My question is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. What discussions has the minister had with any representative of Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd about the establishment of a nuclear reactor in Victoria or South Australia?
Mr Speaker—
You’re not going to read that!
You can read it from there, except it has ‘confidential’ written on it. I have not seen the proposal, but I would certainly welcome a debate on nuclear energy as part of our future energy mix from those who sit opposite. It should also include a debate on how that all fits together in terms of the extra money that we are already putting into low-emission coal, low-emission gas—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very specific question: what discussions has the minister had?
I remind the member for Lilley that, if he wants to take a point of order, he should be quite clear on what the point is. He will not debate it.
I would welcome a debate. In fact, I would also welcome the Leader of the Opposition and the premiers of each state copying the Howard government’s uranium policy because, until we can actually mine the uranium in each state, we cannot export it. I have here a media statement from Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, which was just passed to me. The statement says:
The Australian community will ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for our country.
I would hope that that would be through a debate. I know the Leader of the Opposition likes debates. The media statement goes on:
Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd is a private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs.
ANE company secretary Mr Bruce Fitzgerald says that contrary to today’s media reports, the company has not put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia.
The company will make no further comment.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is assisting parents with the education of their children?
I thank the member for Blair and, in answering that question, can I say that the federal government is assisting the parents of Australia to educate their children in a number of ways based on a number of principles. The first and most important principle is freedom of parental choice. I make it plain that the cornerstone of our education policy is that parents have an unfettered right to choose the type of education they regard as suitable for their children. I make that observation in the wake of the release of some ABS school statistics, which show a continued drift of children from government schools to non-government schools. We now have 1.1 million, or one-third, of all students attending non-government schools in Australia. That is not something that I necessarily welcome, because I believe very strongly not only in freedom of choice but that the basis of a good education system in this country is a vibrant, strong, well-based, well-resourced public education system. If parents are to have genuine freedom of choice, then the offerings of a strong public system have to constitute a very important part of that choice.
But I have to say that, in the wake of the release of these statistics, we have had, regrettably, the usual responses from state education ministers and leaders of the teacher unions. The Victorian education minister, John Lenders, said that the figures reflected the Howard government’s funding priorities—implying that in some way our funding had short-changed parents who send their kids to government schools and favoured those who send their children to non-government schools. He neglects to acknowledge that, in the almost 11 years that we have been in power, direct federal government funding for government schools has risen by 118 per cent while the enrolments in government schools over that same period have increased by only 1.2 per cent.
If you make allowance for that share of general revenue payments by the Commonwealth to the states that is used by the states to fund public education—which you must do if there is to be any fair statistical comparison—you find that government schools, which now enrol 67 per cent of students, receive 75 per cent of all government funding while non-government schools, which enrol 33 per cent of students, receive 25 per cent of funding. They are unarguable statistics. They are contributed to by the Commonwealth’s direct payments, which have gone up 118 per cent, and also by payments through the GST. Figures today reveal that, in the current financial year, the states are $2 billion better off than they would have been under the old financial sharing arrangements. This is echoed again by Mary Bluett, of the Australian Education Union’s Victorian branch, who goes on to attack the federal government for allegedly—and it is a false accusation—short-changing government schools. The reality is that, under the Schools Assistance Act, the more the states increase their payments to schools, the more the Commonwealth payments go up, because the two are linked to a formula written into the act.
There are those who are concerned that too many parents are taking their children out of government schools—and I understand those concerns because I do not want to see, and the government does not want to see, the government system weakened. Can I say to state education ministers and to the leaders of the teacher unions: instead of falsely blaming the federal government, why don’t you ask the parents why they have made a different choice? If you ask parents, they do not say that it is because the federal government does not give enough money. Parents talk about standards. They talk about discipline. They talk about values. They talk about a whole range of things. I think the parents are the people who should be listened to because, in the end, we exist as governments to serve the choices of parents. We do not exist as governments to serve particular ideologies and we do not exist to serve a preference for the private over the state or the state over the private.
One of the great pieces of genius of the Australian achievement is that we have always achieved a sense of balance between public and private provision. What I want in education is an Australia where parents have that unfettered choice. I think people who worry about the drift between government and private schools should talk to the parents, instead of falsely blaming the federal government, to find out why they have exercised their choice in a particular direction.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the European parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question again is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Has the minister had discussions with any representative of Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd, or not?
I would welcome a discussion from this company, and I would like to see Australia have a debate on nuclear energy and where it fits into our future energy mix. Of course, any proponent of a nuclear power station in Australia would need bipartisan support from both sides of this House before they would invest their money in a power station. So I would like to have the meeting and I would like to have the debate.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of recent data on the Australian economy? What does this indicate about the government’s economic management?
I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question, and I can inform the House that the Sensis business index for small and medium enterprises was released today. This is the most comprehensive survey of small- and medium-sized business in Australia. There are 1.96 million trading businesses in Australia and 95 per cent of them are small businesses. The survey today showed that confidence has risen in the small and medium enterprise sector by six percentage points to a net balance of 56 per cent and that expectations about the economy rose strongly with a net 13 per cent of SMEs believing the economy would be better in a year’s time. This is the first positive result since May 2006 and the highest result in two years.
The report also asks whether the small and medium enterprise sector has a net favourability for particular levels of government. I can inform the House that the government in Australia which is the most supported government by small and medium enterprises is the federal government and that the assessment of federal government policies rose to a net balance of positive 11 per cent. Lest someone think that is not much, the least supported government in Australia by small and medium enterprises was the New South Wales government, which had a net favourability of minus 34 per cent. This is the 12th successive quarter in which the New Wales government has recorded the lowest result of any state or territory. The key reason why small and medium enterprises do not support the New South Wales government is, as they say, ‘having too much bureaucracy and too high taxes’.
I noticed in the paper this morning that the Treasurer of New South Wales, Mr Costa, said he is being persecuted because of his ethnic background. I suggest to Mr Costa that it is not his parents but his policies that are the problem in New South Wales. Where you have a state that has trailed the rest of Australia and has high bureaucracy and high taxes, it is no excuse to say that there is some kind of ethnic component in the favourability rating of the New South Wales government. The New South Wales government stands at minus 34 per cent. If it wants to win back the confidence of small and medium enterprises, it ought to do something about its bureaucracy, do something about its taxes, support improved industrial relations and take a leaf out of coalition policies.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Poland led by Mr Bogdan Borusewicz, Speaker of the Senate of the Republic of Poland. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question is again to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. I refer to the minister’s answer to my last question, where he said that he would welcome discussions with Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd. My question to the minister is: has the minister already had discussions with Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd?
Yes or no?
I know that the member for Hunter is a supporter of nuclear industry, because he said it on the radio. We are always happy to see a proposal of any type in my office, and I have not seen the proposal from this company put before me in my office. As I said, we need to have the debate and there needs to be a bipartisan position. One thing I do not understand is why the Labor Party or some parts of the Labor Party—it is a shame that the member for Batman is not here—say that we can export uranium to our friends so that they can lower greenhouse gas emissions by using it in base-load nuclear power stations, but they do not want to have a debate here in Australia about nuclear energy.
My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government’s $10 billion national water plan will protect investment in regional jobs in my electorate of Riverina and in rural areas generally? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any proposals that might undermine investment in our regional economies?
I thank the member for Riverina for her question and her great interest in the issues surrounding water security and the sustainability of regional economies in those areas that rely on water security. We certainly understand that water security, particularly throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, underpins regional development prospects in all regional communities.
The member for Riverina asked about our $10 billion national water plan. It needs to be said at the outset that it would not be possible for our government to be putting this proposal forward and to be encouraging the states to commit with the Commonwealth to this investment and this nation-building scheme if it had not been for the good economic management of the economy over the last 11 years that has put us in a position where we can afford to invest this money. Eleven years ago the nation would never have been able to afford to invest this amount of money in what is a critical national issue. Now we have the Labor Party wanting to put their hand up and say, ‘Me, too’ after opposing every inch of the way the hard work that the nation has put in to achieve this economic outcome so that we can afford these investments in much needed infrastructure.
We have the Labor spokesmen going out and saying, ‘We’ll do this and we’ll do that.’ We had the member for Grayndler promising to free up money for state projects. We know that that is what this Labor Party is all about: being beholden to state governments. We also know that they want to punish farmers in regional communities for the mistakes of state governments in the overallocation of water rights. We will not punish farmers or regional communities for the mistakes that state governments have made, and we make no apology for that. That is why we put this package together: so that we can sensibly approach an issue that we need to address.
Where it exists, overallocation will be addressed firstly through efficiency savings in the system. That is why we have indicated that we are prepared to invest $6 billion into efficiency savings to address that overallocation. Secondly, as a last resort we are prepared to purchase water rights in the marketplace from willing sellers. But we want to generate the efficiency savings first because we believe that there is a significant amount of water that can be saved. We will engage all stakeholders so that they can provide us with advice and guidance from top to bottom on this issue at every step of the way. We want to engage in a genuine partnership with those regional communities to enhance and ensure the prosperity of those regional communities, particularly those in the Murray-Darling Basin area.
Labor’s alternative, and the member for Grayndler outlined this in a speech yesterday, is to blame the farmers for overallocation and not to put the finger on the state governments that made the overallocation. He is out there saying that he is going to free up money and give it to the state governments. Where is he going to get the money from? He is going to get the money from the good management of this government that he opposed every inch of the way. He did not want us to make the savings—he did not want us to improve the economic circumstances in Australia—but now that it has been done he wants to grab the money and go and spend it. The member for Grayndler should get out into the countryside and talk to a few of the producers around the place. The member for Grayndler says that the price of water should be higher—but he will not say how high—and he wants to tell farmers what crops they should be growing.
