Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

I particularly want to address my remarks at this point to the answers given by Senator Ellison, the Minister for Human Services, to those questions about the government’s proposed access card. In doing so I note, as was evident in the questions, that last week the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration tabled what I said was an excellent report on the proposed Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. That is the bill that covers the access card.

This report was a near-unanimous report. All members of the committee, except one government senator, agreed with the findings of the committee and the content of the report and supported the recommendation of the report. There was only one recommendation and that was that this legislation should be deferred or withdrawn and only brought back to the parliament as part of a consolidated legislative package to pick up the further tranches of legislation the government have said they are preparing and contemplating. But the report also went on to identify a range of serious concerns that the committee felt the government should consider in preparing that consolidated legislation. These were concerns that were raised by witnesses during the three days of public hearing.

The arrogance of this government was there for all to see in the way that it handled this bill. The committee was given virtually no time—a couple of weeks—to consider this very important legislation and this very complex proposal. The minister today said that there had been an exposure draft released for public comment. It was released just before Christmas last year. Essentially, the public only had the period over the Christmas-New Year months to consider it. What arrogance to release such an important exposure draft at that particular time of the year.

I want to quote from the report. I congratulate Senator Mason on his recent appointment and also on his excellent chairmanship of our committee. The committee said:

With only the first tranche of the access card legislation before it, the Committee has also been put at a disadvantage in that it does not know the detail of key provisions and measures that are intended to be addressed in later legislation. That the provisions held over relate to critical matters such as reviews and appeals, privacy protections and oversight and governance measures does little to allay the Committee’s general unease with the adequacy of this bill.² In essence, the Committee is being asked to approve the implementation of the access card on blind faith without full knowledge of the details or implications of the program. This is inimical to good law-making.

The committee further goes on—and this refers to the fact that the department already had out there in the marketplace calls for tenders, when this legislation had not been considered by a committee of the parliament or by the Senate itself:

In addition, two tender processes, one for the systems integrator, the other for card issuance and management, were running during the Committee’s consideration of the matter. This could be seen as undermining the authority of the Committee by creating the impression that passage of this legislation is preordained, rendering Senate oversight superfluous.

The committee goes on:

The Committee cannot accept that priority has been given to tender processes at the expense of reasonable time for the Parliament to scrutinise properly a complex piece of legislation.

And there are another 92 pages or so of the majority report that detail the very serious concerns raised during the committee’s public hearing.

Yet in the second reading speech on this bill, when it was put before the parliament, the minister referred to people who opposed this legislation as ‘friends of fraud’. We had the AMA, the Australian Bankers Association, Carers Australia, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Legacy and even the Office of the Privacy Commissioner appear before our committee and point out genuine concerns with this rushed legislation. This government arrogantly called them ‘friends of fraud’. The minister has done the right thing and accepted the committee’s report at last. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say I am a little disappointed by the approach of senators opposite. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration which inquired into the access card, I was quite struck by the bipartisan and cross-party willingness to support the goals, the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 itself and the efforts to improve the legislation. I appreciate that it is an election year and that there is the strong temptation on the other side to reduce all issues to partisanship. I need to acknowledge that that temptation appears to have been succumbed to on this occasion by Labor senators.

I must put to bed some of the opposition’s assertions. The first is that the Senate finance and public administration committee was damning of the government. Mr Deputy President, you would well know that the Senate’s and the committee’s job is to review legislation and to seek to improve it, and that is what the committee did. What is more, the government appreciated the report. The report actually supported the goals of the legislation. The report said:

... at the heart of the proposed access card system are two primary goals:

• Improving delivery of Commonwealth human services and benefits; and
• Combating fraud, particularly in relation to identity theft.

It went on to say at 3.2:

The Committee endorses goals to streamline the delivery of Commonwealth benefits and prevent fraud. The Committee supports any policy that will facilitate access to those who are eligible while forestalling access to those who are ineligible.

The report made one recommendation:

The Committee recommends that the bill be combined with the proposed second tranche of legislation for the access card system into a consolidated bill.

