to the Kings Highway. In addition to that, this was a tripartite issue—in fact, also perhaps an issue on other levels, involving councils in the area that could have been brought into the discussions. Certainly it needed the ACT and the New South Wales governments to be brought into the discussions.
That is the work that we did. We went out and talked to the ACT and New South Wales and we came up with a more significant level of funding from the Commonwealth—$23.3 million and not $8.2 million. We were able to use that to leverage $10 million of New South Wales money and extra commitment from the ACT. So we are going to see significant upgrading works to improve safety on the Kings Highway, which is a notorious road for casualties. Due to the headquarters project, the volume of traffic is likely to double, so it is very important that we get the safety right on that Kings Highway stretch.
Once again, we are seeing a pattern emerging of the photo opportunity, the small bag of gold, no actual commitment and no actual work done to deliver a project. In relation to this, yesterday the member for Goldstein asked me, ‘Will the member for Eden-Monaro be forced to consider his portfolio responsibilities and the needs of the planned Defence headquarters near Bungendore?’ Once again, this reflects his lack of knowledge on the project, because eventually the water issue was taken on board in development of the site. The site has been landscaped and constructed to maximise its water catchment. It uses leading technology in respect of water recycling projects and should be self-sufficient from a water point of view, so that is not a consideration. He also pointed to the fact that Senator Gary Humphries and the former member for Eden-Monaro had gone out and staged another photo opportunity at the Googong Dam and said, ‘Voila—magic wand—our 20 years of nothing happening on this project is now resolved.’ Nothing of that sort had happened. Once again, there had been no discussions with the ACT government and all of the issues that remained unresolved were still unresolved.
I noticed that the member for Goldstein talked about the current solution being in the context of an election. Of course, that photo opportunity last year was in the lead-up to the federal election, so it was perhaps a much more cynical move. We have actually delivered; we have secured something incredibly complicated. After 20 years of nothing happening, it has taken a lot of hard yakka, and I was personally involved in that. I take a great deal of pride in having brought it to a solution. No matter whether there was an election involved, there was a lot of fine detail required to make it happen, not only to determine on which basis the ownership issues would be resolved—and what we have done is come up with a leasing arrangement so the Commonwealth remains involved as an honest broker—but also to make sure that the water rights for Queanbeyan were secure for the future. That has been done by the execution of a specific water agreement, and I took great pleasure in taking an active role in that and preparing it at the working level, bringing some old skills to play, hopefully. We have squared away the future for Queanbeyan, so I can put the member for Goldstein’s mind at rest on that issue. It is an entirely equitable and satisfactory arrangement which will provide the commercial certainty that ActewAGL was looking for out of this arrangement as well—a win-win situation which illustrates how sitting together and having the interests of your community at heart can result in great progress, instead of the finger-pointing and the blame game that we saw previously.
I am very pleased that we are tackling this issue of roads around the area and that the specific promises we made during the campaign are now coming to fruition. Construction has begun and people can now see the practical effects of our delivering on promises. The $34 million MR92 project going through Nerriga is well and truly underway; construction is underway in duplicating Lanyon Drive, where we committed $7.5 million, once again leveraging ACT and New South Wales contributions of $8 million and $7.5 million respectively; and $23.3 million has been committed to the Kings Highway and $30 million to the Pialligo-Majura link project. That project will make a significant difference to my Queanbeyan residents commuting to the ACT. Following 30 years of inaction on the Bega bypass, a land corridor that was set aside a long time ago, we have committed $30 million to finally get that off the ground. We have also committed funds to the Bombowlee Creek Road near Tumut.
Under the Roads to Recovery program, the electorate of Eden-Monaro has done very well, reflecting its urgent needs. For so long effort has been lacking in the region, but now $6.355 million is being invested under the Roads to Recovery program across all councils throughout the electorate. Following on from this we have committed $60,000 to address a black spot issue near Braidwood—once again along the Kings Highway—to improve safety. There has also been a commitment of $28.1 million in federal assistance grants, which is going to greatly benefit all of my councils. For quite a number of those councils these are very significant increases in assistance. This is extremely significant given how important those grants have become to local council budgets.
I was highly delighted to see the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government announce the convening of the local government summit to be held in November. This was an election promise that was made last year. It will lead to the inclusion of local councils in the Constitution and the setting up of a more equitable relationship with the Commonwealth to address infrastructure issues. I must say that this was received with great rapture by my councils, who are all doing it extremely tough. They face the worst of all possible worlds with a small ratepayer base and a high roads liability issue, so we really need to make them more viable. We just cannot let things go the way they have been. There is potentially a state of collapse out there in local governance in rural and regional Australia and I absolutely applaud what the Prime Minister and the minister for infrastructure are doing on this issue. I can assure members that this is going to be received very, very well by local councils. They have been waiting to see us move forward on this election promise and it is great to see that happening.
The Rudd Labor government has also committed to doing a $100,000 strategic road safety study in the Queanbeyan area in order to sort out our issues there—such as moving forward on a bypass for the Queanbeyan area. I am also looking very closely—in the context of the Regional Leadership Forum—at a broader strategy for our roads programs in the area. I mentioned that we included in this legislation the broadening of the definition of roads to include truck stops, and I note that the Australian Trucking Association has highlighted the need for a truck stop somewhere between Kiama and Eden on the Princes Highway. I certainly hope that we can leverage support for this, to install a truck stop in the context of the building of the Bega bypass. This would greatly improve safety on the Princes Highway, which, as I say, has drawn a lot of attention as an area with a high casualty rate over the years.
It was wonderful to see that for the first time there has been serious federal government interest in the Princes Highway through the interest of my colleague Martin Ferguson, who came down and saw the infrastructure issues associated with that road. I am hoping to see more attention as time goes on and as we resolve some of our other broader national infrastructure issues such as the Hume Highway and Pacific Highway. I hope we can bring more attention to, and more collaborative effort with the state government on, the Princes Highway.
I congratulate the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the council on this initiative, as a vital step in underpinning the viability of our local government and addressing road safety issues. I might add that this nation is also relieved that at last it has a government that understands the importance of infrastructure to our economic growth and that is acting to remove the dead hand of constraint that the lack of attention to infrastructure has been for the last 12 years. The creation of the Building Australia Fund and Infrastructure Australia is proof positive of the foresight and vision of the Rudd Labor government. These measures will for the first time introduce a strategically planned approach to our infrastructure issues, removing the shameless cherry-picking and pork-barrelling of the previous government.
Can I firstly underline a couple of the comments from the member for Eden-Monaro, in particular those in relation to the exercise that will take place in November to bring councils a lot closer to the source of the capacity to deal effectively with the issues that confront them in roads. Also, before the member for Eden-Monaro leaves, I would like to congratulate him on the deal that secures a water supply for Queanbeyan into the future. Most members know that whilst I am here I have digs in the member’s electorate at Queanbeyan, and I recommend it highly to other members of parliament. It is a great place to live while you are down in Canberra at parliament.
The AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008 seeks to do a limited number of things, but importantly it continues Roads to Recovery to 2014. I do not want to bore the chamber with the tedious repetition that I am sure will come forward with members talking about that. I will simply say that, whilst this is universally popular with councils throughout the country, it is popular particularly with the council in my area, the Moreton Bay Regional Council. The fact that $1.75 billion will be directed to councils over five years is something for us to be particularly pleased about.
The heavy vehicle safety and productivity program is also allowed for in this bill, and what this does is allow for a number of things including rest areas, which are very important in the road transport industry, to be built as part of the AusLink program. But we should be very clear that this is contingent on the enabling legislation for the 2007 Heavy Vehicles Charges Determination getting passage through the Senate, where the coalition is currently blocking it. In June of last year the then federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the Nationals, Mr Vaile, said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.
That was happening under the former government. It was their intention to implement those charges from July 2008. This is currently what they are blocking in the Senate. Mr Vaile went on to say:
The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
So the former government, including the former minister and former Leader of the Nationals in this place, signalled a good 12 months out from when this was going to take effect what was going to happen. When the current shadow minister for transport—the current Leader of the National Party in this place, Mr Truss—made his contribution earlier in this debate, he indicated that this amounted to blackmail. It is blackmail when we do it and it is good policy when they do it—that seems to be the argument that they were making.
The member for Wide Bay went on to say in his contribution:
The coalition has always believed that the heavy vehicle sector should pay its way but we do not support the reintroduction of the indexation of fuel excise.
I am really happy to play any silly game that the member for Wide Bay wants to play. He is suggesting that the heavy vehicle sector should pay its way; I want to know what his plan is. Currently, the coalition do not seem to have one. They have no idea but they have the capacity, they have the power, to misuse the Senate again, for another three years, to block budget measures and, in particular, to block measures that they were anticipating introducing and to block measures that will seriously limit safety on the roads in this country. This is hypocrisy on a grand scale, the grandest scale ever.
It is the same as we saw with the horse flu levy legislation. That was a proposal made in December 2006, while the former government was in power, which they accepted. They understood in that case that they could not make those changes by regulation and that they had to bring in a principal act. They were drafting it. It was drafted or substantially drafted when the government changed. They undertook the equine influenza response as if it was already in place. We were able to introduce that legislation in February. That either makes us the most efficient government the world has ever seen, having been elected only at the end of November, or we thought the idea they had about equine influenza was a good one, so we brought in their legislation. And what are they doing? They are opposing it in the Senate. They are going to block the equine influenza legislation in the Senate. The people of Australia deserve to know and deserve to be told clearly what a hypocritical, opportunistic mob this opposition is. It does not matter who leads them; they are just the same.
The member for Hinkler in his contribution called this provision—that is, the provision that these safety measures needed to be funded out of the measures that have been blocked in the Senate—childish retribution. It was not childish retribution when they were doing it. It was good government. So now it is blackmail and childish retribution. They ought to stand condemned for the way they behave in this place. Let me talk to the member for Hinkler about what might be retribution.
The coalition in the Senate is currently blocking or was threatening to block—although I believe we have had a small measure of success there overnight—something like $6 billion worth of revenue measures. At the same time the Leader of the House, Mr Albanese, indicated that members of the opposition had written to him pleading for $6 billion worth of infrastructure programs to be undertaken in their electorates. Retribution—and, I believe, legitimate retribution—could be taken here. If those revenue measures are blocked, those infrastructure projects in the opposition electorates ought to be blocked so that the people in their electorates can look them in the eye and say, ‘Your actions in blocking government money have led to the loss of infrastructure in our electorates.’ I believe that that would be a great way for us to move. Unfortunately, I am in a minority there, and government policy will not allow that sort of retribution against what I believe are outrageous actions by the coalition.
The coalition are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions. It is disingenuous of them and, while opposition speakers universally have taken this stand, there has been greater emphasis from the National Party—who take credit for Roads to Recovery every time they get an opportunity—in welcoming the retention of the Roads to Recovery program. And then they call us blackmailers because we adopt their former government’s heavy vehicle charges determination. We hung on to something that they were responsible for introducing—and it is a great program; nobody has any argument about Roads to Recovery. I think everybody supports it outrageously. But to say that is a good thing and then to say that to hold onto another piece of coalition policy is a bad thing is somewhat awry in my view.
Longman, my electorate, is bisected by Queensland’s north-south transport corridor. The Bruce Highway runs through the middle of my electorate and, as with most major roads in Queensland, the railway line runs parallel to the Bruce Highway. The north coast rail line is in fact one of the busiest freight lines in Australia and it is also heavily used for commuter traffic, with people travelling to and from work in Brisbane. I think that most people now understand that Caboolture, the northernmost part of the seat of Longman, occupies a situation relative to Brisbane akin to that which Penrith occupies relative to Sydney. We are a rapidly growing area. At a breakfast the other week, the Mayor of Moreton Bay Regional Council indicated that we will have an additional 155,000 people in our area by, I think, 2020. That is quite frightening growth.
What have they got in Sydney? They have got the railway line, of course, and they have got the Great Western Highway, which I used to trundle up and down a bit as a teenager when I lived in Sydney, but they now also have the M4 running parallel to the Great Western Highway in many parts. The road network in Sydney has developed in much the same way that it is going to need to develop in Longman.
AusLink funding is currently being used to upgrade the Bruce Highway. It has reached the Uhlmann Road interchange at Burpengary and is now well underway between the Uhlmann Road interchange and the Bribie Island Road interchange. I am happy to say that I was able to inspect the progress on that work with the state MP Carolyn Male, and I want to thank Leighton Contractors for giving us that opportunity. Progress on the works is more than satisfactory, and there is no doubt in my mind that it will be completed within the project time frame.
We have also committed, through the last election, to using around $120 million of AusLink 2 funding for much needed overpasses across the Bruce Highway as it bisects the electorate, including at Boundary Road, where it is being brought on by major residential development; at Bribie Island Road, which is probably one of the worst-constructed highway interchanges in the country in that it is about 20 metres from the bank of the river, as the old road network there follows the stock routes from the 1800s; at Pumicestone Road, where there is a low clearance overpass; and just north of my electorate, in the electorate of Fisher, at Johnston Road.
We have also received a deal of black spot funding in my electorate, particularly for Pumicestone Road at Caboolture, Old Bay Road, Moore Road, Lindsay Road, Burpengary Road and New Settlement Road. Not that long ago, these roads were simply small rural connector roads. Because of the growth in population that has come into the area, they have now become major urban roads and carry a great deal of traffic.
One of the things that have been dragging the chain as the Bruce Highway has been developed, in my view, is sound attenuation for the people who live there. As I mentioned, having a rapidly growing urban area with a major highway bisecting it means that there are a lot of homes very close to the highway. In many cases people are suffering, as the traffic volume grows on the road, quite intolerable noise levels. I want to particularly mention here today the Kallangur noise action group and their long battle with both the actual level of noise and the Queensland Department of Main Roads to try to get their noise problem fixed. My understanding is that that is very close to occurring. The money for that will come from AusLink. It seems that the line that is drawn, as determined by the decibels, will mean that noise attenuation can be improved in that area.
Recently we had a visit from the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors, and it was good to see so many mayors from what is the largest population area of Queensland and from a group of councils who share many similar problems coming together as one to talk to us and to the ministers about infrastructure needs in our area. In particular I mention that they showed some concern about the north coast rail link, including a link to the Sunshine Coast; a multimodal transport corridor between Petrie and Redcliffe, which continues the decades-old rail to Redcliffe campaign; and a new road link to the Sunshine Coast to supplement the Bruce Highway. I will say a couple of things about those as I conclude. The state government has been doing a fair bit of work on the north coast rail link in recent years, but it appears to have run out of money. I trust that that is a genuine running out of money and not a ploy by the state government, thinking that if they stop funding now then they may be able to get money from the federal government to continue that job. Let us hope that the north coast rail link can continue to be upgraded, particularly with electric commuter trains into the Sunshine Coast.
The multimodal corridor from Petrie to Redcliffe is something that I have long been on the record as a supporter of, but I understand that there are a number of problems with doing it. Amongst those, in particular, is that it is kind of pointless for us as a federal government to support or promote the building of that corridor, or even to fund it, if the state government are not going to be able to run trains on it, and they have some great difficulties. There are serious deficiencies in the central rail capacity in accepting additional services from the growth areas and no prospect of being able to use double-decker carriages, as is done in some other cities to reduce the number of services or to increase capacity, because they simply do not fit through the tunnels that we have. Brisbane is a city that was developed post war, when motor cars became accessible to people, so rail transport became secondary. The capacity for the state to rebuild their inner city infrastructure is probably quite limited.
I have quite a few other things that I am not going to have time to talk about today, so I shall go to one particular matter. That is the matter of the timber bridges that exist on the road network in eastern Australia. I had the pleasure quite recently of visiting Kennedy’s Classic Aged Timbers, which is a facility in my electorate that was given a substantial amount of money through the Regional Partnerships program to move to that site and to establish what they have there. They have done very well. I hasten to add that the company has also received some funding support from the state government.
When I talked to Michael Kennedy, he indicated to me that he believed there are some 30,000 wooden bridges on the east coast of Australia that will be slated for demolition in the next 15 to 20 years. There is no absolute requirement for those timbers to be recycled—which Michael does very well, so he has a professional interest in it—but it is something that we should be looking at doing. It is a lot cheaper for people who demolish bridges to adopt the old ‘crunch, munch and dump’ philosophy than it is for them to take them apart in such a way that the timbers can be recycled. May I say that while our opposition colleagues do not actually support the Tree of Knowledge heritage facility going in at Barcaldine—
The department didn’t support it.
Can I tell you that your colleague the member for Gregory, the Liberal National Party member, is a great supporter and that the timber for the centrepiece of that heritage display is coming from Kennedy’s timbers in my electorate. (Time expired)
I rise today to support the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. This bill reflects the Rudd government’s commitment to ensuring safer roads around Australia. The bill has two main functions: to allow the extension of the Roads to Recovery program for a further five years as part of AusLink and to change the definition of a road to allow for the funding of heavy vehicle facilities.
AusLink forms an important part of this government’s overall strategy to address the long-term infrastructure needs of this nation. If we are to meet major challenges facing our economy and facing our nation over coming decades, then this country needs a government that is dedicated to investment in infrastructure. We have seen huge backlogs in infrastructure investment over the Howard years, in areas such as digital infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water infrastructure. This lack of investment by the previous government over the past decade in vital projects is now more evident than ever.
Today I would like to address the importance of this bill to the Rudd government’s long-term strategy to invest in road and transport infrastructure. This funding will be used to continue to fund urgent upgrades and repairs to local roads across Australia via the Roads to Recovery program. AusLink funding is also used to invest in major projects of national importance, black spot projects, strategic regional projects and research and technological projects. This bill now delivers a record $1.75 billion in new money to improve local roads by securing the Roads to Recovery program for another five years to 2014. This bill will extend the life of this program and enable a new list of funding recipients and their allocations to be determined from 1 July 2009. Prior to the commitment by the Rudd government, this program was due to expire on 30 June 2009.
Local government is responsible for more than 800,000 kilometres of local roads, and this is an important bill for local government. The continued funding of the Roads to Recovery program will assist councils with their long-term planning of upgrades and maintenance of local roads. We have given the guarantee to local governments in Australia that the Rudd government will continue to invest in local road infrastructure for the next five years. As a result, local government will be able to sit down and develop a long-term strategy to maintain, repair and build local roads in their districts. This $1.75 billion will go a long way towards improving roads right across Australia. This funding is $250 million greater—$50 million per year greater—than those allocations set by members in opposition.
The funding is welcome news for residents in my electorate of Ballarat. On 28 August 2008 it was my pleasure to announce funding allocations to councils in my electorate. It was also a great pleasure to inform local councils in the Ballarat electorate that the Rudd government is committed to securing the Roads to Recovery program for another five years. An example of this funding is to the City of Ballarat itself. In the 2008-09 financial year, the City of Ballarat will receive funding under the Roads to Recovery program to the tune of $850,000. This funding will go a long way to assist in the maintenance and upgrade of the local roads throughout the Ballarat electorate. Areas like Alfredton, Delacombe and Miners Rest are all experiencing high levels of population growth, and it is important for families to have confidence in the state of their local road infrastructure.
Over $1 million in funding was also allocated to the Moorabool shire. This is an area that is in strong need of financial assistance for local roads. Areas like Bacchus Marsh, Darley and Maddingley will experience strong population growth over the next four years—they are almost an outer metropolitan area now—at an average growth rate of 3.4 per cent per year. The rapid increase in motorists on these roads will put significant strain on local infrastructure, and it is important for families in these areas to have ongoing support from the federal government to ensure the long-term safety of local roads. Equally, Moorabool shire covers less urbanised areas—many rural areas—where road infrastructure is degrading at a very rapid rate.
I note from the previous member’s contribution that the bridges are of some concern to local governments, particularly those in rural areas, as many of them are over 100 years old now and well and truly past their use-by dates. Hepburn Shire Council and Golden Plains Shire Council also received funding under Roads to Recovery—over $587,000 and $828,000 respectively. Later in the year, each council’s individual allocation for the 2009-10 financial year will be determined by the state and territory grants commissions.
Another major aspect of the AusLink program is its funding of the Black Spot Program. On 19 August 2008, I announced that $350,000 would be invested to fix a local Ballarat road under the Black Spot Program. The Black Spot Program comes under AusLink and has been shown to have prevented at least 32 fatalities and over 1,500 injuries in its first three years. The project in Ballarat will see the funds invested in the building of a roundabout at the Ripon Street and Darling Street intersection, an area where there have been a number of accidents. My own experience of driving there has been that it is a very dangerous intersection. This is a serious investment in safer roads for Ballarat motorists and their families in my electorate.
This area was identified by a panel of independent road safety experts that included the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, the Victorian Transport Association, the Victorian Police and the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association. The panel identified this section of local road as posing a risk to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, and the funding will hopefully assist in improving safety in this area. This is one of many projects that have been funded under the Black Spot Program in my electorate of Ballarat. This latest project is part of $50.5 million in funding that the Rudd government is delivering to fix black spots on local roads across Australia.
The AusLink program also targets national projects that will deliver high national benefits through investment in road infrastructure. I want to talk about a few of those. Many of them have been very dear to my heart, but I suspect that I shall need to do that after the division.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10.52 am to 11.04 am
Before the suspension, I was finishing part of my speech and I said that I wanted to talk about some of the national projects that have been funded and are about to be funded in my district. The first of those is the Deer Park bypass. Federal Labor has shown a long-term commitment to the Deer Park bypass, and the project was finally funded under AusLink 1 as part of the national projects. The Deer Park bypass is an example of the importance of investing funding in major infrastructure projects across Australia.
Deer Park is due for completion by the end of 2009 and it is progressing extremely well. It is well ahead of schedule and, in fact, is nearing completion. Just before I went on maternity leave—I was fairly heavily pregnant at the time—I headed out in a four-wheel drive and had a look at the Deer Park bypass. The boys in the car were a little bit nervous that there might have been an early delivery, but we were okay, thank goodness! I just could not believe the scale of the project. It is an enormous engineering feat and will really provide terrific facilities for not only the people of Deer Park but all those road users who use the Western Highway.
It has been a terrific project and I certainly, alongside both the state minister for roads and the federal minister for roads, am very much looking forward to being able to drive my car on that when it opens. It was pretty unfortunate, I have to say, that it took so long for that project to actually go ahead. It did take a couple of election cycles, with Labor promising it and finally getting the previous government to commit the funding to that road to actually make it happen. It was a very, very long campaign. The project, had it been funded when Labor wanted it to be funded and had Labor been elected in that election, would well and truly have been completed by now, but unfortunately that was not the case. But we are certainly looking forward to it being finished.
It is a very important piece of infrastructure, not just for my electorate but for all of those people who live along the entirety of the Western Highway. The Western Highway at Deer Park is the major link between Melbourne and Adelaide and the road is used by some 70,000 vehicles per day, with an estimated 10 per cent being heavy vehicles. Once the bypass has been completed, commuters will avoid 20 intersections and many traffic signals and be able to travel at freeway speeds. It is anticipated that peak period journey times will be reduced by at least 15 minutes. More than that, the bypass will actually give the people of Deer Park—which is not in my electorate—back their local roads and their local streets.
The Deer Park bypass will reduce travel times and improve road safety for those who travel through this strip of road. Motorists have been fed up for a long time with the traffic congestion around Deer Park. Environmental benefits also exist from the construction of the Deer Park bypass through reduced emissions from vehicles idling at intersections. It is a relief for motorists that this project is running almost six months ahead of schedule, and I am looking forward to being part of the opening of the bypass, which is anticipated to take place in mid-2009. The opening will be received with much relief by motorists throughout my electorate and others.
I would also like to give recognition to the completion of the Leakes Road Interchange—again, well and truly ahead of schedule. This, whilst not having been officially opened, is now finished and is well and truly open for traffic. It has also been an important improvement to the Western Highway and, with the relocation of the local school along this highway, will provide a much safer environment for people who live in this area.
Following on from AusLink 1, the Rudd government has also committed to the continuation of funding through the AusLink 2 program. The Rudd Labor government made a commitment in the election campaign to the Ballarat electorate to fund alongside the state government the realignment of Anthony’s Cutting between Bacchus Marsh and Melton under the AusLink 2 funding agreement. This project is of great significance throughout my electorate, especially for residents who travel from Ballarat, Ballan, Bacchus Marsh and Darley and who use this road regularly to travel towards Melbourne. There are a large number of people, particularly from the Bacchus Marsh and Darley areas, who commute each day into the western suburbs of Melbourne and into the city of Melbourne itself for work, and there are a number of people in Ballarat who do the same. It is an important project both from a safety point of view and from the point of view of commuter time.
This upgrade to the Western Highway has always been of significant importance to me since I was elected to the seat of Ballarat, and the upgrade of Anthony’s Cutting has always been at the forefront of my objectives. It is a natural next step for improvement along the Western Highway following the construction of the Deer Park bypass and the Leakes Road Interchange. This project has been given strong support by local councils in my area, the Western Highway Action Committee, state members of parliament and, most recently, the Committee for Ballarat. The Western Highway carries some 28,000 vehicles per day between Bacchus Marsh and Melton alone, and this project will cut transport times, ease infrastructure bottlenecks and significantly increase the safety of many people who use this road.
The project is expected to save Australia $186 million in transport costs alone and is expected to increase tourist traffic for the region by an estimated $7.5 million annually. Not only do people within my electorate benefit but people from surrounding areas have also welcomed this major project. Areas such as the Grampians, the Pyrenees wine region, the goldfields, the Great Ocean Road, the Limestone Coast, and the Murray Riverland—all fantastic tourism areas—will benefit greatly from the growing tourism and the ongoing Rudd government support to upgrade the Western Highway.
