George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate speeches by Senators George Campbell, Ludwig, Murray and Stott Despoja.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

The debate on the Appropriation Bills Numbers 3 and 4 gives us an opportunity to have a look at the Government’s claims of superior economic management.

We have heard the poll tested lines, it’s time to look at the substance of the economy, minus the spin.

From foreign debt to household affordability, from interest rates to industrial relations, the Government has demonstrated that it is out of touch and out of its depth.

Our net foreign debt is rising, rising, rising. Before John Howard became Prime Minister he was asked what he would do about our foreign debt.

When he was launching the debt truck on the 20th September 1995, he made a certain promise.

JOURNALIST: Can you promise that foreign debt will be lowered in the first year of the Howard Government?

HOWARD: I can promise you that we will follow policies which will, over a period of time, bring down the foreign debt.

JOURNALIST: Over what time frame?

HOWARD: I can’t put figures on it in months, I can’t. I think it’s unreal to do that.

He has now had eleven long years. Let’s look at how much effect his policies to bring down foreign debt have had:

• Our net foreign debt has nearly trebled from $193 billion to $522 billion.
• Our foreign debt is now equivalent to more than 53% of GDP.
• It’s a whopping $24,000 per person.
• That’s the equivalent of a new hatchback for every man woman and child in this country. The debt truck is no longer a little van, it’s a fully laden car carrier.

So I guess we can say that the Prime Minister’s promise was non-core. Say it because it sounds nice, but forget about it when you get in.

But back in 1995 Mr Howard was very keen to talk about debt. In a speech to the Real Estate Institute on 17 October 1995 he had this to say:

‘The debt truck has helped heighten in the eyes of the Australian community the link between our level of overseas debt and the high level of interest rates ... obviously if one has to borrow money from a situation where one is already in debt, when one is heavily mortgaged ... obviously one is going to be charged a premium ... The same thing applies for a nation.’

Where one is already in debt, when one is heavily mortgaged, obviously one is going to be charged a premium. Australian families are paying the price.

The current account deficit tells the same story.

At a doorstop in Melbourne nearly exactly 12 years ago on the 24th March 2005, he was asked about the current account deficit.

JOURNALIST: Do you think there is pressure on interest rates at the moment?

HOWARD: Well, there is because there is concern that the Current Account Deficit is unsustainably high and there’s a very clear message unless the Government takes strong action on the spending side of the Budget there will be enormous pressure on interest rates and that will be bad news for home buyers and for the economy generally.

Notice that he said that high current account deficits place pressure on interest rates? Notice that he said that without action it would be bad news for the economy and for home buyers? Notice that he said that the only solution is ‘strong action on the spending side of the Budget’?

This Government has lost all credibility to speak on economic matters. The current account deficit is another example of why that’s the case. Since the Howard-Costello Government came to power, they have let the Current Account Deficit blow out to record levels.

The latest figure is $14.7 billion. This amounts to nearly 6% of GDP. And the trend line of the Current Account looks a lot like the Government’s polling numbers—a spike here or there, but mostly a big slide.

It’s fitting really that the Government should be under pressure at the moment when these things are impacting so heavily on Australian families.

This is the classic do-nothing Prime Minister. He long ago forfeited claims to fiscal rectitude with his infamous election year tactics—marginal seat residents know well to beware the attack of the pork barrel.

Remember the regional rorts last time around?

The bags of money thrown at the railway that was already bankrupt, the dredging of a creek that didn’t need dredging and the milk plant of a mate of the Minister’s?

The Government doesn’t run the economy for the benefit of the people of Australia. It runs the economy for the benefit of itself, have a snooze for two years and then turn the hose on to spray cash across the country in election years.

We all remember the speech Mr Howard gave at the last election launch where he committed to spend $6 billion in 60 minutes, going at $100 million a minute.

We can expect more of the same this year I’m sure, as the Government tries hard to put some speed-bumps in the road marked ‘terminal decline’.

It’s little wonder then that Saul Eslake, ANZ Chief Economist, was less than complimentary about their economic stewardship. In The Age on the 7th May last year we saw the following:

‘The resources boom has dropped $100 billion into the Government’s lap that they hadn’t expected in 2002 and they’ve spent all of it and a bit more,’ Mr Eslake says. ‘And I honestly and genuinely struggle to find anything that has been done with it bar win elections.’

And yet the Government had the hide to criticise Labor’s $4.7 billion plan for a National Broadband Network. We plan to invest in the future, invest in productivity and invest in future growth, not buy votes.

The Government have no right to criticise the Opposition on the grounds of fiscal responsibility when experts agree with us that the Government aren’t doing anything barring pork-barrelling.

