Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the House of Representatives, as the federal member for Ryan, on this important bill, the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. I support it very strongly. I certainly commend it to the House for its full support, and I take issue with the shadow minister and member for Gellibrand. I do not agree with her at all that there are inconsistencies or that there are holes all over this bill. This is an important bill, and I will come to its critical features.

I want to preface my remarks on the substance of the bill by talking about two features of the Howard government that I think have contributed to its political success. The first one has been its economic management skills and the second is its support for those Australians who are most in need of the support of the federal government. We on this side of the chamber value economic security and we value social security, and I think so too do the Australian people. Quite frankly, without economic prosperity, without economic security in a nation, a government is not in a position to provide welfare, it is not in a position to provide services and it is not in a position to provide the very valuable social security network that is so important to Australians who are less advantaged or who are going through a period where they need the support of the federal government and the taxpayers. There can be no social security without economic security. I do not think anybody would contend with my remarks that the safety net in this country is very much a part of the Australian fabric but that so too is the intense desire of Australians to get on with their lives and aspire to a better future for themselves and their families. We have certainly ensured that the prosperity of this country allows the government to look after Australians who need its support.

I link this to a key aspect of this bill, and that is welfare payments. Associated with welfare payments is the matter of ensuring that those who receive welfare are entitled to receive it—they are legitimately receiving welfare—and that those who are not entitled to it in a legitimate fashion do not short-change their fellow Australians who are entitled to it.

In 2006, the coalition government delivered some $87.1 billion in social security and welfare payments. The federal budget is some $240 billion, so the social security and welfare payments are certainly no small amount of money. Of course, the Howard government is very much in the business of looking after Australians who are going through a tough time or who are struggling with issues and require the support of the taxpayer. But, at the end of the day, I think the greatest form of welfare will always remain a job, and this is something that the Howard government can be very proud of, in creating 1.9 million jobs since it came to office in 1996.

The area of welfare fraud that I want to touch on now is of importance to us because that is one of the key components that this bill addresses. I would like to refer to (1) the amount of money that is paid to welfare recipients and (2) the assessed amount of possible fraud that this bill can perhaps redress. First of all, the amount of money that the government pays to Australians who are in receipt of taxpayers’ money is substantial. But, before I come to that, I want to touch on the amount that can be saved, because that is probably more of a central feature of this bill. A potential amount of some $3 billion from fraud related conduct can be saved over a period of a decade. Anyone who suggests that this is a small amount of money really ought to reconsider their thoughts, because $3 billion is a lot of money that potentially could be going into a whole host of services that our schools require, that our hospitals require and that our roads and infrastructure could require. I do not know why any measure, any piece of legislation, that tries to recover this kind of money would not be supported in this parliament, and the access card that this bill brings into existence goes a long way to doing that.

I do not think that the Australian people would want us to do anything less than to come up with measures, initiatives and policies to prevent money going to people who should not be receiving it; and that, I think, is at the heart of this bill and that is why I support it very strongly. This bill will bring about a new access card which will simplify and streamline access to government health and social security services and prevent fraud. Of course, trying to manage and deliver some $87 billion in social security payments to those who are entitled to them is a massive challenge, but I think that the government can hold its head high in the way it manages the distribution of that money to Australians who are in genuine need of it. The challenge, difficulty and complexity lies in making sure that this amount of money—this safety net—is not abused or rorted and that the taxpayer, through the Commonwealth, is not defrauded.

The government takes its role as the custodian of taxpayers’ money very seriously, and it takes every opportunity to innovate new money-saving procedures and mechanisms. This is one manifestation of that, and it should be supported wholeheartedly. In 1997, the Howard government established Centrelink, a one-stop venue for managing the delivery of social security payments. In 2004, the government established the Department of Human Services to bring under one umbrella the six agencies that administer social security payments and services. Now, in 2007, it is introducing this legislation to continue to put in place reform measures in this important area.

Unfortunately, discussion and public consultation surrounding this card have been overtaken by some individuals in, I think, a totally misleading fashion. These people falsely claim that this access card is some form of national identity card or a precursor to an all-pervasive national identity card. Quite frankly, it is not. I do not like to refer to those who have tried to lambast this proposal, but Greens Senator Kerry Nettle is one who is constantly carping about policies that the government comes up with. She said that the Australian Greens are concerned that a smartcard could effectively define a person’s identity. There would not be too many people in this parliament who give the Greens much credibility at all, especially after their leader tried to destroy the coal industry, which is worth some $24 billion to the Australian economy, by proposing it be taken away from the economic equation. I know that in Queensland the Greens leader has absolutely no credibility, and I would hope that the 30,000 Australians who have jobs in the coal industry would not give him much of their time; I certainly think that the 18,000 Queenslanders who are in the coal industry would not give him much time at all. That is the sort of criticism, and that is the source of the criticism that is coming toward this bill. If those sorts of people are criticising it then, quite frankly, I think we are onto a good piece of legislation.