Over the past months, unfortunately, we have heard a bit of noise from the representative of the Liberal Party in my area, Senator Julian McGauran, about the funding and timing of this project. Let me say that Senator McGauran and the Liberal Party had over 11 years to commence work on Anthony’s Cutting and they did nothing. Since coming to government, not only have we promised the funding but we have worked to secure state government funding as well. So far, Senator McGauran’s sole contribution to this important project has been criticism. The funding for Anthony’s Cutting is to be delivered in the early years of the AusLink 2 program and is a priority for both federal and state governments. The Rudd Labor government stands by its election commitment to fund Anthony’s Cutting, and the Rudd Labor government is working in partnership with the Victorian government to deliver this project under AusLink 2. We are currently undertaking a process of negotiation with the state government to ensure the project is delivered within the agreed time frame.
On the local level, I have received representation from Moorabool shire regarding their preference to have an interchange at Woolpack Road incorporated into the Anthony’s Cutting project. This would provide an opportunity to remove heavy vehicle traffic from the centre of Bacchus Marsh itself, an area that is expanding rapidly. It really is a one-off opportunity for Bacchus Marsh to deal with traffic issues, particularly those regarding heavy vehicles passing through the centre of town. I am encouraged that the Moorabool shire and VicRoads are in constructive dialogue on this issue. There will be some planning work required to pursue the option of Woolpack Road, but given its importance to the community of Bacchus Marsh it is work that is well worth supporting and well worth doing.
Prior to the last election, federal Labor also made a commitment to fund $404 million for the duplication of the Western Highway from Ballarat to Stawell. The duplication of the highway from Ballarat to Stawell will allow safe overtaking and eliminate traffic queuing. As the highway is the major transport link between Melbourne and Adelaide, this area has a large number of heavy vehicles using it. Crash rates are significant on that section of road, with driver fatigue a significant factor all the way from Ballarat to Bordertown. Planning for this major project was funded as part of AusLink 1, and it is with pleasure that I continue working with all levels of government to ensure the project comes to fruition under AusLink 2. The combination of these significant road infrastructure projects echoes the Rudd government’s strategy to ease infrastructure bottlenecks and to reduce the level of capacity constraints on our economy.
The other main provision within this bill is to amend the definition of ‘road’ contained in the act to enable funding for projects for the development of off-road facilities used by heavy vehicles. Many people who live in regional areas have experienced a large volume of heavy vehicle traffic going off highways and onto local and smaller roads. The Rudd government announced in the last budget the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. This program will provide additional heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes; heavy vehicle parking and decoupling areas and facilities in outer and regional areas; new technology in vehicle electronic systems; and road capacity enhancements to allow access by high productivity vehicles to more of the road network. This program is subject to the Senate allowing the increase to the road user charge, and I strongly urge opposition members to urge their Liberal and National Party colleagues to show strong support for this bill.
In 2007 there were 344 deaths on roads in my state of Victoria. Forty-three deaths in 2007 involved articulated trucks. Heavy vehicle safety is an important issue for our local communities. The program will fund additional heavy vehicle rest areas which will assist in combating road fatalities from driver fatigue. Unfortunately, this will not cut out all accidents on our roads. A reduction in the risk of driver fatigue, however, should contribute to a downturn in the number of accidents on our roads. By supporting this bill, members are supporting the safety of all road users—those that use heavy vehicles and those that are subject to accidents from heavy vehicles. That is why I urge opposition members to support this bill. In doing so, they will be supporting road safety.
The former Howard government neglected investment in infrastructure. The former government failed to properly invest in the needs of regional Australia—of which the Ballarat electorate is a perfect example. The Rudd government is committed to investing in regional Australia, and this is shown in the Australian parliament with the introduction of this bill by the minister. We are committed to investing in the safety of our local roads and maintaining and upgrading this vital infrastructure that is so important to so many residents in rural and regional Australia.
AusLink continues and will continue to deliver sound funding for residents in the Ballarat electorate. Not only does this program deliver for the electorate of Ballarat; it also delivers for the many electorates around the country, which can be seen by the many members on this side, at least, who have spoken on this bill. Our country aims to be the most liveable in the world. To achieve this we need to have a government that is interested in investing in the nation’s infrastructure. In my role as the federal member for Ballarat, I will continue to work to maximise investment in regional infrastructure and to push for my region to become the most liveable across the nation. This bill reflects the Rudd government’s strong desire to improve infrastructure across the nation and I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. Before doing so, I congratulate the member for Ballarat on her recent personal success.
When I was privileged to be elected, first as the member for Parkes and subsequently as the member for Calare, I recall that on each occasion I reiterated what all of us do: I was there to represent everybody in my electorate whether they voted for me, for the Greens or for whoever they might have voted for. I think it is particularly pertinent for leaders, particularly on the winning side of politics, to do that. The incoming Prime Minister always makes that commitment. I do recall very distinctly that the current Prime Minister did so when he was elected last November.
It was rather amazing earlier to hear the member for Longman reiterate what the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the member for Grayndler, said in the House last week when he taunted members of the opposition for having put submissions in for infrastructure projects in their electorates, as if to say: ‘Well, you are not going to get it. It is a punishment for being in the opposition or for not passing bills that we have presented to the Senate.’ About half an hour ago, the member for Longman basically said exactly the same thing, reiterating the minister’s comments. He said, in effect, that it should be a punishment for members of the opposition that they do not get infrastructure, particularly road funding, for their electorates because the opposition does not necessarily agree with all the government’s legislation. I find that incredible. Every Prime Minister, including Kevin Rudd, quite correctly, has said that whoever is elected is elected for all of Australia. But it is saying, in other words, ‘If you do not pass our legislation, we will punish you personally in your electorate.’ That is absolutely unbelievable, both from the minister and from the member for Longman. I am sure his Queensland constituents would take a much fairer view of the world than that.
Obviously there is a lot about this bill that we agree with, and various people have mentioned that. However, I think the best part about it is that it reiterates just how great a program Roads to Recovery has been. When previous Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson put this to the parliament, for the first time local governments got their funding direct from the federal government. I think we would all agree it has been a great thing. No longer do our colleagues—state Labor governments around Australia—hive off Commonwealth money before they put it out there. It means not only that all the money goes into projects but also that local governments can make their own decisions about how that money is spent. I do not think I have ever seen a local government that did not think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is very good to see that continue, and we pretty much agree with the extra fences they are putting on it.
The bill touches on safety, which is obviously an enormous issue with driver fatigue and the like. As someone who has dealt with the transport industry a lot, whether in Parkes or in Dubbo—which is in my old electorate—or now in Orange, I can say that we live on transport; we live on what is done for us by the heavy haulage industry. They are pretty pragmatic, pretty sensible, and they realise that safety is an issue in their own regions, as it is everywhere else.
However, the transport industry make the point, quite correctly, that the states should get their act together—but the states are still not getting their act together, despite this bill and despite the National Transport Commission. The states are not acting in concert and are certainly not acting in concert on driver fatigue. If, just for a change, the states could police the laws that already exist, then certainly the transport organisations would be in favour of that. But New South Wales and others are bringing in a heap of regulations which make a lot more paperwork. Instead of dealing with safety, they are requiring a lot more dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s. In effect, a driver is far more likely to be prosecuted for not filling in something properly than for doing something which contributes to dangerous driving or driver fatigue. We need to be less concerned with enabling state governments to bring in more laws than with telling them they should be dealing with and policing the laws that they already have. That would be a much better way to go than simply creating more bureaucracy and more perils—not in terms of safety but in terms of bookkeeping and what have you for drivers currently.
I turn now to the wider issue which this bill touches on—that of infrastructure, about which I will speak both in general and on New South Wales in particular. In the light of climate change and the need to keep off our roads as many as possible of the new trucks which would otherwise come on line, it is obviously a good thing to try to make much of the new haulage over the next few years go by rail rather than by road. When John Anderson actually got a national rail system going—when he finally got New South Wales, who were by far the hardest to get on board, into the national rail system—it was obviously a great thing and a great opportunity. However, New South Wales still creates an enormous hurdle for everybody on either side of it, whether they are going from Victoria to Queensland or from South Australia to Victoria to Queensland. New South Wales still insists on being different from everyone else.
Getting a national rail system was an enormous thing. When we were in government, we committed $15 million to an engineering study for the inland rail system, which was to take goods specifically from Melbourne through to Brisbane by the western route so that it did not add to the chaos of the Sydney Basin. Obviously, the current government and the current Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government have gone to sleep on the inland rail. It does not keep the minister’s mates in Sydney in money. The inland rail actually solves the problem rather than hands money to those who are in so much trouble in Sydney, and that is state Labor.
It is one thing to take AusLink money for moving goods around Australia—as AusLink was designed to do—but it is another to use that funding to help mates in Sydney or Melbourne or wherever do their job of urban transport. This was spelt out succinctly for us the other day. Why would you not facilitate the orderly passage of goods without taking it through the Sydney Basin? Having the inland rail is common sense. Yes, it would go through my electorate. It would go through Parkes, but it would also go through Dubbo. What a terrible thing it would be if, instead of facilitating something which eased congestion and made transport faster, we threw money at Sydney to contribute to the confusion that exists there, giving them money for urban transport to try and get them off the hook.
The other issue which is so important, not just for western New South Wales and not just for Sydney but for the strategic good of Australia, is to put a freeway through the Blue Mountains. I was quite stunned that the designated $20 million for the same sort of engineering study, to try and work with the state government—which does not want to know about anything that does not involve Sydney—and allow it to breathe out into its own western resource over the mountains into the central west and the far west, was backed away from. It would have relieved a lot of the pressures on Sydney. But no, once again, we backed away. I guess you cannot strategically do the right thing and keep your mates in Sydney happy at the same time. It is quite obvious what is going to happen. We all know that his mates in Sydney have their problems.
As a general rule, we support most of the things in this bill. As I think Warren Truss, the shadow minister, said, ‘Plagiarising is a great form of flattery.’ I guess in this situation they had no chance. Every local government and area in Australia knows how good Roads to Recovery is. It is good to see the minister recognise that and to extend it. By and large, we do not have too much of a problem with what they are doing with that.
in reply—I thank all members for their comments and contribution to the debate on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. This bill demonstrates the government’s ongoing commitment to infrastructure investment. The bill makes amendments that support the delivery of two important initiatives: the Roads to Recovery program, which it extends for a further five years and, which we will be increasing spending on, and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is conditional upon the passage of changes to the road user charge that will be the subject of other legislation. The extension of the Roads to Recovery program to 30 June 2014 provides much needed funding for Australia’s local councils to maintain and construct their roads.
From the contribution that members have made to this debate, it is clear that Roads to Recovery is making a real difference to local roads in local communities. Over 50 members—one-third of the House—have spoken on this bill and about how important this funding is to their community. Indeed, so far this year, this is the second highest number of speakers from the opposition on any bill, changes or debate before the parliament. The only issue on which they had more speakers was, of course, the first debate about their amendments to standing orders to stop the parliament sitting on Friday. This clearly vindicates the Rudd government’s decision to increase the annual funding for Roads to Recovery from $300 million per year to $350 million per year. This will enable even more funding to be provided directly to local governments for use on their roads at their discretion. The particular amendments contained in the bill will also remove any doubt that projects providing off-road facilities for heavy vehicles, like rest areas and parking areas, heavy vehicle bays, decoupling bays, weigh stations and facilities that are associated with or similar to any of these, can be funded under the AusLink act.
In his contribution to the debate, the Leader of the Nationals stated that electronic monitoring can already be funded under the AusLink act. This is correct. New technology projects under the safety and productivity program could be funded under existing provisions of the AusLink act, but the amendments in this bill go one step further and remove any remaining doubt that all likely projects under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program will be able to be funded under the AusLink act.
The Leader of the Nationals notes that my media release of 29 February 2008 states:
Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Plan will fund:
Trials of technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed - one using an onboard ‘black box’ or electronic log, and one which makes use of the Global Positioning System (GPS);
The construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and parking areas along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities; and
Upgrades to freight routes so they can carry bigger loads.
The Leader of the Nationals asked me for an assurance that there will not be any changes to electronic monitoring as a result of this legislation. This bill will not change arrangements that apply to electronic monitoring. The safety package which is supported by this bill will provide additional funding for new technology.
However, the Leader of the Nationals went on to pursue the opposition’s cynical and hypocritical approach to the heavy vehicle charges determination. He claimed that no-one on this side opposes safety programs. I urge the Nationals and those opposite to turn this rhetoric on safety into reality. If the opposition were serious about safety, they would not be blocking the funding needed for safety works. The passage of the legislation enabling the 2007 Heavy Vehicle Charges Determination needs to be finalised before the funding for this important program can become a reality.
That charges determination ensures that heavy vehicles pay their fair share for their impact on the road network. As I have said before, it was the Howard government that commenced the work on a new heavy vehicle charges determination. In a speech given in June 2007, entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’, the then federal transport minister and Leader of the Nationals said:
The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008.
The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes.
The charges determination simply delivers on this stated coalition policy.
The Leader of the Nationals also conveniently failed to mention that registration charges for small two- and three-axle trucks will fall. That is because we are getting rid of the practice which was introduced by the previous government whereby mum and dad operators of small trucks subsidised 60-tonne B-doubles to drive on our roads. I again urge the opposition to reconsider their position on this issue. Passing the new determination—the determination that they initiated when in government—will enable the government to commit $70 million to the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. The only thing standing between more rest areas, more parking bays, more decoupling areas and more safety upgrades is the opposition blocking the necessary funding. However, I note that the opposition is supporting this bill.
With regard to the issue of the heavy vehicles determination, I also note that I have had ongoing discussions with the Australian Trucking Association, as well as the livestock transporters. It is a very mature industry indeed. They do not want to be publicly subsidised. They want to pay their way. That is what legislation that will be coming to the House will provide for.
I also want to address the comments that were made by the member for Calare in his address just prior to my summing up on this bill. The member for Calare suggested in his contribution that the government would be discriminating against funding in coalition seats. He raised the fact that I had spoken in question time about the number of representations—indeed, I have received over 100—from coalition members for infrastructure funding, including funding from the Building Australia Fund.
What I have raised is simply the position that, if you have a fund that has been established from the budget surplus and then you diminish the budget surplus by irresponsible economic policy in the Senate in blocking the government’s budget measures, then there will be less money to invest in long-term infrastructure funds. It is that simple. So, for those opposite who in their own electorates would acknowledge that there is a significant infrastructure deficit, the funding has to come from somewhere, and that is why it is so irresponsible for the opposition to be arguing for spending on particular projects at the same time as they are prepared to diminish the funding pool from which those projects can be funded. I make that point.
I also make the point that the government has, just in the last fortnight, made a number of initiatives that are certainly not in Labor held seats. Just in the last fortnight we have seen the first sod turned on the Townsville port access road, which impacts on Dawson and on Herbert—a necessary project of some $180 million funded jointly by the Commonwealth and the state government. That will make a significant contribution to improvements in productivity as well as improvements in safety and lifestyle for the residents of South Townsville.
Less than two weeks ago we opened the Bonville bypass in the electorate of Cowper. Just yesterday we took the next step towards achieving the Coffs Harbour bypass in the electorate of Cowper. This Friday, if parliament is not sitting at that time, the member for Riverina and I intend to be near Wagga Wagga inspecting the works that will complete the duplication of the Hume Highway from Sydney to Melbourne—just as when I visited the works at Port Macquarie and Taree I attended with the new member for Lyne, an outstanding person who will make a real contribution as a member of the House of Representatives, as he did as a member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. Just last week we announced the preferred route, which, in each of three cases on the Hume Highway in terms of bypassing towns, will be the western route for Tarcutta, Holbrook and Woomargama. On Friday I will also be in regional Victoria, once again inspecting part of our nation-building program.
The fact is that we have a total of $76 billion for infrastructure funding, much of which is being put in place right now. This government has increased funding for both regional areas as well as urban areas in our transport and infrastructure sectors. The passing of the government’s budget is critical if we are going to be able to maximise our nation-building agenda. I note the endorsement today of the government strategy by the International Monetary Fund, an important statement from the IMF endorsing the budgetary strategy of producing a large surplus but putting that surplus aside in terms of long-term infrastructure investment funds.
I say to the opposition that they should pass the budget and keep the surplus intact because it is absolutely critical at a time of global financial uncertainty that Australia have the certainty of a large budget surplus if we are to be able to move forward. Specifically, when it comes to transport issues, I say to the opposition that they will have no economic credibility if they are prepared to establish a process for a heavy vehicles determination and then walk away from the outcome of that in an opportunistic fashion. They should be listening to industry and making sure that they take a responsible position, which I must say the former Leader of the Nationals did by initiating this determination. On that note I thank all members for their contribution to this debate and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Proudly, Australia’s surgical outcomes for organ and tissue transplantation are among the best in the world. The clinicians in our hospitals set standards that are the envy of the world. In fact, we have a long history of organ transplantation in this country. The first transplant operation in Australia was a corneal transplant that was done back in 1941. The first kidney transplantation surgery was performed in 1956, and since then more than 30,000 Australians have benefited from transplantation.
By the time many Australians register their need for an organ or tissue transplant, they have been living for many years with chronic illness which affects their every waking minute. They might have had to endure the fatigue, the nausea and the endless dialysis procedures that are the lot of people with renal failure, or the daily struggle for breath while doing even the lightest tasks that is part and parcel of many forms of irreversible chronic lung disease. For these Australians and their families, every day waiting for the phone call announcing the possibility of a transplantation procedure is a lifetime.
This torturous need for organs and tissues for transplantation for ordinary Australians is incredibly frustrating for all of us because the benefits are so startling. Not only are our results world’s best, but indeed the Australian organ donation scheme is in fact very cost effective. A report published in 2006 entitled The economic impact of end-stage kidney disease in Australia compared the direct cost of kidney transplantation with dialysis. It found that the cost of the first year after a kidney transplant is $62,375 and the subsequent annual cost was $10,749. These costs compare with an annual cost of between $48,000 and $56,800 for dialysis patients. The report estimated that increasing kidney transplants by between 10 and 50 per cent by 2010 would save between $5.8 million and $25.9 million and substantially increase the number of years a person would have, as well as their quality of life. The report concluded that increasing the rate of transplantation would be cheaper and more effective than the usual treatments given to patients with end-stage kidney disease such as dialysis and medicines.
However, while our doctors and nurses continue to make strides forward in transplantation surgery, we are still falling down in numbers of organ donations. Australia’s rate of organ donation has failed to keep abreast with demand for transplantation. In fact, many Australians are forced to travel overseas to purchase an organ in places where this practice is legal. In February this year, the now disbanded National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation handed down their blueprint report, the National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation final report: think nationally, act locally. Quite alarmingly, this report revealed the fact that, over the past two decades, the general measure for the availability of organs, known as the donor rate, has declined from 14 donors per million people in 1988 to 9.4 donors per million people in 2007. To put that in perspective, by way of comparison Spain has a rate of 33.8 donors per million people, France 23.2, the USA 26.9 and the UK 10.5, according to Australians Donate, which is now closed. From the 198 Australians who donated their organs and tissues last year, 349 kidneys were received by people in need, 133 livers helped 147 Australians and there were 150 lungs, 28 pancreases, 125 corneas and 42 heart valves. These organs and tissues were all gratefully received and saved many lives, but this did not meet the enormous demand in our community. It is not that demand is falling. In fact, we are seeing quite the opposite. More and more Australians are succumbing to the so-called lifestyle diseases of obesity and diabetes, and the effect is a growing need for transplantation. This trend has developed at the same time as unprecedented increases in diabetes and kidney disease in Indigenous Australians, and the demand for organ transplantation in Australia is expected to continue to grow quite strongly into the future. According to Transplant Australia, there are currently 3,000 people—Australian children and adults—on the official organ and tissue transplant waiting list waiting for a heart, kidney, lung, liver, pancreas or corneal transplant. Tragically, of those waiting for a heart, lung or liver transplant, 20 per cent will die before they receive one. That is a heartbreaking statistic for everyday Australians in need and for their loved ones and the community.
Organ or tissue transplantation is an effective and well-established treatment that can save lives or significantly improve quality of life, especially for those facing illness, disability or premature death because of organ or tissue failure. It is often the last-resort treatment for significant illnesses and diseases. Ironically, there is an incredibly high level of community support for organ donation. There are a number of reasons why this has not translated into high donation rates in practice. The most common reason cited by families when they decline to donate a deceased relative’s organs and tissue is that they simply never asked whether or not their relative wished to donate their organs. Australians do not like to talk about death, and that will often flow on to discussions with loved ones about their feelings on organ donation. Many doctors and nurses feel awkward in bringing up the subject with relatives at a time of mourning and just cannot bring themselves to do it.
Sadly, there remains much misinformation around organ and tissue donation. Myths abound. Transplant Australia, a support organisation for transplant recipients and donors and their families, says they hear some of the best ones. For example, people fear that their organs will be removed while they are alive or that if doctors know your loved one plans to be a donor, they will let him or her die to get their organs. People often think they are too old for organ donation, but in fact the oldest organ donor last year was 80 years of age. There has also been recognition that organ donation has been largely handled on a state-by-state basis with little national co-ordination. Even within states there is considerable variability within jurisdictions and even within specific hospitals. While a variety of groups have done important work to dispel some of the more damaging urban myths around organ donation, more work remains to be done.
I am justifiably proud of the record of Australians and the success story in this country around organ donation. I am also particularly proud of the bipartisan approach to improving the lives of Australians needing organ and tissue transplantation. In the year 2000, the Australian Organ Donor Register was established to create a better database of organ donors that would be available nationwide and to ensure that active consent was given, rather than the former tick-a-box system on the back of the drivers licence. In 2002, the Health Ministers Advisory Council, with bipartisan support, made Australians Donate the nationally recognised peak national body for organ and tissue donation for transplantation.
Australians Donate had four main objectives: maximising organ and tissue donation for transplantation, and enhancing community confidence in the associated systems; maximising the level of organ and tissue donation and the effective use of available donor organs; developing an effective and nationally consistent program and creating an environment in which Australians can donate organs and tissues for transplantation with confidence; and ensuring that ethical standards apply in the conduct of the work. This important body has now handed over its responsibilities to the cognate committee on organ and tissues under the chairmanship of Professor John Horvath.
In 2006, the former coalition government recognised the importance of bridging the gap between the demand for transplantation and the availability of organs. The then coalition government provided $28 million towards boosting our organ donation rate. In February 2006, the National Organ Donation Collaborative was established and managed by the National Institute of Clinical Studies, a body of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The collaborative’s model was based on a similar program in the US, which has achieved a 20 per cent increase in organ donation rates in collaborative hospitals in the US. The collaborative brought together teams of experts from 26 hospitals across our country to examine the best practice models where high donation rates have been achieved. It was charged with developing evidence based guidelines to support the organ donation process. The National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation was established by the then Commonwealth minister for health in October 2006 to provide evidence based advice to the government on how to increase the number of safe, effective and ethical organ, eye and tissue donations for transplantation to Australians in need. One of the first steps of the new taskforce was to hold a workshop in December 2006. That brought together a wide range of professionals and consumers to identify opportunities to improve organ and tissue donation rates.
In a bipartisan move, in that same year the Commonwealth, state and territory governments signed up to a 10-point plan to boost donation rates. The collaborative and the taskforce complement each other. The work of the collaborative directly supports the taskforce’s objectives through the development of national approaches to improve hospital processes which can be implemented at the local level. This fits well with the taskforce’s principle of thinking nationally and acting locally. The collaborative project has also provided information to the taskforce, such as recommendations to improve the identification and notification of potential donors and ideas around reforming procedures to obtain consent to donate.
In 2007, following a report from the collaborative to the then health minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, several of the recommendations were progressed immediately, including the development of a national stakeholder charter for activities to raise community awareness. The then minister agreed to the adoption of clinical triggers in hospitals to identify potential donors and to the production of a national performance report. The final report handed down by the taskforce recommended that a new governance structure for the Australian organ and tissue donation and transplantation sector be established. It made a number of recommendations as to how this body should be structured. I am pleased that the government has given due recognition to this report.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 proposes to do three things. Come January 2009, it will see the creation of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, which will be an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Secondly, the CEO is to be appointed. Thirdly, it will see the establishment of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Advisory Council.
This council will advise the CEO about organ and tissue donation and transplantation measures. As the minister mentioned, the advisory council will comprise a chair and between nine and 15 members with expertise in a wide range of areas related to organ and tissue donation and transplantation. I am pleased to see the current government’s plans to continue the positive steps initiated by the coalition to ensure that more Australians become organ and tissue donors to the benefit of their fellow citizens.
In conclusion, I congratulate all of those people, from the department to the respective agencies, to people who are involved right across the country in lifting the rates of organ donation. They should be pleased and proud of the work that they undertake. They know that they are providing support and hope for many deserving Australians. I hope that together we are able to increase those rates in the years ahead for the benefit of all Australians. We support this bill.
I rise in the Main Committee today to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. Australians are a generous people, often prepared to assist with the medical treatment of others by the donation of blood and parts of the human body, with no personal reward except for the satisfaction of helping another. This is not the case in many other countries, where people making blood and other tissue donations do so on a commercial basis, being paid for the donation.
Despite the generosity of Australians in this regard, the level of organ donation is far below the level of some other countries and what would normally be expected in Australia. This indicates that the mechanisms for organ donation are not working properly and that this reform is needed to allow the normal instincts of the Australian community to be given effect to.