The government accepted that recommendation. The report listed a range of other matters for the government to take into account, and the minister has undertaken to take those matters into account. To portray the report as a scathing attack on the government is an unfair depiction. Some of the language was plain and frank, even robust, but the former chair of the committee, Senator Mason, is a very plain-speaking man. The government certainly did not take the report as an attack. How do we know this? The then chair, Senator Mason, was promoted to parliamentary secretary four days later.

Labor are trying to have it both ways. Labor contend that the government through its majority in the Senate has trampled on the Senate, neutered its committees and nobbled its role as a house of review, and that we have a government that is arrogant and out of control. Yet here we have an instance where a committee has done its job. It is doing its job—it is reviewing legislation. It does not look to me like a neutered committee system. And here we have a minister whose response to the report was: ‘What a good report. I’ll accept the one recommendation and I’ll consider the suggestions.’ This is hardly the act of an arrogant government. It is hardly the act of a government hell-bent on ramming the legislation through. To senators opposite: you cannot have it both ways; you have to get your lines straight. The Senate’s systems and committees are either working, as you have claimed today, and reviewing legislation—in which case democracy has not ended, as was predicted, and the Senate has not been trampled on—or not working. You cannot have it both ways.

The access card, as all committee members agreed, is needed. We need it to combat welfare and health fraud, to make identity theft harder and to make accessing services easier for Australians. The access card will certainly do this. At the same time, and very importantly, we need to protect the privacy of the information about Australians which is held by the government. The access card will not and should not be a national ID card. It is not the government’s intention. No-one on the committee would support that. Senator Ellison’s quite sensible proposal to accept the committee’s recommendation to consider both bills together will help to ensure that public confidence in the access card is maintained. That is the objective of the government and the objective of the committee. I commend Minister Ellison on his willingness to consider the committee report, on his ready acceptance of the committee’s recommendation and on his undertaking to consider the further matters which the committee recommended for consideration.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is genuinely encouraging to see that so many people here have read the report—although it seems to me that the people who are here were all on the committee. In his answers today the minister referred to the committee’s recommendation. The significant recommendation of our committee was that the bills be put together. It is genuinely encouraging to see that the minister has accepted that. We found that out by him telling us in this chamber—we have not had a formal response—and I would like to see a lot more of that.

In answering questions today, the minister once again—and I am going to quote Senator Fifield’s comment about taking things both ways—acknowledged that there were issues in this report on which all members of the committee agreed, and those issues were around the focus and intent of the legislation. There was never any question that any member of the committee had any problem with the intent of the legislation. That was restated consistently not just by members of the committee but by many of the people who came and gave evidence to our committee. There was no-one who took the time and effort in the extraordinarily restricted time frame to give evidence to our committee who said that they supported fraud in any way, shape or form in any part of government service delivery. That was agreed by everyone, and that was a really important starting point.

The third consecutive minister from this government who has had carriage of the legislation, when asked today quite reasonable questions about process, reverted to the same old attack. Anyone who had any opposition to anything, who had any questions about the extraordinarily ridiculous time frame in which the whole parliament was expected to consider this very complex legislation or who sought more information was immediately labelled as a friend of fraudsters. It is that old tactic of labelling first instead of debating: label first and then maybe get around to talking about the issues, as Senator Forshaw pointed out. The minister said that we should ask questions of ourselves about what our position on fraud is before we start asking questions about the access card. Let us get this really clear: there is no-one in this place who supports the defrauding of government services.

We have not seen this new combined bill. The only information which we had before us as a committee was the original bill. Most witnesses who came before our committee restated their concerns about the speed with which this committee was moving. They were concerned about the lack of detail that was provided to them in this very complex process and they wanted to have all the information before the parliament, and the whole Australian community were forced to live with whatever came out of the process. That is not too difficult a concept. That is, as Senator Fifield presented, the way that this parliament should operate. We should be able to effectively review legislation and improve it. That was the intent of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. There were many points about which members of the community and people who represented different groups were concerned.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Professor Fels was one of them.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are quite right, Senator Forshaw. Professor Fels, the gentleman that the government appointed to head up the committee looking at the key issues around privacy and protection, was engaged with the committee in a very valuable discussion about the issues that were raised and about ways we could work together to improve them. The main issue, though, was the speed with which the government were moving. They were determined to push through this legislation. They had a three-day committee hearing. We were meeting on the last night until very late just to get some processes completed.