No, I don’t.
I say to the member for Grayndler—
You are making this up.
The member for Grayndler is warned!
that the market should set the price of water. The market should determine which crops farmers grow, not some central committee of the ALP politburo. The member for Grayndler says that the Murray needs a drink but he does not acknowledge that there is a drought on. In one of the comments he made in this speech he said: ‘Labor firmly believes the overallocation of water licences is a primary source of the water crisis.’ The primary source of the water crisis is that there is a drought on! I do not know whether you had noticed, but there is a drought on! We want to responsibly address better managing water resources for a sustainable future. It is quite clear, as we travel around regional Australia, that working families in regional Australia know the Labor Party’s form on forestry, the decisions they took at the last election at the last moment; they know their form on coalmining—their attitude towards coalmining versus climate change. We know their form on uranium mining and the deployment of uranium. The regional communities do not trust Labor on the management of water in the future. Labor try to be all things to all people. They have spent 11 years opposing the government’s measures to improve the economy, and now they want to get their hands on the loot and spend the benefits of that hard work. No amount of gloss on top of this new team in the Labor Party is going to hide the rust that we know exists underneath. They are anti jobs, anti development and anti regional Australia.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Helge Sander, Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation of the Kingdom of Denmark. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question again is to Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. When did the minister meet with Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd? Given that the minister has now been asked this question four times, and has refused to answer, what does the minister have to hide about the government’s nuclear reactor plans for Australia?
We have absolutely nothing to hide about our nuclear policy. Can I just explain to those who sit opposite—because I know they do not understand business and business principles—that I am in the business portfolio and people come and see me all the time to talk to me about a whole range of issues. And my constituents come and talk to me about a whole range of issues. I do not usually disclose my diary, but today I will say that this morning my PA, Colleen Robertson, did a search of my diary for Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd to see if they had met with me, and the search revealed nothing.
Opposition members interjecting—
It’s getting very noisy in here; he can’t hear himself think!
Order! The member for Oxley will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Oxley then left the chamber.
The minister has been asked a serious question. He will be given the courtesy of being heard when he gives his answer. I call the minister.
Can I also say that I do not recall discussing this proposal with these three gentlemen. If someone is able to remind me of when I did, I will correct the record.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the minister aware of calls to reduce Australia’s commitment to the war on terror? What is the government’s response?
I appreciate the honourable member’s question. This government has determined that Australia should play its part in the war against terrorism. I think all of us felt very deeply about the Australians who were killed in Bali and in other incidents. That just reinforced our determination to strike back at terrorists and to defeat terrorists. One of the areas where we make a contribution is in Afghanistan. It is still a very dangerous environment, particularly in southern Afghanistan. We expect there to be, to use a phrase, a spring offensive from the Taliban in the first few months of this year.
I welcome the decision by the British government that they will deploy 1,400 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing their total in Afghanistan to 7,700. And I am proud of the contribution the 550 Australians are making in Afghanistan. Can I just say—we have said this before—that the government has sent a scoping team to Afghanistan to inform our Defence planning on possible changes and possible increases to our force structure in Afghanistan. We are committed to helping the Afghan people, as we are the Iraqi people, to free themselves of the scourge of terrorism. I noticed on 22 February that the Leader of the Opposition supported an increase in Australian troops to Afghanistan. This is what he said:
We’ve always taken a constructive, bipartisan approach to the war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban ...
Apparently not al-Qaeda in Iraq—but, in any case, if they are in Afghanistan, he is against them. This was an interesting statement by the Leader of the Opposition. He supports more troops being sent to Afghanistan but, six days earlier, in an interview on Channel 7, he said that we should be withdrawing our troops from Iraq because they are needed back here in our region. This is what he said:
We have other alliance responsibilities in our region. You’ve got the Solomons ... you’ve got problems in Tonga, you’ve got problems in Fiji, who knows what’s going to happen in parts of New Guinea—we have limited military resources ...
The Leader of the Opposition, yet again, is trying to have it both ways. How can a member of the House of Representatives argue on the one hand that we should bring troops back because we need them in our own region but support sending more troops to Afghanistan? You do not have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to work out that there is a stark and embarrassing contradiction.
Mr Danby interjecting
Order! The member for Melbourne Ports!
But this of course is what we have been treated to for the last two months—
Mr Danby interjecting
Order! The member for Melbourne Ports is warned!
from the Leader of the Opposition and what we who have followed the foreign affairs debate through the last five years were treated to. He supports every imaginable position: troops out of Iraq because we need more troops in South-East Asia and the Pacific, but more troops can go to Afghanistan. Even the Labor Party can work out that there is a contradiction there. There is one final contradiction, which is a pretty fundamental one: why is it that it is so important to fight terrorism in Afghanistan but it does not matter what happens in Iraq? It does not matter that the terrorists have a great victory in Iraq but it does in Afghanistan? If you ask me, that is a pretty silly sort of position and it is a position not driven by strength of policy or conviction, not driven by belief and not driven by a desire to do the right thing by our country, our allies and our friends around the world; it is driven by grubby politics.
My question is again to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and it follows our four previous questions. I refer also to the minister’s answer to the previous question when he said that his PA did a search of his diary and could not find any entry of a meeting with Australian Nuclear Energy and, further, that he could not recall a meeting with the three individuals referred to presumably in today’s paper. Minister, the question is: have you had any discussions with any individual from Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd?
Repre-sent-ing Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd, no.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members are holding up their own question time.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the latest information on superannuation funds under management in Australia and what this means for national savings?
I thank the honourable member for Dobell for his question. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics released data on managed funds which showed that in the December quarter of 2006 total consolidated assets of managed funds increased 4.6 per cent and grew to nearly $1.1 trillion. Let me say that again: the amount of managed funds in Australia as at the end of December 2006 is now about $1.1 trillion.
Mr Crean interjecting
Mr Ruddock interjecting
Order! If the member for Hotham and the Attorney-General want to have a conversation they can go outside.
That is managed funds. That does not include self-managed superannuation, which is about 23 per cent of superannuation. Managed funds not only include superannuation but include other funds that are under management. If you were to bring in self-managed funds for superannuation, of course, the savings would be greater than $1.1 trillion.
The measure of savings in Australia’s national accounts has been negative for several quarters, but that measure does not capture the accumulation of assets. This is a point that has been made by Ric Battellino, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who said in a speech in August of 2006:
... conventional measures of saving do not take into account capital gains. This has a particular bearing on Australian households because, as noted, they now hold a high proportion of their financial assets in investments such as shares and superannuation on which a significant part of the return is in the form of capital gains. ... we showed that once allowance is made for capital gains, the saving rate of Australian households ... is neither low nor falling.
In fact, it is estimated by the Reserve Bank of Australia that, looking at household net financial wealth, savings are around 24 per cent of disposable income. This measure suggests that Australia’s savings, by global standards, are actually quite high. This is an important point which has perhaps been overlooked in a lot of the economic commentary to date. When you do a household savings ratio and you are looking just at income, you are not allowing for the fact that many Australian households are actually making quite a rational decision to put their savings into better yielding returns, either in the stock market or in superannuation. In many European countries, you might put your money into a bank which then invests. That is counted in the conventional measure of saving because it is held at a bank. But many Australians have taken quite a rational decision to invest either directly into the share market or to invest through self-managed funds.
I have no doubt that the volume of money that Australians now have in managed funds and directly in the stock market has contributed greatly to the increase in stock market values. It was estimated at the beginning of this year that the complete market capitalisation of the Australian Stock Exchange was around $1.4 trillion. When you think that managed funds have $1.1 trillion and there is, in addition to that, considerable self-managed superannuation, you can see that there is an enormous stock of savings in the Australian economy which is now looking for a home to invest and no doubt—
Mr Hatton interjecting
On cue comes one of the genii of the Labor backbench who, if he listened as much as he talked, would have heard me say that managed funds do not include just superannuation. Managed funds include listed property trusts. They include cash management trusts.
Mr Hatton interjecting
And I suppose Paul Keating invented the cash management trust, did he? Did he invent the listed property trust?
Mr Hatton interjecting
Order! The member for Blaxland will not debate the question.
I suppose he invented the self-managed superannuation funds! Let me guess—Paul Keating invented the internet!
No, that was Al Gore!
Sorry; that was Al Gore! Paul Keating got an Oscar yesterday, did he?
Mr Hatton interjecting
The member for Blaxland is warned!
Some of these people are so out of touch they have not seen a good economic policy in so long they would not know how to recognise one when it came to you. That is why you cannot trust the Labor Party—caught fossilised in a period of time of ignorance until the light of the coalition came and shone on them, and it is going to stay there for a long period of time.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. I refer to the minister’s answer to my previous question, where he said he had not had a meeting with any representative of Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd. Has the minister had discussions with any individual with an interest in Australia Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, including Mr Ron Walker, the former Treasurer of the Liberal Party? What has the minister got to hide?
Can I say it would be very odd for the minister for resources not to talk to three prominent people in the investment and resource industry in Australia. Can I just say again—as I thought I had already said, but perhaps I have to make it crystal clear—I have not met with the company, I have not met with representatives of the company about this issue and I have not seen a proposal on a nuclear power station from them.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How is Australia supporting progress in the North Korean six-party talks and what lessons can be learned from achievements to date?
First, can I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and of course for the great interest he has in these issues. I have said before that we in the Australian government welcome the 13 February agreement, which gives a timetable for the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program. I also would like to take the opportunity of welcoming the announcement that the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, intends to visit Pyongyang in the next week or so—the week commencing 12 March, I think it is—and this visit is at the invitation of the North Korean government. So this is a good sign that the North Korean government is moving towards the implementation of the agreement that was announced on 13 February.