Organ donation is supported by more than 90 per cent of the Australian population, but this country has a chronic shortage of organs for transplant. There are currently 1,800 Australians waiting for an organ transplant. Last year, the 198 deceased organ donors, whose decision to donate their organs resulted in 657 transplant procedures, met only one-third of the demand.
The register of organ donation and transplantation has reported that in Australia in 2006 there were just 9.8 organ donors for every one million people. The donation rate in the USA is 2½ times that of Australia, and Spain’s donation rate is three times Australia’s rate. Thousands of Australians currently can wait on organ donation lists for months and sometimes even years. For these people, this represents a potentially devastating period of debilitating ill health and serious disruption to family and working life. For too many of these people, the availability or otherwise of organs for transplant can mean the difference between life and death.
Increasing the rate of organ donation has been an unachieved goal of Australian health policy for too long. Despite the good intentions and the overwhelming support of the Australian public for organ donation, there has been little national leadership in this field. This bill seeks to redress that lack of leadership. It will provide a comprehensive package for the organ and tissue sector that will enhance, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing Australians’ access to life-saving and -transforming transplants.
The measures enabled by this bill will allocate $151.1 million over four years, including $136.4 million of new funding to establish the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. The bill will target a number of specific areas of need in the organ donation and transplantation sector. It will provide $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals around Australia. There will be an additional $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation. It will include $13.4 million, to continue national public awareness and education programs to increase knowledge about organ and tissue donation and transplantation, and to build public confidence in Australians donating for transplantation, and $1.9 million to support the families of deceased donors.
A national network of donation and transplantation agencies will be based in the states and territories to facilitate the donation process. This network will promote and ensure equitable, safe and transparent national transplantation processes to manage waiting lists and the allocation of donated organs. It will maintain a national eye and tissue donation network and will introduce living donation programs such as a paired kidney exchange. It will formulate national policies and protocols and will include working closely with peak clinical and professional organisations in the development of consistent clinical practice protocols and standards.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority will also enhance the information available on the transplant of organs scheme by providing support for in-hospital practice improvements and education programs. They will manage an ongoing national community awareness and education program and disseminate information about organ or tissue donation and transplantation. A national data and reporting system will be introduced and managed.
The reforms contained in this bill have a proven track record of maximising donation rates. Similar models have been used in several comparable countries around the world. The experience from these countries shows clearly that such a coordinated and integrated national approach can work. When followed by nationally coordinated and sustained effort, this approach can, over time, deliver real improvements in organ donation and transplantation rates in Australia.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority will be an independent agency managed by a CEO with direct accountability to the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing. The CEO of the authority will advise the Minister for Health and Ageing about organ and tissue donation and transplantation and provide an annual report to the minister for presentation to the parliament. Expert advice will be provided to the CEO through a new Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Advisory Council that will comprise a chair and up to 15 members with expertise in a wide range of areas.
Australia’s population is ageing and, in the near future, it will experience higher incidences of chronic diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, with all their complications and adverse health effects. Chronic conditions such as kidney disease take a toll on thousands of individual Australians and their families and on the national health budget. One example will suffice to illustrate the high cost that we are paying for our currently inefficient system of organ and tissue donation. The cost for each person waiting for a kidney transplant is $83,000 per annum if they are receiving hospital based kidney dialysis. In contrast, the solution to that problem is far cheaper. The cost of a kidney transplant is just $65,000 per recipient for the first year, and an additional $11,000 per year thereafter. This is a net gain for the nation and a huge benefit for the thousands of individuals and their families suffering through long waits for organ transplants—let alone, of course, the personal suffering involved.
Lifting organ donor rates will help us build a more efficient health system and help sick Australians return to full participation in work and in the community. Above all, the reason why we must lift the number of organ donations is that, by doing this, we can help save and transform the lives of thousands of Australians who are suffering poor health. I commend the bill and I congratulate the opposition on their support for this bill.
I rise in the chamber today to speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. I commence my presentation by paying tribute to a young lady who came from the Riverina. Tina Elliott was a wonderful young girl. She was a resident of Griffith in my electorate and her life was tragically cut short in 2006 at the very tender age of 20. Tina had touched so many people in her life and she was nominated for the Australia Day Young Citizen of the Year Award at the 2004 Australia Day Awards ceremony for her efforts in helping in the community with various organisations and ventures, including Meals on Wheels and being a member of the Creative Riverina Youth Team.
Tina was an extraordinary young woman who felt that she would make a difference in people’s lives by the actions that she took every single day, and she made every day a winner. Even after Tina passed away, she managed to make a difference every day in someone’s life. That difference was made by the donation of her organs. Her parents, Ross and Cathie Elliott, and her brother Michael decided to donate her organs and consequently five people’s lives were saved by receiving Tina’s organs. After receiving a call advising the family that the successful transplants of Tina’s double lungs, kidney, pancreas, liver and heart valves had been performed, Tina’s dad, Ross Elliott, was quoted in our local newspaper the Area News as saying, ‘Tina has touched the lives of so many—it puts me at peace to know she is saving lives and is still touching lives in this wonderful way.’
It is wonderful to know that Tina was able to make a difference in so many lives through her wonderful attitude toward life. Continuing to do so in her death with this wonderful gift is extraordinary. It is also wonderful that Tina’s parents and her brother Michael were able to make that decision to donate Tina’s organs at such a difficult and tragic time. I have paid tribute before and I pay great tribute now to Tina’s family and to Tina on the life that she led and the life that she has given other people by way of this very generous gift.
I have raised the issue of organ donation in the House many times. I have done it through my newsletters and I have issued several press releases; I have given information and I have encouraged people to talk to each other about the possibilities of a premature death and what they would wish to be done with their organs. It is a vital discussion that needs to take place in every household amongst everyone from young to old. It is a fact that, because of lifestyle diseases and issues that we confront, we will require more organs than we ever have in the past.
In Australia, a person has a 10 times greater chance of requiring an organ or tissue transplant than they have of becoming a donor. I think that, if people were to understand those statistics, maybe they would have more considered opinions and undertake to have their wishes documented and determined at a very early point in their lives. People may need transplants because they have been born with a structural abnormality of an organ, such as a congenital heart defect, or because they have been born with a disease that causes an organ to fail or they have been unlucky enough to develop a disease or an illness that has caused an organ to fail. For example, diabetes is one of the leading causes of organ failure across the world and requires many of the organs that are donated.
Our kidney transplant survival rates are about 90 per cent in the first year and over 75 per cent after five years. Our patient survival rates for heart and liver transplantation are also 90 per cent in the first year and 85 per cent after five years. Pancreas transplants have the highest survival rate of 94 per cent at one year and 87 per cent at five years.
The organs that we can donate include our kidneys, our heart, our lungs, our liver, our pancreas and some of our tissue, including corneas, heart valves and skin and bone. The difference that we can make in the lives of people who wait every day for a terrible fate to befall them is just extraordinary. Sometimes they can be the recipient of a call to say, ‘We can prep you now and we can deliver you some life-saving organs,’ because somebody has said, ‘I will be an organ donor.’
If I were to emphasise anything in organ donation and tissue donation legislation, rules and criteria, I would raise the issue of the way in which family members and those who make the decision to donate organs are carried through the process—the way in which they are considered at the time. The issue of when the body of an organ donor is released to be taken home in order to be buried or to have a service for that organ donor is sometimes muddied. If I were able to make changes to or suggestions about legislation, I would enhance the benefits, the value, the capacity and the support structure that is provided to families who make this decision at that tragic time, to enable them to be kept fully informed of every process and to know when the body will be released back to them so that they can take home their precious loved one.
I have had raised with me in my electorate a significant, disastrous case of a family who agreed to donate their child’s organs. Their child was on life support. They felt that their child was just totally away from their control and that they had no say and no rights at the time as to when they could pick their little girl up and take her home. It was tragic. They felt alienated by the process and it had a disastrous effect on the family. We have to recognise that we need a significant support structure to surround and envelop those people who are involved in this process in order to give them the support and the confidence that they need about their child. It was only just raised—and it will be raised, I am sure, time and time again during this debate by, probably, people in the opposition—that there are issues surrounding the issuing of death certificates. It is those areas that I am most concerned about. When does the death certificate get issued? How does that then impact on the feelings of the family in the future when they look back on this gift of life that they were part of delivering in tragic circumstances?
This is a fantastic bill; it is something about which we need to hold our heads high. In Australia we are world leaders in clinical outcomes for transplant patients, and there have been over 30,000 Australians who have benefited since transplantation first became a standard treatment offered. We have led the way and we continue to lead the way, and I congratulate the government again for raising and profiling this issue once again for the people of Australia. But I do urge that consideration be given to ensuring that the structure for the support of families and those people who are involved in making the decision to donate a loved one’s organs is there. That structure should give them confidence and involve them as a part of the whole process and not exclude them in such a way that they may later regret having made this decision.
I think that must be the worst possible place to be in and that was how the couple, the parents, who are my constituents felt as a result of their experience. I can only put that into the chamber for thought and consideration, because, whereas the majority of organ donations I am sure take place in a wonderfully comforting and supportive environment, if there is just one family out there who harbour regret, who harbour pain and anguish and who have no peace of mind as to what actually did constitute their daughter’s death, then that is sad. We should ensure that that never takes place in anybody’s family or for any person who has to make this difficult and courageous decision. I stand here today welcoming this bill, encouraging people to talk to their families about organ and tissue donation and encouraging our Australian people to remember those who are waiting desperately every day for a chance at life and those who may be given a chance if only we would have this discussion within our families.
I rise, as all my colleagues have today, to support the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. Australia has one of the highest success rates in organ and tissue transplantation in the world. We are very good at it; our success rates are right up there, yet we have one of the lowest organ and tissue donation rates in the world. Australia’s organ and tissue donation rate is approximately 10 donors per million of population. Most of the OECD countries have at least a 50 per cent higher rate and some of them have rates as much as 100 per cent to 200 per cent higher.
Over recent years, the rate of organ donation has not really got any better. In 2002, we donated 206 organs. It dropped to 179, and then went up to 218, down to 204 and back down to 202, so it has stayed relatively stable over the last five years. This bill is about changing that; it is about drawing on the best practice models from around the world and making lasting change—making sure that we in Australia can use our exceptional skills in transplant operation to save lives.
The Prime Minister in his speech in the House earlier this week suggested that we all need to talk about organ donation, and I think in fact that we do. I am going to talk a little bit about why I find even speaking on this issue incredibly confronting. I do not know whether I am on my own on this, but I suspect that there are many people that have similar completely irrational responses to the idea of having their organs removed even once they are of no use to them. I would say that I did not realise exactly how confronted I was until I went down to the Red Cross to fill in the forms. Once I was elected as a member of parliament I was asked to do it. I thought it was a good opportunity to do the right thing, so I went down to fill in the form. I did fill in the form. I sent it in and I am a registered donor, but I did find it incredibly confronting.
While I do not have any irrational response—in fact, I have quite a positive response—to the idea that my organs might end up in someone else, I have this irrational response—almost a repulsion—to the idea that they might be taken out of me. It is completely irrational. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that someone else’s organs might be put in me. In fact, I think that would probably be quite a good idea. So I found myself in the odd situation of realising that, while I was happy to accept someone else’s organs, I was having real trouble with donating my own. That is quite an interesting position to be in.
I did it, and I think we all do it, because there is nothing more repulsive than the idea that someone desperately in need of an organ would die because mine went to waste. That is why I am an organ donor. Because our responses to it are sometimes so irrational, it is something that we need to openly discuss among ourselves and with our families. It an incredibly important bill that we are looking at at the moment. There are currently 3,000 people, children and adults, on the official organ and tissue transplant waiting list in Australia who are waiting for life-saving surgery and for the donation of a heart, kidney, lung, liver, pancreas or cornea to transplant. Of those waiting for heart, lung or liver transplants, around 20 per cent will die before they receive one.
The reality in Australia, because of our low donation rates, is that we do not even put everybody in need of a transplant on the official transplant lists. There are currently around 8,000 people undergoing dialysis treatment in Australia and that number increases by about six per cent every year. But, on the official transplant waiting list for a kidney, there are only about 1,500 and the waiting list on average for those people is about four years. The other 6,500 people are not put on the list because it is considered to be futile. The chances of them receiving a transplant would be very, very poor because there simply are not enough donors.
We do need to act, and this bill is about making those fundamental changes. It establishes the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority to provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector and to drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing Australia’s willingness to donate and access to lifesaving and transforming transplants.
It establishes a national authority with funding of $24.4 million over four years. Perhaps even more importantly than that, the authority will have responsibility for implementing a $151.1 million reform package which includes new funding of around $136 million over four years. That extra money for the reform package does some incredibly important things to change the way we Australians respond to the issue of organ donation.
It provides $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in the public and private hospitals around Australia. It provides $70 million in new funding for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation, $13.4 million to continue national public awareness and education programs to increase knowledge about organ and tissue donation and to build confidence in Australia’s donation and transplantation system and $1.9 million to support the families of deceased donors. It also introduces other measures, including the creation of a national network of state and territory based organ and tissue donation agencies to facilitate the process, an enhanced training and education program for hospital and staff and a program to encourage increased donations by the Australian public.
Collectively, these measures are expected to establish Australia as a world leader in best practice organ donation for transplantation and to achieve significant and lasting results in a number of lives in our country. It is incredibly important legislation. It is overdue. This is something that Australia’s medical profession does incredibly well but that the community at large does far less well. We believe on this side, and I know it is supported by the opposition, that these reforms will dramatically improve the life expectancy of people who are currently suffering from quite severe illnesses. It is a very important bill and I commend it to the House.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 will establish the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. This authority will oversee the coordinated and integrated national approach towards organ and tissue donation and transplantation. The bill also provides for a legislative framework to implement the measures outlined in the Australian government’s world’s best practice reform package for organ and tissue donation and transplantation announced in July this year.
At any one time in Australia there are around 1,800 people waiting for an organ donation that could save or transform their lives. Last year there were only 657 transplants from 198 deceased donors. Figures from 2006 from the International Registry of Organ Donation and Transplantation indicated that there are only 9.8 donors for every one million persons in Australia. Ironically, 90 per cent of Australians support organ donation. This is in sharp contrast to Spain, which has 33.8 donors for every one million persons—three times more than Australia.
Spain is the world leader in organ donation rates. How has this been achieved? According to Rafael Matesanz, director of that country’s national transplant organisation, this is due to efficient transplantation coordination and the way families are approached—not the policy of assumed consent, as suggested by some. While it can be seen that countries that have presumed consent have between 20 and 25 per cent higher donation rates than those with informed consent, some countries do not follow this trend when it is introduced. Sweden, for example, switched to assumed consent in 1996; it has one of the lowest rates of donation in Europe and changing the law made little difference. It is interesting to note that a European poll showed that, in the UK, 63 per cent said they were in favour of organ and tissue donation; however, 43 per cent of families refused permission for their relative’s organs to be removed. However, when families of Britons who die in Spain are approached in Spanish hospitals, the refusal rate falls to nine per cent. In fact, Spain had low rates of donation until a national network was set up in 1992—13 years after presumed consent was introduced.
Evidence from the US also indicates the importance of approaching families in the right way. A survey done by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre in Boston of 74 parents who had been asked to donate the organs of their recently deceased children showed that they were more likely to agree if they had been given information before the death, if the mention of donation came from the child’s doctor and if they had some time to think about the decision. Spain understands this. Their central agency drives and coordinates a nationally consistent approach to clinical systems and practices, and to community awareness and professional education. Hospitals and their staff have sufficient training and capacity to identify all potential donors, and there are no cost barriers in hospitals that prevent organ donation proceeding.
This bill implements a reform package that has learnt from this international and national experience and is based on Australian context and expertise. The new independent authority will provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector and will drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs. They will: oversee and support a national network of clinical specialists in hospitals who are dedicated to organ donation; oversee a national network of organ procurement organisations which will manage the procurement process according to national protocols and systems; manage and monitor an ongoing community awareness and education program; introduce and manage a world-class national data and reporting system; administer funds to non-government organisations and provide essential associated services such as clinical data analysis and reporting, national organ matching services and professional training and education for clinical staff; and work closely with national clinical organisations in the development of consistent clinical practice protocols covering the donation process, allocation and waiting list management.
The bill will also provide new funding for medical specialist positions and other clinical positions in public and private hospitals dedicated to organ and tissue donation; provide a funding stream for public and private hospitals to cover the additional staff and infrastructure costs associated; implement an enhanced national education and training program for health professionals involved with organ donation; implement an ongoing community awareness and education program to increase knowledge about donation and transplantation and build confidence in Australia’s donation for transplantation system; provide appropriate support for the families of the deceased donors; implement equitable, safe and transparent national processes to manage waiting lists and the allocation of donated organs; and provide other national initiatives, including living donation programs such as paired kidney exchange. The funding of the overall package will be $151.1 million, including $136.4 million in new funding.
Our medical science in relation to successful organ transplantation is improving all the time. Research conducted at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston has seen four out of five patients who were given non-matching kidneys successfully adopt their new organ and live without immunosuppressant drugs for up to 4½ years. This was done by using bone marrow from the donor. Firstly, the recipient’s bone marrow was partially destroyed and an antibody used to lower the level of T cells—the immune cells responsible for organ rejection. Then they transplanted the kidney along with bone marrow derived cells from the donor and kept the patient in a sterile environment for about two weeks. The donated cells and the patient’s own cells created a mixed bone marrow, which caused the immune system to accept both the patient’s cells and the donated organ. Even though the chimeric state is temporary, the tolerance seems to be long-lasting, and work with animals suggests that it may last indefinitely.
The 1,800 people waiting for transplants represent significant costs. For every person waiting for a kidney, the cost is around $83,000 per annum if they are on hospital based dialysis. In contrast, the cost of a kidney transplant is just $65,000 per recipient that year and around $11,000 for every year thereafter. More importantly, the human cost is very high. For some it is the ability to have a normal life and for others it is the difference between life and death. In a country such as ours, with our medical knowledge and technology, it is very sad that, although we have seen an increase of one million in the number of organ donor registrations since 2002 to six million, there has been no increase in the number of lives being saved through transplants. This bill intends to change that, and I highly commend it to the House.
With 90 per cent of Australians supporting organ donation and with there being a longstanding shortage of organs for transplantation, the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 is designed to lift organ donation rates and make it possible to save the lives of many Australians and return them to good health. That is why this bill before us today takes on additional relevance.
Today, I am proud to stand before the House and join with other members to support the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. I can say that I am a registered organ donor. On 1 September this year, I made a statement to this House about the Australian Organ Donor Register, which is Australia’s only organ and tissue donor register and is really a lifeline for Australians who are, unfortunately, on the waiting list for organ donation.
For some time in my electorate I have produced a fact sheet about organ donation. On the reverse side of that fact sheet is the actual registration form. Some might say this is a political statement but, with all outgoing correspondence from my office, I include one of these fact sheets and draw attention to the significance of organ donation. It is designed to lift the rates of organ donation within my electorate. When I, as do other members of parliament, attend railway stations in the morning or street meetings on Saturdays and Sundays, I hand out the organ donation sheet. Obviously there are reasons for being out and talking to constituents but, when it comes to organ donation, we all have a role to play in ensuring that the communities we represent properly understand this as an issue—not one where we simply tick it off and say ‘We support it’ but one where we actually translate that support into a positive commitment. The only way that can be done is by registering to become one of Australia’s organ donors.
I have tried to increase awareness in my constituency on this matter. That was not forced ahead because of this bill coming before the House. I was caused to have a very close look at organ donating because of Debbie Roberts, CEO of one of our youth organisations, Campbelltown Youth Solutions. She told me of her daughter Rebecca. Her daughter died aged 20 back in 2002. Her daughter had suffered as a diabetic for some time, but she actually died of a heart attack. Rebecca had taken it upon herself to have a discussion with her mum and her family to the effect that, in the event of her death, she wanted her organs to be available to assist others. Coming from a mum who had lost a child, that had a profound effect on me. That is why I ramped up this campaign within my electorate. By the way, as I said, Debbie is the CEO of an organisation that does a wonderful job for young people in my electorate who are trying to find solutions to drugs and alcohol and other things. She is obviously a woman who cares about the community. She had a profound effect on me. The discussions she had with her daughter prior to her daughter dying of a heart attack were why she became involved in organ donation.
Debbie has shared the correspondence that she has received from four recipients of Rebecca’s organs. It is very touching correspondence. The correspondence is not all from the recipients themselves; some of it is from the families. She does not know who they are—that is not brought to Debbie’s attention, because of issues of confidentiality—but she has been given copies of the letters. They show how other people’s lives have been profoundly affected and enriched—as a matter of fact, how life has been given—through Rebecca’s selfless decision to donate her organs should she die. Two people have benefited from her kidneys and two others have benefited from receiving her corneas.
That is just one instance of a person I happen to know through work in my community. There are countless other people in a similar position. We owe Rebecca a great debt of gratitude for the fact that as a young person aged 20 she had the courage to have that discussion with her parents with a view to donating her organs should she die. That came from a very young person showing great leadership in our community. I see on the face of Debbie Roberts when she speaks of her daughter how proud she is of her. But the issue is really not just how proud her mother is of her daughter in those circumstances; it should be how proud we are as a community that a young person would choose to take such a serious decision as that as early as she did.
This bill is designed to lift our rates of donation and to do something to assist those people who are unfortunately languishing on our waiting lists. According to the Australian and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry, as at July this year there were 1,793 people on the waiting list—1,357 were waiting for kidney transplants, 65 were waiting for heart transplants, 194 were waiting for liver transplants, 140 were waiting for lung transplants and 35 were waiting for pancreas transplants.
Up to August this year, 175 donors have saved the lives of 595 people. That is an incredible contribution to make to our community. Rebecca’s story, which I outlined to the House earlier, is one I will continue to place before my family, my staff and my constituents generally. I encourage every member, when we are corresponding or dealing with our constituents, to leave politics aside on this issue and ensure that we have very much a bipartisan position going forward in our unequivocal support for organ donation.
This bill will have the effect of establishing the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, which is, quite frankly, absolutely critical in ensuring these outcomes take place. This bill will provide $151 million over four years and that will hopefully help lift Australia’s donation rate to world’s best practice on organ and tissue transplants. The plan will be delivered in five stages: $46 million to introduce the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority; $67 million over four years to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals; $17 million over four years in new funding for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; $13.4 million over four years to continue the national public awareness and education campaign; and, very importantly, $1.9 million over four years to provide counselling and assistance to the families of deceased donors who generally grapple with the notion that their deceased loved ones wished to donate their organs. That will always be a difficult position; therefore this money will go towards supporting those people in that difficult time.
I encourage all Australians to register to become organ donors. That is the critical first step in being able, as Rebecca was in Campbelltown, to give to somebody—albeit unknown—what could only be seen as the greatest gift one human being can give another: the gift of life. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak to the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 to establish the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. Organ transplants are one of the miracles of modern science. The act of being able to take working parts from one person at the point of death and transplant them into another to give them a chance at life is a wonder. It is a gift of life.
At any given time in Australia, there are around 1,800 people who are on waiting lists for transplants. For many of them, life can be a misery. All of us hope that we will never be in the position to help firsthand by donating our organs and that we will all live a full and happy life, but the chances are that one of us may be. If we have not discussed the possibility with our families, if we have not made the commitment to register as an organ donor, if we have not considered how we can give someone the gift of life when we are leaving ours behind, then we will miss the opportunity.
Today I would like to talk about a couple of friends: one who made a donation and one who received one. Peter Stutley was a good bloke. He was a good family man who had worked in any number of different manual labouring jobs as a farm worker and a machinery operator. He would go wherever he had to go to find work, and you could be sure that he would give you value. You could also be sure that he would always give you a hand if you needed it. He had married a little later in life, at around 40, and had established a great young family of three boys with his wife, Marilyn. He had spent a number of years working at Moomba, in the state’s far north, making sure that his family was well established and provided for. He enjoyed the work and was popular with his workmates. Tiring of the travel and desiring to be closer to his boys as they were growing up, Peter made the decision to return to Kimba and go back to work as a farm worker. He was good at the job and enjoyed living at home on a full-time basis and being around to help encourage the boys, particularly on the sporting field.
One day Peter had been sent on ahead to drive some machinery to one of the farm properties. His employer was coming along behind to pick him up. He arrived at the destination and, like any good worker, he found something useful to do. Exactly what drew him onto the shearing shed roof we will never know, but we think probably it was to fasten down some loose iron. We do know there was a fall and, when his employer arrived, Peter was lying severely injured on the concrete. By late that evening he had been transferred to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and it became apparent that Peter was not going to recover.
What was it that just six weeks before had led the family to discussing organ donorship? Who knows? However, we do know that that was exactly what happened. Peter and Marilyn had discussed the issue and he had made it abundantly clear that if he had no further use for his organs then they should go to someone who did. At a time of incredible stress, Marilyn and a great lifelong friend, Marie, acted on Peter’s wishes. Marilyn speaks very well of the hospital, the doctors and the counselling both then and since. She did say, though, how important it is that we register as donors, as she spent considerable time and emotional effort in convincing those concerned that this really was Peter’s plan.