But even the Government’s pre-election pronouncements can come back to bite them. Remember at that same launch of the 2004 election campaign when the Prime Minister asked:

‘Who do you trust to keep interest rates at record lows?’

It’s apparent in hindsight that he can’t have meant that we should trust him. His implication that he is the man to keep interest rates low has been shown to be false.

Since that day in September 2004 the Reserve Bank has seen the need to raise interest rates not once, not twice, but four times.

Interest rates are now at their highest point in nearly ten years. But this doesn’t tell the whole story.

Household debt is much, much larger than ten years ago. The average household has a much greater sensitivity to interest rate rises than the Government realises. They can drag out old numbers and drag out old stories but they don’t understand the new interest rate reality.

Families are paying more interest now as a proportion of their income than ever before. Never under Paul Keating, not even under John Howard himself, when the cash interest rate hit its record of 20.77% in August 1982, have households paid out so much interest out of their incomes.

The Reserve Bank tells us that families are paying 9.3% of their disposable income on interest payments—53% more than they ever did under Paul Keating.

And every rise in interest rates is a sledgehammer to the foundations of family budgets. Every rise is another whack, driving cracks deep into families’ financial security. Every impact makes it that much harder to afford childcare, to afford school books and to afford dental care. Australian families are under stress, but this Government doesn’t get it.

Interest rates are also putting housing out of reach of a whole generation of Australians. The rise in house prices has given many Australian families significant equity in their homes, but it has also made entering the housing market incredibly difficult for young Australians.

On a $450,000 home loan, the four interest rate rises have added $80,000 in interest payments. In Sydney, you need an income of $145,000 to buy a median priced home.

The steps have been cut out of the ladder, a generation of young Australians may simply never live ‘the great Australian dream’ of owning their own home.

Of course it doesn’t help when wages are being squeezed by the Howard Government’s radical and extreme industrial relations policies.

From November 2005 to November 2006, Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings rose by 3.0%. Total adult full-time earnings rose by only 2.6%.The Consumer Price Index measure of inflation rose by 3.3%.

So it is clear that in ordinary time terms real wages fell by 0.3%, and in total earnings terms real wages fell by 0.7%.

The numbers make it clear—Australian families’ pay packets are worth less than they were before WorkChoices.

It’s interesting that total earnings fell faster than ordinary time earnings. This could be a function of workers losing penalty rates. It could also be a function of workers losing leave loading. It could also be a function of workers losing shift loading, allowances, public holiday pay or overtime loading.

Whatever it’s a function of, it means less money in the hand at the end of the week. That’s less money to cover the mortgage, the private health insurance, filling the petrol tank and so on.

The Howard Government’s IR policies have been particularly bad for women.

There has been a 1.7 per cent increase in the gender pay gap over the last two years. The ABS Average Weekly Earnings data tells us that in May 2006 Australian women were earning 83.6 cents in the male dollar compared with 85.3 cents in May 2004.

The data show that Australian women working full time under an AWA earn $2.30 less per hour on average than those on collective agreements. This is $87.40 less per week based on a standard 38 hour week.

Australian women working part time under an AWA earn $3.70 less per hour or $85.10 less per week based on an average 23 hours per week

Women working as a casual employee earn $4.70 less per hour for every hour they work.

We know that AWAs cut conditions. The Office of the Employment Advocate told us in Senate Estimates back in May. From the sample of AWAs they had taken:

• 51 % cut overtime loadings
• 63% cut penalty rates
• 64% cut annual leave loading
• 46% cut Public Holiday payment
• 52% cut shift work loadings
• 40% cut rest breaks
• 46% cut incentive based payments and bonuses
• 48% cut monetary allowances
• 36% cut declared public holidays

More jobs, better pay? Not likely. Just more and more cuts to the take-home pay of working Australians.

We wanted to get updated figures on this, but conveniently the Government have stopped collecting the statistics. The Government is afraid of the truth on AWA’s, though we all know what it is—AWAs cut conditions.

Labor plans to rip up AWAs and instead focus the industrial relations system on collective bargaining. We’ve got good reasons for doing this.

Firstly, collective bargaining balances the workplace. Employers and employees can come to the table on a level basis. The imbalance in bargaining power is removed.

Secondly, collective agreements boost productivity and allow employers and employees come to flexible arrangements to best suit their circumstances. Australia had a spectacular burst of productivity growth from the time that Labor introduced enterprise bargaining in the early 90s. This productivity growth has slowed to a stop.