As the House knows, we have worked very closely with the American administration but also with the Chinese, the South Koreans and the Japanese in relation to the whole issue of North Korea’s nuclear tests and its nuclear program. The agreement that has been reached provides for international assistance to North Korea in return for specific progress towards abandoning its nuclear weapons.
With that all in mind, I have decided to send an Australian delegation to Pyongyang, almost certainly in the week beginning 5 March. This will be led by a very senior official in my department and will include a number of officials. They will urge North Korea, first of all, to fulfil its obligations under the agreement that has been reached and, in particular, to dismantle permanently its nuclear programs. The delegation will indicate that such actions will allow Australia and many other countries in the broader international community to provide the assistance to North Korea that the people, the ordinary people, of North Korea so desperately need. It will also be an opportunity to lay down some markers for the strengthening of a bilateral relationship between Australia and North Korea. The delegation will be able also to check the progress of multilateral aid projects to which we currently contribute. They are basically projects that are associated with food.
I think the delegation should make a useful contribution, particularly bearing in mind the close alliance relationship between Australia and the United States. The delegation will be able to make a useful contribution to sending some messages to the North Korean regime about their obligations; what the broader international community expect of them, not just the other five parties in the six-party talks, and what benefits North Korea can get out of fulfilling their obligations under the agreement that was announced on 13 February.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 29 December 2006 that he would have no objection to a nuclear reactor being located in Bennelong. Does the Prime Minister support the statements by the members for Menzies, Flinders, Gilmore and Curtin, as well as the New South Wales opposition leader, Peter Debnam, who have indicated their opposition to having one of the 25 reactors in their seats? Will the Prime Minister rule out a nuclear power reactor in Bennelong?
I have not seen the statement attributed to my colleagues but I am sure that, as is their custom, they made very sensible statements. My position on nuclear power is that I think this country should examine the nuclear option. It is too early to be talking about individual locations because—
Opposition members interjecting—
I know the game that the opposition are playing. They may think it is clever short-term politics but it is doing a great deal of long-term damage to a sensible debate this country. I welcome the fact that three prominent Australian businessmen have formed a company to look at the issue of nuclear power generation. I would think it completely unexceptionable that they might have had some contact with the government. I listened with fascination to all of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
What on earth turns on somebody who, according to the Premier of South Australia, is a good enough adviser on the business affairs of South Australia to sit at the cabinet table with the Labor Premier? There is Mr Walker, who was, I am very happy to say, Honorary Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, and a very good one—and he is now the Chairman of John Fairfax Ltd. And there is Robert Champion de Crespigny, who, amongst other things, as well as being a very successful businessman, was a member some years ago of the Council for Reconciliation and devoted a great deal of time to improving relations between the Indigenous population and the rest of the Australian population.
But I would just say to the member for Parramatta: I think this nation, if it is serious about climate change, has to look at the nuclear option. I am not frightened of that. I am not ruling out power stations anywhere in this country. That is a juvenile, idiotic game to play. To those who sit opposite, if you are interested in a serious debate—
Ms Macklin interjecting
Order! The member for Jagajaga is warned!
you will embrace it. I do not intend to be diverted from a rational discussion of the nuclear option by this kind of childish scare tactic.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on the impact of the government’s workplace relations reforms of the Australian economy? Is the minister aware of any threats to these reforms?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. He is a great member for La Trobe. In 1996 the unemployment rate in his electorate was 6.2 per cent. Today it is 3.5 per cent. And I can update the House on the impact of the government’s changes to the Labor Party’s job-destroying unfair dismissal laws. I look at the Sensis report which the Treasurer referred to a little bit earlier, which came out today. It is a good report. The report notes that already some 10 per cent of small and medium enterprises reported that they have made changes, with putting new workplace agreements into place being the most common action to date. SMEs in the Northern Territory are the most likely to have made changes so far. In the Northern Territory—Snowy, pay attention, and the member for Solomon over there—in February of last year, in the month before the introduction of Work Choices, the unemployment rate in the Northern Territory was 6.4 per cent; today it is two per cent. So there is no doubt that if you add together the Sensis survey and the outcomes as measured in the unemployment rate there is a positive impact associated with the removal of the unfair dismissal laws on small business. So it begs the question: why does the Labor Party want to reintroduce the job-destroying unfair dismissal laws? Why?
Why?
Order! Members on my right!
It could only be that the Rudd-Gillard-Combet combo is going to deliver a platform for the trade union movement to re-enter every workplace.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would ask that you enforce standing order 64.
I have been listening carefully to the minister, and, yes, I believe he could refer to members by their title or by their seat.
The net impact of the Labor Party’s job-destroying unfair dismissal laws is that they do cost jobs. Various surveys previously talked about in this place have said they could have an impact on up to 77,000 jobs out there in the community. The evidence now clearly illustrates that small business has embraced our Work Choices changes. Small business has said, ‘Yes, we will take the risk in employing people.’ And the OECD came out and said only a couple of weeks ago that the unfair dismissal laws disadvantaged those who are most vulnerable, particularly women and young people. They were the most disadvantaged by prescriptive labour laws because it made the risk of employing those people far greater for small business. So why do the Labor Party want to reintroduce these laws? It is only because of the pact they have with the trade union movement to let the trade unions back into every workplace and every small business. The trade unions will run the Labor Party if, on a dark day, they get into government. That is not just bad for jobs; that is bad for the Australian economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government, through the industry minister, having secret discussions—
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right!
about building nuclear reactors while the government continues to refuse to increase Australia’s mandatory renewable energy target? Will the Prime Minister—
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right!
Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has clearly misrepresented what the industry minister has said, and he should not be allowed to assert by way of a question what he knows to be false.
I am listening carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. He has started to ask his question; I will allow him to complete his question.
He has claimed in his question that the industry minister has been having talks. The industry minister has denied that.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has not completed his question. I will listen to his question. I will ask him to begin his question again.
The question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government having secret discussions, through the industry minister—
It’s not!
The member for Sturt is warned!
about building nuclear reactors while the government continues to refuse to increase Australia’s mandatory renewable energy target? Will the Prime Minister support energy renewables rather than nuclear reactors?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The government is not having any secret discussions, and there was nothing in what the minister said to indicate that. But let me make it very clear that, speaking for myself, the only contact I have had with these three very reputable Australian businessmen was in about the middle of last year, when Mr Walker, in a telephone conversation I had with him—
An opposition member interjecting—
Oh, yes, it was very conspiratorial! I have only known Mr Walker for about 20 years and he has been a good fundraiser and a great contributor to our side of politics. This is the new politics. This is the above-the-ruck, new standard politics—there is something conspiratorial in John Howard talking to Ron Walker. You have got to be kidding. Heavens above, I saw the Leader of the Opposition with Ron Walker at the soccer! I will tell you what: that is only the half of it; Steve Bracks was there too.
I had a discussion with Ron Walker. I am very happy to tell the world. One Saturday morning, Ron rang me. It was not about racing tips—neither of us is very interested in racing—but it was about something else. It was about the middle of last year. He said that he, Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny had decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power. I said, ‘That’s a great idea, Ron, because you know my view on it.’ I do not know what this is all about. My view and the view of the government about nuclear power being an option is well known. Whether it ever goes any further will be a matter for commercial decision. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the laws of the Commonwealth and the states as they now stand prohibit any nuclear power generation in Australia. We will address that issue in relation to the Commonwealth when we give our detailed response to the Switkowski report.
But let me say again to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are serious about climate change and if you want to lead the intellectual debate on this issue, you have to look at every option. You should not bring to the climate change future of Australia or the world a closed mind. You should not bring your ideological prejudices and you should not be overborne by the member for Kingsford Smith on this issue. My challenge to the Leader of the Opposition is to get out in front of the Australian Labor Party, show a bit of policy courage and show a bit of intellectual depth and acknowledge that if we are serious we will look at cleaning up coal and we will look at wind and solar power at the margin, because you cannot run power stations on wind and solar. We will examine nuclear power and we will recognise that the mandatory imposition of a high MRET will do great damage to Australian industry. That was why we were not prepared to go further when we brought out the energy white paper. It is not right for the Leader of the Opposition to say that I reject MRETs. I do not; I think they should be measured and not place an unreasonable burden on Australian industry. Let me return to the central point. If this nation is to have a sensible debate about climate change, we have to look at the cleanest and greenest power generation source of all, and that is nuclear power.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware of calls for a single-funder model of healthcare organisation in Australia? Is support for such a model growing? What is the government’s response?
I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I can assure him and the House that the Howard government strongly supports Australia’s great Medicare system. It is not perfect but it is at least as good as any health system anywhere in the world. The principal reason that the Howard government is undeniably the best friend Medicare has ever had is that many members opposite now want to reform Medicare out of existence. Those who want to reform Medicare out of existence start with none other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former shadow minister for health, the member for Lalor, who has been a consistent supporter of a single funder in place of Australia’s existing health programs. In May 2004, she said to the Tasmanian AMA:
The principal characteristic of a unified national health system is that existing Commonwealth health monies—
that is, Medicare, the PBS, aged care funding and healthcare agreement money—
are combined with—
An opposition member interjecting—
She had a bit of intellectual credibility and honesty, which the current shadow minister lacks. She said:
... are combined with existing State and Territory health monies ... and the combined pool of money is then applied to the population’s health needs.