So the decisions were made and the family sat through the agonising wait for Peter’s body to shut down. Around 11 o’clock on Sunday evening, Marilyn and Marie needed a rest and found a bed. Little more than an hour later they were woken with the news that he was expected to pass away in the next couple of hours. Somehow the right instructions had not been left to the duty doctor and he was preparing for a total shutdown. If his organs actually ceased functioning before they were harvested, all would be lost. You can imagine the torment as Marilyn and Marie struggled to convince the duty doctor of what needed to happen; otherwise, all of the effort and tough decisions of the last few days would be lost. Anger, grief and frustration flooded over them. It was a stuff-up that no-one should have to deal with. They prevailed, but it was one of the glitches no-one should ever be put through.
In retrospect, Marilyn is fairly forgiving about this incident, as all of the rest of the process had been well-managed, but is determined to suggest something to make sure it never happens again. Her suggestion is: once all the appropriate decisions are made, a highly visible and recognisable symbol should be attached to the hospital bed so all staff know exactly what is to happen. If new staff come on duty, there should be no room for human error; all should be plain and obvious. I look forward to passing this advice along to the new authority once it is established.
Marilyn and Marie overcame the difficulties. They dealt with the stress, grief, loneliness, frustration and the agony of losing Peter, and his wishes were carried out. Peter’s corneas, kidneys, heart valves, lungs and long bones went to six separate recipients—gifts of life or huge improvements to life quality in all cases. All this has given Marilyn great comfort that Peter’s untimely and unexpected death has brought something good to these people. Adjustment to life without her mate has been difficult but she is greatly strengthened by the thought that, in one way, nothing has changed: Peter is still giving someone a hand. She has become a strong advocate for organ donorship and continues to speak up for the cause.
The second story I want to tell is of a vibrant young woman with incredible energy who waited years for a kidney transplant, who in sheer desperation advertised nationally for a donor and who had made the decision that, if somewhere in the medium future she could not find a donor, she would give up on treatment. As with many on long-term dialysis, Nancy’s life revolves around that community. She says nearly all her friends suffer from kidney disease, have received organs, have donated organs or are family of those groups.
We all know someone on long-term dialysis. It keeps you alive, but only just. Your body is continually being drowned in life’s toxins. Just the loss of time, as sufferers can spend up to 20 hours a week hooked up to a machine, is an enormous drain on their lives. This is compounded by a lack of energy and general illness. The normalities of life—holding down a job or ever taking a proper holiday—are almost impossible to maintain. The things the rest of us take for granted become high-water marks in their lives.
Nancy is no ordinary young woman, though. So, while she dealt with her own problems, she set about making life more tolerable for other sufferers. Every year Nancy organises a one-week ocean cruise for people on long-term dialysis. This requires machines, volunteer doctors and nurses, and money. She makes it happen—fundraisers; corporate support; and volunteers, to help on the cruise and to raise money.
As I said earlier, Nancy was not prepared to just sit down and let whatever might happen come to her. After an earlier transplant, which was rejected, she spent years on dialysis awaiting a suitable donor. Advertising for a kidney took courage. She became something of a celebrity overnight. But, as she said to me at the time, ‘If I can’t find a kidney in the next few years I will give up.’ The strain of the forever-waiting list and the disability of life on long-term dialysis would get anyone down. Nancy was not only intent on fixing her problems, though; she was also raising awareness in the community. Her life has been serving others. She is quite a remarkable lady. I might point out that Nancy’s services to the dialysis community have been recognised with an Order of Australia Medal.
Nancy got her transplant—in the end, from her sister-in-law. It is worth reflecting on the contribution many family members make to help out their loved ones. But there would be no need for this sacrifice if we could only raise the public profile of this issue.
The change in Nancy’s life has been enormous. The very first time I saw her after her operation, only weeks afterwards, the transformation was immediately apparent: her skin glowed; she looked years younger; her energy and zest for life was on show for all to see. Nancy is going on doing all the things she has been doing for years with her group Dialysis Escape Line Australia. In addition, she has had the opportunity to travel—something which, apart from the cruises, she had longed to do for years.
What this story tells us of is the determination of some in our community to achieve change—and change is what we need. The tragedy is, of course, that too many Australians are dying, or are suffering terrible health, when there should be plenty of available organs if we could only promote the practice of organ donorship and provide the right support and advice for those dealing with what is always the most difficult part of their lives.
This bill, establishing a dedicated organisation for the promotion of organ donorship, is a good idea. Australia has a very unfortunate record of performance in this area. Top-performing nations—including a number of European countries and the United States—operate in the range of 20 to 35 donors per million of population. Last year Australia managed just nine. At the top of the list is Spain, with 34.3. In fact, there were just 198 donors in Australia last year, resulting in around 600 recipients having a decent chance at life. It is worth noting, however, that around 50 per cent of the families approached to donate do consent. At first glance, this would sound very high, but with less than one per cent of deaths resulting in the chance of viable organs being available, we do have the scope to at least double our performance.
It is a sad fact that around 2,000 Australians are currently awaiting a transplant, and each year hundreds die because of the shortage of donors. I might say that, just recently, I lost a friend who had waited many years for a heart transplant, whose body was so weakened by the experience and by the treatment of the years that she actually died on the operating table, after waiting all those years for that transplant. We can only think what may have happened had that organ become available earlier.
The European nations largely have a presumed consent rule—that is, a person may elect to opt out but, in the case where no preference has been stated either by the family or by the person, their organs may be harvested. It is a quantum jump from our current attitudes in Australia to this position, but it is a position I will support if we cannot significantly lift our rates—one which I will consider in the future.
South Australia has the highest rates in the country at 17 donors per million—almost double the national rate. The state has largely adopted the Spanish model, minus the presumed consent. This proves that there is much we can do on a national basis, and hopefully the formation of the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority will achieve this.
I draw my remarks to a close by calling upon all Australians to make a commitment to give the gift of life to someone else in the event that they have finished with theirs. The Authority will not solve all the problems, but it must make a difference. If not, we shall want to know why and find something that will.
I speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008, which, as its name suggests, will create a national authority to advance the cause of successful and life-changing tissue and organ transplantation procedures in Australia. Such procedures represent some of the most dramatic and miraculous kinds of medical intervention that we have available to us in the 21st century. Many of us in this place will know, or know of, someone who is the beneficiary of an organ or tissue transplant. Of course the Prime Minister is himself the beneficiary of a heart valve transplant, and I would like to say that, while the focus in this area of health service tends to be on organ transplants, the transplantation of tissue is also extremely important and perhaps underrecognised.
Earlier this year—in fact, it was on the first, and last, Friday sitting—I moved a motion on the issue of organ and tissue donation, to coincide with Organ Donor Awareness Week. All those who spoke to the motion did so with heartfelt recognition of the gravity of this issue. The enormous benefits of organ and tissue transplant procedures are well known to all, but the fact that approximately 150 Australians die each year waiting for a transplant is not so well known. This is a preventable tragedy.
On Monday night on ABC TV, at the end of Andrew Denton’s show Enough Rope, there was a woman who spoke of the profound effect that a kidney transplant had had on her life after she had spent more than 30 years managing diabetes and seven years on a transplant waiting list. She talked about receiving a phone call from the transplant coordinator at 6.45 one Saturday morning to tell her the good news, and of how she needed time to put the phone down and run along the hall screaming with joy and relief. She said that, within six hours of the transplant procedure, her new kidney was working to regulate the chemistry of her blood and had brought her blood sugar levels into the normal range.
It is only right that we, as parliamentarians, are moved forward in the reform task by the sense of hope and joy, the health, the relief of pain and the miraculous staving off of death that organ and tissue transplant procedures make possible. We are also moved by gratitude to those donors and families of deceased donors who make the decision to donate organs and tissue. And of course we are moved by our understanding of the pain and the frustration, and sometimes the despair, of those who wait and wait and wait on the transplant lists.
The nature of the health policy challenges which this bill seeks to address can be described in relatively straightforward terms. There are approximately 1,800 Australians waiting for an organ transplant right now—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12.57 pm to 4.00 pm
As I was saying, there are approximately 1,800 Australians waiting for an organ transplant right now. In each case, the prospect of a successful transplant offers, at the very least, a significant improvement in quality of life. In many cases, it offers life itself.
Last year, as other speakers have noted, there were 198 deceased organ donors, which resulted in 657 transplants. Both the number of people waiting for transplants and the number of donors have remained relatively stable in recent years. This means that we are not making headway into that backlog, and it is important to recognise the very reasonable possibility that the number of people requiring transplant procedures will increase as the age of the population increases, and particularly as the under-quantified size of Australia’s kidney disease problem becomes clearer.
By any international measure, Australia has an outstanding record for tissue and organ transplantation and we remain at the forefront of clinical practice outcomes in this area. More than 30,000 Australians have been the beneficiaries of life-changing transplant procedures since they became a standard treatment option. This reform package springs first from recognition of the undeniable benefits of organ and tissue transplantation and second from the recognition that the demand for such procedures is significantly in excess of the supply of tissue and organs.
In my electorate, at the Fremantle hospital there is a new, innovative and nation-leading initiative called the paired live kidney donation program, run by Dr Paolo Ferrari, which uses data matching and a fair amount of cleverly applied common sense to match compatible donors and recipients across family pairings. Kidney donation is in a special category because a successful transplant does not depend on the death of a compatible donor. But it is also an especially acute kind of frustration when, within a family, there are willing kidney donors who cannot assist a family member suffering from kidney disease or failure because of incompatibility. The paired live kidney donation program addresses this by cross-matching willing family donors from separate families to the organ recipients with whom they are compatible. This effectively allows an incompatible family member to achieve their desire of providing a kidney to their relative by means of a cross-trade that is supervised and approved by the Western Australian Minister for Health under amendments that were made last year to the Western Australian Human Tissue and Transplant Act. This program is an example of creative thinking and planning and it is precisely the kind of better and more effective program that this legislation will promote as part of a comprehensive effort to lift the number of successful organ and tissue transplant procedures in Australia. I commend the minister for her efforts in rapidly bringing forward this health reform to support such initiatives.
In the context of this legislation, I want to make special mention of kidney disease. As I have already said, there are approximately 1,800 people awaiting organ transplants in Australia and three quarters of those are in need of a kidney transplant. There is every reason to believe that the growth in the number of patients waiting for a kidney will accelerate. Indeed, as Kidney Health Australia and other organisations have worked so hard to emphasise, kidney disease is one of the silent and under-recognised health problems that we face in Australia. On some indications it may in fact be fair to regard kidney disease as a looming health iceberg, with only the tip of it currently on show and the bulk of the problem as yet out of sight.
We know from remarks earlier this month by Dr Tim Mathew, the medical director of Kidney Health Australia, that on average six new patients are accepted onto the Australian dialysis program each day in this country and that a person can lose up to 90 per cent of their kidney function before experiencing any symptoms. We also know that approximately two million Australians could be affected by early-stage kidney disease. One point I would like to emphasise is that Indigenous Australians are disproportionately affected by kidney disease—and, to compound this problem, Indigenous rates of organ donation are disproportionately low. I am aware that Royal Perth Hospital intends to address this particular health policy challenge in a research seminar this month.
It is clear that a renewed effort in this area of policy is something that both the heart and mind demands. We know that hospital based dialysis costs on average $83,000 per annum to provide dialysis for one patient. Yet, in those cases where a kidney transplant is appropriate, and where our donor/transplant system allows it, we know that a kidney transplant will cost approximately $65,000 per patient for the first year and only $11,000 a year thereafter. Every time a patient is set free from dialysis by a successful kidney transplant the cost to the health system drops by 85 per cent after the first year. It is a saving of approximately $70,000 per annum per patient that can be applied elsewhere in our health and hospital system.
Though it is not the only factor in lifting the number of transplant procedures, the issue of donor registration and family consent is a very important one. While administrative improvements like the coordinated identification of potential donors and the introduction of a clinical identification trigger into all emergency departments have the potential to increase the number of successful transplant procedures, we also need to lift the sheer number of those willing to donate upon death. Donor registration, where it is present in the case of a potential donor, is generally decisive in facilitating a prospective transplant. In those cases where a person has registered their wish to be a donor, that intention is honoured by their family in the overwhelming number of cases. In Western Australia in 2005, for example, all 30 of the registered donors considered as a source of organs or tissue had their wishes confirmed by their families. It is for this reason that organ donor registration is something that we need as a society to encourage and to facilitate to the greatest extent possible.
Raising the number of registered donors is a primary objective, and I welcome the commitment of funds under this legislation to seriously lifting community awareness and education on the issue of organ and tissue donation. By registering as a donor we can leave behind us one of the most profound legacies—we can bestow on someone else the gift of health, in many cases the gift of life. To anyone who may be listening to or reading this contribution, I join with my fellow parliamentarians in urging you to register as an organ donor and to let your family know of your intention to give such an important gift.
As I have noted previously in this place, the Western Australian agency for organ and tissue donation, Donate West, began a first-of-its-kind campaign earlier this year to promote donor registration. The ‘Don’t Waste Your Wish’ campaign, which featured in both print and television advertising, ran with the tagline ‘There are some wishes you can’t keep to yourself’. This addresses the fact that, while a very large proportion of Australians indicate in polling that they are happy to donate their organs, not enough are actually registering their intention and not enough are discussing their wishes with their families. I hope that a similar national campaign will help us become a country with a rate of organ and tissue transplant procedures that matches our already excellent record of conducting the procedures themselves, and that this will see a significant reduction in the transplant waiting list and a significant reduction in those who die waiting.
The imperative to lift the rate of donor registration in Australia, to create a national transplant network, to improve the in-hospital practice and staff resources and ultimately to increase the number of successful transplant procedures requires a multifaceted approach. It requires an appropriate coordinating structure and it requires new funding to make good on the recommendations to government contained in the report by the National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation. That is what this bill delivers.
I very much welcome the introduction of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. There are currently more than 1,700 Australians waiting for an organ donation and, for many of them, the prospect of receiving an organ means not just improved quality of life but also the prospect of life itself. The possibility of a transplant offers hope, but, all too often, time runs out. We need to make sure that hope is realised as often as possible. Many of us will know someone who could benefit from organ donation. We know how they have lived their lives; we know what they have given to their families and their communities. My former electorate council chairman currently sits at home on oxygen and waits and waits and waits for a transplant. With that transplant she would be able to lead a normal life. She would be able to resume her very wide-ranging activities in the community. But for the moment it is a waiting game, and the wait seems to go on and on. I am hopeful that this bill may mean that the wait for others may be far shorter than for my former electorate council chairman.
We have improving surgical techniques which are allowing us to save lives, and it seems cruel that many people are losing their lives purely through the lack of a donor. There will always be an element of chance in organ donation, in relying on the right donor to become available at the right time, and clearly we need to make every effort to ensure that donors and recipients are matched in an efficient manner. We must also recognise that, while the recipient will be beginning a new life, the donor’s family will be coping with the loss of a loved one. It is only right that this bill should be about both recipients and donors’ families.
As I said, there are currently around 1,700 people waiting for an organ donation. Yet in 2007 there were just 198 donors and 657 transplants conducted. These statistics are all the more heartbreaking when one considers that Australia is a world leader in clinical outcomes for transplant patients. If you are fortunate enough to get a donated organ or tissue, Australia’s medical system offers you a better chance of long-term survival than almost any other nation in the world. It would appear from the figures provided by the Australia and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry that all donors had enrolled in the registry and had recorded their intention on their drivers licence. So, while it would seem that the system is working to the extent that it is identifying all registered donors, more donors are needed.
Australia has far fewer donors per million people than the rest of the developed world. Registering as a potential donor and encouraging people to register is obviously the best first step in trying to ensure that potential recipients are given the opportunity for a transplant. But the decision to be a potential donor is not one that should be taken alone. It is the grieving families who will be faced with the realities of that decision, not the donor. It should not, therefore, be a decision for the donor alone. It should be a decision taken with the full knowledge of the potential donor’s next of kin and with full consideration for their feelings. For some grieving families, the thought that their loved one could offer someone else the chance of life will be some consolation. For others, the thought of further damage being inflicted to the body through organ removal will be too much to bear. The more we can do to educate people about the need for organ donation and the responsibility to one’s family associated with becoming a registered donor, the better.
On the subject of donor families, one of the aspects I particularly welcome in the bill is the provision of specialists in hospitals to work with potential donors and their families. Doctors, surgeons and nurses have demanding jobs at the best of times. In most cases, authority for organ donation is sought by the intensive care clinician or the registrar. Surely it is asking too much of medical staff who have been struggling to save someone’s life to then take on the task of approaching the family for permission to remove organs. Other patients will be needing their attention. The pressure of dealing with the sick and dying is already immense without adding to it the pressure and emotion of talking to shocked and grieving family members and helping them through such a decision. It is far better to have someone who is not involved directly in the medical care of the potential donor and who has the time and training to give the family members the attention, support and information they deserve.
While there are steps we can take to try to increase the numbers of potential donors, there are also steps that we can take to try to reduce the need for transplant organs. I think that there is an obligation on all of us to do all we can to maintain healthy lifestyles and, in doing so, reduce the incidence of disease. For instance, in Australia there are more overweight or obese people than there are not, so the challenge of lifestyle factors in reducing the demand for transplant organs is one that cannot be ignored.
We also need to rethink the measures we are taking to ram home the dangers of obesity and lifestyle diseases, because the message is clearly not getting through. It is all very well to say that individuals must take responsibility for their own health, but many do not take responsibility and then the state has to foot the bill. The people who are afflicted with lifestyle related diseases are actually competing with other recipients for transplant organs. Whilst it is outside the mandate of the transplantation authority, we do need to increase our efforts to drive home that healthy lifestyle message. Success here would go some way to addressing the imbalance between the number of donors and recipients by reducing the number waiting for a transplant.
I note the number of people registering as donors is rising, but we need to make sure that the goodwill and altruism of those potential donors does not go to waste. The Howard government was working towards increasing donation rates through a number of important initiatives. Australians Donate was given the role as the peak body for organ donation in Australia from 2002. As a part of the Rudd government’s new plans for organ donation, Australians Donate was closed in March this year. The organisation was very active in using celebrities and media personalities to promote and encourage organ donation and was the driving force behind the National Organ Donor Week and the Organ Donor Registry.
As part of the efforts to lift organ donor rates the National Organ Donation Collaborative was launched in 2006 by the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott. The collaborative was based in part on the successful US model and it led to increases in the number of organ donations in participating hospitals. Minister Abbott also worked hard to bring the states and territories together on this issue through the Australian Health Ministers Conference. As part of this national approach to organ donation the states and territories agreed in 2005 to allow the Commonwealth to operate the Australian Organ Donor Registry as a single national registry for organ donors.
This bill will establish the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplant Authority. It will also introduce a national system for organ and tissue donation. The authority is to be the driving force behind the development of an organ donation system that is world’s best practice. I commend the government for its desire to follow best practice in this area, but, as I have learned over the past 10 months, we need to rely on what this government does, not what it says.
For the sake of those people around the country waiting for transplants I sincerely hope that the authority does achieve success in raising donation and survival rates. I note that the bill also establishes an advisory council which will provide advice to the transplant authority’s CEO about donation and transplantation matters. This advisory council is important because it is essential to get health professionals involved in this process to ensure that the programs implemented by the authority are practical.
Another important part of this strategy is the $13.4 million allocated over four years to a national education and awareness campaign. It is very important to keep the issue in the public eye and encourage people to talk about organ donation with their families. Despite the fact that 90 per cent of Australians claim to support organ donation, many people have still not sat down with their families and discussed what should happen to their organs in the event of their death. The allocation of funding to assist the families of the deceased donors is a welcome part of this bill. The loss of a loved one is always difficult and any extra support can only be welcomed by grieving families. For some families their grief will be tempered slightly by the knowledge that the death of their loved one will not be entirely in vain.
I also welcome plans for professional education programs to ensure that doctors and hospital staff are doing everything possible to maximise the number and success of transplants. The bill also provides funding to help hospitals with the costs of additional staffing, equipment and infrastructure needed for the accommodation of transplant patients. Because of the government’s proposed changes to the Medicare levy surcharge, the Treasury forecast that more people will be relying on the public health system over the next few years. This will put further strain on our state health systems which are already chronically underfunded.
It would be a shame if some hospitals were not involved in organ donation efforts to the fullest extent because of budget constraints. This federal funding for staff and infrastructure will mean that additional transplants are not an excessive burden on the budgets of participating hospitals. The coordinated approach represented by the measures in the bill, particularly the introduction of specialist staff, will, I am sure, go a long way to reducing transplant waiting lists and help provide a new start for many seriously ill Australians. There will always be more that can be done to boost organ donation rates in Australia, but this bill is a welcome development, and I join my opposition colleagues in supporting its passage through the House.
On some occasions in this place we debate issues surrounding life and death—complex issues, moral issues, where there are strong opinions and no right or wrong answers. The questions raised are sometimes very hard to answer. Sometimes, however, legislation comes before this place to which we can have no objection, and I think that the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 is one of those bills. That is because this bill is about saving lives and improving the quality of those lives.
Our society has already answered the philosophical question of whether or not we support organ donation. As the previous speaker said, over 90 per cent of Australians support organ donation. I am one of them. The problem is bridging the gap between those who support it and the families who ultimately choose to donate their organs. The statistics here are worrying. There are 1,800 people currently on the organ transplant waiting list. The chances are that two-thirds of them will be still waiting next year. For many of them, the wait will be too long. Think about how many childhoods have been left waiting, stunted by illness, how many university degrees, TAFE courses and apprenticeships have been left waiting, how many careers have been left waiting, how many opportunities for travel and adventure have been left waiting and how many partners, husbands, wives, children and parents have been left waiting. Life on a waiting list means a life constantly left waiting and, for many, a life cut short.
The lives of 657 people last year were saved by the selfless decisions of 198 families—families who made the decision to save the lives of others despite their own loss. A gulf still exists, however, between those who have registered to be organ donors and the rate of actual organ donation. There has been an increase of one million people who have registered to become organ donors, and that is a good thing, but there has not been an increase in the number of transplants being performed. Understandably, it is a very difficult decision for many families to make. It is a decision which has to be made when families are at their most vulnerable, when they are surrounded by sorrow and grief. It is an incredibly difficult time at which to be feeling generous.
To understand this, I would like to share the story of one Sydney family whose generosity in grief has touched many around the world. On 28 July this year, 20-year-old Doujon Zammit from Cecil Hills in Western Sydney, near my electorate, was holidaying in Mykonos, Greece. It was a trip that had been planned for many months. That night he was savagely beaten by some local bouncers, and 12 days later his life support was turned off. At a time when many would have directed their outrage and anger towards the local community, the Zammit family chose generosity. They made the extraordinary decision to donate his organs. At the time, Mr Zammit, Doujon’s father, said:
It was incredibly hard and it was incredibly emotional but I couldn’t go against my son’s wishes. This is what he wanted. It was on his licence and we had all talked about it. It’s a hard decision as a parent to make but why should my son have any less rights after his death than he had in life—this is what he chose and we had to respect that.
Doujon’s selfless decision to donate his organs and the family’s selfless decision to honour that wish saved four lives—four lives previously on a waiting list, four people and their families who are no longer left waiting. It is a challenging decision many families are still unable to make.
That is why this bill is important. It provides $1.9 million towards counselling to support donor families—support for families in their darkest hour, making difficult choices. Unlike other debates that we have had here, this is not just about encouraging people to donate their organs; it does something about it. It establishes systems for every family to be given the option of organ donation and it ensures they receive support from specially trained staff. We have committed $46 million to introduce a nationally coordinated and consistent approach under the leadership of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority; $67 million to employ trained medical specialists and staff dedicated to organ donation; $17 million to hospitals to help with additional costs associated with organ donation; and $13.4 million towards raising community awareness.
Australia is a world leader in clinical outcomes for transplant patients. Already 30,000 people have benefited from organ or tissue transplants. But, sadly, we lag behind other countries in organ donation rates. Our donation rate is 9.4 donors per million people, one of the lowest in the developed world. Spain has a rate of 33.8 donors per million, three times higher than Australia’s. In the United States the rate is 26.9 donors per million, 2½ times that of Australia. I know this bill will help lift our donation rates, stop the waiting and ultimately save lives.
Doujon’s father put it best when he said this: ‘Doujon went to heaven without his organs.’ That is what I believe and that is what we all have to believe: that you do not need your organs to go to heaven. We need more families like the Zammits and we need to do everything in our power to help them make these difficult decisions in difficult times. If Mr Zammit can express that sentiment so eloquently while he is in the depths of sorrow, I think it is up to us here to do everything that we can to ensure that we are able to give people on the organ transplant waiting list every chance at life. I commend the bill to the chamber.
I thank the member for Blaxland for his insightful comments with respect to the bill. In 2009 the 17th World Transplant Games will be held on the Gold Coast in Australia, on 22 to 30 August next year, in Broadbeach, in the seat of the member for Moncrieff. For over 20 years the World Transplant Games Federation has been staging international sporting events for transplant athletes in order to demonstrate the physical success of transplant surgery and to raise awareness of the need to increase organ donation. These games are expected to attract up to 3,000 participants from over 70 countries and are the largest organ and tissue donor awareness event in the world.
Sports to be included in the 2009 games include athletics, swimming, tennis, tenpin bowling, cycling, badminton, lawn bowls, rowing, table tennis, volleyball, golf and squash. Apparently archery is a demonstration sport. All competitors taking part in the games have received a life-saving organ transplant, including heart, lung, liver, bone marrow and kidney transplants. Without these transplants competitors would have died or, in the case of kidney recipients, may have only survived as a result of intensive renal support in the form of dialysis. Also competing will be people on dialysis and others waiting for a transplant. The world games next year on the Gold Coast will demonstrate to local and international audiences the tangible benefits of donation—the living proof, as it were, that donation works, that it is valuable, that it should be supported and highly esteemed within our community. I think there is no better way of showing the benefit of transplant than looking at the achievements of the actual lives saved.