Yet the Government continues its baseless scare campaign on industrial relations. They and their market fundamentalist mates preach that fire and brimstone will be the result of Labor’s promise to do away with AWAs. But they are wrong, and don’t ask us, ask one of their AWA ambassadors.

If Senators had read the Sydney Morning Herald this week, they might have found a story titled ‘Poster boy reverses over work laws’.

In this story we see how Mike O’Hagon, ‘an industrial relations poster boy for the Federal Government’ finds that Labor poses no threat to his business.

Mr O’Hagon runs the MiniMovers removalists business in Queensland, which he started in 1985 with $200 and a ute and has progressed to a $23 million turnover business with 350 employees, most of whom are on AWAs.

Far from concerned about Labor’s plan to rip up AWAs, Mr O’Hagon says:

‘it wouldn’t make any difference to us as long as collective agreements are available’.

He also said:

‘As long as there is flexibility it will be all right and I think both sides of politics are agreed on that.’

Mr O’Hagon is right—Labor created the modern enterprise bargaining system and stands by it. Enterprise bargaining overseen by an independent umpire is the best way to ensure productivity and flexibility in the workplace.

Labor wants to put forward a positive agenda for the country.

We want to see the focus of the economy put on to promoting productivity growth.

We want to boost export growth, so neglected under this Government.

We want to boost investment in education and training to keep up to pace with our competitors and ensure that we develop skills and capacity in our people.

We want to fix up the infrastructure gaps that the Government has left to fester and rot so that industry is not held up for want of essential infrastructure.

We want to put Australia on track for a renewed wave of growth. Australia cannot rely on the resources boom forever. Australia needs a government looking forward to opportunities for growth and development.

Australia needs a government willing to lead to provide a modern, competitive and productive economy. Australia needs a government willing to build a fair and balanced industrial relations system. Australia needs an education revolution to help us hit the next gear and drive this nation forward.

Only Labor can do all this. Only Labor understands the needs of Australian working families. Only Labor is committed to ensuring everyone gets a fair go and that our prosperity benefits all of us. Australia needs a Rudd Labor Government.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like pay tribute to a truly remarkable young Australian.

Earlier this year I was amazed by a speech I heard while attending Australia Day Ceremonies on the Gold Coast.

Like many in this chamber, I have heard quite a number speeches in my time.

But there was something unique about this speech and it wasn’t just the way that it captured what it means to be an Australian.

What made this speech particularly remarkable was that it was written and delivered by a 12 year-old primary school student, Jack Harbour.

Jack is now a high school student at Merrimac State High, but he was only a year 7 student at Benowa State School when he wrote this speech for a speech writing competition.

It’s worth noting that Jack came second, so congratulations Jack for your achievement.

I have spoken to Jack’s mother Debra, and she has given me permission to have his speech about what it is to be an Australian recorded in Hansard:

You can’t tell an Australian just by looking at him. He might look like me—or you—or you. Just as you can’t tell an Australian who to vote for, what food to eat or even what footy team to follow. In fact, you can’t tell us much at all! And what it is to be Australian is different for every one of us here today, but we Australians share a feeling. A feeling of being ‘lucky’ because we live in the lucky country.

But it wasn’t always like this. Our earliest inhabitants suffered starvation and hardship under England’s rule. During the gold rush days, the people revolted and The Eureka Stockade was the first seed of freedom for this country.

But, it was our war heroes who gave us our freedom. I think the Australian spirit was born in the trenches of Turkey and France. Great men like John Simpson and Sir Edward Weary Dunlop portrayed the true Australian spirit, with their mateship and courage.

Since WW2, Australia has prospered. People from all over the world have flocked to the Lucky Country in search of a new life where hard work was rewarded. Multi-culturalism has given us new talents, new foods and new mates.

We are the lucky Australians, because we have in this country what so many others don’t. We have wide open spaces to play sport, clean beaches and rivers to fish and swim in, clean streets to walk in and policemen and fireman to look after us. We have awesome food from all over the world, and we have bikes and computers and I pods to entertain us. Some of us even have mobile phones—unfortunately I am not quite that lucky yet—but I’m Australian so it’s only a matter of time before my mate Dad comes good with that!

We can ride horses, and we can play any number of sports, and when we’re a bit older we can choose what subjects we want to study. I’m hoping they’re going to let me choose to drop MATHS because then I’d feel real lucky! She’ll be right mate, we’ve got calculators!!

But most of all we’re lucky because we’re free. I think to be Australian is to have the same spirit as our soldiers, We need to be proud of this country, and preserve its history. We need to care about the animals, birds and plants, but most of all we need to care about other Australians. We need to help our mates when they’re in trouble. And we need to laugh with our mates if they’re not in too much trouble!! We need to respect everyone from all cultures, because they have all contributed to our Lucky Country.