Let us be quite clear. As far as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is concerned, this is the death of Medicare and its replacement by something resembling the UK National Health Service. But she did not leave that back in 2004. As recently as her Earl Page lecture last year, she said:
A Labor government would be prepared to examine the need for big changes. That includes a single funder for health care.
She even managed to con her then leader, the member for Brand, who said in his address to the Economic and Social Outlook Conference in Melbourne last November:
But shifting to a single public funder for health care is on my reform agenda.
So she supports it and the former leader supports it. But wait. Recently the Age reported the shadow minister for federal-state relations, the member for Fraser, as saying:
Mr McMullen said the single funding model, where the Commonwealth and states would contribute to a common pool of money, had substantial problems.
Well, good on the shadow minister for federal-state relations. ‘That would be a bad idea,’ he said. Who is right? Is it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who supports a single funder, or the shadow minister for federal-state relations, who opposes it? I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you cannot wimp out of taking sides on this one; you have got to take sides on this one. You cannot be all things to everyone on this one. But he is a strange piece of work, this bloke. He supports the US alliance but he does not support helping America in Iraq. He says he is against greenhouse gas emissions but he will not support nuclear—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about health funding models. I ask you to draw him back to the question he was asked.
The member for Wills will resume his seat. I am sure the Minister for Health and Ageing will come back to the question. I call the minister.
I was making the point that the Leader of the Opposition should resolve this contradiction, like he should resolve so many contradictions. He says that he is not a socialist, but he is a Christian socialist. He says that he is an Anglican, but he has never quite resigned from the Catholic Church. Will the real Kevin Rudd please stand up—not the flunkey!
The minister will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is that okay? Is it within the standing orders?
Is that the point of order?
Yes, it is.
The member will resume his seat.
The comment seems to relate to breaches of 104 and 65.
The member for Grayndler will come straight to his point of order.
Opposition members interjecting—
I will call the minister and ask him to come to a conclusion.
Mr Speaker, I am happy to come to a conclusion. The Leader of the Opposition should come to a conclusion. Does he support his own deputy leader on this point or does he support his recently appointed shadow minister for federal-state relations? He cannot keep sitting on the fence on this. He cannot keep trying to be all things to everyone. I say that he should put his Dr Death skills into practice and kill off, finally and for all time, this very silly idea of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to my previous question to him and to the Prime Minister’s reference to his conversation with the former treasurer of the Liberal Party on his proposal to establish a company to build nuclear power stations. I refer also to the Prime Minister’s answer, as he reported earlier, to Mr Walker, when he said, ‘That’s a great idea, Ron.’ Could the Prime Minister confirm whether the company in question, Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd, was established on 1 June last year? Could the Prime Minister also confirm that he commissioned the Switkowski report to examine the future of nuclear power in Australia on 6 June last year?
I cannot confirm, without doing a company search, that the company was incorporated and formed on 1 June. It could have been and, for the purposes of discussion, I am prepared to accept the word of the Leader of the Opposition that it was. But what on earth turns on that? My views in relation to nuclear power were well known before 1 June. They have been well known for some time. The Leader of the Opposition is going down a very silly track on this. I know what he is about. Walker, Morgan and de Crespigny are three very reputable businessmen. One of them had a conversation with me—I have many conversations—and he said that he was going to form a company and I said, ‘That is good, Ron.’ I do not apologise for that, because I actually believe in companies being formed. I believe in them making profits and I believe in them paying large taxes if they make a profit. I also believe that if we are honest about tackling climate change—and this is the big piece de resistance of the Australian Labor Party; they are going to lead the way forward in relation to climate change—here you have one of the solutions to climate change.
Let me remind you again, Mr Speaker, what the Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock—he is the principal adviser to the government of Australia about science matters—had to say to me on 21 December 2006:
At present there are only two modes of power generation capable of base-load power production—
that means running the power stations that keep our cities going, that keep the lights on, that keep us in jobs and that keep the wealth being generated; they are indispensable to the economic capacity of this nation—
which can be operated without serious consequences for climate change emission.
And this is what this debate is meant to be meant all about. Surely, those who sit opposite are interested in something that can be run without a serious consequence for climate change emission. Mr Peacock said:
Fossil fuels will be used in Australia now and in the next several decades in power plants.
We all know that. He continued:
These power plants should be operated with minimum emissions and we have technologies to retrofit most existing power stations ...
And so he went on. He then said:
Nuclear power stations are the other clean and mature mode of electricity generation.
This is not John Howard; it is not some ideologue in the debate. It is the dispassionate, rational, impartial Chief Scientist of Australia.
Ms Gillard interjecting
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!
Those who sit opposite have spent the entirety of question time trying to establish something sinister in the fact that there may have been a conversation between me and Ron Walker. That is a measure of the trivia that this opposition goes on with at question time. This is meant to be the new Labor politics. This is meant to be the high standard. Let me say that I am not the least bit embarrassed about the fact that I have revealed to the world that Ron Walker had a conversation with me about this. Any suggestion of impropriety in that is ludicrous. The people who are doing themselves a disservice are the alternative government of this country. They are flouncing around Australia saying that they care about climate change. They have spent an hour trying to allege some conspiracy in relation to what the Chief Scientist says is one of the two modes of running power stations in this country which will not have harmful effects on our environment and will not be damaging in the climate change scenario. I would have thought that, instead of alleging in a childish, juvenile fashion that there was something sinister in my having had a discussion—
Ms King interjecting
The member for Ballarat is warned!
they would have had a serious debate. The last hour has revealed the Labor Party who sit opposite as inadequate and intellectually deprived participants in the climate change debate in Australia.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the ASIC company extract on Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd, registration date 1 June 2006, and the Prime Minister’s statement of 6 June 2006 establishing the review of uranium mining processing and nuclear energy in Australia.
Leave granted.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 26 to 28 of 2006-07 entitled Audit Report No. 26, Administration of complex age pension assessments: Centrelink; Audit Report No. 27, Management of air combat fleet in-service support: Department of Defence, Defence Materiel Organisation; and Audit Report No. 28, Project management in Centrelink: Centrelink.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents: Migration Act 1958— Section 440A—Conduct of Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) reviews not completed within 90 days—Report for the period 1 July to 31 October 2006. Section 91Y—Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days—Report for the period 1 July to 31 October 2006. National Environment Protection Council—Report for 2005-06. Wheat Export Authority—Report for 2005-06.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, most grievously.
Please proceed.
There were several instances where I was misrepresented in a speech by the member for Gorton yesterday evening, and I will go through them. Firstly, he said that I had pocketed BAT’s money and that I just did not pocket $15,000 from BAT. That is wrong. He knows. It is on the public record.
Order! The member will not debate the issue.
The funding did go to an associated entity, of which there are many in politics. The second point where I have been misrepresented is where he said that, where some tobacco growers opposed the BAT buyout, I said they were motivated by corruption or fear of criminal thugs in the industry. That is wrong. I was approached by several of my growers who had been intimidated. All they have to do is speak to the directors of the tobacco cooperative to understand the criminality that has entered the tobacco industry. The third point where I have been misrepresented is where the member for Gorton said that I went on to support BAT’s buyout of local growers. That is incorrect. A meeting of 500 growers and their families knows that I was there, and all I did was outline the federal government’s support package in the event that growers would accept a buyout of industry. And, may I say, Mr Speaker, that package from the Commonwealth government—
The member will resume her seat.
That package was a result of the member for Leichhardt and Senator Boswell’s work over two years.
The member will not debate the issue. Resume your seat!
Mrs Mirabella interjecting
The member for Indi is warned!
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting
Order! The minister will resume her seat. The member for Indi will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Indi then left the chamber.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
In the edition of the West Australian of 27 February 2007, on page 19, in an article headed ‘Labor rides a wave of confidence’, the following words were published: ‘Around the same time Julie Bishop issued a statement which implied that on child care Mr Howard treats women as fools. She later drew some kind of comparison between the proposed access card in Australia and the reality of Nazi Germany.’ Mr Speaker, at no time have I made such a statement, nor have I drawn any such comparison as alleged in the article.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister will be heard.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
Please proceed.
Yesterday in question time the member for Calare made reference to an advertisement I placed in the Lithgow Mercury reminding residents of that community that I am working hard for them—an advertisement similar to ones placed in the Bathurst Advocate and the Oberon Review, also assuring those residents that I am working hard for them. They are both accurate statements. However, the member for Calare yesterday asserted that those advertisements were paid for by taxpayer funds. He is wrong. They were paid for out of my own conference campaign funds.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
During question time today, the Deputy Prime Minister raised a number of suggestions with regard to a speech I gave yesterday in Melbourne to the Australian Water Summit, including that the Labor Party believed that we should select which crops should be planted. There is no such thing. I have clearly indicated that it should be up to the market to decide, not government—here or in the states—but that there should be a water-trading system established—
The member has made his point.
and I refer the minister to my speech.
The member will resume his seat. The member has made his point.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to recognise the long term challenges facing the Australian economy and formulate policies to underpin future economic growth and living standards.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
It is pretty clear from question time today that we have a government that is not on top of the economic challenges facing this country, absolutely not on top of the issues and unwilling to debate the significant long-term challenges that we face in building prosperity well into the future. We saw today the embarrassment of the industry minister: not one question, not two questions, not three questions, not four questions, not five, not six, but seven questions, and he was mute. He could not tell us whether he had had a discussion with the members of a company, some of whom are very close to the Liberal Party, on a question that goes to the heart of our future economic prosperity: the challenge of climate change and what it means for the future of the economy.