The transplant games are more than a celebration of lives saved through transplant; they are one of the most important public health campaigns Australians can engage in. Every extra donor can save or greatly improve the lives of up to 10 people. The transplant games, staged by charity Transplant Australia, demonstrate that people who were once terribly ill can be given a second chance to go on and achieve a high quality of life. As the member for a Gold Coast seat, the seat to the north of Moncrieff, where the games will be held, I applaud the games and those who participate. They remind us all of the indomitable human spirit that overcomes adversity. They allow our spirits to soar as we join all participants to celebrate their victory not only in the games but in life. They remind us all of the value of organ donation. Thus I speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008, which establishes the authority to lead a new approach to increasing the number of lives saved through organ donation.
There are over 1,800 people in Australia on organ transplant waiting lists at any given time. The tragedy is that some of them will die waiting. Since the Australian Organ Donor Register was established in 2000, over one million Australians have registered. Currently, there are 1,160,816 people on the register. I say to those great Australians: thank you for considering helping others should a tragedy in your own life occur. I encourage all Australians to register, noting that it is voluntary and that you can nominate which organs you wish to donate. I encourage all Australians to sit down and talk to their wives, husbands, partners, children and grandchildren—those close to them—about the need for organ donation in their lives.
I commend the previous Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffrey, and his wife, Marlena, and their four children—I served in the military with some of the children and I was also with some of them at Duntroon—as they expressed to the nation that, as a family, they had sat down and talked about organ donation and had decided that they would go on the organ donor list. Major General Jeffrey and his wife and family have set a great example for all Australians. Major General Jeffrey has set a great example not only during his five years as Governor-General but during his entire military career.
For people with serious or life-threatening illnesses, organ or tissue transplantation can mean a second chance at life. More than 30,000 Australians have received transplants in the last 60 years. Improved survival rates now mean that most organ or tissue recipients enjoy many years of high-quality life after their transplant. Organs that continue to be in demand include hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys and pancreases. Tissue in demand includes heart valves, bone tissue, skin tissue, eye tissue and pancreas tissue.
According to the International Registry of Organ Donation and Transplantation, Australia is, unfortunately, ranked 17th in the world. From 2002-07 there have been fluctuations in the donor rates within each state of Australia. More often than not there is a correlating event in the state that highlights the need for organs, causing a spike in organ donation rates. Such events might include the donation of organs by the family of a well-known person, publicity surrounding the Australian Transplant Games or, indeed, the magnanimous gesture by the previous Governor-General, his wife and family.
Advances in medical technology have meant an increase in the functioning longevity of transplanted organs. It is these advances that allow many recipients to return to their normal lives, empowered by the knowledge that receiving an organ will provide not only a great quality of life but a more sustainable, long-term healthy future. Currently, in Australia, there are some transplant recipients who have had their transplanted organs longer than their native organs. Receiving an organ transplant is not a short-term fix; it is a long-term solution.
Australia has one of the most successful transplantationrates in the world, with the average patient survival rate one year after receiving a transplant at 90 percent. Even in Spain, which has the highest organ donation rate in the world, there are only 35.1 actual donors per million people, and there are hundreds of patients on their waiting list. Over the last 10 years, organ donation rates in Australia have fluctuated at around 200 donors per year. Australia is internationally recognised for its strong record of successful organ transplantations; however, it also has one of the world’s lowest rates of organ donations, with the consequence that a substantial number of people suffer and perish while waiting for suitable organs to become available. At any given time, almost 1,800 Australians are waiting for an organ transplant. They are waiting right now. As at January this year, 176 Queenslanders were waiting. But donation rates are failing to meet this demand.
To give you an idea of what the waiting list looks like, I note that the national organ-matching system, which is an Australian government funded project, lists the following waiting list numbers as of 1 July this year: 1,357 Australians waiting for a kidney, 67 for a heart, 194 for a liver, 140 for a lung and 35 for a pancreas. That makes 1,793 Australians who are waiting today. On average, patients on the transplant list wait just over four years for a kidney, just over one year for a heart or lung, eight months for a liver and two years for a pancreas.
Only 21 per cent of the Queenslanders who are legally able to register their consent to donate do so. I call on my fellow Queenslanders and say: put yourselves on the donation register. Speak to partners, family, friends, wives, husbands, children and those who matter in your life about what you want done in the unlikely event of your death.
I support the bill and I know that many Australians support the bill. I urge all Australians to register for organ donation so that, in the very sad event of their passing, they may have the opportunity to pass on life. I support the slogan ‘Don’t take your organs to Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here’.
I am pleased to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. This bill will establish an authority which will set about creating for the first time a centralised, Australia-wide approach to facilitate improved access and better outcomes for the thousands of Australians who are in need of an organ or tissue transplant. Regrettably, the demand for organs and tissue far outstrips the supply. Less than one per cent of all people who die in hospital each year are suitable for organ donation.
While many of us support organ donation—and, I would say, the vast majority of Australians do—the fact is that in 2007 only one-third of the demand for transplantation was met. The statistics are the more sobering because there were only 198 organ donors, resulting in 657 transplants. We must ask ourselves why the number of donors is so low when compared to the size of the sentiment expressed by so many in support of organ donation. I doubt that there would be many who would decline to support the idea of organ and tissue donation. Some will of course make a decision to refuse donation based upon religious grounds, and for some it is an emotional argument as they cling to false hope in a denial that they will soon lose the person they love.
The real difficulty lies in the fact that the decision to donate must be made at the most difficult of times and in the most difficult of circumstances: a time when a loved one is dying. The last thing that any person wants to hear from the doctor is that a loved one is going to die. Let us face it: this point, the moment of impending death, is when a decision needs to be made as to the possibility of organ donation, often after the person has made the decision to turn off the machine which is keeping that loved one alive. Of course, the next of kin are dealing with all sorts of associated emotions at this time: shock, anger, loss and fear, amongst others. On top of all that, they are being asked to decide about a loved one’s organs. They do not want to accept the death. They are not ready to accept the loss. They do not want to face the prospect of life without that partner or child or parent or sibling. They simply do not want that person to die. In the circumstances where that death is unexpected, the emotions are more intense and the death more difficult to accept.
The rationale becomes that a donation of organs would really be an acceptance of the death, an acceptance of the loss—finality. Even when the doctors have said there is no hope, we think that maybe, just maybe, there will be a miracle—maybe the doctors are wrong; maybe there has been a mistake. It is a decision which will bring about a finality that the next of kin are not yet ready to accept. It is at this difficult time that we ask someone to make a clear and rational decision, at a time when really the next of kin are emotional and perhaps at their most irrational. It is no wonder that many refuse even when the potential donor had already expressed a desire to donate organs in the event of their death—even when, under normal circumstances, the potential donor’s family would express support for organ donation.
It is the same medical staff who have been treating the patient who invariably must approach the family. It is difficult for medical staff to treat a patient, then advise the next of kin that there is no hope of recovery, that death is imminent, and almost in the one breath ask for permission to harvest organs for transplant.
Clearly the approach that has been taken is flawed and support for donor families has been especially lacking. This bill will provide a new approach, which is necessary. Funds will be made available for dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in hospitals. New funding will be made available to enhance staffing levels, beds and the infrastructure necessary for organ donation. Funding will also be made available for support services for families of deceased donors.
Importantly, funding will be made available to continue national public education and awareness, which is extremely important if we are to improve on the number of donations being made. It is only through education that we can create and, if you like, ingrain into our psyche the acceptance of organ donation as being simply another part of this process we call death. We must arrive at a point where we are comfortable with the notion of organ donation even when we are not comfortable with the thought of death. If one is to die, then surely to give the gift of life would be a fitting legacy of the donor.
We are all no doubt aware of the recent death of a young Australian, Doujon Zammit, in Greece—a young man from my electorate of Fowler. It takes great courage to face the loss of a loved one, especially in the circumstances in which Doujon was suddenly taken from his family. He was tragically killed so far from his beloved homeland. The decision by his family to donate his organs to people on waiting lists in Greece was both courageous and inspiring. They are an example to us all, and we must all aspire to such clarity of thought and generosity when we face circumstances requiring a similar decision.
The Zammit family found hope, when there was no hope for Doujon, in the belief that this would be a lasting legacy for Doujon, a living testimonial which would mean that his death, though tragic, would not have been in vain. From all the media reports we have seen, the donation of Doujon’s organs has been a gift of life to several people. Media reports also indicate that this very public act has resulted in an increase in organ donation in Greece—a welcome fact, given that the average waiting time for a transplant in that country is six years, with some 900 people on waiting lists.
There are almost 2,000 people in Australia on organ transplant waiting lists at any given time. The sobering fact is that some of them will die waiting and many will endure poor quality of life as a result of poor health while waiting. This will have an enormous impact on their families: an inability to work or work effectively, a reduction in family income and no foreseeable improvement until a donor becomes available. Add to this the enormous costs associated with treatment and the burden is far too great for many to bear. The cost also to government for providing the ongoing care is great and can only be reduced as a result of a successful transplant that will return quality of life to the patient and enable them to once more become active and productive members of their family and the community in which they live.
Since July 2005 the Australian Organ Donor Register has been a register of consent, allowing donors to register their legal decision to become organ and tissue donors. It is the only national register for organ and tissue donation. A donor’s verifiable consent can be accessed at all times by authorised personnel, which allows for greater informed communication with the donor’s family. We must encourage and educate people to actively discuss and consider such a momentous decision to become an organ donor with family and loved ones well before illness or tragedy strikes. We must ensure that support services are in place to assist the donor in reaching this decision, to assist and support the donor family and to assist the medical personnel involved in the treatment of the donor as well as those medical personnel advising on and seeking organ donation. We must ensure that the entire process is properly managed so that the donor family can take comfort in the generosity of giving precious life. This bill will do just that. I applaud the Rudd Labor government on this measure and commend the bill to the House.
I rise in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. Donating an organ is the greatest and most selfless gift anyone can give to another human being. Health permitting, anyone can be an organ and tissue donor and there is no age limit for donating organs or tissues. For people with life-threatening or serious illnesses, organ or tissue transplantation may be a second chance at life or an improved quality of life.
One organ or tissue donor may save or enhance the lives of up to 50 people. Organs that can be donated for transplantation include heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and pancreas and tissue donations consist of corneas, bones and heart valves. Corneal transplants are used to restore sight to people who are partially or completely blind because of a problem with their own cornea—the clear pillow at the front of the eye. Both the cornea and the white of the eye can also be used in tissue transplants. A single eye tissue donor can help between two and four people.
A bone tissue transplant is used to help repair fractures and strengthen hip and knee joint replacements. It may also be used to replace bone lost as a result of injury or tumour. Transplanted bone allows the surgeons to rebuild defects to aid functional rehabilitation. Bone tissue transplants can also be used to repair curvatures of the spine—scoliosis—in children and teenagers.
Heart valves are mainly used to repair congenital defects in young children and also when someone’s valves stop working effectively due to disease such as rheumatic fever, degeneration, and infection. Donated human heart valves have many advantages over artificial or alternative sources. Human heart valves are more resistant to infection and do not require the use of anticlotting medications.
The current Australian Organ Donor Register is a national register that was launched in November 2001. Administered by Medicare, the Australian Organ Donor Register can be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week by authorised medical personnel to verify a person’s intent to be a donor. Donor coordinators play an important role in caring for donors and their families during and after organ and tissue donation.
Entry onto the registry is voluntary and allows people to indicate which organs and tissues they are comfortable to donate or to register a decision not to donate any organs or tissue after death. The method of being registered as an organ donor on a drivers licence changed in 2001 to an Australia-wide donor register—the Australian Organ Donor Register. As a result, drivers licences now no longer include an organ donation question. Instead, the licensing authorities offer the AODR forms when a licence is issued or renewed.
In an effort to make people more aware of organ donation, an organ register section was added to the Medicare rebate claim form in February 2006 and the organ donation campaign extended to Centrelink offices. I have been told that about five million people had registered at that time and the expectation is that it could be further increased.
Five or six years ago Western Australia had the worst organ donor rate in Australia. After an intensive campaign, Western Australia had 30 organ donors in 2005, the highest record of organ donation per capita of any state in Australia. It seems that in 2006, along with most other states in Australia, there was a significant drop in the number of organ donations made. In Western Australia there were only 21 organ donations made in 2006. Last year, 19 donors from Western Australia, out of a total of 198 people nationwide, generously donated their organs. One of these generous donors meant a successful outcome for a very ill teenager in my electorate of Forrest.
Young Aimee Blackiston of Dardanup underwent a 10-hour double lung transplant operation at Royal Perth Hospital in February 2007 and her story has been reported by the media. Lung transplants were performed for the first time in Western Australia just three years ago. Aimee was only just able to finish her year 12 at Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School. A competitive horse rider and keen basketball player, she was also Goldsmith house captain at her school. But her health deteriorated during the year and she was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension. Doctors put Aimee on the waiting list for a heart and lung transplant as the only way to survive her rare disorder. Aimee and her family endured an excruciating two-week wait in intensive care without finding a suitable donor. She proved to be a very strong character, remaining positive, but it was very hard for her family to see her deteriorate so rapidly.
Organ donation and transplant operations are certainly a combined team effort. In Aimee’s case a Defence Force jet was approved for stand-by for the life-saving mercy mission if the organs became available in the eastern states, with all hospitals on alert for this very deserving patient. Commercial flights would not have been able to get donor organs from eastern states to Perth fast enough for the organs to be in a useable condition, as organs survive for only five hours after being removed from donors.
Dr Robert Larbalastier, the head of Royal Perth Hospital’s transplant unit, said Aimee’s prognosis would be excellent once she had a successful transplant operation, but this was her only chance of a cure. Recognition must be made of Dr Larbalastier’s exceptional skills. He led the team of surgeons and a team of 20 highly skilled staff during Aimee’s 10-hour lifesaving double lung transplant operation. I also congratulate the intensive care unit staff and many others who were part of the team who took care of Aimee.
Aimee remained in hospital for four months and even celebrated her 18th birthday in ward 6G before being discharged and moved to Shenton Park to continue her rehabilitation. Aimee’s future plans are to study a double major in law and human behavioural science, and, once recovered, she wants to advocate and inform young people about the importance of organ donation.
Most of all, I would like to thank and acknowledge the anonymous donor who gave Aimee her chance of life. With up to 1,800 people waiting for transplant procedures, we must endeavour to increase the level of awareness for organ and tissue donation so that the lives of people on the transplant waiting list can be transformed. And, yes, it is often the result of a tragedy for donors’ families, but it is a profoundly generous act on the part of an individual or their family. That is also why it is so important for anyone wanting to be a donor to make sure they tell their families that this is what they want to do. They should make it very clear. The decision is then the decision of the donor and not one a grieving family has to make at a traumatic or sad time.
This bill will establish the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority to champion a new national approach to provide world-leading access to transplants and transplant outcomes for Australia. It will provide the legislative framework to implement the measures included in the government’s $151.1 million reform package, announced in July 2008, to boost organ and tissue donation. The authority will operate in parallel with all state and territory law as this bill does not override or limit other laws. It also does not affect the operation of a state or territory law or a rule of common law requiring the giving of consent for the removal of an organ or tissue from the body of an individual.
I encourage everyone to consider signing up as an organ donor and letting your family know that this is your decision. For any one of us to know that we are able to offer a chance of life or a chance of a better life to another is, as I said, the ultimate gift. I say to each person: just imagine it is your child, your grandchild or someone you love who will die without a transplant. This should be the reason you sign up to be an organ donor, and also so that not one more of those people on the donor transplant list dies as a result of not receiving a transplant. I, along with my colleagues, strongly support this bill and encourage every Australian to register as a donor.
In speaking today on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008, I would like to spend some time speaking about two very special blokes—two brothers, two husbands, two fathers—who live on the north-west coast of Tassie in a town called Smithton. These men are Roger Popowski and his big brother Kelvin. Roger Popowski has always described himself as an active, hardworking man. He works at the local school as a teacher’s aide and maintenance worker. When he is not there, he and his wife, Ara, have six young children to run around after at home, so you would have to say a lack of energy is definitely not in his nature.
Up until two years ago, Roger often felt a bit tired but just put it down to needing a holiday, as most of us would and do. At age 36, Roger’s life changed forever when one night, completely out of the blue, he could not catch his breath as he lay down in his bed. He thought it was just a chest infection, so he took himself to the doctor for a dose of antibiotics. But it was not a chest infection: Roger’s kidneys were failing, and he required daily peritoneal dialysis to survive. No-one in Roger’s family had ever suffered renal failure or had any trouble with their kidneys before then. In fact Roger did not even know what renal failure was. Roger spent the next eight months on dialysis. He could not work; in fact he could not be active for more than two hours a day. His quality of life was all but gone.
When his condition continued to deteriorate, doctors told Roger his best chance of restoring his quality of life was a kidney transplant. Yet, with the flagging rate of organ donation in Tasmania, he faced a wait of up to five years to receive this transplant—five more years of dialysis, five more years of not being able to work to provide financially for his family and, worse still, five more years of not being able to kick the footy or run around playing with his kids. Roger was told his best chance was to ask one of his siblings, which was lucky for him because he was one of eight kids in the family.
Three months later, his older brother Kelvin tested as a positive match. Donating a kidney is a pretty massive gesture of sibling love and a huge decision for anyone to make, but for Kelvin there was no decision to be made when it came to the life of his little brother. Roger says he initially found it difficult to accept such a gesture from his big brother. Like others that receive organ donations from their family, he worried that Kelvin, also a husband and father, might fall ill as a result of the transplant or live to regret his decision. Two years later, both Roger and Kelvin are both at peace with the part they played in the transplant. Roger is back at work and back kicking the footy and playing with the kids. Kelvin is also still fit as a fiddle. Roger says he literally owes his life to his big brother.
Roger is one of the lucky ones. For those people who do not have family members who are able or willing to donate organs, the plight of transplant waiting lists is dire. Indeed, every single day five Australians commence expensive dialysis or are told they need a kidney transplant to survive. This statistic is far direr in my home state of Tasmania. Tasmania has the highest prevalence of chronic kidney disease in Australia. If we talk about my home electorate of Braddon on the north-west coast of Tassie, about 95 out of every 10,000 residents tested have at least moderate chronic kidney disease.
In 2007 there were 341 kidneys donated across Australia, compared to about 2,000 people who either commenced dialysis or were put on a transplant waiting list. Kidneys are not the only organs that are desperately needed for transplant, though. There is also the heart, liver and pancreas. Then there are the tissues, which include heart valves, bone tissue, skin tissue, eye tissue and pancreas tissue. When you consider the current obesity epidemic facing our country and the increasing instance of diabetes, emphysema and heart disease and put them together with Australia’s rapidly ageing population, the need to do something right now to increase organ donation is absolutely crucial, as speaker after speaker in this place has made clear.
To put this into context, it is worth dissecting the statistics on some of Australia’s most prevalent illnesses which may require organ transplantation. Some 2.4 million Australian adults are currently obese. It is estimated that 1.23 million Australians will have diabetes by 2010. More than half a million Australians, it is estimated, suffer from emphysema. About one in three Australians will be affected by coronary heart disease throughout their life. All of these statistics are higher in Tasmania, where the population is older, and those statistics for Tasmania are even higher in my electorate.
Let us take a look at the need for organ donation versus the actual statistics on donation. Over the past 60 or more years, more than 30,000 Australians have received transplants. When you say it like that it sounds like a lot, but it really is not at all. That is only about 500 per year for six decades. When you consider that there are more than 1,800 people on organ transplant waiting lists across the country at any given time, the transplant rate is clearly inadequate. The reality is that hundreds of Australians die every year while waiting for a transplant. There were just 198 deceased organ donors in all of Australia last year, which resulted in 657 transplants, just one-third of the amount needed.
Of these 198 organ donors in 2007, just one of them came from Tasmania, putting my own state at the bottom of the donation list for Australia—that is, equal with the ACT. In 2006 there were just eight organ donors from Tassie and in 2005 there were just two. I hope any Tasmanians listening to me speak today or reading this speech in the future will note this statistic and sign up to donate. We as a nation have been talking about the great need to lift donation rates for a long time now but, until now, there has been no real national leadership on this chronic problem.
There have been some initiatives set up in recent years to attempt to generate support for organ donation in Australia. The Australian Organ Donor Register was established in 2005 as Australia’s only national organ and tissue donor register. It is the only national register in Australia where people can legally register their consent or objection to becoming an organ or tissue donor after death. You can register on the Australian Organ Donor Register 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from anywhere in Australia by calling the toll-free number: 1800777203. Then, in the event of your death, information about your donation decision will be accessed from the donor register and provided to your family. Even if you have registered your intention to donate on your drivers licence renewal—like me—you still need to register officially.
I am really excited about the introduction of the Rudd government’s Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. The new package would be set up by 1 January 2009. This package will establish Australia as a world leader in best-practice organ donation for transplantation. The package is intended to deliver $151.1 million, including new funding of $136.4 million over four years, to boost the number of life-saving organ transplants for Australians. The key features would include: $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals; $46 million to establish a new, independent national authority to coordinate national organ donation initiatives; $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; $13.4 million to continue national public awareness and education; and $1.9 million for counselling for potential donor families. The latter is a very important initiative to fund. The package will not change the framework for giving legal consent. This will still go through the national Organ Donor Register that I spoke about previously.
This package will also address what is probably the most fundamental flaw in the current system: as I mentioned, it will employ and train dedicated staff to help families through the process of their loved one donating an organ. This issue is crucial, because in the past there has been no-one there to talk to or support grieving families as they try to come to terms, firstly, with the death of a loved one and, secondly, with the notion of organ donation. I must make mention at this point of the absolute importance for all of us to talk to our families and friends about our personal views on organ donation. If we die, it is our families or our close friends who will be left to relay our views on organ donation to doctors and hospital staff. I commend the bill to the House and urge all Australians to pick up the phone or log onto the internet and register to donate.
I rise tonight to speak on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on this bill. I am really pleased to be speaking on a bill that has support from both sides of the House. It is a bill that is worth while and that is going to make a big difference to a lot of people. It is a pleasant relief from some of the other silliness that we carry on with in here at times.
I know from local experience how important organ donation is. I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to some of the facts and figures relating to organ donation. One organ donor can save and improve the quality of life of up to 10 people. Today solid organs as well as tissues, skin and bone can be utilised to help return people to good health. Australia’s rate of organ donation has remained static for the last 25 years. Currently, each year Australia has approximately 200 organ donors, and this number could be doubled. Australia has one of the lowest organ donation rates anywhere in the developed world.
Among the many reasons for our low rate of donation are several that we cannot complain about. We fortunately do not have the same amount of gun crime as do other countries, such as the United States, which results in fewer trauma patients presenting to hospital. There are very successful road death prevention campaigns that help reduce road trauma deaths. The quality of our general health has greatly reduced stroke and other causes of permanent brain damage.
More than 1,800 Australians are now waiting for urgent transplants and it is estimated that 100 people die each year while waiting for an organ transplant due to the shortage of organ and tissue donors. The greatest mortality occurs in patients waiting for hearts, lungs and livers where no real alternative or short-term treatment exists. Although less than one per cent of deaths occur in such a way that organ donation is possible, the organ donation rate could be dramatically improved if more people discussed their wishes with their partners, families and friends and registered their decision with the Australian Organ Donor Register. That is one of the key components of this bill that I strongly support. We are actually going to get a framework in place that will facilitate this to happen.
Although in some states in Australia you can still tick a box on your licence, this process does not ensure you will be an organ and/or tissue donor. Family or next of kin will be consulted in the organ and tissue donation process. It is rare for a donation not to go ahead because the family or next of kin do not agree with their loved one’s decision. Most families or next of kin will carry out a loved one’s wishes if they know what they are. On the other hand, if they do not know your decision their decision is made much harder and it is possible donation will not go ahead. Talking to your partner, family and friends about donation is crucial.
Anyone from the age of 12 months up to 90 years can potentially become an organ and tissue donor. Many people rule themselves out of organ and tissue donation because they think they are too old but, contrary to common belief, even when they are 90 potentially some of their organs could be used to improve someone else’s life. Very few medical conditions or bad habits automatically disqualify you from donating organs. The decision to use an organ is based on strict medical criteria. It may turn out that certain organs are not viable for transplantation but other organs and tissues may be fine. Do not disqualify yourself prematurely. Only medical professionals at the time of your death can determine whether your organs and tissues are suitable for transplantation. Organ donors save lives and you can choose all the specific organs and tissues you would like to donate.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to tell the House about an incident that is very close to my heart. It goes a long way towards explaining the benefits of organ donation. In February 2007, on the last day of the school holidays in my home town of Warialda, a small town in north-west New South Wales, a group of local students from years 8 and 9—aged 13 and 14—had gathered to fill in their last day before school went back. As country kids have been known to do for many years, they decided to go for a drive out in the state forest on the edge of town. They were in a small utility, being driven by a 13-year-old girl. Unfortunately, the worst possible thing happened. The ute got out of control and swerved off the road and tipped into a tree. Of the eight people in the vehicle, only one was not seriously injured. One girl, Emma Smith, was killed instantly and was dead at the scene. The other kids were transported to our small local bush hospital.
To add to the confusion of the day, the motor in the Westpac rescue helicopter, en route from Tamworth, cut out at 6,000 feet and crashed. The pilot of that helicopter managed to get it down, although landing it very hard and destroying the helicopter. But the doctor and the paramedic managed to crawl out and they hitched a ride with a local farmer and continued on to Warialda to help.