I am from English and German descent. My school teacher is from South Africa, and my French teacher from Greece. My best mates are Serbian, Filipino, and Australian, and I can thank the Japanese and the Italians for my favourite foods of sushi and lasagne. I like Shotokan Karate and my Shihan is British. I have a german dog, a korean TV, and an American computer. My shirt today was made in China, and I ride an Australian bike, probably made from imported parts!

I am free to change my music, my clothes, my sport and my opinion - and I am free to speak my mind in a forum like this, to Australians like you.

You are free to agree with me, or you may choose not to – we’ll still be mates. Because what it means to be Australian is to have that feeling. And - oh, what a feeling - Australia!’

Congratulations Jack, keep up the great work, you have a bright future ahead.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

As the Finance spokesperson for the Australian Democrats, I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007, which I shall discuss concurrently.

The Appropriation Bill (No.3) appropriates sums additional to those sought through the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2006-2007 for the ordinary services of the Government.

Similarly, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) appropriates sums additional to those sought through the Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2006-2007 to fund unbudgeted administered expenses and non-operating costs, that is, for purposes other than the ordinary services of government.

The additional amounts to be appropriated are valued at approximately $1.84 billion with $1.2 billion sought through Bill number three and $637 million sought requested through Bill number four. After accounting for savings, the net additional appropriations represent approximately 2.1% in additional funding requirements, a reduction from the 4.7% that was sought in the previous fiscal year.

It is important to remember that appropriations bills are not as important as one might think. The money bills in totality, that is all annual appropriation bills as a category, only represent as a rough rule approximately 20% of annual Commonwealth spending.

Thus the $1.84 billion that we are deliberating over here today represents a mere one half of one percent of the total funding needs for this Government for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Small bickies, relatively speaking, to a large bickie tin.

Now that we have some perspective on these additional appropriations, there are a couple of points that I wish to make. Firstly, we are here under the guise of good governance to approve an extension of budgetary spending by the Government.

These two bills only offer a semblance of good budgeting governance because 80% of Government funding, the critical mass, bypasses annual parliamentary approval and oversight as it is channelled via standing appropriations.

This Government’s excessive use of Standing Appropriations, in preference to Annual Appropriations via parliamentary money bills is the antithesis of good governance.

In a landmark report titled Transparency and accountability of Commonwealth public funding and expenditure tabled in March this year, the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration was unequivocal in its recommendations to Government that transparency and accountability needs to be improved when it stated:

The Committee has made several recommendations and a number of suggestions which, if adopted, would go some way to restoring the Parliament’s constitutional and historical prerogatives with regard to the control of the Executive’s funding and expenditure.

There is no administrative or other merit in seeking to exempt the use of public funds from regular parliamentary scrutiny and approval. Yet standing appropriations have this very consequence and continue to grow unchecked.

In the words of Professor Stephen Bartos, a witness at the committee’s inquiry:

The implications of this are that there should be correspondingly greater attention paid to the performance of government programs funded via special appropriations (Professor Bartos, quoted at paragraph 3.14).

To this end the Committee’s Transparency and accountability of Commonwealth public funding and expenditure report recommended that:

The government produce and table with the annual budget documents a document that sets out the past and expected expenditure from all Special Appropriations. The data in that document should be set out against the programs that are funded from the relevant appropriation.

The committee’s recommendation was prefaced by the following words:

Government’s increased reliance on special appropriations as a main source of funding, together with the growth in cross portfolio programs with the attendant obstacles these pose for Parliamentary scrutiny, makes it important that the Parliament and its committees have readily available to them a consolidated document of special appropriations.

A document such as this would at least inform Parliament of the use of special appropriations, and this is a step in the right direction, albeit a rather small one, for the true goal to my mind, is to re-establish Parliament’s fiduciary role entrusted to it by the people to both authorise and supervise the raising and use of public funds.

This is not the role of the executive, because in the hands of the executive all control and accountability by parliament is lost, as is apparent by the quantum and value of the special or standing appropriations that have steadily grown over the life of the Commonwealth.

Indeed, they have grown to the extent where today we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation of participating in a parliament that is to all intents and purposes hamstrung when it comes to ensuring that the Government remains accountable for its use of public funds.

This situation is implied in yet another recommendation made by the recent Finance and Public Administration Committee report, which states:

The Committee recommends that the Government implement a system of review for standing appropriations to ensure that access to the CRF is withdrawn when no longer required and to ensure that standing appropriations are subject to periodic government and parliamentary review.

