I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.
The government is committed to fairness and sustainability in Australia's tax system. This bill underlines that commitment by making some important changes to realign policies with their original intent, improve integrity and reduce complexity for taxpayers.
Schedule 1 to this bill will modernise the methods for calculating tax deductions for work related car expenses by streamlining and updating the available methods and rates for claiming work related car expenses.
Schedule 2 will better target the zone tax offset to exclude fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers. This meets the government's priority to deliver a fairer tax system—ensuring only those genuinely living in the specified geographic zones are entitled to the offset.
Schedule 3 will introduce a separate grossed-up cap of $5,000 for salary sacrificed meal entertainment and entertainment facility leasing expenses for certain employees of not-for-profit organisations, and all use of these salary sacrificed benefits will become reportable.
Schedule 4 will create a new reporting regime which requires third parties to report on a range of transactions.
The 2015-16 budget delivered by this government demonstrated a commitment to building a fair and sustainable tax system. Schedule 1 to this bill contributes to this commitment by modernising and streamlining the available methods and rates for calculating work related car expenses. The schedule reduces the number of methods for claiming the deduction, not what is deductible for car expenses.
Currently, work related car expenses are claimed by 3.8 million taxpayers each year.
Under current rules, taxpayers can choose one of four methods to calculate their claims based on their travel and documentation. This bill reduces the available methods down to two.
Having four different methods available adds complexity to the claims for taxpayers. This is because taxpayers—or their tax advisers—tend to calculate all four methods in order to identify the method that delivers the greatest amount of deduction.
Of the four methods currently available, both the 12 per cent of original value method and one-third of actual expenses method are used where more than 5,000 business kilometres are travelled, and therefore require less substantiation. Yet these two methods are used in just two per cent of claims each year. As such, this bill will remove these two options.
Instead, for the 2015-16 income year, taxpayers can continue to calculate their claims using the more popular cents-per-kilometre method for business travel of less than 5,000 kilometres, or the logbook method to calculate their claims based on actual expenses and travel.
This bill also modernises the formula for calculating claims using the cents-per-kilometre method. Under this method, no substantiation of car expenses is required—only a reasonable estimation of the work related travel conducted throughout the year, up to a maximum of 5,000 business related kilometres. This will not change under this bill. Under present arrangements, these work related kilometres are then multiplied by a cents-per-kilometre rate based on the size of a car's engine—currently 65c per kilometre for small cars, 76c per kilometre for medium cars, and 77c per kilometre for large cars.
In addition, the existing rates apply to rotary engines of different sizes and have not previously been modernised to apply to modern electric or hybrid vehicles.
This bill streamlines the different rates based on engine size to a single rate of 66c per kilometre, which is based on the average running expenses in Queensland and New South Wales of the five highest selling vehicles in Australia. This rate is a fair estimation of expenses for all taxpayers, and is supported by recent data from both RACQ and NRMA for the cost of running the top five selling cars.
For those taxpayers who travel more than 5,000 business related kilometres, the logbook method will not change—establishing work related driving by keeping a logbook for 12 weeks which is valid for five years—still enables them to claim their actual expenses based on their work related use.
For those that wish to stay on the cents-per-kilometre method, Tax Time 2016 will be much easier with a standard rate applied to their travel.
The original methods and rates were set in the 1980s—it is clear, based on the methods actually used and up-to-date industry information on current running costs, that these rates and methods are outdated. They are adding to the compliance burden of everyday Australians—which is already one of the highest in the modern world.
Going forward, the Commissioner of Taxation will review the new single rate each year reflecting the most up-to-date running costs for the greatest number of Australian taxpayers. These changes will raise $845 million over the forward estimates, making a significant contribution to our ongoing budget repair effort.
Schedule 2 provides for changes to the zone tax offset to realign it with its original intent.
From the 2015-16 year, the zone tax offset will be targeted to people genuinely living in identified regional areas. This bill will exclude fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers (also referred to as FIFO workers) from claiming the offset, where their usual residence is not within one of the zones. FIFO workers whose usual residence is in one zone but who work in a different zone will retain the zone tax offset entitlement associated with their usual place of residence. This will ensure that the offset is better targeted to those taxpayers genuinely living in these regional areas.
The zone tax offset was introduced in 1945 and was intended to compensate recipients for the disadvantages of living in remote areas including isolation, uncongenial climate and higher costs of living.
Geographic regions associated with the zone tax offset are spread across Australia and include regional areas of all states and territories except Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, particularly remote areas (including parts of the Northern Territory, far west and north Queensland and northern Western Australia) are eligible for higher zone rebates in recognition of the additional costs they face.
Currently, to be eligible for the offset, a taxpayer must reside or work in a specified remote area for more than 183 days in an income year. The residency test does not require a zone tax offset recipient to spend 183 days consecutively in the relevant zone. As a result, FIFO workers who spend more than a total of 183 days in a zone are currently eligible to claim the offset.
When first enacted, the zone tax offset was intended to compensate Australians genuinely living in these regional areas for certain disadvantages associated with living in such remote areas. However, this offset was designed before the rise of the fly-in fly-out worker, before modern travel and before the mining boom made temporary relocation for work economically viable.
So what we now see is that FIFO workers flying in from Perth or Brisbane or Sydney—areas otherwise ineligible for the offset—are able to spend over 183 non-consecutive days in these regional areas of Australia, return to their home in Sydney or Brisbane or Perth and still claim the offset. This is clearly not the intention of the original policy and it is unfair on those Australian families who are genuinely contending with the isolation, uncongenial climate and higher costs of living in these remote areas.
It is estimated that up to 180,000 people currently claim the zone tax offset based on where they work rather than where they live.
Schedule 2 to this bill amends the law so that only those residents genuinely living in the designated geographic zones are eligible to claim the offset, and is expected to raise $325 million over the forward estimates. This change is consistent with the original policy intent of the offset, ensuring that it is fair, well targeted and sustainable.
Schedule 3 to this bill introduces a separate single grossed-up cap of $5,000 for salary sacrificed meal entertainment and entertainment facility leasing expenses for employees of certain not-for-profit organisations. All use of these salary sacrificed entertainment benefits will become reportable.
The charitable and not-for-profit sector in Australia is vitally important to the strength of our community. Each year the federal government provides billions of dollars in support to the sector in the form of various tax concessions.
These include income tax exemptions, deductible gift recipient status, applying a higher threshold for GST registration and fringe benefits tax concessions.
Employees at a public benevolent institution or a health promotion charity are ordinarily entitled to fringe benefits tax exempt benefits up to $30,000 a year and employees in public hospitals, not-for-profit hospitals and public ambulance services up to $17,000 a year.
In addition to their $17,000 or $30,000 cap, an employee will also be entitled to spend an unlimited amount on entertainment benefits without being subject to the fringe benefits tax. These uncapped benefits can include meals, alcohol, cruises, holidays overseas and birthday parties.
The use of these concessions has moved beyond its original intention. However, as the government recognises the ongoing importance of these concessions in the not-for-profit sector, this bill imposes a cap of $5,000 grossed up on these benefits rather than removing them altogether. A cap improves fairness and is further evidence of the government's commitment to the integrity and sustainability of the Australian taxation system. This change is expected to raise $295 million over the forward estimates.
Since 2007, the Australian Taxation Office has offered individual taxpayers a pre-filling service to help them to complete their tax return. It uses the information received from third parties to provide this service.
The Australian Taxation Office now receives sufficient information to completely pre-fill a simple tax return. It now provides information to taxpayers on wages and salaries, interest and dividend income, government benefits from Centrelink, and Medicare and private health insurance details.
To further improve compliance and make it easier to complete tax returns, schedule 4 to this bill amends schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to increase the information reported by third parties to the Commissioner of Taxation.
Schedule 4 creates a new reporting regime requiring third parties to report on the following four types of transactions: government grants and payments, transfers of real property, transfers of shares and units in unit trusts and business transactions made through payment systems.
First, government grants and payments often constitute income in the hands of businesses. Examples of these payments are those provided to contractors or consultants for a range of services. These payments may give rise to taxable consequences for the supplier of services.
Commonwealth and state and territory government entities will be required to report information on grants and payments for services to businesses that occur on or after 1 July 2017.
Local government entities will also be required to report information on payments for services to businesses that occur on or after 1 July 2017.
Second, transfers of real property may give rise to different kinds of tax consequences. A common consequence is an income tax liability, based on a net capital gain. Another is a goods and services tax liability.
Each state and territory will be required to report information on transfers of freehold or leasehold interests in real property that occur on or after 1 July 2016.
Third, transfers of shares or units in a unit trust may give rise to income tax consequences based on a net capital gain. Corporate events, such as a return of capital to shareholders, may also have income tax consequences.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be required to report on transaction data that it has received under the market integrity rules. ASIC will report on transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2016.
To enable the commissioner to identify the parties in each transaction that ASIC reports, market participants such as stockbrokers will provide client identity information to the commissioner.
Such reports will be provided for transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2017.
Trustees of trusts other than unit trusts are required to report on transactions that have a tax consequence for absolutely entitled beneficiaries. This will allow the commissioner to attribute any capital gains tax consequences to absolutely entitled beneficiaries. Such reports will be required for transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2017.
The commissioner will exempt trustees from reporting under this regime where they lodge a tax return for the trust for the relevant income year.
Finally, amounts that a customer pays a business typically give rise to income tax consequences for the business.
Administrators of payment systems will be required to report the total of all electronic transactions paid to a business or provided as a refund or cash to a customer of the business. Examples of electronic transactions are those payments using credit or debit cards. However, the reporting will be limited to transactions the administrator of the payment system reasonably believes are for the purposes of a business.
These reports apply to transactions that occur on or after 1 July 2017.
This measure will improve taxpayer compliance by increasing the information reported to the ATO to allow improvements to pre-filling of tax returns. This is expected to raise $123 million over the forward estimates. In addition to increasing integrity in the tax system, this measure will also simplify the tax return process for taxpayers.
The government recognises that this regime will impose some costs on reporters and fully expects the Commissioner of Taxation to streamline processes and avoid duplication. Compliance costs for reporters can be minimised by aligning information reporting requirements with the natural systems of businesses (such as setting up new client records or paying suppliers) and using current and emerging technologies.
This bill is aimed at better targeting and strengthening our tax system to ensure it is fair and sustainable.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill brings together the national criminal intelligence, analysis and research capabilities of two of Australia's leading law and justice agencies, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).
The government sees great opportunity in combining the resources of the AIC and the ACC to provide Australian law enforcement agencies with central access to a consolidated and comprehensive criminal research and intelligence resource.
Having a unified resource of this type would significantly enhance support for law enforcement and bolster Australia's response to serious and organised crime.
It would also allow police, justice agencies and policymakers at all levels of government to adopt a more effective, efficient and evidence-based response to crime.
Implementation model
Following a merger, the AIC will form a new research branch of the ACC—the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre—headed by a research specialist.
The Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will move from carrying out largely self-directed research (as the AIC currently does) to doing work primarily for the ACC, with far greater access to classified information.
This is expected to increase the value and relevance of AIC research. It will provide an enhanced evidence base to support a proactive and targeted response to crime by all Australian law enforcement agencies.
The Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will also continue to carry out national monitoring programs, such as the national deaths in custody program and the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia project, and will continue to carry out commissioned research on a fee-for-service basis. The Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre should also continue to have access to the same data sets as the AIC currently does.
Key measures
The bill contains a number of measures that would give effect to these proposed arrangements for the merged agency.
Primarily, this bill amends the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002(ACC Act)to enable the ACC to carry out the AIC's research work. This includes conducting criminology research, sharing that research and other resources, such as the JV Barry library, with the private sector and the public, and holding seminars and conferences on important criminology research issues.
The bill also amends the ACC Act to ensure that the ACC is able to charge for commissioned research, as the AIC currently does, with charges paid into the Criminology Research Special Account. This will enable states, territories, universities and other interested organisations to continue to commission specific work from the merged agency, as they currently do from the AIC.
The bill also repeals the Criminology Research Act 1971 to abolish the AIC as an independent statutory agency. As the position of the AIC director will not be required post-merger, the provisions dealing with this position are not replicated in the ACC Act.
Criminology Research Advisory Council
This bill does not create a legislated role for the Criminology Research Advisory Council. This was a body formed to advise the AIC director on a number of strategic issues, including the AIC's research priorities.
Following a merger, the ACC board will become responsible for determining the ACC's high-level research priorities. However, in setting these priorities the ACC board may take advice from a non-legislated advisory body, comprising representatives from state and territory justice and law enforcement agencies.
This will ensure that state and territory justice agencies continue to play an important role in shaping the future direction of the merged agency's criminological research program.
Conclusion
This bill implements an important consolidation of Australia's criminal research and intelligence capabilities. With the merger of the AIC into the ACC, the ACC will be better able to fulfil its role as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, supporting and informing the efforts of law enforcement agencies around Australia.
Similarly, the new Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre in the ACC will continue to prepare and disseminate world-leading criminological research which informs our understanding of the trends and developments in crime and justice.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Higher Education Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015.
This is a very important and timely bill.
This bill will strengthen the protections for students in the Vocational Education and Training sector and push unscrupulous training providers out of the market.
The Vocational Education and Training sector, or VET sector, is vitally important to Australia's economy. It is a sector that has a long and proud tradition in Australia. For many young people, it provides the bridge between school and work. For unemployed people, it often provides a pathway back into employment and a life off welfare. And for people in work, it can be the mechanism by which they expand their skills and progress in their careers.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring we continue to have a strong VET sector that helps students to develop the skills they need for the jobs of today and to adapt to the world of work of the future.
Unfortunately, the changes introduced by the former Labor government have undermined public confidence in the VET sector and created a situation whereby unscrupulous VET FEE-HELP providers have flourished at the expense of students and at the expense of taxpayers.
In 2009, Labor introduced the VET FEE-HELP program so that students undertaking a diploma or advanced diploma qualification could access a loan to help with the cost of their courses.
The government supports the principle of VET students being able to access a loan so they may undertake quality training in the same way that a university student is supported through HECS-HELP.
Unfortunately, Labor failed to put in place sufficient controls and safeguards to protect students and taxpayers' money when they introduced the VET FEE-HELP scheme.
In typical Labor fashion, they did not have an eye to the implementation risks.
In 2012, they again failed to think about risks when they expanded access to the VET FEE-HELP scheme by removing the credit transfer arrangements between VET providers and universities.
The consequence has been a surge in enrolments by unscrupulous VET FEE-HELP providers. These providers have preyed on vulnerable people and signed them up to courses of dubious quality that they do not want and do not need.
They have lured people into courses with offers of laptops and iPhones and made out that the courses were free.
Labor had the chance to act in 2013 when the first complaints started coming in to the national training regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, but they failed to do so.
Labor is well aware that this is a problem of their own making.
The shadow minister for higher education, research innovation and industry acknowledged as much a few weeks ago. Senator Carr is quoted in the Age on 18 September 2015 as saying that Labor introduced VET FEE-HELP with good intentions but that the scheme contains 'fundamental weaknesses' that need to be fixed.
He goes on to say that 'the regulators were not given enough power to crack down on rogue operators'. Senator Carr also said that the Gillard government's removal of a requirement for providers to have credit transfers in place with higher education providers was a mistake.
And in typical Labor fashion, Senator Carr then washes his hands of the problem and is reported as saying that although Labor introduced VET FEE-HELP it is the government's responsibility to restore confidence in the scheme.
Well, let me assure the House, and those in the other place, that the government is used to fixing up Labor's mess.
It is because of Labor's failure that the government announced a series of measures earlier this year to crack down on dodgy practices by providers and brokers.
And it is because of Labor's failure that passage of this bill is so necessary.
On the 12March this year, the government announced a suite of reforms to the VET FEE-HELP scheme to protect students, to protect taxpayers and to protect the reputation of Australia's VET sector.
These reforms spanned areas such as marketing and inducements, consumer information, debt processes and provider standards. These changes were backed by $18.2 million for stronger compliance costs that we announced in the 2015-16 budget.
The first of these changes—banning of inducements such as free laptops, or cash, or vouchers—came into effect on 1 April this year.
The second tranche of reforms came into effect on 1 July this year.
Since then providers have been banned from charging a withdrawal fee—which could be as high as several thousand dollars—and which acted as a barrier to some students withdrawing from a course before the census date, the date on which the loan is levied.
In addition, training providers and their agents can no longer market VET FEE-HELP supported training as 'free' or 'government funded', or mislead students in any way into believing that VET FEE-HELP is not a loan that is expected to be paid back.
And providers must now publish on their websites which agents and brokers they use, and are responsible for the conduct of their agent or broker.
Agents must now disclose to the student the name of the VET provider and the course they are marketing, and must also disclose that they will receive a commission for any referred student enrolment.
The government has also announced that from 1 January 2016, providers cannot levy the full debt load up-front and in one hit. Instead, students will have a number of opportunities during the course to confirm if they wish to continue to be enrolled, and their debt will be levied accordingly.
The bill now implements the remainder of the government's announced changes.
Pre requisite entry requirements
The bill introduces changes that will protect vulnerable students at the starting point—before they incur a debt—by requiring providers to establish minimum prerequisites for enrolment in each course.
This ensures a student's capacity to complete the course—including assessing language, literacy and numeracy proficiency—is properly assessed before they are enrolled, and before they incur a debt.
Of course many good training organisations already have this stringent administration requirement when they assess people for these higher level courses.
This bill makes this good practice a requirement for all VET FEE-HELP approved providers for courses for which students wish to access VET FEE-HELP.
Two day ' cooling off ' period
The bill makes a number of technical amendments to enact a two-day 'cooling off' period, ensuring students have the time they need to study the payment and course decisions.
Students will, from 1 January 2016, have two days after enrolment before they are allowed to submit a request for Commonwealth Assistance (the VET FEE-HELP loan application form).
No longer will course enrolment be confused with the loan application.
The bill ensures this 'cooling off' period is in place even with late enrolments close to the census date, which is when students incur the debt.
Under 18s
The bill also increases protection for students under 18 years by requiring a parent's or guardian's signature before the student can request a VET FEE-HELP loan.
This is an appropriate protection to ensure that young people—who may lack the necessary life experience and financial literacy—are not being signed up to courses and debts that they do not need.
An exemption is provided for minors who are deemed independent under the requirements of the Social Security Act 1991.
Easier to cancel debt
As well as preventing students from incurring unfair debts in the first place, the bill also helps those who do incur them after 31 December 2015.
The bill broadens the circumstances in which students can have their loan cancelled where inappropriate behavior has been used in their recruitment and acceptance into a course.
This is a cost that taxpayers should not have to bear, which is why the government will be requiring providers to repay the costs of any loans that are remitted in such circumstances, and may impose additional penalties on providers—such as fines, or conditions on approval—as well.
Infringement notice scheme
The bill introduces a scheme of infringement notices attached to civil penalties for VET FEE-HELP training providers that engage in improper conduct.
The Department of Education and Training will now have a full suite of powers available to it to deal with inappropriate behaviour by providers or brokers.
This ranges from cancelling student debt and forcing providers to repay the cost back to the Commonwealth, to administrative action such as suspension or revocation of approval, or civil penalties, including infringement notices.
The bill expands the department's and the Australian Skills Quality Authority's powers for monitoring and enforcement action against providers and brokers doing the wrong thing.
Administrative changes
As well as protecting students, this bill lifts the standards for those who are approved to offer VET FEE-HELP funded courses. Approved providers are entrusted by students and taxpayers with potentially millions of dollars in tuition fees. The government believes VET FEE-HELP providers should meet a high benchmark of financial viability and training quality.
That is why the bill introduces new minimum registration and trading history requirements for new VET FEE-HELP provider applicants.
This ensures that all new providers offering VET FEE-HELP have a proven track record in delivering high-level qualifications.
Conclusion
This bill is necessary to address Labor's failure with regard to VET FEE-HELP and to put in place proper controls and safeguards to protect students and taxpayers from unscrupulous behaviour by some providers.
I note that many of those opposite have shared the government's concerns about Labor's VET FEE-HELP program.
I look forward to their support for these reforms to improve the integrity of the VET FEE-HELP scheme.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report of the inquiry into business utilisation of Australia’s free trade agreements, together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Australia has been an active participant in the international trend to use free trade agreements to advance trade liberalisation. This inquiry investigated the experiences of Australian businesses using FTAs. While the business community strongly supports the policy of pursuing FTAs, this inquiry has also identified potential reforms that could increase the ability of businesses to realise the benefits of FTAs.
Current government processes have clearly been very successful in conducting and finalising FTA negotiations with partner countries. There is potential, however, to make these processes more transparent by having potential FTAs evaluated by an agency such as the Productivity Commission. This would increase public confidence, facilitate business planning and assist government decision making during the negotiation process. Australia could also benefit from allowing greater involvement of peak industry groups in the negotiation process. This would help ensure that negotiators are able to target the most beneficial outcomes for Australian business.
While FTAs create a framework for trade, they do not necessarily guarantee immediate market access. Essential standards, such as those covering product safety or professional qualifications, can unintentionally become barriers to trade. A clear example of this is the impediment that sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, regulations place on horticultural exporters. SPS regulations are used by countries to protect their population, industries and environment from the risks of pests and disease. New products are not granted access to a market until they have been assessed for their SPS risks. Australian horticultural producers raised the issue that access to a number of markets has been denied or only granted with conditions that would make trade unviable. In other cases, they have simply not been able to have their products assessed.
The committee has identified a number of measures that could accelerate progress on these issues. A high priority for negotiators should be achieving recognition of Australia's fruit-fly-free zones in the regions. Additionally, providing capacity-building assistance to FTA partners in developing countries can assist them to develop science based SPS protocols and faster assessment processes.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has Australia's most experienced trade negotiators, who have established relationships with negotiators in partner countries. The committee believes Australia's position would be strengthened by the formal involvement of DFAT negotiators in market access negotiations. Australian negotiators aim for consistency in the rules and conditions used in FTAs, but unfortunately this is not always possible. The proliferation of rules can lead to a complex and confusing regulatory environment for the exporters. Given this, it is imperative the government provides clear, accessible information that explains how business can benefit from the opportunities provided by FTAs.
A high priority is to provide exporters with a means of easily accessing the import regulations used by Australia's FTA partners. The online FTA dashboard being developed by DFAT is an important step in this direction. Ultimately, the aim should be to develop a tool which provides information on all FTA partner countries that is detailed and up-to-date, and yet intuitive and easy to use. The government's North Asia FTA seminar series has been well received by business. There is, however, some concern about the time it is taking to deliver the series across the country. Greater involvement of peak industry groups could speed up the rollout of the seminars and enable the information to be tailored for particular industries. The creation of a recognisable 'brand Australia' logo and marketing campaign would assist business to capture the premium generated by Australia's reputation for producing high-quality, clean and green products.
The government should also support businesses to develop anticounterfeiting technologies that protect them from the damage that counterfeit goods can cause to their brand and Australia's reputation. In closing, I thank the businesses, the peak organisations and the government agencies that provided submissions and appeared at public hearings for this inquiry. I also thank my fellow committee members for their participation and contributions during this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—It is my privilege to follow my friend and colleague the member for Flynn to thank him for his chairing of this important committee and particularly to thank him for his contribution to what was a climate of cooperation and bipartisanship as we tackled some pretty important issues. I would also salute my colleague the member for Charlton, as well as Senator Bullock and Senator Wang from the other place and other members who participated from time to time—the member for Hume, Senator Smith and others. It is also very pleasing to see members of the secretariat join us in the chamber as we table this report. It gives us the opportunity to thank them directly, face-to-face, for all the hard work that they put into organising the work and helping the member for Flynn and all of us as we deliberated over these important issues. The final thank you goes to the businesses and the organisations who shared their expertise and their experience with us, whether that be in Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne. A lot of them travelled long distances to come and have a talk with us, and so we should put on the parliamentary record our appreciation for their time and for their effort as well.
The fundamental question that this committee dealt with is among the most important that we can ask ourselves as a nation, because if we are to succeed, post the mining boom, in this country, we need to engage more, and more effectively, with other countries in our region to create good and lasting jobs for our people. It is the case that, over the last 40 years or so, Australia has come a very long way when it comes to engagement with Asia—and I am thinking, of course, of Whitlam going to China and engaging in the 1970s; I am thinking of all of that opening up of our economy in the eighties and nineties; I am thinking about the way that we engage with organisations like APEC and others; I am thinking about the Gillard government's Australia in the Asian century white paper. A whole lot of progress has been made with our engagement strategies in the region, but it is certainly true that there is a lot more that we can do to be more successful, particularly when it comes to our trading arrangements here in Asia.
We do have nine free trade agreements. Some of them were inked by this side of the House; some of them were inked by that side of the House. None of them are absolutely perfect, as is always the case when you are dealing with other countries. But all of them are better than nothing, and all of them are, ideally, stepping stones to the sort of multilateral trade progress that has been sorely lacking in recent years—in the last decade or so. All of them should be seen as stepping stones to that genuine, multilateral, broad-based trade progress that has the opportunity to lift living standards here in Australia and around the world.
We also know that, despite us signing these agreements, Australian businesses are not taking full advantage of them. The most credible numbers on this come from the Australia's International Business Survey 2015, which found that up to 52 per cent of firms did not even know whether an FTA applied to them and up to 13 per cent did not know the FTA existed in the first place, and up to 20 per cent knew about it but chose not to try and access the benefits. So there is a problem here. There are considered programs; there are good people in DFAT and Austrade and other agencies; there is lots of effort going into this problem. But I think it is fair to say there is no overarching strategy, and unfortunately there is a lack of leadership when it comes to the government helping business to take full advantage of these trade deals.
Lots of people who talked to us at the committee raised this issue of the implementation of the FTAs. For example, the Financial Services Council talked about the insufficient focus on implementation to ensure market access agreements are actually converted into opportunities for Australian firms to grasp. There are a whole range of reasons for this, and that is why the work of the committee to try to get to the bottom of the problem was so important. We heard about sanitary and phytosanitary concerns; non-tariff barriers, like labelling; country-of-origin issues; recognition of qualifications; counterfeiting; branding; transport costs and much more. The member for Flynn has touched on some of those already. So let me focus on just a couple of other important related issues and recommendations.
The first one goes to the capacity and capability of our workforce. I recall the evidence given to us by the ANZ bank, which talked about the need to reduce the knowledge-related and cultural barriers to trade. I think it is fair to say that, ever since the government binned the Australia in the Asian century white paper, we have not had a proper comprehensive strategy to build the capacity that we need to make engagement with Asia work for more Australians. We are not empowering enough workers to participate in the services boom in the region in particular. A number of witnesses appearing at the committee compared our investment in science, technology, engineering and maths—the so-called STEM cluster of issues—with those of our competitors, and it would not surprise honourable members to know that we do not fare well in that comparison. We are falling short.
This side of the House has proposed some comprehensive policy ideas on boosting our STEM workforce and harnessing the growth in the services sector, because that is, overwhelmingly, where the jobs of the future will come from. My colleague the member for Hotham has been reminding me that every single one of the 10 fastest-growing high-skill jobs in Australia today is in the services economy, and these are the jobs of the future: high-skill, export-facing advanced services. The member for Hotham has put a lot of work and a lot of thinking into that sector of the economy. She knows and we know that to properly position our workforce we need to do a much better job of modelling the agreements as well. The Productivity Commission was very strong on this point. The PC thinks that we should model the agreements at the prenegotiation stage and then at finalisation, and other organisations, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, agreed that we need to do better when it comes to modelling these agreements to properly understand the economic impacts. Too often we are flying blind when it comes to these negotiations. We understand and we got evidence from people in the bureaucracy that there are difficulties and there are limitations, but we should not give up on trying to model these agreements, so that the debate that we have, not just in this place and this House but right around the country, is based on facts and so that businesses and workforces can plan to take advantage of FTAs.
I draw the House's attention to two passages in particular from the report which really do go to these issues of modelling and workforce capacity. The first one says:
An Australian workforce equipped with the skills, knowledge and cultural understanding to engage with potential FTA partner countries is central to the ability of Australian business to benefit from FTAs. The Committee considers that developing Australia's science, technology, engineering and mathematics capabilities, as well as widening knowledge of the languages and culture of key trading partners is of particular importance in facilitating engagement with FTA partner economies.
The second one that I want to draw the House's attention to is:
The Committee considers that the Australian Government should undertake modelling of human capital and workforce needs, particularly for the services sector, with the aim of identifying the labour skills needed to take advantage of future FTAs. This modelling should inform the development of a workforce strategy in the early stages of individual FTA negotiations.
Two specific recommendations go to these important points about modelling and about ensuring that we have the workforce that we need to properly take advantage of free trade agreements.
This is an important report with some real insights into ways we can ensure our businesses better utilise trade opportunities in our region. For that reason I commend it to the House.
I would like to thank my deputy, Dr Jim Chalmers, the member for Rankin, for his hard work and his comments. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
As I was saying last night, the government in this bill is making changes to the Copyright Act that will specify that work will not be infringed where it is done for the following purposes: where the collection, use or disclosure of information is required or authorised under the My Health Records Act; where it is unreasonable or impracticable to obtain the individual's consent to the collection, use or disclosure, and the entity reasonably believes that the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the life, health or safety of any individual, or to public health or safety; where a permitted health situation exists in relation to the collection of health information about an individual; and where prescribed by the regulations, provided the purpose relates to health care, or the communication or management of health information.
The bill also makes a number of changes to the Health Identifiers Act, many of which are technical in nature. Others include allowing healthcare providers that are not registered under the national law—that is the 14 professions covered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency—to access personally controlled electronic health records. This could include, for example, paramedics or social workers.
The new division clarifies when the recipient of a health service's healthcare identifier or other information can be collected, used or disclosed to another party. Division 2 provides that it can be collected, used or disclosed to another party for: assigning a healthcare identifier to a healthcare patient; keeping a record of healthcare identifiers and related information; providing healthcare to a healthcare recipient; for the purposes of the My Health record system; aged-care purposes; adopting a healthcare recipient's healthcare identifier; disclosing a healthcare recipient's healthcare identifier; disclosing information about a healthcare recipient's healthcare identifier; and additional purposes that will be specified in the regulations. Further changes to the Healthcare Identifiers Act allow the Healthcare Identifier Service Operator to disclose to a healthcare provider information about a healthcare recipient for the purpose of determining the recipient's healthcare identifier.
The new section 20 broadens the power to allow for future regulations to be made allowing prescribed entities to collect, use, disclose and adopt identifying information and healthcare identifiers. According to the explanatory memorandum, this is only for very limited purposes that relate to the provision of healthcare or to assist people who, because of health issues, require support. I appreciate that this could include entities such as the National Disability Insurance Agency and cancer registers, and these changes certainly make sense to the opposition. It is clear, as the explanatory memorandum states, that entities and individuals may benefit from the entity being able to associate disability or health related records with an individual's healthcare identifier.
The bill also allows for the viewing of certain disability or cancer registry records as part of an individual's MyHealth Record. This differs from the current situation where entities such as National Disability Insurance Agency and cancer registers are not authorised to handle healthcare identifiers or identifying information as they are not healthcare providers within the meaning of the Healthcare Identifiers Act. This will certainly allow for the collection of information by entities such as the NDIA and cancer registers, according to the explanatory memorandum, 'within tight limits related to providing healthcare and assisting individuals who require support because of health issues, without having to amend the act each time a new entity needs to be authorised'.
Because this is a somewhat significant change, as I said, whilst Labor does not oppose these measures—in fact, we think they are sensible measures—we think the change requires some scrutiny in the other place to ensure that people's privacy is protected. As I stated well at the outset, Labor does not oppose the intent of this bill. However, we do believe there are elements—especially those that relate to changing the way information can be collected and shared—that do require further scrutiny. As I said, it is not that Labor opposes the principles—many of them do at face value appear to be very common-sense and necessary changes to meet the policy intent—but, given the extent of the changes, stakeholders with direct experience and responsibility in delivering health care and working with personally controlled electronic health records should have an opportunity to provide feedback on the bill.
More generally, however, I again want to put on record Labor's strong support for an electronic health records system. It is, after all, our initiative. The reason we are here having this debate is that Labor, as part of its health and hospitals reform agenda, drove this change and built the architecture for an electronic health records system. Again, I add some words of caution to the government: it is an incredibly complex area and it will take time to get it right. It is important to not rush decisions just for the sake of being seen to be doing something in this space, particularly after the government has done very little for the last two years. It requires an approach that makes sure it has the effect intended. In particular, you want to make sure that you address the very issue that we are trying to grapple with: how to get health professionals engaged in uploading data and then utilising that data in an integrated system. How do you embed it in the everyday practice of general practitioners, specialists, our hospital system, our residential aged care, disability support, and, eventually, allied health professionals? How do you embed it as a normal tool of their trade. That is a really challenging prospect, and it takes time and effort to do that. It is not something, unfortunately, that there is any magic bullet to or any easy or swift answer to. It is a difficult area. So, I reiterate, don't rush to a solution in that area, because you are going to find yourself in a bit of strife if you do.
It was the Labor that introduced this reform, and we continue to see it as a vital component of Australia's health system. It is vital when it comes to improving the quality of care patients receive. It has enormous potential to improve the efficiency of the health system, especially in terms of reducing duplication, and it will ensure that a patient's medical record stays with them throughout their whole life. These reforms, once embedded as normal practice within our health system, will provide a platform for future technologies, many of which we will not even have thought of today, that have applications well beyond our imagination.
I will now move the second reading amendment that appears in my name. I move:
That all the 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 notes the Government's inaction on eHealth over more than two years and the inadequacy of this Bill in making real improvements to a national electronic health record system".
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I rise to make a contribution to debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015. There is a bipartisan commitment in this House to support greater adoption of electronic health records in Australia. Electronic health records in the Australian healthcare context are known as Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records, or PCEHRs.
The benefits of electronic health records are obvious to anyone who has ever had to navigate the health system. Health delivery in any country as large as Australia is complex and unwieldy. In Australia, it is further complicated by the at times opaque delineation of services between state and Commonwealth governments, and between public and private providers. What this means is that the average patient and their family are often moving between providers and between systems in the course of receiving treatment. These systems have different patient management systems and different records management practices. Sharing of information between providers and between systems is piecemeal and incomplete. Consequently, the effectiveness of medical treatment relies on patients being able to provide their treating clinicians with all medical information relevant to their condition. This may range from information as basic as age and blood type, to known allergies and, in some cases, details of chronic conditions that may impact on their treatment.
In the real world, this process frequently breaks down, especially with vulnerable patients. Details can be forgotten, or patients can present for treatment in a condition that renders them unable to provide details of their medical history. This has consequences for patient safety, and results in delays, inefficient practices and considerable frustration for medical professionals. It is estimated that 2.5 per cent of all hospital admissions are due to adverse drug events, many of which could be avoided if a complete medications history were available.
An estimated one in ten laboratory tests are duplicated or unnecessary—a percentage that would be slashed with widespread adoption of electronic health records. And 36 per cent of medical visits involve the clinician spending at least five minutes locating information—again, a delay that could be significantly reduced with better coordination of patient information.
When one considers that healthcare provision costs the Commonwealth government—indeed, the taxpayer—$27 billion a year, a figure that will increase to $250 billion a year by 2050, there is a clear imperative for government to ensure that wastage is minimized and patient outcomes are improved. Electronic health records offer substantial promise, but it is fair to say that in Australia that promise has yet to be delivered. Members will know that Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records were first implemented in 2012, following on from the commencement of the Healthcare Identifiers Service, in 2010. Since then, adoption of PCEHRs by patients has been slow. The minister noted in her remarks that to date only about one in 10 Australians have an electronic health record set up.
Electronic health records are a network economy—that is, the marginal benefits to users, be they patients or professionals, increases with greater adoption. Unfortunately, an adoption rate of 10 per cent by patients is not sufficient to encourage doctors to spend the time to familiarize themselves with the system and use it routinely. At the current rate of adoption, it is estimated that it could take a further fifteen years for a critical mass of the population to set up a PCEHR.
Despite the inertia in adopting electronic health records, a review of the system reveals continuing widespread support among the medical profession and patients for the concept. A key recommendation of the review was for PCEHRs to transition from an opt-in to an opt-out basis. This bill allows for the trial of an opt-out system on a region by region basis. I am advised that the move to trial opt-out arrangements is not opposed by members opposite, and I thank them for their bipartisanship in this important matter of public health policy.
The bill will change the name given to electronic health records in Australia from PCEHRs to the more easily understood My Health Record. A range of additional safeguards will also be introduced to ensure it that patients have ample opportunity to opt out, as well as increased penalties for misuse of personal information contained within electronic health records. Geographic areas chosen as trial locations will be determined based on publicly available criteria and will be made in consultation with states and territories. The trial will be accompanied by an education and communications strategy that will seek to mitigate any community concern. Following the trials, it is anticipated that the government will be in a position to make a final decision on whether to transition to a full opt-out system by late 2017.
This bill continues the efforts of successive governments to ensure that Australia has a widely respected and widely adopted electronic health records system. While uptake to date has been lower than anticipated, the concept remains sound and the potential benefits to patients and the government are substantial. I am confident that the measures contained in this bill will be a step in the right direction—a step towards Australia finally having a world-class electronic health record to go with the world-class health care provided by the hardworking doctors, nurses and other health professionals who comprise our health system. I commend this bill to the House.
As the member for Ryan has said, the opposition is supportive of the thrust of the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015. I know that the relevant shadow minister has a considerable amount to say about it, and I am sure the House will benefit from his contribution.
Thank you to the member for McMahon, who I know has a passion about personally controlled electronic health records which would have enlightened the debate and the House had he been given more time to speak upon it. Perhaps at the conclusion of my address, the member for McMahon will share his thoughts on this issue.
The subject matter of the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015 is electronic health records. It has a long history. The idea of e-health and maximising the capacity of online systems to extend the benefits of modern health care to hard to reach populations and make the existing delivery of health care more efficient and effective dates back to the 1990s. Successive governments have endorsed strategies; they have not always taken a consistent position from government into opposition, and the history of electronic health records is an example of that. It might surprise many to know that the Howard government was actually quite enthusiastic about the idea. As then Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister, invested a fair bit of money into the idea but, when going into opposition, threatened to turn the tap off and said there would be no further support for the idea. I welcome the fact that, on review and reflection, the current Minister for Health sees the obvious benefit in continuing the initiative, legislated by Labor in July 2012, to move the paper based health system to a digital system and to improve the level of health care for all Australians.
What are the benefits? Quite simply, to ensure that we have a more secure system of keeping an individual's medical records. Some people worry about the privacy associated with electronic health records. There are actually a lot of advantages to an electronic health record which are not there for a paper based record. When you have an electronic health record, you have a digital footprint—or thumbprint might be a better way to describe it—for everyone who accesses or attaches themselves to that health record, something that cannot be said about a paper based file. So there are two sides to the privacy concerns that have often been raised by well-meaning and influential advocacy groups, many of whose concerns I share. There are two sides to these arguments. Other benefits include cutting down on duplication, stopping people falling between the cracks and having a more effective and efficient means of not only delivering face-to-face healthcare services but ensuring that people are using the right pharmaceuticals and that pharmaceutical products are distributed and administered properly as well. It is especially important for people with complex and chronic health conditions.
The bill that we are debating today forms the government's response to the 2013 review into the personally controlled electronic health record—I will just refer to it as PCEHR from here on in—as well as the 2013 review into the health identifiers service. It implements a number of those reviews' recommendations specifically. It enables opt-out trials to be undertaken but with the same patient controls contained in the PCEHR and allows that opt-out to be adopted nationally if the trials are proven to be successful. The existing opt-in system will continue to operate in the meantime. It is a system that I have availed myself of and I certainly hope, without wanting to reflect upon the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have availed yourself of as well. It will allow the government to make regulations to authorise new entities to handle healthcare identifiers and other protected information. The bill also changes the name of the PCEHR, perhaps pleasantly, to the My Health Record system—perhaps a much more user-friendly name. In addition to this, it increases the range of enforcement and penalty options available for intentional or deliberate use, introduces criminal penalties and amends the privacy framework.
The PCEHR is, of course, a proud Labor reform. When Labor were in office, we managed to get more than one million Australians signed up, on a voluntary basis, for a personally controlled electronic health record. That number has continued to rise up to almost 2.4 million Australians today and I anticipate that it will continue to rise while we are trialling the opt-out system. It is also very good to know that, since Labor introduced its reform, over 3,000 specialist letters have been uploaded, over 5,000 general practices have registered for the PCEHR and over 1½ million prescription documents have been uploaded. As the member for Sydney said when she was the Minister for Health, Labor sees eHealth as a 'natural extension of our universal health system, Medicare'.
Of course, after more than a decade of talking about the need for an electronic health record, it took Labor to actually put it into place. In 2010 the then minister for health, Nicola Roxon, announced that Labor would invest over $450 million over two years, as a key building block in the National Health and Hospitals Network. Specifically, Labor allocated funding to provide summaries of patients' health information—including medications, immunisations and medical test results—in addition to secure access for patients and healthcare providers to their e-Health records via the internet, regardless of their physical location, but also to provide rigorous governance and oversight to maintain privacy.
E-health records are a critical piece of infrastructure for any modern health system, and their potential in reducing duplication and allowing a more efficient health system cannot be underestimated. Following changes made by the member for Sydney when she was Minister for Health, Labor's system can hold a summary of the patient's important medical history, a list of medications prescribed and dispensed, allergy information, childhood immunisation records, child health and development information, hospital discharge reports, organ donor status and advance care planning details, amongst many other issues, including Medicare and PBS claims data and private notes patients make about their own health records.
In 2013, Labor made an additional investment to ensure pathology and diagnostic imaging results could be included in a patient's e-health record—an important initiative. We know that this is an area where savings can be made, because of a duplication of the provision of services, and we know that, with a better collection of that data and information, there is significant capacity for an enhancement of services and a reduction of the cost to the funders, including the Commonwealth.
The government has just not done enough when it comes to e-health. It is disappointing, because we know what benefits a well-functioning electronic health record can deliver. We know there are significant benefits. When then minister Nicola Roxon introduced the reform, she said, 'About two to three per cent of hospital admissions in Australia are linked to medical errors, which equates to 190,000 admissions each year and costs the health system well in excess of $650 million per annum.' More than that, she noted that about eight per cent of medical errors are because of inadequate patient information. So the potential that an electronic health record has for improving the care patients receive, as well as delivering efficiencies, simply cannot be underestimated. Indeed, it has been estimated that the benefits from an electronic health record program will reach $11.5 billion over the 15 years from 2010 to 2025.
It is disappointing, against this background and with this data within our grasp, that the government have done nothing for the last two years. This is probably a product of the fact that they did very little on the issue when in opposition. The then shadow health minister could not have been less interested in this important initiative; they went to war on it. On coming into office, and perhaps, after two years, succumbing to the best advice available to them, they have decided that this is an important issue, and we are now revisiting it.
But, in fact, the government has done significant damage not only through its inaction but by cutting $215 million from the program. Last year, there was $700 million allocated for the redevelopment of the Personally Controlled eHealth Record System. In launching its so-called rescue package, the government has in fact cut $215 million from this important program. But, more important than that, it has lost the capacity to yield the savings that would have been available to it, had it kept the momentum that was put in place by Labor. Let us not forget, the savings that we are talking about are in excess of half a billion dollars per annum—savings that can then be reinvested into the health system.
With these sorts of savings available, the government would not have had to contemplate the ridiculous propositions around the GP taxes mark 1, 2 and 3. The government would not have had to contemplate some of the proposals around increasing the price of medicines to some of our most vulnerable within the community. Through investing in the healthcare system and through investing in electronic health records, the savings that would have been available to the government over these lost two years could have been yielded, and they would have avoided the terrible decisions they have made in the area of health policy.
The issue of privacy concerns, which I have alluded to, is something that needs to be taken seriously. Nothing could elicit more concern than the belief that some of the most intimate conversations that occur between you and your doctor about the conditions of your health, both mental and physical, may somehow become available to other third parties, thereby breaching your privacy and the important responsibility and duty that the doctor owes to their patient. This bill introduces criminal penalties, including imprisonment, for unauthorised collection, use or disclosure of information from the My Health Record system and the holding or handling of information outside of Australia. It achieves this by amending the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010, the Privacy Act, the Copyright Act, the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act 1953.
Labor accepts that a number of the changes are very sensible indeed—for example, allowing that service providers that might not meet the definition of a healthcare provider under the existing act, such as a palliative care or aged-care service provider, be included. These are sensible propositions.
However, it is of the utmost importance that patients' privacy be given the highest regard possible, and it is for this reason that Labor believes these provisions do require further scrutiny. Whilst we will not be opposing the bill in this House, we would like to see more scrutiny of this particular aspect of this bill. When the bill reaches the other place, we will be calling upon our colleagues in the Senate to have it referred to an inquiry so that some of these issues can be further adumbrated.
In conclusion, Labor does not oppose the majority of changes that the government proposed to make to the bill. In fact, we warmly receive the government's rediscovery of this important area of health policy. However, we do have concerns and, for that reason, we will be calling upon our colleagues in the other house to facilitate the parliament as a whole to ensure that we have greater knowledge of those identified issues and greater input from all stakeholders into those identified issues.
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015. This bill is a part of the coalition government's responsible and effective approach to the health system in this country. I do want to just say that I come to this debate today in this place having been the shadow minister for health and human services in the state of Tasmania for four years. As a previous contributor said, this issue has been part of public policy discussion for many years and, in my view, for far too long.
Our health system is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society. It consumes enormous amounts of financial resources, as taxpayers would expect it to, but there are ways in which we can now use technology to ensure that efficiencies are in place and that double dipping, duplication and doctor shopping are not issues. We need to be looking at all of these issues to ensure that the hardworking taxpayer money that is invested into the area of health in this country is working at its best and we are extracting every opportunity from every dollar spent.
This government acknowledges the difficulties facing Australians today in seeking medical assistance from multiple doctors, sometimes in different cities, areas and even states. The e-health system will greatly improve patient health outcomes as doctors are able to access patient records quickly. This government is cognisant of the need to make our comprehensive healthcare system more efficient and more effective. This bill is part of that process and specifically seeks to amend the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012—the PCEHR Act—in order to better facilitate positive outcomes for all Australian systems when it comes to health.