When it comes to climate change, this government has never got it, and today you could see that it will never get it. At least the Treasurer in the past has had the honesty to admit that nuclear power is uneconomic, but he did not have the honesty to provide a submission to the Switkowski review. Was the Treasury consulted about that? No. Of course, the Treasury does not get consulted on any of these things anymore. We have a $10 billion water package which the Treasurer was not consulted on. What we have here is a government that is consumed by smugness and short-termism and is not facing up to the challenges of the future. It has no ambitious plans to build prosperity for the future. It is certainly not up to the challenge of addressing our sliding productivity, slowing growth and declining competitiveness.
It is significant that this goes front and centre to our future living standards, and future living standards are what productivity is all about. But the government is not on top of these issues, and it has been unwilling to debate these issues in the parliament. I am pleased that the Treasurer is here today, because it is time that we had a national debate on how to raise productivity in this country. Productivity goes to the core of wealth generation in this country well into the future, but if the industry minister is as hopeless as he was today, heaven help the significant industries in this country that he represents and that we need to prosper and to grow well into the future.
The Treasurer is fond of saying that we have had 10 years of prosperity and that that is somehow all the work of his good self and the Howard government. I am prepared to say that we have had 15 years of prosperity, and isn’t that a wonderful thing for this country? Let the Treasurer play politics when he says that 10 years is the length of our prosperity, but that is just the Treasurer being complacent and smug. We all know that the Treasurer is very good at claiming credit and very poor at accepting responsibility. He is quite happy to claim credit for the mining boom, but he will not fess up and admit that there are some significant challenges which are affecting future growth and prosperity in this country.
In the last six years, serious deterioration has emerged in our economic performance, and we in this parliament ought to be having a debate about that. That deterioration needs to be recognised, it needs to be explained and it needs to be addressed. But of course, we will never hear about that from the Treasurer—and we certainly do not hear about it from the Prime Minister. In his radio address on Sunday night, the Prime Minister said that the reforms of the last 10 years have given us much of the prosperity we are enjoying. We have been enjoying prosperity, but you would think that he might admit that the mining boom might have had something to do with it. You would think that he might just admit that the mining boom has given the government a bit of a hand in delivering that income boost to this community.
I am prepared to admit that the independence of the Reserve Bank has been absolutely central in our growth over the last 15 years, and that is a good thing, because it was put in place by the Labor Party. We welcome macroeconomic stability. Running budget surpluses over the cycle is important to our prosperity and growth—over 15 years, Treasurer—but that cannot continue into the future if we are not prepared to be honest enough about what is going on in our economic record. The facts are these: in the last six years, there has been a decline in some of our key economic indicators. That is six years in the last 15. The Treasurer wants to crow about 10 years; but let us have a look at what has been going on in the last six years.
In the six years to September last year, the average growth of the volume of Australian exports over 12 months has fallen to 2.4 per cent—less than one-third of the yearly growth rate over the six years from 1994 to 2000. What is significant about that? We are in the middle of a commodity boom—a mining boom. It has been raining gold bars. We are not getting the performance we really need. The average GDP has fallen to three per cent from over 3.5 per cent in the previous six years, and the growth of labour productivity in the market sector has fallen to two per cent from over 2.5 per cent in the previous six years. The growth of GDP per person, or average living standards, has fallen to under two per cent from over 2.5 per cent in the previous six years.
Over the last year, in most of these measures, we have been doing even worse than the average of the last six years. What this shows is that we have a productivity problem, and it was there for all to see in the September accounts. The September quarter national accounts show that labour productivity has failed to grow since June 2004. That is more than two years with zero productivity growth. Productivity growth actually declined by 1.6 per cent in the previous six months. This is not something that the Treasurer will talk about in this House. I await with interest the Treasurer’s response. What ambitious plans does he have to lift productivity in this community? Unquestionably, he will get up and say that he has got his extreme industrial relations reforms—which, we know, have got nothing to do with lifting productivity. He has so little confidence in his belief that it will lift productivity that he would not let the Treasury do the modelling to prove the point.
Most seriously, multifactor productivity growth, a key driver of productivity gains over the 1990s, has more than halved—falling from an average of 1.6 per cent last decade to 0.7 per cent this decade. This slowdown has seen us slip further behind productivity leaders in the global environment. The 1990s saw Australia catapult from a productivity laggard to a productivity leader, lifting our productivity performance to 85 per cent of US productivity levels. What lay behind that? One of the significant factors involved in that was enterprise bargaining, put in place by a Labor government committed to reform, committed to lifting productivity, committed to wealth creation and committed to a forward-looking agenda.
The Treasurer was in the House during question time pretending that he was the author of the modern superannuation system—which has turbocharged the Australian economy. I have been doing a bit of work on the Treasurer’s record between 1993 and 1996. Guess who opposed the superannuation system for years and years? It was none other than Peter Costello. Yes, superannuation is a fantastic reform. It was put in place by a Labor government. It is one of the great reforms that has enabled this country to face the ageing of our population with some confidence—and we are proud of it. So when the Treasurer comes in here and tells porkies about it, it leaves us a bit lost for words. There is a history of reform on this side of politics.
Mr Costello interjecting
Absolutely. There is a history of reform: enterprise bargaining, superannuation, national savings, competition policy—all things put in place by a farsighted Labor government; all things which lifted the productivity performance of this country.
That, of course, brings us back to the mining boom, for which the Treasurer is very keen to take complete credit. Through this wonderful 15 years of growth and prosperity that we have had in this country, you would have thought that we could have used this period to do the one thing that was really going to set this country up for the future and lift our productivity and our rate of wealth creation. You would have thought, with the bounty of the commodity boom, we could have found enough resources, both public and private, to invest in the education and training of our people. It was a unique opportunity, squandered by this Prime Minister and by this Treasurer, to invest in our human capital and to set this country up for a period beyond the commodity boom. It was an opportunity that was not taken.
This is where the figures are absolutely damning of the squandered opportunities of the last 10 years of the Howard-Costello government. This government cut public investment in education and training by seven per cent over a 10-year period, when the average in the OECD was an increase of 48 per cent. This country is living with the consequences of that today. We see it in our faltering productivity, we see it in the skills shortages and we see it in the capacity constraints. This government not only has failed when it comes to education and training but also has failed to provide some national political leadership when it comes to infrastructure—doing something about our basic rail, road, ports, transport, communications and broadband, and setting up a national structure which would provide leadership and go to the heart of lifting our productivity and our competitiveness.
That is why Kevin Rudd started this year with one commitment that goes to the very core of meeting the economic challenges facing this country—of lifting our productivity and lifting our competitiveness and setting this country up for a future for our children and our grandchildren. What is that commitment? It is the education revolution. It is the education revolution that starts in the early years, something this government has squibbed on time and time again. There have been massive squandered opportunities. There have been cabinet submissions that have gone up to ministers, arguing for a comprehensive commitment to the early years and the funding of that commitment, and time and time again they have been locked away in the drawer, never to be seen again. Kevin Rudd’s education revolution is going to make a difference in this country. It is absolutely what we need to lift our productivity.
Doing something about the teaching of maths and science in this country is also absolutely critical. Our major trading partners, particularly India and China, are investing massively in basic sciences and in the training of teachers, particularly in maths and science. The government is mute in this area as well. The Leader of the Opposition has put forward positive alternatives in this area—positive alternatives which will lift our productivity and make us competitive.
It is about time we had an economic debate in this parliament. I am delighted that the Treasurer could see fit to come in today. I hope this remains the case as we go through month after month towards the next election. There is a very clear choice here between the Labor Party—which is committed to long-term policies that will build wealth and prosperity for the future—or more of the same from an ageing government which is out of touch, arrogant, smug and bereft of answers in key areas like climate change.
The fact that this Treasurer has allowed this Prime Minister, year after year, not to consider any discussion of an emissions trading system is reflective of how complacent and out of touch this government is. Imagine how well placed we would be now if we had put such a trading system in place. Imagine how well placed we would be now if the government had taken up our suggestions of well over 12 months ago about renewable energy and about investing in clean coal technology. All of these things are challenges for the future. You see, Treasurer, going carbon clean is the only growth strategy for the future. But the Treasurer has not even allowed his department to do any modelling on climate change. This came out at estimates committees a couple of weeks ago.
So we have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer stuck in the past, out of touch, smug, unable to rise to the challenge of the modern economy—where talent is the modern commodity of growth—unable to invest in the skills and talents of our people and unable to provide modern infrastructure that can be the engine room of an efficient economy. The government comes into this parliament and plays short-term silly political games, as the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources played today. We must address and debate these issues right through to the election. (Time expired)
I welcome a debate, right through to the election, on economic policy. If the Labor Party is as weak as was evidenced by that speech, I have no doubt how the electorate will make up its mind. I invite members who are here to think back over the 15-minute tirade we have just had from the member for Lilley—former State Secretary of the ALP; long on rhetoric but short on policy. Can anybody think of one policy that he mentioned in that 15-minute tirade that the Labor Party has actually published, costed or announced? No. Fancy calling on a matter of public importance, saying that the matter of public importance is the failure of the government to invest in productivity to deal with long-term economic goals and then to go 15 minutes without providing one alternative policy. You have to have chutzpah!
You should go back and read it.
No, listening was sufficient, my friend! To ask me to go back and read that tirade is asking me to do far too much—much more than I could possibly deal with. You might get away with that kind of tirade down at the local ALP branch—amongst the faithful on a Thursday night, with the people who have been stacked into the branch—but, when you come into the national parliament and you talk about long-term economic trends and building for the future, you have to do a lot better than that because the people of Australia are relying on the government to keep this economy strong. They do not need bluff, they do not need bluster and they do not need political tirades. They need experienced economic management, and the experienced economic management will not be coming from the member for Lilley, if that is any indication of the depth of his thinking on these issues.