A more useful reading of this Committee recommendation is to rearrange the statement to highlight what Parliament presently lacks, that is to say:

The Government lacks a system of review for standing appropriations, the mechanism which is employed by Government to spend over 80% of public funds;

That access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund is not withdrawn because of the open-ended nature of standing appropriations; and finally

That standing appropriations are not subject to periodic government and parliamentary review.

The due process of parliament approving additional Government expenditure is supposed to be a significant and important occasion.

Other countries, some of our close peers, acknowledge and understand the corrosive effect of standing appropriations. In the United Kingdom for example, standing appropriations only amount to approximately 25% of total government expenditure, the inverse of our experience here in Australia.

More matters of concern are to be found in a report on the financial management of special (standing) appropriations in November 2004, the Australian Audit Office found widespread illegalities and lack of accountability and control in the management of these appropriations.

More than half of the appropriations were not properly reported by departments and agencies in their annual financial statements.

Returning for the moment to the matter of annual appropriations, the committee was concerned that agencies have had the ability ever since the 1999-2000 Budget to carry over unspent annual appropriations from year to year. (As we know, before that time all agencies had to return unspent annual appropriations to the Consolidated Revenue Fund). The Parliament is not given the opportunity to determine either the extent or the application of these carry-overs.

This issue has in part been addressed in the Committee report which recommends that

Agencies report the amounts of their unspent appropriations and the reasons for the underspend to Finance at the end of each financial year and that the government tables in Parliament a consolidated report on the amount and reasons for the underspend within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.

As I have already stated, the two bills seek to appropriate an additional $1.84 billion in funding. Items of note include:

$30.2m to the AFP to fund deployment to East Timor following civil unrest in May 2006

$98m to Defence for additional ordinary services

$84m in funding to enable payment for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Structural Adjustment Package

$70m for the Health and Social Services Access Card Project.

$136.1m for rebates for LPG vehicles; and

$222.5m to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in relation to finance for Exceptional Circumstances assistance support.

Many of these are no doubt worthy projects warranting additional funding. But I would note that the Parliament is being asked to provide $70 million in additional funding for the access card project, the enabling legislation for which was withdrawn just over a week ago. It was withdrawn because the Finance and Public Administration Committee reported that the government needed to go back to the drafting board to address defects in the legislation.

So money is being approved for a legislative proposal, which itself has neither been finalised as a bill nor been approved. This is dangerous, and the Minister of Finance needs to explain this matter to the Senate.

The merits or otherwise of the access card proposal have been raised elsewhere. What I question is the approach of the Government in seeking funding for an initiative before the Parliament has had the opportunity to both scrutinise the legislation to establish the measure and satisfy itself that public money should be spent on this measure. This is presumptuous, to say the least, and again antithetical to the Parliament’s constitutional and historic role in controlling the Executive’s funding and expenditure.

The Senate Committee has effectively said there must be no further erosion of parliamentary scrutiny of its expenditure by the Government.

If we carry on as present we could face a Government in the future that tries to appropriate all of its funding by means of standing appropriations.

A Government that is not accountable to its people through its parliament cannot claim to govern with a true mandate, and a Government that governs without a mandate is nothing but an elected dictatorship.

Notwithstanding my reservations, I maintain the Democrats long held stance of not blocking Government supply. The bills should pass.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007. As always, these appropriation bills contain a raft of additional funding measures to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. While we will be supporting these bills, I will use this opportunity to briefly speak on some of the activities for which these bills are allocating money.

The Department of Human Services will be receiving $36.7 million under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and $34.4 million under Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 for the Access Card project.

The Government is yet to convince the Australian public on the necessity of having a ‘smart card’ to combat identity fraud and enhance service delivery. The Access Card project is proving a hard sell for the Australian Government so it comes as no surprise to see the Government grant it additional funding.

In last year’s Budget, the project was allocated $1.1 billion over the next four years for the establishment and implementation of the Card. The measure also included funding of $47.3 million over four years for a communications strategy to ensure that all Australians are aware of the process for registering for the Card. So a hefty entitlement, a huge allocation of money is required in order to implement this Access Card, as it is being referred to, but which I prefer to call a national identity card, because it is an ID card by stealth; it is a de facto ID card.

I am also quite happy to refer to this card as the promissory card. I think this is an apt name for a card that promises to be all things to everyone but is destined to fail on all accounts.