The hospital has a limited emergency room, so emergency rooms to cater for the six seriously injured children were set up. The local volunteers, the fire brigade and the state emergency services, as well as the local hospital staff and staff from surrounding hospitals, all rallied. During that afternoon they did a mighty job. They managed to stabilise the condition of the children and managed to get them transported for further treatment to Tamworth and to Sydney. As a result of that day, the entire hospital staff were commended and, as a matter of fact, the two local doctors, the husband-and-wife team of Dr Gordon and Dr Coote, were given the award of Australian Rural Doctors of the Year, largely because of the action they took on that day.
The families of two of those young people, Kallem Warrener and Mandy Butler, found them on life support in Sydney. After a short time, a matter of days, it was realised that they had no hope of survival. It must be the hardest thing for parents to do, but they had to turn off the life-support machines. Kallem Warrener’s family, a family I have known all my life and am quite close to, decided that it would be appropriate to donate Kallem’s organs. I am not sure how many lives Kallem’s death saved, but from my reading it could have been up to 10. I know from speaking to Kallem’s mother days after his death that she felt it was one way they could make some sense out of the tragedy that had befallen them.
The other child, Mandy Butler, as it happened, was a ward of the state. Mandy was not a bad kid; she just went through a bit of a rebellious patch when she hit her teenage years, and her mum felt that it might be better if she went and lived with someone else for a while. Despite her tender age, Mandy had quite often spoken about the fact that if anything ever happened to her she would like to donate her organs to save someone else. But unfortunately, at the time, the laws in New South Wales did not allow that for children in state care. Mandy’s organs could not be used and no transplants could take place. Despite the wishes of her birth mother, the law would not allow it at the time.
As an aside to that, due to the hard lobbying since then by Mandy’s birth mother, Diane Johanson, this year the New South Wales government amended the law. The Human Tissue Amendment (Children in Care of State) Bill passed through the house in New South Wales some time ago, so that sort of thing will not happen again.
By the way, this accident happened quite near to my house, on the little dirt road that goes up to my place, and every time I go home from this place I see the carefully tended memorial—flowers, photos and little messages from their friends and families, who go out there on a regular basis. While it is very touching to see it, I think possibly the long-term memorial and legacy from that terrible day is the fact that Kallem Warrener was able to save the lives of up to 10 other people.
On the flip side of that—and this is not in any way related to the other incident I spoke of—is the story of one of my neighbours. He was a young man, a giant of a man in his late 30s—a big, strong farmer with two small children—who suffered from kidney failure. After a short time on dialysis he was looking down the path of what was going to be quite an unproductive life. If you need constant care such as dialysis, particularly in rural areas, you have to go to a larger town, which can be 200 or 300 kilometres away. It looked as if his dreams of raising his children on the farm were going to come to an end. Fortunately, he was able to receive a kidney through the death of someone in Queensland, and now his life is pretty well back to normal and he is leading a healthy, active life. That is a positive picture of what can happen when organ donations go through.
In closing, I would like to stress the importance of organ donation and of raising awareness of it in the community. We have a responsibility to discuss this issue with our family and friends. We also need to keep in mind that in rural areas organ donation has specific problems. Unless the critically injured person who is going to die can be transferred to a large place—for example, Sydney—before they pass away, organ donation cannot happen.
There is another side to this. I am hopeful that the authority that is to be set up will take into account the wishes and feelings of the family. Picture yourself in the position of Kallem Warrener’s parents, who had to make this terrible decision when their son was about to die. They were 600 or 700 kilometres from home and they then had to get Kallem’s body home for burial. That is an expensive process. I suggest that this authority look at the special issues for people in regional areas—the emotional needs of the family at the time and also the expense related to donating organs to science.
I commend the government for taking the action to address this issue and I commend this bill to the House.
I too rise to speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. The feature of the bill is of course the creation of the authority by January 2009, with the purpose of establishing a coordinated, consistent national approach to organ donation, including a network of organ and tissue donation agencies. The new authority will work within the context of the Rudd Labor government’s national reform package, which was announced on 2 July this year and endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments one day later. The national reform package will consist of targeted efforts to improve critical areas of the organ donation and transplantation sector.
I will run through a few ofthe key areas. Funding of $151.1 million over four years will see the reform package deliver the following: dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals; new funding for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; continued national public awareness and education, which is very important; support for families of deceased donors; and other significant measures, including enhanced professional education programs, consistent clinical protocols, clinical trigger checklists to help hospital staff to appropriately identify potential donors, and data collection for organ transplants in hospitals.
Naturally, the focus of the government’s efforts is to increase the incidence of organ donation within Australia, which will sustain life of the best possible quality that our nation’s medical expertise can support. Figures already cited in this debate are worth keeping in mind. In 2007, the passing of 198 organ donors resulted in 657 organ transplants. That is potentially three lives saved for the action of each and every organ donor. That is remarkable—the thought that each and every donor could potentially make such a difference to multiple recipients of organ donations, not to mention the family members and loved ones of each of those organ recipients who would have had their most earnest prayers answered through such surgery.
However great the contribution of any organ donor is, only a third of those in need of a transplant in 2007 were fortunate enough to be blessed with the needed gift. More than 1,800 Australians are on the organ donor waiting list at any one time, and demand for transplants is likely to grow in the future with our ageing population. An increase in the ageing population will have an impact on lifestyles and there will be more need for organ transplants. We need to do all we can to support the increased prevalence of organ donors and the deployment of their organs once the donor’s time has come.
Different methods have been trialled around the world to increase the proportion of the population that subscribes to organ donation. Organisational incentives—that is, incentives to donate organs through a form of loyalty points scheme of donors and organ recipients—are practised to an extent in certain communities within the United States. Their preferred allocation system gives members of the community of organ donors slightly higher chances of receiving an organ donation should the need arise. This is a form of closed-community benefit whereby the members of the donor community have some limited form of reciprocal rights to acquire the available organs by virtue of their pledge to be an organ donor. I am not suggesting we go down that path—far from it. But I do believe there are practical contributions that a government can make, contributions that have been successfully demonstrated in countries around the world. In pursuing world’s best practice, this government is clearly doing the best anybody can.
On the point of the government’s package aiding and supporting the medical and medical support workforce in their duties, I would like to mention a study that sought to explain a 16-fold increase in organ donations over a few years within Puerto Rico. I acknowledge that Australia is very different from Puerto Rico. But it was interesting to note how crucial the focus of authorities was on supporting and assisting the medical workforce and others to develop the systems required to make organ donation work—and work well it does. Not only are medical professionals central to the success of such work but all the support and ancillary staff within the hospitals, and in the community, are involved in creating public awareness and acceptance. The extensive work on the service delivery and logistical side of the equation was fundamental to the successful increase in organ donations within that territory.
I congratulate the government for supporting these crucial factors, but it is not necessarily just a matter of getting the skills, resources, systems and logistics to a superior level. Medical professionals can need other forms of support as well. One factor that has limited the success of organ donor registration programs overseas is the communication of the legitimate feelings and wishes of the surviving family members.
Within Canada, a recent study highlighted how crucial medical staff are in working with the deceased person’s next of kin. A 2006 Canadian study found that, while family vetos had no standing in law, over two-thirds of the medical community surveyed believed that the family members of a deceased person should be able to veto the deceased family member’s determination to donate organs. That is two out of three medical staff being open to discounting a deceased organ donor’s wishes. As it happens, the same study found that only about one-third of the public thought the family should be able to veto the donor’s wishes. But there was clear evidence of the medical community exercising their authority in preference for the wishes of the surviving family members as opposed to the wishes of the deceased. Thankfully, the study reported that, in the majority of cases, the family did comply with the wishes of the deceased and approved organ transplantation.
Whether the medical community’s preference for the surviving family members’ wishes was due to legal confusion, fear of retaliation by the surviving family or out of compassion for those who were left behind, it is difficult to say. But, clearly, there is potential for emotional considerations felt at that point in the hospital setting to become central to the issue of organ availability and the saving of lives, and it may well need to be addressed calmly, rationally and with support offered to all concerned.
The influence of surviving family members on whether or not a donor’s wishes are actioned is not limited to Canada. Within the United States, researchers similarly point to surviving relatives vetoing the donor’s previously expressed wishes upon the donor’s passing. Whatever the donor had arranged prior to his or her death, whatever his or her beliefs and intentions, the will of the family often determines organ availability. And so I am especially supportive of the reform package assisting professional medical staff in this particular area of working with the surviving family members in recognition of the donor’s expressed wishes. This is not an easy task. It is likely to be an emotional and even ethical battle fought by many of those touched by such circumstances.
I have read that, while no major world religion—that I know of—uniformly forbids organ transplantation and many actively support it, there is clearly resistance to it within some denominations and religious communities. An online journal article I was reading asserted that some Orthodox Jews and Buddhists oppose transplantation because of issues surrounding brain death criteria—that is, the point at which a person is said to be technically dead. And this may be the case with others, those who are suspicious of who may be benefiting from a person being pronounced dead.
What is essential? It is essential that people be very well informed of such matters in those situations. Another grouping, Confucians, sometimes oppose transplantation because it violates their notion of bodily integrity, and many Christian Scientists reject the enterprise of transplantation altogether. In Mexico, the bodily integrity issue is to an extent shared by some of Mexico’s millions of Catholics with regard to things post mortem. Matters of faith and belief will always be with us, for good reason.
Perhaps the broader issues relate to the grieving family’s concern over the memory of their lost one. The mere idea of a person’s remains being ‘defiled’ through very substantial surgery can give cause for second thoughts. This is where support from a steady hand within the hospital context can be so very important at that crucial point in time, with people specifically trained and resourced to assist family members so they can work through their concerns for their loved one’s remains, work through any issues they may have with organs living on after their loved one has passed away and, ultimately, resolve to honour what in effect may be one of the last wishes of a person who clearly wanted to do the single best possible deed in support of those in need of life-saving organ transplantation. I support this bill and commend it to the House.
I do not intend to speak for terribly long on the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. There are a large number of speakers and I would like to say at the outset that I am very pleased that there is bipartisan support for this issue. My own attention was first drawn to even the possibility of organ transplant—although in this instance I suspect it may have been tissue transplant—as a very young person and an avid reader of Reader’s Digest. One of the stories was about a 10-year-old Canadian girl, who had died of leukaemia, whose wish was that her eyes could be used to give somebody sight. I guess that that has been something that has stayed with me for my entire life.
In my first speech in February I spoke of a very dear friend of mine, Ian Burgett, who had passed away in the previous April and whose organs I believe went to six other people. I was very touched by Ian’s daughter’s comments at his funeral. His daughter Ruth, while I cannot now give you the exact words that she spoke, made the point to all those who were in attendance, some 300 or 400 people, that in the depths of your own personal despair at the loss of your family member there are other families whose members are waiting for you to save the life of their loved one.
As a nation we really have to address the situation that exists at the moment. It really is not a terribly good story overall but there are some excellent stories in the transplant sector in Australia. Transplant is a device that we can use—thanks to medical technology and research—to assist people who are in the end stage of organ failure. If that end stage of organ failure happens to be your kidneys you can be kept alive with dialysis machines for a long time. That does not happen if your end-stage organ failure is your heart, liver or lungs, for example.
Survival rates are not too bad. Survival rates for a kidney transplant after one year are 90 per cent and after five years are 75 per cent. In 2007 there were 342 kidney transplants conducted in Australia. For a heart or liver transplant after one year your survival rate is 90 per cent and after five years it is 85 per cent. Again there were 56 heart transplants and 147 liver transplants in 2007. For pancreas transplants the survival rate is even a little more attractive. It is 94 per cent after one year and 87 per cent after five years. There were 33 transplants involving the pancreas in 2007. There were also six heart and lung transplants, eight lung transplants and 65 double lung transplants.
When you look at the numbers, you can see that there are quite a number of transplants conducted but that, as the member for Hindmarsh pointed out in his contribution, there are 1,700 to 1,800 people on the waiting list at any one time. Sadly or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it, the vast majority of those are for kidney transplants. I am pleased that as a consequence of an election commitment made by the Rudd Labor government in 2007 there is a $7 million 12-chair dialysis unit being built at the North Lakes health precinct at the southern end of my electorate. I had the good fortune to tour there quite recently with people from Queensland Health to have a look at its progress. I can relay to my constituents that it is going fairly well.
It appears that 90 per cent of Australians support organ donation. However only one per cent of deaths occur where organs can be used, although tissue such as skin, cornea or bone can be used from a greater number of people who pass away and it can also be stored in banks.
In this country we have a single register, the Australian Organ Donor Register, AODR, which is administered by Medicare. I understand that until 30 April this year, 1.1 million people had registered—999,000 as donors and 11,000 registering their opposition to being donors. As the member for Hindmarsh was saying just a moment ago, quite often in Australia—and the legal people around here will understand the concept a little better than I do—if express consent is given but the next of kin object to a donation, it does not proceed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in many cases, at the height of their grief and in their lack of knowledge about the processes of organ donation or transplantation, family members decline to allow their loved one’s organs to be used. Some time afterwards they will come back to the hospital to apologise for their lack of knowledge, having gone away and learnt about the processes and that they made a poor decision at the time.
I urge every Australian not only to register as an organ donor but also to make sure that you and your family have solid, strong and lengthy conversations so that there is no doubt in your family that it is your intention to donate and that there is no doubt in your mind that other members of your family will in fact to donate your organs.
As I said, Australia has 1.1 million people registered but our donor rate is much lower than in many other countries. On a scale of like countries, we rank 19th out of 21 for the number per million who become organ donors. For example, in Spain I understand it is 34 per million; in Australia it is nine per million. We are equal 19th with New Zealand, which has the same rate. It is quite galling to be equal to New Zealand in anything. Only Greece has a lower rate than ours. I think we have all been touched in recent times by the story out of Greece about the young Australian man who unfortunately lost his life on an island and his family made the very heart-wrenching decision to allow his organs to be used to assist people in Greece. That is quite a wonderful story. It showed a great deal of courage and compassion by the parents of the boy who had unfortunately been killed over there in Greece.
While we have a low number of donors per million of population, we have a higher utilisation rate. At 3.5 donations per donor on average, we are getting towards the top end of the utilisation that is able to be made. Our systems are very good in performing the medical procedures necessary. The survival rates are wonderful. If I were requiring a transplant of any kind, knowing that I had an 85 per cent chance of living another five years or more I would be fairly keen to take that risk, particularly when, as we say, transplants occur at end-stage failure of organs. So there is not a great deal of life left for you to look at.
Although I did not want to take a lot of time this evening, I have in fact taken more than I anticipated. Again, I thank the opposition for their bipartisan approach to this very important government initiative. I appeal again not only to my constituents but also to the people of Australia to think about becoming an organ donor. Make sure you have those conversations with your family so that there is no risk that your organs will not be used should the occasion to do so arise.
I also rise to speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008, which establishes the national authority of that name. This bill is vital and will introduce a long-awaited reform and improvements in organ and tissue donation in Australia. It is vital because it creates the framework through which the Rudd government’s $151 million reform package in organ and tissue donation can be delivered. And it is vital because, for the first time in Australia, the federal government will play an instrumental role in our efforts to reduce Australia’s transplant waiting lists—waiting lists for organ transplants that we know at any one time average around 1,800 people. That is 1,800 Australians, just like you and me, who are getting by as best as they can in complete uncertainty about their own futures.
Many of these people may be after life-improving procedures such as a cornea, bone or skin tissue transplants. But for many it is a matter of life or death as they wait, often in a dire state of health, for a major organ transplant—for a heart, lung, kidney, liver or pancreas. They are waiting every day for that phone call from the hospital to say that the hospital has located a suitable donor. This is the day-to-day reality facing those on kidney dialysis, for example. They wait an average of four years for a suitable donor organ to become available. I mention those on kidney dialysis because more than 75 per cent of those on the waiting list for all organ transplants are waiting for a kidney. Sixty per cent of all transplants carried out relate to the kidney. For many of them, a suitable donor simply comes too late.
For a country like ours, where donor survival rates are very high, and we are amongst the very best at transplantation surgery, it feels like some critical part of the process has not been working. In 2006, Australia had only 9.8 donors for every one million people population. This places us well behind the world leaders: Spain with 33.8 donors per million population, and the United States with 26.9 donors per million population. That is really quite surprising, considering the difference between their health systems and ours. According to Transplant Australia, Australia currently stands 17th out of 19 countries listed on the International Registry of Organ Donation and Transplantation. The result of our low donor rate meant there were only 198 deceased organ donors in Australia last year, resulting in 657 transplants and meeting only one-third of the demand that exists.
To put this into perspective, if we had the same rate as the USA we would have 500 donors a year, and if we had the same rate as Spain we would have 680 donors a year. In fact, Australia’s organ donation rate has hovered around 200 donors per annum for many years. If we were able, for instance, to achieve a 10 per cent increase in organ donors in Australia annually, that would change the lives of about 70 more people a year, plus many others through tissue donation.
The need for a national response was made loudly and clearly at the Australia 2020 Summit this year by the health experts that gathered in Canberra. At the 2020 Summit, one of the key ideas discussed was the possible establishment a national organ donation scheme. This bill provides for a national authority that will deliver the government’s broader reform package in organ and tissue donation as announced earlier this year. This is a scheme that Australia needs to urgently boost our woefully deficient organ and tissue donor rate.
There is no doubt that the Rudd government’s reform package announced in July has been roundly welcomed by health experts and the people that are working tirelessly in the field. Dr Tim Mathew, Medical Director of Kidney Health Australia recently stated:
The changes are strongly supported by the kidney transplant sector where more than 1,350 patients are waiting today for the chance of a new life with a transplant.
Chris Thomas, CEO of Transplant Australia, has also thrown his support behind the government’s reform efforts. He said:
Across Australia there are 1,866 Australian families praying and hoping that their loved one will receive a telephone call that will save their life, with the news that an organ has become available … That phone call will be far more likely with this reform package.
This bill recognises the simple fact that we cannot boost organ and tissue donation and transplantation rates in Australia, saving more lives every year, without a national system in place. It moves on the government’s commitment to establish Australia as a world leader for organ donation and transplantation. When we look at what the leading nations in organ donation and transplantation rates are doing, they all have one thing in common: they have national leadership in that field. It is the one thing that has been crucial to their ability to achieve world’s best practice in this area while other countries, like Australia, have sadly lagged behind. World leaders such as the USA and Spain have national organ donation systems in place that take on the job of coordinating and driving the activity on the ground—in their local hospitals, through their clinical networks. They have national systems that spearhead the vision, monitor the results and bring the whole effort together while being supported by constant community and professional education efforts. In light of the successes with organ donations in some countries, Australia should learn and apply the successful principles of these schemes where we can.
This bill provides for an independent national authority, with funding of $24.4 million over four years, to lead our new national approach. It will be managed by a CEO with direct accountability to the federal Minister for Health and Ageing. That CEO, working with the authority and other peak organisations, will have responsibility for a multipronged approach to boosting organ donation. That will include such areas as: formulating and supporting national policies and protocols for donations; overseeing a national network of clinical specialists, hospital staff and agencies dedicated to organ and tissue donation activity; monitoring and supporting in-hospital practice improvements; and education to upskill those involved in organ and tissue donation. It will also include managing ongoing national community awareness campaigns and education programs, which are vital if we are going to get a scheme such as this to work properly and in a continuing manner. And it will also involve constantly monitoring and analysing data that relates to organ and tissue donation, making financial grants to organisations that provide essential services such as clinical data collection and organ matching, and implementing a national eye and tissue banking network. In addition, expert advice will constantly be made available to the CEO through a new 15-member advisory council, whose members will be experts in a vast range of areas affecting organ and tissue donation.
Collectively, the measures in this bill will help establish Australia as a world leader in organ donation and transplantation. And, as I have stated, the authority will have the task of implementing the government’s broader, $151 million reform package in this area which includes $136.4 million of new funding over four years. The key features of this include: $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors in hospitals; $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs that come with an increasing rate of organ donation; $13.4 million to maintain and increase public awareness in the community about organ donation schemes; and $1.9 million to support the bereaved families of organ donors.
What we are talking about here is an extremely comprehensive and historic set of reforms tackling all points of the process. One critical point, of course, is the point at which bereaved relatives are asked to give consent. This bill ensures that there are dedicated staff on the ground who are trained in the delicate matter of dealing with families who may be asked to give their consent. The inadequacies at this point largely explain why, with six million registrations on the Organ Donor Register, there has been no real increase in the number of lives being saved. And we must not discount the cost benefits that transplants can bring, versus ongoing treatment. If I may go back to the example of a patient on kidney dialysis, the figures show that dialysis costs $83,000 per year per individual who is waiting for a transplant, but the cost of a transplant is $65,000 in the first year and then $11,000 per annum thereafter. So there is an immediate benefit, taking a drain on costs off our health system, and there are long-term cost savings to be made by getting this right. More importantly, however, transplants improve the lives of so many individuals who could have a better life but who are just waiting for that phone call.
All of these initiatives have strong support from all Australian governments at COAG, the organ and tissue donation sector and very influential community groups including Kidney Health Australia, Transplant Australia and ShareLife. We know Australia is a world leader in clinical outcomes. Our surgeons, the people who are doing the transplanting, are among the best in the world. As the member for Longman noted in his speech, more than 90 per cent of Australians support organ donation. However, we know that this has not translated into actual organ donations to date. Under the provisions of this bill, with everybody working under the one umbrella, and with great community support and goodwill on both sides of this House, we can truly become a world leader in organ donation and transplantation. I commend this bill to the House.
I am very pleased to speak today to the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. This bill will provide the much-needed national leadership to lift organ donation rates in Australia. This is particularly important given the lack of national leadership on organ donation, an ageing population and the projections of a rise in chronic diseases. Transplanted organs and body tissues can, and do, save lives. These organs include kidneys, lungs, hearts and pancreases. The body tissues would include heart valves, skin, bones and corneas. Australians need these organs and tissues. Over 30,000 Australians have benefited since transplantation became a viable treatment option. Our doctors and medical staff provide some of the best clinical outcomes for transplant patients but they cannot do their work unless there are organs and tissues available.
Unfortunately, Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in terms of donation rates. Australians Donate, the former peak national body for organ and tissue donation, reported that on 3 January 2008 there were 1,875 people on transplant waiting lists. In 2007, there were 198 organ donors, from whom 626 transplant operations occurred. This is equivalent to 9.4 donors per million of the Australian population. By comparison, Spain has a rate of 33.8 donors per million, the highest in the developed world; France has a rate of 23.2 donors per million; the United States, 26.9; and the United Kingdom, 10.5. Despite the relatively low donors per million rate, up to 90 per cent of Australians support the idea of organ donation. It is clear that we must transfer this very high support rate into substantive donation rates. The will is there and, hence, this government will provide the mechanisms to improve these rates.
This bill will deliver a comprehensive national reform package for Australian organ donation. The centrepiece of this scheme is the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, which will work with states, territories, clinicians, consumers and community groups to deliver world’s best practice. The authority will be managed by a CEO with direct accountability to the Minister for Health and Ageing and have a management structure similar to the National Health and Medical Research Council. The CEO will be selected on a merit based process consistent with Australian Public Service agency heads, which will lead to an appointment of an individual who will be able to deliver on the commitments of this package. The CEO will spearhead the coordinated national approach to organ donation. The specific responsibilities include: overseeing and supporting a national network of clinical specialists; overseeing and supporting a national network of organ procurement agencies; managing and monitoring a national professional education and training program; managing a national awareness program; collecting and analysing data to contribute to further development and reforms; and administering funding to non-government organisations to provide essential associated services.
The bill will deliver the $151.1 million commitment made by the Rudd Labor government in July 2008. There will be $46 million to form the independent national authority and $67 million to fund dedicated training of specialist doctors and staff in public and private hospitals. These staff will work closely with emergency department and intensive care units to deliver better clinical outcomes to patients. There will be $17 million for hospitals to fund additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs and $1.9 million to provide counselling and support for donor families. This support will include bereavement counselling and will allow the national authority to develop a national best practice model for counselling.
There is a suite of reforms as well, which include creating a national network of state and territory based organ donation organisations, enhanced professional education programs, consistent clinical protocols, clinical checklists and better data collection for organ transplantation in hospitals.
The government will also appropriate $136.4 million worth of funding over four years to boost the number of life-saving organ transplants for Australians. This package was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in its 3 July communique. The newly formed authority will provide a national plan for reform to the Council of Australian Governments within a year of being formed.
The package was developed with close consultation from expert bodies including the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Cognate Committee on Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Transplant Australia, Kidney Health Australia, ShareLife, Gift of Life and Zaidee’s Rainbow Foundation as well as other community groups.
I would like to take a moment to discuss one of these groups. The Transplant Waiting List Advocacy Group, convened by Mr Tim Richards, of Mentone, in my electorate, have been very active both in the electorate and in other parts of Australia. Mr Richards is on the waiting list for a heart and double lung transplant, and he approached me earlier this year. As he told me, not just he but his wife and his three year-old son are closely affected by the outcome of waiting for a transplant. He was diagnosed with heart failure and pulmonary hypertension in 2005 and uses supplementary oxygen daily. He wrote this to me:
Depending on the outcome, my family will move forward and prosper or be devastated. And of course there are many other patients in a similar situation of waiting, and many more patients who will wait in the future, and again many patients who have unfortunately died while waiting. Together with everyone’s dependents and families, there is a lot riding on having a decent, working, organ donation system in place.