Let us go back to where he began his speech. He said question time demonstrated that the government was not on top of the long-term issues affecting the Australian economy. Is that right? I thought question time illustrated an opposition that was prepared to play populist politics—an opposition which asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on, I think, five occasions about secret discussions, which it turned out he had never had, with a newly formed company. And for what purpose? So that the Labor Party could go around and mount a scare campaign on nuclear energy. This might be populist politics, it might be feeding into some grand campaign, but let me tell you what it was not doing: it was not addressing long-term issues in the Australian economy. It was not looking down the track and asking where Australia might get baseload energy from in 20 or 25 years time. It was not talking about an alternative to coal-fired power stations. It was not saying for a moment, ‘We’ll lift ourselves from the ruck and we’ll think about a longer term issue.’ It was cheap opportunism.
I know what will happen. The Labor Party will now run around electorate by electorate and say, ‘Do you know that you might have a nuclear power station in this electorate? Will you rule it out?’ They will go from fear campaign to fear campaign. It is very obvious. But let me tell you this: if you are going to go down the populist fear campaign road, do not come in here with an MPI on long-term economic reform. My friend, you come to the fork in the road and you take one road called populism. You do not turn up and say, ‘I’m interested in long-term economic issues.’ You go one way or the other.
The member for Lilley will always go down the populist road. We know that for a fact. His whole political career bespeaks it. His political career as State Secretary of the Queensland ALP bespeaks the fact that he has engaged in opportunistic politics throughout his career. He can do that and it has its place, and no doubt he will win some votes off the back of it. But the one thing he cannot do is this: he can never stand in this parliament and say he supports long-term economic reform, because long-term economic reform sometimes requires you to stand up and say something that is not popular, to take on vested interests, to take on populist campaigns.
Let me give you an example of the kind of reform that you sometimes have to engage in. Sometimes you have to reform the tax system. Suppose you had a higgledy-piggledy wholesale sales tax system on a declining base with multiple rates. Long-term economic reform would say: one universal goods and services tax. I came in here and I said that. I argued it in this place day after day, and I argued it around the country day after day. And Mr Opportunist here was the first person who was running around the country opposing it on every ground imaginable. Why? Not because it was against the long-term economic interest of Australia but because he thought he could eke out populist votes here, there and everywhere.
Let me ask this question: if the GST was such a bad idea, as we heard in this parliament year after year, is there now any political party in Australia promising to reverse it? Are the Labor Party, which opposed its introduction, now promising, if they get elected, to get rid of a GST and bring in a wholesale sales tax? Of course they are not. If they now accept that this was a reform in the interests of the Australian economy, why is it then that they opposed it day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out? Why was that? It was not because they were interested in long-term economic reform, and it was not because they were interested in productivity improvements. It was because, whenever they come to the fork in the road, like the member for Lilley they unerringly turn towards the one that is marked ‘opportunism’—the one that leads down into the cesspool of Australian politics.
Earlier, the member for Lilley said that the Australian Labor Party established the independence of the Reserve Bank. Is that right? Did I miss something in relation to economic policy in this country? I recall Mr Keating—Labor’s hero—as Prime Minister and Treasurer, saying that he had the Governor of the Reserve Bank in his pocket. Nothing did more damage to the independence of Australia’s central bank than that. When I announced that the bank would be put on an independent footing, with an agreement between the governor and me on an inflation target, did the Labor Party say, ‘Wonderful reform; we’re supporting it’? No. A press release, released on 13 August 1996, stated:
Labor to seek legal advice on Costello bank letter plan.
The Federal Opposition today decided to seek legal advice on Treasurer Peter Costello’s plan to require the next Reserve Bank Governor to sign a written ‘inflation first’ pledge.
Federal Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, says preliminary advice available to him suggests Mr Costello’s plan may well be illegal.
I will table that press release. The Labor Party said that what I had done was illegal. Putting the bank on an independent basis with an agreement on the conduct of monetary policy with an inflation target was illegal. They wanted to sue me for doing it. I am still waiting for the writ. Every time there is a doorknock on the door at home, I say, ‘I wonder if that is the writ from the Labor Party, suing me over the independence of the central bank.’ Blow me down, I walk in here and I find that they actually did it before I had even thought about it. This is just not credible stuff. This is cloud cuckoo land. It is wishful thinking by the Labor Party that they established the independence of the central bank.
The member for Swan comes in here and says, ‘We’ve had 15 years of prosperity,’ as if everything good in the economy came from the Labor Party and the rest of us have only been sitting around for the last 10 years. Fifteen years ago, what were interest rates in this country under the prosperity that he boasts of? I know that in 1996 interest rates were 10½ per cent. And 10 years ago, was unemployment 4.5 per cent? No, it was double that; it was over eight per cent. Fifteen years of prosperity! Was the budget balanced 15 years ago? No. Were we carrying no debt 15 years ago? Let me guess. Did the Labor Party bequeath a zero net debt? No, the Labor Party left office with $96 billion worth of debt, a $10 billion deficit, interest rates above 10 per cent and unemployment above eight per cent. And the member for Swan describes that as a great, prosperous society. If we were to take unemployment back from 4½ to over eight per cent, if we were to put the mortgage interest rate up to 10½ or 11 per cent, if we were to run another $96 billion worth of debt and five budget deficits, do you think he would be standing here at the dispatch box saying, ‘Well done, Treasurer, great prosperity’? This is cloud cuckoo stuff.
We did not have that prosperity 15 years ago. We did not have it 10 years ago. We did not have it five years ago. It has been disciplined management and tough decisions that have got this economy to where it is. It has been nine surplus budgets. It has been the repayment of $96 billion worth of debt. It has been an independent central bank. It has been an inflation target. It has been the introduction of the GST, the halving of the capital gains tax, the reduction in capital tax, the reduction in income taxes, the abolition of the FID and the BAD, the abolition of stamp duty on shares and the abolition of stamp duty on marketable securities. That is what has taken this economy forward. On all those things the Australian Labor Party, when it got to the fork in the road, looked at that track which said ‘opportunism’ and went down it unerringly.
The Labor Party would now have you believe that, after they have opposed every tough measure that got us to where we are now, they can be trusted with the Australian economy to take it into the future. Well, they can’t be. It is like the people who live next door to your house. When you want to build a new house and you put in the plans, they oppose them. When you want to lay the foundation, they fill it in. When you have a delivery of the timber, they chase the delivery truck away. When the plasterer comes, they make rude signs at him. When the painter comes, they pour his paint down the drain. And when you finish it all, they say: ‘I’d like to live in that house. That is a good house. I may have done everything I possibly could to oppose its construction, but I would like to take the benefits.’ That is Labor, but it is not the coalition way. We put in place all of those measures to get this economy to where it is now.
This government has increased funding on education very substantially. Funding to schools has increased from $3½ billion in 1996 to over $9 billion—an increase of 160 per cent. Funding for vocational and technical education has increased by 88 per cent in real terms. There are more than 400,000 apprentices in training today—an almost 160 per cent increase since we came to government. There has been record funding for vocational and education training and total sector revenue in higher education. What the Labor Party always wants to do is overlook the fact that we have freed the universities to have private sources of funding—sources of funding which Labor would have banned. Since 1996, total sector education funding in 2005 was at $13.9 billion—up $6 billion.
Somebody is going to say to me: ‘How can you afford to do that? How could you afford that investment in all of that education?’ Let me tell you: when the Commonwealth government was carrying $96 billion worth of Labor debt, we were paying an interest bill of $9 billion a year. When we paid back all of Labor’s debt, we had a saving of $9 billion per annum. We put the Australian government $9 billion a year in front. We paid off the capital and, in interest savings, we were $9 billion a year, every single year, in front. That is what economic management is about. Was it easy? No, it was hard. Did Labor support it? No, they did not. Labor actually opposed the balancing of the budget. They said it would put Australia into recession.
Ten years later, we have seen record job creation and the clearing of debt. We have seen Australia come through the Asian financial crisis, the worst drought in 100 years, SARS, terrorism and war, and we are still there. It was achieved because of the hard work of the coalition government. That record cannot be attacked by the Labor Party. The Labor Party should be judged by their record, and their record was one of complete opposition for long-term economic reform in this country.
Australia’s long-term economic direction is a matter of significant public importance which will influence the living standards and prosperity of every single Australian in this country. I argue that the Howard government has failed to recognise the long-term challenges facing Australia’s economy and I commend the member for Lilley, the shadow Treasurer, for raising this issue today. It is vital that we take this government to account for their underinvestment in the critical infrastructure, human capital and skills needed to ensure Australia’s future economic growth and competitiveness in a global economy. This is an economic debate that we as a nation must have. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in question time yesterday, the 2006 OECD report lists Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States as all having higher economic growth rates than Australia. This is something that we must address in the nation’s long-term interest.
In my maiden speech to this parliament back in 2004 I made it plain that one of my top priorities in this parliament would be to work tirelessly for a healthy economy. Prior to entering this place, I had the privilege of working in the office of the South Australian Treasurer and Deputy Premier over a period where sustained investment in vital infrastructure in combination with tight fiscal responsibility turned our state’s economy around. Investment in health, education, skills and law and order by the Rann government was combined with solid economic growth, the delivery of budget surpluses, record levels of employment and the restoration of our state’s AAA credit rating. It has therefore always been with absolute confidence that I have rejected the federal government’s notion that we must strengthen our economy by making workers cheaper to hire and easier to sack. The opposite has been true in South Australia, where our economic growth has come from job creation and creating a business climate that encourages private investment. In contrast to the intensive investment by the South Australian government in infrastructure and in human capital, we have seen a federal government moving in the opposite direction.