From its inception, the card promised to assist in the fight against terrorism. That rhetoric has since stopped in the face of a lack of evidence to suggest that identity cards can be used as a means of preventing terrorism. Leading London-based human rights group Privacy International, in its interim report Mistaken Identity; Exploring the Relationship between National Identity Cards & the Prevention of Terrorism dated April 2004, found:

While a link between identity cards and anti-terrorism is frequently suggested, the connection appears to be largely intuitive. Almost no empirical research has been undertaken to clearly establish how identity tokens can be used as a means of preventing terrorism. ¹

The Government has also promised that there will be a range of fraud savings, $1.6 billion to $3 billion, over 10 years. Centrelink and Medicare estimate fraud and leakage in their respective organisations at around $1.4 billion to $2 billion annually. The smart card system is touted as delivering up-front savings of between $400 million and $800 million, principally consisting of reductions in identity-related fraud, abuse of concessions in Medicare and payment cancellations by Centrelink. Once fully operational the annual savings are estimated at between $125 million and $250 million.

The major problem with the Government figures in relation to the Access Card is that no one knows how they were arrived at. We know that there has been a report done by KPMG. The Government has released this report but in an edited format. Important costings have been held back on the account of them being commercially sensitive in the context of Government tendering for the smart card project. Well on March 16th the Government tender process closed and the Government is evaluating the bids. How long is this evaluation process to continue? Is this just a stalling tactic in order to deny the release of these figures?

I reiterate my calls to the Government to make available to Members of Parliament the full version of the KPMG report, not an edited version, and to do so with alacrity. Alternatively, give us new up-to-date costings. This request for further funding clearly indicates that the smart card plan the former Human Services Minister, the Hon. Joe Hockey MP, took to Cabinet is not the one the Australian public are being asked to consider, nor is it the one for which KPMG wrote a business case. Does the Government really have an idea how much this project is going to cost?

There is also a great deal of uncertainty in relation to how much identity fraud there is in the Australian community that can be directly attributed to welfare and social services fraud. The estimate of the cost and cost-savings for the taxpayer in relation to identity fraud remains unclear. Mr Jordan of KPMG in a recent Senate inquiry into the Access card estimated from Centrelink and Medicare alone the overall potential fraud and leakage in the system was $1.4 to $2 billion annually. This figure must be approached with caution. For example, it appears leakage might also relate to entitlement-based fraud and over-servicing. KPMG have also not said how much identity fraud is used to perpetuate welfare fraud as opposed to the other types of identity fraud such as obtaining an identity card for the purposes of under-age drinking, tax evasion or credit-card.

The Access card project is the biggest IT project ever to be contemplated by an Australian Government, and as Gartner Asia-Pacific research vice-president Richard Harris commented: “Cost blow-outs and deadline problems are a fact of life for even the best-planned IT projects.” As S2 Intelligence research principal Bruce McCabe commented “What are the chances of it finishing on time and on budget? Virtually nil, if you look at the experience of other large projects.” ²

There are several worrying features of this promissory card. The feature of most concern to the Australian public is the inclusion of a high-definition biometric photograph on the surface of millions of cards. The Government promises that the card will not become a universal form of identification. If the Government is telling the truth then I call on the Government to act now and end ordinary Australians suspicion that the smart card project is merely a platform for a national ID card by removing plans to include a photograph.

The Prime Minister has denied that the Access Card is “a Trojan Horse for an ID card”, but he will not rule out adding more functions to the smart card later. I am deeply concerned about function creep with this promissory card. It seems additional functions and features are being contemplated. At what cost, I ask? For the billion-dollar ball-park cost that has been announced, it’s difficult to know what the Australian public will get.

The prospect of having a consumer space as well as a Government space on the smart card chip has alarmed many in the community. Health professionals are concerned that sensitive health information, reserved for patient files, will now be in the public domain. Trusted and much loved health service providers like Medic Alert fear being legislated out of existence. In a meeting with my office the Chief Executive Officer advised that the misinformation and mistrust of the voluntary section of the smart card was already affecting their existing and potential client base. The Victorian Privacy Commissioner in her latest submission to the Fels Taskforce on its Discussion paper No 2 voluntary and medical information has stated blankly “no customer controlled area in the chip at all”. She also sums up the general mood about this customer controlled area in the chip in her following statement:

The chip will not only contain information said to be relevant for access to Commonwealth benefits and concessions; the bill creates a so-called customer-controlled part of the chip. As yet the size of this is unknown. What information could be put on this part of the chip is also unknown, save that the bill, in section 40, allows the cardholder to use the card for any lawful purpose. Apparently Queensland is already interested in it containing driver’s licence information. Other states and territories may follow.