Under the previous government, the Healthcare Identifiers Service came into being, which is the foundational service of the PCEHR. The Healthcare Identifiers Service is a national system for consistently identifying individuals, individual healthcare providers and healthcare provider organisations for healthcare communication purposes. Both the HI service and the PCEHR are helping to facilitate a more efficient and effective healthcare system. This government is seeking to build on and improve the current service in a number of significant ways.
First, however, I believe it is important to understand the reforms that this government is enacting within the context of this electronic framework. This national electronic system commenced in July 2010 and was the result of a joint initiative of all Australian governments as part of accelerating work on a national electronic health record system to improve patient safety, to support safe and efficient sharing and storage of person health information and to increase efficiency for healthcare providers. It is jointly funded by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments.
Under the previous government, a review in 2012-13 found that the core functionality of the HI service was operating effectively; but given the PCEHR system is now impacting directly on clinical workflows, there are emerging issues that needed to be addressed. The HI review made 24 recommendations to improve the HI service. In response to some of those recommendations, the PCEHR system was implemented in July 2012. Its aim was to overcome significant issues facing health care that were arising from the fragmentation of health information across a vast number of different locations and different systems. In many situations, quick access to key health information about an individual is not always possible but is often necessary for the patient.
A review of the PCEHR system was undertaken in 2013. It found that there was overwhelming support for continuing implementation of a consistent electronic health record system for all Australians, but that a change in approach was needed to correct early implementation issues. The PCEHR review made 38 recommendations aimed at making the system more useable and able to deliver the expected benefits in a shorter period of time. The recommendations include establishing new governance arrangements, moving to an opt-out system for individual participation and improving system usability and the clinical content of records.
The government strongly believes in the benefits of an effective and efficient electronic record system. Such a system rectifies many issues facing our healthcare practitioners and delivers better results for our citizens. The coalition government's response to the recommendations of the PCEHR review was announced in the 2015-16 budget. We committed to strengthening e-health governance and operations by establishing an Australian commission for e-health to manage governance operation and the ongoing delivery of e-health. We also are committed to trialling new participation arrangements, including an opt-out system; we are committed to improving system usability and the clinical content of records; we are revising incentives; and we are delivering education and training to all healthcare providers.
The government is also renaming PCEHR—thank goodness for that—to My Health Record. What do you think? Do you agree? Whilst this government is committed to lower, simpler taxes, we are also committed to simpler and more efficient language. As I said, thank goodness for that. We have made significant commitment in the eHealth space and are today delivering on those commitments.
As a sideline, you do often wonder how on earth some of these acronyms ever get into operation. Sometimes you read one and you go, 'Didn't someone put those letters in a row to see what they actually spell?' But, obviously, some do not. Either that, or they have a very good sense of humour.
To get back to the main point, whilst we are delivering on recommendations made through extensive reviews, we are also staying very proactive in this space. Trials of participation arrangements—including the important opt-out trials—are intended to inform future strategies for increasing uptake and meaningful use of the myHealth Record.
This government appreciates that limited access to health information at the point of care can result in a greater risk to patient safety, can deliver less than optimal health outcomes and assist in the avoidance of adverse events of treatment. We remain committed to decreasing costs of care and time wasted, and we know that this can be delivered through providing a more effective mechanism for collecting or finding information.
This bill will deliver on our commitment to making health care more efficient through avoiding unnecessary or duplicated investigations; reducing additional pressure on the health workforce; and increasing participation by individuals in their own healthcare management. Our obligation to provide a comprehensive healthcare system is a priority of the government but we are also vigilant in ensuring our healthcare system is as efficient as it can be, thus maintaining our commitment to the taxpayer by ensuring the long-term sustainability of what is a very under-pressure health system.
The coalition government will continue to lead the national rollout of eHealth technology and services, and work with the states positively to support eHealth foundations and to finalise a national eHealth strategy, which will identify the priorities for future Commonwealth and jurisdictional investment in eHealth.
Productivity improvements such as those that can be delivered by eHealth are needed—they are really needed—to help counter the expected increase in the unit costs associated with the delivery of health care. Leveraging eHealth is one of the few strategies available to drive microeconomic reform to reduce Commonwealth health outlays.
I remind this chamber that the annual Commonwealth costs of health care are forecast to increase by $27 billion to $86 billion by 2025 and over $250 billion by 2050.This is an enormous cost burden and is the consequence of maintaining a comprehensive, world-class healthcare system. Yet whilst our broad healthcare system is important and integral in delivering quality of life to all our citizens, it is now what we would commonly call a very sacred cow.
We should not be afraid to reform our healthcare system and ensure its efficiency into the future, and to ensure that hardworking taxpayers' money—for a service that they obviously expect for them and their families—is actually sustainable into the future, and, as I said earlier, that we are getting the best bang for the hard-earned buck. Rather than being uncompassionate, it is irresponsible to maintain a view that our healthcare system is beyond reform. Any scare language around the fact that any reform is bad for the health system is not helping the public policy debate in any way, shape or form. It is irresponsible to refuse to make our tax dollars work harder in our expansive healthcare system. That is why reforms enacted under this government are so essential.
It is only a coalition government which can deliver an effective, efficient and economically sustainable healthcare system today and for future generations. Whilst the previous government implemented the PCEHR system as a first step, today this government is making, I believe, meaningful progress in overcoming serious issues facing health care arising from the fragmentation of health information. We understand the opportunities that technology provides us with, and that is why we have embraced eHealth and are developing a more efficient system.
We acknowledge that health information is spread across a vast number of different locations and systems, especially as more Australians are constantly moving between various state and territory health systems. It is estimated that 2.5 per cent of hospital admissions are due to adverse drug events due to incomplete medication histories. This is not an acceptable state of affairs in any first world country—it is not acceptable anywhere. I know that my state of Tasmania and the electorate of Braddon are not the only state and constituency facing hospital shortages. That is why this government is making every effort and taking every opportunity to leverage better healthcare outcomes for all.
Thirty-six per cent of visits involve the clinician spending at least five minutes or more locating information. Just think about that: 36 per cent, in over a third of all visits to any clinician five minutes of it is spent just locating information. In any language, whether it concerns the health system or the education system, time is money. In year 2009-2010, 83 per cent of Australians visited a GP with a total of 116.8 million general practice services paid for by the taxpayer through Medicare. The collective waste of time and energy over these huge volumes of patients is staggering, and that is only looking at the opportunity costs associated with GP visits. When you take into account that this waste of time is constant among all healthcare practitioners it is astounding and it is a significant cost to the taxpayer.
Currently, 10 per cent of laboratory tests are avoidable through electronic health records—that is right: one in ten very expensive laboratory tests are unnecessary. Due to duplicated investigations, these tests occur not only wasting time but taking up time and resources that could be directed to more necessary testing. We do not have to have an ideological debate in this place about the left, the centre-right or the right view of health. This just makes sense. If we can improve the circumstances of all Australians and get a better return on hard-earned taxpayers' money, it has to be a good result irrespective of what side of politics we may be on. Currently, when a person attends a new provider and their previous test results are not available, this leads to huge, unnecessary duplication—especially as Australian citizens are more fluid, as I said, in their living arrangements.
These are just some of the areas this bill seeks to address. This bill will change the name, as I said, and will enable opt-out trials to be undertaken for individuals in a manner that retains the same patient controls as were provided. But while these trials are operating in defined areas, the existing opt-in system will continue to operate everywhere else in Australia. If the trials are successful, and I suspect they will be, the government will decide to implement opt-out nationally. This bill enables that to occur if and when that is the case.
To make way for new governance arrangements that will be established, this bill will abolish the existing PCEHR Jurisdictional Advisory Committee.
In order to better protect the sensitive information that can be contained in a myHealth record and to provide a more graduated framework for responding to inappropriate behaviour that is proportional to the severity of a breach of either the HI or myHealth system, the bill will introduce new civil and criminal penalties and provide that enforceable undertaking. This government is delivering a more comprehensive and effective system and it also strongly believes in the consequences of breaching the integrity of that system.
In the short time that I have left, I just make a plea to all members of parliament that, as one, we should all be committed to efficiencies within our health system. We should not be scared of that technology that is now available to us. Every man, woman and child now knows that, with all online purchases and online records, much of our lives is exposed basically to the world. I would encourage everyone to understand that it is very much in the best interests of the health system of this country to move to a fully implemented myHealth Record system. I thank the House.
I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015, which is aimed at streamlining the eHealth system within Australia. As the previous speaker said in summing up, it is important that we embrace the technology available to us, particularly to improve, in this instance, our health systems. There are major opportunities for the expansion of e-health to improve so many health outcomes. So I certainly agree with many of the points that he did make, particularly in terms of embracing the benefits of such technological advances as we do have. Indeed, we have said on this side of the House that we certainly support the intent of this bill.
We have mentioned how we would like to see some further scrutiny, but we certainly do support the intent because, of course, eHealth was a Labor initiative and it does have great potential to enhance our health system. The primary purpose of the bill is to modify the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records system. This system contains an electronic summary of a person's health records, which allows individuals and healthcare providers to access all that vital health information all in one place. The information is available online, so it is fantastic that it can be accessed where and when it is actually needed. Under health situations which at many times may be urgent that information can be accessed. So the opportunities available with e-health are tremendous. Under the bill, the personally controlled electronic health record will be renamed the myHealth record.
These changes are proposed in response to recommendations made by the review in December 2013. The bill will additionally implement recommendations of the 2013 review of the Healthcare Identifiers Service, which is a foundation for these e-health measures. Further to this, it will make several amendments to the legislation in order to improve the operation and cohesiveness of these very important health systems. This bill will also change the governance arrangements and the system's usability.
What is important about this bill is that it will enable opt-out trials to be undertaken but with the same patient controls as contained in the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record system, and it importantly allows opt-out to be adopted nationally if the trials are proven to be successful. In the meantime, the existing opt-in system will remain in place when these trials start. The bill will allow the government to make regulations to authorise new entities to handle healthcare identifiers and other protected information. It also increases the range of enforcement and penalty options available for intentional or deliberate misuse, introduces criminal penalties and amends the privacy framework. The government has stated that individuals in opt-out trials will automatically have a myHealth record created for them unless they opt out, and I understand they will have a number of ways to do that.
I was pleased to see that the government has undertaken that extensive communication will be undertaken in the trials before the trials actually begin to allow individuals to make informed decisions about whether or not to opt out. It is especially important, I think, for everyone to be aware of the benefits of e-health, particularly for our older Australians, obviously, who often have more complex and complicated health needs and who, I think, would be perhaps some of the greatest beneficiaries of the eHealth record. So it is important that extensive communication occur so that they can fully understand the benefits of such changes to the system.
I understand that the trials are expected to commence in 2016, and it is understood that they will take place in three locations. One location is most likely to be in northern New South Wales. I think my electorate of Richmond would certainly welcome a trial such as this, particularly, as I say, with the higher number of older Australians there. Another location, I understand, is metropolitan Queensland, and a further, third, site is yet to be determined at this stage.
This eHealth system has been so successful—and, of course, it is a Labor reform that was brought in by us in government. It was initially brought in through an opt-in-model. Labor introduced the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record system in July 2012 to move the paper based health system to a far more efficient digital system. The main reason was to improve the level of health care for all Australians, especially those with complex and chronic health conditions. There are so many benefits for them. This change was needed due to the complex and often inefficient paper based system. Having such paper based systems can ultimately lead to poorer health systems and poorer health outcomes as well. There is so much potential with e-health.
This change, initiated by Labor, represents an ongoing commitment to improving our health systems which, of course, began with the introduction of the Medicare system of universal health care, and so distinguishes us on this side of the House. Labor is always looking for ways to improve the health system for all Australians and is very committed to making sure those improvements are in place.
When last in office, Labor achieved substantial milestones in the progress of e-health. We encouraged over a million Australians to sign up for the online system, and this growth has continued to expand to almost 2.5 million Australians today. That is a huge increase. Since Labor introduced these reforms, I understand over 3,000 specialists' letters have been uploaded, over 5,000 general practices have registered for e-health and a massive amount of more than 1.6 million prescription documents have been uploaded. So there certainly has been a lot of interest and involvement in e-health so far.
When we look at some of the history and evolution of e-health, there was more than a decade of debate in which, really, little action did happen. It took the Labor party to actually create the change to e-health. As stated by the member for Sydney when she was the health minister, eHealth is merely an extension of Labor's universal healthcare system, Medicare. I think it reinforces Labor's commitment to the principles of a universal national healthcare system, which is the basis of a strong Medicare system. A system which has, of course, been under threat generally from this current government. We have seen a number of versions of their GP tax, which would potentially have devastating results across the country, especially in rural areas, as well as $50 billion in cuts to hospitals. The impact of that has been very harmful, particularly in regional and rural areas such as my electorate of Richmond. Australians are gravely concerned about the extent of this government's harsh cuts, and some of those harmful health outcomes.
When we are talking about the history and the evolution of eHealth, having undertaken such significant health changes in the past, designing and implementing such an e-health system proved to be a challenge that only a Labor government would truly commit to and undertake. In 2010, the then minister for health, Nicola Roxon, announced Labor's two-year $467 million investment in developing the National Health and Hospital System. This funding was directed in several key areas to serve, essentially, as a building block for the growth of our health system. Specifically, funding was allocated to a range of areas relating to e-health, including providing summaries of patients' health information, including medications, immunisations and medical test results. A key area of funding was also the establishment of secure access for patients and healthcare providers to the online records. An investment priority was to also provide rigorous governance and oversight in order to maintain privacy and to ensure that healthcare providers had access to national standards, planning and core national infrastructure required to use the e-health system. Labor understand the health needs of a modern Australia, and we do see eHealth as a critical piece of infrastructure in any healthcare system, which is why we have said we certainly support the intent of this bill.
The potential for e-health records to reduce duplications and allow for a more efficient healthcare system cannot ever be underestimated. If we look to the extensive record in terms of what e-health can hold, there can be a summary of the patient's important medical history, the lists of medications prescribed and dispensed, allergy information, childhood immunisation records, child health and development information, hospital discharge reports, organ donor status, advanced care planning details, summaries of individual patient health events, Medicare and PBS claims data, and even private notes made by patients about their own health. All of that is vitally important to have there. In 2013 Labor made an additional investment, which enabled even pathology and diagnostic imaging results to be included in a patient's e-health record. So it is absolutely wonderful to have that all contained in one particular area and easily accessed, often urgently, so that all of that information is available to a healthcare provider, which is very important.
Unfortunately, the inaction of the Liberal-National government in their two years of government has certainly been disappointing when it comes to the lack of progress with e-health so far. We certainly saw last year that there may have been $700 million allocated for investment into the development of eHealth, but the government's so-called rescue package only served to cut this essential program back by $215 million. Compounding this situation is the fact that the government has not allocated a single dollar to the program for the entire 2018-19 financial year. That is disappointing because it has already been established that this system is vital in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the healthcare program, and it means that this program will become increasingly cost-effective for the health system over time, so it is vitally important that it is implemented properly and funded effectively and efficiently. The government's lack of action raises serious concerns about their long-term commitment to reform and, more importantly, the health care of this nation.
These reforms are very important, and there is very strong proof as to why they are important. When Labor first introduced these measures about two per cent to three per cent of hospital admissions in Australia were linked to medication errors, which equates to 190,000 admissions each year and costs the health system $660 million, and about eight per cent of medical errors are because of inadequate patient information. When we look at those figures, there is a huge potential under this system to make sure there are major improvements in healthcare outcomes and also major savings due to all of those errors that did occur with ineffective and inefficient patient information.
In an electorate like mine, Richmond, on the New South Wales North Coast, where there is an ageing population, e-health measures are vitally important. The potential that an e-health record has in improving patients' care, especially the elderly, can never ever be underestimated—as I said, because of the often complex health concerns that older Australians do have. When we look overall at some of the benefits of e-health, it has been estimated that the benefits from this program will reach $11.5 billion over the 15 years from 2010 to 2025. That is a major achievement.
Labor supports the majority of changes the government proposes to make through this bill. Our concerns do lie with the length of time the government has taken to do anything in relation to e-health and to act on it. We do accept that a number of the changes they have made are very sensible, such as allowing service providers that might not meet the definition of a healthcare provider under the existing act, such as a palliative care or aged-care service provider, to now have access to it. So it is very good, and I certainly commend the government in terms of those changes. It is also of the utmost importance that patients' privacy be given the highest regard possible, and it is for that reason that Labor believes some of these provisions do require further scrutiny. We have stated that we believe that further scrutiny should occur when it is in the other house, in the Senate. We would like to see some more detail and get some greater reassurances around those privacy provisions that are contained. We do think that is vitally important.
In conclusion, we certainly do support the intent of this bill. We know the benefits of e-health as we initiated it, and we would certainly like to see it expanded properly. These new systems do seem to be very effective, and we look forward to the further expansion of e-health to improve the health outcomes for all Australians.
I am pleased to sum up the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill 2015. The My Health Record system has the potential to change the nature of health care in Australia and become a widely accepted, everyday part of good healthcare management. This bill gets us closer to that goal. I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I thank members of the opposition for, in the main, approving the direction we are taking and for understanding the vital importance of this e-health record coming to fruition as soon as possible.
The bill will reboot the national electronic health record system. It will also rename it as My Health Record, which is simpler, more meaningful and ultimately for the individual to whom it relates. The bill also implements the recommendations of the 2013 reviews of the national electronic health record and the Healthcare Identifiers Service, which facilitates increased participation in the system and improvements in usability and clinical content for individuals and healthcare providers.
At present about one in 10 Australians has an electronic health record. That is not enough to make it an effective national system, and doctors do not see enough value as yet to use it. If the majority of people have a My Health Record, more healthcare providers will use it and include their patients' health information on it, and this will improve the overall value of the system. In order to identify the optimum approaches for maximising participation in the system and increase uptake, the government will conduct trials of different participation arrangements in 2016. These will include trials of an opt-out model.
The bill enables me, as the responsible minister, to make rules to apply the opt-out arrangements to a community. I will consult with the states and territories before making any such rules. The process for choosing trial sites has been made public, and trial sites are expected to be selected shortly. Individuals in an opt-out trial would automatically have a My Health Record created for them unless they opt out, which they will be able to do in a number of ways. Individuals who do not opt out will be able to exercise the same access controls over their My Health Record that are available today so that they can manage who can access their My Health Record and what information it contains. Extensive communication will be undertaken in the trial communities before trials begin. This will allow individuals to make an informed decision about whether or not to opt out. Outside the opt-out trials, the My Health Record system will continue to operate on an opt-in basis.
To ensure that we implement the best systems for Australians, an independent evaluation of the trials will be undertaken in 2016. If the trials provide evidence that an opt-out system is a better approach for improving participation in the My Health Record system, the government may decide to implement the opt-out model nationally. The bill also makes a range of other amendments as part of improving the operation of the My Health Record system and Healthcare Identifiers Service. Key changes will broaden the penalties available for deliberate misuse of certain information; clarify what is considered to be a health service and health information; establish copyright arrangements to ensure that the permitted use of health information obtained from a My Health Record does not infringe copyright; provide for regulations to specify new entities that may handle healthcare identifiers for health related purposes; and align the legislative frameworks for both the My Health Record system and the Healthcare Identifiers Service. These changes take us closer to delivering a My Health Record system that can help improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
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.
Today I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015. The bills, as the former education minister explained in his second reading speech, together will create an overseas repayment obligation for Australians who have taken advantage of the Commonwealth government's income contingent loans, including both Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, loans and HECS loans, together with trade support loans.
Labor supports efforts to improve the integrity of our HECS system, which has ensured that university has been affordable and accessible, with wider access, since 1989. Indeed, the HECS-HELP system has been the bedrock on which Australia has been able to build one of the world's best university systems while ensuring that any Australian who has the capacity and is capable of doing so can get a university degree. Therefore, Labor will support this measure that will from 1 July 2016 extend the HECS-HELP repayment framework to debtors residing overseas. As a consequence of this bill, HELP debtors residing overseas for six months or more will be required to make repayments on their HELP debt at the same repayment rates as debtors in Australia if their worldwide income exceeds the minimum repayment threshold.
Labor understands that living and working abroad is an enriching and important experience and one that should be encouraged. However, there has been a question for a number of years around the fairness of the HECS-HELP scheme in that those working overseas have not been required to meet their HECS repayment obligation while those living in Australia have.
It has long been argued that those working overseas should have the same obligations as those living here in Australia. As it stands, this bill is expected to affect 46,000 Australians living and working overseas, with an estimated 38,000 expected to make repayments on their student debt. This will equate to approximately $26 million over four years. Over the forward estimates, the bill is anticipated to save the Commonwealth about $150 million.
The government has been talking this savings measure up, but it is important to put it in context. This is a modest amount compared to the $62.7 billion that is expected to be needed to be repaid by the end of the same period. Nevertheless, the opposition supports identifying genuine budget savings, and this is one that we will support. Labor supports this legislation because it takes a responsible approach to budget savings and, importantly, the integrity of our income-contingent loan system.
The Higher Education Contribution Scheme was a world first—a Labor government reform that ensured a university education was affordable for all Australians. Since 1989 the HECS system has enabled students to borrow the price of their degree from the Commonwealth, the cost of which is borne by the taxpayer until the student's or graduate's income reaches the repayment threshold, at which time involuntary payments are made through the tax system. This program allows every Australian, even the most disadvantaged in our community, to enrol in, attend and graduate from university without having to meet the costs of their tuition up-front.
HECS has enriched Australian society by not only giving more and more students access to an affordable education but enabling more students to attend university. Since the late eighties Australia has benefitted from the input of these students unleashing the intellectual and innovative capabilities that have helped build Australia's industries and jobs. Credit needs to go to former Labor governments that focused on building one of the best university systems and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to get a university degree.
While this is an important measure that looks at the integrity of our HECS system, the side effect of one of this government's other agendas—namely, their deregulation and $100,000 degree plan—will be the impact on the sustainability of the HECS-HELP income-contingent loan scheme. It is important to recognise that, if fees under a deregulated system go the way that is anticipated—and that is not just what the Labor Party has said; it is what independent modelling has shown—HECS and HELP debt could skyrocket significantly. The Liberal Party's plan for deregulation could put the sustainability of the HECS-HELP loan scheme under enormous pressure, meaning that many people will not be able to pay back what will be simply massive amounts of debt. That will leave the taxpayer vulnerable to holding and copping that bad debt.
This is something that those on the other side have not given proper thought to. They have said that they want to deregulate the system and see a significant increase in fees. While we have focused on and discussed the impact that that would have for students, it also would have a massive impact for the HECS-HELP debt scheme. It is important to recognise that, potentially, the sustainability of that scheme will be threatened when we see the debt that students have to take on skyrocketing significantly.
Previously, there was concern about chasing HELP and HECS debt from overseas because of the view that it was likely to cost more than it was to raise. However, with the advent of income-contingent loan schemes in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, where a good proportion of Australians work and reside, this landscape has changed significantly. However, there are still considerable challenges with the implementation of this measure. It is important to note that the challenges will be significant, not least making Australians currently living overseas aware of their obligations and dealing with Australians who change their plans and decide to work in a foreign country while travelling overseas. Ensuring that those individuals understand their obligations and the changes will be an important challenge and something the government will have to consider in the implementation of this measure.
The changes that have been observed in both New Zealand and the UK with regard to chasing overseas debtors have shown that, as of 2013, one quarter of England's overseas student debtors were in default, while 60 per cent of New Zealand's overseas debtors had overdue payments. The overseas examples indicate that there are problems with recovering debt, and the government will certainly have to turn their attention to how they will implement this measure. The government will have to ensure that Australians currently living overseas who continue to be covered by this scheme are made aware of their obligations and that Australians who do change their plans recognise their obligations.
However, despite the challenges that will be faced in the implementation of this legislation, Labor will support this package that is aimed at improving the integrity and fairness of the HECS-HELP system. While this bill will make a modest saving, we recognise that it is a saving nonetheless. Labor takes a responsible attitude to decent savings that are about fairness and are in the interests of the Australian public.
I rise to support Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015. I am pleased to acknowledge the comments made by the member for Kingston about the Labor Party supporting this bill and noting the savings that this will generate and the fairness involved in this bill—because that is the case.
The Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, is a wonderful scheme. We all know that education is such an important enabler in community and it helps in many ways. It helps productivity, which is something that we are very focused on. We also know that a more educated workforce is better able to adapt to the challenges that our economy and businesses face on a daily basis. Innovation is one of the key things that education does help out with through the skilling and knowledge it generates. We all know the Prime Minister's background in innovation through OzEmail and other ventures. His experience with OzEmail was as a 16-year-old in a garage, but it ended up as a very successful company. It was based on innovation.
Tertiary education, while not the best avenue for all people, has been a wonderful pathway for a great many Australians. We need to ensure that we develop a system that fosters support and learning for students who can then pay their debt when they are in a position to do so. That is crucial. As former Prime Minister, Paul Keating said:
There is no such thing, of course, as “free” education. Somebody has to pay. In systems with no charges those somebodies are all taxpayers. This is a pretty important point: a “free” higher education system is one paid for by the taxes of all, the majority of whom haven’t had the privilege of a university education.
As he says,
Ask yourself if you think that is a fair thing.
That is why this bill is important. It ensures that the playing field is even and people who receive this service make good on their pledge to pay the money back when they can support themselves.
I have worked for the state government overseas in Europe and I know that there are thousands of Australians over there who work and live in Europe, as they do all around the world. Many of these expat Australians had a debt from their university days, but they were not paying it back. We agree that is not right and fair. There is currently no legal obligation for people with a HELP debt residing overseas, and who are nonresidents for taxation purposes and not required to submit a tax return, to repay their HELP debts. It is estimated that, as a result, between $400 and $800 million in revenue has been foregone since the commencement of the scheme in 1989. We would all agree that that is a significant amount and so this issue needs to be addressed. This bill is addressing it.
This proposal is simply imposing the same HELP repayment obligations on Australians living overseas as currently apply to those who remain in Australia. For example, a banker earning substantial income overseas will be required to repay their HELP debt; however, a backpacker earning little or no income, or earning below the minimum repayment threshold, will not be required to make any repayments. Recovery of overseas debts is already an integral part of student loan schemes operated by a number of other countries around the world, including the UK and New Zealand. This is not something that is new. It has been done successfully by other countries and will now be done successfully by Australia.
It is estimated that these bills will generate savings of more than $25 million between 2015-16 and 2018-19, and more than $150 million over 10 years. From 1 January 2016, all current and new Australians with HELP and TSL debts who move overseas for six months or more will be required to register with the ATO via the myGov website. As I mentioned, other countries have been successful in executing and implementing this sort of process to recover such debts. The UK has advised that around three-quarters of its overseas debtors voluntarily enter into and comply with repayment arrangements. New Zealand has found that, once contacted, its overseas student loan debtors have a compliance rate of around 70 per cent—some good case studies there.
The proposed approach will minimise complexity by placing a strong emphasis on self-compliance. There have been targeted communications to cover off issues that may be raised. The coalition is proposing real reform for the tertiary sector which will help universities perform better, delivering a better service to students who then will be better armed to face the challenges of this century.
In closing, I just want to make the point that the bill will right a wrong that has slipped through the system for a number of years and will ensure that the playing field is even. If you earn $100,000 in Australia, London, New York or wherever, you will have to pay your debt to the government. This bill will ensure that happens. I commend it to the House.
I too support the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015, but I do so with some reservations. By creating an overseas repayment obligation, it is expected that these bills, as they stand, will affect 46,000 Australians who live and work overseas, with the expectation that 38,000 of these Australians will make repayments to their current student debts. It seems a reasonable thing to put forward and, reasonably, we on this side are therefore supporting it. The debts are owed by Australians who have accessed the Commonwealth government's income contingent loans, which include HELP loans, HECS loans and now trade support loans. Because Labor has always stood up and supported education administration, and because this seems reasonable, the opposition is supporting the passage of these bills.
The government anticipates that these bills will save an estimated $150 million over the 10-year forward estimates, $26 million over the next four years. The mathematics in that is interesting. I can only assume that the mathematics has been done on existing HELP or HECS loans, because I am sure the figure would be much higher if it had been calculated based, projecting forward, on the $100,000 degrees that the government seems intent to introduce into this country. On the one hand, this legislation seems a reasonable thing, but I would take the time to make that point. It seems sensible to put these measures in place, but it rings alarm bells for me that the government should be planning to recover debts from people who are going to travel overseas when we know the government also has plans for students to incur an extraordinary level of debt to access their education. What has been very clear to me, throughout the last two years when we have been talking about the deregulation of universities, is that the government's plans would ultimately lead to $100,000 degrees for Australian students and therefore $100,000 debts for Australian students. It seemed to me, and I recall saying, 'If I were a 20-year-old looking at a future like that, I would probably look to going overseas.' So it is probably sensible that we are looking to recover that debt if we are intending to harness our young people to such huge debt, because for them it would have been sensible to take a few years and go overseas and build their career and not to have to think about the debt back at home. So covering that loophole is probably sensible. But I think the government does understand—they certainly do need to understand—that, from this side of the chamber, there is an absolute, absolute 'No' to that notion of $100,000 degrees, there has been an absolute 'No' to it in the Senate twice, and there is an absolute 'No' to it from the Australian public.
The notion that it is right and reasonable for Australians, regardless of where they are living, to be required to repay their students loans once they meet the income payment criteria is reasonable. In the past, most Australians' attitude has been—we have always thought—that young Australians will travel, whether as backpackers, or to visit family in other countries—for example, young people from my electorate travelling to Italy and catching up with uncles and aunts they have not seen for 20 years, or people travelling back to England, or the US—or just to explore the world. Australians are great travellers, and in the last 40 years we have also learnt to be great workers in other countries, with many Australians building careers and getting valuable experience overseas, whether in commerce or in mining or in other areas of work; Australians are often now travelling overseas for that. But I think there has always been an assumption—and it is taken up in popular culture—that Australians, ultimately, inevitably, come home. One is reminded of some famous Australians still calling Australia home. We have that tradition or that belief that Australians will go and get their experiences, but they will come home. We have been fairly assured that, when they come home successfully after having worked overseas, they will re-engage in the workforce here and will re-engage in repaying that debt. What the government is suggesting now—and I am not suggesting that they are wrong—is that perhaps we should be recovering that debt sooner. I do not have a problem with us seeking to do that, as long as the debt we are putting on our young people is reasonable debt and as long as their education has not sent them scurrying from the country hoping not to have to repay it. Part of that, too, reflects a changing world—a changing world where our young people are not necessarily going to return home. So I think, therefore, that this is sensible. I think asking Australians living and working overseas to repay their loans has long been argued as being fair and equitable, and it is reasonable.
On this side we also understand the importance of university education being affordable to all Australians, as I have said. That has long argued by Labor, and it is worth making that point in this discussion today. So, whilst we have this legislation before us, with the Turnbull government seeking fairness and equity in the repayment of Commonwealth student loans, we also need to be absolutely clear that the fairness test has to be applied to what debt people are going to take on.
Like the member for Kingston, I note the New Zealand and the UK experiences, in that these systems are being trialled by some of our neighbours, with some success. However, I still do have some concerns that a compliance of 70 per cent implies a default of 30 per cent, and that we need to look carefully at the communication strategies: we need to look very carefully at ensuring that our young people who are involved in this get the information in a timely way and understand their obligations. We need to ensure that this is tracked through to make sure that we do not end up with default rates of 30 per cent, to ensure that we are not chasing young Australians and that we are not putting any barriers to returning to this country in front of our young people because they have done that. So communication strategies are absolutely critical.
The revenue that this legislation seeks to ensure comes back to Australia, as I have said, also needs to be seen in these terms: that, in this space and time, right now, we are talking about HELP and HECS debts that are perceived by the Australian public to be reasonable, and therefore it is perceived to be reasonable to ask people, even while they are working overseas, to begin to repay that debt if they have met the threshold. But it is imperative that we bear in mind that, whenever we are talking about higher education in this place, in the current state, we are talking about a government that is hell-bent, it seems, on introducing a system of higher education that is Americanised to the point where young people, like the people in my electorate, may be locked out of higher education. That would be a very, very sad state of affairs for Australia. It goes to the very heart of who we think we are. It goes to the very heart of who we want to be in the future. We want to make sure that, in this country, access and equity are at the forefront of our thinking.
So I support the legislation, but I do so with those reservations, and I do so with a clear warning: that it is my understanding of this government's plans that, while it is seeking to close this loophole, that is perhaps in preparation for another pursuit of its unfair agenda of putting $100,000 debts on the young people in this country so that they can secure their future.
I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 and cognate bills. I say that with pleasure. This bill will ensure Australians living overseas will have the same obligation to repay their university loans as people living and working throughout Australia. There are almost 4,000 university students in my electorate of Petrie and more than 60,000 taxpaying families. It is simply not fair that they are footing the bill for university graduates who are living and working overseas and therefore are not repaying their university debts. For those debtors the bill creates an obligation to make repayments on their HELP and TSL debts based on their total Australian and foreign sourced income—that is, their worldwide income. This will be imposed as a levy through the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors. Repayment Levy) Bill 2015. It is important to mention that only those debtors living overseas and earning above the minimum HELP and TSL repayment thresholds, which is $54,126, will be required to make payments toward their HELP and TSL debts. Repayment rates and thresholds will mirror those applying to debtors residing in Australia.
My father always taught me to repay my debts. It is an important principle and it teaches responsibility. He always said, 'Don't have debt hanging over your head.' Some students have had the privilege of an Australian education and are doing well overseas, to their credit, and some of them are repaying the debt, but some are not. I say to them: it is the right thing to do; it is the ethical thing to do to repay your debt, because someone else has to repay it if you do not. By not repaying their university debts, Australians living and working overseas are avoiding this responsibility. Importantly, Australian taxpayers are footing the bill, whether they pay income tax in Australia or whether they pay company tax through a company that makes a profit. The Australian government and the people who give us our funds are left to pay someone else's debt, and that is not right.
I have spoken to university graduates in my electorate of Petrie and they tell me that, until about a year and a half ago, it was difficult for them to find out what their actual HECS debt is. They would make a few calls and would be put through to five, six or seven different departments to try to find out what their debt is. It was difficult. From what I understand, this is a lot easier. They can now access an exact figure very easily through myGov, which has made the whole process much simpler and comprehensible. There is no reason why Australian graduates living and working overseas should be unaware of their HECS debt.
Some of the best universities in the world are in Australia. In fact, some of the best universities in the world are in Queensland, in my home state. There are universities like Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland. The Higher Education Contribution Scheme, or HECS, is one of the fairest systems in the world—we know that. Since its inception 26 years ago, HECS has become an integral part of the Australian higher education system, and rightly so. It allows students to pay their share of the cost of their education over time, depending on their income. By doing so, HECS facilitates the education sector's continuing expansion, even in an era of budget constraint. Basically, it means that university is accessible and affordable for all Australians. I will come back to that in a minute. For students sitting in the gallery and so forth, it means that university is accessible and affordable for all Australians.
I find it appalling that members on the other side of the House and their union comrades would try to stifle the hope of young Australians by telling them: 'You'll never be able to afford tertiary education.' This is incorrect. It is not true. Every Australian, no matter their circumstances and no matter where they live in this country, will be able to afford to go to university right now and well into the future. I ask those opposite: do you not want our young people to go to university? Do you not want the year 12 graduates of 2015, who will be finishing in the next few months, to consider a tertiary education? You probably do not, because, honestly, I cannot think of any other reason why the Labor Party would be peddling such misconceptions.
On this discussion today, we have already heard the member for Kingston and the member for Lalor talking about $100,000 degrees. I say to those opposite: we know that the government contributes 60 per cent of university education and 40 per cent goes to HECS at the moment. That means that for a student who has a $50,000 degree—whatever it might be—$35,000 is paid by the taxpayer. I am not sure that people in the gallery are aware of that. The federal government currently pays 60 per cent of all university fees. That means that students have a 40 per cent fee to pay. If they cannot afford to pay that fee, they can HECS it. They do not have to pay it until they are earning over $54,126. That is quite reasonable. Some students whose families can afford to pay the bill up-front do so.
We heard from the member for Kingston and the member for Lalor this morning that degrees will go up to $100,000 and that no-one will be able to afford to go to university. I say, 'Hang on, the government pays 60 per cent of the bill and we were left with a huge debt and deficit disaster after six years of Labor. We had no debt under John Howard and then it went through the roof under Rudd, Gillard and Rudd. Why on earth would it be in the federal government's best interest to ensure that our costs go up as well?'
That is what they are saying: they are saying that under our deregulation plans, and other things, university fees will go through the roof and students, such as those in the gallery today, will not be able to afford to go. But what they are forgetting to mention is that the government pays 60 per cent of the bill. So why would it be in our best interests to make sure that bills go up. I know that the member for Canberra will be the next speaker, and I would ask her to think about that, too, before she mentions $100,000 degrees, like the rest of the Labor Party have been doing on this bill and over the last couple of years on this issue.
I believe that this government does have a long-term vision for our higher education sector, and we are working to ensure that it is of a world-class standard and that we have institutions that continue to be institutions of choice, not just for domestic students but also for international students. Our HECS system is one of the best and fairest in the world.
But what is not fair is that university graduates who are working in Australia are paying off their debts while graduates working overseas are not. This is not fair to Australian taxpayers and it is not fair to graduates who are doing the right thing in repaying their loans. So I support this bill, because I support the notion of personal responsibility and I support the hard-working taxpayers in my electorate and throughout Australia.
We have fantastic educational opportunities in Australia. I have travelled around the world with my family. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to travel to Europe, to the States and to other places, and every time I come back to Australia I know that we live in the greatest country in the world. It is a wonderful country. If you were born in Australia now or are about to start primary school at a state school in Queensland or elsewhere in Australia, we know that you will receive a great education, especially when your parents and your family spend time with their kids doing a bit of reading with them and talk to them—it takes just a few minutes each day. A little bit of reading really helps students do well. It helps them to read and write and communicate when they have finished school. It is the same with our high schools.
That is why I have been very pleased that the federal coalition government has been contributing record funding over the past couple of years and will be doing so over the next couple of years and beyond. In relation to Gonski, I think there is a nine per cent increase alone this year in Queensland. Every year, despite what you hear from those opposite, the dollar figure for education funding goes up. We know that teachers, school autonomy and principals also make a big difference in our schools. I want to take this opportunity to thank the teachers and the principals in my electorate of Petrie for the work they do in educating our students, our young people, preparing them as they go through primary school and then into high school. I want to say to every students who is about to finish year 12 this year that you have great opportunities in this country. You can go on to university and pretty well achieve whatever it is that you want to achieve. You can go to university. Despite what we hear from those opposite, and from some others, about higher education bills, we have a wonderful HECS system in this country. You can go to university and get the degree you want and get into the career you want to follow. But it might not be university; it might be a trade. We know that being a tradie is a great career. I came from a trade background before I came in here. The coalition government also now has Trade Support Loans, which this bill will also apply to.
Hear hear!
Yes, Member for Deakin, you are darn right. It is a great opportunity for people. It helps them as they go through their trade and become a carpenter or a plumber or one of the other trades that millions of people throughout Australia wish to pursue.
I will take this opportunity to say to students that you have wonderful opportunities in this country. If you live in the electorate of Petrie, or anywhere in Australia, you can achieve what you want to achieve. As you move from primary school into high school do the very best you can. There are people around you who love you—your parents and your family. The teachers and principals in these institutions want to see you do well. As a government we, too, want to see you do well. We believe that you can achieve the goals you want to achieve and you can pursue the career you want to follow.
I speak on this bill with pleasure. I support its implementation. I think it is great that the Labor Party is also supporting the bill, but I would ask them to encourage students not to be fearful of attending university, but to know that every student in this country can attend university. We have one of the most wonderful HECS systems in the world, which I support.
I have stood in this House many times before to stress the importance of a good education—the importance of educating our young people so that they can have the best chance of success, and, in some cases, so that they can build themselves a better life and escape intergenerational disadvantage and poverty.
This is an issue close to my heart, because, as many members will know, accessing an education helped me and my sisters escape a cycle of disadvantage. Thanks to Gough Whitlam's reforms we were able to escape that cycle of poverty that was experienced by my mother, a single mother, by my grandmother before her, and by my great-grandmother before her. Many people in this House know my background, with three generations of what I call a working-class matriarchy—three generations of cleaners. My great-grandmother was a cleaner in the western district. My grandmother was a cleaner. She cleaned three facilities in Melbourne. My mother, thanks to my father leaving us when I was 11, and with not much money in the bank, also ended up cleaning in the latter part of her career.
Thanks to education, my sisters and I have managed to escape the cycle of disadvantage. It was thanks to education that I escaped that intergenerational cycle of poverty and lack of choice that my great-grandmother, my grandmother and my mother experienced as a result of having to leave school—at 11, I think, in the case of my great-grandmother, at 12 or 13 in the case of my grandmother and at 15 in the case of my mother. I am incredibly proud of what my sisters and I have been able to achieve. Meg, my middle sister, has a Bachelor of Science with honours from Monash University. She is a former AIDS researcher and now a winemaker, and she is Australia's first female Master of Wine. My little sister, Amy, is a neurologist. She has a medical degree and a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is one of the world's most respected stroke researchers and just recently managed to secure a very significant multimillion dollar research grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. I am very, very proud of her and of Meg—I am very proud of my sisters.
Education has the power to transform lives. I think that our story underscores that. I know this and the Labor Party knows this. That is why Gough Whitlam abolished university fees and gave a generation of Australians access to a free education. I had the great fortune of having access to a free education for my first degree, as did my sisters. Like so many Australians and so many Canberrans, I was the first person on either side of my family to be educated. I was the very first person in my family to go to university, and I felt very privileged and honoured to be that first person and very humbled as a result of that.
Access to education is vitally important to Labor. As you know, Gough Whitlam introduced free education in the seventies, and in the eighties we tweaked that. In the eighties, under Bob Hawke, we set up the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, or HECS, allowing more students to gain access to higher education, no matter what their background. I have to confess: I was opposed to HECS when it first came out. I was union president of RMIT, I was involved in the National Union of Students and I was part of the NUS delegation that went to our ALP conference, which was held in Tasmania then. I was one of the thousands of students out the front of our national conference opposing and campaigning against HECS.
But I am now older and wiser and I now understand the benefits of HECS. Thanks to HECS, enormous opportunities were opened up for people to access higher education and vocational education. Thanks to HECS, the participation rate figures, from memory, went from about five or 10 per cent when I was undertaking my first degree to about 30 or 40 per cent. That is thanks to HECS—it really did open up opportunities. The HECS system, or the HELP system, is the foundation upon which Australia has been able to build one of the world's best university systems while ensuring that any Australian who is capable of doing so can get a university education. It really has opened up opportunities. That first step of free education that Gough Whitlam introduced was a great first step, and HECS built on that strong foundation and opened up higher education and vocational education to even more people.
In recent years, the number of students in higher education has surged. HECS expenses are forecast to almost double in three years from $2.3 billion this year to $4.4 billion in 2017-18, according to estimates by the Department of Education and Training. So the Labor Party welcomes any measure that aims to strengthen the HECS system and make it more viable and more sustainable. These measures aim to make the system fairer by ensuring that all students here and abroad contribute to their HECS debt once they are earning an income of beyond $53,000 in the 2016-17 tax year.
Currently, as you know, only people living in Australia are paying off their HECS debt. Currently, HECS debtors who live overseas are not specifically exempt from repaying, but, because the Australian Taxation Office has no international jurisdiction, anyone not paying tax in Australia is not required to repay their debt. While most expatriates do return to live in Australia, particularly when they get to that child-rearing age and want to bring their kids home or come home to have babies, be near their families and return to the great country that is Australia—return to the environments they were living in when they grew up and enjoy the great lifestyle that this great country offers to children—it is estimated that around 20 per cent, however, do not. As a result of that, they do not pay back their debt. This is not only unfair; it is also a burden on those students who do pay back their debt. I have a number of former students working with me—fantastic young women working in my office—who have HECS debts and are gradually, each year, paying them off. I know they have a certain beef with the fact that these expats overseas are not paying back their debt and that, in a way, they are bearing the burden of that. They are doing the right thing and paying their debt back. At the same time as paying back their HECS debts, they are trying to save up for mortgages, weddings and overseas trips, while those who are living overseas are oblivious to the fact that they have to pay back their debt—they are just not doing it; they are not contributing to the system. It is unfair. It also means that an estimated $400 million in revenue has been forgone for cohorts graduating between 1989 and 2011.
While we welcome these measures to get these people paying back their debt, which, as I say, aims to strengthen the integrity of the HECS system, there are some very real challenges in implementing this measure, and I want to outline those now. I understand that, from 1 January 2016, all HECS debtors who exit Australia and intend to go overseas for more than six months will be required to register with the ATO. Debtors who are already overseas at this time will have until 1 July 2017 to register with the ATO. Payments will be required from 1 July 2017, when overseas debtors will need to self-assess income received in the 2016-17 financial year and submit details of their foreign sourced income. It is expected that the self-assessment will be due by 31 October each year, in the same way as Australian resident tax returns—it links up with when your annual tax is due. Returns will be submitted and payments made through the myGov website.
This process will face a number of challenges, and one of them is building awareness amongst students and former students of their obligations. Quite often these people go overseas, find great jobs, fall in love and decide to stay away; they are quite often oblivious to the fact that they have a HECS debt. As I mentioned earlier, this legislation requires payments to be made from July next year—that does not allow a lot of time for the government to market these changes to Australians living overseas. How does the government plan to build awareness of these changes? That is one of the questions I ask.
This proposal also puts added pressure on the ATO, which has suffered thousands of job cuts since this Liberal government came into office. So, firstly, how is the government going to let these Australians know that they have an obligation to pay back their HECS debt? Secondly, will the government be reinstating some of the jobs in the ATO to administer this measure? It is not just the job cuts that are of great concern—and we are talking thousands of job cuts, not just in the ATO, which have had a huge impact on Canberra. This government has cut 8,500 jobs in Canberra since it came into office, and that has had a huge impact on the local economy and on commercial office space. There are a lot of empty offices around Canberra at the moment.
I ask not just about whether the government is going to reinstate these jobs so that it can implement this measure effectively but also about where it is going to locate them. This government has a great commitment, in my view, to work against Sir Robert Menzies' legacy and against his vision to have Canberra as the national capital. Essentially, this government wants to put the bureaucracy out into every part of Australia, completely overlooking the vital role that Canberra plays as the nation's capital. So, first up: are you going to introduce more jobs to implement these measures and, secondly, are you going to locate them in Canberra, which is vitally important?
