Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition have put in the outer limit of what the industry wanted. The industry have indicated that they would be satisfied with the margin loan rate, which, as of April 2011, was just under 10 per cent. The rate that the coalition are looking for is nearly 12 per cent, which is two per cent above the margin loan rate. So it is an extreme position, done to garner a bit of support and to tread the populist line, when in fact there is a sensible solution.

I am sure that the government position will be supported by an increase in the amount of these capital protected borrowings that come about. Of course we want to make it a possible option, but we do not want to make it so attractive that it is used for tax evasion, and that is the whole point of this schedule. As I said, the committee leaned towards the possibility of bringing it up towards the margin loan rate, but in the end I am happy to accept that what the government has done is a more practical and reasonable solution. It gives certainty to the markets, and it does give that little bit of recognition of the extra expense and uncertainty in setting up these kinds of financial instru­ments. I am happy that this is a reasonable bill and that schedule 2 is a reasonable response to industry concerns. I commend the government for not proceeding with its original proposal but listening to industry response and coming back with a measured compromise.

Before I finish my remarks I want to commend the government on another part of the schedule of this TLIP 5 bill, and that is the tax deductibility of school uniforms. Additional education expenses have mounted considerably over the years, certainly since I went to school. Even in public schools, a lot of parents find themselves paying extra in school fees, extra in excursions, extra in a number of other areas, and this creates a great deal of pressure on families. The expenses tend to occur at the beginning of the year, when it is quite difficult because of expenses arising from school holidays and the Christmas festive period. Parents are hit with a number of expenses at the beginning of the school year and, indeed, all through the school year. I am very pleased that the Gillard government, in recognition of its election policy, has put in place the tax deductibility of school uniforms. It is not only private schools that have school uniforms now; most public schools have school uniforms. My son went to what was then Elizabeth Fields Primary School in the Davoren Park area. It was a public school, and at that time the schools were working very hard to get their children to buy school uniforms.

First of all, it does give that sense of school pride and school identification, which is extremely good for a school. Secondly, it means that to a large extent there is no difference in the dress of the pupils in the school. So it sounds like a very small measure, but it can be very important to pupils. The Elizabeth Fields school that my son went to was in a very low socioeconomic area—one of the lowest in the state, if not the country—but, nevertheless, there were still a range of income levels in the school. There were working parents, single parents who did and who did not work—there was quite a range.

These days there is quite a lot of competition—I suppose there always has been—between children about how they are dressed and whether they are dressed in the latest clothes advertised on TV and so on. I think a school uniform provides equality between children and takes away one of those aspects that can cause embarrassment to children. So I am a big supporter of school uniforms. I think they are a very valuable part of a school and I really think they contribute to the sense of school pride. I have noticed more and more public schools—certainly in the northern area—tend to go towards having school uniforms.

The tax deductibility, of course, benefits those people who are working. The tax deduction applies only to them. But non-working parents get other supports that have been put in place for families of schoolchildren. So I think it is a reasonable response. When we talk about working families in some of the lower socioeconomic areas, we are talking about people often on an income of perhaps only around $30,000 a year. I think it is clear to all of us here what a difficult struggle it is. There are a number of people in the area where I used to live—in and around Davoren Park and Andrews Farm—who are on incomes of around $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year. They are buying a house or paying rent and they are paying their rising utility bills on that amount of money, and it is a difficult struggle to keep going. Tax deductibility of school uniforms will be a great help to them.

I think it generally reflects the Gillard government's commitment to education. Julia Gillard herself, of course, is demonstrably committed to equal opportunity in education and to the improvement of our education system. It gives me great satisfaction to work under a Prime Minister who has that commitment. It is very important, not just in social terms but in economic terms as well, that we have a well-educated population. With the increasing level of robotics and computer aided technology in all areas, including manufacturing but extending right throughout our working life, and with the increased demands of occupational health and safety and training, it is very important that we have a well-educated population. Therefore, it is critical that our government have that focus on education. Small measures such as tax deductibility do add up to a very important demonstration of support for education and support for families to continue to encourage their children to go as far as possible in their education.

So I am delighted to see this measure in this bill. Generally speaking, I think the other measures are pretty uniformly non-controversial, and it is good to see that the government is tidying up areas such as the film tax offsets. We take great pride in this country in the quality of our filmmaking. There is always debate about how best to do it. In fact, when we were in opposition one of my first economics committee meetings was a debate about the change in the tax arrangements for supporting filming in Australia. It is quite interesting that this will perhaps be one of my last contributions as well. This film tax offset will indeed make things easier and clearer for the film industry.

The other measures in schedule 3, 4, 5 and 6 are general tidying up of the tax system that the economics committee looks at regularly. I want to thank the other members of the committee and the secretariat for the work that they did on these hearings. Many people find these tax issues quite dry. We on the economics committee enjoy them immensely and enjoy going through some of this detail. We are very well assisted by members of the financial community. They are very generous in giving their time and explaining to members of the committee in their hearings some of these tricky details of how the system works. I thank them for their contribution and their assistance in all these measures.