Sections of the private sector such as banks are no doubt keenly interested. The consumer and privacy task force has just issued a discussion paper that flags that information such as allergies, drug alerts, chronic illness, donor status and next of kin may be included. The more information and the wider the diversity of the information that is to be included, the greater the security risks, especially, as has been suggested, if the customer has access to the information on the customer part of the chip and is able to update it or alter it from the internet-enabled home computer. Although the bill stipulates that the card cannot be required to be produced for purposes other than the purposes of the bill, if information such as driver’s licence information is included then mandatory production widens. It is also easy to predict that those that want to populate the customer part of a card will be able to coerce consent through such methods as significant financial incentives. ³

All around there are rumblings in the community that this promissory card is promising too much. I call on the Government to limit the scope of its smart card project now while it has the chance. This card should be about facilitating access to health and social services and the Government should desist immediately from calling it anything else. It should not be designed as a convenient form of identity or proof-of-age card, nor should it be designed as a convenient storage device for emergency and medical information, that will necessarily be sensitive and likely be viewed by any person with access to a card reader. The Government should not continue to ignore genuine concern across industry and the community that if the original and more narrow identification purpose is expanded, this may result in a extra cost and higher privacy and security risks.

Under these bills, I note that there is almost $12 million additional funding for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), though I am not surprised that the Government does not trumpet that expenditure in their second reading speech in this election year! We are, therefore, a little in the dark about what this expenditure is specifically for, even though it is one of the more significant funding appropriations in the bill. I do note though that approximately $1.6 million of that amount is for the removal of spent nuclear fuel from the ANSTO site – why has this cost more than expected?

We have seen ample evidence this year of this Government’s intention to establish a nuclear power industry in Australia. I have respect for Dr Ziggy Switkowski but I think it is not a good look that the Government would appoint him Chair of the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review and then appoint him Chair of the ANSTO Board almost immediately after the Government got the answer we suspect they were always hoping for from the Review.

We have experts from Australia and elsewhere around the world clamouring for immediate action to address climate change, and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change gives us 10 to 20 years to act before global warming has an irreparable impact on our environment ⁴ , and this Government seems to believe that nuclear energy is the answer.

I have serious doubts about an energy technology being portrayed by the Government as a solution for our climate woes when the Government’s own nuclear energy review estimates that it would be 15 years before nuclear energy could be delivered to the grid in Australia ⁵ . And where does the Government expect to find the skilled technicians and scientists to run this industry when we are already facing skills shortages in other areas of science and engineering that we do actually have a strong history in?

Perhaps though I can finish by highlighting one area where these bills fall down. I notice that there is no new money under the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio for AusAID. I have lodged Questions on Notice at the Additional Estimates hearings in February this year relating to our aid budget and the Millenium Development Goals.

The United Nations estimates that aid donations from developed countries of 0.7 per cent of gross national income should be sufficient to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Currently our aid budget is around 0.3 per cent of gross national income, and this when Australia has been enjoying a long period of economic growth and the Government has been wondering what to do with its budget surpluses.

Even the Prime Minister’s announced increase in the aid budget to $4 billion by 2010 will leave us significantly short of the UN’s 0.7 per cent target. We are a wealthy country and we are being put to shame by others around the world that have met the UN target.

I look forward with interest to the Government’s answers to my Estimates questions but have to say that I am disappointed that the Government could not see fit to include some additional appropriations for AusAID.

1     Privacy International, Mistaken Identity, Exploring the Relationship Between National Identity Cards & the Prevention of Terrorism available at http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcardluk/id-terrorism.pdf

2     Australian Privacy Foundation The Federal government calls it: a ‘Human Services Access Card’, ‘SmartCard’ or even a ‘Consumer Card’ We call it for what it is. The proposal for a national ID card system available at: http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/id-terrorism.pdf

3     Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission on the Exposure Draft of the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 (Cth), January 2007, pages 9-10.

4     Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, http://www.hm-treasury. gov.uklmedia/8AC/F7/ExecutiveeSummary.pdf

5     Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy—Opportunities for Australia, 2006, Australian Government, pg 2.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senators Chris Evans and Murray, I seek leave to move a second reading amendment.

Leave granted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: “, but the Senate:

             (a)    notes that over $71 million is to be appropriated by these bills for project management and procurement activities for the Access Card project; and

             (b)    calls on the government to report to the Senate on the disposition of those funds should the Access Card project not proceed”.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment and I seek leave to incorporate my summing-up speech on the bill.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise to bring what has been a vigorous debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 to a close.

I would like to thank those senators who have made a contribution.

The Additional Estimates Bills seek appropriation authority from Parliament to meet requirements that have arisen since the last Budget.

The total appropriation being sought through the Additional Estimates Bills this year is somewhat in excess of $1.8 billion, and arises from changes in the estimates of programme expenditure and from policy decisions taken by the Government since the last Budget.