This legislation is complex to administer, and we must ensure that this measure actually raises more than it costs. That has been the major barrier to implementing this type of measure in the past. This legislation reflects similar changes in New Zealand, Britain, Sweden and Canada, who have all moved to collect debts from students living overseas. Lessons can be learned from these countries, which have faced significant administrative challenges. As of 2013, a quarter of England's overseas student debtors were in default, while 60 per cent of overseas debtors in the New Zealand system have overdue payments. This is a challenge that the ATO will face and that the government will need to monitor closely.
I am also keen to hear how the government plans to deal with people whose plans change while they are overseas. Will a change of mind be a valid excuse for those who do not supply their information to the ATO? I know this is a concern that Andrew Norton, the Higher Education Program Director with the Grattan Institute, has raised. He has also raised concerns around how much debtors will pay. It gets back to that point. They are overseas, they are possibly oblivious to the fact that they have a debt and they are possibly oblivious to how much debt they actually have. There is also the issue of whether there will be a fixed Australian dollar rate to repay. Andrew Norton has said:
Presumably there will have to be some $A value fixed in regulation to provide some certainty in advance as to thresholds. Debtors need to know roughly how much they will need to set aside for their repayment. However, given fluctuations in the $A there will still be some uncertainty about how much it will cost them in their local currency when the time comes to transfer the money. Debtors will be hoping that the $A stays low; bad luck if you are a HELP debtor during the next commodity price boom.
All of these challenges need to be taken into account by the government and they must not become a liability. As a result of this bill, the tax office is expected to recover $26 million over four years. This should be considered within the context of a HECS loan total which is projected to be at $62.7 billion by the end of the same period. The government has said that this legislation will save more than $150 million over 10 years in fiscal balance terms, but the challenge is to collect repayments in a cost-effective way. It is expected that up to 46,000 Australians living and working overseas will be affected, with around 38,000 expected to make repayments. As I said at the start of my speech, that will go some way to strengthening the integrity of the HECS system and making it fairer. There has also been some research to suggest that graduates are staying overseas to avoid paying off their debts. That has certainly been suggested by news reports in New Zealand: New Zealanders are coming across the ditch and never returning so that they do not have to pay off their loan.
By ensuring that overseas graduates pay back their loan whilst abroad we are increasing the chances of attracting home our talented expatriates. So there are many benefits to this legislation, but at the same time there are significant challenges. The Labor Party know and understand that, yes, introducing legislation can be challenging at times. But this is designed to achieve a fairer and more sustainable HECS system. We understand the value of education and the value of making sure everyone can access our world-class education system, no matter how much their parents earn.
It is great to follow the member for Canberra, who spoke a little bit about her experiences at university, being a great product of the Deakin electorate and one of our very proud products, so it is wonderful to follow her and speak in a similar vein on the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015.
I, in many respects, will echo some of the comments made by the member for Canberra. This is a very logical, very fair and very reasonable change. At the moment, those people who have had the benefit of a world-class Australian education, subsidised by taxpayers through the HELP or, when I went through university, the HECS loan system, are people who have benefited from that taxpayer support. We should always expect that those people who leave Australia to work or travel—it is a rite of passage for many people to do that after university—not be, in effect, exempted from repaying their HECS or HELP debt. But at present, if a person is not a tax resident of Australia and therefore not required to lodge an Australian tax return, there is no mechanism for the Australian Tax Office to compel or require that person to make the mandatory HELP or HECS repayment obligations. This legislation fixes that. This legislation simply says, 'If you are somebody who has HELP debt, you have left Australia, you are working and you are earning over the required threshold, which is $54,000 or thereabouts, we will now ask of you that you meet those HELP repayments in the same way that people who have a HELP debt do when working in Australia.'
My background, before I came into parliament, is as a lawyer. I have many friends—friends from university and colleagues in my law firm—who followed a bit of a rite of passage and went to work in London, New York, Hong Kong or Singapore. Inevitably, those people did not repay their HELP debt for the period of time that they were not working in Australia. Some of them have not returned and some of them are unlikely to ever return, and they have not been repaying their HELP debt. But somebody like me, who has worked in Australia for their whole life, has done that and has paid that back.
Every single day and every pay cheque, I looked at my HECS debt being slowly taken out. I was never grumpy and I was never disappointed with that, because I would not have been in my job and I would not have been earning the salary that I was were it not for the world-class education that I received at university. It was subsidised by taxpayers. Let us remember, the HECS system, as I went through it, was the best loan that any of us would ever get in our lives. I was grateful every single day to the Australian taxpayers for funding that education, so I was never angry when I saw that repayment coming out every pay cheque.
Similarly, we believe and evidence suggests that self compliance with these changes will be remarkably high. Evidence from Canada and the UK suggests that anywhere from 70 to 75 per cent of people will automatically comply with a requirement that they now register. We will communicate with them that, once they register, they can voluntarily repay their HECS or HELP debt. That is an extraordinarily high percentage: 70 to 75 per cent. I would expect—and call me parochial—that Australians would probably exceed those numbers, because we have an absolute sense of duty and fairness to Australia. I am confident that Australian people who have a HELP debt, who are working overseas and who are earning over that threshold of $54,000 a year will feel that obligation and will voluntarily comply with their requirement to now repay their HELP debt. Because let us remember, they would not be there in many cases were it not for the education that taxpayers in this country subsidised for them.
Now, the member the Canberra raised a number of very relevant questions around process: how do we contact these people, how do we ensure that people who are subject to repayments are aware of their obligations, how do we make it as easy as humanly possible for those people to meet those obligations and how do we make a very clear process to determine the $54,000 threshold in Australian dollar terms and how that relates to foreign currencies in other jurisdictions? I am very confident that the minister, the ATO and the department will be able to work these things through in a sensible way, because this is really not about going to the four corners of the world and trying to shake money out of people's pockets.
That is not the way and that will not be the way happens, because it will be a fundamental requirement we keep the costs of enforcing these rules low. That is because, as the modelling suggests, these changes will have a net impact of about $150 million over 10 years. Inevitably, and it is not an insignificant amount of money, we would not want to be spending too much money to chase that down. We will be largely relying on good communication with those people and self compliance from them. As I said, the evidence from Canada and the United Kingdom is heartening and I am very confident that Australians will not shirk their responsibility.
This is an issue of fairness. The HELP debt system now has accumulated debts in the order of $60 billion. Inevitably, the government will not collect all of that. There is an embedded loss, in effect, to the government for a range of reasons. There are people who have undertaken study and never reached the $54,000 threshold or whatever the threshold may be indexed to be over time. Obviously, that HECS debt will never be repaid, because that person has never met the threshold. Who wears that cost? Well, taxpayers wear it. As a society who values fairness, we would not to make life unduly difficult people who are not earning a sufficient salary to make repayments.
That just highlights why this change is so important for people who are, in many cases, in very well-paid professions and jobs—and I spoke about many of my former university friends and colleagues, who are working in law firms, accounting firms or investment banks overseas—and earning fantastic money. I know they will rise to the challenges of their obligations to repay their HECS debt, because each and every one of them would not be in that role, would not be in that job or would not have the career that they have were it not for this education system and the funding of their education by taxpayers through the HECS or HELP system.
Similarly, if you are a student who is undertaking the rite of passage that many people take—taking a gap year or, in the case of some people I know, taking a gap three years—good luck to you, I say. They are not earning a very high income or any income at all. They will not be required to repay because they will never be earning the $54,000 threshold. Those people will not be impacted. I stress that those people will go about their business and, hopefully, once they have got that travel out of their system, they will come back to Australia and will start repaying that debt.
One other thing to think about here is people who leave Australia to work and, in many cases, earn fantastic salaries who never return. In a sense, these changes will ensure that we get that money back, which we would never have got. That forms part of the $150 million over 10 years. But there are also many people who will inevitably come back, whether it is after two years, three years, five years or 10 years. They will come back to an accumulated HECS or HELP debt that has not changed at all. One of the beauties of our system is that you make small repayments over time. I think those people will look back and think, 'I wish I had just chipped away at that over the last two, three, five or 10 years, rather than coming home and having this accumulated HECS debt that has been indexed to CPI, which I have not actually chipped away at all.' From a purely practical perspective I think there are many people who, as I have said, will voluntarily enter this scheme, will voluntarily report their income to the ATO and will ensure that those payments are made.
For those who are recalcitrant, who become aware of these changes but blatantly refuse to submit to repaying their HELP or HECS debt, the ATO has a range of powers available. The ATO is very sensible in exercising those powers. As a former tax lawyer myself, I think the ATO can be unfairly maligned at times, because it does take a fairly practical approach to these things. If there is an individual who is blatantly refusing to meet these requirements, even though they are earning over the $54,000 threshold, the ATO has a range of powers to ensure that penalties are applied—penalties that in many cases will be referable in percentage terms to the debt that they owe the Commonwealth.
There are more punitive measures, like orders that would stop somebody from departing Australia, if they were to return for a short period of time without submitting to those rules. So there is a stick, in a sense. The ATO does carry that stick, but I am very optimistic that that will be the exception, not the rule. I think that, as with the experience of the UK and Canada, as I have said a couple of times, we will see voluntary compliance here. People will understand the inherent fairness and equity of these changes and will submit to ensuring that they repay their HELP and HECS debt, in a sense to meet their obligation but also to thank the Australian taxpayers for subsidising their education. We should never, ever forget that.
As Australians we talk a lot about rights: 'I have a right to this, I have a right to that and I have a right to the other.' In fact, we do not have a right to any dollar of another taxpayer's money, but as a society we have chosen to help those people. There are public policy reasons why we want a great education for everybody. We want an absolutely great education for everybody. But, as a consequence of that, when you have accepted a loan from the taxpayer, you submit to repaying that when you are able to do so. Therefore, if they are earning over $54,000 in another jurisdiction, I am confident that Australians will meet those obligations in droves.
I am certain that these rules will remain very uncontroversial, as they are. I am pleased to see that they have bipartisan support and I think that indicates how reasonable and sensible they are. As somebody who, like most people in this House, was blessed with a tertiary education funded by the taxpayers, and having many friends in that situation, I know the gratitude that those people have to the Australian government and Australian taxpayers for their tertiary education and I know that they will have no problem in meeting the obligations of the overseas debt recovery bill.
It is great to speak in favour of this. Let's just make it happen, get it going and, more importantly, let's assist the ATO in any way we can to make this process as seamless as possible. We do not want to make this difficult for people; we want it to be easy. A government should make it easy for people to repay money. I am confident that we will do that, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015. University degrees and tertiary qualifications are a key to a much better life. All of us in this chamber have had some tertiary education, whether it is in the school of hard knocks, a sandstone university, a TAFE college or on-the-job training. We have all benefited from tertiary education. In Australia we are blessed with a very generous scheme to facilitate that. The HELP scheme, whether it is in the form of the HECS debt, the VET FEE-HELP, the OS-HELP, the SA-HELP or any of the other schemes, is very generous. It is provided by the taxpayers of Australia to young or middle-aged Australians who want to better themselves and add value to our nation. But we do have a demand driven system that has increased the number of graduates by half a million.
When I went to university, the number of university places was capped, and our generation benefited from the government funding 100 per cent of the costs of a university degree. But that meant the number of students able to attend was vastly smaller than now.
As well as the expansion in the number of places, the loan system has allowed more people to attend university by getting up-front help from the government. But being allowed to repay their Higher Education Contribution Scheme debt at a deferred time, when they are earning money, has had consequences for the taxpayers of this country. It has been very generous. However, due to a lack of will and sometimes because we have let it slide, as a nation we have now accumulated a debt of just over $30 billion. That estimate of what has been lost by not claiming back the various HELP debts is not a small number—it is a huge number—and the initiative behind this legislation is to recover some of that debt.
Until the legislation is passed, former students with such loans who are overseas at the moment have no legal obligation to declare or repay their debts whilst they are overseas. In fact, some of them have gone overseas for their careers and never paid anything back. So, on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, we really need to put in place a system where that money will be recovered.
This legislation means that, between now and 2018-19, at least $25 million a year will be recovered. It may be more. That is $150 million over 10 years. It is estimated that since 1989, when HECS was first introduced, $800 million has been lost to the Australian taxpayer. So we really do need to get on top of this issue.
Travel and Australians are synonymous. We are great explorers. We come from down under but we go everywhere around the world. I do not know of any nation that has had as many young people—including now mature-age, middle-aged and senior people—travel the world. I think it comes from the fact that it takes so long to get over there that, when you get there, you travel extensively. It is a rite of passage for young people, whether it is in their gap year before university or, in my case, in our generation, after finishing university or your trade and other certificates. We want that to continue, but we cannot afford to have this huge accumulation of debt just sitting there without a system in place to recover it.
I will say a few words about the technical nature of the legislation. This legislation means that five schedules of previous acts will be amended, including the Higher Education Support Act and the Trade Support Loans Act. The amendment of the Higher Education Support Act will allow the Department of Education and Training to get tax file numbers from the tax office. Overseas, similar systems will be in place. The amendment of the Taxation Administration Act will allow officials to give taxpayer contact and income information to foreign countries or parts of foreign countries, and this will be quid pro quo. It will work with the United Kingdom and with New Zealand. This legislation amends those acts to allow our tax office to give information to those countries. It also amends the Income Tax Assessment Acts of 1936 and 1997 so that HELP debts and trade support loan debts are not allowable tax deductions. Those are the amendments that will be put in place.
As I said, we as a nation have benefited from thousands—in fact, millions—of our citizens who have travelled the world. They have learnt from overseas cultures, set up contacts, had business experience, done further higher learning and broadened their minds through travelling. There are all sorts of benefits, and I do not want those to stop. Australia soaks up so many initiatives from overseas. We pick up all sorts of new technologies and we apply them more quickly than most other nations. The spheres of education, business, economics, engineering, architecture and the humanities all benefit from overseas experience. But this bill is morally justifiable. It is not hard for people to start paying back their debt once they are earning over $50,000, a good income. We make the citizens that stay here and work and do not travel do that, so we should apply that to those who are overseas, particularly since I know that some of my younger colleagues went from university and used their Australian qualifications to get jobs in New York and in London, in the markets, in the city, on Wall Street. They can certainly cope with repaying their debts. But, if we do not have a system in place, it will not work.
We know from the UK experience that this works quite well. They have had trials with Sweden and the Netherlands, and they get 75 per cent of people paying back their debts voluntarily once they are registered. As I said, this agreement starts off working with the UK and New Zealand, but over time we hopefully will expand it to other countries where Australians with HECS debts work.
I think anyone who argues against this bill does not have the Australian taxpayer in mind. It is pretty straightforward. It is pretty transparent. We need to address this $30 billion worth of accumulated debt. We are very generous as a nation, and I want that to continue. But the issue at hand is very pressing because we have a trajectory of debt that will reach $660 million if we do not address this. We have addressed the debt trajectory that the nation faces; we have halved it. There is no plan from the other side. This is our initial manoeuvre to recover a huge HECS debt, loans that Australians have benefited from, and no-one should object to this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015. The fundamental principle behind the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill is that nothing is for free, including university education. It often amazes me when I hear many students stand up and say, 'We should have free education.' Someone has to pay. Someone has to pay the wages and salaries of the lecturers and someone has to pay for the builders that create the lecture halls, for the furniture in those lecture halls and for the electricity to keep the lights on. At the end of the day, somebody has to pay.
We have perhaps one of the most generous education systems in the world. We now enable anyone that wants to back themselves to get to university without paying one single cent up-front. Any Australian citizen that wants to back themselves and that thinks they can benefit by going to university can do so without paying one cent up-front. All we ask them, at the moment, is to repay on average less than half of that amount, with the taxpayer paying the other half. This is a more than fair system.
This is why I must comment on a few of the statements made by members of the opposition during this debate, where they have rabbited on about a scare campaign on so-called $100,000 degrees. I would ask those members to have a close look at themselves and think about the damage that they are potentially doing. We are all entitled to come here and talk about things to give us some type of political advantage or to raise points that we think are relevant, but to come into this chamber and spread what you know are deliberate falsehoods about $100,000 degrees, when that has the potential to do damage and to scare young people and deter them from going to university, is an absolute disgrace. That is the standard of the debate that we are getting from the opposition—an absolute disgrace for their own political advantage trying to scare young people of Australia and deter them from going to university. I would ask them, before they come in and continue with this outrageous scare campaign, to have a good look at themselves and consider the damage that they are doing. What also amazes me is that those who create these scare campaigns about student debt seem to have no worries about running up deficit after deficit after deficit, spending money that this nation does not have and running the entire nation into hundreds of billions worth of debt, which everyone is going to be forced to pay off in the future. The hypocrisy on this issue is outrageous.
We do have, and have had, one loophole in our legislation asking some of our students to make a contribution and to repay the debt and costs that they incurred through obtaining their university degree—that is, if you went overseas and you earned income overseas, then you did not have to make any contribution. It has been estimated that since 1989 some $800 million worth of revenue has been lost by the Australian taxpayer. This $800 million loss should not have happened in the past, but we need to put steps in place now to make sure that it does not happen in the future. While the future is uncertain—no-one knows what industries will be successful and no-one knows what new technologies or new innovations we will come up with—one thing that we can be sure about is that in the future the Australian economy will be more integrated with the world economy than ever before.
We need to remember that 98 per cent of the world's economy lies beyond Australia shores. The opportunities for young Australians today to travel and work overseas are unheralded in our nation's history. We have free trade agreements with China, Japan, South Korea and the recent TPP involving 12 countries. The opportunities for young Australians who obtain their degree here in Australia and travel overseas to get a job have never ever been greater in our nation's history. Therefore, it is only fair that we ask them that if they earn above a certain threshold—currently, around $50,000 each year—then they help contribute to the expenses that were incurred in giving them the advantage of a degree. It is simply a fair system. I do not see how anyone could argue against it.
The other point that needs to be made is that when Australians work in many overseas countries they are paying a much lower rate of personal income tax than they would in Australia. So we need to be very careful here in Australia. It is all very well to say that we want to raise taxes to pay for some harebrained scheme that may come up in government, but we already have a top rate of personal income tax approaching 50 per cent. In other countries, that is as low as 15 per cent and in some countries there are no taxes at all. If we are going, as the Australian taxpayer, to subsidise 50 per cent of university fees for many students, then this is an only fair system. We need to be careful. If we continue to do this—if we continue to have such big differences between personal tax rates here in Australia and the personal tax rates overseas—we risk damaging our economy and collecting less tax revenue in total. I will leave my comments there. This is sensible bill, it is a fair bill, and I commend it to the house.
I thank the member. I would like to make some quotes on artworks, but I will not today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, feel free to indulge yourself and make those quotes. I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015. As we have just heard from the member for Hughes, this legislation closes one of the well-known loopholes in Australian law. We have heard a lot of speakers talk about fairness. I would say that Australian taxpayers are giving tertiary students a fair go by having a HECS system that allows them to complete their education. Also, most Australian taxpayers would say that the closing of this loophole would be fair enough. And it is fair enough that we have that loophole closed so that taxpayers can be sure to know that the money they have paid with due diligence to the Australian government is being recovered.
I see that a lot of people in this place have a tertiary education, and I must declare that I certainly do not. Unfortunately, I probably was not in a situation to do that when I was at school in what was then the suburb of Deakin. I saw the member for Canberra speak on this bill. She is also an ex-Deakin person. We also had the member for Deakin speak on this bill. I attended Blackburn High School. When I and many of my fellow students at that time left school, we went on to do apprenticeships. We did not have many from my school at that time go on to university. In my seat of Swan—and you did say, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that a wide-ranging debate was taking place around this bill—there are approximately 1,750 school leavers this year who are graduating from the 19 high schools in my electorate. This is approximately the same number of people who attended Blackburn High School when I was there. So this would be equivalent to the whole school at that time going on to university—and that would have been unheard of in the time that I was at school. As I said before, most students went on to do trades or apprenticeships through other areas or just went straight into the workforce. They may have worked in a retail outlet. I know that many of my friends went straight down to the manufacturing facilities. Many of those facilities no longer exist. I know that the company I worked for had a manufacturing facility that, thanks to the metal workers union, was closed down during the eighties.
Back to my school: there are many people who will graduate in Swan this year who will head off to the many good tertiary education facilities within Western Australia. Curtin University is one such facility and it is based in my electorate. Curtin University has some very good education programs. They outreach to year 10 students through what is called the Curtin LinkUp Program. This is a five-week program that is conducted in either term 2 or term 3 and is taught by Curtin University staff. During that time, the aim is to assist students to make informed selections that will lead them to make better career choices when they head into a tertiary education. They present social things like 'What do university students do for fun?' They give examples of the support services available for university students when they go through tertiary education. They also show them the surroundings by giving them a tour of the facilities. They also teach them what it is like to study when they are at university and what the difference is between attending a high school and a university. At the end of that program, they have a function which celebrates the successes of the students during that five-week period. I congratulate Curtin on their program, which is designed to encourage students, particularly those in some of the lower SES areas within my electorate, to attend university and also to take away the fear of what would be to many a fearful experience, because they do not know about it.
During the time that I did my apprenticeship, I attended Box Hill Technical School. Again, I did not have the joy of going on to university—but my brother did. He became a professional student. I think he graduated eventually from Flinders University in South Australia at the young age of 38, after racking up about five different degrees. He continues to work in the education system. I know that he is still involved at Monash University in Melbourne.
Some of the Swan school and other school graduates might go on to WA's largest university, Curtin, which is, as I said, located in Bentley in my electorate of Swan. Curtin University is looking at a focus program to ramp up their health courses, particularly those at the medical school. The university has now been granted $20 million to go ahead and construct a new school out at their Midland campus. It was great that we were able to grant them that $20 million against strong opposition from the AMA and other areas. Curtin University is also involved in other projects, such as an aquatic centre. The university is fully supportive of having a local aquatic centre based at Manning, in the seat of Swan.
It is great to see that Labor is supporting this bill. I know they have talked about making sure that the moneys can be collected in an efficient way, but I am sure that anything designed by the coalition will be effective and will work—which we did not see in the previous six years under the Labor government. So many of the programs they implemented failed miserably. We could talk about pink batts and the school halls programs as examples. They were all poorly designed. I see that the minister is here. He will make sure that this legislation is implemented correctly and properly and will have an efficient outcome.
This bill, together with the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015, will create repayment obligations for Australians residing overseas, specifically those who are classified as non-residents for tax purposes and who have undertaken an Australian government loan while studying or training. The former Minister for Education and Training, Christopher Pyne, introduced the legislation into this parliament to require Australians living overseas to make the same repayments on their student debts as they would do if they were living in Australia. Mr Pyne said the overseas debt recovery and the student loans bills would introduce greater fairness, as I mentioned before. In a media release, he also said:
"As it currently stands, Australians living overseas are not expected to make debt repayments, no matter how high their incomes.
"These Bills will ensure equity and fairness for all Australians with Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) or Trade Support Loan (TSL) debts, and will help to maintain the stability and security of Australia’s education and training system.
"The same provisions for repayment of debts that apply to those living overseas will apply to those living in Australia. If you are volunteering overseas and earning only a small amount, if you are pulling beers or cutting hair in London for three months you will not be within the scope of these obligations. "However if you're working in a well-paid job overseas you will be required to pay back the cost of the education that you got here in Australia.
"From 1 January 2016, all Australians with current and new HELP and TSL debt who move overseas for six months or more will be required to notify the ATO via the myGov website to facilitate repayments.
"And from 1 July 2017, Australians with HELP and TSL debts who are non-residents for tax purposes will be required to assess their total Australian and foreign-sourced income in order to make income-contingent repayments, starting with the 2016-17 financial year.
"Only graduates earning over the repayment income threshold (currently around $54,000 Australian dollars a year) will be expected to make repayments."
Mr Pyne said the measures are estimated to save more than $25 million between 2015-16 and 2018-19, and more than $150 million over 10 years, in fiscal balance terms.
The Australian Taxation Office will provide a simple online tool to enable debtors to easily assess their repayment income and make repayments.
Mr Pyne also said that, following discussions with the United Kingdom, the Government plans to undertake a pilot data sharing project with the UK to enhance debt recovery. Reciprocal arrangements are also under discussion with New Zealand.
"This initiative will level the playing field and treat people the same no matter what currency their pay comes in," Mr Pyne said.
We heard the member for Canberra talk about exchange rate variations causing problems. But no matter what currency their pay comes in the initiative will level the playing field. Repayment obligations will be applied to all new and existing loans across the five Higher Education Loan Program schemes the government currently operates, as well as to the trade support loans.
The aim of these bills is to create a fairer and more equitable higher education and training loan system and to ensure that the system remains sustainable into the future. Currently, as I said, Australians with a HELP or trade support loan debt who reside in Australia are required to make repayments on that debt once their income exceeds $54,126 per annum. The rate of repayment is currently four per cent of their annual income. As it stands, there is no requirement for Australians residing overseas to make repayments, regardless of how large their income may be.
The architect of HECS, the original higher education loan scheme, Bruce Chapman, estimated in 2013 that the nonrepayment of student loans by Australians living overseas had resulted in a loss of between $400 million and $800 million in revenue since 1989. As the world economy becomes more globalised and our region prospers, it is expected that an increasing number of Australians may seek to work overseas, and that this figure will continue to rise. It is estimated that the implementation of a repayment scheme for Australians residing overseas will save more than $25 million from 2015-16 to 2018-19 and more than $150 million over the 10 years in fiscal balance terms.
Australians earning under the equivalent of the threshold whilst overseas, whether they are working in low-paid jobs, travelling following graduation, taking a gap year or undertaking volunteering missions, will not be required to make the repayments. This bill does not aim to limit the mobility of young Australians once they complete their studies; it simply aims to make sure that those in a position to repay their debt to the Australian government, and by extension to Australian taxpayers, do so. As you mentioned during your speech, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, it is about having a fairer system. We hear the word 'fairness' in this place all the time. This bill will make the system fairer.
The implementation of the measures prescribed in the bill is relatively simple. From 1 January 2016, Australians with a student loan debt who move overseas for six months or more will need to register with the Australian Taxation Office. To facilitate the repayments, the ATO will create an online tool with which debtors can provide information on their income and make repayments. The ATO will be responsible for the enforcement of the repayment obligations of Australians living overseas once they have registered as an overseas debtor.
A number of nations already have policies in place that require those with student loans to make repayments when they move overseas. The United Kingdom and New Zealand have reported that a majority of overseas debtors comply with the loan repayment obligations. The United Kingdom reports that around three-quarters of those living overseas with student debt voluntarily honour their repayment obligations. In the case of New Zealand, the percentage of compliance is approximately 70 per cent.
Whilst it is impossible to know what the compliance rates of Australians overseas will be, the government remains hopeful that they will match or surpass those of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Both the UK and New Zealand have placed an emphasis on self-compliance and voluntary repayments to achieve their successes in this policy area. Likewise, the Australian government will focus on communicating with Australians overseas to inform them of the new requirements and to encourage them to register for repayments and remain compliant.
As the minister noted in his speech, there is a financial incentive for Australians living overseas—the majority of whom will eventually return home—to begin to repay their debt as soon as possible. The alternative, which currently applies to Australians living overseas, is that they have a stale debt that remains unpaid, indexing at CPI annually while they are away. The government is proposing to explore the benefits of increased data exchange and reciprocal agreements with other nations to assist in locating individuals with outstanding student loans who fail to comply with the new requirements. The United Kingdom, a potential candidate for such reciprocal agreements, has conducted trials across Europe to trace debtors and establish contact with them.
Whilst these trials remain in the pilot stage, if effective in recovering student debt, as initial evidence has indicated, they will become a model that the Australian government may follow. In order to keep the costs of implementing this legislation down, and due to the uncertainty surrounding the rates of repayment by Australians living overseas, the government is proposing to keep investment in enforcing compliance modest to begin with. If, as in the case of the United Kingdom and New Zealand, rates of voluntary repayment are high, spending on compliance will remain low, as there will be little return on any investments made in enforcement. However, if Australians living overseas prove to be significantly less compliant, the legislation allows for the compliance enforcement model to be strengthened. I commend the bill to the House.
I appreciate the opportunity to thank members who have spoken on the Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015. Together these bills create an obligation for Australians, who have received the benefit of one of the government's most generous income-contingent student loans, to make repayments while living overseas. This includes both the Higher Education Loan Program and Trade Support Loans.
For the first time all Australians, regardless of where they live and work, will be required to make repayments on their HELP or Trade Support Loans debt. Overseas debtors will only be required to make the same repayments based on income they would have to make if they were in Australia. Australians who are volunteering overseas, who are looking for work, or who are earning only a modest amount while they travel, will not be required to make repayments. However Australians who are living overseas and earning a good income should pay back Australia for the high-quality education that they have received.
The proposed legislation includes two bills. The Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Trade Support Loans Act 2014 to create the arrangements that underpin the operation of the scheme. The Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015 will strengthen the legislative basis for the program and improve the capacity of the Australian Taxation Office to collect these repayments through the current tax administration arrangements. Under the proposed legislation, from 1 January 2016, HELP and TSL debtors who move overseas for six months or more will be required to notify the ATO of their absence. From 1 July 2017 debtors will be required to repay their loans based on the income they earned in the 2016-17 financial year.
The Education Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 also includes minor amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to allow the Department of Education and Training to access tax file numbers. This is merely an extension of processes currently in place for Trade Support Loans and will allow the ATO and the Department of Education and Training to effectively administer overseas debt recovery and HELP more broadly.
The bill also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the sharing of protected tax data with overseas jurisdictions for the purposes of student loan debt administration. This amendment is necessary to support potential reciprocal arrangements with other countries on student loan debt recovery. The government is already making good progress with New Zealand and the United Kingdom in exploring potential data-sharing arrangements to support the scheme. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 are also amended to ensure that repayments made by overseas debtors are not allowable self-education expenses and cannot be claimed as a tax deduction. This is consistent with the treatment of HELP and TSL repayments made in Australia.
This is groundbreaking legislation and, not only will preserve our income-contingent loan schemes for students and apprentices, but will improve them by making them fairer for all Australians, regardless of where they live. This change is fair both for the individual and for the taxpayer. Overseas debt recovery is expected to save more than $25 million from 2015-16 to 2018-19 and more than $150 million over the next 10 years in fiscal balance terms. Not only that, it will contribute to the sustainability of the government's generous income-contingent loans which are available to students and apprentices and are the envy of the world.
This government is fully committed to maintaining our world-class student loan schemes and is doing all that it can to ensure that they remain sustainable. Higher education and training are vital tools to create innovation in our workers and in our economy. The government recognises the importance of our loan schemes in supporting equal access to higher education and training for all Australians which leads to greater workforce engagement. Australia needs a higher education and training system that fuels innovation, drives productivity and gives students the skills they need for future success. The government will support higher education, training and research so that we can grasp the opportunities presented by new industries and create a more innovative and more productive Australia.
Overseas debt recovery is just one of a number of measures we have been seeking to implement to strengthen HELP. In this context the government are pleased that the opposition are also supporting this measure by recognising the fairness and sense in asking overseas debtors to repay their student loans on the same terms as people who stay on these shores. As the member for Lalor said, this initiative of the government is 'fair and equitable, and it's reasonable'. I thank the member for Lalor for her comments. While supporting this bill unanimously, opposition speakers have noted that there will be complexity in implementing this measure, and ensuring individuals understand the changes will be an important challenge. The government know that, which is why we are putting in place a communication strategy that will make the new requirements very clear to people. It is why we are providing a simple interface for repayment and it is why we are backing it up with targeted compliance efforts. It is also why we are exploring reciprocal arrangements with countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom to support the recovery of these debts.
In conclusion, let me say how proud I am that this government has taken action to collect these overseas debts. These bills will ensure equitable repayment of student loan debts by all Australians and contribute to the long-term sustainability of our world-class loan schemes. This is an important step forward in the government's agenda to secure the future of Australia's higher education and training system. I commend these bills 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.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Today I rise to speak on the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 and the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015.
I will state from the outset that Labor offers reserved support for this legislative package but does remain concerned with several of the specifics of the bills. Broadly, there are two aspects to the bill. One is to update the legislative arrangements to reflect the establishment of the national regulators for post-secondary education, which are TEQSA, regulating the higher education sector; and ASQA, regulating the VET sector. The second part is to roll back provisions legislated by Labor which provide protections for students against private providers taking their money and not delivering the education that students expect.
International education is critically important for Australia, both economically and socially. Each year, international education contributes about $15 billion to the Australian economy. We often hear a lot about our nation being built on mining and agriculture, so many people are surprised to learn that international education is our third biggest export overall. Others are also surprised to learn that it is our No. 1 export service industry. Clearly, international education is an essential contributor to our broader economy and one that we must constantly work hard to protect, secure and help grow. This can be done by ensuring that high-quality education offerings are available to international students and that a qualification from Australia is a globally recognised passport to opportunities around the world.
International education not only contributes significantly to our economy but also helps to build closer relationships with our neighbours. International students undertaking studies in Australia offer a wonderful opportunity for cultural exchange and the promotion of cooperation and collaboration in people-to-people contexts with countries around the world
The benefits of international education are significant and that is why we must continue to work hard to protect our reputation as a high-quality provider of educational services and protect international students from being exploited by a minority of unscrupulous operators. When it comes to international education, protecting and safeguarding quality is key to ensuring that Australia has a strong reputation abroad. We know students from overseas will only study in countries that can demonstrate the highest standards in quality, safety and the provision of educational services.
The Howard government had a lax and naive disregard for robust protections for our international education sector, and that did have an impact on confidence. Between 2008 and 2011, 54 educational providers to overseas students collapsed, impacting 13,000 students and triggering a major crisis in Australia's international education market—a market Australia relies on significantly. Of those 13,000 students affected by the collapse of the 54 providers, only 312 students received refunds from their educational institutions.
In government, Labor had to act swiftly to clean up the mess left by the former Howard government. In government, Labor established a range of protections and implemented a range of measures to protect the reputation of our international education provision and established national regulators for both higher and vocational education. We also added additional protections to prevent students from being left out of pocket, if a provider collapsed or folded.
Labor introduced a number of important protections to ensure confidence, including the Tuition Protection Service, a national insurance-type scheme which steps in when a provider collapses and either ensures that an affected student can access another course at another college or provides that student with a refund for training not delivered. In addition, there were a number of other reforms that Labor initiated, ensuring that integrity was restored to Australia's international education industry.
And it has been successful. Between July 2012 and December 2014, we have seen significantly fewer colleges closing, with only 12 colleges closing and only 1,332 students affected. That is a significant reduction from the 13,000 who were affected before these changes were implemented. In 2014, we saw a mere three colleges close. This indicates a substantial and successful reduction from the previous years in institutions not being able to provide the service that they had charged for.
While we know that the vast majority of providers do the right thing in delivering a high-quality experience to our international students, one bad apple can affect the whole industry's reputation. This does affect confidence in the sector, and I think the recent exposure of exploitation and sham contracting arrangements at Australia Post and 7-Eleven involving almost exclusively international students should raise some concern. If it is not regulated properly and if questionable operators are left unchecked, honest players in the market and honest, high-quality education operators will suffer.
With this in mind there is sufficient reason to be concerned that some elements of the legislation before the House will potentially have the impact of watering down protections for international students. In this regard, Labor does have further questions as to whether the proposed amendments to the Tuition Protection Service will increase risk for the international education industry as well as possibly placing students at risk. That is why it is this parliament's obligation to ensure that the policy settings are right and that the regulators are given the tools they need to properly protect students from exploitation, mismanagement and dishonest dealings by a few unscrupulous operators.
There are elements of the bill which Labor is absolutely prepared to support, including the streamlining of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act. We are absolutely willing to support reducing unnecessary red tape, but what we do not want to see is the watering down of protections for our international students and, indeed, of those protections that would threaten international education, which is our big export industry.
We do maintain concerns with some elements of the package, as I have indicated. I do recognise that this package does have support from many parts of the education sector who do want to see this bill passed. However, on a matter of such importance, it does deserve careful consideration to ensure that the safeguards are put in place and that the changes that are made do not have unintended consequences. Labor will continue to scrutinise this bill as it makes its passage through both houses and does reserve its right to make amendments in the Senate if needed. I am informed that it has been sent to a Senate legislation committee that will report back in November.
The international reputation of Australia's universities and vocational education providers deserves nothing less. We do need to protect our international students and we do need to protect Australia's reputation as a high-quality provider when it comes to international education. This is important both for students and for our economy.
I rise to support the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 and related bill. I do so because it reaffirms the coalition government's commitment to reducing red tape and making it easier for private enterprise to do business in Australia. The bill does this in several ways. It removes unnecessarily prescriptive reporting requirements for private education providers. It levels the playing field between public and private education institutions by equalising accounting requirements and it removes inefficiencies in regulatory agencies, revoking the accreditation of institutions that fail to follow the rules.
The bill is the culmination of an extensive consultation process with the international education sector. An exposure draft of this bill was made public and comment was sought from stakeholders. Those consulted included education peak bodies; individual institutions across the schools, vocational education and training, higher education and English language training sectors; international student representative bodies; state and territory agencies; the Overseas Students Ombudsman; the Department of Immigration and Border Protection; the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA; and the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, to name just a few. As a consequence, the final bill strikes an appropriate balance between greater freedom from red tape for the sector and improved compliance mechanisms for TEQSA and AQSA, the industry regulators.
For industry, it is estimated that this bill will deliver deregulatory savings of $75 million dollars per annum. The market for international education is a fiercely competitive one, so savings of this magnitude will be welcomed. It will provide a further boost to the industry that is already Australia's largest non-resource export earner, worth $18.1 billion dollars to the national economy.
It is important to emphasise here that the proposed changes do not in any way water down student protections or necessary quality controls. The industry understands that strong protections enhance the international reputation of Australian providers in a sector in which reputation is of fundamental importance. This bill merely retracts some unnecessary regulatory impositions contained in the former government's Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Act 2012, which contained amendments to the ESOS Act. It maximizes protections and quality for students while reducing unnecessary red tape.
I turn now to some of the key elements of this bill. The bill removes existing restrictions on institutions receiving more than 50 per cent of a student's tuition fees prior to the commencement of the course. Students will now be given the power to pay up-front if they choose to so. The bill also removes the requirement for private educational institutions to retain prepaid tuition fees in a designated account until the commencement of the course. This requirement limits the competitiveness of private providers relative to public sector institutions, which have faced no such restrictions. With this bill, the practice of requiring institutions to report a default by an international student within an unreasonably short period of time has been ended. Previous requirements acted as a barrier to students and institutions resolving payment issues prior to the formal reporting of a default.
The bill also makes a series of technical amendments that clarify and formalise the regulatory roles of TEQSA and AQSA. Importantly, compliance processes are further streamlined by allowing for an institution's accreditation or its registration to deliver courses to international students to be cancelled or suspended if the institution's registration under domestic frameworks is similarly cancelled or suspended. This avoids the duplication of a costly and time-consuming further review process.
More improvements to the integrity of compliance measures are introduced through clarification of arrangements for existing students when an institution's registration expires. The bill makes it clear that the institutions cannot recruit or enrol new students after their registration expires. This bill is an example of what can be achieved when a government listens to, consults and engages with stakeholders. It reduces the burden of red tape on industry, clarifies regulatory responsibilities and strengthens integrity measures.
It is vitally important that the competitiveness and integrity of Australia's international education sector is maintained. The sector is growing strongly and, with increasing demand from our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region, has the potential to grow further in the years and decades to come. However, this growth is by no means guaranteed, and will depend on Australian institutions continuing to offer a quality product at a competitive price. This bill ensures that these ingredients for future growth are maintained and enhanced. I commend the former minister for laying the groundwork for this bill in the preceding years and months, and wish the new minister well in ensuring this bill's passage through both Houses. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today in support of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Streamlining Regulation) Bill and the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015, but I do so with some reservations.
These two bills seek to update the legislative arrangements to reflect the establishment of national regulators for post-secondary education. These include both the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency—TEQSA—which, as my colleague the member for Kingston pointed out, recently lost $31 million through funding cuts made by the Abbott-Turnbull government, and the Australian Standards Quality Authority—ASQA. Australia has one of the world's best university systems alongside other post-secondary education. It is something that we on this side of the House are very proud of. Students from overseas are keen to obtain their higher education in Australia because of this.
In international education, protecting the quality of the education provided is paramount to maintaining the high reputation Australia currently enjoys and, therefore, the industry. Why would overseas students go to study in countries that are unable demonstrate and deliver the highest standards in quality of education services? They would not. One would argue that is why Australia is so attractive to overseas students. We know that the Abbott and now Turnbull government's agenda is to deregulate post-secondary education. This is what these bills are aimed at achieving; however, there are risks associated with these bills. That is why Labor is determined to ensure that they do not weaken necessary and effective protections for students—necessary and effective protections that were put in place under Labor after it became apparent they were necessary. So in removing those protections now, we are going into a space that we know carries risk because we have lived that risk before and we have lived with the consequences of that risk. This is a major test for the new minister and the new Prime Minister. They have to assure this parliament that with the passage of this legislation there will be no weakening or removal of protections that protect overseas students from shady operators in the international sector. And we cannot be naive in this place. We know these shady operators exist; we have seen the evidence of them.
So why do these protections exist? Well it is for very good reasons, for lived reasons, for lived experience. Between 2008 and 2011, 54 colleges collapsed. Fifty-four international education providers in this country collapsed, having a huge effect on 13,000 students. Of those 13,000 students who were enrolled in those colleges that did not provide them with the quality education they had paid for, only 312 got refunds from their education institutions. That had an enormous effect on the reputation of this industry in Australia. It resulted in a major crisis in our international education industry as enrolments collapsed. And why did this happen? It happened because of naivety, because in the Howard years there was a naive and lax regulation. This was fixed by Labor when it came to government, as seems to be the tradition.
It was Labor who established national regulators for higher education and vocational education. This problem was fixed, and we are now at risk of seeing those measures wound back. It was Labor who added additional protections to prevent students from being left out-of-pocket if a provider collapsed. And it was Labor who established the Tuition Protection Service, a national scheme which steps in when a provider collapses and either ensures an affected student can access another course at another college or provides that student with a refund for training not delivered. This is critical. Without those securities in place, there may be an impact on the number of overseas students who do enrol in Australia because those assurances are insuring this industry for Australia. It is clear that the measures implemented were effective; we can see that in the data. We can see that between July 2012 and December 2014, only 12 collapses occurred, and the numbers were clearly diminished because of the regulatory regime that was put in place. And in 2014 we only had three collapses. So the industry has recovered its reputation, and we are here today talking about possibly taking away the things that have led to the recovery of this industry.
We know that in this industry there are always new challenges. Only recently it was exposed that international students were victims of exploitation and sham contracting arrangements at Australia Post and 7-Eleven. This leaves no doubt in the minds of the Australian public—and should leave no doubt in the minds of those opposite—that there are those who will want to make a quick dollar at the expense of others and that any weakening of the regulations or of surety for students will add a layer of risk.
We know that the vast majority of people operating in this space and in this industry are reputable providers. Reputation is a very valuable thing, and once lost it is very difficult to recover. We know that the majority of providers are dedicated to providing the best education they possibly can. But it is these providers who operate within the guidelines, providing quality education, who suffer when the charlatans prosper, who suffer when, for one reason or another, there are collapses that leave students out of pocket. This damages the reputation. It damages the industry for those who are operating reputably and offering high-quality education.
We in this parliament need to make sure that the legislation we pass will give the regulators all the requirements they need to properly protect students. We do not want the situation whereby Australia's reputation continues to be damaged because of deliberate abuse of the system by underhanded, deceitful operators. I must say that I certainly hope that the Liberal Party has learnt from its mistakes under the Howard government, although I am not so sure that they have. Last time they were in office we saw nothing but inaction in this space. Now they are keen to further deregulate. It is not enough that they are trying to deregulate our universities with their plan for $100,000 degrees. Now we have this piece of legislation showing deregulation under the name of a diminishing of red tape, which I find extraordinary. I find it extraordinary when we use red tape in place of—in this case—surety: to ensure that students are getting what they have paid for, putting in place for those students some protections that ultimately protect the industry itself. Similarly, we hear the suggestion that occupational health and safety is somehow red tape in the industry. This can be misleading—and in this case it certainly is.
So, we have concerns about elements of these bills. Given the importance of this matter, this legislation requires further consideration and scrutiny to ensure that there are not further unintended consequences, because at the end of the day both sides of this House want to ensure that student protections are not weakened or completely lost and that our higher education international student industry is not diminished. That is why we are pleased to see that the bill has been referred to a Senate Legislation Committee for the scrutiny it deserves. We will be playing close attention as it travels through the houses and will be looking to see whether amendments are required to ensure that all international students studying in this country are protected, no matter where they come from.
I will finish my comments by reminding the House that our international education industry is currently the third biggest industry in this country. Surely that means that it is deserving of a level of scrutiny and a level of surety that robust protections are in place for the industry, for the students and for our international reputation in this space. It is not just in economic terms that this industry is valuable. It is obviously valuable in face-to-face, people-to-people relationships with our international neighbours in our tertiary sector. It is incredibly important. We do not want to see protections watered down, and we are very wary of unintended consequences.
I rise today to speak about the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015. The amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 reduce the regulatory burden on education institutions and enhance the quality and reputation of international education while maintaining protection for students. The bills propose significant deregulatory savings for educational institutions totalling $76 million each year across all sectors. The bills are the result of extensive consultations with international education stakeholders, who have worked closely with the government to develop these reforms and strongly support the changes. Working with industry to get the best outcome for the sector is what this government is all about.
The bills deliver on recommendations of the 2013 review of higher education regulation by reducing duplication across the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. The bills will streamline the current registration, monitoring and quality assurance processes for education institutions to create a more seamless system—again, a better system with less compliance, less regulation.