The government’s package will finally deliver the deserved national approach to dealing with organ donation issues. It will deliver genuine investment into funding medical staff and infrastructure to improve donation rates and shorten waiting lists. It will deliver research and statistics which will allow for further development and reform of the organ transplant system. And, most of all, it will deliver the world’s best practice system which all Australians, including Tim Richards, deserve.
Finally, I would also like to acknowledge the 5.4 million Australians registered on the Australian Organ Donor Register scheme. I am proudly one of those 5.4 million Australians. I urge my fellow Australians to join us on this list. I also support a robust discussion of organ donation schemes amongst family and friends to ensure that the final hurdle of organ donation, that of family members being unclear of their loved one’s position on organ donation, can be overcome.
This bill is another example of the government delivering in the nation’s best interest. As flagged by the Leader of the Opposition in his response to the Prime Minister’s second reading speech, this is a bipartisan issue and I welcome the opposition’s support for this very worthy bill. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. At any one time there are 1,800 Australians on waiting lists for an organ donation. This is despite the fact that more than 90 per cent of Australians support the idea of organ donation. Last year there were just 198 deceased organ donors in Australia. This resulted in 657 transplants. This met one-third of the demand. The International Registry of Organ Donation reports that in Australia there were just 9.8 donors for every one million people in 2006. Despite an increase of one million donor registrations from 2002 to six million, there has been no increase in the number of lives being saved through transplants.
In light of these figures, one may well ask oneself why there is such a mismatch between the overwhelmingly strong support within the Australian community for organ donation and the relatively low numbers of registered organ donors. One explanation is that we are currently failing at our emergency wards and intensive care units. Currently we do not have dedicated staff trained to assist families at a difficult time when there is a chance that the family may consent to organ donation. There is also a lack of dedicated hospital resources to properly manage the clinical procedures that are required for an organ or tissue transplant to occur.
I have also observed in many of the discussions that I have had with friends and family that one of the common barriers to organ donation is the misconception that mere election that one would like to be an organ donor on one’s licence is sufficient to ultimately deliver that result. I think that a lot of work has been done in recent times to publicise the measures that need to be undertaken for an individual to really ensure that their organs will be available for donation if they pass away in circumstances where that is possible.
The objective of the bill is essentially to bring Australia into line with world’s best practice in organ and tissue donation for transplantation. The government has committed $151.1 million towards this objective, including $136.4 million in new funds. The national plan that is outlined in this bill involves five key steps. Firstly, as part of this plan the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority will be established. This will create an independent national authority that will be responsible for achieving a coordinated and consistent approach. This will come at a cost of $46 million. Secondly, a further $67 million will be spent to employ trained specialists and other staff dedicated to organ donation. They will work with the emergency departments and intensive care units in selected private and public hospitals across the country. Thirdly, $17 million of new funding will be provided for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs that arise out of organ donation. Fourthly, and importantly, $13.3 million will go towards raising awareness within our community of the organ donation and transplantation system. Finally, a further $1.9 million will be provided for counsellors to support donor families.
The Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority will coordinate and train clinicians and other hospital staff dedicated to organ and tissue donation in our hospitals. The authority will oversee a new national network of state and territory organ and tissue donation agencies. It will introduce and manage a new national data and reporting system. The authority will lead programs to improve community awareness about organ and tissue transplantation, and will work with clinical and professional organisations to develop clinical practice protocols and standards. All of the states and territories have signed up to the national best practice plan. Work is on track to have the national authority established by 1 January 2009.
I would like to turn to a related matter and engage in some discussion in relation to a series of events and games that I have only recently become aware of, and that is the Australian Transplant Games. Recently I had the opportunity to speak in this House about some of the fine achievements of local Olympians and Paralympians within my community. I felt that this was a good opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of some Transplant Games participants that live in my local community.
For those of you who are not aware of the Australian Transplant Games—and, as I indicated, I only recently became aware of them as a result of an article in the Penrith Pressthe games are essentially designed to achieve two purposes: firstly, they showcase the great demonstration of life that can be lived by those transplant recipients and, secondly, they are an opportunity to raise greater awareness about the issue of organ donation.
The games are held every two years, and this year from 4 October to 11 October the 11th games will be conducted. They will consist of various sporting and recreational activities and will be held in Perth, hosted by the City of Belmont. I am told that the activities involved range from chess and backgammon through to high-level sports including tennis, squash, athletics and swimming, so there is a fair array of events on display.
In terms of who can participate, I understand that the athletes can be recipients, those on dialysis, the donor families, living donors and supporters. All athletes need to be members of Transplant Australia. The athletes are expected to come not only from every state; a large number of competitors will also come from overseas.
I would like to acknowledge a couple of local residents from my community that will be participants in the upcoming games. A local resident, Lyndon Olsson, underwent a kidney transplant 24 years ago. He is the father of two children and he won nine medals at the 2006 Australian Transplant Games, including three gold. That was a fantastic effort and I am sure that Lyndon will be able to achieve similar success in the upcoming games. To add to this, Lyndon also competed at the Winter Transplant Games in Finland in March this year. So he is not only a kidney transplant recipient but also a man of all seasons and a great athlete throughout those seasons as well.
I would also like to acknowledge Anthony Edwards, an 18-year-old from Glenmore Park in my local area. Anthony underwent a heart valve transplant in 1998. He has won a total of 20 medals across the last two Transplant Games in athletics, swimming, tenpin bowling, archery and rowing. Clearly, there is no holding Anthony back. Twenty medals is quite an outstanding achievement and I wish to have that acknowledged in the House today.
In conclusion I would like to indicate some of the things that I now intend to do in my local community to continue to take up the Prime Minister’s challenge. The Prime Minister in his second reading speech called on all members of the House to consider donating or registering for donation of their organs. I must say that after a discussion with my wife on this matter I will be entering the register shortly. Above and beyond that, I really do want to use my position as a member of parliament to try to publicise this issue within my local community. There are a number of options that I will be pursuing, but I certainly see this as being something that needs to be more publicly known throughout the community so that, hopefully, we can make the transition from that broad support for organ and tissue donation through to actually delivering those organs and that tissue for the people that need them when they need them.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge some of the groups that participated in and contributed to the development of the national plan that is contained within the bill. I acknowledge the efforts of the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Cognate Committee on Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Transplant Australia, Gift of Life, the Zadie’s rainbow Foundation and ShareLife. These are organisations that have played a significant role.
I also wish to acknowledge two other high-profile cases that I have observed as someone perhaps not that familiar with these issues. Obviously there was the death of David Hookes, one of our finest cricketers, and the work that was done by the David Hookes Foundation after David’s tragic death. If there was anything good to come out of that death—and rarely is there anything good that comes out of someone’s death—then clearly it was the publicity that organ donation received as a result. That was the good that was contributed to the community from that. Also, more recently, there was the very tragic case of Doujon Zammit. I think that, in the great gift of donating his organs, his contribution in life will continue to be felt by those who are now benefiting after his death. It is in that vein that I support the bill.
I rise in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. The purpose of this bill is to establish the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, which will provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector and spearhead the campaign to lift donation rates. It will also coordinate, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing access to lifesaving and life-transforming transplants. To achieve its aims, the authority will use experience gained from other countries in its work in increasing the numbers of donors in Australia and raising public awareness and knowledge of organ and tissue donation.
The government’s reforms in this area have been designed using international and national best practice models with a proven track record of maximising donation rates. Data from countries comparable to Australia indicates that a centralised and coordinated national approach lifts donation rates over time. It is this coordinated, central approach that has been so lacking and yet so desperately needed in this country. Over 90 per cent of Australians support organ donation, but the actual number of donations is, sadly, very low. Australia has had a longstanding shortage of organ and tissue donors. The disparity between such overwhelming support for organ donation and such shockingly low actual donation rates occurs for many reasons, and this bill goes some way towards addressing them.
The authority will be directly responsible to the Minister for Health and Ageing and will report as closely as possible to the end of the financial year on its success in lifting donation rates. The areas that the authority will have responsibility for include: the provision of an organ or tissue donation and transplantation service; the identification of potential organ or tissue donors; the obtaining of organs or tissue for transplantation; waiting lists for potential organ or tissue recipients; the allocation of organs or tissue for transplantation; support services for organ or tissue donors and their partners and families; the skills and knowledge of people involved in providing organ or tissue donation and transplantation services; and public knowledge about, and confidence in, organ or tissue donation and transplantation services.
This bill also provides for the establishment of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Advisory Council. The council will comprise 15 expert members who will advise and inform the CEO of the authority on policy issues. Like many bills that come through this House, this bill can affect many people’s lives. I believe that lives can be saved through a more nationally coordinated approach and investment in areas such as specialist transplantation teams throughout Australia.
Discussion around the topic of organ and tissue donation and transplantation can sometimes reduce the issue to numbers and statistics—the number of people who are donors, the number of people on waiting lists and the number of donations per year. These numbers are important and inform debate, but organ donation and transplantation is really about people—the people who choose to donate their organs or tissue, their families and loved ones and the people who receive a donation and their families. This issue touches so many lives: the individual who chooses either to be a live donor or to be registered as a donor if they die, the family of that donor, the recipient of that organ or tissue, and the family of the recipient.
As we know, any one person who is an organ donor could end up saving a number of lives. Choosing to be a donor either through a live transplantation or by identifying that you wish to be a donor if your life is lost so that you may help others is not a decision taken lightly by anyone. It is even more difficult for the family left behind to be able to deal with this issue at the height of their grief. That is why the new Organ Donor Register is such a significant improvement on the previous system of simply noting your willingness to be a donor on your drivers licence. The register requires that you discuss this issue with your immediate family so that they are aware of your wish and to confirm that you have given serious thought to this act.
Although I had been noted as a donor since first receiving my drivers licence in Queensland many years ago, I was pleased to add my name to the Organ Donor Register in February of this year. This now puts beyond doubt my wishes to my family. When people pass away because of illness or accident, families struggle with this decision even if organ donation was the wish of the person who died. Hopefully the Organ Donor Register and the process undertaken before placing your name on the register will assist at this difficult time when a family member dies. I concur with the comments of those who have already spoken on this bill in this House that those who donate commit the most selfless act imaginable. I thank them and their families very much for it.
As I stated earlier, organ and tissue donation and transplantation is about people. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a couple of stories that show the strength of families that have dealt with tragedy and seen lives saved as a consequence of donations. The first story has been placed on the Teamlife Transplant Australia website by Leith and Jenny Bawden, who are the parents of a special young man named Steven Bawden. Leith and Jenny Bawden also placed a photo of Steven on the website. This is the story they posted with Steven’s photo:
This is the face of a fellow Australian. Just like thousands of us. Just like you and me. This is also the face of a special young man who lost his life on 16 October 1997—the face of our son, Steven. This is not an extraordinary face, but the possessor of this face accomplished an extraordinary act. Steven is an organ donor.
Although he was only 19 at the time of his death, Steven had already shown he was a compassionate young man through his work in the funeral business. Because of this and his experiences with death, not only of the aged and very young but also within his own age group, he understood the frailty of life. He could talk quite openly about death and naturally the subject of organ donation was raised. He expressed his fervent desire to register his intent and we had many long and meaningful discussions as a family over the dinner table. We were all in agreement that organ donation was a worthwhile and sensible step.
When the tragic event occurred, we had no doubts which course of action Steven would want us to take. The decision, at a time when you can barely function, was made simpler for us as a family because we had talked about the topic at length. We did not have to second-guess Steven’s wishes as we knew what they were. Thank goodness we had talked about organ donation with him.
His compassionate and unselfish gift has changed many lives. Not only the lives of his six recipients but also the lives of the many people who loved and cared for him. Steven’s gift gave sight to a teenage girl and a middle-aged woman. He saved the life of the middle-aged mum liver recipient and the heart recipient of a middle-aged man. Of the two kidney recipients, one was a man in his early thirties and the other a middle-aged family lady. His gifts have made the difference to their lives as evidenced by the cards and letters we receive.
Years have passed and we have been kept up-to-date with the progress of the recipients. All remain well and happy. This is so very important to us. It goes without saying that we are extremely proud of our son and the way in which he conducted his life as well as his death. Take care.
And then there is the story of Zaidee Rose Alexander Turner, aged seven years and 22 days, who died suddenly on 2 December 2004 from a burst blood vessel in her brain called a cerebral aneurysm. The Turner family had been registered organ and tissue donors for five years. As a result, Zaidee donated her organs and tissues at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Zaidee was the only child in Victoria under the age of 16 years and one of the youngest Australians to donate her organs and tissues in 2004. She was only one of six children nationally to donate their organs.
In 2004, 160,000 Australians died. Only 218 were organ and tissue donors. Being a parent, I can only imagine how a parent deals with such tragedy, but I do ask that families consider how one life lost may help many others. Having been listed as a donor for many years, I strongly encourage others to sit around the kitchen table with their families, just as the Bawden family did, and discuss becoming a donor and what it means. It is important that this is not a taboo topic in families and that discussions about donation are not left until a loved one has passed or is about to pass away. The loss of a loved one is difficult enough without the added stress of making a decision like this at such a time.
Amongst many benefits from this bill, one of the greatest is the $13.4 million provided for support for families of deceased donors, which is so fundamentally important. For this and all the reasons referred to by me and other members who have spoken in this chamber, I commend this bill to the House.
I too rise to speak in support of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. I note with interest the number of members who have spoken very passionately on this bill, which clearly demonstrates the effect this matter has on individuals, perhaps because most of us, as other speakers have quite rightly said, know of someone in the community who has been the beneficiary of an organ transplant. I will come to that a little bit later.
This bill establishes the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority in order to provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector and to drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing Australians’ access to life-saving and life-transforming transplants. The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority is part of a national reform package worth $151.1 million, including new funding of $136.4 million over four years.
I know other speakers have referred to the funding but I will too because it is a key feature of the bill. There will be $67 million to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals; $46 million to establish the authority, to be set up by 1 January 2009; $17 million in new funding for hospitals to meet additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation; and $13.4 million to continue national public awareness and education in respect of this issue. There will also be $1.9 million for counselling for potential donor families and for other significant measures, including enhanced professional education programs, consistent clinical protocols, ‘clinical trigger’ checklists and data collection for organ transplants in hospitals.
I list these things because they clearly indicate to me that this bill and the process under which the authority will be established have been very carefully thought through. All the matters that one might believe ought to be addressed if we are going to have a national scheme have been included in the preparation of the bill and the establishment of the authority.
I support this bill because ultimately it will save lives, it will improve the quality of life for both recipients and their families and friends and it will give hope to those people who right now are in need of an organ transplant of one kind or another.
As the Prime Minister quite rightly pointed out in introducing the bill, there are 1,800 Australians currently on waiting lists for an organ donation that could save or transform their lives. Last year, there were just 198 deceased organ donors in Australia. This resulted in 657 transplants, meeting just one-third of demand. I raise those statistics again simply to draw a comparison with what might have been possible.
In the year 2005-2006, there was a total of 133,700 deaths in Australia. Even if you accept that many of them were not deaths where organ donation might have been possible, there were some 7,840 deaths which could be referred to as having occurred from external causes—that is, from things like road accidents, work accidents, suicide and so on—whereby the opportunity to have assisted someone else might have been possible. It would not take a lot more encouragement for people in the community to become organ donors and to perhaps meet the current needs of those 1,800 people. For those people, an organ transplant is certainly something that they dearly want. Not only are their lives put on hold whilst they wait but, in some cases, people pass away while they are waiting.
Other speakers have made the point that we all know, perhaps, of someone who has been the recipient of an organ donation. Given that there are 30,000 people in Australia who have benefited from organ or tissue transplantation that is not surprising. These people have been given a new chance in life and so have their families. I want to speak briefly about someone I know who was the recipient of an organ transplant, someone I have known since childhood who is of a very similar age to me and with whom I went through my school years, who in recent years was in need of a kidney transplant. He waited several years and was able to survive because of ongoing treatment at the hospitals. He was about to give up. Fortunately for him—and he is one of the fortunate ones—he was able to get the kidney transplant that he had been waiting so long for. His life has changed substantially, and I see it in his health. Whilst he is certainly not 100 per cent, he is a very different person as a result of the transplant. It has also given hope to his wife and his children that their husband and father will be with them for many years to come. That is the effect an organ transplant has.
I want to outline some other matters. I notice that the member for Petrie made similar comments and outlined some of these matters but, because of their importance, I too want to outline them. This bill will mean that potential donors are identified in hospitals across the country. Every family of a potential donor will be asked about organ donation. A dedicated specialist will work with the potential donor and their family to provide support through what is often a very, very difficult process. Hospital staff will be able to focus on donor care knowing that the hospital has a separate budget to cover organ and tissue donation. Families will receive the support they need at the time of organ donation and afterwards, and there will be an equitable and safe process for managing transplant waiting lists and allocating organs once they become available. The new authority that will be established will coordinate clinicians and other hospital staff dedicated to organ and tissue donation in hospitals across the country. Professional staff trained to do that will oversee a new national network of state and territory organ and tissue donation agencies, introduce and manage a national data and reporting system, lead ongoing community awareness programs about organ and tissue donation and transplantation, and work with clinical and professional organisations in developing clinical practice protocols and standards.
I highlight those points to give confidence to those people who are thinking of becoming organ donors that there will be a very thorough process established in order to ensure that their decision to become an organ donor is one that they can live with in confidence. The authority will enable all families of potential donors to be asked about donation, and it will work with clinicians, hospitals and community organisations to educate people about donation, to support families through this decision and to make sure that suitable patients will be considered as potential donors.
In my closing remarks, I want to very briefly speak about perhaps the most common myths which quite often prevent people from becoming organ donors—and there are many myths. The most common one and the one that I hear all too often is that if someone nominates to become an organ donor and they are in a serious accident, either the paramedics at the time—the ambulance people—or, once the person has been transferred to the hospital and is still alive but in a critical state, the medical team may not do everything that they possibly can to save that person. That is a myth and it should be dispelled. Under this legislation, and under the reality of what happens in hospitals and amongst the medical fraternity, it would be two entirely separate teams of doctors. Firstly, the doctors at the hospital would have no knowledge about organ donation at that time and, secondly, as professionals their first obligation is to save the person and that is exactly what they will try to do. I have every confidence in that. So anybody who is put off that by the myth that their life will not be saved in a serious emergency is certainly mistaken and should not make the decision based on that.
In the few seconds I have left, I simply want to make this point: apart from the fact that the process of organ donation gives life to and saves the lives of so many people, there are also huge economic benefits to the community at large. Those economic costs should be noted. To use just one example, the cost of transplantation of a liver is about $75,000 yet the cost of dialysis treatment for a person with kidney disease is $84,000 per annum. Purely from an economic point of view, there are a lot of good reasons why this authority and this bill are deserving of support. I support the bill, I appreciate the fact that it has bipartisan support and I certainly commend it to the House.
I thank the generosity of my colleague the member for Ballarat for allowing me to speak in the interlude for five minutes. I commend the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 to the House and I support it wholeheartedly. I actually wanted to make a special note that when we think about donating organs we do not often think that we may one day need to be a recipient of such generosity ourselves.
My father contracted leukaemia when he was in his early 70s. The doctor told my father that it certainly was not going to be something he would die of but he would certainly die with it because of his age. He accepted and lived with that. But when my youngest brother, Roger, also contracted leukaemia in his early 40s, it was a very different issue. For many years, under the guidance of his medical advisers, he managed that particular condition for some time. But it became increasingly evident that he would require a bone marrow transplant.
I know that bone marrow is not considered to be the kind of transplant like an organ where there is a trauma that actually makes such a gift available. As it happens, we all as family members took the test to see if we were compatible for the transplant, but we were not. So a search began across Australia for a compatible donor. Eventually, two were found, so I think it is a wonderful thing that there will be a central authority that is going to be able to manage and coordinate such donations. My brother subsequently had the operation over 2½ years ago, and he has an excellent prognosis for the rest of his life.
I want to say on behalf of my brother and my family that we were not able to obtain the name of the person from Victoria who made such a generous donation. Through you, Madam Speaker, and through the Hansard, I want to say to that young man in Victoria: thank you for what you did for our family. We can never thank you enough. Your generosity has certainly touched all of our hearts and the hearts of all those with whom we come into contact. I commend this bill and, if ever you read it, my brother’s name is Roger Ward. He comes from Upper Lansdowne near Taree, so you might identify him by that. I just want you to know that we are grateful for your generosity and for the gift of life that you have given to my brother.
I thank the honourable member for her contribution.
I also acknowledge the very lovely contribution by the member for Hughes to this debate. It is wonderful to hear that your brother is doing so well. There have been many emotional stories that have formed part of this debate. That really drives home for us here in this place just how terrible it is when your family members become ill and you feel so powerless that you cannot do anything about it. I think this bill touches the heart of that. The member for Hughes’s speech was a very personal one and I thank her for that contribution.
I rise today to support the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. Over recent years I have had cause to discuss with my own family the importance of organ donation. When I was going through my husband’s wallet—not that I do that on a great many occasions!—I discovered that he had an organ donation card. I did not know that he had registered as an organ donor because we had not had that discussion, so we promptly did have that discussion. He discovered that I too had registered as an organ donor, but neither of us had had any dialogue about it. That goes to the heart of many of the aspects of this bill—just how important it is not only to register as an organ donor but to have the discussions now, when we are well, within our families to make sure that people know our wishes.
It is not an easy thing to contemplate death, but unfortunately it is an inevitable part of our lives that we are eventually going to die. Hopefully we do not die in tragic circumstances, but if we do those of us who wish to make a contribution by way of donating our organs need to make sure that our family members absolutely know our wishes now so that they are in a position to carry them through. Certainly my family has had that discussion. Yesterday I had that discussion with my sister-in-law, who is here caring for my young son, Ryan, and I discovered that she also is an organ donor, which I am very pleased about.
There are many people across Australia who have had similar conversations with their loved ones, and there are also many families who have not. The Rudd government is aiming to make this a topic of conversation across every dinner table in Australia. Our aim is to position Australia as a world leader in best practice organ donations and transplantations.
There are approximately 1,800 people on a waiting list for organ donations in Australia, and it is the responsibility of government to reform our health system to improve and to save the lives of these people. We plan to do this by implementing a system that will improve organ donation rates across the nation—a system that has been supported by all Australian governments via the Council of Australian Governments. At the COAG meeting in Sydney on 3 July, all states and territories endorsed this organ and tissue donation support package. With support from state and territory governments, we as a nation can implement a nationally coordinated organ donation and transplantation system. That nationally consistent approach will be based on world’s best practice models.
The bill establishes the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. The authority will be established to lead a coordinated, consistent approach to organ and tissue donation and transplantation initiatives, including a network of organ and tissue donation agencies. The authority will work with the states and territories and with all stakeholders to build a world-class system. Progress has already been made towards having this authority up and running by the start of next year.
The authority will be managed by a CEO, and the position has already been advertised. The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, headed by the CEO, will be responsible for implementing this government’s $151.1 million reform package. The package reflects our commitment to improving our nation’s health system. The package includes $67 million to employ medical specialist staff and other clinical positions dedicated to organ donation. This funding will provide staff to both private and public hospitals. These specialist staff will work with hospital teams in emergency departments and intensive care units. The staff will work to support and educate hospital teams to coordinate organ and tissue donation actively.
Providing funding to employ specialist staff is a strong element in ensuring that our government’s commitment provides real outcomes in this area. The government has also committed $17 million as part of this reform package to provide hospitals with new funding for costs associated with organ donations. Associated costs may include additional staffing and bed and infrastructure costs. The costs will obviously vary between hospitals, and it is vital that the government provide funding to reflect the increased costs associated with lifting organ donation rates.
There have been many times not just in this place but also in the media and the broader community where the need for lifting organ donation rates has been talked about. It has been the subject of public campaigns. But unfortunately very little of that talk, sometimes involving quite substantial amounts of money, has resulted in lifting our organ donation rates. By concentrating energies and efforts in the public and private hospital system, it is hoped that organ donation rates in this country will increase.
Over the next four years, the package that the government is delivering will include $13.4 million to continue national public awareness and education—an important component. This funding will increase the level of knowledge given to Australian families by providing them with clear, factual information about organ and tissue donation. This should go a long way towards alleviating some of the anxiety or the ignorance that people may have about organ and tissue donation. This funding will better help individuals and their families to understand the difference a person can make if they choose to be an organ donor.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the families of those wonderful people who have identified themselves as donors and whose deaths have meant life for others. We very recently saw the case of an Australian who died overseas, a young boy tragically killed in Greece, whose family took the decision to donate his organs to someone there who was in desperate need. That was an enormous credit to that family who had lost their son in very, very tragic circumstances.
As a government we recognise that, although around 90 per cent of Australians support organ donation, many are not registered as an organ donor and their families are not aware of their position, as was the case in my own family. Ninety per cent of people support organ donation, yet, last year alone, Australians met only a third of the demand for organ transplants.
Our government aims to further meet the demand for life-saving and life-transforming transplants by working with this high level of community support. I do understand that some choices to not donate organs are due to religious or cultural reasons, and we should respect those, but the great majority are not. This bill does not change how Australians give consent or objection to organ donation. All Australians have the right to object to becoming an organ or tissue donor. Instead, this bill will provide the appropriate resources to ensure that every Australian knows the benefits of organ donation, forms a considered opinion about organ donation and is able to easily access and consent to being on the donor register.
