Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm deeply concerned about the Turnbull government's plans to privatise visa services functions in the Department of Home Affairs. This amounts to the outsourcing of more than 3,000 Public Service jobs across Australia, including more than 100—maybe 136—in Tasmania. Of course, when one job is lost, it doesn't just affect that person but their family as well.

Labor members and senators from Tasmania have written to the Prime Minister to express our concerns about this decision, and the overall decline in jobs in the Australian Public Service in Tasmania. Since the Liberals came to power in 2013, there has been the loss of more than 700 APS jobs in Tasmania, including 400 jobs in 2017 alone, reducing the APS in Tasmania by almost a quarter. These jobs are being lost not just in Hobart but right across the state, including in Launceston and on the north-west coast, where my colleague here, Senator Urquhart, is based.

These job losses come at a critical time for Tasmania, where full-time employment has fallen by 1,500 people since June last year. I've met with some of the workers concerned about the potential loss of their jobs due to the latest privatisation thought bubble, and a number of others have written to me. These are assessment services that will go out to tender in July 2018, with a range of other visa processing and client service functions to go to tender in July 2020. The department is also assessing bids for the co-design of an ICT platform for client services, data collection and simple assessment functions, with the first new visa product using this platform expected to be delivered in December next year. So there are reports that the department is inviting companies to help it design a new visa system which uses artificial intelligence to increase the number of visa applications processed automatically from less than 50 per cent today to more than 90 per cent. This raises the very real prospect of a repeat of the Centrelink robodebt debacle, but this time with visa processing.

The decision to outsource visa processing is straight from the Abbott government's Commission of Audit, which called for:

… the development of a business case and scoping study for the outsourcing of visa processing functions.

The commission suggested that call centres, shopfronts, counter services, data entry, payment collection, design and operation of websites and the processing of low- and medium-risk visa applications could all be outsourced. When I asked in Senate estimates why the decision to outsource was made, the department said that there was an element of budget savings, but that they were also aiming to improve client services. Well, it's pretty unclear to me how they intend to improve client services through this process.

But this issue is about more than just job security or the size of the public service in Tasmania. There are many, many highly skilled, experienced staff in visa services who are able to provide wide-ranging advice on different visa subclasses and citizenship inquiries, and these staff also have access to highly sensitive data, not only on millions of Australians, including when and where they've travelled, but also on visa applicants, including the results of visa health checks. Given the large-scale data breaches we've seen in the private sector over the years, can we really trust that this data will be secure in the hands of a private company? Why should functions that have important implications for Australia's national security and the public interest be placed in the hands of a for-profit company? So we've got a government that's intent on outsourcing and cost cutting but doesn't think through the full implications of these decisions—or they think them through, and they're not worried about them. What we get as a result of this approach are poorer decisions and poorer services.

I understand that the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, is less than receptive to approaches from the workers affected or their representatives from the Community and Public Sector Union. However, the minister should realise that the concerns held by thousands of visa service staff and their families will eventually be shared by the millions of Australians relying on the department for quality advice and decisions on the visa applications of friends, relatives and employees that they might support or sponsor. My Labor colleagues and I are extremely concerned about the implications this decision has not only for Public Service jobs but for the quality of visa advice and visa decisions and for national security. I can assure the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that we will be pursuing this vigorously through Senate estimates and other processes.

In the time I've got left today I want to speak about a completely different issue. I've often spoken in this place about the need for quality palliative and end-of-life care, and this topic has become even more personal for me as I've gone through the recent experience of spending time with my very closest friend in the final days of her life. While there's a big role in this for government and the health systems, it's important that we recognise the role that families, friends and carers of individuals play in this process. To highlight the importance of this, I note that a 2011 study by the Grattan Institute found that 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to die in their own home, surrounded by loved ones, yet only about 14 per cent do so. The overwhelming majority of Australians, 86 per cent, die in hospitals or in some sort of care facility.

Why is there such a huge gap between how Australians die and how they would prefer to die? The problem occurs, of course, mainly when a person who is dying loses either the mental or the physical capacity to communicate their care decisions. Unfortunately, many of these people do not communicate their decisions before they lose the capacity to do so. The time, therefore, to have these conversations is now—not next week, not next month, not next year, but now—before you need palliative or end-of-life care. Some illnesses and accidents, such as stroke or head trauma, can lead to a sudden inability to communicate your wishes, and then it's too late to have the conversation.

One of the most useful ways to ensure that you receive the care you want towards the end of life is to write an advance care directive. It's important to note that the law applies differently to advance care planning in each state and territory. In New South Wales and in Tasmania, my home state, advance care directives are enforceable under common law, even though there is no statutory mechanism to enforce them. In other states the names of statutory plans vary, from 'advance care directive' in South Australia and Victoria, to 'health direction' here in the ACT, to 'advance personal plan' in the Northern Territory and 'advance health directive' in Queensland and Western Australia. Most of these plans are accompanied by a number of non-statutory documents, such as a statement of choices, a statement of values and wishes, a goals of care form or a resuscitation plan. The Northern Territory, South Australia and Victoria recognise interstate advance care directives, whereas Western Australia's State Administrative Tribunal can make an order to recognise an interstate directive. Queensland recognises interstate directives if the provisions and scope align with Queensland law. To find out more about the law relating to the appointment of a decision-maker and the enforceability of their plan, people should speak to the public guardian or advocate in the state or territory they live in or visit Advance Care Planning Australia's website, which is www.advancecareplanning.org.au.

Even if you've got a legally enforceable plan, it's absolutely vital that you have conversations about your future care with those who are going to be responsible for it. This is really important. My girlfriend and I had those discussions—in fact, we'd had discussions over many years about what we'd want if anything happened to us—and I was included by the family in all the discussions and meetings with the people caring for my friend. So it really is important.

Here are some of the questions you might want to ask yourself before having a conversation about palliative or end-of-life care or writing an advance care directive: Who do you want to appoint to make decisions on your behalf? Under what circumstances would you accept resuscitation or life-prolonging treatment, or do you not want it at all? How and where would you like to spend your final days if you were able to make that choice? What are your fears about the end of your life, and what are your goals? Note that your decision-maker must be at least 18 years of age and should be someone who listens to, understands and respects your care decisions.

It is important not only that you have the conversation with those who are likely to be responsible for making decisions on your behalf but that you speak to them all together as a group. One of the common problems in following a dying person's care wishes is when disputes erupt amongst family members about what the person actually wanted. So bringing everyone together for the conversation increases the chances of there being a clear and shared understanding of what you want. You should also discuss your end-of-life care with a health professional, who may be able to raise some issues and questions that you haven't thought of. But, let me be clear, writing an advanced care directive is no substitute for having these conversations. The combination of both the written plan and the conversation will give you the best chance of having your end-of-life wishes carried out. It's never too early or too late to start preparing for the death you might want. The time is now. Make a plan and start the conversation.