We must continue to find ways to improve the effectiveness of our university and tertiary education sector. I want to take this opportunity to commend some universities in my home state of South Australia for the work they are doing at improving the effectiveness of their operations. The University of Adelaide is one example of a new platform to accelerate innovation and commercialisation of their research findings. They recently launched Adelaide Commercial, which will license research applications, generate spin-out companies and manage intellectual property on behalf of the university. I know that the minister for science, sitting in the chamber today, would be most interested in what they are doing in that respect. It will increase the impact from the translation of research into commercial outcomes. That is what we want to see: more commercial outcomes out of our universities partnering with industry. And it will help drive economic development. This is something that the Vice-Chancellor of Adelaide University, Professor Warren Bebbington, is very focused on. As he says, it will mean more jobs for South Australians, which is very important as we are facing some challenging employment situations going forward.
The University of Adelaide ranks third in the Group of Eight and fourth nationally in commercialisation and contract research income and generated $41.5 million in 2014, so they are doing some good things there. They have world-class research expertise in many areas, including advanced manufacturing, engineering, agriculture, defence and security, energy and mining, environment and health. These are many of the areas that this government is focusing on through its industry growth centres.
The University of Adelaide has recently moved up the prestigious Times Higher Education international rankings, which were released recently, breaking into the top 150 for the first time. What they are doing will help recruit more international students and the best academics from around the world to the state. It will also help attract more research support from the government and industry.
The University of Adelaide recently launched a major new research hub that will add significant value to Australia's $6 billion-a-year copper industry.
Mr Champion interjecting—
I hear the member for Wakefield is supportive of such an initiative, which is good to hear from that side of the chamber.
The Australian Research Council Research Hub for Australian Copper-Uranium, based at the University of Adelaide, involves key industry, university and government partners in South Australia and nationally. Partners include BHP Billiton, OZ Minerals, the Defence Science and Technology Group—a great Australian government operation—Flinders University, Monash University and the University of Queensland. As you can see, it is a collaboration between many universities and industry.
Before I finish, I commend Flinders University—another of my alma maters—on its new appointment to the South Australian Chair of Restorative Care to transform South Australia into a state that is at the forefront of active, healthy ageing and wellness. The ACH Group, a very large and significant aged-care provider, has jointly invested in the establishment of the new position at Flinders University in recognition of the importance of restoration and rehabilitation to the future of aged care. Dr Rungie, the ACH Group's chief executive, said that health and ageing was a future growth area for jobs, with a projected 1,500 per year across Australia being required until at least 2050. These are the sectors that will be growing in the future. They will provide opportunities for both the young and old to work in the industries that have potential and face demand from so many sectors. Through this bill the government is helping universities to be more efficient. All South Australian universities are doing some great things, and I have touched on some this afternoon, including partnering with industry to reach their potential. I commend the bill to the House.
I do not think that anybody denies the importance of international students and their education to our country—our economy, our terms of trade and the enrichment of our communities. This international education area, whether you want to call it an industry or a sector, has rapidly increased in the last decade. But the best examples of quality education have not always come with that increase.
Whilst some of this legislation before us will be supported by Labor, we are recommending that other parts of go to a Senate inquiry to be teased out to work out where the potential gaps are and where, under the guise of red tape, we might be condoning some of the dodgy practices that are currently going on within the international student higher education space. We need to ensure that there are safeguards around quality in order to maintain a high reputation in this space both nationally and internationally.
Overseas students need to know that when they come to Australia they will receive a quality education that meets high standards. But, reading the media reports about what has been going on in this space, it is clear that not all students studying here are receiving a high-quality education. For years we have heard the anecdotal evidence that has come forward. I am sure many people here have met international students who have terrible stories to tell about how they have been exploited, ripped off and had shocking experiences in our higher education sector. There is need to reform this space to ensure that when students come here they are getting what they signed up for.
The Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 and the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 are a part of the Liberal government's agenda to deregulate and reduce red tape in the post-secondary education sector. As such, Labor is determined to ensure that any reforms do not weaken the safeguards needed to ensure that education standards for international students are protected. Why is it so important that we have these safeguards in place?
Between 2008 and 2011, 54 colleges collapsed, affecting 13,000 students. Only 312 students received refunds from their education institutions—and these are just the ones we know about. Since then, there have been more. On an almost weekly basis we are hearing more and more reports of these colleges across the country either collapsing or delivering students, who do not meet minimum standards of skills and qualifications, into careers in those areas of study. These issues, together with the information about colleges operating as immigration scams—something that a number of us have spoken about in this place—mean that now more than ever we need to ensure that we have the proper rules in place so that international students seeking a higher education receive what they have paid for.
The national regulators for higher education and vocational studies have proven to be successful. Between July 2012 and December 2014, 12 colleges who were not offering the quality courses that they claimed to have been were closed. But the number of closures was fewer than in previous years. With the right reforms in place we can ensure that we have the standards, we can ensure that the people going to those colleges do get the education they are seeking, and we can ensure that there are fewer collapses—and therefore fewer students having their courses cancelled at the last minute.
As has been exposed recently in the media, through evidence at committee hearings and through work being done in the other place, exploitation via sham contracting arrangements has entered into the space of international student higher education. Two examples that have received attention recently are Australian Post and 7-Eleven, where international students are being exploited. They are being exploited in the workplace and exploited through their study. This is the dark underbelly of the system that we cannot ignore. Yes, ministers like to stand up here and preach about the dollars that the international student market brings to this country, but some of that money is dodgy and is a dark underbelly of our community and our economy.
Some international students have become part of an exploited workforce. They come here with the best of intentions; they come here to study. They sign up in their home country for what they believe will be a quality international student education experience in Australia only to come here and find that the college is a sham—a small office somewhere in West Melbourne or somewhere in the backstreets of Brisbane—and then be forced or coerced into working for a dodgy labour supply subcontractor. Two of the cases that have made news recently have been Australian Post and 7-Eleven. International students being paid as little as $4 an hour have come forward. They have spoken out about their experiences and are seeking amnesty from the government so they can help us to try to clean this up—so that future international students are not exploited in this way.
I raise this issue because it is important that the colleges and the universities that are attracting the students take responsibility for what happens to them. They need to take responsibility, and this government needs to force them to take responsibility, so that people who come here to study receive a quality education, are safe at work and are safe where they live.
What has not had as much media attention as the 7-Eleven and the Australian Post examples is what is going on in our cleaning industry. International student education is a major driver of the Australian economy. As many people have said, it is, depending upon which figures you use, one of our largest exporters, earning over $15 billion in export income annually and supporting about 100,000 jobs. Those are the headline figures that ministers in this place like to stand up and proudly proclaim. But let us remember who is at the heart of that money they are so proud of, that $15 billion of annual export income: it is these international students. We need to talk about the experience that they are having here in this country.
In Melbourne, in Sydney and in Brisbane—in fact in every major capital city where we have large numbers of these international students studying—they constitute much of our cleaning workforce. These international students work for subcontractors or principal contractors. Whether it be at Crown Casino, at major buildings, or even at their own university, international students are the labour force of the cleaning industry in many of these places. How did they get these jobs working in the cleaning industry? Through the colleges where they are studying. They have signed them up for labour hire. They have signed them up for the course, they have signed them up for the job and they have signed them up for their accommodation. There is a dodgy scam going on in some places in the higher education sector that needs to be cleaned up.
I acknowledge that it is not just the colleges that need to do it. I acknowledge that the Fair Work Ombudsman needs to be involved when it comes to work rights, that we need to involve state governments when it comes to the tenancy arrangements, and that we need to involve the federal government when it comes to the colleges themselves. This is why we cannot afford to weaken the safeguards that are in place.
What has been the experience of the international students who are the labour force for so many of the cleaning companies, and the subcontractors of those cleaning companies, in our CBD? There was a report done by United Voice a few years ago in conjunction with the University of Victoria. It is a proper report that exposed this dark underbelly, that exposed what is going on in the cleaning industry. What they found was that some shadowy contractors could be defrauding building owners by agreeing to pay the proper rates but then paying their workers as little as $15 an hour. This report found that international students working for subcontractors were being ripped off by as much as $15,000 per year. The contractors were using methods like making the students get ABNs so that they could get round the minimum engagement requirement of 20 hours a week. They were also using arrangements where they would put the money into the students' bank accounts and then take it back out—we have heard that story before. These are people who have come here with the best intentions—to get higher education, a quality education—only to be exploited by the very people who recruited them to the colleges, signed them up for dodgy education and then signed them up to dodgy workplace arrangements where they are being underpaid.
Can you imagine how much these contractors are making when they are ripping off international students by up to $15,000 a year? These are people working for some of the biggest cleaning contractors in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and all our other major capital cities. In fact some of these cleaning contractors and subcontractors who hire international students clean the very universities those students are supposedly getting an education at.
Weakening the safeguards in this space will only make it harder for us to crack down on this dodgy underbelly of our higher education system, on this terrible exploitation that is occurring. I have mentioned what is going on in the space of work and how this government needs to ensure that there are safeguards in place for people at work. I have mentioned that we need to get on top of the colleges to make sure that they are offering a quality education. We also need to look at students' living arrangements. It is heartbreaking to meet groups of international students who may be living with 10 to 15 people all squashed into one three-bedroom house.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. I thank the honourable member. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to wish a special happy birthday to Mary Whitehurst, who will join the ranks of Australia's supercentenarians when she turns 110 next week. For those who do not know, a supercentenarian is someone who reaches the age of at least 110 years. There have only ever been 26 people in Australia who have reached that age, and 25 of those have now passed away. With Mrs Whitehurst's milestone next week, she will be able to add another one to that list.
Mrs Whitehurst is an accomplished pianist living in the Riddell Gardens Aged Care Facility in Sunbury, which I visited recently. Although I did not get the chance to catch up with this wonderful lady myself, the staff told me that she continues to entertain residents every Friday afternoon at happy hour and at other times with her piano singalongs. Mrs Whitehurst has been an active member of the Sunbury community. She played the organ at the Sunbury Methodist church and was the president of the Riddells Creek senior citizens' club for 20 years.
Along with wishing Mrs Whitehurst a happy birthday, I want to take this time to thank her for her service to the community and her positive approach to life. Mrs Whitehurst, you are definitely on the money when you remind us that we have to try and look at the good things in life. You go out the next day and try to do better, as there is no point whining. I wish you a very happy birthday, as I am sure every member in this House does, and I look forward to hearing you play the piano for the singalongs at the Riddell Gardens Aged Care Facility soon.
It saddens me to hear of some of the pressures that students are under as exam time comes up. I want to say to them: it is very important that you do your best, but life goes on no matter what the results are. We need to get the message out there that you should work hard towards your goals but your ATAR score should not define you. What you are going to do in the future is a big decision, and when I finished year 12 I had no idea—I certainly did not expect to be having a say in the parliament on how the country is being run.
This is a time where there is a lot of pressure on our students. We want to make sure that they are well supported. We want to make sure that they have the message that there are many pathways to success. We want to make sure that they understand that this is the beginning and not the end, and that we stand by them at this time.
We need to make sure, when we are thinking about our education, that we are teaching resilience and optimism as well as maths and science. I just want to send this message out very seriously to the people and the students in the electorate of Mallee. We have had some very difficult circumstances as a result of some students who have not been able to cope with the stress levels at this time, and so I say to the children of Australia: enjoy your studies and enjoy your life. You have your whole life ahead of you. Just do your best.
One of the pleasant duties of a local member is honouring those in the community whose passion and generosity make others' lives richer. Today I rise to I congratulate the 22 Lalor Heroes in the areas of community and sport for 2015: Elizabeth Croft, Robyn Kompa, Ian Gainey, Terry Hedt, Esme Huggard, Louise Isted, Wally Martin, Brett Matthews, Susan McIntyre, Mubareq Risilia, Barry Shields, Alex Vasta, Gary Williamson, Fiona Cooke, Phil Morley, Rachel DiGenova, Luisa Ballestrino, Christopher Barnes, Kim Edyvean, Ross McKenna, Fabian Gargano and Rodney Joyce.
I would also extend my thanks to the community and sporting groups who engaged in the process and nominated these worthy recipients so that they could be acknowledged. Many of them have long worked in these organisations, giving hours and hours of their time to make sure that sporting events occur and to make sure that people meet in our community and share their experiences.
I was really thrilled this year to find a young person—a 12-year-old—nominated to be a Lalor Hero for her work in the Guides, but also for her work in celebrating Anzac and the research she had done of all of the names on the plaque in our town; she had done that and then shared it with her church. It was an extraordinary thing to see a 12-year-old honoured that way.
Last week I was invited to visit Mirboo North Secondary College, a proud school nestled in the steep majestic hills of South Gippsland. Today the paddocks provide a rich contrast to the red soil set against the deep green of the rolling landscape—breathtaking!
I was invited by Principal Karen Lanyon and Mr Allen Riseley to attend one of their 'tubing days'. You might well ask: what is a tubing day? Under the watch of teacher Mr Allen Riseley, the students take part in an environmental horticultural program that not only encourages learning but also provides a practical grounding in land management, water conservation and horticulture. Mr Riseley's years nine and 10 grow native trees from seed. The trees are then potted up and eventually sold to water catchment authorities, Landcare groups and local landowners. This has led to a partnership that has meant that this unique program actually pays for itself. The students can proudly claim to have grown from seed and planted over 10,000 trees since the program's inception several years ago. I congratulate Mr Riseley on his creative initiative and the value that he has added to the school curriculum.
To Principal Karen Lanyon and the staff of Mirboo North Secondary College: I congratulate you on a school that, with its gardens interwoven around the classrooms, is as calm and beautiful as the surrounding hills in which it is nestled. Mirboo North Secondary College, you should be so proud—you are a golden thread in the great tapestry that is my electorate of McMillan. Mirboo North Secondary College rocks!
Today I stand to join the local member in my electorate, Jacinta Allan, who is also the Minister for Public Transport in Victoria, in calling on this government to support the Labor government's Murray-Darling Basin rail project. We are calling on this government to partner with the Victorian government to help build this critical infrastructure that will help get primary produce from the Murray-Darling region to the ports. This particular project has been funded by the state Labor government; it has started the work. It has fast-tracked some of the funding to help improve the rail speeds so that we can get that produce from the region to the ports.
The government needs to step up to the mark and start funding public transport, whether it be for passengers or freight. If the government is serious about infrastructure and exports, then it will invest in the infrastructure that will help get product from the regions to the ports. This week the state Labor government and Jacinta Allan from my electorate are calling for this funding. I stand with them. If the government is serious about funding rail, if it is serious about public transport and if it is serious about exports, then it will join the state government in funding that Murray Basin Rail Project.
Last Friday saw the opening of Ronald McDonald House in Orange which, while in Orange, is very much a regional facility. Back in 1985, when Joanne and Jeff Lewis built the first McDonald's in Orange and later the first one in Bathurst, they realised that there was a real need for the parents of children who came to Orange hospital to have somewhere to stay while their children were being cared for. In 2005, they quickly realised that Orange had the only serious medical centre west of the Blue Mountains and that something needed to be done. They held public meetings, met with council and in 2005 they started fundraising and spent 10 long years doing that. It would have been easy for Joanne and Jeff to pass it on when they sold out a couple of years ago, but they are still involved. They have seen this through. It is a magnificent achievement by the community of not just Orange but the whole region. People from outside Orange come and stay while their children are looked after. This was all done without government help, with local donations and fundraising. It is a credit to the people of the region. Since the end of April, 40 families have been able to use it. They have 150 trained volunteers and they need 200.
On this day 45 years ago, a 114-milimetre gap between spans 10 and 11 of the West Gate Bridge gave way and 2,000 tonnes of steel and concrete fell 58 metres into the Yarra. Thirty five workers lost their lives that day, either in the fall, through being hit by metal and concrete shrapnel or by the later fire. The reverberations from the bridge hitting the muddy water shook buildings for kilometres. It was the largest industrial incident in Australia's history. For those who were alive at the time, the collapse of the West Gate remains a defining moment. People in Melbourne's west remember where they were when they first heard the news and the fear that they felt in the aftermath. This was especially the case for the people who lost loved ones, co-workers and friends. The subsequent royal commission found that a litany of structural design and safety failures contributed to the bridge's collapse. In the wake of the disaster, the trade union movement successfully prosecuted the case for complete reform of health and safety standards and procedures, including employee representation on safety committees and stronger safety and compliance laws, not only for construction workers but for workers throughout Australia.
Forty-five years on, the West Gate is one of the iconic images of Melbourne's skyline and a symbol of Melbourne's west. The lives lost in its construction will always be part of the bridge's history. We should never forget the people whose lives were lost in its construction and the ongoing importance of safe workplaces. On the 45th anniversary of the collapse of the West Gate Bridge, we remember the loss of life, the pain and suffering of the survivors and the ongoing anguish of their families and the community of Melbourne's west. Get home safe every day.
I would like to address an important issue in my community: the very poor mobile phone coverage in the Connells Point area. In seeking a solution for residents on this matter, I have discussed the issue on several occasions with Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. I want to congratulate Vodafone and Optus for the constructive approach they have taken on this issue. Following on from discussions with the companies, Vodafone recently submitted a plan to Kogarah City Council to install an additional mobile antenna in the area. That plan has been approved and the antenna is expected to be up and running early next year, which is expected to significantly improve mobile phone reception coverage for Vodaphone and Optus customers. I commend those companies on their efforts.
In contrast to the responsive actions of Vodafone and Optus, Telstra's lack of action on this issue continues to be a source of immense frustration. I have had numerous meetings and many conversations with Telstra over the issue of very poor mobile coverage in the Connells Point area, dating back to November last year. The simple fact, however, is that Telstra has done nothing to address the needs of its customers in the area. Telstra has not provided any plan on how it will address the reception issues, despite the fact that Vodafone and Optus have been able to do so. It is clear from the actions of Vodafone and Optus that it is commercially possible to address this problem, but Telstra has failed to act. I believe it should act and I will continue to advocate on behalf of residents on this important issue.
I would like to welcome to Parliament House today leaders of Australia's Catholic religious congregations, the Uniting Church and representatives from the Anglican, Jewish and Muslim faith. These 40-plus leaders met with over 15 politicians to discuss concerns about government policy relating to asylum seekers and refugees. The discussion was informed by the social justice statement released by the Australian Catholic Bishops conference, 'For Those Who've Come Across the Seas', and also the comment by Pope Francis:
We are a society which has forgotten how to weep, how to experience compassion ...
I am pleased to inform the House that the meeting was a fantastic discussion and it has been agreed to form a working party to further progress a combination of politics, community and society across geography, across location and across parties. I acknowledge and thank Sister Jan Barnett from the Sisters of St Joseph, Sister Berenice Loch, leader of the Sisters of Mercy in Australia and New Zealand, and Sister Ann Lane, leader of the Presentation Sisters, for their courage and creativity in bringing together today's meeting.
I also take courage from the words of the minister for immigration in this House yesterday at question time regarding his concern for children in detention, but I do remind the House that children's rights are human rights. They do belong in families but, first and foremost, we must have all our children out of custody.
My wife Charlotte and I, along with 2½ thousand people from the Manning Valley and surrounding areas, enjoyed the fun, excitement and spectacle of the 137th Taree Show, run by the Manning River Agricultural and Horticultural Society. It is a great showcase of what our region has to offer. It has been running for all this time only because of a hard-working team of volunteers, and the show society. I would like to pass on my congratulations to them, including Taree Show President Milton Johnson, who has been doing it for 16 years, Vice President Selwyn Weller and Show Society Secretary Anne Donoghue.
Showgirl Coordinator Val Weller organised the 50th Taree Showgirl competition, with contestants Jessi Wainwright, Kate Greenaway and Laura Polson, the winner this year being Laura Polson, who is going to be a great advocate for the Manning River Agricultural and Horticultural Society and the Greater Manning Valley. But any show runs on its stomach, and I have to congratulate the Taree Show Society Ladies Auxiliary, who put on a beautiful lunch for all the attendees and raised some very valuable funds for the show society.
The show has been a great institution for many years. There are so many people who do so much work— (Time expired)
This week John Salisbury arrived at Parliament House, completing his 10-day walk from Sydney, to present parliamentarians with a petition signed by more than 1,000 people he met along the way that calls on Australia to join the majority of the world in recognising the state of Palestine. This comes at a time when violence has intensified in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, as Israel continues to violate international law by building settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and tensions rise over the prevention of Palestinians praying at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and right-wing Israelis visiting that compound.
Eight Israelis and at least 37 Palestinians have been killed so far this month, the disproportionate casualty numbers reflecting the power imbalance between the parties. While much of the Western media has focused on the Israeli victims, less attention has been paid to the more numerous Palestinian victims.
As Middle East commentator Lamis Andoni has written this week in Al Jazeera:
In the name of 'peace', Israel continues to wage a daily war against the Palestinians—restricting their movement, demolishing their homes, displacing families, assassinating Palestinians and bombing towns and cities when it sees fit.
It is in the interests of Israelis, Palestinians and the global community, including Australia, that the brutal decades-long Israeli military occupation be brought to an end and that Palestinians have their own state at long last. Given the discussions taking place today regarding the issue of radicalisation, I suggest that ending this longstanding injustice would be one way to reduce recruitment to extremist causes.
I was honoured to join with the Hon. Hendy Cowan, Chancellor of Edith Cowan University, and Professor Steve Chapman, the vice-chancellor, to officially open the newly constructed six-storey student accommodation building at the Joondalup Campus. The facility comprises 93 architecturally-designed units, which are both modern and functional, to cater for the living needs of mainly international students.
Educational services represent an important part of the Australian economy, representing our third largest export revenue earner behind iron ore and coal. The following week, Professor Daryoush Habibi, Head of the School of Engineering at Edith Cowan University, hosted me for a comprehensive tour of the engineering faculty, which covered the complete range of civil, mechanical, chemical and electrical engineering disciplines. The facilities are state of the art and the learning environment is abuzz with energy.
Working in close collaboration with industry, the university has an emphasis on practical research, innovation, and commercialisation. I viewed a range of projects, including a bush fire detection system; environmental monitoring systems; and practical applications of technology involving hydraulics, robotics, materials science, and automotive engineering. Edith Cowan University is a leading institution in my electorate combining industry, science and innovation.
This morning the Senate again considered a bill, already supported by two Liberal senators, Senators Smith and Bernardi, that seeks to water down Australia's protections against racist hate speech. This morning two further Liberal senators, Senators Back and Seselja, spoke in favour of the bill.
As the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, this is a time for national unity. It is a time for social cohesion and for harmony between Australians of all backgrounds. This bill would undermine that sense of national unity. Weakening section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is an ideologically driven and deeply divisive proposal, and it is a proposal the Australian people resoundingly rejected last year, before it was finally dropped by the government.
Just like the Leader of the Opposition, the new Prime Minister has said some admirable things about tolerance and community harmony at this difficult time. But the Prime Minister needs to match those words with action. In May this year the Prime Minister told Andrew Bolt that he supported precisely the same weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act proposed in the bill that is now in the Senate. It is time for the Prime Minister to publicly abandon that view. It is time for him to accept that there is no good reason to abandon a protection that has served Australians well for 20 years. It is time for him to show some leadership and pull his senators into line, to direct them to abandon their attack on race hate protections that have served Australians well.
I rise today to advise the House that tomorrow, Friday, 16 October, the first concrete pour of the Palmerston Regional Hospital will occur. I am looking forward to joining my 'Team Palmerston' colleagues, Minister Peter Chandler, Nathan Barrett MLA, and Lia Finnocchiario MLA—Lia is a new mum, and I hope she brings baby Isla to the event—along with Minister for Health John Elferink, as we watch the first concrete pour.
This event has been a long time coming. I remember the first public meeting at CMAX cinemas, where we discussed building a hospital in Palmerston. The late Pete Davies was at the meeting, and I am sure he will be smiling down tomorrow with a big thumbs up as the concrete is being poured.
This is a great news story. The federal government and the Country Liberals Territory government are working together to deliver our promised hospital, a superior hospital to that promised by the Labor government. We are building a hospital for the people of Darwin and Palmerston. Federally, we committed $110 million as part of my election commitment to build the 116-bed, state of the art hospital facility. We said we would build it and that is exactly what we are doing. We are building and delivering a hospital for all Territorians, but particularly for the people of Darwin and Palmerston, and I am so, so proud.
Tomorrow night, nearly 2,000 Canberrans are sleeping rough for the third annual Canberra Community Sleepout. The sleep-out is jointly organised by Communities@Work and the St Vincent de Paul Society Canberra-Goulburn—and I thank them both for their ongoing support for those doing it tough in the national capital. It is a fantastic initiative that this year has raised more than $83,000 for two very worthy causes: family violence and homelessness. In Canberra, around 29 per cent of people experiencing homelessness are fleeing family violence.
Michael Costigan, the founder of the Tara Costigan Foundation, is the keynote speaker tomorrow night. Those in the chamber will remember that Michael is the uncle of Tara Costigan, who was tragically killed earlier this year as a result of family violence. Her death truly shocked and saddened the Canberra community. I extend my thanks to Michael for the work he is doing in raising awareness and funds for family violence and also setting up the Tara Costigan Foundation.
The Canberra Community Sleepout is a great event, raising funds for two very worthy causes, and I encourage Canberrans who are interested in taking part or donating to do so. Please, Canberra, get behind this great initiative. Communities@Work does great work; so does St Vincent de Paul. The money is going to two very worthy causes: family violence and homelessness.
I rise to pay tribute to three great local initiatives to support small business and our wonderful local traders and artists in my electorate of Corangamite. Last weekend, I was delighted to attend the Long Lunch at the Beach Hotel in Jan Juc as part of the DAFT celebration weekend—DAFT is short for Drink Arts Food Torquay. The weekend offered a range of events, including the Bell Street Fiesta, to promote local products, produce, beverages, art and music. I congratulate Torquay Commerce and Tourism for this fantastic initiative.
Last Friday, similarly, I was delighted to attend a special street parade of local fashion and jewellery with the Liberal candidate for Polwarth, Richard Riordan, put on by local businesses in Murray Street, Colac. The footpath was converted into a carpet-clad runway as a bevy of local fashion was flaunted. It was then on to the Birregurra Art Show, a highlight of the Birregurra Festival, which now attracts thousands of visitors each year. I was delighted to make a small purchase of a beautiful watercolour, which won a second prize, of Mount Deception on the Great Ocean Road by the artist Ray Woods.
Small business owners, including our farmers, are the lifeblood of Corangamite's many country communities, and I am very proud to celebrate their many achievements.
When the new Prime Minister announced his pitch for the Liberal leadership, he said: 'The only way we can ensure we remain a First World society is if we have economic leadership and strong business confidence.' In Western Australia, we do not just need a new salesman; we need new policies. Today's labour force figures show that WA's high unemployment rate is not going anywhere, persisting at 6.1 per cent, having jumped from 4.6 per cent in September 2013. There are 23,000 more people unemployed in Western Australia than there were at the last election, and most Western Australians believe that those figures are underreporting the economic downturn, with the reality being masked by many working through redundancy payments. Let us hope Mr Turnbull's economic work is better than his work with the National Broadband Network, which has doubled in price and halved in quality. WA needs a jobs plan. We need to get our renewable energy industry back on track. We lost 1,000 jobs through the previous PM's policies. We need to restore WA's ability to compete for the offshore patrol vessels and even submarines. So far, the PM's only proposal has been to cut baristas' wages on Sundays—that is not a job plan. Prime Minister, we need more. We have brought home the bacon for the last decade. We need your focus now.
Jodie's Inspiration is a newly created not-for-profit organisation whose aim is to raise funds for local health organisations, in particular the Lismore Base Hospital and St Vincent's Hospital oncology units. This organisation, along with the founder, Jodie McCrae, a 42-year-old local Lismore businesswoman, has a very personal and courageous story behind it. In May 2013, Jodie was diagnosed with a rare aggressive form of triple-negative breast cancer and was subsequently re-diagnosed with secondary breast cancer in 2014. After a round of treatment, doctors told her she was 'cancer free'. Unfortunately, it re-emerged and Jodie is now up to her fourth round of chemotherapy. This rare type of cancer can be treated but cannot be cured. The mother of two children, a son and a daughter, she is philosophical about her condition and lives under no illusion. But she is determined to help others with cancer. She decided to start Jodie's Inspiration as she wanted to help, both financially and emotionally, those people less fortunate than herself. The not-for-profit organisation is holding a fundraiser event at Trinity sports centre in Lismore on 31 October. It will raise money to buy medical equipment, including a cold-cap therapy machine, which prevents hair loss during chemo. Such is Jodie's belief in this machine that she has ordered it and says that, if the fundraiser falls short, she and her partner will cover the shortfall. Jodie, you are an inspiration. I encourage everyone to come along to this event on the 31st.
I enjoyed my visit to the member for Page's electorate very recently, where we had a national Country Labor forum. I did note that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and a whole posse of National MPs paid a visit the very next week. It obviously had an effect.
I rise to alert the House to the fact that today is the United Nations International Day of Rural Women. First struck in 2008—better late than never—the day highlights the crucial role women play in rural, regional and remote economies and communities. This, of course, is nothing new. Women have always played a crucial role and their contribution has been of great benefit to the global community. Happily, their influence is on the rise. Indeed, they are playing leading roles in local councils, local boards, national boards and economic development bodies.
Women on the land were once stereotyped: they cooked, cleaned the house, fed the chooks and paid the bills. This, of course, was never universally true. Thankfully, Australians are now more enlightened and better understand the diverse and technical roles women play on the farm and in agribusiness. Inside the farm gate, they are out in the field or in the shed using the latest technologies. Further up the value chain, they are in agronomy, in finance and in logistics.
The UN's efforts also serve to remind us that we must acknowledge that many women are still the silent voices in our remote, rural and regional areas and government has a role to play in ensuring that their voices are more loudly heard. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today, while he attends to a personal matter. The Treasurer will answer questions relating to infrastructure and regional development. I further advise that questions relating to the Foreign Affairs portfolio will be answered by the Minister for the Environment, and questions on defence matters will be answered by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on Australia's efforts to counter violent extremism?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This morning, I was pleased to open a discussion with the senior officials from state and territory law enforcement, education and social services agencies that are meeting here in Canberra today to develop the best approaches we can take to counter violent extremism and expand on the very good work those agencies are already doing. The shocking murder of Curtis Cheng in Parramatta two weeks ago was a sobering reminder of the need for effective and robust counter violent extremism measures. The crime, as we know, was especially shocking, as the perpetrator was only 15 years old. Radicalisation, extremism—violent extremism—is now being seen in the very young.
We are a big nation; we are a big Australian family. We have many agencies at our level, federally, and at state and territory level, engaged in the vital task of ensuring our community is safe. At the foundation of Australia's approach to keeping our community safe and countering this extremism is maintaining a strong and diverse society. That is why the government has invested and $40 million in new initiatives to turn vulnerable individuals, often young boys, away from violent extremist ideologies.
Last year, the government introduced the $13.4 million new Living Safe Together program, and earlier this year the Attorney-General announced nearly $18 million for the new Combating Terrorist Propaganda in Australia initiative. In coming weeks, the government will introduce into the parliament a fifth instalment of counter-terrorism laws, which have been developed in careful collaboration with all of the states and territories, including, of course, New South Wales. The new laws will, among other things—as honourable members know—lower the age at which a control order can be applied from 16 to 14 years of age.
As my minister assisting on counter-terrorism, the justice minister, noted earlier this week, in the last five months we have trained more than 300 specialists, embedded within the nation's frontline departments and agencies, to intervene and divert individuals from radicalisation. What these individuals and extremists seek to do is denigrate other groups in the community, often within their own religion, other religions and other ethnic groups, and they seek to turn us against each other. We defeat that by standing firm and united together. For we will have no tolerance for extremism, for extremist violence, for terrorism, wherever it may occur or whoever may seek to perpetrate it.
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the government supporting investment in the critical drivers of economic growth, especially productive infrastructure? Is the government aware of any potential impediments to infrastructure investment in Australia?
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question and his keen interest in these issues of infrastructure, because he knows how critical they are to the growth of the South Australian economy. A healthy and targeted infrastructure program is central to the government's plan to grow jobs and to grow the economy. This position has been recently noted by the IMF, who said that continuing to establish a pipeline of quality larger projects with transparent cost-benefit analysis is recommended. But they went further and said:
The authorities'—
that is, the Australian government's—
Asset Recycling Initiative and Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility provided scope for additional investment in high priority infrastructure projects as they are identified, while meeting the government's medium-term fiscal strategy.
This is reinforced in this year's budget, which confirmed, again, the $50 billion infrastructure investment commitment of this government. Projects like WestConnex; the continued upgrade of the Pacific Highway; the Swan Valley Bypass; the North-South Corridor, which South Australian members, and the member in particular, will be keenly interested in, and significant additional commitments there recently; the Midland Highway upgrade; the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing and, of course, the Gold Coast Light Rail, which was announced by the Prime Minister last weekend.
Despite the boasting of the member for Grayndler, who tends to boast quite a bit about these matters, I thought it would be important to remind the House and share with the House that the Commonwealth's share of investment—as measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics—when we came to office in September 2013 was 5.1 per cent. That figure today, on the most recent figures, is 6.3 per cent. In addition, the Commonwealth's share of public investment has gone from 29.3 per cent under those opposite, when they left office, and it is now 35.6 per cent.
You may think differently based on the boasts of the member for Grayndler, who claims to have laid every single brick in this country over the time that they were elected. He was at every single concrete pour—so much so that I thought I should go and check on the Sydney Harbour Bridge opening design to see if his name was on it, to see if he changed his name from Bradfield to Albanese! Perhaps he constructed Stonehenge and Machu Picchu, as the minister mentioned yesterday! The member for Grayndler is the great infrastructure builder of the ancient wonders of the world!
What you have to focus on when it comes to infrastructure is that you have to afford to pay for it. You need to ensure that you have a fiscal strategy where you keep control of the recurrent expenditure so you can focus on important projects like this and so you can grow the economy—so you can grow revenue to balance the budget.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister reverse his government's current policy to force tradies, labourers and nurses—who have worked hard their whole life—to work until they are 70 in order to be able to claim the age pension?
The honourable member knows very well that the pension age was increased when his party was in government.
I rise on a point of order. As the Prime Minister is not aware: in his budget, they are increasing the age to 70. That is not something that Labor will support—ever.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister inform the House how the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will help create jobs and growth in my electorate of Capricornia and elsewhere?
I thank the honourable member for her question, following on from the member for Hunter, especially on the International Day Of Rural Women. Central Queensland is the home of Robyn McFarlane, the CWA president in Queensland; Josie Angus, who has got a very good vertically integrated beef business in that area; and the unforgettable Lenore Johnson, who has done immense work for Central Queensland in the political field for so long but has never wanted to be a member of Parliament. There is also another very good reason why the member for Capricornia should be asking this question, because today is once more her 25th birthday! It is the birthday of the member for Capricornia, so happy birthday, Michelle.
But onto other matters: in the beef capital of Australia under the TPP, we will see the tariffs going down to nine per cent on beef over 15 years. Japan is our second biggest beef market, with in excess of $2 billion worth of beef sold into that market. If you want to create jobs and if you want to grow the economy, then you have got to expand the markets we sell into. This is what the TPP does. This stands behind the meatworkers' jobs in Central Queensland. If you want to open up new markets, we are doing that with a 20 per cent reduction on tariffs on entry into force into Mexico. If you think of Mexico, you think of tacos. Unfortunately, the majority of it is offal. We are reducing it down for offal.
Opposition members: 'Taycos'! 'Taycos'!
Opposition members interjecting—
They are very excited today, since they are all going home! Nola Marino's electorate of Forrest has also got a strong wine industry. We will be eliminating the tariffs on entry into force into Canada and Vietnam, where there is a going wine industry. We will be having the tariffs eliminated over 11 years. We are seeing big new contracts coming through in the wine industry. This is also great for those workers in the wine industry and for those farmers to get a better return through the farm gate in the wine industry. Senator Anne Ruston, who is very accomplished in the horticultural industry, will see the 27 per cent tariff cut over three years for fresh oranges and the 70 per cent tariff cut over five years for mandarins.
This all stands in lock step with our plans on infrastructure, whether it is the inland rail, whether it is the beef roads in Central Queensland or whether it is dams and Roads to Recovery. This is a government that is actually finding the markets, expanding the markets and bringing a better return through the farm gate. This is a government that has a vision, this is a government that has a plan and we are a government that is delivering.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Jill O'Connor from Dobell is worried about her daughter and two grandchildren, aged eight and five. Jill says her daughter is starting to feel panicked because this government wants to stop paying family tax benefit part B to families once their youngest child turns six. Jill says her daughter relies on family tax benefits to help with the day-to-day costs of raising her kids. Will this government reverse its $3,000 a year cut to single income families?
I thank the member opposite for her question. The question has got this very sharp ideological edge. Having inherited this portfolio, I do not see much ideology; I see practical layers of administrative problems. Here is where we are, as I think you know well deep down: 35 per cent of the national budget goes to welfare. The DSS budget is $154 billion a year. The income tax we bring in is $196 billion a year; 80 per cent of all income tax goes straight to the welfare budget. Of course, it has been growing very rapidly over time—as you know, because you were the steward of that rapid growth.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
What we look at when we look at this portfolio is very rapid growth over time. A decade ago, the portfolio had $83 billion worth of expenditure. Today, it has $154 billion worth of expenditure. In 2026, that will rise to $277 billion worth of expenditure. The difficulty is that you pretend that there is no need for expenditure restraint—none. What you have said and what everyone here has to realise—
Opposition members interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat. The member for Herbert will cease interjecting. The member for McMahon will cease interjecting. He is denying the member for Hotham the call. The member for Gippsland.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. I accept the need for the minister to provide some context, but he has gone for a full minute and a half now without mentioning the family tax benefit, and I ask you to draw him back to it.
Honourable members interjecting—
No. The member or Hotham will resume her seat. The minister is in order. The level of interjections has been loud. I have asked the member for Jagajaga, the member for Moreton and the member for Sydney to cease interjecting on two or three occasions. I remind them of that.
The member is quite right—I should get to the point of the family tax payments. The family tax benefits and the changes that we have proposed and are before the parliament that you are opposing are designed to pay for the childcare package that the Treasurer, when he was the minister, brought in. It is a childcare package that you support, and indeed when pressed on radio—
Honourable members interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat. The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. The member for Adelaide will cease interjecting. The member for Lyons.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you ask the minister to speak through the chair, and address his remarks through the chair. At the moment—
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Watson will resume his seat. The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. The minister has the call. He will address members by their correct titles, as he knows. The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.
The family tax benefit changes that are proposed are linked to, and will pay for, the very good childcare measures that the Treasurer introduced.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is now warned!
The member for Jagajaga was asked about this very question. A journalist said to her, 'You have to pay for the childcare changes somehow, don't you?'
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
The member for Jagajaga said, 'It does have to be paid for somehow.' And, in fact, we would agree with her that they do have to be paid for somehow. So the suggestion that we have before the parliament is that they should be changed by modest changes to the family tax benefit system and, in fact, by changes that do indeed encourage greater workforce participation. Family tax benefits at the moment, going back to the point of that welfare bill, are $20 billion a year of taxpayers' money going to families. We think a modest change to pay for the childcare package is a very good idea but, as the member for Jagajaga said, the financial reality is that that change to child care, which is very positive and which you seem to support, has to be paid for somehow. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The live animal export industry is systemically cruel, not in Australia's economic self-interest and lacks popular support. But here we are again with yet another expose on television of serious animal abuse, this time involving more sheep in the Middle East. Why will you not shut this vile trade down? And if you will not, will you change the sign on your door to read 'Minister for Animal Cruelty'?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Regarding the live animal trade, Australia is a leader in the ESCAS system. Australia is a leader. There is no other country in the world that has the ESCAS system, and there are over 100 countries in the world that participate in live animal exports.
It might also be noted that we did an audit in the last year, for which there was over 99 per cent compliance on the over eight million animals that have been exported. It is also incredibly important that people get a fair price at the farm gate, and what the live animal export trade allows is another buyer on the rails, another participator, so that we get fairness and transparency in pricing and make sure that we do not have just the major processors solely dominating the Australian market. It is only a small part of our exports—it is less than eight per cent of our beef exports, so it is not put processing workers at threat; it actually complements them.
I might also say that even today I have had people from the Indigenous community—or some might call it the Aboriginal community—in my office saying how vitally important the live export trade is to them, because it brings real social dignity back into their communities in a form that allows them to be part of the economy in the areas in which they choose to live.
As for monitoring the process, we are always doing that. If people are not abiding by the rules, then we always reserve the right to cancel their licences. We have continual conversations with them. I personally ring up the live exporters to make sure that they are abiding by the rules and, if there are concerns, to make sure that they explain them to me.
But I will say that we do not intend to cease live animal exports. We do not intend to once more go down that disastrous road that broke relationships with our nearest neighbours and which absolutely confounded people who were relying on us to be part of their food equation. We supply protein to the streets of Jakarta, Bogor and Yogyakarta and make sure that those people in the Middle East feel that they have a connection to our capacity to deliver food to their tables for their families. We are never going to be as conceited as the honourable member desires.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon about 30 former members and senators currently attending their annual Canberra reunion. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to them.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Industry Innovation and Science. Will the minister update the House on the importance of innovation and commercialising research in creating jobs and growth in the Australian economy and in my electorate of Bennelong, the innovation capital of Australia.
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He does have a very keen interest in innovation, because his electorate does have Macquarie University as well as important businesses like Cochlear and Microsoft. I know he visits them often and is deeply involved with them. He, like most members on this side of this House, recognises the transformative power of innovation in the Australian economy. Earlier in question time, the Treasurer was talking about our physical infrastructure and the government's commitment to physical infrastructure like roads and rail—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting.
and the difference that will be making in the economy in terms of productivity. But the government is not only interested in physical infrastructure, as important as that is—and I see the member for Grayndler coming in like a spinner, as usual.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
As usual, the member for Grayndler cannot keep quiet, cannot keep it to himself. So here is a picture of another thing he is responsible for: Mount Rushmore. Apparently he designed Mount Rushmore, started the building program there—
The Leader of the House knows the rules about props. The Leader of the House will not use props.
I table the member for Grayndler's other great achievements in building infrastructure when he was the Minister for Infrastructure!
The member for Grayndler, under provocation: do you have a point of order?
Indeed, Mr Speaker. My point of order goes to relevance, because the only hole they have dug is the one they buried the former Prime Minister in.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
He is very reliable. We are focused on our intellectual capital as well as our physical infrastructure. The government spends $9.7 billion on research and development across government. So we are doing our part. But while Australia is ranked sixth in the OECD for the quality of our research, it is ranked 33rd out of 33 for commercialising research. So we have a lot to do, and we will be building on the initiatives of the former Minister for Industry, Mr MacFarlane, around industry growth centres, Cooperative Research Centres and the Entrepreneurs' program to bring about new initiatives very soon that will create the incentives to commercialise ideas and embrace risk in this country, which is an important cultural change.
Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas, understands that. He gave a speech to the National Press Club yesterday and he said: 'Technological innovation, our capacity to lead it and our capacity to embrace it, even when it is disruptive, will be the prime driver of long-term growth.' He is absolutely right, and we are fortunate to have a Prime Minister who is utterly focused on innovation, on research, on science and on ensuring that we commercialise the great ideas that Australian researchers produce but are not yet commercialising, because it leads to jobs and it leads to growth. In our economy in the future, this area, like start-ups, will be driving jobs and driving growth, and I look forward to explaining some of those initiatives over the coming months.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The average superannuation balance of an Australian woman is around $40,000. Why is the Prime Minister making it harder for Australian women to save for their retirement by cutting the low-income superannuation contribution? It is a cut which will leave around 3.6 million Australians worse off, including over two million women. Will you reverse this cut?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The changes that she has referred to are part of the overall task of budget repair that the Minister for Social Services so eloquently described. Let me—
Opposition members interjecting—
No, I am treating her question with the seriousness that it deserves. The issue about women's savings, particularly superannuation savings, is a very real one.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
The member for Newcastle will cease interjecting.
There is no question that Australian women generally have less savings in their superannuation funds. Because of family commitments, they drop out of the workforce or out of the full-time workforce for a period. I can assure the honourable member that we are very focused on this issue and paying very careful attention to it in our review of all of these interrelated matters, including tax, right at the moment. I thank her for the question. It is a very real issue, and we will have more to say about it in the future.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the role of 457 visas in creating jobs and building the economy? How does engaging with our overseas neighbours help boost jobs and growth here in Australia? What are the obstacles to this engagement?
Mr Champion interjecting—
I have asked the member for Wakefield to cease interjecting a number of times. He is now warned.
I thank the member for Wright. He is a great local member in his electorate, which is also home to Stanbroke, a great pastoral company and abattoir at Grantham. They use the 457 visa program to fill many of the positions at the abattoir. Ultimately, they are responsible for employing, directly and indirectly, hundreds of Australians. They are one of the small businesses and the businesses across the country that we hold up and champion because they have been part of the success story in this country.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield has been warned. It is his final warning.
There has been a lot said on the other side in relation to 457s, and I want to go into some of the detail because it is instructive to understand what drives the modern Labor Party, remembering that this is not the Labor Party of Hawke and Keating; this is the Labor Party of Shorten and Plibersek. It is backward looking and it is completely reliant on the union movement. This government has been criticised for the use of the 457 visa program, but the reality is that there are less people today who use the 457 visa program than when Labor was in government.
That shows the hypocrisy of Labor in their approach to all of these issues. They are running around with a scare campaign on the free trade agreement with China and with the agreement that the trade minister arrived at last week. These agreements will result in hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country. Over a period of time, the economic benefit to our country will be unbelievable—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Gorton will cease interjecting. The member for Charlton will cease interjecting.
and the future of our country will depend on these success stories. Why does the Labor Party oppose this? It is because they are completely dominated by the labour union movement. That is the sad reality. Yesterday we pointed out the contrast with this side of the parliament, where almost every hand went up in terms of those people who come from a small business background. There was one hand that went up on the opposition side, and I warned yesterday that something would happen to him. Where has he gone? Where has the member gone that nominated himself yesterday to be from a small business background?
The member for Melbourne Ports is not here today; he has been banished from this chamber.
It demonstrates that this Labor Party is completely out of touch with the Australian public. We have put in place a regime that will build business in this country and which will be of benefit to the Australian public, to the men, to the women and to their grandchildren in generations to come. We will provide future opportunities for them. The modern Labor Party is completely dominated by the union movement, and it is not in the best interests of this country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Senate passed Liberal government legislation that will ensure that the amount of taxation paid by private corporations with a turnover of more than $100 million a year will remain secret. Why is the Liberal government so committed to keeping the tax affairs of large private corporations a secret from Australians?