It really makes you think about what the impediments are and how they can be overcome. Funding for public awareness and education will help combat these problems. It also makes you think about the thousands of people who are waiting for an organ and what it would mean not only to them but to their loved ones were they able to get those organs. Some time ago I visited the dialysis unit at my local hospital. It is a really telling experience to see people of all ages, but particularly young people, whose entire lives revolve around their need to be close to a dialysis machine, and what a difference it would make to them and their families were they able to receive an organ donation.
When someone loses a loved one it is incredibly traumatic and it is a terrible experience, particularly if that loved one has lost their life in an accident or otherwise unexpectedly. The grief can be numbing and make ordinary decisions very difficult. When it comes to making profound decisions, it can seem almost impossible. Whilst organ donation may provide some relief for families in knowing that their loved one’s death has not completely been in vain, and may have assisted any number of people to perhaps prolong their own lives, the decision has to be made right at that very moment. It is not one that can be delayed. Many families are in extreme distress, grief and trauma and it is a very difficult decision for them to make.
The funding provided in this package will provide deceased donor families with support that is responsive to the individual needs of each family. That is a very important part of this package. The funding will provide best practice bereavement and family support resources. It is not only imperative that these potential donor families are provided with ongoing support; it is the most humane thing to do in these circumstances. I commend the allocation of $1.9 million to provide support for families of deceased donors.
The introduction of this bill is an example of how the Rudd government listened to the ideas of our nation’s brightest during the 2020 Summit. The Rudd government is determined to tackle this head-on. We are committed to reforming our nation’s health system by addressing critical problem areas. I am pleased that the opposition is showing such strong support for this bill. The bill and subsequently our $151.1 million reform package goes beyond party politics. It is an initiative that all members of the House are supporting. It is an initiative that we, as federal members, should publicise in our electorates across the nation. Our society is ageing, and we can no longer ignore the reality that we need as many people as possible to consider organ and tissue donation.
The bill is about improving the health of Australians. The bill is about improving the quality of life of Australians. The bill is about providing the opportunity for Australians to make the ultimate sacrifice—that of donating their organs and tissues when they die. Many of us do not wish to contemplate death; however, it is a reality of our lives. Organ donation rates across Australia absolutely need to be lifted. Even after death, many of us have the opportunity to provide better health or even life to our fellow Australians. There are too many people who are waiting for a second chance at life and too many people who are being buried without having known the options of being able to provide a second chance at life.
The gift of organ donation is something that will live on long past our own deaths. I hope this debate will reignite discussion between individuals and their families, and I have no doubt that most families in my electorate of Ballarat will get behind this initiative. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering such a worthwhile package. I commend the bill to the House.
I too rise to discuss the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. I know that there have been many people on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate on this legislation and many stories have been told. Whilst possibly most of what I will say in my speech has already been said before, I wanted to very clearly add my voice to support this particular bill because it does have such significance for our Australian community.
I should declare that I have been an organ donor since I was 17, when I first got my drivers licence. I guess the getting of the licence was a much more significant event for me, but I automatically, without even thinking, ticked the box to agree to be an organ donor. It was only in subsequent years, as I had many discussions with other people, that I realised just how sensitive an issue this is and how important it is that we as leaders of the community allay some of the fears and concerns out there so that we can encourage many more Australians to agree to be organ donors. I think the most significant essence of this bill is that it will encourage and enable a much greater capacity both for people to donate and for people to benefit from those donations.
It is quite clear that we always embrace and applaud medical science in its innovation, advances in technology, discoveries of new ways of relieving suffering and even, in some cases, postponing the inevitable which is coming to all of us—that, unfortunately, is our death. What is important about this bill is that these laws embrace advances in medical technology and bring us as a nation up to speed with those advances, enabling the whole country to benefit in a much more meaningful way. This bill will put Australia on the world stage as a leader in organ and tissue donation and transplantation, and I think that is a wonderful thing for all of us. It is clear that, whilst many discussions are occurring, whilst many people are taking up these options and whilst medical science is advancing, there is still a way to go. The deceased donor rate over the last 10 years has stagnated at around 200 per annum despite the incredible population growth that we have seen in this country at the same time. Sadly, there are over 1,800 Australians on the organ transplant list at any given time, so it is very important that this bill pass through the House so that this tremendous $151.1 million four-year package can become law and start to be used for this very important cause.
The $151.1 million includes an extra $136.4 million of new funding over four years. It is designed to create a national authority that will oversee the implementation of the details in this bill, oversee and support a national network of clinical specialists, oversee a national network of organ procurement organisations, manage and monitor national professional education, manage and monitor community awareness and education, introduce and manage a world-class national data and reporting system, administer funds to non-government organisations to provide essential services such as clinical analysis, and more.
As I have already said, there is provision in this bill—$64 million, in fact—for specialist hospital staff and systems dedicated to organ donation. This particular aspect of the bill is very important. Not only does it acknowledge—along with the $17 million of new hospital funding that is also included—that we cannot simply expect our current health system to pick up the cost and expenditure associated with this new legislation, but also it brings confidence to the Australian community. They can now be comforted by the fact that there are specialist medical doctors, specialist staff and dedicated units within private and public hospitals that will specifically be devoted to organ and tissue donation and transplantation so that donors and their families are cared for in a sensitive and appropriate way but, more importantly, so that recipients are given full medical attention and specialised care to ensure that they are nursed back to health and enjoy a much better quality of life.
It is also important that we acknowledge the $13.4 million in this legislation for the community awareness and education campaign. All the speakers on this bill have acknowledged that, while we have the medical expertise and technology, while we have the extra funding for the services in our hospitals and in allied health care, it is absolutely critical that we also bring the community along with us and encourage Australians to discuss with their families and friends the importance of organ donation and in fact to register as donors. Out of all the elements of this legislation, it is the most important. We need more people willing to donate their organs in what we would hope would be a very few tragic circumstances but, unfortunately, as the previous members said, is in reality many. An education and awareness campaign is important but not just for encouraging people to donate. As I said before, it is also about instilling confidence that, in tragic circumstances, if they donate their loved one’s organs, the grieving family will be cared for in an appropriate and sensitive manner.
It is also important to take the time, as everyone else has, to talk about personal stories. Although $151 million sounds wonderful, and although we have a national authority with all of its financial, administrative and medical expertise and we have an expert advisory committee supporting that authority, the personal stories bring it all home—stories of people who have benefited already in this country from organ donation. As a result of this debate in the public arena, I was contacted by a woman in my electorate. She wishes to remain nameless and I respect her privacy but at the same time I am happy to put her story forward as part of this debate. She is a 45-year-old mother and wife of one child who required a double lung transplant. As a 45-year-old wife and mother of three myself, I find the stresses and strains of life hard enough sometimes without even contemplating the incredible suffering and pain that that particular woman would have been going through and the emotional distress she would have been feeling for her family if she was unable to receive a donation, while struggling to deal with what was obviously a very serious illness with a prognosis that was not all that good. She was able to receive a transplant and is now living a much happier and healthier life. She wished me to pass on her story because, as she said, anything that enables other people to benefit in the way she did is important for many more families like hers. I wish to put that personal story on record—just one story out of the many we have heard in this debate.
In conclusion, I thank the Prime Minister for this initiative. I think it is the first piece of legislation that he has had the opportunity to introduce into the parliament since being elected as Prime Minister. I think that says it all when it comes to his personal and very deep and passionate commitment to this issue and his encouragement of everyone to take up this matter, to discuss it with their families and hopefully to register as donors.
I would also like to pass on my congratulations to Senator Jan McLucas, who I know, both in her position as shadow minister and now as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, has worked tirelessly to develop this policy and to see it all the way through to being legislation put before the House. We need to commend her for her efforts in negotiations and discussions and for finding a path through what is a very sensitive issue in a way that we all know will result in much greater benefits for our country.
I would also like to congratulate the opposition. It is wonderful to be standing in this place to debate something that is unanimously supported. Of course, anything that will save the lives of Australians is something that transcends bipartisan politics and something that we can all feel very good about and very pleased to support, both as individuals and as leaders of this community. I commend the bill to the House.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 focuses on key elements of the Rudd Labor government’s health policy. This policy is a commitment to the Australian people that health resources are used efficiently and effectively and that priorities are set on the basis of the needs of patients. Applying these commitments has the direct effect of achieving the best health outcomes.
This bill is about boosting the number of lifesaving organ transplants and improving and providing quality of life for Australians currently waiting for organ or tissue transplants. In Australia there is widespread acceptance and support for these procedures, which provide hope for Australians who are currently on waiting lists for organ and tissue transplants. The Australian public support the idea of organ donation, with nearly six million Australians registered on the Australian Organ Donor Register. Included on the register are an additional one million registrations since 2002. This represents 37 per cent of the eligible population. Surveys show that over 90 per cent of Australians overall support organ donation. On paper, this groundswell of support is phenomenal.
In a climate of such support for organ transplants, it is easy to believe that the current system is an outstanding success. However, according to data on organ donation in Australia maintained by the Australia and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry, at any one time over the past few years, approximately 1,800 Australians have been on transplant waiting lists. This beggars belief. Even though an additional one million registrations have been accepted since 2002, the rate of organ transplants in Australia has been stagnant.
Let’s make no bones about this. This is an opportunity that has gone begging for some considerable time, and I believe that we should be looking to establish world’s best practice reform in this area. I do not wish to imply that the current systems have failed; we do have an excellent transplant record. The current and previous systems have provided for over 30,000 Australians who have gone on to have a better quality of life thanks to organ and tissue transplants. Our ability to facilitate transplants is second to none, and the technology and techniques we use are some of the most advanced in the world.
However, without detracting from the excellent work that has preceded the need for this new legislation, the fact of the matter is that there are six million potential donors that we should really have included on this list, with only 200 donations happening per annum at the moment. Despite the best efforts of government agencies, the organ and tissues sector and community and consumer groups, the current systems are not providing increased numbers of lifesaving transplants concurrent with increases of registrations for donorship.
We need a national body to coordinate efforts under a standard set of protocols to maximise the efficiency of the governing bodies and to build on them, expanding the ability to facilitate organ and tissue transplants across the whole nation. In observing the models of the world’s top-performing nations in organ donor rates, a common theme has delivered lasting improvements. Experiences of other countries point to a central coordinating agency that is dedicated to leading and driving change.
This is another example, I think, of this government getting on with the business of governing. Australia today has the opportunity to set a whole new standard in the delivery of organ and tissue transplantation. The establishment of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority is an essential part of the government’s strategy to facilitate coordination and provision of life-saving transplants. The new reform package will provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector. The measures contained in the government’s reform package will drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs. The new reform package will include funding for more hospital staff to be dedicated to organ donation, including funding for hospitals to cover associated costs. The new reform package will provide funding for increased education and awareness campaigns and funding to support the families of deceased donors. I think this is very important work.
Through the national professional awareness component in this bill, the Australasian Donor Awareness Program will be extended to drive cultural and organisational change in public and private hospitals and the communities they reside in. The new reform package is significant because all Australian governments have signed up to the reform package through the Council of Australian Governments. It is also very pleasing that all parties within this place, I believe, will support these very worthy reforms.
To this effect, there has been a similar response from stakeholders in the areas that will be affected by this legislation. This support is mirrored by the organ and tissue donor sectors, and community and consumer groups, who agree that a nationally consistent and coordinated approach to organ donation is critical. The solid foundation that underwrites this support is that the Australian government is committed to providing $151 million for this fresh, new approach to achieve these goals.
The goodwill that is extended by the wider Australian community to organ and tissue transplants needs to be better focused and coordinated. There is an opportunity here to provide a real increase in the rate of organ and tissue transplants. In meeting the challenges of implementing an Australia-wide system of organ transplantation, the best system in the world is only as good as its facilitators. The fact of the matter is that we can improve efficiency through these measures. We can improve public knowledge through these measures. We can streamline the currently fragmented system that has evolved over the years and provide a nationally consistent process and system to facilitate more organ and tissue transplants and provide a better quality of life for all Australians on waiting lists. I commend this bill to the House.
What a pleasure it is to rise this evening in this place to talk about the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008. It is not that long ago—in fact, it was in February this year—that I was given the opportunity to speak in the parliament on a private member’s motion on organ donation. I want to reflect on that because at the time I told a story about two people in my electorate whom I knew personally. Very sadly, one had recently passed away. That was the late Justice Terry Connolly, who was a very dear friend of mine. He died very suddenly at the age of 49. His wife, Helen, and her two daughters, Lara and Maddy, consented to having Terry’s corneas donated. The family felt very strongly about organ donation and, as I believe it does in a lot of cases like this, it assisted them in dealing with their grief. That was a generous thing on the part of that family.
At the same time, I spoke about young Cordelia, whom many of us have heard of since. At the time I made reference to her, in February, she was a tiny tot 10 months old, desperately in need of a liver transplant. She had a very rare liver condition. The family had done all they could at that point to publicise the fact that they needed a liver donation, understanding of course that some other child or person had to pass away for that to happen. Happily, we all now know that a liver did become available to Cordelia, and the last reports we have had suggest that she is doing extremely well.
The other story that I want to refer to—without revealing names because I prefer not to do that—is that of a family in my electorate known to very dear friends of mine. They were recently devastated by the suicide of their 14-year-old son. It happened only in the last four to six weeks. That family was struck down by this tragedy, but if there is a positive and a negative side to an agenda then the positive side of that agenda was that five people were beneficiaries of organ donation from that young man, through his family. Again, it gave them some means by which they could deal with their grief, and the family obviously had a very positive attitude to organ donation.
I understand that around June 2007 there were just on 47½ thousand ACT residents on the Australian Organ Donor Register—that is, approximately 18 per cent of the eligible ACT population had formally registered at that point. As local members, we all put out community newsletters. Earlier this year, in fact around the time of Organ Donor Awareness Week, I took the step of including in my community newsletter the official form for registering for organ donation, provided by the HIC. While we will never know, I would like to think that there was some positive outcome to that.
The reason we are here tonight is to talk about the bill the government has brought forward, which we all hope—and I think we know—is going to make an enormous difference to the very tough road that some people have to go down in looking at the question of organ donation. I am really proud to be part of a government that has taken such a wonderful lead, and I thank the Prime Minister and commend him for that. I do not think anybody in this building could do otherwise than commend the action to bring a national approach to the question of organ and tissue donation in this country.
As other speakers have said, just over $150 million will be put towards this package. Money is easy to talk about in terms of figures; what we really need to talk about is what it is going to do. It is going to make a huge difference to the way in which the question of organ donation is approached in this country, be it for the family of someone recently deceased or be it in the staffing and resources that are available in hospitals and elsewhere where these decisions are made. The reason for this legislation is to bring things together in a national way to ensure that everything that can enhance and smooth over this difficult process is put in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I do not whether you were home early enough on Monday night to see the Andrew Denton show. I happened to get home and turn my TV on towards the end of it. On that program Denton makes a habit of having show and tell, I think he calls it, at the end of the program. There was this enthusiastic young woman sitting next to him whom he interviewed. Her story was that she contracted diabetes at the age of 12 and here she was, I think by now in her late 30s, telling her story of how as a result of the diabetes she had developed very, very serious kidney disease.
Earlier this year she was facing the possibility of having to go onto permanent dialysis and maybe not having a very good health outcome overall anyway. She had been on the organ donation waiting list for years. She told the story of how one Saturday morning at half past six there was a phone call to say that there was action at the hospital. She was a successful case of kidney and pancreatic donation, which means not only did it save her from the kidney disease but it took away the diabetes as well. For the first time since she was 12 she no longer had to deal with diabetes, sugar levels and injections. Again, that is another wonderful story. The problem for our country is that, as marvellous as those stories have been, there have not been enough of them. We have not had enough opportunity to push, argue, cajole and convince people that this is really the right way to go—to do organ donation.
The establishment of the national authority to run the new national organ and tissue donation process is to be applauded by everyone. It is a terrific initiative and something that I know is going to benefit so many people. When I think about the individuals I have referred to very briefly this evening and while I thank those who made the lives of those people all the better—and we pay regard to the grief behind those donations—this is one way that we can actually pull it together nationally. We can have a fully responsible process for donation and encourage far more involvement from the general community at large in listing themselves for organ donation. Not only that but, if and when the question arises, the process of organ and tissue donation can go ahead in the most seamless and the most convenient way for everybody concerned. It is a pleasure for me to endorse this bill heartily to the House, and I look forward to its passage, knowing that on its passage we will see this whole process begin on 1 January 2009.
Over the last 10 years, organ donation rates in Australia have fluctuated at around 200 donors per year. To get straight to the point, Australia needs more donors. Last month, a young Australian man, 20-year-old Doujon Zammit, tragically succumbed to injuries sustained while holidaying in Greece. Doujon’s wish was for his organs to be donated, and he has provided the gift of life to four individuals who were in urgent need of organ transplants. The Zammit family, together with Transplant Australia, have established the Doujon Zammit-Transplant Australia Gift Fund to recognise Doujon’s donations and to honour his legacy. The fund will be used to raise awareness in the community of the need for organ and tissue donations and transplants.
Doujon’s father, Oliver, said his son had made it clear to his family that his wish was to be an organ donor and, although it was a difficult and emotional decision, they wanted to respect his wishes. Not only did they make a commendable decision to respect Doujon’s wishes and see through the donations but the Zammits have since also urged all families to discuss the issues concerning organ donation.
On the one hand, this country is internationally recognised for a strong record of successful organ transplantations—more than 30,000 Australians have received transplants in the last 60 years. But, on the other hand, we also have one of the world’s lowest rates of organ donations. Unfortunately, the demand far outweighs the supply, and the consequence is that substantial numbers of people die while waiting for suitable organs to become available. This is something we need to change.
As the former National Secretary of the Health Services Union, representing hospital and health workers throughout the country, I was able to see firsthand the lack of quality of life that many of those waiting for organ donations had to endure. For people with serious or life-threatening illnesses, organ or tissue transplantation may mean a second chance at life. It also means a much better quality of life. Improved survival rates now mean that most recipients of organs or tissues can look forward to a better quality of life. Anyone can choose to donate organs and tissues—there is no age limit on the donation of some organs and tissues. What is important is that, as families, we sit down and make sure, as the Zammits did, that they are fully aware of the wishes of the family member that their organs be donated.
While a person’s age and medical history will be considered in relation to their suitability for donation, he or she should not assume they are too old or not healthy enough. Organ donation can involve kidneys, heart, lungs, liver and pancreas, while tissue donation includes heart valves, bone tissue, skin tissue, corneas and bone marrow. In most cases, organ and tissue donation occurs after brain death. Brain death occurs when the brain stops functioning with no possibility of recovery. Organ donation is only considered after several tests are carried out by two appropriately qualified senior doctors to establish whether brain death has occurred. The way in which a person dies will generally determine what they are able to donate. In most cases organs such as the heart, lungs, liver, pancreas and kidneys can only be donated if a person has died in an intensive care unit under special circumstances. Less than one per cent of all people who die in hospital each year die this way. That ratio helps explain why the rate of suitable organ availability is so low.
But that is not the only explanation. The other explanation is that it is something that we do not talk about with our families before we are in these circumstances. When our families are in that pressured situation of having to decide what to do, to make those sorts of decisions, unless they have been clearly told—unless that discussion has actually happened with their family member, unless they know that when their loved one passes away in those circumstances their organs should be donated—the whole situation around a tragic death usually means that it is too difficult a decision to take. That is why it is so important that we make sure that we let our families know if we are prepared to donate our organs.
In some cases organ donation may be possible after a person’s heart has stopped beating, but this is extremely rare, and we get very few donations in relation to that particular situation. A greater number of people have the opportunity to donate tissue for transplantation, such as eye tissue, heart valves, bone tissue and skin tissue. This is because tissue donation does not require the same special circumstances as organs usually do for transplantation to be successful.
The Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Bill 2008 being debated today will allow the establishment of the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. This organisation will provide national leadership to the organ and tissue sector to drive, implement and monitor national reform initiatives and programs aimed at increasing Australians’ access to life-saving and -transforming transplants. As we have heard in this debate, a higher rate of access to, and availability of, transplants is vital if we are to increase the rate at which recipients can truly have a second chance at life.
The new authority will be managed by a chief executive officer with direct accountability to the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing. The CEO will be advised by the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Advisory Council. It will comprise a chair and up to 15 members. Members will have expertise in a wide range of areas related to organ and tissue donation and transplantation, and also areas such as business and management, to assist the CEO to run the authority efficiently and effectively.
The authority will spearhead the government’s comprehensive, best practice reform package aimed at achieving a significant and lasting increase in the number of transplants for Australians. The functions of the CEO will include formulating, in writing, policies and protocols relating to organ or tissue donation and transplantation matters and declaring, in writing, standards and codes of practice relating to organ or tissue donation and transplantation matters. The CEO will also collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to organ and tissue donation and transplantation matters and support, encourage, conduct and evaluate training programs that are directed towards improving the skills and knowledge of people involved in organ or tissue donation and transplantation services. The CEO will also support, encourage, conduct and evaluate educational, promotional and community awareness programs relevant to organ or tissue donation and transplantation matters and conduct and evaluate research about organ or tissue donation and transplantation matters.
Some of the main objects of the new authority are to promote a coordinated and consistent approach to organ or tissue donation and transplantation matters, to improve access to organ or tissue donation and transplantation services, to improve the identification of potential organ or tissue donors, to minimise waiting times for potential organ and tissue recipients and to improve the management of waiting lists for potential organ or tissue recipients.
The large gap between demand and supply of organs and tissues has enormous personal costs for more than 1,800 Australians currently on organ transplant waiting lists at any one time, as well as significant economic costs for the country. As Australia’s population ages and more Australians are affected by lifestyle diseases such as obesity and diabetes, the demand for transplants will grow. In Australia we are now only second to Japan in terms of life expectancy, with a life expectancy of around 81 years. While we might be living longer, our bodies are not necessarily living younger as we age. The problems with age and with an ageing population mean that the issue of transplants will continue to grow and to be a problem in Australia if we are unable to address the big shortage in the supply of organs and tissues for transplantation in this country.
To address this issue, on 2 July this year the Prime Minister announced a national reform package to establish Australia as a world leader in best practice organ donation for transplantation and to achieve a significant and lasting increase in the number of transplants for Australians. These evidence based reforms have been designed using international and national best practice models which have a proven track record of maximising donation rates. The reform package was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments on 3 July 2008. So this program does involve the states and has been endorsed by the state governments. Through that cooperation, it is a program perfectly suited to making sure that Australians can lift the rate of organ donation from the current rate of around 200 a year.
Think about the numbers that we have now: 200 donors a year on average over the last 10 years, yet at any one time 1,800 Australians are on the waiting lists. That is a deficit of more than 1,600. Unfortunately, many of those on the lists are not going to survive until organs become available. And those that are lucky enough to receive transplants will have had to wait for extended periods of time, fearing that, any day, their life may end because they cannot get access to organs. At the same time, their quality of life is dramatically affected because the organs for which they need a transplant are in such a poor state that they cannot function as they normally would if they were in good health. So this problem affects both the quality of life and the chance of life. It is absolutely important that we support this bill and encourage as many Australians as possible to make sure they become donors.
Even with this bill, it will be an enormous task to raise the number of organ donations per year from 200 to 1,800. This is a task that will not happen overnight, and it is one that needs a plan as to how we can make the improvement. It needs a plan that involves the state governments in terms of their role in our public health system. It needs a plan that is integrated. It needs a plan that sets out the way in which this can happen. It needs a plan that uses evidence based methods to make sure that if people find themselves in tragic circumstances they know that they have spoken with their family member and are prepared to honour that family member’s wishes. That will make sure that the donation of those organs takes place and that the lives that can be saved by such a donation are saved and that the quality of life that can be given to many Australians by such a donation is given to them.
Over the next four years, there will be $151.1 million spent on creating a nationally consistent, coordinated system of organ and tissue donation. The key features of that expenditure include $67 million over four years to fund dedicated organ donation specialist doctors and other staff in public and private hospitals, as well as $17 million over four years in new funding for hospitals to meet the additional staffing, bed and infrastructure costs associated with organ donation. That particular item is very important. All too often in health planning we lay some bricks and mortar and put particular programs in place but then do not make sure we have the staff so that programs can operate and function properly. It is crucial in this very important area that this plan makes sure that there will be enough staff for it to take place.
There will be $13.4 million over four years to continue national public awareness promotion and education. I have said a number of times during this speech that one of the key things is public awareness. As members of parliament we are in a unique position to influence and promote this very important issue. There are other significant measures in this bill, including enhanced professional education programs, consistent clinical protocols, clinical trigger checklists to help hospital staff appropriately identify potential donors and data collection for organ transplants in hospitals.
The new approach will be spearheaded by a national authority to be established by 1 January 2009, with funding of $46 million allocated to establish a coordinated, consistent national approach, including a network of organ and tissue donation agencies. Of this, $24.4 million over four years will fund the new authority’s operation and infrastructure. The authority is to drive, coordinate and be accountable for national organ and tissue donations and transplantation initiatives and will provide world-leading access to transplants and transplant outcomes.
This is a bill that all members of parliament will support. All members of parliament can go out and say: ‘We’re proud that we were part of passing this legislation. We’re proud that we played a role in helping those 1,800 people who are on waiting lists waiting perilously for the availability of transplant organs.’
Organ donation is a very difficult issue for families who are grieving. It is important as a government that we make sure we put in place the best systems to allow families in those very trying and difficult situations to make the right decision—to make sure that the organs of their loved ones, if they have expressed the view that they want to donate them, end up where they can do the most good. That is the purpose of this bill, that is why we have had so many speakers come out and support this particular bill and that is why this bill should be supported by the House. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Raguse) adjourned.