Anyone seriously participating in this debate will agree that this proposal has no resemblance at all to the 1986 Australia Card that was proposed by the then Hawke Labor government. This card is important because it is going to consolidate 17 cards and vouchers which are currently required to access government health and social security services. While very few individuals would have 17 cards at one time, it is not uncommon—especially in the case of our age pensioners and seniors—to have three, four or maybe even five or six cards. In the Ryan electorate, there are some 5,942 age pensioners who are on different types of Commonwealth cards, so this access card really is good news for the Ryan age pensioners. It will make their lives much easier. The card will be a form of protection and efficiency as well as a practical support for them.

The access card is an updated Medicare card. It does not contain financial or health record details. It is not required by law to be shown or carried in everyday situations, and the bill is very clear on this point. Anyone who tries to purport that that is what this card is all about is guilty of great deception. I would hope very much that no-one is trying to make that suggestion in order to scare our senior Australians—who will, of course, have some anxieties and concerns about the card, not being familiar with fine print and detailed clauses in legislation. Any person who requires an access cardholder to produce the card for anything other than Commonwealth health and social security benefits faces the possibility of five years in jail or fines of up to $250,000. I would think that anyone who has in mind trying to misrepresent the true purpose of this access card will find themselves in very hot water, and the $250,000 in potential fines is no small sum of money.

The only information to be kept on the surface of the card will be the cardholder’s name, a photo, a digitised signature, a card number and an expiry date. This is far less information than is contained on the face of state drivers licences, so it cannot be compared with that or with the purposes of drivers licences—such as entry into a pub or even hiring a video. Some video cards require addresses, photographs and all kinds of other personal details and quite private information.

While this bill dictates what can be placed on the surface of the access card, the card will be unique in its ability to be customised by the holder. The microchip within the card will contain two separate areas. The first area will contain information required by the Commonwealth, including date of birth, sex, residential address and Medicare number. The second area will be free for the customer to store whatever information they would like to store, within, of course, the confines of available chip memory. The information people may like to include could be things like blood type, donor status and other emergency contacts. This is possible because this legislation grants ownership over the card to the customer, as opposed to the conventional situation where the issuer retains property rights over the card, such as in the case of the common credit card.

I want to touch on the issue of fraud because it is something that I feel very strongly about. I know that many constituents in Ryan feel as strongly as I do about reducing fraud. The Howard government has taken very important steps to address welfare fraud. Between 1997-98 and 2004-05 there were some 25,137,431 welfare payment reviews. Almost three million cases of overpayment and/or fraud were identified and 24,179 prosecutions for welfare fraud followed—resulting in savings to taxpayers of an average of $62.2 million per fortnight. So every two weeks, $62.2 million of taxpayers’ money was going to people who did not have a legitimate entitlement to that money. I think that all Australians would expect the government of the country to ensure that their hard-earned taxes are directed to the interests of the people of Australia. The fact is that, unfortunately, there is great fraud and a great short-changing of the taxpayers of Australia by some of their fellow Australians. We have an obligation to address that, and we think that this legislation is one way to do that.

The current Medicare card not only does very little to prevent fraud but also perhaps even plays a part in it. I will touch on the amount of Medicare fraud that has been estimated. The figure of $1 billion in Medicare fraud certainly staggered me when I came across it, and I am sure that it would surprise many of the residents of the Ryan electorate. Some $1 billion of Medicare fraud is a staggering amount of money that I know would go a very long way in the Ryan electorate—for example, for schools, infrastructure and fixing the potholes in some of the roads. This government will retrieve some of that $1 billion through this access card.

The new access card will utilise the latest in state-of-the-art smartcard technology in order to store important identification details without displaying that information on the front of the card and will include anti-counterfeit measures. Unlike the current system, the new access card database will be able to detect when people try to register under two identities. This will enable the government to identify fraud from the outset, before it costs Australian taxpayers more money. There will also be stringent identification requirements that will have to be met to apply for the access card.

The very strong case for the access card lies in the savings to be made from arresting and minimising fraudulent activities. In the opinion of KPMG, a very reputable national firm, the amount of fraud savings that may be recovered could be up to $3 billion over a 10-year period. That is a significant amount of money. Even if we were to recover only half of that amount, $1.5 billion—which is at the very low end of the estimation—it would still be a lot of money. So I am very keen to support this legislation. I know the 5,695 health care cardholders in Ryan will also support this legislation very strongly, because one of the key aspects of the bill is the way in which it will streamline the process for receiving government health and social security benefits. For example, they will not have to get their cards reissued every time they change their address or need to have their card updated.

I support this bill very strongly. I think it is very important for us as a government to ensure that we pass legislation in this parliament that actually makes a difference to people on the ground. People who are working hard right across the length and breadth of this country have great enthusiasm for governments that come up with real ideas, real policies and real initiatives that not only make a difference to their own personal lifestyle and family security but also benefit the overall fabric of this country. Part of that is supporting Australians who do need great support while, at the same time, ensuring that the taxpayers of Australia are not being short-changed. (Time expired)

See this speech in context