Opposition members interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. Those on my left will cease interjecting!
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
The Leader of the Opposition, were he preparing to be Prime Minister, would be focused on ensuring that the revenue is protected and that all Australian taxpayers pay their fair share of tax, or pay their tax in accordance with the law. The disclosure arrangements that were imposed on private companies with a turnover of more than $100 million by the previous Labor government did not make any difference to the rate of tax collection. In fact, the Commissioner of Taxation, and his deputy, on several occasions said: 'It makes no difference to us because we have access to all of their accounts anyway'. There are no secrets from the taxation commissioner.
This had absolutely nothing to do with gathering tax. What it was calculated to do, however, was to prejudice medium-sized Australian private companies as against big multinationals and publicly listed companies. What that meant was that if you were a food manufacturer, a family business, and you were dealing with Coles or Woolworths, whose profits of course are a matter of public record because they are publicly listed companies, and you were negotiating with them, then Coles or Woolworths on the other side of the table would know everything about your affairs and be in an even stronger bargaining position.
And it underlines this fact: the Labor Party has never been comfortable with small or medium businesses. Labor—big Labor, big unions—like big business. They are always more comfortable with the big end of town. That is why, on penalty rates—look at all of the negotiations of penalty rates that labour unions have done with Woolworths and Coles and big employers. The union movement, the labour movement, despises enterprise, despises small business, cuddles up to big business. And their opposition to this absolutely appropriate change, which has no prejudice to taxation revenue collection, just confirms that the old industrial relations club, the big companies and the big unions, always have a vested interest—and it is not in the interests of small and medium businesses, which are the absolute heart of our parties, the Liberal and National parties!
It is my pleasure to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon Baroness Jenny Tonge, co-chair of a United Kingdom parliamentary group. I extend a very warm welcome to you. I also inform the House we have joining us in the gallery 18 participants with the Australia-Indonesia Youth Exchange Program. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how innovative Australian businesses will create more jobs by exporting environmental technology thanks to the recent free trade agreements? Are there any threats to the creation of these jobs, so important in my electorate of Lyons?
I am delighted to thank the member for Lyons, who is a very proud Tasmanian. He was one of the proud hosts of Taste of Tasmania last night, where the export goods that will be available, which will benefit under the free trade agreements in the form of beef and fish and other food products, were on display to the parliament.
It is not just Tasmanian food that can benefit from the four free trade agreements but it is also the export of environmental services. Tasmania and Australia have immense capacity in this space. We know that in Tasmania there is an engineering firm that does environmental testing. They have laboratory services, and they have the ability to go into the Chinese market and provide the clean air, clean land and clean water services that Australia excels in.
At the moment we export about $1.6 billion of innovative environmental services around the world, but we also know that the Chinese market is small as a percentage of that. It is less than 10 per cent of our overseas exports in the environmental services space, and yet the Chinese market is an enormous opportunity for Australians. So when we look at our innovative environmental services, what we see, on the advice of DFAT, is that China has almost $1 trillion of clean air, clean land, clean water and energy saving services a year. The reason why is they have immense pressure from their population and their industrialisation—up to nine percent of China's GDP is expended in improving air and water quality, in land remediation, in energy efficiency.
So, the market for Australian goods is enormous, and against that background the free trade agreements that are being negotiated give Australian firms an incredible opportunity—firms such as Envirolab in Sydney, which is one of Australia's and indeed the world's leaders in soil testing, in acid sulfate testing and in water testing. They have a new opportunity, with the removal of tariffs, to enter into the Chinese market. We should be growing that market, yet there is a threat to it. We see people on the other side who for their own reasons and their own purposes are willing to threaten Australian exports, threaten Australian jobs and deny the services to China in terms of better air quality and better water quality that every Australian should be embracing. It is extraordinary that the modern Labor Party stands in the way of Australian jobs, stands in the way of Australian exports and stands in the way of better services for clean air and clean water in China. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Treasurer said about the multinational tax policy that 'it will raise real revenue'. But, according to page 14 of the government's own budget paper No. 2, the government has booked zero revenue against this multinational tax policy. Why won't the government get serious about making large, multinational companies pay a fair share of tax?
The Labor government, in its six years in office, completely ignored the changes in the digital economy that were allowing the tax base to be eroded by large multinational companies. The reality is that the GST base in particular was being dramatically undermined—perfectly legally—by the emergence of so many transactions being conducted over the top, over the internet, by companies like Google and, more latterly in Australia, by Netflix and by others, such as Amazon, in terms of selling services and physical goods. This was the single biggest erosion of the tax base. It is not unique to Australia, but it has been happening for a very long time.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will cease interjecting.
This is not a new phenomenon. Labor did nothing about it. This government is taking that on with changes to the GST, the so-called Netflix tax, with the changes that are being discussed with the states today, as we speak, to lower the tax-free threshold for goods imported from $1,000—to reduce that. All of these taxes are now much easier to collect.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for McMahon on a point of order? He will state the point of order.
Mr Speaker, the question was not about internet shopping—
No: what is the point of order?
It was about profit shifting. The Prime Minister should be relevant.
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. Before I call the Prime Minister: the member for McMahon needs to state the point of order. He cannot get up and make another statement. I have warned him about that before. I am cautioning him now. There will not be a third occasion that sees him stay in the House.
The first observation I would make is that we would not take very seriously forecasts about the likely collection of taxes from the honourable shadow Treasurer. After all, his mentor, the member for Lilley, forecast that the mining tax would raise billions, and it did not raise anything at all. It was a completely revenue-free tax. The fact of the matter is that the base erosion challenge is absolutely related to the internet. The honourable member may not have picked that up, but that is the single biggest element in base erosion, and the challenge of dealing with multinational companies operating, as I said, perfectly lawfully.
In terms of the specific multinational measures, the base erosion and profit shifting measures, the Commissioner of Taxation himself has said that he expects them to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue. Time will tell, but we are very comforted by the forecast he has given.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister explain to the House how the government will protect small businesses from unfair contract terms?
I thank the member for Lindsay. She understands the challenges and rewards that come from working in small business, having worked alongside her parents in their small business. I am pleased to inform the House that the government is delivering on its election commitment to extend the protections for consumers that exist in relation to unfair contracts in standard form contracts to small businesses. This is indeed a very significant measure, and I would like to acknowledge the great work of the former Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson. I would also like to acknowledge the very significant discussions that have taken place—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley.
with the crossbench senators, who have indeed been very informative as to the importance of the extension of the thresholds.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
I remind the member for Sydney that she has been warned.
The protections will apply to standard form contracts where one party employs fewer than 20 people and where the up-front contract price is less than $300,000 or $1 million in the case of contracts that extend beyond a 12-month period. Unfair contract terms could be those terms that unfairly restrict a small business's right to terminate the contract or indeed those that allow one party to change the terms of that contract without the other party's consent. This will be very, very significant for the majority of small businesses that will fall within these thresholds. We are giving the ACCC significant dollars—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is now warned!
in order to help small businesses to transition—$1.4 million in the last budget—and it will be really appreciated by the more than two million small businesses in Australia.
The CEO of the Council of Small Business, Peter Strong, in a press release on this announcement—a press release entitled 'Fairness, transparency, productivity and retail diversity achieved all in one decision'—said:
This decision by the government will be received with joy by many, many small businesses …
I think that says it all. The government is supporting small business. We have been supporting small business from day one. In the last budget we were able to deliver a historic $5.5 billion package that supports small business and jobs. We have cut the tax rate for small business by more than 1.5 per cent. We have also been able to allow small business to invest in their businesses with the instant asset write-off for those assets of less than $20,000. We are doing it this year; we are doing it next year. We back small business and we hope those opposite do too. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The minimum outside investment for the Bowery Opportunity Fund registered in the Cayman Islands and invested in by the Prime Minister is US$1 million. Why does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate to actively invest in this exclusive fund registered in a notorious tax haven when the Australian government is claiming to be working in the G20 to address profit shifting and tax evasion?
Before I call the Prime Minister, I am going to remind members about the standing orders and questions—that is, that questions are not permitted purely about a minister's or a prime minister's private affairs; there needs to be a connection with their responsibilities. I have listened very carefully and that connection has been made on this question. But I am just alerting members now.
When I became the Minister for Communications, I took great care, working with the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to ensure that all of my investments were in a form that would not offer any conflicts of interest. That is why my and Lucy's investments are almost entirely composed of investments in managed funds outside of Australia to avoid conflicts within Australia. Of course, the virtue of a managed fund is that the investor has no say in where the manager puts the money.
I noticed this morning the shadow Assistant Treasurer offering me investment advice. I thank him for it, but perhaps he should stick to his day job. He suggested that I should invest in a large Australian industry super fund. So that honourable members are aware, the reason I did not invest in large managed funds like that in Australia is that they are indexed funds and have a very large exposure to Telstra. As I was communications minister I had a lot to do with Telstra. So the whole focus was to avoid conflicts.
In terms of the managed funds resident in the Cayman Islands, let me be quite clear: most hedge funds—and I think the one the honourable member mentioned is a good example—have an onshore US-based entity and an offshore one, which might be located in Singapore, the Cayman Islands, Ireland or Luxembourg. The reason for that is so that non-US investors, when they invest, will receive their income without US withholding tax.
The consequence of an Australian investor investing in a managed fund of that kind located in the Cayman Islands is that all of the income that is paid to that Australian investor is taxed in Australia and paid to the Treasury. If the Australian investor invested in a managed fund that was located in the United States, there would be a 15 per cent US withholding tax, so at least 15 per cent of the tax paid would go to the United States government. The choice of the offshore vehicle means that more tax is paid in Australia than otherwise. The same amount of tax is paid, but more of it is paid in Australia. That is the consequence of the arrangements. There is no tax avoided in Australia. In fact, more tax is paid in Australia as a consequence.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister advise the House of the steps the government is taking to address violent extremism in our communities?
I thank the member for Forrest for that question. The emergence of ISIL has produced the most significant threat of terrorism in Australia's history. It is clear from the tragic murder of Curtis Cheng that young Australians are being inspired by ISIL to commit acts of terror here in Australia.
The government is committed to addressing all forms of violent extremism. This is a very complex issue as there is no single path to radicalisation and no single answer. It is clear, though, that we cannot meet this challenge on our own. All Australian governments share a responsibility for countering violent extremism. That is why the Prime Minister convened a meeting today of federal, state and territory officials to discuss Australia's nationwide approach. It is absolutely necessary that the Commonwealth works together with the states and territories, and communities on our national response.
Police, teachers, families and social service workers are the front line against this threat. That is why, as the Prime Minister has already said, we have trained 300 specialists to intervene and divert individuals away from the dark path of radicalisation. We are investing $40 million in countering violent extremism initiatives—$13.4 million of this is for the Living Safe Together Grants Program, $2 million of which is for communities to educate and train people. This will assist our front-line service workers in early detection of radicalisation, and $11.2 million supports state-led intervention programs, which are already operating around the country. The government also supports prison deradicalisation programs in New South Wales and Victoria.
ISIL is a medieval organisation, but they have proved adept at utilising modern technologies to prey on our young and vulnerable. Part of our strategy is making sure that we are working online to counter and tear down terrorist propaganda. We will invest $22 million over four years to challenge extremist propaganda and reduce access to this material online. We are doing this in conjunction with our private sector partners such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. In addition to this, the federal government has invested $660 million over four years for initiatives that encourage social harmony and integration for our multicultural communities, and the Minister for Social Services is committed to ensuring that this money aligns with our broader CVE efforts.
It is vitally important that we cooperate with our regional and international partners. The Attorney-General attended the White House CVE summit in January this year and we hosted a regional CVE summit in Sydney in June. The foreign minister and I attended President Obama's CVE and countering ISIL summit in New York several weeks ago. We cannot wait until people have already been radicalised and turned to violence. We must reduce the risk of violent extremism by moving early to tackle the root of this problem.
My question is to the Prime Minister. According to The Australian, the Prime Minister has said:
If you are a PAYE taxpayer there are fewer opportunities available to you to reduce the level of your tax.
Why is it that the Prime Minister thinks that it is appropriate for him to actively invest in a vulture fund located in a tax haven when, in his words, it is completely out of reach for most Australians?
I refer the member for Fraser to the statement I made just after the last question from those on my left. I am going to call the Prime Minister, but he only needs to refer to the matter related to the quote and PAYE taxation. The rest of the question, I feel, is in breach of the standing orders.
I have answered the question in my previous answer, but I do have to record my deep sympathy for the honourable member. I felt sorry for him, listening to him on the radio this morning, at being forced to utter such crude smears as he had been sent out to do—and now he is having to do it again. He is a former professor of economics, and I know him well enough to know how uncomfortable he feels having to do the dirty work that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to do himself.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Will the Minister outline the priorities of the Australian government's aid program? How have these priorities changed over time?
Opposition members interjecting—
It is good to receive a warm welcome from the opposition. I thank the member for Brisbane for her question. I know that she has taken a long-term interest in Australian aid and the benefits that flow from it. I am pleased to advise that the Australian aid budget will provide some $4 billion of assistance over 2015-16, which makes Australia the 13th largest donor in the OECD. In fact, in terms of percentage of gross national income, Australia's foreign aid places us above the United States, Canada, Japan and Korea. Australia's aid program is directed towards boosting economic growth. We want to promote prosperity, to reduce poverty and to enhance stability in our region. I can advise the House that the three largest recipients of Australian aid in 2015-16 will be Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the Solomon Islands.
Just last week I had the opportunity to travel to Papua New Guinea to have a look at the difference that Australian aid is making on the ground. I had the opportunity to go along to the PNG governance and leadership precinct to have a look at how Australian taxpayers' dollars are making a difference in training the next generation of the PNG civil service. I went to Buk bilong at Pikinini. This is an important Australian aid program where Australian aid is making a difference in helping young PNG children to read.
Australian aid priorities have changed over time, as the member for Brisbane suggested. Fifteen years ago, the Philippines, China and Thailand were among our top 10 recipients. Today those are thriving economies. After receiving my incoming brief from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I asked for a history of Australia's priorities when it comes to our aid program. I have to say that the years 2012 and 2013 stood out a little bit. In those years, Indonesia was the highest recipient of Australian aid and PNG was second. What was unusual was who the third largest recipient of Australian aid was.
Who was the third?
Who was it?
Let me help my colleagues and advise you that the third largest recipient of Australian aid was in fact a Pacific Island country. You might wonder who it was. 'Tuvalu?' I hear you guess. No, the third largest recipient of Australian aid was in fact the Australian Labor government, because the former Labor government ripped some $750 million out of Australian aid to pay for their failed border protection policies. The difference between the coalition and the former Labor government is this: when it comes to the coalition, we are using Australian aid to drive growth in our region, while the Labor Party used it to drive boats. When it comes to the coalition, we are building capacity in our region for Australian aid, while Labor built detention centres. The coalition is empowering women and girls, while all Labor could do was empower people smugglers— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's obligation under clause 2.2—
How's that hole going—
The member for Herbert is warned! The member for Isaacs will resume his seat.
Guttersnipe.
The member for Solomon will withdraw.
I withdraw.
A point of order, Mr Speaker—
No, I am sorry. The member for Bass will resume his seat. I would ask both members to resume their seats so I can address the House. I did not hear part of the member for Isaacs's question. I am going to ask him to start again, because, as members know, I am listening very carefully.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's obligation under clause 2.2 of the ministerial code of conduct to provide declarations of members' interests to the House. The Prime Minister has declared an interest in the Bowery Opportunity Fund. When did the Prime Minister become aware that the Bowery Opportunity Fund is registered in the Cayman Islands?
The honourable member—I am not sure whether I am flattered or concerned for his own sake—is spending a lot more time on my investments than I have had time to spend.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
All advice and assistance would be gratefully received, if he has got nothing better to do with his time.
I will answer the honourable member's question in a substantive way. I described in an earlier answer the approach that I took to managing my and Lucy's investments in order to avoid conflicts. We took the approach of managed funds, and they were offshore managed funds, to avoid conflicts in Australia, and so I think honourable members understand that. The hedge funds that Luce and I have been invested in, one of which he describes, were selected for us by an investment manager in the States, in New York, Josephine Linden, the very prominent Australian, actually, in New York City, and she has managed that portfolio, if you like, of managed funds. I have left that very much in her hands. I do not have the time to be going through the interstices of all of these funds, and, like many other people with a lot of other things to do, I put my investments in the hands of a very capable professional.
I just should say, with respect to the Cayman Islands: I described the way it was used for offshore investors, by which I mean non-US based investors. And I should just draw honourable members attention to this fact: that many members of this chamber—it may well be almost all members of this chamber, including the Leader of the Opposition—are invested in Australian superannuation funds which have invested in companies or hedge funds or managed funds which are based or registered in the Cayman Islands.
I saw in the press that a Chinese company, Tencent, is over one per cent of the international portfolio of First State Super, and I think many members opposite are invested in that, and I do not think they are suggesting that the trustees of First State Super are doing anything inappropriate.
So the real issue is this: is tax being paid in Australia by Australians? In my case and Lucy's case and in the case of our family interests, the answer is: absolutely, yes, in full. We have always done that. We have been scrupulous about these affairs and we always will be.
My question is to the Minister for Major Projects. Will the minister outline what the trend is in infrastructure spending and what it has been over the years, and are there any alternative views?
I thank the member for Herbert for that question. He is of course a fierce advocate for his community—for Townsville and surrounding areas—and a fierce advocate for northern Australia. He is a fine parliamentarian and was, deservedly, recently appointed a government whip. As he would know, the Turnbull government's $50 billion infrastructure plan is the biggest infrastructure investment of any government. It is $17 billion more than Labor promised for its infrastructure investment program in the lead-up to the last election.
Of course, people in the member for Herbert's electorate will benefit from the government's northern Australia package. They will benefit from the government's investment in the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Construction on seven projects and three safety projects are currently underway, including major work between Cooroy and Curra in the north and south of Townsville, and across the Yeppen Floodplain south of Rockhampton. The Turnbull government has also committed to the Townsville Ring Road, with a commitment of $160 million complementing $40 million from the Queensland government, which is due to be completed in 2017.
The member for Herbert asked me whether there have been any alternative views expressed about the trend in infrastructure spending. It turns out that there have been some alternative views expressed recently by the member for Grayndler, who has quoted some very selectively identified statistics about the rate at which infrastructure is changing. Of course my natural instinct is to take everything that the member for Grayndler says at face value! But I am inspired by that great statesman Ronald Reagan, who said, as a principle, 'Trust, but verify.' I thought it might be a good idea to go back and check the claim made by the member for Grayndler, and what I discovered is that he has selectively chosen the quarters that he is using to compare. He has chosen to compare the June quarter 2013 and the June quarter 2015 to claim that there has been some reduction. But in fact if we compare the last quarter of the Labor government—the September quarter 2013—with the latest quarter results which have been issued, there is, Mr Speaker, you will be, I am sure, pleased to hear, a 4.7 per cent increase in transport infrastructure work done for the public sector, and a 14.5 per cent increase in roads, highways and bridges work done for the public sector. So the trend is clear. The Turnbull government is committed to infrastructure investment. We are committed to delivering infrastructure outcomes to benefit the people of Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. The average superannuation balance of an Australian woman still contributing to superannuation is around $40,000. The minimum buy-in for the Bowery Investment Fund that he referred to in the previous answer, in the Cayman Islands, is US$1 million. Is the Prime Minister seriously so out of touch that he thinks millions of Australians can simply choose—
Government members interjecting—
The member for Watson will resume his seat. Members on my right, I cannot hear the question. Members on my right will cease interjecting. I remind members that, when I am addressing the House, interjections are highly disorderly. The member for Watson will begin his question again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. The average superannuation balance of an Australian woman contributing to superannuation is around $40,000. The minimum buying in for the Bowery Investment fund in the Cayman Islands is US$1 million. Is the Prime Minister seriously so out of touch that he thinks that the millions of Australians who simply choose Australian Super as their default fund are doing the same thing that he did when he actively invested in an exclusive fund registered in the Cayman Islands?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How are the politics of envy within the responsibility of the Prime Minister?
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I say to the member for Watson, that question is exclusively asking for an opinion about the Prime Minister's private affairs. I will give the member for Watson the opportunity to rephrase it. It offends the standing orders in at least two respects.
I will rephrase.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith has already been warned. Whoever else was interjecting up there will cease interjecting.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is now warned! The member for Watson will rephrase the question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer dealing with clause 2.2 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and with the obligation to this House regarding the register, where he has declared the Bowery Investment fund as an interest, which has a minimum buy-in in the Cayman Islands of US$1 million. Is the Prime Minister seriously so out of touch that he would give the previous answer, claiming that people who have chosen Australian Super as their default fund are doing the same thing that he did when he actively invested in an exclusive fund registered in the Cayman Islands?
It is a very sad day that the Labor Party, which could be talking today about the economy, could be asking about growth and could be proposing some new ideas on innovation or enterprise, spends most of today's question time and most of yesterday's question time on just another shabby smear campaign. It is just another wander down the avenue of the politics of envy; just another smear. I will save the honourable member some trouble.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley, this is your final warning!
The fact is that Lucy and I have been very fortunate in our lives. We have more wealth than most Australians. That is true; that is absolutely true. We have worked hard, we have paid our taxes, we have given back. I do not believe that my wealth or, frankly, most people's wealth is entirely a function of hard work. Of course, hard work is important, but there are taxi drivers who work harder than I ever have and they do not have much money; there are cleaners who work harder than I ever have or you ever have and they do not have much money. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition could think about some of those cleaners and how he looked after them. Let me say this to the honourable member: this country is built upon hard work, people having a go and enterprise. Some of us will be more successful than others. Some of us are fortunate in the turn of business. Some of us—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
are fortunate in the intellect we inherit from our parents. There is a lot of luck in life, and that is why all of us should say, when we see somebody less fortunate than ourselves, there but for the grace of God goes me.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned!
I have always taken that view and honourable members opposite who know me know that is true. The simple point I made about First State Super was simply this: big funds, big companies and small funds invest in these offshore vehicles and, when they do, the income comes back to Australia and all of the tax—not most of it but all of it—goes to the Australian Taxation Office. So, really, if the honourable member wants to go around wearing a sandwich board saying, 'Malcolm Turnbull's got a lot of money,' feel free. I think people know that.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do—
Please proceed.
by one of the four ministers they have looking after the portfolio that I look after for the Labor Party—
The member for Grayndler will come to where he has been misrepresented.
The member for Bradfield suggested that it was not true that infrastructure investment has been in free fall. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released two weeks ago show a drop of 20.1 per cent.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Member for Grayndler, I am addressing the House. You can continue your conversation with the Leader of the House by moving behind the chair. The member for Charlton has the call.
In accordance with standing order 105(b) I ask that you kindly write to the following ministers seeking reasons for the delay in answer to these questions: Prime Minister—question numbers 502, 778, 788, 789 and 841; the Treasurer—781, 783, 784, 785, 844 and 845; the Special Minister of State—705 and 706; the Minister representing the Attorney-General—837; and the Minister representing the Minster for the Arts—842 and 843.
I will kindly write, according to the practice.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government undermining the superannuation of working Australians.
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—
This government would like us to believe that it has changed. Whether it is pensions, whether it is cuts to schools and hospitals, whether it is attacks on penalty rates, unfortunately, changing the front-man has not changed the play list. Unfortunately, that is also the case when it comes to superannuation.
Those opposite see superannuation as some kind of Petri dish for one ideological experiment after another. The new Prime Minister would have us believe that he is some sort of middle of the road, cuddly character, but in reality when it comes to superannuation and all these other areas he sounds more and more like his predecessor every day. When it comes to the economy he has adopted the same script that he was so critical of in the first place, to get the job. The shame of that is that there is so much for Australia to be proud of when it comes to our quarter century of uninterrupted economic growth, particularly when you consider that that 25 years includes the sharpest global recession since the 1930s.
Among our proudest boasts, not just for this side of the House but indeed for the whole nation, is the role that the superannuation system has played and is playing in our economic success. Superannuation is the hope of the side when it comes to boosting living standards in retirement, taking pressure off the pension and creating deeper pools of capital to invest and re-invest in our economy. There was more than $2 trillion in funds under management in June this year, which is up 10 per cent on the year before.
Millions of Australians depend on superannuation to fully or partially fund their retirement. Paul Keating's achievement in 1992 of compulsory superannuation for everyone is not just one of Labor's greatest achievements, but is one of the country's finest achievements. It is something we are recognised for around the world. It means that everyone has the chance to save for a comfortable retirement, not just the most well-off in our community. We are proud to have created a superannuation system that is the envy of the world. Now, this side of the House has a very detailed plan that has been worked up to improve it so that it is adequate, fair and sustainable into the future.
Having a fantastic superannuation system does not mean having a perfect superannuation system. There are still issues that we need to work out. We do need to make it fairer. It is not fair right now to have 38 per cent of the concessions flowing just to the top 10 per cent of income earners. In a tough fiscal environment, something that both sides of the House accept, we need to better target our superannuation tax concessions to those who need it.
The earning concession on superannuation is the fastest growing tax concession in the federal budget. The government's own budget papers show that the cost of the concession is doubling, over just the next four years, to more than $30 billion. That means it will overtake pensions, in terms of cost, in the next four years.
We also need to make the superannuation system work better for women. The fact is that the average retirement payout for women is $112,000, compared to $198,000 for men. Almost 35 per cent of women have no superannuation at all. This means that more women will be reliant on the full or part age pension, and they are at greater risk of experiencing a sharp decline in living standards when they retire.
We need to make sure the superannuation system is adequate and that it is actually paid. Many employees miss out on a superannuation guarantee payment entirely. According to the Australian National Audit Office, something like 20 per cent of employers are failing to meet their SG obligations. There are real issues in the superannuation system for us to solve.
On the one hand it was good to see the Prime Minister in question time today concede the issue around women in the superannuation system. It is a real shame that the policy agenda pursued by those opposite is actually working against the objective that he said he held only minutes ago at the despatch box.
With all of these issues that we can improve in the superannuation system, what we have instead on the government's agenda is to freeze the superannuation guarantee, completely abolish the low-income superannuation contribution, lower penalties for noncompliant employers, and fiddling with superannuation boards. With all of these things that we could do to improve the superannuation system, instead they are on this ideological, badly motivated and unnecessary frolic, when it comes to superannuation boards.
Freezing the superannuation guarantee makes millions of Australian worse off. Rice Warner, an institution that has a lot of regard and respect in the industry, has said that the Abbott government's decision to pause superannuation contributions at 9.5 per cent has wiped the equivalent of $20,000 from the retirement savings of every Australian, and the total cut to the Australian superannuation pool is something like $146 billion.
When we look at the cutting of the low-income superannuation contribution, that of course makes superannuation less fair. A total of 3.6 million Australians depend on the low-income superannuation contribution to help offset the tax on their superannuation. So it will rip $500 off the superannuation accounts of working Australians earning $37,000 or less. This will have a particularly profound effect on 2.2 million women who receive the payment and who will not be receiving the payment once the cut of those opposite comes into effect.
They have also released the draft legislation to lower penalties for noncompliant employers. Remarkably, the government thinks that paying employee SG payments on time is unnecessary red tap and should be removed. It beggars belief.
There is also now the legislation before the parliament—if not today then early next week—that attacks the representative model of superannuation boards. Again, this is badly motivated. It is ideologically driven and it is unwarranted. Having one-third independent directors flies in the face of evidence that industry funds are among the most successful and high-performing in the country. These changes are expected to cost Australians $168 million a year.
While the government engages in this ideological warfare, we have a plan set out to create and build a stronger and fairer tax system as it relates to superannuation. I pay tribute to the member for Oxley, who did a lot of work in this space, the member for Fraser, who is here at the table, the member for McMahon and others who have done such great work in this area. We are still a year out from an election and these guys put on the table such a detailed plan for superannuation tax concessions. I pay tribute to them for that work. We have said to the government, 'Here it is. Here's a fairer way to do things. If you want to put it into the parliament, we'll vote for it. We'll get it up and we'll have a fairer tax system when it comes to superannuation.' A fairer tax system in super means tightening the excessively generous and unsustainable tax breaks for the wealthiest people. We want to reduce the concessions by 15 per cent for earnings over $75,000 a year, reduce the high-income super threshold from $300,000 to $250,000 and apply the same treatment to defined benefit funds. That plan is expected to return more than $14 billion to the budget bottom line—a far better and far fairer way of returning the budget to surplus than some of the cuts to hospitals, schools, pensions and all the rest of it that are proposed by those opposite. There is a really wide base of support for this plan from well-known socialists such as Tony Shepherd, David Murray, the Business Council of Australia and others—people who have said publicly, over and over again, that the tax concessions at the very top of the superannuation system need to be addressed.
We are also looking at other issues like super adequacy and the gender gap to make sure our system works for more people. I note for the House the good work that my colleague Senator McAllister is doing in the other place to put the gender gap in superannuation on the public agenda through her Senate committee. We await the progress and the report of that committee with great interest.
Some people in the community were heartened when the change of Prime Minister and Treasurer created the opportunity to herald a more sophisticated conversation about super. Those people were tricked. If you take the comments from the Treasurer during the week, it seems that the initial hopes that maybe we would have another look at superannuation tax concessions have been dashed. When you consider some of the things that the Treasurer has been saying, it is very clear that there is no appetite on that side to make superannuation fairer. We know the previous Treasurer, who is in the House, requested advice from the Treasury about concessions on four occasions, the last time being the day that we announced our policy, and since then a lot of those opposite have come out against changing the concessions.
We have a whole plan to improve superannuation. There is some more work to do, but we have some good initial policies on tax concessions. That is how you improve the superannuation system, not by freezing the super guarantee, not by abolishing the low-income super contribution, not by fiddling with boards that are among the most successful funds in the country delivering big gains for their members and not by continuing these ideological, unnecessary and badly motivated crusades, which are more befitting of the Prime Minister's predecessor than the leader of a first-rate First World economy that should be proud of its superannuation system and should be doing all it can to improve the superannuation system for more Australians.
I give the call to the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer.
An opposition member: No pressure, Alex!
No pressure at all, I would say to the members opposite. This is the member for Rankin's first matter of public importance and it is my second, so I feel like I am starting ahead! I think people listening to this debate today and members here in this chamber would have been wanting to hear about a government undermining the superannuation system, but I think the sense they got from the member for Rankin was that, indeed, the government is looking at all areas of superannuation very carefully as part of the white paper tax review that we are seeing now. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been clear in recent days that we are looking at all these matters and that all things are being considered, understanding that the superannuation system is central to the welfare and living standards of retirees and that we need to ensure that all of the settings are right to work, save and invest for ordinary Australians.
We know that superannuation is one of the most important parts of our tax system. It is also being looked at in detail because any changes proposed for the superannuation system are changes that we would take to an election. For people out there listening to this debate, that is the great certainty that a government can provide to people out there who are looking to structure their tax and superannuation arrangements suitably to them. Any government ought to take any proposed changes in such a complex area of financial services like superannuation to an election—to put it to the people so that they can have a say over what happens.
The member for Rankin spoke a little about the superannuation tax concession system. It is important to note here that the lead minister that the member for Rankin reports to on these matters is, of course, the shadow Treasurer. There is nobody better than the shadow Treasurer to listen to on the superannuation tax concession system. He is the best authority.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The member for Fraser interjects and says he is very good, and I agree: he is very good on this issue, Member for Fraser. Like you—and it is good that you are at the table—the shadow Treasurer has written a book. He has written a very good book, a book that you should read. It is a bit like your book; it has some enlightening and enlivening sections which really get our juices flowing over here, Member for Fraser. We really enjoyed sections of your book. Let me quote the shadow Treasurer's book because it is very enlightening on the subject of tax concessions for superannuation. I quote directly from page 42 of the shadow Treasurer's book:
The tax concessions for superannuation are substantial. They are justified—
that is what he writes—
because they avoid future payments of the age pension and they help boost our pool of savings, with all the benefits for the economy that this brings.
Let me enlighten everyone here once again. This is the shadow Treasurer speaking here about the super tax concession system. He goes on:
But because the tax concessions are costly for the budget bottom line it is natural that the Treasury and Department of Finance are attracted to recommending that they be pared back when belts are being tightened.
This is another direct quote from the shadow Treasurer:
The problem with this is that it creates uncertainty for, and concern by people who are making voluntary contributions to superannuation.
The member for Rankin, if he got a copy of the shadow Treasurer's book, could read on page 42 that the shadow Treasurer is most concerned about creating uncertainty in the superannuation tax concession system—and well may he be that way, because Labor's plan will create great uncertainty in the superannuation tax concession system. Its intersection with the age pension and its intersection with the tax system is one of the key considerations of the government, and that is why the Turnbull government has not ruled out options but instead has said, as part of the tax white paper system, it will be looking at the intersection of these matters and any policy we have will be taken to the next election.
I want to turn now to some of the other points that the member for Rankin made. One of the only things that he had to say was to reaffirm Labor's strident opposition to the government's plan to improve the boards of industry super funds. This is not just about this sector, but he, of course, sees it as being just about this sector. I think that is a big mistake. We know this is about the entire superannuation sector, not just about any one part of it. We know that the need for change has been called for in the international community. Recent independent reviews, the Cooper review and the FSI all recommended that at least one-third of directors on these boards ought to be independent.
To most people involved in or who have experience in this sector, this seems to be a harmless but necessary change. One-third of directors on these massive funds should be independent. APRA has indicated that independent directors improve governance. We know that independent directors improve governance. We know that it is international best practice to have independent directors on the boards of these massive funds, and yet the member for Rankin rails against it. Why would he do this, when we know this is not about any one sector? The changes apply equally to all sectors—all corporate, industry, public sector and retail funds. It applies to everybody. We know that many funds are already doing this. The Prime Minister spoke about First State Super today. But perhaps the member for Rankin should listen to this—
If they are already doing it, why do you need to mess with it?
Order!
If he had been listening, he would know that First State Super has already headed down this path.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Because we know that some boards governing the superannuation of Australians will not go down this path. I am happy to answer your question, Member for Rankin. Why are we doing it? Because it is international best practice. Corporate governance is a good thing. Good corporate governance is necessary when you are talking about trillions of dollars of funds under management. It is not a laughing matter, Member for Rankin. You think it is hysterical, but international best practice in corporate governance is not a laughing matter when you are dealing with the future retirement savings of every single ordinary Australian.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Order! The member for Rankin has had his opportunity.
We know we are talking about 30 million accounts, Member for Rankin. We know that, with the default super legislation that the Labor government passed, you are funnelling ordinary Australians' money into these funds.
Why are we concerned about the corporate governance of these funds? We are concerned about it because we want to make sure, ahead of time, that these funds are using international best practice for their corporate governance, with trillions of dollars under management. We make no apology for that, because it is better to get ahead of problems. It is not good for you—like you do so many times in this place—to come into this chamber and tell us after there has been a problem, after there has been a disaster, after there has been some trouble with some fund, and say, 'We should have done something about it.' What we do is set up good corporate governance standards, working with APRA, with all of the recommendations of the Cooper review, with the independent reviews into the Financial System Inquiry and, of course, with First State Super, UniSuper, VicSuper, Prime Super, Hostplus and Catholic Super—and I am sure there are still one or two Catholics left in the Labor Party.
But, if you do not want to listen to any of those people, to industry funds, to retail funds or to First State Super, have a listen to this, because this is someone you will pay attention to. I know every member of the Labor Party pays attention to former AWU boss Paul Howes. Shen I mention that name, the reverence that hits the faces of members of the Labor Party—
Mr Wilson interjecting—
It does; it warms the heart. We know that walking down from the mountain was Paul Howes, former Australian Workers Union boss. Not only has he indicated his support for the government's changes; he has said—
Opposition members interjecting—
This is Paul Howes; I know you need to be silent if Paul Howes is speaking. He said:
Equal representation has been a success but the evolution of the super industry is important and I cannot see anything negative in having more independents on boards.
Paul Howes, the former AWU leader, cannot see anything negative in having more independent directors and bringing us to international best practice. The Labor Party are the only ones that see anything negative in having independent directors on these boards, and you have to ask why. Why is the member for Rankin bringing in an MPI today to say that government is undermining super, when his main point is that the government is bringing Australia into line with international best practice arrangements for the corporate governance of superannuation? That is your main point; that is the only point that you raised. How can you say that the government is doing anything other than acting in the interests of every single worker by ensuring a reasonable proportion of independent directors on these boards? It does not pass the sniff test. It does not pass the Paul Howes test. It does not pass the First State Super test. It is the Labor Party that is completely out of step on superannuation.
This MPI once again highlights the great differences between the Turnbull government and the approach of the Bill Shorten-led opposition. We have a plan to ensure that superannuation is well governed and well managed and that the money that belongs to the workers—the hard-earned money of ordinary Australians—stays in their hands. It is the Labor Party that has a plan to increase the tax on superannuation, to say to people, after they have worked their whole life, that it will take more from ordinary workers after they have already paid their fair share of tax.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:35): Before I call the next speaker, I would remind the good members for Scullin and for Griffith that they are out of their seats and, if they do wish to interject—which they should not be doing—it would be preferable that they were in their seats. I will enforce that rule during the next speech.
As the clock ticked down during the member for Mitchell's speech and, with 20 seconds to go, he told us they had plan, I was reminded of that great mathematical proof: 'I have discovered a solution but the margin is too small to contain it.' 'We have a plan but the time does just does not let me explain it.'
We are in an Australia where inequality is at a 75-year high. Inequality is one of the signal issues of our age. President Obama, speaking at Osawatomie, has channelled Teddy Roosevelt in talking about the need to tackle excessive inequality. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis has spoken about inequality as a central challenge of our age. Thomas Piketty's 700-page economics book has given heart to wonks and social justice activists everywhere. It is not just the Pope, the President and Piketty. It is also the many Australians who are concerned about the rise in inequality and about the gender impacts of that rise, with a widening gap between rich and poor—a central factor behind the fact that the gender pay gap is now at a 20-year high.
When Labor were last in office we increased the pension, bringing a million Australians out of poverty. We put in place the National Disability Insurance Scheme for some of the most vulnerable Australians. We raised the super contribution rate. We put in place dental care for children. We made a record investment in homelessness. But since they came to office the Abbott-Turnbull government have taken Australian in the opposite direction. They are looking to cut penalty rates, which is disproportionately paid to low-paid workers, and to raise the GST, which disproportionately hurts those at the bottom of the distribution. They are getting rid of the low-income super contribution, a measure designed to redress the super gap between men and women and between low-paid and high-paid workers. They are opposing Labor's sensible multinational tax changes, which tackle the debt deduction loopholes and add $7 billion to the budget bottom line over the course of the next decade, and they are opposing our sensible superannuation changes, which add $14 billion to the budget bottom line over the next decade.
Those opposite like to say they like super, but let us go through the record. When it was introduced they voted against universal super in 1992. They froze contributions in 1996. They froze them again in 2014. In fact, I am struggling to think of a moment when any one of those opposite might have voted in favour of a superannuation measure that benefits ordinary workers. Put your hand up if you are someone opposite who has ever voted for super to benefit low-income workers. No; I did not think so. And that is the story, because superannuation is fundamentally about looking after the most vulnerable.
Labor is concerned about making our superannuation system better, and reducing the fees is at the heart of that. That is why we put in place the MySuper reforms and that is why we are opposing the coalition's ideologically driven changes for more independent directors. A report brought forward by the UNSW's Monica Tan and Marie-Anne Cam finds that as you increase the number of independent directors the fees go up. We know we needed 295 more directors, which would add $168 million more to the cost of superannuation funds. When we look at how they have performed over the last decade, not a single retail fund makes the top 10, which is composed entirely of industry funds. In fact, if a typical investor had been in an industry fund rather than a retail fund, their superannuation account would be $16,000 better off. And at the same time as fighting against good superannuation and making the superannuation system cost more for low-wage workers, this government is trying to make things tougher to find out the tax affairs of large companies. They have just passed through the Senate a measure which winds back Labor's tax transparency laws, despite the fact that when we asked them if they had received a single bit of correspondence calling for this wind-back of tax transparency they said there had not been a skerrick. The Prime Minister in question time today said that they had to wind back tax transparency in order to protect firms who were negotiating with suppliers. He has obviously never heard of IBISWorld, on which you can get a range of information on private corporations, nor has he thought for a moment about how you would go back from tax paid to work out exactly how profitable a firm is. The fact is that we are not seeing serious tax reform from this government, because the Abbott-Turnbull government are on their second Treasurer and their third Assistant Treasurer. They have dropped the ball on good tax reform.
I would remind the good members on my left that they should be in their seats if they wish to interject.
That was an enlightening speech by the member for Fraser. It was enlightening in that it showed one clear thing: he started talking about the need for people to start to demonstrate a plan, and I thought we were going to hear from the member for Fraser what the opposition's plan is for superannuation. But he could not last 4½ minutes talking about superannuation; he had to get onto transparency of taxation when he hit about the four minute and 15 second mark. That shows that there is no plan over on that side. They do not care about the future of Australia's superannuation industry—but we on this side do because we understand how important superannuation is going to be, and is, for Australians.
The Australian superannuation pool is projected to reach $9 trillion by 2040, so why are we bringing this measure into the parliament today? It is because we want the best people governing the retirement savings of Australians. I am going to say that again: we want the best people governing the retirement savings of Australians; that is why we have put this measure into the parliament. Once again, what are we talking about? We are talking about a projection that superannuation savings will reach $9 trillion by 2040. Why would those on the other side not want the best people governing those retirement savings? This is common sense. This is making sure that we will get the best returns for the ordinary workers that people on the other side like talking about, because we will have the best people on those boards. Yet you on the other side oppose such a common-sense initiative. You have to ask yourselves why. We do not need to tell you. You need to ask yourselves why—ask that question—and then you might learn something. You might learn about who you are beholden to and why you are beholden to them. What we want to see is the best people running Australians' retirement savings, and this is what this debate is all about.
How did we get to this?
Two independent reviews have recommended these changes: the Cooper review and the Financial System Inquiry. They recommended these changes. So why are those opposite opposing them? Once again, ask yourselves why. There are practical reasons for these measures. We have already seen that, where there have been mergers of equal representation super funds, they have failed because there could not be agreement on who would take the positions on the boards. So there are practical reasons why these changes are being brought forward.
And let's make it very clear: the bill does not prevent union representation on these funds. It does not prevent them. All it says is that we want the best people on these boards. Let's look at the sensible way it has been introduced. How has it been introduced? With a three-year transition. Funds have three years to move down this path. Who is supporting it? The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Financial Services Council, APRA, the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Who is already heading down this path? There are already industry funds heading down this path. As the previous speaker on our side superbly mentioned, First State Super, Hostplus, Prime Super, UniSuper, VicSuper and Catholic Super are already heading down this path. So why, when we have $9 trillion forecast to be in the superannuation pool, would you oppose it? We on this side could tell you why you are doing it, but you are not going to learn from that. You have to learn it from yourselves. Ask that question: why are you opposing this?
If you want an example of just how out of touch the Abbott-Turnbull government is then look no further than their approach to superannuation and retirement savings. In 2013, the Financial Services Council conducted the most comprehensive study and survey on the attitudes and views of Australians to superannuation and Australia's superannuation system. It is the largest qualitative survey of the views of Australians on our superannuation system.
The results are very interesting, and they clearly demonstrate just how reckless and destructive this government has been when it comes to retirement incomes and promoting superannuation. On the question of the amount of compulsory contributions in superannuation funds, a remarkable 83 per cent of Australians support an increase in the compulsory level of superannuation savings from nine to 12 per cent. Eighty-three per cent of Australians support that increase—an overwhelmingly positive endorsement of Labor's program to increase the pool of retirement savings in this country. That is responsible planning by a Labor government for the challenges of the future: promoting more retirement savings necessary to ensure that people have enough money in their own superannuation accounts to fund their own retirements, and reducing the reliance on the age pension.
What has the response of the Abbott-Turnbull government been to that policy program? What has the response of those opposite been to the increase in compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent? They put a halt to it. They stopped it. Let's be clear about what the Abbott-Turnbull government did: they stopped an increase in compulsory superannuation for Australians from nine to 12 per cent. They stopped Australians saving more for their retirement. They stopped Australians saving more, which would have taken pressure off the age pension and our aged-care system. I ask: why has that been done? Australians are asking why on earth would they do that? When 83 per cent of Australia say, 'We want more in our retirement savings,' why would they do that? It is because they do not believe in superannuation. They never have and they never will. They have an ideological bent that is muzzling our nation's economic development.
Our nation, because of those opposite, will spend more on the age pension in the future. That is a fact that they cannot escape. Because of what they have done, Australia will pay more and spend more on the age pension into the future. We will spend more on aged care into the future, because of the policies of the Abbott-Turnbull government. This demonstrates how reckless and how out of touch they are when it comes to economic management.
The other point about the Financial Services Council survey was that the most common fund that people have their superannuation retirement savings in are industry funds managed cooperatively by workers and by employers. In fact, 59 per cent of Australians have their superannuation in an industry fund. The reason for that is quite simple: industry funds are the best performing by far. They are the best performing, they have the safest returns and they have the lowest fees. That is why the majority of Australians have their money in industry super funds.
Instead of promoting industry super funds, instead of encouraging this great savings vehicle that has led to $2 trillion in savings and retirement incomes—a bank of investment for infrastructure projects to promote growth in our economy—what do those opposite do? They attempt to tear down the industry super fund system. They are attempting to tear the system apart by intervening—the government intervening—in the management and the make-up of the boards of those industry super funds. Why? Once again, it is their ideological bent against workers managing their own money. It just demonstrates how out of touch they are.
In the seconds that I have left, I want to deal with the low income superannuation contribution because, again, it clearly demonstrates just how out of touch they are. We need to be encouraging low-income workers to save more. At the current rates of savings, they are not going to be able to save enough to ensure that they do not need to rely on the age pension. We need to promote more savings amongst low-income workers. There is a tax disadvantage for low-income workers in that, if they earn a certain amount of money, the effective rate of taxation on their superannuation is more than their marginal tax rate. There is a disincentive to work, so Labor fixed that by offering the low income superannuation contribution, a tax deduction to ensure that there is an incentive to work. What did those opposite do? They wiped it out. And, in doing so, you have affected two million women and provided a disincentive for them to work. You are out of touch when it comes to superannuation.