South Australia is a small business state, and I am constantly in dialogue with the many small business owners in my electorate about the crippling impact that the skills crisis has had on their businesses. From their perspective, the greatest possible impediment to economic growth and productivity is a lack of human capital and skills. The frustration coming from business owners in this respect is intense and widespread. While I could talk today at length on the lack of critical infrastructure, particularly in my electorate in the area of broadband, it is on this issue of investment in education and in human capital that I would like to focus my attention today.
Let us first have a look at the economic facts. Australia’s productivity growth has been falling. Benchmarked against the United States economy, Australia’s labour productivity fell back from a peak of 85 per cent to just 79 per cent between 1998 and 2005, almost completely losing the relative productivity gains made under Labor in the 1990s. If we are to secure Australia’s long-term economic prosperity, we must address this decline in productivity and look urgently at this government’s underinvestment in education, skills and trades as one of the root causes of this decline.
The government should be well aware of the link between investment in human capital and prosperity. The point has been made in a number of national and international studies, including in a report by the Productivity Commission in 2002, in which it was concluded:
Skills can directly raise workers’ output per hour worked. Secondly, there is a substantial body of opinion that skills in the workforce increase the rate of innovation through fostering the absorption and further development of technologies.
This point was reiterated last year in the 2006 OECD report Education at a glance, where it was stated that a one-year increase in the average level of education of the workforce would increase the economy by three per cent to six per cent and boost the rate of economic growth by one per cent. The potential for Australia’s economy to grow as a result of investment in human capital is clear, yet the Howard government’s expenditure on human capital has been severely lacking. The statistics make this very clear. Australia lags behind 17 other OECD economies on education investment as a percentage of GDP. With expenditure on education of only 5.8 per cent of our GDP, Australia falls far behind countries like our neighbour New Zealand, at 6.8 per cent, and other major trade partners such as the United States, at 7.5 per cent, and the United Kingdom, at 6.1 per cent.
When we look specifically at the investment in our tertiary institutions, they are suffering particularly from underinvestment. Since 1995, Australia’s public investment in tertiary education has gone backwards by seven per cent, compared with an average increase in other OECD countries of 48 per cent. In fact, shamefully, Australia is the only nation that has cut its public investment in tertiary education. This is an underinvestment in our future that we can ill afford to continue. Tragically, so far this has not been an issue that the federal government have been willing to discuss. In question time earlier this month, when the member for Lilley and the member for Perth put a series of questions to the Prime Minister on Australia’s performance in education, the Prime Minister acknowledged the link between education and national productivity improvement but claimed that the improvements needed were either the responsibility of or being held back by the states or education unions. I for one am outraged that on an issue that is so vital to our nation’s future prosperity—so vital to businesses across Australia struggling to find skilled staff—the Howard government dares to play the blame game rather than take significant and urgently needed action.
If we look further into this government’s failure to invest in Australia’s human capital and take the two vital disciplines of mathematics and science as examples, we see that Australia is again being left behind by other nations. At our universities, only 0.4 per cent of Australian university students graduate with maths and statistics qualifications compared with an OECD average of around one per cent. When it comes to maths and science teachers, nearly half of all senior physics teachers do not have a major in physics and around 25 per cent of senior chemistry teachers do not have a major in chemistry. In addition, 25 per cent of science teachers do not have the qualification and around 25 per cent of maths teachers do not have a major in maths. Australia needs to be encouraging the study of maths and science and offer incentives for graduates to take these skills into related occupations, including the teaching profession.
Rather than indulging in the blame game, as the federal government seems intent upon doing, Labor have been looking at what we can do to achieve this. We have proposed reducing the HECS contribution for new university maths and science students, as well as paying 50 per cent of the HECS repayments of university maths and science students who, as at 2009, engage in relevant maths and science occupations upon graduation. These are the positive measures that are vital to ensure Australia is not left behind in these vital areas and that we remain competitive in a knowledge based economy. This government has failed to address these critical issues.
When we look at the area of skills training for our trades, the federal government has again shown a disinterest in placing Australia in a competitive place on the international stage. Rather than investing in Australia and in young Australians, the government has turned its back on them. Since 1998 it has turned its back on over 270,000 Australians wanting to study at TAFE. This means that, for every imported skilled migrant, at least one Australian has been turned away from TAFE. Again, the government is moving in the wrong direction. What we need, and what Labor has proposed, are incentives to traditional apprentices and the creation of a skills account to encourage further skills training in our vital trades.
In all of these areas—in tertiary education, in the vital disciplines of mathematics and science, in skills and training for our trades—this government has left Australia lagging behind our fellow OECD countries. As we move forward into the 21st century we must recognise that education is not merely social expenditure and a drain on the economic resources of our nation; it is in fact integral to our economic growth. On this side of the House we recognise the potential that greater investment in human capital presents to us. We are a nation intent on competing on the international stage as a knowledge based economy, and investment in this area is our best chance to do that.
I call on the Howard government to follow our lead and take the urgent steps necessary to return our international competitiveness on the issues of education and skills. Only when we see the adequate investment in human capital—in our kids, in our schools, in our university students and in our tradespeople—will we reap the economic benefits at our fingertips. If we are to secure this long-term prosperity we must address the decline in productivity and urgently look at the investment in human capital. (Time expired)
It is extraordinary that for the Labor Party the Australian economy, something with which the livelihoods of some 20-plus million Australians is directly connected, comes down to a prewritten speech about university politics by the member for Adelaide, a marginal seat member whose only real exposure to the Australian economy is through the trade union movement—and, no doubt, prior to that, through student politics. The member for Adelaide comes into this chamber as part of the debate instituted by the member for Lilley to talk about the ‘failure of the government to recognise the long term challenges facing the Australian economy and formulate policies to underpin future economic growth and living standards’. The response from the Australian Labor Party to the very motion moved by the Labor Party is some feeble speech about university politics and some kind of waiver on HECS fees. If that is the sum total of Labor’s policy position with regard to the Australian economy, then I would say to the Australian people that they should be very concerned if the Labor Party ever gets their hands on the reins of the Australian economy.
I would like to turn in particular to some of the comments that were made by the member for Lilley. The member for Lilley waxed lyrical for some length of time about how there were some serious challenges facing the Australian economy and how Australians ought to be concerned about the significant decline that he had seen in several key economic indicators. The only decline that immediately sprang to mind was the unemployment rate. If it was not the unemployment rate then it was the level of public debt. We have certainly seen two very significant declines in those two key economic indicators.
But we have not really heard too much more from the member for Lilley about what exactly he was talking about, except insofar as he talks about productivity growth. I have heard the member for Rankin, the member for Lilley and now the member for Adelaide. They have all got a little bee in their bonnets about productivity growth and how productivity growth really underscores the big problems that currently, according to the Australian Labor Party, the Australian economy is facing.
What does someone who is really in a position to judge objectively have to say about productivity growth? I turn to some comments made only last week by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens. I will quote from testimony that he produced to the economics committee. He said:
I think all this stuff—
he is referring to productivity growth—
is long-run, grinding, incremental improvements. They are made by businesses, of course. By and large governments cannot create productivity; all they can do is make sure that the overall environment is not somehow inadvertently impeding it. It is the businesspeople and their employees who actually do the things that are needed to get the productivity. That is no easy task and it is a kind of relentless, grinding process. But other countries do it. I do not see any reason why our businesspeople and employees cannot.
That is the view of the Reserve Bank governor. He says governments cannot create productivity; all governments can do is make sure that we get the conditions for business right. In that respect, the coalition government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have a proud boast when it comes to getting economic conditions right for the Australian economy. What we know is that economic conditions have never been this good in Australia. The reason they are as good as they are is not, as the member for Lilley asserts, that there has been some kind of resources boom and that is the rationale for the whole thing; it is because of careful, disciplined and responsible economic management.
I would also turn the Australian people’s attention to a body that has a bit to say about the resources boom for Australia. We heard the member for Lilley say that the resources boom was the reason why the economy is going so strongly. There is a very interesting report that the International Monetary Fund put out—the IMF country report on Australia from 21 September last year. The report says:
The results show that increases in export commodity prices were clearly not the main driving force behind the strong fiscal performance of the general government in recent years. In particular, even after the adjustment for commodity prices, the general government balance remains in surplus in each of the past nine years.
So even the IMF refutes the member for Lilley’s claim that the resources boom is all we can talk about. So we know that the Reserve Bank governor says the Labor Party is wrong. We know the IMF says the Labor Party is wrong. And we know that the proof of history demonstrates that Labor’s policies with regard to the economy are an abysmal and total failure. If you need any reminder of that then I would turn to one of the key economic indicators in Australian society—and that is unemployment.
What mums and dads want to know about is whether their sons and daughters will be able to get a job. What the kids of tomorrow want to know about and what those who are studying at universities, TAFE colleges and Australian technical colleges want to know about is whether there will be a job for them when they finish their studies. In this respect, it is this government’s proud boast that it has got economic conditions to the point where we have a 32-year low in unemployment, down to 4.5 per cent. That is the boast of this government.
It is interesting that we hear the Australian Labor Party claim that they spent so much more money on education and training than this government have. We have already heard from the Treasurer that this ignores the fact that they do not take into account total sector investment. I have heard the Labor Party claim many times that they spent so much more money on training. Perhaps there is a simple rationale for this. If you consider that, under the Labor Party, there were a million Australians sitting on the scrap heap of unemployment—there were over a million Australians looking for a job—you might then start to understand why a government that was running a $10 billion budget deficit might start throwing money at training. For every Australian they moved into the training queue, they made sure they did not have one sitting in the unemployment line.