My questions today were about the process, about the letting of tenders and also about the speed of this process. The minister could not come up with a response to the issue of speed. He talked about the issue of tenders but did not answer the question about whether there had been any financial investigation into the possible cost of letting tenders before the infrastructure is clearly defined. We asked those questions and again we did not get answers. We hope that there will be an effective process put in place around this whole issue that balances the issues of privacy and accountability. Minister No. 3, do not accuse us of being friends of fraud. (Time expired)

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

It is interesting to hear Senator Moore tell us that no-one supports fraud in this place. Perhaps Senator Moore will tell that to Premier Alan Carpenter. I want to put on record a report that appeared on the ABC in which it was revealed—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The previous comment made by Senator Fierravanti-Wells breaches the Senate rules about reflecting on other people.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, it might be worth while withdrawing.

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

It was not my intention to reflect on someone. My intention—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Withdraw.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond to Senator Coonan who once again deliberately misleads—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will need to withdraw that.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw—the Australian public about the extent and coverage of broadband in this country. Here are the facts, and I will state them again. I have spoken on this issue before in the chamber. I want to make sure that Australians who are listening today understand the parlous state of the broadband network in this country. Here is what international organisations are saying about Australia’s broadband performance. The World Economic Forum ranks Australia 25th in the world for available internet bandwidth and Australia’s networked readiness at 15th in the world and falling. The OECD ranks Australia 17th out of 30 surveyed countries for the take-up of the ‘fraudband’ known as 256 kilobits per second entry-level broadband.

Despite growth off a low base, Australia’s relative position did not change in the previous two years. In fact, despite Senator Coonan taking a dorothy dixer from her own team to try to champion the state of Australia’s broadband infrastructure, ACCC figures released recently on the pace of Australian broadband take-up show that Australia’s broadband growth rate fell in every quarter of 2006. That is right: fell. Our growth rate is falling. Australia’s broadband growth rate in September 2006 was the slowest since 2002. But it is not just the Labor Party talking about this. Travel anywhere in the country. I have travelled to Bacchus Marsh, a new housing estate. Broadband is a critical piece of infrastructure for the survival of home businesses and small businesses in a modern economy. They could not get access to real, genuine broadband. This is a disgrace in a modern economy like Australia. I have travelled to Hasluck in the outer suburbs of Perth and to the outer suburbs of Melbourne. I have been to Tweed Heads. I have been to Cairns and North Queensland.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘I’ve been everywhere, man, crossed the deserts bare, man.’

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Minchin has joined in there, and I hope we can get his singing on the record. I have been to these places and the cry is the same: how can we be living in a modern economy when we have no broadband? I met with a lady who was trying to contact her husband using Skype, a voice over internet application. She needed broadband to speak to her husband, who is one of those brave Australian policemen on duty for Australia helping to stabilise the Solomon Islands. She could not get to talk to him. His children wanted to talk to him. Funnily enough, he could get reception in the Solomon Islands, but she could not get reception in Tweed Heads. That is how farcical our position on broadband is. You can go all over the country, Senator Minchin, and find stories like this.

If Senator Coonan would get out of Sydney and out of the government VIP jet that she uses to tour around the country and meet with people other than at stage-managed media photo opportunities, she would discover that the state of broadband is not as she recently stated on national television when asked: nobody in metropolitan Australia is complaining about their broadband speed? My office computer went into meltdown. The Fairfax website went into meltdown. The ABC website—Senator Coonan was appearing on The 7.30 Report when she said that—went into meltdown. People could not believe that such words were coming from the person responsible—the minister—for enabling this country.

Broadband is an enabling technology. If only the National Party and Senator Nash had had the courage to stick to their guns when that National Party think tank—I know it is an oxymoron—said that we need a fibre-optic network in this country. If only you had had the courage to win the fight—not just go for the cheap $2 billion slush fund, as Barnaby called it—this country would be better off. If only you had had the courage to win the fight, to stick to your guns. You were a signatory to that, Senator Nash. If only you had stuck to your guns— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.