Let's just look at the independent bodies that have supported this initiative in terms of the governance of superannuation funds. The member for Kingsford Smith referred to the Financial Services Council. Let's see what they had to say about this:
Independent directors on trustee boards, appointed using a strong definition of independence, will ensure that the interests of consumers are put ahead of the interests of shareholders or a sponsoring organisation. As superannuation grows from $2 trillion today to $7 trillion by 2035, good governance will be imperative for protecting consumers from potential conflicts of interest that may arise on boards of superannuation funds.
That was from Sally Loane, the CEO of the Financial Services Council, in June this year.
I am sure the people in the gallery and the people on this side of the House and all Australians are interested in the strong rationale behind the changes that we make in this place. It is about good policy. What are we trying to achieve? What are the objectives? We know that, as we have said—and the member for Wannon outlined this quite well—we are looking at having the best people governing retirement savings. Getting the best people involved—that is the objective, that is the strong policy rationale, that is why this is being brought forward. Independent board members bring different skills and expertise, so they bring different values to the table.
Let's just have a look at some of the history of where this has come from in terms of recommendations. We have had a number of reviews over time. The Cooper review in 2010 by the previous government recommended that the act be amended so that equal representation no longer be mandatory. This was by the previous government, so they heard this loud and clear. I know that the member for Fraser, in a speech in 2011, referenced the Cooper review, so he was across this. He knew that this was a recommendation of the review. Then in 2014 the financial system inquiry report, the Murray report, concluded that the independent directors on all superannuation trustee boards promote good governance by bringing an independent, objective perspective to issues the boards consider.
I just want to go on to a few other independent recommendations or testimonials as to why we need these changes. We have heard from the member for Mitchell on Paul Howes, who you have listened to so attentively throughout your history—and if you want to have a career like Paul, then continue listening to what Paul says. David Murray, the chair of the financial system inquiry, says:
Independent directors are more likely to ask the right questions of where the interests of members lie …
That is all that we have been doing in this House: asking the right questions about why we are making these changes on good, sound policy.
Regarding the Self Managed Super Fund Association, Andrea Slattery, who I hope the member for Rankin has engaged if he is doing the right thing by consulting with industry bodies, is a fantastic CEO of the Self Managed Super Fund Association. What did she say in June 2015?
I spoke to her yesterday.
I am glad. What did she tell you?
She came to my office to say that—
Good, and I bet she told you this:
It's critical to improve the governance of all superannuation funds, and having independent directors and chair is a positive step in this direction.
If she gave the member for Rankin this advice, he is obviously not listening. He is not listening to the advice from all these independent bodies that are looking at the best interests of superannuation funds and that have the best interests of Australians at heart.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Well, I am glad you have done something with your life, Jim! Well done to that!
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Hindmarsh has the call. There should not be interjections in the chamber.
Let's just hear what the Treasurer said yesterday in the House about stability and certainty in superannuation. He said:
… we are encouraging Australians to invest in their superannuation—then they have to have some certainty about what is going to happen … in the retirement phase.
We need to know, and we do know, that there needs to be some stability in the superannuation system. That is what we are about. We have had all these changes to superannuation, but this is a change for the better in terms of a better system of governance for boards, of getting the right people and of getting the best results in the interests of superannuation and of Australians.
I am feeling in a charitable mood so I am going to do a favour to the member for Hindmarsh and just ignore his contribution. Because it was that sad and pathetic, I will just ignore it. Let's go back to what we are talking about here: the superannuation system. It is a very important system, a system where 40 per cent of the concessions go to the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians, a system where the concessions will soon out-cost the pension. It is an area where we do need to change, an area where we do need to acknowledge that change must occur. We have competing propositions here. We do have a choice here, and that is good. We are here to debate policy, and there is a clear distinction here. We have those on the other side, the coalition government, that had a choice about what concessions they were going to cut, what concessions they were going to attack.
An opposition member: Was it a hard choice?
Not for us, but for them it clearly was not either. They had a choice about the concessions that go to the 475 Australians who have more than $10 million in superannuation. They earn $1½ million in income tax free per year. They could have gone to those concessions or they could have cut the low-income superannuation contribution for 3.6 million Australians. There was a distinct choice here—475 of our wealthiest concession holders or 3.6 million Australians. They chose to cut the assistance to the poorest paid Australians, to cut their concession.
If there is one political party in this place that practices class warfare, it is those on the other side. They engaged in the politics of class warfare to attack the 3.6 million low-paid Australians. It is a disgrace, and I condemn them for their actions. We have got a fair plan, a plan that says, for those 475 Australians who have $10 million in super and who earn $1½ million tax free, you can still earned the first $75,000 tax free but you might pay 15c tax on income after that, so you are paying the same tax as a retail worker. What an extraordinary outcome! Our plan is fair, it is detailed, it will work and it will make our superannuation concession system more sustainable.
I want to go to superannuation governance for a minute. I want to present two separate sectors of this industry.
An opposition member: Compare the pair, Pat.
I will compare the pair. Who thought up that great idea? We have one part of the industry where the fees are $449 million, where they manage 26 per cent of assets but charge 82 per cent of fees, where the average fee per member is $31 and where the rate of return over 10 years averages 4.9 per cent. Compare that to another part of the industry where the funds are $88 million, where the average fee per member is $7—that is $7 versus $31—and where the average rate of return over the last 10 years per annum is 6.7 per cent. So which one do you think needs governance reform: the one that underperforms compared to the other; the one that charges four times the fees of the other; the one that, despite having only one-quarter of the assets under management, charges nearly 90 per cent of the fees? No, of course not. It is the low fees one, the one that constantly outperforms the other. Why? Because it has union representation on the board. That is the only reason.
I support independent trustees, if the board wants it. If the board wants it, that is great. We have got some great super funds that have one-third independent trustees, such as Hostplus. And if they choose that, that is great. What I am opposed to is mandating reducing representation from employers and unions, which is what the coalition government is doing, because the system is absolutely working. I would urge them to have a closer look at their own supporters, their own backers, their financial supporters in the retail funds that charge their related service providers $485 per member, compared to $185 for the not-for-profits.
This is the closest relationship to conflict of interest, and then charge triple the amount if they are in a retail fund where directors often sit on allied bodies. So if those on the other side are serious about reforming superannuation, they will stand up for the 3.6 million low-paid Australians, they will stand up and support industry funds that work, that reward hardworking Australians instead of rewarding their corporate spivs and engaging in class warfare that demeans them, demeans the party that they stand for and, yet again, reminds us that their former Prime Minister said superannuation is a con. This is the party that voted against superannuation when it came into power; this is the part that not only does not understand super, it hates it and it wants to destroy it! (Time expired)
It is always pleasing to stand up in this place and speak about this very important topic for the future of a great many Australians who have superannuation accounts from small balances through to the 475 that the member for Charlton mentioned. But what he did forget to mention, and this is common in this debate, is that there is no analysis in this debate of how those people actually got the money into their superannuation funds. They got it into their superannuation funds perfectly legally—probably under the rules that, in a lot of cases, those opposite created when they set up the superannuation system. Isn't the whole point of super that Australians can save for their retirement, that they are not then a burden on the government and on other taxpayers that they need to receive an aged pension from? Everybody in this place agrees with that notion.
I think it was the member for Kingsford Smith who spoke about a survey by the FSC—interestingly, sponsored by ING Direct. I wonder what their interest in the outcome of that survey was! You can gather their interest in the outcome of that survey from the question that was actually asked that got that 83 per cent response—that is, people would prefer to have the SG contribution increase to 12 per cent. For the edification of the House, the question is:
In Australia, it is the law that people (or employers on their behalf) make a compulsory contribution to superannuation of 9.5% of employment income (wages or salary). Do you support or oppose this system?
Of course people would support that system. The next question, which is the important one, said:
You may be aware that the Federal Government will continue to increase these compulsory contributions from 9.5% up to 12% of income over the next decade.
It asked: do you support that? The majority support that, yes.
The final question is about where that is paused, at 9½ per cent. What the question does not ask, or does not say, which is very important in this debate for those opposite and for their historical edification, is that the super system was set up in a way that in part was a trade-off for future wage increases. It was set up in part as a trade off for future wage increases. So what those questions do not ask, Member for Charlton, and those opposite, is: are you prepared to trade off a potential future reduction in your wages for an increase to your superannuation contributions? I would respectfully suggest that if that was actually the question asked, you would get a very different result—an enormously different result! That is the important thing, that this is about moving money from people's pockets for them to spend day to day, to cover everyday living costs—and we know that many families in this country are under financial strain and financial pressures because of rising living costs—as opposed to taking that money out of their pocket and putting it into their superannuation fund. That question has not been asked. Before we go compulsorily adding more money to people's superannuation accounts, that should be the question asked.
People are still free to make the choice. That is a very important but overlooked aspect of this debate. Yes, the SG contribution has been frozen at 9½ per cent, but that does not mean that people cannot use salary sacrifice or other means to put more money into their super fund if they have the free cash flow to do so. That is entirely their own personal choice—it is not compulsory, it is their own personal choice. It is interesting to note that when those opposite were in government, they reduced the contribution limits for concessional contributions for people under 50 from 50,000 to 25,000. So they complain about the fact that people cannot put money into superannuation, yet they are the ones who made it even more difficult! It is this side of the House that has an interest in seeing our superannuation system continue to grow and be strong for the future of all Australians.
Superannuation is one of those issues in this House: almost no other issue better defines the different values, the different priorities between those opposite and those on this side of the House. To use a coined phrase—it is widespread in the superannuation industry—I encourage Australians to 'compare the pair': compare the values and priorities of the Labor Party with the values and priorities of the coalition opposite. The Labor Party seeks to build a retirement savings scheme that provides a dignified, secure retirement for the majority of Australians—for all Australians, for Australian workers in all professions. Where did this come from? Where did compulsory superannuation in this country come from? It came from people like the meatworkers union in my electorate, people trying to create a system that provides for a dignified, secure retirement for hardworking, average Australians.
What have those opposite done since coming in? They are fighting tooth and nail against all rationality, against all evidence, against even some of their erstwhile supporters, to stand up for the big end of town, for their mates in the one per cent. What was their first act on super policy when they came into government? What was the first priority of those opposite? What was the burning need for change when they got in? It was slashing the retirement savings of more than two million Australian women, millions more Australian workers, through the abolition of the low-income superannuation contribution scheme. But when it comes to the superannuation of high-income earners, when it comes to the superannuation income of the one per cent, a very different approach is taken.
It is one of the most obvious policy reforms going in this country. Superannuation tax concessions for the top end of town is something about which Paul Keating would say, 'Every galah in Australia needs reform.' At the moment 38 per cent of superannuation tax concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. There are 475 Australians with super in excess of $10 million who earn $1.5 million tax-free from their superannuation every year. How is that justifiable? It is extremely difficult to justify when you look at the people who are calling for change in this area. The reform of super tax concessions has been supported by the IMF; the chairman of the government's Commission of Audit, Tony Shepherd; the head of the government's own financial systems inquiry, David Murray; and many in the industry itself, such as the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. And what do they say? What is the problem here? Well, as the IMF says:
… higher-income earners gain relatively more from the favourable tax treatment of retirement savings (indeed, low income earners lose: subsidies are insufficient to offset the effectively higher average tax rate on superannuation contributions than on other earnings), which undermines the progressivity of the income tax system.
The member opposite who spoke previously said, 'Well, this is people's own money; they ought to be able to do what they want with it.'
Mr Hawke interjecting—
Do you support progressive taxation or not?
What do you mean by that?
Order! The member for Gellibrand should place his remarks through the chair.
He asks, 'What do you mean by progressive income taxation?' What we mean by that is that millions of low-income-earning Australians ought to be paying less tax—
That is regressive; you really do not understand, do you?
than people who are taking $1.5 million in income a year tax-free. It is outrageous, and what it goes to is that the Liberal Party has never believed in superannuation for Australian workers. They believe in advantageous tax arrangements for their own kind; they do not believe in it for workers. John Howard called superannuation a 'job killer', and it was unsurprising when his government scrapped the proposed increase in compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent within six months of coming into office. Tony Abbott infamously called superannuation 'one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people'. When he came into government, what did he do? He froze the increase in compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent.
The reality is that you cannot trust the Liberal Party with superannuation; you cannot trust the Liberal Party with your retirement savings. This is a government that sees the total cost of superannuation tax concessions within the period of the forward estimates increasing beyond the scale of the total spend on the pension. And it says, 'Do nothing'—do nothing in the name of uncertainty. We need to provide certainty to investors—as though people taking $1.5 million a year from their super are relying on certainty in order to survive—the certainty that they did not take into account when they slashed the superannuation income of millions of low-income working Australians. You cannot trust the Liberals on super. (Time expired)
I believe that the subject of today's MPI is that the government is undermining superannuation of working Australians. Aside from the fact, of course, that this is a totally faulty premise, I am just amazed that the Labor Party would bring this particular subject into this chamber today, after the scurrilous, low-grade, reprehensible and ill-fated attack on the Prime Minister and his investment decisions. They have just displayed their ignorance in their questioning of the Prime Minister today. It is unbelievable, because this totally ignorant attack on the Prime Minister has been led by none other than the assistant shadow Treasurer and the assistant finance minister. Their ignorance in the way international managed funds invest—and why they invest—in certain places has been manifest today. It has been unbelievable, really, because many of them have money invested in superannuation funds that also have investments in the Cayman Islands. Their attack today is unbelievable, because their own leader has sat on a superannuation board that had and continues to have investments in the Cayman Islands.
Why do they bring this subject to the parliament today? I think it is because they are desperate to turn the spotlight off themselves and on to something else, and they do not really care what it is. They do not want to talk about the royal commission into union corruption, for instance. They particularly would not like to speak about their baseless attack on ChAFTA. And they certainly do not want to be talking about their scurrilous and low-grade attack on the Prime Minister today and yesterday. So they turn to superannuation, and their government's attempt to bring world's best practice to bear on this industry. It has been brought up before that there is $2 trillion invested in Australian superannuation schemes today. That is expected to lead to a $9 trillion investment by 2040.
One of the most important things that Australian investors in superannuation funds must have is trust. After their family house, the biggest investment they are likely to have in their life is their investment in their superannuation fund. They deserve superannuation funds that are transparent, open and do not have an implied conflict of interest—hence the government's move to make one-third of superannuation fund board directors independent, an action based on the advice of the Cooper review and the Financial System Inquiry. The government's motives are above board and clearly apparent and certainly do not undermine the superannuation of working Australians. In fact, they are ensuring their future.
Another issue raised here today is the low income superannuation offset. Once again we have seen the Labor Party's ignorance about the way that financial payments and systems work. A tax deduction is one thing; a cash payment is another—and that is what a taxation offset becomes. At a time when the government is borrowing to meet day-to-day expenses, courtesy of Labor's last stint in government, the Labor Party is suggesting that the government should borrow money for individuals to put in their superannuation accounts so that they will not draw on the pension as much later on. That makes about as much sense as trying to get water to run uphill. We would be borrowing off today's taxpayers to try and fund some kind of superannuation break for people in the future who would otherwise be on the pension. Either way they would be relying on the taxpayer of the day to meet that expense. It just makes no sense at all.
When you are talking about taxation relief, you are providing an incentive to people to put their own money into a superannuation scheme, which will relieve the burden on the taxpayers of the future. This government is working to ensure that superannuation is a sound and just system in the future for the Australian workers of today.
The time allotted for this debate has expired.
I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 and the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015, which amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, or ESOS Act.
These bills deliver on the government's commitment to cut red tape and free up education institutions to invest in their own growth and future success, while maintaining Australia's stringent student protections. The bills are an important element of the National Strategy for International Education currently being finalised by the government. They will further strengthen the fundamentals of our education system by ensuring Australia maintains the highest standards through best practice quality assurance.
As honourable members would be aware, international education is Australia's largest services export, outstripping personal travel. It is by far our largest non-resources export, directly and indirectly employing tens of thousands of Australians in both our cities and regional areas. Preliminary figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that export income from international education reached a record $18.1 billion in 2014-15. To support future growth we need to have in place a long-term strategy to build Australia as the world's pre-eminent destination for international students. That means getting the fundamentals right—and that is what these bills will do.
The amendments to the ESOS Act through these bills will remove unnecessary and duplicative regulation to provide significant savings for education institutions, estimated at some $75.9 million a year. By reducing complexity in a number of areas, the changes in the bills will support continued growth and enhance the competitiveness and reputation of this significant industry.
The bills have been developed in close collaboration with international education stakeholders, including education institutions and peak bodies across all sectors, international students, our national quality assurance agencies, state and territory agencies, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Overseas Students Ombudsman. Throughout our consultations on these reforms, stakeholders strongly endorsed a robust ESOS framework.
They know that our reputation for quality is essential to the continued success of our international education system. But they also believe that some of the regulation we have in place imposes unnecessary costs without effectively addressing risk or benefitting students. The government is committed to upholding world-class standards in international education. We need to target regulation effectively and appropriately so that our quality assurance agencies, particularly the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and the Australian Skills Quality Authority, can focus on the highest risk areas and stamp out any poor practices in the international education sector.
The first key streamlining measure in the bill makes minor amendments to the current restriction on education institutions receiving, or any student paying, more than 50 per cent of their tuition fees before the course starts. Currently the only exemption is for courses of less than 24 weeks duration. Having the option to pay more up-front will enable students, or the person paying on their behalf, to take advantage of favourable exchange rates and have the convenience of paying only once. These amendments will not compel students to pay more than 50 per cent of their tuition before their course starts, if they do not wish to do so. To better reflect enrolment periods and in response to feedback from education stakeholders, the short course exemption on collecting prepaid tuition fees will be slightly increased to 25 weeks. However, the government will retain the limit in all other cases so that the original important protections remain in place.
The second streamlining measure removes the requirement for certain education institutions to hold all tuition fees paid by students before they start their course in a designated account. This requirement only applies to private institutions. It is a costly and unfair imposition on more than half of our international education sector simply because their main source of funding is not from government. It limits their competitiveness and their ability to invest in innovation and focus on their core business—that is, providing education. It does nothing to reward those private institutions who do the right thing and add so much to Australia's reputation for quality.
By removing the requirement on some providers to hold tuition fees in a designated account, education institutions will have greater operational flexibility. However, they will still have the same obligations to protect students and pay their fees through the Tuition Protection Service. The Tuition Protection Service will continue in its important role of placing students in alternative courses and providing refunds where a provider ceases to operate, just as it does now. Conditions may still be imposed on the registration of an education provider at any time where concerns arise about the provider's financial viability.
The third streamlining measure reduces reporting requirements on education institutions relating to information about students who default on their course—commonly referred to as a 'student default'. During consultations, stakeholders told the government these requirements were unnecessarily burdensome, a disproportionate risk and did not allow enough time for students and institutions to resolve issues and confirm that a default had actually taken place. Consequently, the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill removes the requirement to report a student default and instead relies on other legislative provisions that require reporting of a range of changes to a student's course of study. However, the amendments maintain a shorter reporting timeframe of within 14 days for some information relating to students under the age of 18 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of this more vulnerable group.
The fourth streamlining measure will remove the concept of a study period as being less than 24 weeks. During consultations, the government was told by stakeholders that this requirement was extremely burdensome. Many education institutions were forced to change their administrative practices to accommodate this requirement. The concept of a study period in the ESOS Act stems from the introduction of the Tuition Protection Service in 2012 and was an administrative mechanism to determine when students paid their tuition fees. Education institutions needed to change their course structures and administrative arrangements to accommodate this requirement. This is an example of unnecessary regulation, when other provisions in the ESOS legislative framework require education institutions to have a written agreement with each international student setting out the student's course details, tuition fees and the conditions of refund. This prevents any unilateral changes by institutions to students' study periods.
These reforms do not water down protections for international students or compromise our quality assurance settings. They will improve quality by ensuring regulation is clear, targeted and appropriate. This is central to ensuring the global competitiveness of Australia's education institutions. Most significantly, they remove the previous reliance on Commonwealth delegations for regulation which stems from the time when states and territories performed the quality assurance roles now largely performed by our national regulators. The ESOS Act will now ensure that the ESOS agencies, TEQSA and ASQA, and the Department of Education and Training have direct and clear responsibilities. The bills also ensure the states and territories retain their important role of assessing and recommending schools for registration by the Commonwealth under the ESOS Act. The result will be less administrative complexity and more emphasis on getting the regulation right.
As ESOS agencies, TEQSA and ASQA will have strong powers to target poor practices in international education and take action against high-risk education institutions. The bills allow the minister to direct the ESOS agencies in the performance of their functions under the ESOS Act, in line with the minister's powers under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. This will ensure appropriate oversight of TEQSA's and ASQA's responsibilities as ESOS agencies.
The amendments also address a number of differences between the ESOS Act, the TEQSA Act and the NVETR Act. Addressing inconsistences and duplication across these legislative frameworks was a key recommendation from the 2013 review of higher education regulation by Professor Kwong Lee Dow and Professor Valerie Braithwaite. As a result of the amendments, the registration periods for institutions will be consistent across the three acts—up to a maximum of seven years. This will reduce the workload on institutions in meeting multiple registration time frames. The changes will also allow an ESOS agency considering an institution's application for initial registration, or renewal of their existing registration, under the ESOS Act to use information provided for other purposes, in particular registration under the TEQSA Act and NVETR Act. This will reduce requests for information from education institutions, saving them time and money. A further amendment will allow an education institution to seek an internal review of an ESOS agency decision rather than requiring them to appeal directly to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Again, this streamlines the ESOS Act, TEQSA Act and NVETR Act, increases efficiency and reduces costs for educational institutions.
The stakeholder consultations on the bill identified a need to align ASQA and TEQSA's ability to take equivalent action under the ESOS Act where they have already taken action against an education institution under the domestic legislative framework. Consequently, where an institution's registration under domestic frameworks ceases, or where it ceases to be accredited to deliver a particular course to domestic students, the ESOS agency will now be able also to cancel, suspend or otherwise impose a condition on that institution's registration under the ESOS Act. This will ensure that regulatory action is robust and consistent between the ESOS and the domestic frameworks, and will improve transparency and equity for the institution against which action is being taken.
A further measure to protect the best interests of students and tighten the existing provisions in the ESOS Act responds to stakeholder concerns regarding the continuation of teaching to international students after an education institution's registration expires. In the case of a school, the changes will ensure that a provider can continue to teach students only until the end of the year in which its registration expired. In the case of other education institutions, they will be able to continue teaching only to students who have commenced their study. While a provider is able to teach out, the bill also makes it clear that an institution cannot recruit or enrol new students in a course after their registration expires.
Debate interrupted.
Making sure that our health system is set up to provide quality chronic disease management is one of our great challenges. I have previously spoken about integrated health checks, a health policy which I believe would be very beneficial to our health system. This check would help encourage preventive health, recognising the interaction between diseases and their risk factors and helping to support best practice guidelines. It would involve a diabetes assessment, a kidney check and an absolute cardiovascular risk assessment in general practice.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has identified chronic disease as Australia's greatest health challenge. Chronic disease—mainly coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cancer, lung disease and type 2 diabetes—is responsible for 90 per cent of all deaths in Australia, and 85 per cent of the total burden of disease. There are strong relationships and shared risk factors across heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and kidney disease. These vascular diseases all cause damage to blood vessels in the heart. Together they account for approximately one-quarter of the total disease burden in Australia and two-thirds of all deaths. It is important to realise that the burden of these conditions falls disproportionately on the poor, and particularly on groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
An integrated health check to assess patients' risk of conditions like heart attack and stroke would not only improve health but would lead to fewer hospital admissions and reduce prescribing for those not at high risk. Obviously, a chronic disease getting to the point where a hospital admission is required is an outcome that is bad for the patient and costly to the health system. An embedded, incentivised, integrated health check has the potential to greatly reduce hospital admissions and readmissions.
For example, the cumulative cost of treating all current and new cases of end-stage kidney disease from 2009 to 2020 is estimated to be approximately between $11.3 billion and $12.3 billion. If chronic kidney disease is detected early and managed appropriately then the otherwise inevitable deterioration in kidney function can be reduced by as much as 50 per cent. Likewise, there is strong research evidence that repeat cardiovascular events can be halved by effective secondary prevention care, including the use of medicines and lifestyle modification. Currently, one in four vascular patients will be readmitted to hospital, but it is estimated that up to half of these readmissions could be prevented through improved management in the primary care sector.
The second area where an integrated health check could help is that of unnecessary prescriptions for medication. The check could help ensure that only those who really need vascular medications, such as statins for lowering high blood cholesterol, will be prescribed to them. For example, some individuals may have isolated risk factors such as high blood pressure, but when their entire risk factor profile is assessed they may not be at high absolute risk and medication may not be necessary. Avoiding patients taking medications they do not really need is good for them, and it is a cost saving to the health system.
At its core, an integrated health check is about better outcomes for patients, it is about a more efficient health system and it is about quality improvements in care. It is to make sure we are spending taxpayers' money wisely to get the best health outcomes. This is an idea that has come up from the National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance. I have been encouraged by the reception that the idea has received so far. The integrated health check is under consideration by the recently established Primary Health Care Advisory Group, which is chaired by Dr Steve Hambleton, and the department are also currently looking at it in terms of their proposed quality focused practice incentive payment. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, chaired by my good friend the member for Swan, is currently undertaking an inquiry into chronic disease prevention and management in primary health care, with bipartisan support, and I am hopeful that the potential value of integrated health checks will be reflected in the findings of that inquiry.
I would like to pay tribute to the work done by the National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance on this program. This alliance consists of the four groups—Diabetes Australia, Kidney Health Australia, the Heart Foundation and the Stroke Foundation—who represent the diseases which, combined, are the biggest killers of Australians. I encourage all members to look at integrated health checks as a positive improvement for our health system.
It is well past time to dispense with some myths and to confront some uncomfortable truths in relation to Australia's offshore detention system. It is wrong for anyone to say that our complicity in the operation of the detention centres at Manus Island and Nauru—detention centres that have been demonstrated to involve violence, rape, the abuse of children and the widespread violation of basic human rights—is somehow related to stopping dangerous boat voyages or deaths at sea. That is false. It is a myth that the institutional cruelty in our offshore detention centres is essential to saving lives at sea. When the minister, or anyone else, says that being tough or running a hard line on asylum seekers in our care is in fact a form of larger compassion, that is false.
The truth is that we, Australians, through our representatives and our taxes, have established and are funding two island prisons on which people convicted of no crime are being held indefinitely in circumstances that are not just prone to producing but are actually productive of terrible human suffering. The truth is that the offshore centres we have established to deter asylum seekers through the spectre and proof of punishment are places where physical and mental harm is being routinely inflicted on men, women and children. And the truth is not slowly emerging; it is a state of affairs that stares us in the face. We have witnessed the murder of Reza Barati and the wilful negligence surrounding the death of Hamid Kehazaei.
We have seen a number of reports from eyewitnesses and evidence given to Senate inquiries about the treatment of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island, but I will just mention the report from the Human Rights Commission's inquiry into children in immigration detention, The forgotten children. The findings of that report included the following statements. First:
The evidence shows that immigration detention is a dangerous place for children.
Second:
Australia is unique in its treatment of asylum seeker children. No other country mandates the closed and indefinite detention of children when they arrive on our shores.
And finally the report notes that the relevant minister for immigration in this government and in the former government both:
… agreed on oath before the Inquiry that holding children in detention does not deter either asylum seekers or people smugglers. No … rationale for the prolonged detention of children seeking asylum in Australia has been offered.
We have also dealt recently with incidents of the rape of refugee women on Nauru, including one that resulted in the attempted suicide of not only the woman involved but also her mother and brother, and another that necessitated a subsequent termination of pregnancy. Still another rape has been denied by the Nauruan authorities, with the refugee involved being named and shamed publicly. For the women who have been brought to Australia for treatment, the terrible truth is that it is the government's policy to return these women to Nauru, the place where they were raped, on the specious ground that, if they remain in Australia, the boats will start again.
I received an email last week from asylum seekers in Nauru. I imagine a number of representatives also received it. I would like to read a few extracts. They said:
These words are coming from hell. There are many broken hearts screaming with heartache because we have been kept for such a long time, with nothing except failing lives. Our stories might not be interesting to you ...
We have kids. We can't think about our future. We can't do anything for them, even their smallest wish. Our kids are dying slowly in front of us ... Please give us your hand to get us out of this deep dark hell ...
We are asylum seekers. Sorry but we have forgotten our names because now we are just called by our boat numbers. We have been in detention for years in this hell you call offshore processing centre. We cannot describe our suffering. We are tired of being tired ...
Wondering why our lives were saved in the ocean ... You took our joy, you took our hope, dreams and locked us up inside the fence.
There is no constructive reason why we continue to indefinitely lock up people seeking refuge; why the offshore detention centres that have caused so much mental and physical harm have never been properly administered or subject to independent oversight; why they continue to operate as a kind of Pacific gulag, out of sight, out of mind. The only motivation appears to be punishment for the so called 'offence' of exercising their legal right to claim asylum in Australia, mixed with pure politics.
What demonstrates the hollowness of this sadly bipartisan approach is the lack of any concern about what happens to people who have been turned back and the absence of any genuine effort to establish a regional framework of protection—that is, to work with countries of origin and with transit countries in the region to try to address the reasons people are fleeing and to prevent them needing to get on boats at the outset. More than $1 billion per year of Australian taxpayers' money is being spent to torture asylum seekers in a grotesque faux caring deterrence exercise. This vast amount of money would go a long way towards assisting countries in our region to improve governance and provide services such as housing, health and education, and assisting UNHCR to process claims for asylum.
What terrible shame this has brought on our nation. Many, many voices in the Australian community are saying it is time to stop the madness of Manus and Nauru. I welcome the establishment today of a cross-party, cross-faith national taskforce to help us move in a different, infinitely more hopeful direction.
Today we had the annual general meeting of the bipartisan group named the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. We have been in existence in this parliament for some 20 years and we have had great successes in the past in advancing the causes of particularly women in Australia in relation to their reproductive health rights, their ability to look after themselves and to be in control of their own fertility. In particular, we championed the RU486 debate, which led to the provision of that particular medication which can be used for terminations without surgery. We made sure that was not subject to veto by any particular minister for health.
Also, as a group, we have been championing the support of Pacific Islanders, PNG and Timor-Leste, as our nearest neighbours—our brothers and sisters in the region. Just this weekend, I attended the general assembly in Bangkok of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, which comes under the ICPD. I had great pleasure in ensuring that, for example, the representative from Tonga—a member of parliament, of course—Lord Fusitu'a, became the co-chair of the gender committee. Tonga is particularly challenged in bringing women into their parliament, but it is not through the lack of trying of their own members of parliament—people like Lord Fusitu'a, about whom I sometimes joke and say that he probably learned his gender equality principles by being born and bred in Canberra.
The whole business of gender equality is not just a feel-good for women who are feminists. I have to stress that it is not just a human right to ensure that women have the same opportunities for a fulfilled, healthy and happy life as men. In fact, it is a human right that all of our human population is treated as equal, but we have to have some countries understand that it is an imperative for them if they are going to have development of their country beyond a hand-to-mouth existence or one depending on overseas development aid. We know, for example, that, if women's education becomes compulsory and free, girls can attend school; they can be educated; they will be able to have more independence of action if they are able to get a job; they are less likely to be forced into child marriages where they are more likely to have complications in giving birth at a very young age; they are less likely to suffer abuse; and they are less likely to be subject to diseases like HIV or, indeed, other communicable diseases like malaria or TB.
There are so many noncommunicable diseases as well which now affect women in our region. The very high rates of stunting in Timor-Leste come about because they are still not able to have access to family planning, which would help them space their children or perhaps they would have fewer children and their food supplies would not mean that they have a large family of stunted young children. On the other hand, we have obesity in the Pacific that often affects women. There is diabetes and heart disease as women lose their traditional roles, when they were once very active—for example, as the major food providers. It is one of the saddest statistics that, in the Pacific, in one particular country, there is the highest rate of amputation in the world associated with diabetes.
I am very pleased that our government has dedicated 80 per cent of our overseas aid budget specifically for the benefit of women and girls. It will be a filter that all projects are put through to see that they do in fact help to empower women—their economic empowerment in particular—but that of course, as I have just said, is to do with their education opportunities and their better health outcomes. We have led the world in saying that we will make sure that 80 per cent of our aid budget is dedicated to women and girls, but we have also said we will focus more tightly on our own neighbourhood, in the Indo Asia-Pacific region. I think that is a good thing, too, because that is where our climate change impacts are going to be most felt, which also impact on us as a nation, but it is where we want peace and security and where we know we can make a difference with our often greater technical expertise, whether it is in agriculture or in health matters or whether it is to do with our IT specialties. So I am proud to be the chair of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We are just now doing an inquiry into agri-business support in the Pacific.
I rise today to reaffirm my heartfelt support for the determined efforts of the international community and the many people of goodwill in Sri Lanka to usher in an era of progress and reconciliation in that country. Since I was elected, in 2010, I have been on the record advocating for the cause of human rights for all Sri Lankans, as well as for the need for strong action to account for the terrible consequences of that nation's decades-long civil war, from all sides of that bloody conflict.
The recent session of the United Nations Human Rights Council has given voice to this objective through a landmark resolution that underlines the critical importance of truth and accountability for everyone affected by the 25-year armed conflict. The resolution follows the release of the report on the war by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which details credible allegations of serious and gross human rights violations by all parties to the conflict, and calls for the establishment of a hybrid justice process, with representatives from both Sri Lanka and the international community, to investigate and deal with these allegations. Both the report and the resolution present a unique and historic opportunity for Sri Lanka to address some of the most troubling chapters of its past and provide an important foundation for a just and lasting peace in a nation that for too long has seen war and discord rob it of its industry and its development, and far too many of its sons and daughters.
Now that a framework has been established to provide basic rights of equality and justice to all Sri Lankans, the work of implementing it and constructing a durable peace must commence. We know that a difficult road lies ahead. Indeed, to state the task is to underline the enormity of the challenge.
Behind the nation's tensions lies a centuries-old stalemate, entrenched by intense feelings of mistrust and hostility and the most profound allegiance to cultural identity. Yet, the widespread endorsement of the UN documents throughout all sectors of the Sri Lankan community reflects a shared yearning for reconciliation and a new beginning. Indeed, in this year alone the people of Sri Lanka have twice voted to make a decisive break with the past and embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. They have courageously chosen dialogue over division, healing over hatred, and have charted a course towards peace and prosperity for its people.
While much work remains to be done, the new Sri Lankan government's decision to co-sponsor the UN resolution signals its commitment to launch a brighter future for its people. It sends an unequivocal message to those persons who brought such terrible human suffering that they will be held accountable for their crimes.
My electorate of Greenway comprises nearly 5 per cent of the entire Sri Lankan population in Australia, and I have seen first-hand the devastating effect this conflict has wrought. I know constituents who have grown up in a web of fear and animosity, through no fault of their own. They have been left forever scarred by unwarranted violence and persecution, in a physical as well as psychological sense. Their parents and loved ones have suffered and died tragically as a direct result of the conflict. There are also those who were forced to remain behind, facing an uncertain future.
In Australia, these people found a life of peace and security that they would never have been able to lead previously. In turn, they have contributed greatly to the prosperity of our community and our nation as a whole. As a nation that shares a deep and long-standing bond with the people of Sri Lanka, we owe it to them to seize this unprecedented opportunity.
I note that Australia, rightly, was a co-sponsor of the UN resolution on this issue, something for which I advocated in this place. However, I strongly believe we must use all our influence to back up those words with deeds. In this chamber we represent a wide array of views yet we are all united in our commitment to stand with people who yearn for the same freedoms, values and opportunities that we as a society cherish.
We must therefore become true partners in progress with the people of Sri Lanka and actively work for a day when all its citizens, including minorities, can participate in a robust democracy where divergent viewpoints invoke passionate debate and, yes, disagreement, but where these clashes are played out in the theatre of parliament rather than in the futile theatre of war; a day when the families of the some 150,000 people who remain unaccounted for are given closure through an impartial process; a day when war savaged areas are transformed into vibrant towns and cities booming with jobs, investment and a prosperous citizenry; a day when every person forced to flee the land of their birth can finally return if they so choose, imbued with a sense of belonging and acceptance. Indeed, fostering the human capital of Sri Lanka, with all its diversity and skills, will be essential for its social and economic develop. We must work for a day when every Sri Lankan child can look forward to a future where they are free to pursue their dreams and explore their potential.
Finally, I very much look forward to being received by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in Canberra next week, and to developing a strong relationship to further these very ends.
Today I speak in support of the Save Our Voices campaign. Our local people want our local media. There has been a rapid change in the way that media operates in our community. When the original legislation was put in place, the internet was a mere infant. It had little effect on our everyday lives. Now, however, it is almost as if we have never known life without it. Certainly, children born this century will never know what it is like not to have the internet, unless there is a electricity blackout and their phones are not charged.
Back in the 90s there was a fear about monopoly media ownership—that perhaps this would change the way people thought about issues. Legislation was put in place to protect the independence of media and to retain competition. But the 'less than 75 per cent' rule cannot be applied to the internet, so any broadcaster, any paper, any radio can reach anywhere in Australia. This is totally unfair to our regional media. One of my parliamentary colleagues, Angus Taylor, the member for Hume, has stated that this outdated legislation is, 'Squeezing the life out of our regional TV networks.'
The metropolitan networks sell programs to regional networks at pretty high prices. The regionals then have to remain economic, and the easiest way is to reduce staff, or reduce the maintenance on their regional infrastructure. After the digital switch-over, residents in Gilmore are already experiencing TV blackspots.
There is no logical reason for a regional television station to invest in the local towers, unless they know their investment is going to give some sort of return. Many people, particularly in Shoalhaven Heads and in Bomaderry, are already experiencing this problem. We work with ACMA and the residents to faithfully monitor times of transmission loss, weather conditions and any other factors that could remotely be affecting their viewing.
We in the regions will continue to rely on TV towers for free-to-air programs, especially in Gilmore, where many of our wiser residents do not access their viewing by any other method. In addition, events like the AFL, the NRL and our famous Melbourne Cup—nation-stopping events—will have shonky transmission if there is no future investment in regional towers.
During the process of switching over from analog to digital, I cannot tell you many calls and emails I received complaining about lost transmission in the middle of our national summer sports like tennis and cricket, not to mention during the Winter Olympics. The reach rule simply must be considered as ridiculous. It is out of step with current needs. Investment in regional towers to facilitate regional media is essential. You just cannot separate a fair dinkum Aussie from their sport.
Staffing in regional media can also be a potential for cost cutting. Our community fought hard to keep the Nowra ABC office as a functional location in a regional area. I advocated directly with the director of the ABC. We had local forums. The community was angry about the potential loss of local coverage. The running costs of the ABC Nowra were less than 60 grand a year. It was clear that the ABC managing director had decided to cut our relatively inexpensive local service but did not cut any of the 38 lawyers and legal advisers based in their Ultimo office, each on an average pay pack of about 143 grand a year. One year's salary and associated costs of just one in-house lawyer could fund the Nowra ABC radio office for almost three years. We lost that battle.
Recently, we have seen significant local changes to Fairfax Media. Some favourite and well-respected staff members have been moved on from their employment. We need local media to cover local stories. Our locals keep us informed when tragedies hit, when emergencies arise and about where to go for help. They keep us well informed about local issues and the way national issues impact us locally. This year, our local Fairfax media, with publications in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven, has had to cut 47 jobs from the region. It affected the Mercury, the Lake Times, the Kiama Independent, the South Coast Register, the Nowra News and the Milton Ulladulla Times. Already we notice that many stories appear in each of the publications in order to reduce costs, but people in Wollongong are not actually interested in personalities of Ulladulla or vice versa. Local causes will not get the voice they really need. This is not just about politicians and their words; it is about the fundraiser for Parkinson's disease, the Sussex Inlet Duck Dash, the river festival in Nowra and the steelworkers in Wollongong. It is all about local advocacy for local people.
One of our best-known local stringers for Win TV is Michael Pignataro. He tells me he loves his job because he is a catalyst for bringing about change. If a village needs a boat ramp, he can help. If there is a drainage issue on a local road, he can help. In his words:
This isn't about my job, it's giving a voice to those who can't speak out loudly enough.
I encourage everyone, especially in regional Australia, to support the Save our Voices campaign.
Before I go to the topic of my speech, I associate myself with the comments that the member for Gilmore, my colleague, has made about the importance of the Save our Voices campaign. It is absolutely true, as she said, that we seem to have spent increasing time in our local areas fighting to stop the loss of jobs, whether in our local radio stations, at the ABC, at Fairfax Media, where, sadly, only the other weekend we saw a gathering of journalists, photographers and editorial staff—years and years of experience going out the door, and we certainly do not want to see that happen—or at our local TV stations. So I associate myself with her comments about how important that campaign and the saving of regional voices are. As a strange segue from that, I will share a local story about a local organisation. Hopefully, members like me and the member for Gilmore standing in parliament will not be the only way these local stories get told into the future.
Only the other weekend, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in a celebration of the Multicultural Communities Council of Illawarra 40th anniversary dinner. It was a tremendous event. Many people gathered to fill the room where we celebrated the 40 years of this community organisation. It was a great meal, with a few drinks and lots of catching up with friends. Many of the churches were represented, as were other multicultural organisations that operate in our area, MPs—the state members for Kiama and Keira and me—and the mayors. All came together to recognise what a significantly important organisation this is and what a contribution it has made over 40 years.
It was formerly known as the Illawarra Ethnic Communities Council and has more recently become the MCCI. It was established in 1975 after the disbanding of the good neighbour councils that had previously operated. It originally operated in a small fibro home in Stewart Street; then it relocated to Corrimal Street in Wollongong as it expanded its service offering. It was put together to do very effective advocating and lobbying, in particular around aged care issues for the multicultural community. In 2009, it relocated to the Wollongong CBD—as, again, the suite of services it offered was growing—and changed its name at that time. It has expanded beyond the aged care services that it originally began its advocacy on. It not only has a number of aged care and day care types of activities for people from a wide variety of migrant communities in our region; it also works in important areas with young people, doing a lot of great work with our CALD communities.
The MCCI is governed by a 12-member volunteer management committee, who are all elected. I acknowledge the outstanding work of those committee members and their predecessors over 40 years. They represent a wide variety of cultures. I would like to put on the record of this place the current committee membership—and I know the member for Gilmore knows many of them too: Mr Ken Habak, who is the chairperson of the organisation; a very good friend of mine, George Bartolo, who is the senior vice-chair; Joe Alves, the vice-chair; Sabine Hauth, the secretary; Peter Noveski, the treasurer; and their committee member colleagues Leissa Pitts, Lazo Gorgiev, Nixon Hanna, Rima El Rage, Nadia Sneyd-Miller, Rudi Horvath and Dr Husayn Al. All contribute to such great activities for our local community. The staff team, the employees, are led by the amazing Terrie Leoleos. They are all excellent examples of people who work in the community sector, taking great pride in their work. The organisation is supported by a very large group of dedicated volunteers. Often they will cook fabulous meals for great functions, and it is always a tremendous pleasure to participate with them.
As the organisation celebrate 40 years, I am sure we wish them a happy 40 years to come. We can only hope that future generations inherit this spirit of community dedication that the 40 years of predecessors have demonstrated and the current committee very well represents.
It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs N Griggs ) took the chair at 9:30.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of welcoming to Parliament House Mr John Salisbury, who had just completed a 10-day trek in support of recognition of Palestinian statehood. John is a passionate advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people and, like the majority of Australians, he believes strongly that this parliament should follow the lead of the 136 of the 193 member states of the United Nations who have now recognised the state of Palestine.
John's advocacy on this issue stems from a longstanding interest and passion for human rights. As a member and supporter of Amnesty International for the last 25 years, John has advocated and fundraised for a range of human rights issues. However his deep concern for the injustice that continues to be suffered by the Palestinian people has guided and driven his advocacy for Palestinian statehood. John tells me that he felt that he had to do something in order to draw the nation's attention to this cause. He said, 'I am an ordinary Australian citizen, a small businessman by profession. I do not have any direct connection to either Palestine or Israel. I am not Muslim or Jewish. But I do recognise the injustice of human rights violations when I see them.' John's trek was inspired by a similar walk undertaken by a former Israeli soldier and current University of Wollongong academic Dr Marcelo Svirsky. Dr Svirsky walked from Sydney to Canberra last year, with John also participating in that walk. John began his walk at Sydney Opera House on Sunday, 4 October and, after covering over 300 kilometres, arrived at Parliament House on Tuesday afternoon, raising awareness as he talked to the many people he came across in his travels as well as collecting additional signatures along the way. He has collected about 1,100 signatures. I have these petitions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will be presenting them to the Petitions Committee shortly. In John's words: 'It is embarrassing to be complicit in the continued occupation of Palestine. In the last 12 months Sweden, France and the Vatican have recognised the state of Palestine. Australia is very far behind on this issue.'
Of course the flow-on effects of not recognising Palestine must also be acknowledged. There are a large number of Palestinian refugees currently displaced in Syria, and their absence of any statehood continues to be a barrier to living a peaceful life. Their neighbours in the Middle East do not grant Palestinian citizenship and an absence of a state has implications for the UNHCR referral to countries and therefore for their visa applications. In light of this, John's advocacy is one to be commended. He has used his retirement to bring attention to an issue that is at the forefront of conflict in the Middle East. John has received messages of thanks for his efforts and support and commendations not only across Australia but also across the world. I want to join with everyone and thank John for his wonderful contribution to this very important cause, which does require the attention and support of this parliament. (Time expired)
It is estimated that, in 2015 alone, 15,600 women and 145 men in Australia will be diagnosed with breast cancer. That is about 42 women a day. The occurrence of breast cancer is rising, with an estimated 17,210 women expected to be diagnosed in 2020. Despite this, the breast cancer mortality rate has fallen 30 per cent since 1994. Early diagnosis dramatically increases a person's chance of survival. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and during this month we should all focus on the impact of breast cancer in our community and on those affected. Across the country groups of women are coming together for Girls Night In events in support of breast cancer awareness. They will be having dinner parties and movie marathons or simply getting together for a night with their girlfriends to raise much needed funds to support cancer sufferers and new research into breast and gynaecological cancers. The events are sponsored by the Cancer Council, which supports hosts by sending them free host kits with planning guides, recipes, posters and a donation box. Some wonderful women in my electorate of Ryan are hosting a girls night in on 31 October at Kenmore and I look forward to joining them for this important cause.
