Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw my comments. I want to refer the Senate to some reports that have appeared on the ABC relating to Ms Archer in Western Australia. It was revealed in a report of 12 March that Ms Archer was given a spent conviction 15 years ago for social security fraud and that she had not disclosed this to the Premier. The ABC report says that she was found guilty of receiving a single parent pension on 35 occasions when she was not entitled to one. This is the same Ms Archer who is under pressure over revelations that she acted as a go-between for former Premier Brian Burke to help him obtain information from ministers. The opposition has correctly accused the Premier of being weak for not demanding her resignation. All we are seeing here is the Premier saying that it is unlawful but not being prepared to do anything more. It is all very well to hear about people not wanting to support fraud, but this is the very sort of fraud that we need an access card to combat. I wanted that on the record. We all agree that we need to combat fraud and this is the sort of thing that the access card would address.

In the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, I made some comments that were not in unison with the rest of the committee. I do believe that there is some benefit in the bill being combined with the proposed second tranche of legislation into a consolidated bill. It will enable the important concepts of security and privacy protections to be considered in their entirety. But I think that the report fails to give regard to the benefits of the access card in its proposed form in meeting its stated objectives.

I would like to make some comments particularly about the identity card concept. The government has specifically stated in the bill:

… access cards are not to be used as, and do not become, national identity cards.

There are significant penalties in the bill to prohibit people from demanding the card for anything other than health, veterans or social security benefits. An ID card would be carried at all times and presented on demand, and penalties would exist for not possessing a card. The access card has none of these features. The access card would only be required in situations where the cardholder is accessing government services. The primary objective of the access card is to streamline and secure access to government benefits and services. I refer the Senate to extracts of a report by KPMG that were tabled. They estimated that efforts to eliminate welfare fraud would save taxpayers in the vicinity of $3 billion over 10 years. KPMG representatives told the Senate inquiry that they consider this estimate to be conservative. This is the sort of thing which probably would have caught Ms Archer, who on 35 occasions received a single parent pension to which she was not entitled.

One of the issues that have been raised is the photograph. The need for the photograph on the card is a key aspect of the access card. Without a photo on the card the system will still be susceptible to fraud and taxpayers will have to wear the cost. The photo on the card is needed to reduce fraud and system complexity. It will also increase customer convenience by providing a quick and convenient verification of the cardholder, providing a user-friendly and reliable method of accessing Commonwealth benefits, improving access to Australian government relief in emergency situations and permitting access card holders to use their cards for such other lawful purposes as they choose. A photo will allow a person to simply and quickly prove who they are to agencies when accessing Commonwealth benefits. It will also assist in correct identification when customers undertake transactions. (Time expired)