The initiatives for which funding is sought in these Bills reflect the Government’s continuing commitment to:

• maintaining stability in our region and enhancing our national security;
• investing in families;
• investing in a more skilled and dynamic workforce;
• investing in alternative transport fuels; and
• providing additional assistance to those suffering the effects of the drought and those receiving structural adjustment payments following measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

The more significant measures for which appropriations are proposed include:

• $64.7 million to fund Australian police deployments in East Timor (including the contribution to the United Nations Integrated Mission in East Timor); and to expand the International Deployment Group by about 114 personnel in 2006-07. The expansion will allow the AFP to respond more quickly and comprehensively to crisis situations and will help to strengthen law enforcement capabilities across our region;
• An additional $46.2 million to deliver Stage 1 of the Enhanced Land Force initiative to increase the size of the Australian Army by one light infantry battalion.
• This will ensure that we have the capability to act in a manner commensurate with our regional responsibilities and to contribute to coalitions in areas further afield.
• A further $49.6 million is proposed to implement a number of innovative recruitment and retention initiatives to ensure the Australian Defence Force is able to attract and retain the people that are central to the maintenance of our defence capabilities.
• It is also proposed to provide $139.4 million for Operation ASTUTE to restore peace and stability in East Timor plus $49.7 million to acquire protective equipment to enhance the security and effectiveness of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
• $34.9 million for the Protecting Australian Families Online package to create a National Filter Scheme to provide every Australian family with a free Internet filter as part of a comprehensive package of measures to crack-down on the scourge of Internet pornography;
• $53.6 million for the Skills, for the Future investment programme to support people aged 25 years and over who do not have a year 12 or equivalent qualifications and to promote career opportunities under the Skills for the Future initiative.
• Each year up to 30,000 vouchers valued at up to $3,000 will be made available to individuals in this group to undertake accredited literacy/numeracy, basic education and vocational certificate II courses;
• $136.1 million to encourage consumers to purchase new LPG vehicles and to convert existing vehicles to LPG;
• An additional $12 million to support primary producers in regions that
• have been declared eligible for Exceptional Circumstances assistance;
• and an additional $14 million to support primary producers in regions
• that have been declared eligible for interim income support.
• A further $17.3 million will be provided as taxable grants of up to $5,500 for eligible farmers, in areas that have been Exceptional Circumstances declared for more than three years, to obtain professional business and planning advice.
• $84 million has also been allocated for the Great Barrier Reef Structural Adjustment Package.

Strong Economy and Sound Budget Management

I wish to emphasise that the capacity of Government to respond effectively to the areas of need I have just outlined, is only possible because of our continuing strong management of the economy and ongoing economic reform.

The 2006-07 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook reported that the economic and fiscal outlook for Australia remains sound, although the economy is being affected by a severe drought.

Since 1996, the economy has enjoyed a long period of sustained growth; in 2006-07 it is forecast to grow by 2½ per cent. During this sustained period of growth, the unemployment rate has fallen to 30-year lows, while inflation has remained moderate. The Consumer Price Index fell by 0.1 per cent in the December quarter 2006, to be 3.3 per cent higher than a year ago. The December quarter outcome was the first fall since the March quarter 1999, and reflected a sharp fall in petrol prices. In the period ahead, the CPI is expected to grow at a moderate rate.

The fiscal outlook continues to remain sound. The Government expects an underlying cash surplus of $11.8 billion for 2006-07, while surpluses are forecast over the forward years. These projected underlying cash surpluses emphasise Australia’s sound fiscal outlook at a time when many of the major advanced economies are continuing to experience significant deficits.

The Government has eliminated Commonwealth net debt and commenced saving for the future. $22.2 billion has been transferred to the Future Fund over the past two months, bringing the Government’s total contribution to over $40 billion. This is a significant contribution to help meet the Government’s superannuation liabilities. By addressing superannuation liabilities, the Future Fund will strengthen the Government’s financial position and help reduce pressures on the budget at a time when there will be spending challenges arising from an ageing population.

Conclusion

The people of Australia have enjoyed unprecedented economic prosperity thanks fundamentally to the Government’s impressive macroeconomic management. Through its commitment to sound financial management, the Government has put the budget in surplus, retired Government net debt, and commenced saving for its future obligations. This will free the next generation of Australians to meet their own challenges, unencumbered by the legacy of past Labor Governments that spent beyond their means.

These Bills are important pieces of legislation underpinning the Government’s programmes and reforms and deserve widespread support.

I commend the Additional Estimates Bills to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.