Yesterday Cancer Council Queensland published some promising information about new research into the disease. A team of researchers from the University of Queensland and QIMR Berghofer, funded by the Cancer Council, are trying to develop tools to classify genetic mutations that increase the risk of breast cancer. Approximately five to 10 per cent of breast cancer cases occur because of an inherited gene change in breast cancer susceptibility genes. This research, led by Professor Melissa Brown from UQ's School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, is vital to working out the genetic risks of breast cancer.
Queensland breast cancer survivor Yvonne D'Arcy recently successfully challenged molecular diagnostic company Myriad Genetics' ownership of the BRCA1 gene mutation in Australia. The High Court decided that companies could no longer patent genetic material in Australia. This decision will ensure researchers will not be limited in or prevented from using the gene information in diagnostic tests. So there is promising news regarding this disease.
But the most important thing we can all do right now is raise awareness to ensure early diagnosis. Most of us know someone who has been affected by this horrible disease. It is the most common cancer for Australian women besides non-melanoma skin cancer. Raising awareness of the signs and symptoms will lead to early diagnosis of the disease, increasing survival rates. In fact, regular mammograms can reduce your risk of death from breast cancer by 25 per cent. BreastScreen Australia has 500 locations available throughout Australia, so, if you are aged 50 years or older and have not had a screening in the past two years, make an appointment today.
I want to talk about the Victoria police force, police forces across the country and particularly the growing stress that they have been dealing with, with matters such as we saw occur at the Parramatta Police Station, the Endeavour Hills Police Station in September last year and the attempt that was unravelled and prevented through the Anzac Day terror raids.
I was very interested to read a report in the Herald Sun that talked about 60 police officers around the nation who have died by suicide in the past decade, half of them using a service issued firearm. I was very disturbed to hear that police had the highest rate of suicide amongst emergency service workers and make up more than half of the deaths amongst first responders, which include firefighters and ambulance officers. I was pleased to see that the Police Association Victoria, led by secretary Ron Iddles, said:
Most of our members each day go and attend something which no other person in society would see, so I think some of those things have a lasting effect.
In this place there has been some discussion, particularly post the Parramatta shooting, about reaching out to a particular community. But there also has to be balance. The national discourse has to be balanced and reflect that our serving men and women in state, territory and federal police forces are at risk. When I meet with police officers down in my constituency, they are carrying guns—they have to—and they wear ballistic vests. The reason they do it is not made up. They do it because they fear they are going to be assassinated.
As I said, the first attack on police officers—a terrorist attack—occurred on 23 September last year. The aim and intent of the individual was to kill the two police officers and then, if that was successful, to move on and deal with others in the station. The second attempt on police officers was disrupted by the Anzac Day raids, and that was an attempt to run over a police officer, behead them and shoot people in the crowd. The third attack on police officers, which was successful, was the attack on Mr Cheng, who was assassinated out the front of the Parramatta Police Station.
We cannot have a debate in this place or elsewhere without acknowledging the brave men and women of the police forces and the work they do to keep our community safe. I have heard a lot of dialogue about reaching out to the community, which I support, but I want to see that matched in a national discourse about what we are doing to protect the men and women in our police force. Are we going to have a summit about that? That is what I think we need to do. There needs to be a balanced debate about protecting our protectors. So I say in this place that I remain committed to supporting the police men and women who serve us on the front line and keep us safe. I will do whatever I can in this place to keep them safe, to enable them to continue to protect our community.
As a policeman's wife, I concur with your sentiment.
When I am out there in the community—whether it be hosting street corner meetings or community meetings, door knocking, or attending local events—jobs and the future of our country, and of my state of South Australia, are topics that are frequently raised with me. I want to assure those out there in South Australia and my local electorate of Hindmarsh who are concerned about these issue: the federal government and I are committed to helping job seekers to a better future.
Over the past two years, since the coalition government was elected, over 300,000 jobs have been created across Australia. South Australia, however, has unfortunately not been experiencing the same growth. I understand that manufacturing is declining, the mining resource boom is slowing down and job uncertainty is becoming more of a challenge in South Australia. Our year 12 students who are undertaking their final exams are thinking about their future and whether their chosen path will lead to a job and a sustainable career.
As a parent and someone who has worked for many years assisting the South Australian economy in both the public and private sectors, I have a strong commitment to the future of our state. This is why I recently hosted a forum on jobs in the economy with the Minister for Education, Simon Birmingham, at the West Lakes Sports Club to generate a healthy and open discussion in my local community about jobs growth and opportunity. I also welcomed Sally Neville, from Restaurant & Catering Australia; Rick Cairney from Business SA; and Michael Clark from the Service to Youth Council—industry leaders in South Australia—to join the conversation. I would like to thank Sally, Rick and Michael for their involvement and efforts in making the forum successful. The large number of local residents who attended heard how there are opportunities out there. Yes, there are challenges, but there are promising signs in some areas—such as the hospitality and restaurant sector, where there is an ongoing job shortage, and our tourism sector.
One of the stories of success at the forum was that of a young juggler who quit her job at Cirque du Soleil in Montreal because it was too cold and has since started two businesses in Adelaide. This young entrepreneur has acknowledged her strengths and is now looking to expand and to hire staff—economic activity and business growth that is good South Australia. This is just one of the many great stories I have come across. Visiting local businesses, I am always impressed by the number of companies that did not exist 20 years ago but are now successful and talking optimistically about expanding and employing people. The one thing that large businesses have in common is that they all started as small businesses.
South Australia has had some major wins in recent times and we are living in exciting times, with the growing middle class of Asia on our doorstep. Important projects and initiatives that will help the future of our state include infrastructure projects such as the $1 billion Northern Connector and upgrade of South Road to improve the North-South Corridor, which have seen 1,000 jobs generated through construction work; around $30 million to advance manufacturers in South Australia, including Philmac at North Plimpton and Seeley, with their world leading air conditioners; and the commitment to Defence shipbuilding in Adelaide with the recent announcement to build patrol boats and frigates—2,500 more jobs—fast-tracking both programs in 2018 and 2020. I will continue to work for the future of our state, including the future submarines, and for a better future.
This week I was visited by young people from Micah Challenge, and I know that they visited most members here in parliament. They raised two issues with me. One was that we need to increase the level of our overseas aid and the other was that Australia needed to ensure that it has realistic goals in relation to increasing our emissions pledge. Both are things that I support.
Since the Abbott-Turnbull government was elected, the overseas aid budget has been cut by $11 billion and is now the weakest in Australia's history. This is devastating news for the poorest nations. Under the Abbot-Turnbull government, by 2016 we will be spending just 22c in every $100 of our national income on foreign aid. Over the next decade that is set to decline to 18c in every $100. This is the lowest level of overseas aid in Australia's history.
Micah Challenge brings people to Canberra from all around Australia. The passionate young people who came to visit me acknowledge that great progress has been made with the Millennium Development Goals. They highlighted to me that in just one year, 2013-14, Australian aid helped to vaccinate more than 2.3 million children, give 2.9 million more people access to safe drinking water, increase access to improved sanitation for over one million people, and get 1.3 million more children into school.
I find it really disturbing that the cuts in our aid will impact on so many countries and so many people. More than two billion people worldwide live on just $2 a day, and Australian aid has been used not only to help with immunisation programs but to facilitate microbusinesses and to help countries and people out of poverty. We need to continue our commitment to those Millennium Development Goals, and we also need to be very active and support our neighbours in the Pacific in relation to climate change and sea level rises. This is an important issue and it affects many people worldwide.
I have a confession to make: I have offended the cafe latte set. I have offended them with the comments I made about the artwork here in Parliament House, much of which I referred to as being appalling. I also offended them when I said that, when it comes to some of the artwork here, perhaps I am missing something because I did not pay attention at art classes in school. I have been subject to hostile abuse from the culturally and morally superior, who join in the groupthink: when they see a piece of contemporary art, they think that they get it and we do not.
But they miss the point entirely. Everyone's choice in art is their own personal choice, and if there is anything such as good art it is art that actually gets a reaction, whether positive or negative, and that is exactly what has happened, thankfully, through my comments. The artist Wendy Sharpe—whose work I must admit I admire and who does some wonderful work—following the comments I made about one of her artworks which is hanging in our Parliament House, has had a story about her and her artwork in today's Sydney Morning Herald. This is priceless publicity that she has received for her artwork. So I actually look forward to maybe getting a job sometime in the future as her publicist, or maybe even to her slinging me a commission for the priceless publicity I have given her.
The second point I would make about art is the opportunities that we are missing here in Parliament House. We have miles and miles and corridors in this Parliament House. We have thousands of foreign tourists visiting this Parliament House. This should be a great opportunity to showcase Australian artwork. I would like to see more Aboriginal artwork hanging here in Parliament House. Let's have more of it here. We have the corridor space. Let's expose it to the foreign tourists that come in. Who knows? Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you have a great appreciation of local artists. Tourists may buy a tie or a scarf or something with an Aboriginal print fabric to take back home. Let's have more of our historical pictures and our artwork telling the story of our nation building. Let's have more pictures of our coastline, our outback and our unique wildlife. These are the opportunities that we have to promote artwork here in our Parliament House. We need to do it. We only have to look at this chamber and some of the wonderful pieces of artwork that are out on display. I have taken the opportunity to go and visit our art department down in the basement. Let's not hide our artwork down there. Let's get it out. Let's get it on display. Let's promote what we have. Let's get in and talk and encourage the arts.
I apologise to Ms Wendy Sharpe if she has taken any offence. I do admire her artwork and, as I said, I think I have given her priceless publicity. I am looking forward to my commission.
On 2 October, a gunman callously shot down a member of the civilian police workforce, Curtis Cheng, a 17-year veteran of the Police Force, working in the finance department. That day, 2 October, he went to work and he did not go home—lost forever to his wife, Selena, and his children, Alpha and Zilvia, and the many people who knew and loved him over those 17 years. I give my sincere condolences to his family and his friends, to all who knew him and all who will miss him as the years pass.
I also acknowledge the extraordinary bravery of the special constable who ran out from behind cover that day, without body armour, and faced the gunman alone and eventually killed him. Special constables are not actually listed members of the police force; they are a separate group, and they do the security here as well as around the police headquarters in Parramatta. We ask these men and women in the civilian services to see terrible things, and occasionally to do terrible things. This special constable on 2 October did one of those things for us, to make us safe: he actually shot a 15-year-old boy. Nobody goes to work expecting to do that. Our policemen, although they are trained to do it, do not expect to have to do that, and there are consequences, personal consequences, for people who do that on our behalf. I would like this place to recognise the extraordinary contribution that that man made, the sacrifices he made for us that day to keep us safe. Thank you to the special constable.
I would also like to speak briefly about the family of the 15-year-old, Farhad Jabar. We do not know yet the circumstances of Farhad and his family—the police are still investigating—but a family lost their son that day, and if we do not act strongly to counter radicalisation across our communities, other families will, unexpectedly in many cases, lose their sons in the same way. We have quite a responsibility, as a parliament, to ensure that our communities feel connected, that young people who start to wander from the path are supported by friends and family in the first instance and by security and police later on if things go to far. We have an extraordinary responsibility to find ways to support the young people in our community who may find themselves wandering from the path that we want them to walk. This young boy, incredibly sadly, was seduced by false beliefs and did a terrible thing that day and paid the ultimate price himself. Let us hope we do not have more young people following the same path.
I rise to pay tribute to the many men and women involved with Legacy in Australia, and in particularly on the New South Wales Central Coast. It was a privilege to attend this year's launch of Legacy's badge week, which was hosted by Brisbane Water Legacy. Every year Legacy raises funds by selling badges in the first week of September. Legacy in Australia was established some 90 years ago, and in 2015 provides support for almost 90,000 war widows and dependents. The assistance of 50 Legacy clubs, supported by 5,300 volunteers, is of course vital for caring for war widows and dependents. Legacy is one of the oldest and most well-regarded charities, operating in accordance with its original mission: to care for the families of those who served our country.
On the Central Coast, my electorate is served by Brisbane Water Legacy. This club is supported by 63 legatees, all of whom are volunteers. Operating since 1950, Brisbane Water Legacy currently provides welfare programs for 2,050 war widows and 53 dependents. In 2014-15, Legacy on the New South Wales Central Coast funded $915,000 worth of support services for their beneficiaries. Funding for these services is provided from donations, bequests, income from investments and the operation of a retirement village. Many people will be familiar with the services provided by Legacy; however, most would be unaware of the extent of the services provided across the Central Coast. Legacy provides financial assistance by way of payment for medical and health services for widows who do not qualify for health support payments. Further financial assistance can also take the form of reimbursement of travel costs to attend medical appointments in addition to payment of school sports and activities for students whose parents have given their lives in ADF activities.
To help combat social isolation for widows, Brisbane Water Legacy also provides a well-established social club program in five locations across the Central Coast. This program sees the groups meet fortnightly to provide social interaction and support for widows. Gatherings for widows at events such as Christmas, Mother's Day and Christmas in July are provided, as well as gatherings at significant milestones such as the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the Centenary of Anzac commemorations.
While all the programs provided by Legacy are hugely beneficial on the Central Coast, one major initiative is particularly advantageous. Brisbane Water Legacy provides an annual scholarship for students who reside in the region and who have a link to ADF members past or present. The scholarship is administered through the Australian Veterans' Children Assistance Trust Ltd and is provided to three students for four years. Since its inaugural year in 2002, 30 students have benefited from this program, with over $305,000 provided from the Brisbane Water Legacy fund. I commend Brisbane Water Legacy for their services to the Central Coast veterans' community.
Each year in my community, the Plebs, Pros and Personalities 24 Hour Treadmill Run for suicide prevention takes place. Established in 2012 by a group of mates from Maroubra, the annual event came about when this group of mainly young men, after working out just how many friends and people from the community had lost their lives to suicide, decided that enough was enough. The Plebs, Pros and Personalities 24 Hour Treadmill Run has since featured many community personalities and sports stars, including Greg Inglis, Shannan Ponton, Johanna Griggs and Sonny Bill Williams. They have worked to remove the stigma associated with discussing issues of mental health. This year, they raised $230,000 for Suicide Prevention Australia. I am proud to have been a part of that event and to have run on the treadmill.
Mental health issues are a big issue in Australia and there is still an unjustified stigma associated with mental health issues. Each year approximately 65,000 Australians attempt to take their own life. In 2012, over 2½ thousand people died from suicide—almost double the road toll. Nearly in five Australian adults will experience mental ill health each year. Nearly half of the Australian adult population will experience a mental illness at some point in their lives. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are three times more likely to suffer from mental health issues.
Labor is well aware of this and we are committed to making a difference to the lives of Australians who live with mental health issues. It is time that Australia got serious about tackling depression, suicide and mental health issues. The annual cost of mental illness in Australia has been estimated by the ABS at $20 billion, which includes the cost of the loss of productivity and labour force participation. Evidence shows that people who get the support they need when they need it are far better equipped to lead contributing lives through participation in work and in the community. Under Labor, mental health will be person centred and designed specifically to meet the needs of local communities. A Shorten Labor government will build on Labor's strong legacy in mental health by ensuring investment goes where it is needed most. Labor will be guided by the recommendations of the National Mental Health Commission and we will outline our priorities of implementation within the first hundred days of government. Labor will also commit to reducing suicide in Australia by 50 per cent over the next 10 years. We will do this by following the recommendations of the National Mental Health Commission and will target our work on a regional focus in particular. Labor is getting serious about tackling mental health issues in Australia.
As I have said many times in this House before, the right for women and children to feel safe at home and to live their lives without fear of violence must be fearlessly protected by this parliament and by our society. Yet we know that one in six Australian women has experienced violence from a current or former partner and 63—I repeat: 63—have been killed so far this year. This tragic and avoidable loss of life and the pain to other women and children, particularly, highlight the seriousness of this issue and the need for immediate action. That is why I am very proud to be part of a government that has announced a comprehensive package designed to provide a safety net for women and children at risk of violence
Initiatives in the package are targeted towards three key areas: keeping women safe at home, support and training for front-line services, and breaking the cycle of violence in the community. Examples of this include $17 million to be allocated towards expanding successful initiatives like the Safer in the Home program to install CCTV and other safety equipment around the home; $5 million to support more local women's caseworkers to coordinate support for women, including housing, safety and budgeting services; and $15 million to establish specialised domestic violence units to provide access to coordinated legal, social and cultural liaison services for women in a single location. Extra resources will also be allocated towards education initiatives to help shift community sentiments to violence and abuse, particularly among young women.
But, as I have said before, funding towards these important initiatives is never enough and, in order to stop this violence against women, more must be done by this parliament and indeed parliaments around our country. I therefore once again call on all jurisdictions, particularly my home jurisdiction, to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for violent acts against women and children with set periods of nonparole, because time and time again the judiciary has let us down by letting violent criminals back on the street far too soon. All I need to do is cite the heinous examples of Sean Price and Adrian Bayley. We can no longer allow unelected judges and activist parole boards to continue to put women and children in harm's way. That is why I again call on the Victorian Attorney-General, Martin Pakula, to take action. I have written to the Attorney. It is fair to say that his responses to me have been wholly inadequate, but I want to give him another opportunity to look at these issues and take things out of the hands of unelected judges. (Time expired)
In August I visited the National Disability Insurance Scheme launch site in Newcastle with the member for Shortland, where we met Peta Lambert and Natalie Howland, two young women whose lives have been truly transformed by the NDIS. Before the NDIS came to Newcastle Nat was living at home with her mum. Like all young women, Peta and Nat aspired to move out and live independently, and today they share a house in Newcastle because of the NDIS.
Nat was initially nervous. Change, of course, is very scary. She did not know what to expect. She met with an NDIA planner and a support worker, and they asked her about her goals. She had never thought about this before—what her goals were, what she wanted to achieve, and how she might do it. For Nat, this was a revelation. It enabled her to lift her horizons and contemplate what she wants from life. She knew in an instant what she wanted from the NDIS. She wanted to live independently and own her own home. Nat had been saving for over three years and working in a steady job for 18 years, but she did not know how to go about buying a house. One thing she knew for sure was that she wanted to live with Peta, her long-time friend. Together, with the help of the NDIS, they sat down with an NDIA planner and support worker and mapped out what needed to be done next. The planner helped work out the necessary support so that Nat and Peta could apply for a home loan. Because of their intellectual disability they worked with the bank to have a capacity assessment. The NDIS provided support for a financial planner and support worker so that they could go through what they would need to secure a home loan and make mortgage repayments. The support worker, funded through the NDIS, was there every step of the way.
Nat and Peta also needed to assure their parents that they would be properly supported and be safe and secure in their new home. Again, they sat down with the NDIS planner and support workers to determine what supports they would need in their home to live independently. I visited Peta's and Nat's home with the member for Shortland. They greeted us at the door and showed us around their garden. Peta then wanted to take us inside to show us their new couch. And yes, Peta, it is a lovely new couch. Because of the NDIS, Peta and Nat now have control over their lives. They are able to dream of things that they could not contemplate before the NDIS, and that is something we should all celebrate.
At the recent New South Wales state indoor hockey championships on the Central Coast, the Grafton under-15 boys team did our region very proud. They were trailing 2-nil with 10 minutes to go. The boys pulled together and ended up defeating Sydney East 4-2, so well done! The team is coached by Australian all-schools under-16 representative Sam Young. Mel Gaddes did a wonderful job managing the team. The team consisted of Reece Gaddes, Eli Fahey, Luca Brown, Zac Young, Abe Herbert, Sam Bloomer, Toby Power and Kyle McIlveen. Reece and Luca were rewarded with selection in the New South Wales under-15 boys team to compete in the Australian Championships at Wollongong in January. Well done, boys—great effort!
This year's Tabulam races will be held on 7 November. Earlier this month it was one of four finalists for the award of Best Community Racing Club in New South Wales. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Tabulam Racing Club's executive, president Mike Hynes, treasurer Margaret Smith and secretary Milton King. Last year the race attracted over 2,000 people, with 500 people choosing to camp there. It has a very long history; it is believed to have started in 1896. After a break, it resumed 66 years ago. On 7 November this year, I encourage everyone to get along. It is always a great day out. Congratulations on being a finalist.
Eating is something most of us take for granted. Becky and Rodney Holland live in Lismore with their daughter Eleanor. Eleanor was born with her spinal cord protruding out of her back, and it had to be surgically closed. She suffers from Arnold-Chiari, a brain malformation that causes speech, feeding and growth issues, and fluid on her brain. All of this means that she has, until now, been unable to eat. Eleanor has been tube fed for several years, but, now, after overcoming so many challenges in her first five years, she is ready for the final step. She and her family recently told their story on Today Tonight and are fundraising to help Eleanor to eat again. She needs an operation, and training which is only available in Adelaide. I wish the whole family all the very best with that.
John Matthews of Maclean is set to be the next North Coast shooter to represent Australia at an international level. John won International Benchrest Rimfire Shooting Championships in Brisbane last month and sits 17 points clear of his nearest rival going into the final qualifier. John shoots at the Sporting Shooters' Association range in Grafton. He credits his success to the very competitive competitions on the North Coast. If successful, he will represent us in Portugal next year. Good luck, John. (Time expired)
Ryde Joinery is a small business in my electorate in the suburb of Punchbowl that provides award-winning interior fittings services across Australia. Ryde Joinery is a local success story, and I have to pay tribute to the owner, Justin Patane, and his family for their hard work and commitment to their craft. In looking at the factory, you would see it in terms of blue-collar jobs—a whole lot of work being done with different forms of timber in putting together chairs and different fittings that then find their way to local clubs and restaurants. Absolute precision is required with everything they build.
But, while people look at it very much as a blue-collar workplace, the truth is the business is suffering directly from the slow internet speeds that it is receiving. All of this work that it does is reliant on the downloading of detailed plans. The failure of the government to deliver decent internet speeds in the suburb of Punchbowl creates a very real challenge for the business. Right through to tasks like receiving phone calls from current and potential clients, downloading plans and order specifications, or even calling out to get technical supports—in every way this business is receiving a quality of service where anyone would think they should be able to get better. This is because Ryde Joinery does not have access to Labor's National Broadband Network and instead relies on last century's copper wire for its telecommunications. As a result of this, Justin is losing customers, potential work projects and, importantly, income to grow his business. This is a problem not just for small businesses like Ryde Joinery but for schools, community organisations, sports clubs and households throughout our local area. On my visit I said, 'Can we have a look at Speedtest.net just to see what actual internet speed he is getting' so that I could verify it for myself. The speed came up at 0.05 megabytes per second. Under a series of different providers, when you max out your data and they reduce you to a slower speed, it is still faster than what he is getting in normal times when he is still within his limits.
I am proud to represent one of the most diverse electorates in Australia—a part of Sydney where the whole world has come to live. In our community the internet helps people make a living, stay in contact with friends and family overseas, better understand their neighbours and educate themselves on issues that matter to them. With slow speeds and regular disruption, these outcomes are doomed to failure. Under Labor, more than 100,000 homes and businesses were scheduled to get fibre-to-the-premises NBN by the end of 2016. Up to 93 per cent of Australians would eventually have access to this cutting-edge broadband. Instead Australian businesses like Ryde Joinery have to make do with the Abbott-Turnbull government's slower, more expensive 'NBN lite'. Under this government, not even— (Time expired)
Last week the very energetic and enthusiastic Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia visited my electorate—perhaps an obvious place for him to come and visit, with the resourcefulness we have in north Australia. We like to say that we in Darwin or in the Top End are the capital of north Australia. It was a very eventful visit, and the minister was absolutely well received. Part of the itinerary was a visit to the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm, which is a world-class aquaculture business just outside Darwin. This company has increased its operations by 300 per cent over the past three years, which is just an enormous achievement. The farm is a second-generation family business. Bob Richards and his son Dan, who is my constituent, are working side by side to implement the world's best practices in commercial aquaculture. In fact Bob won a Churchill Fellowship in 2002 to study overseas and bring home those ideas to Australia to help the industry. His son Dan, who is now the general manager, has recently been awarded a Nuffield Australia 2016 scholarship, which is just awesome news.
At the farm there are a series of floating feeders in some of the ponds. They look pretty straightforward: a large, floating vat which distributes food into the water as required. This set-up has worked well elsewhere, but barra need a new approach. If too much food is put into the ponds it builds up at the bottom, causes pollution and impacts the growth of the barramundi. So the team devised a solution which saves money on wasted food and also stops the overfeeding and stops the spoiling of the water quality. These feeding machines are attached to microphones which monitor audio from the water using special software which detects the 'woof' sound that barramundi make when they are feeding. As long as the system can hear the woof of the barra, it will keep feeding them. When the barra stop eating, the machine stops feeding. It sounds pretty logical. That is just one of the hundreds of innovations that the farm employs. As I said, this is a family owned business which has, through organic growth, increased its yield 28-fold in the last decade alone. When we on this side of the House talk about developing north Australia, this is the sort of venture we want more of: people creating jobs and value through innovation and hard work. I congratulate the whole team at Humpty Doo Barramundi and thank them for their fabulous work. (Time expired)
On Sunday the Northbridge Piazza, Perth, held its second all-in Eid al-Adha celebration. The aim of this festival is to invite the wider Perth community into the celebrations of the Islamic community. Just as people of all faiths and no faiths engage in the Christmas festivals, and as Chinese New Year is now absolutely entrenched in Australia's cultural calendar, we would like to see the same applying to Eid. It is this sharing of celebration, making your stuff our stuff, that weaves the strands of multicultural Australia into a rich tapestry.
We had food, music, fabric and dancing all there under the blazing Perth sky. I told the group that we want no 'us' and 'them'; Australia is an inclusive culture and we want all our people to prosper. I noted that there had been an Islamic community in Northbridge for over 120 years and indeed our mosque is over 100 years old. There have always been issues that confront the waves of migration. It used to be the Irish, then it was the Italians and Greeks and then the Vietnamese. But sooner or later we all get the hang of each other pretty quickly with endeavour all around. I passed on best wishes from our fabulous Islamic parliamentarians, Ed Husic and Jihad Dib, and I passed on in particular Jihad's comments to the Perth community that if a bloke called Jihad can win an election at this time it tells us the sky is the limit for anyone in this country.
I want to give a thank you, give a big shout-out, to Iqbal Samnakay from the Muslim Social and Sports Association. Iqbal, you did a great job organising the festival of course with the help of the irrepressible Zarin Siddiqui and the lively emceeing of Mel Fowlher. We met the three musketeers, our very favourite: Constable Zen Mohammed, Dr Annie Brassard and Kaitha Brassard. These are women doing fantastic work with recent Islamic migrant women and helping them see the opportunities for education and work that is now available to them in this country. Well done to everyone involved and Eid Mubarak for many years to come.
Water is of critical importance to the Riverina electorate. It underpins the region's economic sustainability, and this is critically so from Narrandera west. Irrigated agriculture, as I have said many times previously in this place, makes the Riverina strong, feeds and clothes the nation and sustains many other countries too. With the three preferential trade deals Minister Andrew Robb has negotiated with China, Japan and South Korea, and now that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement which has been successfully brokered, the Riverina's role in Australia's export viability is even more critical. Farmers cannot grow food and fibre without water. That is why capping buyback at 1,500 gigalitres, which passed the House of Representatives on 9 September and the Senate five days later, gives hope and certainty to river communities. That is why putting responsibility for water back into agriculture is a net positive for Australia.
A triple bottom line approach is now needed more than ever before, as Australia looks to capitalise on the trade deals achieved under the coalition. Social, economic and environmental aspects must receive equal weighting when it comes to water. In the recent past the environment has been given all of the say and just about all of the water as far as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was concerned. This cannot and will not continue. Farmers were this nation's first environmentalists after European settlement and remain the very best carers of country. During the official opening last Friday of Ag Inspirations, a workshop for years 9, 10 and 11 Wagga Wagga and district school students to get a hands-on experience of a possible future career in an ag related job, Wiradjuri woman Gail Clark of Coolamon and gave the welcome to country and told participants; 'At one time in your life you will need a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman and a preacher, but every day, three times a day, you will need a farmer.' Sage advice.
Water allocations remain the remit of the state. In the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries' water allocation statement delivered today, Murrumbidgee Valley general security entitlements have increased by two per cent to 29 per cent—due mostly to just slightly better than expected inflows into storages since the last assessment. Regarding dam levels at the moment, Blowering Dam is currently 46 per cent full, holding 775,000 megalitres. Burrinjuck Dam is 71 per cent full, holding 731,000 megalitres. We need higher water allocations to grow rice and to grow everything else that we do in the Riverina. I have spoken to the New South Wales primary industries minister, Niall Blair, about this. Water is critically important to the Riverina. I am glad it is back in the agriculture portfolio and I am glad the 1,500 gigalitre legislation has passed.
The Family Law Act was introduced 40 years ago. There have been some amendments, the last being in 2006 and 2012. Our laws should be dynamic and should be reviewed and revised as needed. The Family Law Act is now well and truly overdue for reshaping.
Professor Richard Chisholm AM, a retired Family Court judge who knows the law very well, has written articles suggesting reform to the Family Law Act. Current sitting judges have also published articles bemoaning the current state of our law. Judge Grant Riethmuller in his recent article on deciding parenting cases under part VII in ‘The 42 easy steps for deciding straightforward parenting cases under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975’ describes the current provisions for determining parenting matters as a complex and almost impenetrable legislative scheme. A former judge of the Family Court, Justice Warnick, has described the same provisions as a 'dilemma of labyrinthine complexity'. If our judges and former judges or academics find these provisions complex, how can nonlawyers possibly understand how they would apply to their own parenting disputes? Professor Chisholm suggests that parties may well be settling parenting disputes in the shadow of a misunderstood law.
A clearer and simpler legislative pathway would allow more matters to be resolved without resorting to the courts. Those matters that did need the courts' assistance would be likely to be resolved more quickly, because they would take up less valuable court time. The Productivity Commission inquiry report Access to justice arrangements has identified that the complexity of the system and the law which underpins it is a barrier that could inhibit access to justice. There are many barriers to access to justice in the family law system. Reform could assist early resolution of property settlements where the asset pool is in the low-to-medium range.
The Women's Legal Service Victoria recently published a report Stepping stones: legal barriers to economic equality after family violence. One of the recommendations in the report is to amend the Family Law Act to include a requirement for an early resolution process in small-claim property matters. The report suggests that the federal government introduces a unique process for small-claim property matters to be dealt with quickly and fairly. Ensuring that property settlements are accessible after family breakdown will improve economic equality after separation. Where family violence is present, it is often impossible for matters to be resolved without resort to the courts. It is imperative that families are able to access our court system to have their matters dealt with in a way that is responsive to the complexities that family violence brings and that will ensure a quick and fair resolution. As the Chief Justice of the Family Court said this week, family law litigation is like no other litigation; it is dynamic litigation not static. The orders that are made are orders that operate in the present and future. Every time there is an interaction—say, a contact at the weekend or alternate weekend or whatever it is—there is an opportunity for something to happen because they are human relationships.
As politicians and legislators, we need to remember the dynamic nature of family law and the unique problems that our family law system must deal with. Good governments ensure that legislation meets the needs of the families who use the family law system.
I wish to talk about a major infrastructure project that will be very important for driving opportunities for the people of Victoria. The Andrews state government have committed to the Murray Basin Rail Project. It is a $460 million project but they have committed only $220 million of their funds, even though they have $400 million in the bank from the sale of rural finance as well as $60 million that the federal government will give them as part of the investment dividend.
Of course the project has a lot of merit. They are asking the federal government to contribute, and I also believe that the federal government should contribute—but only to enhance the project. We do need to enhance the project to bring the Mildura line railway line up to 23-tonne axle loads. The purpose, if we can do it, is not only that it would provide the opportunity to one day put passenger rail on that line but also that the turnaround times on the trains would be faster. The role of the federal government in nation building is very significant in this project. Upgrading the Mildura railway line to 23 tonnes as part of the Murray Basin Rail Project would lead the way in building the transcontinental rail link, a link between Mildura and up through Menindee to catch up with the east-west rail link. This would be the completion of standardised rail between every state in Australia. It means that we could address the supply constraints in the rail project and the rail freight supply constraints between Adelaide and Melbourne, where we are going to hit capacity by 2025. I think it is very worthwhile.
So I just want to update the parliament that I very much support the Murray Basin Rail Project. I am very keen to see the state Andrews government deliver $416.2 million of the project, not the $220 million that they currently have allocated. I also think there is quite a legitimate case for the federal government to contribute, perhaps to the tune of a further $100 million to build the Mildura line for 23-tonne axle loads. The core reasons are that it drives faster turnaround times of trains to get our product out to the market, it addresses constraints in the freight capacity for rail between Adelaide and Melbourne, and it also helps us potentially put passenger trains onto that route in the future, which will be a state government responsibility. But it also is very important so that we can drive the great dream of having a standardised railway line in every state in Australia, something that we should have done at Federation but that has taken well over 100 years to bring to fruition. So an additional $100 million out of the federal government would be good. Let's try to make it happen.
It was my sad privilege recently to attend the funeral of Jim Bourke, a retired lieutenant colonel, a true hero of the Australian forces in the Vietnam War and a man who never forgot the people that were left behind and who understood more about grief, I think, than many of the people that I have met in my life. I attended that funeral with family, with many members of the veterans community and also with former Minister for Veterans' Affairs Bruce Billson, to pay tribute to an extraordinary life—a man who had done so much in his life.
He was wounded severely in combat in Vietnam and came home a troubled man. I know that that had an impact on his family and on him. He was a man, though, who then triumphed beyond that by dealing with the issues that he had brought home and by trying to gain finality for those who had been left behind. Forty years later, he championed the establishment of Operation Aussies Home and worked very hard to get governments of all persuasions, and particularly the Defence bureaucracy, to focus on returning and searching for the remains of the last six MIAs in Vietnam. He was successful in those activities. It was an incredible triumph of perseverance, of strategy, of doggedness and of intellect. He then took that experience and, at the age of 70, qualified for a PhD in that very field—looking at unresolved grief, particularly in wartime. It was quite an achievement.
I would like to read briefly—I apologise for my attempts at poetry—from a tribute to Jim Bourke from another great soldier of that area, George Mansford:
Did you ever meet a bloke so full of life?
Always with a huge grin, even in strife
Would often share his last smoke and tucker too
Never hesitant to speak up for the likes of me and you
In peace and war for causes he led many a band
Defeat and failure he never did understand
"Cannot be done" was never part of his game
Always challenging the system gave him justified fame
Above all, he was to you and me, true blue
A mate to be trusted to see any danger through
Already we are missing you, JB
Yet always will be those proud treasured memories
So many dawns and sunsets you shared with others
Such a great honour to have called you our brother
Luv ya mate
My condolences go to Jim Bourke's family and friends. It was a life well lived but at times troubled, but you should be very proud of the man that he was.
My last comments are from Peter Aylett, a sapper and a good mate of his:
'You're still a bloody troublemaker,' he tells his mate. 'As one of your commanders said, "Lieutenant Bourke is a problem, Lieutenant Bourke has always been a problem, and Lieutenant Bourke is the kind of problem it’s always good to have around."'
Every day of every week and every year across the Murray-Darling Basin, $5 million to $6 million is being lost in food and fibre production. That is per day. These calculations are based on ABARES statistics. This loss in value to the private enterprises and to the nation is not a consequence of drought, flood or pestilence. These losses are a consequence of substantially less water now being available to irrigators and the huge prices the remaining water now commands on the corrupted, unregulated temporary water markets. The water irrigators once had now resides in the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder bucket.
I am deeply concerned about the future of farming and food manufacturing—activities that not only feed the nation but create employment across the basin. In 2006, Goulburn-Murray irrigators had an entitlement of 1,600 gigalitres to grow our food. There were over 2,700 dairy farmers, for example, supporting 50 towns and two cities. Today there is only an entitlement of some 1,000 gigalitres—a decline of 57 per cent—and we only have 1,100 dairy farmers left. Youth unemployment in the region is now at over 25 per cent. Irrigator water access in South Australia has dropped by over 40 per cent and those irrigators are now deeply concerned and troubled. There has been a similar drop in New South Wales.
Unfortunately the previous Labor government committed $1 billion of federal taxpayers' money to further reduce the footprint of the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system so that another 204 gigalitres of farm water could be added to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's bucket of 2,372 gigalitres—the biggest entitlement in Australia. The CEHW, as we call it, has not been able to utilise all of this water for the environment since its bucket filled. Often the seasonal conditions mean the ecosystem does not require water, or the water simply cannot be forced down the rivers and streams. CEHW has now identified 20 gigalitres that it does not need for the environment this year and so intends to put that back into the temporary water market. We applaud this and cannot wait for this 20 gigalitres to be released onto the Goulburn system market. It is excellent news.
I am deeply concerned, however, that the speculators who now crowd the temporary water market will grab this water, pushing prices even higher than the $300 per megalitre reached last week. I am calling on the VicSuper superannuation fund, the Melbourne Water Authority and the South Australian government to not raid this 20 gigalitres, this opportunity to buy this water. Please leave it for irrigators to grow food—Australia's dairy product, the fruit, the meats, the cereals. Let the irrigators in South Australia buy this water instead of having it flushed down the toilets of Adelaide. Turn on your desalinisation plant if you need that water. Do not raid the food producers' water.
In all of this, we are talking about employment and we are talking about the food security of the nation. Enough is enough. This temporary water market is corrupted. It must be reviewed and managed in the future. But right now, give us a go. (Time expired)
Despite the change of Prime Minister, the very serious threat to cut penalty rates remains on the table as part of this government's agenda. It is very concerning that the new Prime Minister has said that one of the first things on his agenda is slashing the penalty rates of 4.5 million hardworking Australians. Unilaterally cutting rates will hurt Australian workers. Hospitality and retail workers will be hit first, followed by nurses, paramedics, aged-care workers and cleaners.
Australia currently has one of the lowest rates of wages growth it has experienced over the last 25 years. Many people are relying on penalty rates to pay their bills and keep their heads above water. Indeed the McKell Institute found that taking away these penalty rates and this income would have a devastating effect on the standard of living of many people and that it would impact both the financial and emotional wellbeing of many people. Many people would be forced to work longer hours, tighten their belts and give up on small comforts if their penalty rates were unilaterally scrapped. There are thousands of retail and hospitality workers in my electorate who rely on penalty rates to pay their bills, so it is very concerning that scrapping penalty rates is at the top of this government's agenda.
The Prime Minister and indeed many people on the other side have suggested that the present system is working well and that there is nothing to see here. I mean, that is what the Prime Minister says in question time every time he is asked about penalty rates—that the current system is working well. Why is it, then, that he keeps signalling outside of this place, when workers are not necessarily listening, that he thinks that penalty rates are a problem? He has called it the seven-day economy—everyone should work every day as the same and no-one should receive penalty rates. He has also flagged that he will continue to look at the Productivity Commission's report that unilaterally suggests taking away penalty rates.
There is a robust system in place. There is a system that allows workplaces, workers and their representatives, the unions, to sit down and negotiate more flexibility around penalty rates—such as a higher rate of pay in exchange for lower penalty rates. Then the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, looks at that to make sure that workers are better off over all. That is the way the current system works. Certainly, we support the current system, because it was Labor that put it in place, after years of the Howard government trying to dismantle the independent umpire. It has been an important element—I would say the most important element—of our industrial relations system. The Howard government did try and dismantle that independent umpire. We had to work hard to put that independent umpire back in place, and it is working well.
I am glad that the Prime Minister, in question time, says that it is working well. Why is it, then, that he, his ministers—whether they be cabinet ministers or in the outer ministry—and his backbench continue to signal that penalty rates are a problem and that they need to be unilaterally addressed, slashed and cut? That is what it means when you say that you want to address penalty rates. If it is not being addressed by the independent umpire, you want to address it. It just means cuts—cuts to penalty rates and cuts to people's pay and conditions. It is very concerning that we hear this from this Prime Minister, despite his cooing and reassuring in question time. We know that, when he is out there talking about penalty rates, his agenda is about slashing penalty rates, and it is very, very concerning.
So it is time that the Prime Minister made an unequivocal statement backing the Fair Work Commission, backing the concept of enterprise bargaining and ruling out any way to unilaterally attack penalty rates in this country. Because workers rely on them; workers rely on these penalty rates. And it is a shame that, to date—despite the Prime Minister trying to pretend that he is reassuring Australian people—there is an agenda that the Prime Minister has. He needs to abandon it.
Regional and rural Australia create real wealth for our nation. In fact, two-thirds of our export earnings come from regional parts of our country. Our coalition government is providing a new $5 billion northern Australia infrastructure facility to unlock even further potential in regional areas like Capricornia. One of the elements that are key to future growth in this part of Central Queensland is the ability to access water for irrigation, industry and urban growth. I am fighting for Commonwealth support to fund decent water infrastructure in Capricornia in the form of weirs and dams. This is an important fight for the people of Capricornia, and I am bringing to the attention of the government and its senior ministers that one of the greatest investments we can make for the future for local jobs and local families in Capricornia will be viable water infrastructure projects.
The predominant area I am talking about is the greater Fitzroy River system, which takes in a huge part of inland Queensland. That is why three federal MPs in Central Queensland will be hosting a Fitzroy water workshop in Rockhampton to enable us to hear detailed cases for competing water project concepts in our region. The workshop on Wednesday, 28 October will be hosted by me and my colleagues the federal member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd, and the Rockhampton based Senator Matthew Canavan. This workshop will provide various community groups with the opportunity to present their views and evidence on different projects they support. It is vital that we gather as much information about the future use of water from the Fitzroy system as we can so that we can make the best possible arguments when debating water infrastructure spending with federal ministers and government colleagues.
Australia is a big, dry continent and there are various arguments about what weirs or dams should be built across the country. This is especially true in the Fitzroy system. I am particularly keen to hear the options on projects that would boost the Rockhampton and Central Queensland economies and create local jobs, especially projects that can be sensibly supported by local, state and federal governments. The Fitzroy system has the capacity to supply the agricultural, industrial and domestic water needs of a larger area of Central Queensland for future decades to come. The workshop is part of a process to gather information and help ensure that we, as local federal MPs, are as well informed as possible by giving stakeholders and the general public an opportunity to discuss future options. It will discuss a range of issues related to harnessing water from the Fitzroy system. Topics for discussion will include proposals for dams, including the Connors River dam and the controversial Fitzroy Gap dam, and raising the height of Eden Bann weir, Rookwood weir and Nathan dam.
It is a fact that there are more infrastructure projects in Australia than there are funds to construct them. Therefore it is important that expensive projects like dams and water pipelines demonstrate value for money. We recognise at a national level there is fierce competition for the current available funding. Our reasoning for this workshop is to listen to local evidence which will allow us to take the best possible arguments back to Canberra so the Fitzroy system is at the forefront of our minister's mind when the project list for future Australian water infrastructure is drawn up and announced. The aim of the forum is to provide information on potential projects, including water needs and capacity, challenges, benefits and costs, and to hear stakeholder views. The Fitzroy water workshop will be held on Wednesday 28 October from 2 to 5 pm at Central Queensland University, CQIRP Agriculture Conference Centre in Ibis Avenue, North Rockhampton. Seating is limited and people wanting to attend must register by Wednesday 21 October by emailing senator.canavan@aph.gov.au.
The people of Bendigo in Central Victoria have launched a campaign called Save Our Local Jobs. It is community groups, it is unions, it is workers—these people are coming together to call on this government to do more to save our local jobs. They are saying, and they are quite right, that this current government has no plan to create and secure jobs in Bendigo in Central Victoria and they have kick-started this campaign. It is a petition campaign, and there will be a public meeting. People are speaking out about the need for this government to do more to help safeguard and secure local jobs.
One of the dot points they are calling for is for this government to sign more procurement contracts—defence manufacturing contracts that will help safeguard and lock in local jobs in Bendigo. Before we started this petition the government had not yet signed the Hawkei contract, so we are glad that they have agreed to the first point of our campaign—to sign the Hawkei contract to lock in local Thales defence manufacturing jobs. This contract will secure about 200 jobs at the facility in Bendigo. We want this government to lock in more procurement contracts. There is more work that they can do in Bendigo and Central Victoria to lock in local defence manufacturing jobs. It just makes sense. They can use Australian taxpayers' dollars not only to support our armed services to ensure that they have the best equipment but also to lock in those local highly skilled, well-paid manufacturing jobs.
The group is also calling for the government to guarantee locals will be offered jobs first before these jobs go to 417 visa and 457 visa workers. We have a problem in Central Victoria and across Australia that more and more jobs are going to people who work for labour hire firms who are here as guest workers. It is a problem that we have in our food manufacturing here in Central Victoria, whether it be at Hazeldene's Chicken Farm poultry factory or at Don-KR in Castlemaine. Too many local jobs are going to people who are here on 417 work visas instead of going to locals first.
In this campaign we are also calling for: save our local jobs and safeguard Australian jobs under any free trade agreement. This week I am proud that the Labor opposition has announced a series of reforms that would help safeguard Australian job, and we are calling on the government to sign up to those amendments to the ChAFTA enabling legislation that will help safeguard jobs.
This is a critical issue for regional Australia. For all those regional MPs who stand up and talk about how important this is for the farm gate, don't forget about supporting the workers in regional communities. Do not continue to divide our communities. This is a chance to help rebuild our communities and support the trades. Let's not continue this division between farmers and tradies. We want the government to safeguard Australian jobs under any free trade agreement.
The petition is also calling for the government to reverse the massive funding cuts to health, education and community services that cost lots of jobs like in my electorate of Bendigo. Too many social workers and counsellors lost their jobs—people who are doing good work to ensure the most vulnerable in our community receive support. The government can support these organisation and the jobs that go with it—jobs that are needed in our regional areas.
We are also calling for the government to stop closing down local government agencies. In my electorate, the coalition of the ATO in Bendigo. We know that these jobs have been lost to our electorate, and other MPs in this place are claiming the creation of these jobs. These jobs have simply been transferred from one regional area to another. These are not new jobs; they have taken jobs from my electorate in Bendigo to other parts of the country. That is simply not fair.
What this government has also done is close down the Australian Emergency Management Institute in my electorate and sacked the public servants who worked there—that is 60 local public servant jobs that have been lost from my electorate from the Australian Emergency Management Institute who are responsible for ensuring that we have world-class best practice when it comes to on emergency management. In Central Victoria it is critical that we continue to have these services not just because these are good local jobs but because of the role which they play in our community.
Finally, we are calling on the government to fast-track regional development projects. Just yesterday the state member for Bendigo East, Jacinta Allan, who is the Victorian transport minister, called on the Turnbull government to back the Murray Basin Rail Project. These are good jobs. We are calling on this government to help save local jobs, and to get behind Bendigo and Central Victoria. (Time expired)
I rise to present a petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of The House of Representatives
This petition is signed by concerned members of the public and their families based on the New South Wales Central Coast.
This petition draws to the attention of the House the lack of Lymphodema services, which is impacting hundreds of patients.
Lymphodema is recognised as a serious disease, which i s a side-effect of having lymph glands surgically removed during cancer surgery. It affects both men and women of all ages.
In particular, there is only one part time therapist employed at Gosford Hospital. This therapist is also required to assist patients with hand and feet therapy needs.
On the Central Coast, this is resulting in wait times of around seven weeks for an established patient at Gosford Hospital, and three months for a new patient to start treatment.
We therefore ask the House to act on this shortage of qualified therapists who are able to
treat Lymphodema. In particular, this is impacting residents i n the Federal electorate of Robertson.
This is considered a Commonwealth matter under the purview of the Department of Health, who would also be well positioned to raise awareness of this issue on a national level.
Please see the following pages for original signatures of petitions gathered on this important issue.
from 7 citizens
Petition received
The principal petitioner is Marlene Klintworth from Kincumber in my electorate of Robertson, who has received supporting signatures from members of my community on the need for more lymphoedema services. The petition is signed by concerned members of the public and their families, many of whom are based in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Specifically, people who have signed this petition are calling on the House to act on a shortage of qualified therapists who are able to treat lymphoedema. There are also more than 500 others who have signed their names in a related petition organised by the Roving Rubies Red Hat Society of the Central Coast.
I would like to start by commending Marlene and the Red Rubies who have been tireless in their efforts to have this matter not only formally recognised but they are also very strong advocates in my community to raise awareness of lymphoedema, its very serious impact and the need for more qualified therapists. They have met with me and explained why this disease and the need to have more qualified therapists is such an important issue in my community.
As the petitioners' letter to the House indicates, lymphoedema is recognised as a serious disease and it is a side-effect of having your lymph glands surgically removed during cancer surgery. It impacts men and women of all ages. There is a particular concern in my community about the availability of local services to help treat people with this condition. I understand that currently there is only one part-time therapist employed at our local public hospital and I have been advised that this therapist is also required to assist people with hand and feet therapy needs. On the Central Coast, those people who have signed this petition have told me that this can result in wait times of around seven weeks for an established patient to be able to start treatment. This would have significant impact on our local families as well as on the people who suffer lymphoedema.
There is a desire to see more awareness of this disease, a desire I support. I would like to spend a short time describing what lymphoedema is. According to information from the federal government's Cancer Australia body:
Lymphoedema is the regional accumulation of excessive amounts of protein-rich fluid in body tissue.
This causes swelling and:
… usually affects the limb/s, although it can also affect the trunk, breast, head and neck or genital area. It … can be acquired following surgery, radiotherapy, trauma or other damage to the lymphatic system following treatment for cancer … Conservative estimates suggest that at least 20% of survivors from breast, gynaecological and prostate cancer, or melanoma will experience … lymphoedema.
That statistic of one in five is quite concerning.
Key risk factors include extent of surgery, lymph node dissection and radiation treatment. Other factors include trauma, infection, body mass index … and immobility.
Cancer Australia says that intervention at an early stage can significantly reduce the risk of developing lymphoedema or reduce the severity if it develops.
I acknowledge that this matter was raised in June by the Senate Select Committee on Health during a discussion on health policy administration and expenditure. The member for Brisbane has also spoken up about this issue, and I thank her for doing so. She has said that for many sufferers ordinary, everyday activities can be difficult and that their quality of life is really affected. The member for Brisbane pointed out that this can particularly be the case for lymphoedema sufferers when the effects of hot and humid conditions increase swelling. As we approach the warmer months of this year, particularly on a hot day like today, what better time than now to raise this issue in the House. I thank Marlene Klintworth and all the members of my local community who have raised this matter with me with passion, sincerity and determination. As the petition states:
We … ask the House to act on this shortage of qualified therapists who are able to treat Lymphodema. In particular, this is impacting residents in the Federal electorate of Robertson.
This is considered a Commonwealth matter under the purview of the Department of Health, who would also be well positioned to raise awareness of this issue on a national level.
I present the petition to the House.
I thank the member for Robertson and commend her on her work. My mother was one of many sufferers of lymphoedema and I know how important it is to obtain better treatment.
I rise to speak about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I rise as a proud member of the Labor Party and as a proud Labor representative in this place. I am proud because it was the Labor Party that first embraced a relationship with China. Gough Whitlam led this country to step into spaces where we previously had not gone. That is something that has set this country up for the prosperity that we have seen across the last 40 years. It did not stop there. When it comes to free trade agreements and when it comes to free trade, the Labor Party has a very proud history. So it is with some concern that I read the papers and talk to people about this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the way it is understood in the community. I say from the outset that everybody on this side of the chamber understands the importance of free trade and the importance of the Chinese markets for the future prosperity of this country. However, it is not the responsibility of those of us on this side who, with an eye to fairness as well as future prosperity, want to take a good hard look at this agreement and ensure that it delivers for all Australians. Yes, we do have issues with the trade agreement, as it stands, without enabling legislation, which would ensure and safeguard Australian jobs, would put safeguards in place to protect visiting workers, and would ensure that this trade agreement delivers for all Australians.
It is an interesting space when we see, from question time to question time, those opposite accusing Labor and accusing the labour movement of running a scare campaign. I would suggest that those opposite look much more closely, at themselves and at their record in government in two years, at why the Australian public have a trust issue with them. They established themselves, with that very first 2014 budget, as a government that did not have an eye on fairness, as a government that seemed to lack an understanding and whose priorities were clear. It was very clear in that budget that their priorities were not about ensuring fairness for everyone.
Of course, we are also caught in a space in time where the narrative, the rhetoric, has been about lifters and leaners. It has been about punishing people. It has been about suggesting people 'get a better job' if they cannot afford to buy a house. We have had a Treasurer tell us 'poor people don't drive cars'. These are the reasons the Australian public are looking warily at the trade agreements being entered into by this government, and they are doing so with good cause. This agreement does, as it stands, have issues.
Labor are prepared to work with the government to find the solutions, and we think that we have found ways that will simply and easily mean that we can embrace the positives from the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement while safeguarding Australian jobs. There is no doubt that the investment facilitation arrangements and the movement of natural persons erode the role of one of the key safeguards in the 457 visa system, which is labour market testing. This needs to be ensured.
The safeguards that Labor are suggesting would be complementary to ChAFTA. I would encourage this government to embrace this opportunity to deliver on free trade and to deliver safeguards to Australian workers. What we are suggesting is entirely consistent with ChAFTA and will not require renegotiation of the agreement. It can be done through legislation. This means that ChAFTA can enter into force at the earliest opportunity, which, of course, will fast-track the positives that may come from the free trade agreement.
In short, Labor will support ChAFTA and Australia's economic engagement with China while making improvements to support local jobs, maintain workplace skills and safety standards and deter exploitation of overseas workers. It is imperative that the Australian public have confidence going into this trade agreement. It is imperative that the government embrace Labor's suggestions, come to the table and rebuild some trust with the Australian public.
I am very please this morning to have the opportunity to highlight a number of organisations in my electorate that are doing tremendous work in the community. On 2 October I attended the meeting of Padstow Probus at the Padstow RSL. About 100 people were there, which reflects the strength of Padstow Probus and the depth of its community involvement. I would like to thank Graeme Rutter, the president, for inviting me along and also, in particular, Beverley Hart and Leon Farrin.
The group does a wide range of activities in the community. It provides an important social support mechanism for local residents. It arranges outings as nearby as the Sydney CBD and, indeed, as far away as the Middle East. It was great to learn more about some of those activities on the day. I do thank Padstow Probus very much for the opportunity to join them at their meeting.
I would also like to acknowledge the great work of Sailability in my electorate. On 7 October I visited Sailability at the Kogarah Bay Sailing Club, which is at Dover Park in Blakehurst. Sailability for many years now around New South Wales has run a program through which people with special needs, especially children with special needs, learn about sailing and in the process learn greater skills and self-confidence through the good work of the volunteers at Sailability. The day I went was a very blustery day, and sailing activities had been suspended, but it was good to see all the volunteers down there and the kids from some of the local schools in my area. The president, Howard Courtney, and all the very many volunteers who are involved—many of them have significant sailing experience themselves—do a wonderful job, and I do thank them very much for what they contribute to our community.
I would also like to acknowledge the 40th anniversary celebration of the Vietnamese refugee settlement in Australia, held under the auspices of VAWA, the Vietnamese Australian Welfare Association, which I attended on 23 September in Bankstown. Ambrose Dinh has been a very longstanding leader in the Vietnamese-Australian community, and it is a very strong and passionate community in my district. The Vietnamese community understands the value of freedom more than anyone else—certainly more than those of us who have been so fortunate as to have been born in Australia. Having fled an evil regime and continuing to confront it in their homeland, the Vietnamese community are very strong and powerful advocates for the values of freedom. I want to thank Ambrose Dinh for all his work over many years and everyone who attended this important event.
On 27 September, I was privileged to attend a church service at the Kogarah Greek Orthodox Church, the Church of the Resurrection of Christ, Our Lady of the Myrtles and St Elesa. I would like to thank Father Sophronios Konidaris for his kind invitation to attend the mass of the divine liturgy in honour of the patron saint, Our Lady of Myrtles. There is a large Greek Orthodox community in my electorate, and I was very pleased to attend this important service, officiated at by His Grace Bishop Iakovos of Miletoupolis. The church has a very broad role in my community and indeed each year organises the Being Greek festival at Carss Park in conjunction with Kogarah Council, and this event is one of the largest events on St George region calendar. It is attended by well in excess of 10,000 people each year, with a terrific highlight on both the contribution of Greek-Australians to our electorate and the broader association between Greece and our nation. So, to Father Konidaris, thank you again and thank you for the leadership you provide in the community and everything you do for our residents.
There is a serious debate between the two major parties in Australian politics on how to handle multinational tax avoidance. We on this side of the House have put together a plan inspired by work in the OECD, costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which closes debt deduction loopholes and adds more than $7 billion to the budget bottom line over the course of the next decade. In office, under the leadership of Wayne Swan and David Bradbury, we passed tax transparency laws that see firms with a total income exceeding $100 million have their total income, taxable income and tax paid published by the ATO. I have moved a private member's bill in this House seek to have that happen sooner, but now the coalition are seeking to shut down tax transparency for around half of the firms affected.
While we have this debate over closing debt loopholes and ensuring tax transparency, we are also having a serious conversation over the Prime Minister's decision to locate a portion of his investments in a well-known tax haven, the Cayman Islands. Nobody begrudges the Prime Minister's personal wealth. He has worked hard for it, and made some investments that have paid off. But, like Mitt Romney, he has chosen to locate a significant portion of that wealth in the Cayman Islands. The Prime Minister has defended this, saying that he pays all relevant taxes in Australia.
But the key question that remains is whether or not the decision to invest in the Cayman Islands increased the income available to the Prime Minister compared to, for example, investing in Australian an vehicle. When investigations were carried out by the LA Times, ABC News and other publications in the United States, lawyers and tax experts there made the point that investing in the Caymans has a range of tax advantages: differential treatment of management fees; the ability to move dividend income into capital gains, and thereby enjoy a better rate of tax; the ability to defer tax paid until a time that is more advantageous for the taxpayer; and the Caymans almost unique use of structured investment vehicles, which are essentially unregulated banks. All of this led Washington DC tax lawyer Jack Blum to say such vehicles allow the investor:
… to avoid a whole series of small traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if they paid tax on an onshore basis.
American tax expert Rebecca Wilkins said:
… primary advantage to setting those funds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax.
Like Mitt Romney, the Prime Minister has said that his decision to invest in the Cayman Islands has not seen him pay less Australian tax. But it does seem passing curious; if one were looking to avoid conflicts of interest one might, for example, invest in real property in Australia, or invest in an Australian index fund that just takes a slice of the stock market. I think that if one of my constituents came upon a few extra dollars they would probably use them to pay down the mortgage. They would not for a moment think about a tax gimmick such as buying into the Bowery Opportunity Fund, a Cayman Island based vulture fund that requires a minimum of $1 million to buy in.
The Prime Minister is investing in the Cayman Islands, a jurisdiction which the tax commissioner in Australia has referred to as a tax haven. President Barack Obama has noted that one feature of the Caymans—a building called Ugland House, used by around 19,000 funds and businesses—is 'either the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world.
The leadership taken by Australia at the G20 under Labor in tackling multinational tax avoidance is absolutely crucial. Australia needs to be leading the work on multinational tax avoidance in the OECD, in the G20 and here at home. These events should now prompt the Prime Minister to back Labor's tax transparency laws, not try to repeal them. He should be open to working with Labor on tackling hybrid mismatches and debt deductions. We need to work together to crack down on multinational tax avoidance.
Early next week, two oral healthcare centres are scheduled to be officially opened by the Queensland Minister for Health in my electorate of Hinkler. Unfortunately, I cannot be there due to parliamentary sittings in Canberra. But I would like put on the record my thanks to the LNP MPs Steven Bennett and Ted Sorensen, the members for Burnett and Hervey Bay, for representing me at the opening of the oral care facilities, and for ensuring this funding was delivered to our region when they were in government.
A new two-storey building at the Bundaberg Base Hospital will accommodate oral health services on the ground floor and cancer care on level 1. The state government has provided $9.5 million for the oral health services. This will increase the number of dental chairs available in Bundaberg from six to 13. The facilities include nine technician workstations and significant sterilising departments to enable all reprocessing. I look forward to opening the cancer care facilities in the same building in the near future. The federal government has contributed $8.27 million to the cancer care services, which will provide an additional six chemotherapy chairs, bringing the total to 12. There are two dedicated isolation rooms, specialist consultation suites and clinical education and teaching facilities. A further $700,000 was allocated from the emergent works program for flood mitigation arising from the 2013 floods.
Adjacent to the Hervey Bay Hospital site, at the southern end of the electorate, a two-storey building will also accommodate oral services on the ground floor and cancer care on level 1. The state government has provided $8 million to double the number of dental chairs to 16, dramatically improving waiting times for patients on the Fraser Coast. The federal government has provided $9.29 million for cancer care in the same building at Hervey Bay to increase the number of chemotherapy chairs from nine to 14. The facilities also include two dedicated isolation rooms. I look forward to officially opening the Hervey Bay cancer unit. These new facilities will significantly improve wait times for patients. The expanded services will also create opportunities to partner with universities to offer student placements. But of course health services are not just bricks and mortar. It is not possible to provide quality health care without a mass of hardworking staff: doctors, nurses, allied health, admin, cleaners and, of course, maintenance. I would like to congratulate all those who work at the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service and thank them for serving our communities.
As outlined in the 2015-16 federal budget, the coalition government has increased funding to Queensland hospitals by 27 per cent over the next four years. The federal government has provided $5.6 million to the new Bundaberg oncology centre, Oceania Oncology. We have provided $50,000 for patient accommodation at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital in Bundaberg and we have announced that a new headspace facility will be established in Bundaberg to help local youth who suffer from or are at risk of developing mental illness. This will complement the headspace centre at Hervey Bay. I note that the tenders were advertised recently for the headspace in Bundaberg. We have provided $47.1 million for St Stephen's Hospital, the first fully digital hospital in Australia. We have also provided more than $88 million in recurrent funding to residential aged care and home care across the Hinkler electorate.
Last week I had the absolute pleasure of attending a dinner hosted by the Friendly Society Private Hospital and Bundaberg Cardiology and Medtronic. Local GPs, ambulance officers and other local health professionals gathered to hear four cardiologists talk about the services and facilities now available in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. We heard about the latest diagnostic tools and equipment, the history of cardiology and its importance locally. Dr Andre Conradie, Dr Hermann Wittmer, Dr Ahmedullah Rehmani and Dr Paul Davison were all incredibly inspiring and gave me confidence that our region's heart health is in very good hands. Later this month I will be attending the official opening of the UQ Health Sciences Learning and Discovery Centre in Bundaberg.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, there is a great deal happening in the health space in my electorate. I am passionate about ensuring that those in regional Australia can access quality health care. For people who are out there considering relocation and for those who think that the price of housing might be a little too high in the area they are in—I would encourage them to shift to my electorate. We have fantastic facilities. We have fantastic local health services and lots of wonderful doctors and nurses. We have the greatest seafood in Australia, right out of Hervey Bay. We have fantastic horticulture and great links for transport. We are upgrading the Bruce Highway—$6.7 billion in federal funding to make it faster, safer and less affected by flooding, which is of incredible importance if you live in a state like Queensland. Hopefully we will have a wet season in the west of Queensland this year, where it is absolutely desperately needed.
It is a great pleasure to talk to the House about The Bunyip, which is a local paper in the town of Gawler. It is a paper with great heritage in the town. The former Speaker's grandfather was an editor of the paper, so it has an illustrious history in that regard as well. Sadly Natalie Vikhrov, who is a journalist with the newspaper and who has covered many stories which I have been in and many stories around the town, is leaving the paper and going to London. I take this opportunity to thank her for her work as a journalist in the town and for The Bunyip newspaper. She is off to London—which is a bit of a rite of passage of all young Australians, I suppose—and no doubt she will have a great time working in the media over there. I want to wish her well from Canberra.
One of the important community events I participated in last weekend, and last year, was the Indigenous Marathon Project's Seppetsfield fun run. It is a great event organised by Jo Weaver, who is a resident of Greenock. She puts it on every year, and the community comes out to have a fundraising dinner on the Saturday night in the Greenock pub—which I would recommend to anybody if they are ever in the Barossa Valley—and the next day you get out there and run between Marananga and Seppetsfield in the Barossa Valley. There are a number of hills—it is a very beautiful area and I would certainly recommend that any of those opposite go and try the port at Seppetsfield winery or some of the reds at Whistler Wines; it is a truly wonderful place—but I would not recommend that you run up and down the hills. It is pretty arduous, particularly with the summer heat coming on in South Australia. I think it is going to be 35 degrees in Adelaide today and it is a few degrees hotter when you get out past Elizabeth. I would not recommend necessarily running there unless you are pretty fit.
That said, we went out there and we had a great fundraising night and many of the Indigenous Marathon runners, former graduates of the Indigenous Marathon Project, were there. Adrian is the first Indigenous man to go to the North Pole—indeed, it was the first time he had ever seen snow. It was an extraordinary achievement for him to run the North Pole Marathon. Charlie was one of the first graduates and he ran the New York Marathon. Ruth ran the marathon I think in 2012 and is now working in the health sector in the APY Lands. Jurgen is a proud Torres Strait Islander from Saibai Island who has now come to South Australia, so we are lucky. He was a bit unlucky—his chance to run the New York Marathon got delayed by Hurricane Sandy so he ended up running a Japanese marathon in the winter. I think it was minus two or minus three degrees when he ran that, so you can imagine going from the Torres Strait to that sort of cold. Daniel is running the New York Marathon this year. Daniel is an extraordinary young man from Murray Bridge. He is working 12-hour shifts in the mines each day and then training for the marathon after getting home.
These young Indigenous leaders—and that is what they are—have shown extraordinary commitment and it is a tribute to Rob de Castella for taking on this really ambitious idea. We have talked before in this chamber about the Indigenous Marathon Foundation. It is an ambitious idea to take someone from Central Australia or even urban Australia, train them for six months and get them to not just run in the New York Marathon but complete it. Obviously we need more Australians to go out and do the fundraising for this project—it is reliant on government funding but they do have ambitions to do more. I urge everybody to, if you like, emulate Jo Weaver, put together a fun run and put together a fundraising night, because you really can change an Indigenous person's life—you can send them to run the New York Marathon but you can also create leaders for the Indigenous community in the process. I think that lifts everybody's spirits in terms of our reconciliation with Indigenous Australia. I said on the day that it is a bit like we are running a national marathon—we have some pretty tough stuff in our rear-vision mirror but we have to keep going and we have to put the Indigenous people of this land at the forefront of our national life and our Constitution and our hearts.
On Saturday I was at the Gerry Archer Oval for the Belmont Little Athletics opening day of the 2015-16 season. I see the member for Wakefield leaving the chamber. If ever I am in his area of South Australia I will take him up on his offer and hopefully get a personally guided tour from him. The arena was in sparkling shape, which is a result of the $4 million Gerry Archer Reserve realignment project—part of the federally funded Gateway WA project. Gateway WA has been WA's largest road infrastructure project in terms of cost and probably scale too, with $1 billion of investment from the federal and state governments. That pales into insignificance when we hear from the member for Hinkler about the $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway. The WA Gateway project has targeted several key intersections around Perth Airport—one of them being the Abernethy Road and Leach Highway intersection in Cloverdale, which is a key point close to the entrance of the international terminal and Terminal WA. Part of the works at this intersection involved the unavoidable reclamation of land at Gerry Archer Oval, used for many years by the Belmont Little Athletics Club as well as other clubs in the area, including Belmont Villa Soccer Club and St Finbarr's Gaelic Football Club. The local community came together through the clubs, the City of Belmont and Gateway WA to come up with a superb realignment project to build a new track and facilities at the other side of the oval.
The realignment involved the running track being expanded from six to eight lanes, with tiered seating in a grandstand, a new storage shed and new lighting, as well as new long jump and shot put facilities. I have just noticed they have put up some huge shadecloths in the colours of the West Coast Eagles—gold and blue—at the facility. The result is spectacular, and Belmont would have one of the best athletics facilities going around for juniors in the country. As the CEO of the City of Belmont has pointed out, the new lighting in particular will enable the Belmont Little Athletics Association to have more twilight events and increase their membership capacity, and the Belmont Villa Soccer Club will now have a facility for evening matches. I know the president has called it a 'very fine arena' and Gateway WA have said it was 'an opportunity to leave a legacy for the local community'. Work was completed last year on the realignment, and it is a great example of what can be achieved in major infrastructure projects. The federal, state and local governments came together as part of the planning process and achieved not only a great road traffic outcome but also a great outcome for the community.
We will be taking the same approach with the next major infrastructure project to start in my electorate of Swan—the new sporting development at Lathlain Oval, which will become the West Coast Eagles' new headquarters for training and administration. It is a great sporting development and a world-class sporting facility, with a proposed spend of $65 million for that project. But as with the Gateway WA project, the community will be at the heart of the development—the same with the West Coast Eagles. It will have barbecues, running tracks, meeting rooms, netball courts and public access to the ovals will be maintained. That is why the federal government recently backed this project to the tune of $10 million to allow it to proceed.
On that note, I will mention that it has been a major focus of mine to make sure that the community's football team—the Perth Football Club—which is currently based at Lathlain Oval, is also at the heart of this redevelopment. Perth Football Club has recently put forward a business case for their own headquarters at the new site. I support this and will be helping the club with its application. As the Perth Football Club has said in their business case, research shows that $4.40 is returned in social value in terms of social connectedness, wellbeing, mental health status, employment outcomes, personal development and physical health for every dollar spent on community football.
I spoke about youth engagement yesterday, and the Perth district zone engages with 10,000 youths directly through their involvement in football-related activities. This is not just males; it involves many different groups and cultures. A few years ago, I heard about a game that was not witnessed by many males. It was an Islamic female football game—the first held in Western Australia—and it was at Lathlain Park. They tell me there was blood on the ground afterwards, so they were fully engaged in the game. They wore their traditional dress and played a game of Aussie Rules football at Lathlain Oval
The community must be at the heart of infrastructure. This is the way I want to see all our major infrastructure projects conducted in the future, and this is the standard I will push for when campaigning for infrastructure in my electorate. I commend the Belmont Little Athletics Club and the Belmont Villa Soccer Club, along with the St Finbarr's Gaelic Football Club, for their facility at Gerry Archer Reserve.
I rise today to speak about the concerns of taxi drivers and taxi owners as well as hire car operators and owners in my electorate whose livelihoods are being put at risk through the continued unlawful operation of ride-sharing service UberX. Despite what the hip marketing campaign of Uber wants people to believe, they are wilfully operating outside of Victoria's laws and regulations. They do not conduct police checks on their drivers, they are not meeting their Australian taxation obligations and they are being quite upfront about their intention to flout the law until the government changes it to suit their needs. This is not a situation the community or government would accept or acquiesce to in any other industry. Yet the inaction by both the former and the current Victorian state governments has the taxi drivers and private hire car operators feeling left out in the cold. They are paying thousands of dollars for licence fees and insurance while UberX drivers rob them of business, pay no GST, pay no licence fees and are not properly insured. This is not simply disruptive technology; there are apps that allow you to easily book taxis. This is simply, up and down, unfair competition.
I understand that there are currently more than 4,500 UberX drivers in Victoria. To put that in perspective, there are currently 5,797 registered taxis in Victoria being driven by 15,351 registered taxi drivers. It is already incredibly difficult to make a living as a taxi driver. They are some of the lowest paid workers in our community. They need to work long and unsociable hours to make ends meet. They face genuine risk to their personal safety, often from drunken violence on Friday and Saturday nights in Melbourne. Spend some time on King Street after midnight and you will eventually see some drunken low-life hurling racial abuse and banging his fist on a cab. While UberX drivers are out on the road operating illegally and without the burden of regulation taxi fees, taxi drivers are losing income.
My electorate is home to not only many taxi drivers—and I suspect some UberX drivers—but also many people who worked and saved for years to buy their own taxi licences. They have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to successive Victorian governments for the right to operate in a strictly regulated environment on a level playing field. In many cases these investments are for people's retirement, legitimately earned through decades of hard graft. UberX is not the same as other disruptive technologies. This is not like the slow death of the local video store due to the take-up of digital download and streaming services—a transition, as sad as it was for video store operators and their employees, which took place in a genuinely competitive environment without laws being broken or circumvented. One of my constituents, George Kapnias, owner of Southern Cross Hire Cars, one of Victoria's largest private hire car services, wrote to me:
Ridesharing is not a revolutionary concept. It is simply a marketing term. Ridesharing is exactly what the Industry has been doing for years. That is, providing the travelling public with transport on a commercial basis.
George also correctly states:
If the costs of compliance were totally removed from existing hire car and Taxi operators (including licencing, insurances, driving certificates etc), the Industry would be able to provide a more cost competitive service and negate the massive cost disparities enjoyed by UberX.
But they cannot, and that is the real reason UberX is such a problem for taxis. It is not the technology or a revolutionary idea killing their business; it is the huge multinational that refuses to play by the rules until the rules are changed to suit its needs. No other business would be able to generate this or expect it. And why should they? Taxi owners bought their licences from the government. They were sold a product by the Victorian government, at a price set by the government and with the value of the product determined by the government. And they operate in a regulatory environment determined by the government. The Victorian government needs to deal with this issue as quickly as possible. They cannot keep putting it off. UberX has demonstrated how quickly it can grow. It is simply not fair to allow these people's livelihoods to be rapidly destroyed. I do not want anyone's livelihood to be destroyed; I do not want UberX's drivers to be destroyed. I just want them to be operating in the same field that taxi operators are operating in.
I do not have the answer to the problem, but I certainly know that people in the industry are prepared to work with the state government to find a resolution to this issue—one that does not see everybody out of work. But it is as clear as day that further inaction will leave the taxi and hire car industries decimated—something I do not want to see in my electorate, which is home, as I said, to numerous individuals who hold taxi licences and where Southern Cross cars operates and where Yellow Cabs has operated for many years. These are legitimate businesses, and their concerns should be heard.
( I am pleased to speak to the House today to launch my latest campaign: 'Hey Durack, where is your mobile black spot?' As I am sure some my colleagues are very tired of hearing—I have said it numerous times before—Durack is indeed a unique and vast electorate. Spanning over 1.5 million square kilometres, it is the largest electorate in the continent and the second largest in the world. Each portfolio of the federal government, of course, is important to Durack, including health, education and agriculture. But telecommunications coverage is one common problem which my constituents all talk to me about, from as far north as Wyndham in the Kimberley, out to Wiluna in the mid west, and as far east as Merredin in the Wheatbelt. Mobile reception is also an issue which impacts each sector: hospitals and health care, primary and secondary schooling—education—and businesses of all shapes and sizes.
As we can see, mobile reception is greatly important in my electorate. The Turnbull government and I understand that. That is why I am pleased to launch my latest campaign. I will say it again: 'Hey Durack, where is your mobile black spot?' This will be my campaign to improve telecommunications across Durack. Once we ascertain which towns in Durack urgently need improved coverage, there is no doubt that the newly appointed Minister for Communications will have me in his ear on a non-stop basis. My intention is not to stop until all the towns in my electorate of Durack have a similar level of basic communications infrastructure to that which is enjoyed by their city cousins.
Mobile telephone reception is having a negative impact on the backbone of both Durack's economy and the Australian economy, which we know to be small business. I include all those people who make a living on the land. This issue is quite prevalent among the thousands of farmers in my electorate and, as more and more farmers are using technologies of various descriptions, it is becoming an increasing problem. At each of the regional shows I attended in the last few weeks in Dowerin, Mullewa and Chapman Valley, the Mingenew expo and the Moora Show, farmers from right across Durack, throughout the Wheatbelt and the mid west raised the issue of poor coverage with me and explained how it is impacting their businesses and their families. Its negative impact on small businesses is preventing them from reaching their full potential. It is impacting their bottom line. Both farmers and small business owners are having their productivity reduced because of a lack of reception. What is bad for business is bad for jobs, and that is another reason why I am launching this campaign.
This issue is so deep that it is impacting what I consider to be a basic Australian right: a student's ability to access education. That too was a major theme at the Moora higher education forum which I hosted in August, together with Senator McKenzie. This campaign will improve something which those in the House will know I am passionate about: education across all levels. With improved reception, students will have greater access to education options and be able to access something which many in the city just take for granted: quality internet reception. This will assist regional students of all levels—primary, secondary and higher education—with things like research for their assignments.
This is a modern-day issue. I am going to work very hard to improve reception across all levels in the electorate of Durack. Since the government and I were elected just over two years ago, we have made huge improvements in telecommunications access and reception in Durack. In June this year we delivered over $41.3 million worth of reception improvements under round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Over $10.4 million was from the federal government. Under this round we are delivering 45 new or upgraded base stations, which will address the 123 black spots my constituents reported. At the regional shows I attended, constituents from all walks of life thanked me for delivering improved reception through round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, which we announced in June. I am very pleased to declare the 'Hey Durack, where is your mobile black spot?' campaign now open.
I extend my thanks to the prominent residents of eastern Sydney who take a lot of time to think about what Western Sydney needs and advocate for it, and have a willing ear in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph in telling us exactly what Western Sydney needs for its public transport. I have seen this over the last few weeks with the debate about the proposal to commit billions of dollars, either from the federal government or the New South Wales state government, to commit to the establishment of a rail line between the Western Sydney line connecting up St Marys to the proposed second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.
Eastern Sydney has voices, like Lucy Turnbull's, through the Committee of Sydney. She is a person I have a lot of respect for. But the Committee of Sydney really represents the eastern part of Sydney—one half of the city—and does not reflect the needs of Western Sydney. It reflects only the needs of the inner city. On 9 October, in The Sydney Morning Herald, Lucy Turnbull proposed that this rail line be done, that billions be committed to improve public transport in Western Sydney. This is nothing short of a joke.
The creation, the establishment, the dedication of millions and nearly billions of dollars for creating that link in Western Sydney flies in the face of the genuine needs of people I represent, in this place. When I stand at railway stations, catching up with constituents, they do not tell me they need another line to an airport—that will become a white elephant because Qantas and Virgin will not fly there—they tell me they want to see simple things done. For example, they have been asking, for ages, for a lift to be built at their local railway station. We cannot even get that simple infrastructure put in place. Eastern Sydney tells us we need to have a railway line to connect to a white elephant of an infrastructure project at Badgerys Creek, but they will not spend the money on what is needed for Western Sydney residents.
Doonside, for example, has been crying out for improved rail facilities and commuter car parking to ensure more people use public transport instead of relying upon vehicles to get into the city. They have been fighting for this for ages and cannot get anywhere. The Blacktown Advocate pointed out, recently, that for Edgecliff, near Bondi, the federal member and now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will get a lift at their local railway station. Edgecliff services 92 disabled people, according to the Blacktown Advocate, and 591 elderly people. Doonside station has nearly 900 residents with some form of impairment that impacts on their ability to access the station and nearly 2,000 elderly residents who cannot get the simple dedication of money to build a lift there.
That is the case in Western Sydney. Where the Baird government sees electoral advantage it dedicates the money. It does not do it on the basis of need; it does it on the basis of politics. The whole clamour for the building of this rail line to Badgerys Creek is about politics from the inner-city perspective. It is not about reflecting Western Sydney's needs. For example, if federal and state governments were of a mind to invest in transport—realising that we need to get more people on public transport—they would make public transport more accessible. Improve the stations. Build the commuter car parks. Dedicate other road projects, like the M9, which needs to be built and will open up, potentially, employment lands between the M7 and M9 and transform Western Sydney. Creating more employment prospects in our region will ensure that we do not need to have people travelling from west to east.
Bear this in mind too. When that rail line is built it will be heavily subsidised, but any new road has a tollway put on it. I represent residents who pay—something that most residents in other parts of the country will not pay—massive tolls. Residents in my part of the world will pay $35 a day to get access to the city, because of tolls. Not many other cities have to pay that. I bet any money we will have the major newspapers and voices in the city say that we need to subsidise that public transport link to Badgerys Creek and, if we do build a toll road, Western Sydney residents will have to pay for it.
There is an uneven and unfair approach to the dedication of resources when it affects Western Sydney. It is always inner-city voices telling Western Sydney what is good for them, and that is not good enough for the people I represent in this place.
I rise to share with the House an important issue affecting Australia today: domestic violence. Latest statistics show that by 6.30 am, throughout Australia, police have attended the scenes of 195 incidents of domestic violence. By 10.30 am that number is 315. By 5.30 pm the number has grown to 525. Each day sees police across Australia attend 657 cases of domestic violence. This is an average of one incident every two minutes. Tragically, as of September this year, 63 women had lost their lives as a result of domestic violence.
There has been much media focus in the past couple of months on the devastating effect that domestic and family violence has on our society. It is my responsibility to focus on what action can be implemented in my electorate of Dobell. The issue of domestic and family violence was highlighted recently when I hosted a breakfast to provide support for the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre domestic violence programs. It was a pleasure to welcome to Dobell Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women, who addressed the attendees about domestic and family violence. Senator Cash spoke of the Second Action Plan 2013-16, the second of four stages of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. The Second Action Plan 2013-16 promotes tangible and concrete actions that will be implemented at a local and national level to address horrendous acts of violence in the home, particularly domestic violence. Senator Cash spoke of simple measures which were welcomed by the audience, who understand that the implementation of these actions will bring about profound difference to the lives of women and men suffering from domestic violence.
Perhaps one of the simplest measures to be implemented will be the recognition of apprehended violence orders across state and territory borders. While currently an AVO is only recognised in the state or territory in which it is granted, the new legislation will mean the AVO is applicable across Australia as a whole. This is particularly pertinent for those who are fleeing across jurisdictions to avoid domestic violence. I know this particular aspect of the Second Action Plan 2013-16 will make a noticeable difference. This was reinforced recently during my visit to Coast Shelter. Coast Shelter is an outstanding organisation which encompasses the New South Wales Central Coast and is responsible for a myriad of services making life-changing differences to the community. I was humbled to visit a domestic violence facility managed by Coast Shelter where I spoke with women who welcomed the proposed changes regarding national AVO coverage.
The electorate of Dobell possesses one of the highest rates of domestic and family violence in New South Wales. It is not a statistic I am proud of but it is one that must be acknowledged in order to move forward and ensure that programs to help and make positive changes are identified and implemented in the region. What I am proud of is the work undertaken by those in the community—police, ambulance and court services—who deal with the issue of domestic and family violence daily. Their passion and dedication is rivalled by no other. Their commitment to what they do and the changes they make in the lives of those who turn to them for help is unsurpassed. I am proud to know these people and to know of the work that they do to make the electorate of Dobell on the Central Coast a better place to live.
Addressing the issue of domestic and family violence is not an easy one and there is no simple fix and no one-size-fits-all solution. However, there are things that can be done now which will make a difference. The financial support raised at the domestic violence breakfast will go towards the provision of creche services for at least a year at the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre. This means that children will have a safe environment to be in while their mothers receive counselling support and advice regarding their domestic violence situation.
I have also been speaking with local service providers regarding the issue of financial abuse. Financial abuse does not receive a large amount of visibility; however, it is severely affecting a large number of people in my electorate. Put simply, financial abuse involves the debts and bills of a family household being put in the name of a victim and the mortgage and assets in the name of the perpetrator. Financial abuse usually means that the family income is controlled by the perpetrator who does not pay the debts that are in the name of the victim, which affects the victim's credit rating in the future. This is something I will be working on in the near future with agencies of the government to raise awareness. (Time expired)
( The Cooks River winds its way through the inner west as the southern boundary of my electorate of Grayndler. On a pleasant day, the local parks neighbouring the river overflow with families and friends. People walk their dogs, cycle down the designated park which runs alongside the riverbank or take their kids to the water park that was established by Marrickville Council just a short time ago. But it was not always this way. For a long time the Cooks River had a reputation as one of the most polluted rivers in Australia. Restoration began in the 1990s, and there has been a great deal of progress since then. Indeed, I was proud when in 2010 we delivered, in government, $2 million to assist with funding to help revitalise the river.
Today the Cooks River is growing in health, and I want to congratulate in particular the councils—Marrickville Council and Canterbury City Council—the Cooks River Alliance, the Cooks River Valley Association and the Mudcrabs, for their determination in restoring this waterway. For decades these organisations have coordinated clean-up efforts, educated our local community and advocated for funding to revitalise the river. These organisations and particularly those volunteers in them have spent literally years of their lives dedicating themselves to improving this natural environment. It is an example of how hard work by the community can make a difference. It shows the immense value that local communities attach to their urban waterways. As our cities continue to grow we need to give more thought to our waterways and to the role that they play in our neighbourhoods. Waterways make up the veins of our cities and contribute to the productivity, sustainability and liveability of our local communities.
This was something that former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam recognised as part of his vision for Western Sydney and other cities. He ensured that each house had access to a sewerage system. This was a tremendous equaliser, and it also meant that as Sydney's population grew the city became more liveable. In a speech at Melbourne university in 1969 Whitlam, as then Leader of the Opposition, said this:
… urban man is diminished by any final severance of his links with nature and the countryside …
Some years later, at his successful campaign launch in Blacktown in 1972, Whitlam said:
A national government which has nothing to say about cities has nothing relevant or enduring to say about the nation or the nation’s future.
Whitlam's assessment of the importance of cities to life in this country is even more relevant today than it was in 1972. It has now been just over a year since I put forward Labor's urban policy agenda at the National Press Club. I spoke about 10 ways that the national government can provide leadership in urban policy in cooperation with other levels of government, with industry and with the community. One of the ideas I put forward is that we need to enhance sustainability and resilience of household and industrial water supply and rehabilitate our urban waterways. For too long these urban waterways were used for industrial waste, and I do find it concerning that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has given the water portfolio to Barnaby Joyce. While water management in rural and regional Australia is of the utmost importance, our inland waterways matter too. I am of the view that water policy should be determined on the basis of science and outcomes, not abandoned as part of a political horse trade. The federal government must advocate for an integrated approach across planning, transport and infrastructure when it comes to dealing with the challenges of urbanisation, but part of it has to be dealing with water.
That is why, when Labor launched Australia's first national urban policy in 2011, Our Cities, Our Future, the policy spoke about water management and waste management as a critical part of the bigger picture. Labor's policy platform adopted at our national conference provides a strong framework for improving the productivity, sustainability and liveability of our cities, where four out of every five Australians live. Management of our urban waterways, water recycling and water management in our cities is a critical part of making sure that Australia becomes the sustainable place that it should be, particularly as our cities grow into the future.
I rise this morning to speak about an important project in my electorate of Corangamite—that is, the duplication of the rail track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds. This is becoming a greater priority for our region. We have seen enormous growth across the southern part of Geelong. The Geelong line is now V/Line's lines busiest commuter line, with 4.02 million trips made in 2013-14. We have seen a total growth of some 18.5 per cent during the past five years up until 2014. Between Geelong and South Geelong up to 50 services per day use this small section of track, but beyond South Geelong, right the way through to Colac, we have seen the services choked because there is not enough duplicated track, so this project has been recognised as a very important one for our region.
I was very pleased to take the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, to look at this project and I was very pleased with how positively he responded to the needs of our city and to the great electorate of Corangamite. As an example, before 8 o'clock on a weekday morning some 13 trains leave Geelong station, but for Waurn Ponds and Marshall it is about half that. The trains simply cannot access those southern train stations because of the single track. We have seen in many respects an absolute infrastructure crisis in Victoria and that has had a big impact on jobs, no more so than the Andrews government decision to cancel the East West Link, a project that was previously supported by Labor, but now federal Labor have worked hand in hand with Daniel Andrews to destroy that project. That has had a very significant impact on Geelong, on Corangamite, on the western suburbs of Melbourne and on 7,000 jobs which have been destroyed.
I reflect on the terrible way in which the previous Labor government managed Avalon Airport. In 2008 a very exciting deal was achieved by Linfox, the owners of Avalon, in which AirAsia X was going to fly in from Asia, bringing international flights into our region. The permission to do so was rejected by the previous Labor government, and the member for Corio was at the very centre of that. It was an abject failure which has caused enormous economic damage to our region. I want to commend Avalon for the way in which they are pushing that project. We have been very proud to announce that the Department of Defence has endorsed the Avalon Airport master plan. That will allow, subject to some further planning requirements, a whole range of further developments and the extension of the domestic terminal, the construction of a new international terminal—that is a terminal that we have committed to help to build, subject to international flights being secured—and lots of retail, accommodation and industrial development. It is an amazing precinct. It has the potential to host 10,000 jobs. In contrast to the previous Labor government, we recognise how important infrastructure is in our city and we are working very hard with Avalon Airport to support the wonderful achievements happening out at Avalon.
We are very proud of a duplication of the Princes Highway. That is a project for which I have fought very hard since 2009. The Great Ocean Road has been upgraded. Anyone travelling along the Great Ocean Road would see the works underway in Lorne and Anglesea—$25 million from our government and $25 million from the state government, which was committed by the previous Liberal government. This is the road that federal Labor forgot. It was vehemently opposed by federal Labor and unfortunately federal Labor oppose this upgrade to one of the most iconic roads in our region.
I reflect on a letter from Trevor Jennings in the Geelong Advertiser 'Duplicating track needs direction', in which he commends the proposal to duplicate the track and calls on the state government to work with the federal government to push this project forward. He wrote to the Victorian Minister for Public Transport, Jacinta Allan, and she said, 'I can assure you that track duplication is one of PTV's priorities; however, there is no time frame or project to address that question.' That is not good enough. The Victorian government needs to get on with it and work with the federal government to make this project a priority.
Madam Deputy Speaker Landry, I think this may be the first time that you have been in the chair when I have spoken, so congratulations. I am going to share with the House something quite horrific. I had a grandmother who came to see me last week who was caring for her grandson because of enormous problems within the family. The grandson was about to turn 17 years of age. She was trying to help him apply for the independent youth allowance. He had a certified copy of his birth certificate, but he needed photo ID to get his Medicare card and apply for the allowance. You would think this would be quite straightforward. The thing that I find so horrific is the way that the systems that are in place work against people who are already disempowered and coming from quite a disadvantaged background.
This young man went with his caring grandmother to the motor registry service to obtain a photo ID. They were told he needed an original birth certificate, even though he had a certified birth certificate. The motor registry office regularly sends people up to my office to get documents certified. He had difficulty getting a birth certificate because of the dysfunctional family relationship. He would have to have a parent with him to access this. They were told they needed a letter from the school principal stating that the young man was enrolled at the school; they had that letter. Then they told him he needed a photo ID from the school. They returned to the registry office with an Aboriginal family support officer. They asked to see the grandmother's driver's licence. She had surrendered her licence. She only had a photo ID issued by the motor registry office and they advised that it was unacceptable. So it went round and round and round. Only when the social worker provided her driver's licence was it acceptable.
Then they decided they would try and open a bank account. They went to Westpac and were told to return in an hour. A short time after that, they walked up the road to St George and were told that they had to phone for an appointment. They then went to the Newcastle Permanent Building Society, who were able to open an account for the young man on the spot.
They attended the local Medicare office to request a Medicare card. They were told that the name was already on two cards and that those cards had to be cancelled before another card could be issued. The social worker that was with him asked the Centrelink officer if a claim could be lodged for youth allowance. They were told that that had to be done at Charlestown, not Belmont, as it was a small office. As there were no other customers in the room, they found that hard to understand. The social worker went with the constituents to Charlestown Centrelink. Charlestown Centrelink advised them that they needed to provide a bank card, a Medicare card and a photo ID and that, as soon as the bank cards arrived, they could be sighted. They provided numbers.
The constituents completed forms on the Centrelink computer with the assistance of the customer services officer. They were then given a form to take to the post office for a tax file number. When they went to the post office with the form they had been given by Centrelink, the post office worker said it was the wrong form—two years out of date. They had to go home and do an application online, print it out and then come back. My constituents went home and, due to illness, could not complete the form for a week. They did complete it on 31 August, and it went through smoothly.
They returned to Centrelink to show the cards that were issued. The Centrelink officer asked them why they were bringing them in when they already had the numbers. It had taken so long to get the claims processed. I ask: how long is a piece of string? As legislators, we should see that this is unsatisfactory. We should not be making our constituents jump through these unnecessary hoops. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12 : 00