That is the reason why the Labor Party invested so much money in training. It had nothing to do with future proofing the Australian economy. It had everything to do with trying to set the record in a more rosy light when it came to the former Treasurer and Prime Minister Paul Keating. That is the record of the Australian Labor Party. I say to any member opposite that I know that the parents in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast—and, indeed, across the length and breadth of this country—would rather that their child were able to move into a high-paying job under 16.8 per cent real wages growth any day of the week than have the Australian Labor Party take control of Australia’s economic levers and turn us back to the kind of economic distress that we had when the Labor Party were last in charge.
We have a proud track record when it comes to ensuring that this country is set up for the future. Another case in point that I would highlight to reassert this is that we have been looking forward to the future. In fact, our concern over the lack of investment in schools and TAFE colleges by state Labor governments directly led to this government making sure that we rolled out the Investing in Our Schools program and the Australian technical colleges. The Commonwealth government—the coalition government—had to introduce these new policies because the Labor Party at the state level, across the east, west, north and south of this country, were doing such an appalling job at providing opportunities for young Australians. Those policies exist because we believe in investing in schools and investing in technical and trades education. The member for Adelaide spoke about TAFE colleges turning students away. A newsflash for the member for Adelaide: TAFE colleges are run by Labor governments at the state level. The underinvestment in TAFE colleges is a consequence of an underinvestment by state Labor governments who are swimming in surplus GST funds. That is the track record of the Australian Labor Party.
I am pleased to be part of a disciplined and responsible government that has seen the Australian economy sustain 15 years of continuous economic growth, that has repaid $96 billion of Labor Party debt and that is saving over $9 billion every year which we are able to invest in schools, hospitals, roads and transport. All of these investments are possible because this government has repaid that $96 billion black hole that was left by the Australian Labor Party. I am pleased to be part of a government that has brought the unemployment rate down to a 32-year low and that sees over 400,000 Australian apprentices now getting job-skilled and job-readied in the workplace. This is a proud track record and it highlights the fact that this government is responsible with the Australian economy—nothing like the 13 years of recklessness that we saw from the Australian Labor Party. We cannot go back there again. The consequences would be the same because Labor policies are still the same as they were in the late eighties and early nineties.
I am just a humble backbencher. When we talk about the economy, for me, in my electorate of Parramatta, it comes down to two basic groups: families—whether they be married couples with children or without children, or individuals—and businesses. The whole economic argument comes down to whether families and businesses are doing well now, whether the government is improving their capacity to do well in the future and whether the government is leaving holes that some of those families and businesses fall through and thus get left behind.
Over the last 15 years, we have experienced an extraordinary period of growth. It is a period of growth that the world has not seen before and probably will not see again for quite some time. It is not just to do with us. The world is being pulled along by extraordinary growth in China and India, a booming world economy and a more-than-healthy commodities market. It is a once in a generation opportunity not just to grow as a nation but also to improve our capacity to do well in the future, to consider our position in the world, to gear up, to retool, to retrain, to improve our position and to make a real difference in our capacity to prosper in future years.
In some ways it is as if we have inherited an enormous sum of money from a rich Chinese relative. Under the Howard government, we have retired to live off the cash. The problem, of course, is that most Australians are not retired or anywhere near it—certainly the families and businesses in my electorate are not. They are trying to build a future. They are trying to do well now and they are trying to make sure that in future they also have the capacity to do well. This once in a generation windfall—this once in a generation opportunity—which has come out of this booming world economy should have been used to assist those two groups in my community to support their future.
When we talk about the economy and the report card of the Howard government, I do not ask the Treasurer because I do not really want a 15-minute comedy routine and I do not want to hear the crowing about how ‘they have never had it so good’. In my electorate, they are telling me a different story. I listen to those two groups. I listen every day to families when I am doorknocking and when I am out in the electorate. I will tell you what they are telling me. They are more in debt and more vulnerable to economic cycles because of that debt. They have far less security in the workplace because of the extreme industrial relations laws, which makes them more vulnerable to changes in the economy. They are facing rising prices in child care and private health insurance. They are facing interest rates that are among the highest in the OECD and ridiculously high costs of education that are prohibitive for some.
Do they feel that their capacity to do well is improving? No, they do not. What they say to me is, ‘If the economy’s going so well, why is it so hard?’ Why is it, if this country is sailing with favourable winds, that families in my electorate feel that they are sailing against the wind? When I talk to businesses I get similar stories. Do they feel that the government is improving their capacity to do well? No. They talk about skills shortages, about lagging behind the rest of the world in broadband, about infrastructure bottlenecks and about investment in our future in this country relative to what the rest of the world is doing, because, as we are sailing in favourable winds, so are the rest of the economies of the world. It is not just about this economy feeling that we are doing well. It is not just about moving forward. It is about moving forward relative to the rest of the world.
You do not even have to listen to business to find out that things are not what they should be. You only have to look at the single best indicator of future capacity, and that is productivity growth. The national accounts for the September quarter show that productivity has failed to grow since the June quarter in 2004. But that alone is not the whole problem, although that is six months of a lack of productivity growth. Productivity has failed to grow since the June quarter in 2004. That is more than two years with zero net productivity growth. But this slowing is not even recent; the story is worse than that. The annual labour productivity growth slumped to 1.6 per cent this decade compared to 2.7 per cent last decade. So, while we have been sucked along by the commodities boom, what we do not see underpinning this apparent prosperity is the conditions that our business needs to do well. We know that that lack of productivity growth has been caused by the failure of the government to invest in education. (Time expired)
I must say I am absolutely surprised that the member for Parramatta and the Labor Party could consider our current economic position as some form of happy accident blown along by favourable winds. It really is quite astounding. The member for Lilley has no credibility in economic matters. The member for Lilley has no credibility at all. He is just pursuing policies that are nothing more than rank populism. When it comes to economics, when it comes to sound policy, the member for Lilley, or the supreme rooster, really has nothing to crow about. He is a member of a party that trashed the Australian economy, that left us with $96 billion worth of debt and that pushed interest rates through the roof and threw a million people on the scrap heap.
This government have done the hard yards. We have not been using these favourable winds, as you say, to somehow blow into some wonderful utopian harbour. We have got the budget into surplus through hard work and through the hard work of the Australian people, we have repaid Labor’s debt, we have reduced unemployment to 4½ per cent and we have put in place policies that are going to ensure Australia’s future. We believe there is no future in unemployment, no future in high interest rates and no future in high government debt. The overwhelming body of evidence shows that a more flexible labour market produces superior outcomes for employers, employees and the economy.
But what do the Australian Labor Party propose to do? They want to reintroduce unfair dismissal laws. How is that going to make this country more productive? They want to re-regulate the labour market. How will more regulation make the economy more productive? We are in an economy that is running at capacity. We are pushing the speed limits. This government is implementing policies to smooth out the bumps in the road, to allow the economy to operate at a higher level of speed and to allow it to employ more people. It is dragging the long-term unemployed into the workforce and it is increasing the participation rate, and the ALP wants to turn back the clock. The ALP wants to re-regulate. The ALP wants to lower the speed limits. Lower speed limits mean higher costs to business, increased inflation and increased interest rates. That is what the sort of strategy that the Australian Labor Party is proposing is going to bring to this country.
On skills development this government has introduced the Australian technical college concept—providing quality trade type training to students in years 11 and 12. We have implemented the Skills for the Future program—upskilling mature adults, providing the ability to get into mature age apprenticeships, providing for more engineers and providing for tradespeople to increase their skills. These are tremendous policies. Yet what does the Labor Party think of the Australia technical colleges? Like every reform we introduce, they oppose it. If we propose a reform that will improve this country, they oppose it—just like Australian technical colleges. They are against that.
This government believes that climate change is an issue which is a real challenge to this nation. But we believe it has to be approached in a responsible way. If we are going to implement the sorts of policies that will take this country forward and ensure our future, our response to climate change has to be sustainable. The Australian Labor Party is tending to adopt a sort of magic pudding approach, where miraculously you can reduce greenhouse gases, you can save the world and it will cost no-one anything—not a dollar. It is all going to come for free—just listen to the member for Kingsford Smith. It does not seem to cost anything, or at least he has not worked that out anyway.
Labor’s climate change policy has three pillars: firstly, destroying the coal industry; secondly, ratifying Kyoto; and, thirdly, praying for renewables. It really is a magic pudding policy. We believe that the Kyoto protocol certainly is not the solution to climate change. It fact, the NUS Consulting Group study on electricity costs showed that, for instance, in the United Kingdom in the year 2005-06 electricity costs to commercial consumers went up 41½ per cent. Many of the European countries encountered huge increases in power in 2005-06. But the member for Kingsford Smith does not seem to know what climate change is going to cost. This government believes we need a balanced approach. We need continued economic reform. We have to meet the challenges of climate change on a basis that is economically sustainable.
Order! The time allowed for this discussion has concluded.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the relisting of the Abu Sayyaf Group, Jamiat ul-Ansar, the Armed Islamic Group, and the Salafist Group for Call and Combat.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The committee first considered the listing of these organisations in 2004. This is a review of the second relisting of these organisations. During a private hearing held in relation to this review, the committee discussed the process of choosing between those organisations which are selected for proscription and those which are not. This process has been touched upon in previous reviews, but the committee continues to be unconvinced as to the robustness of the process. While some organisations which now seem to be concentrating their activities in their own countries and demonstrate no links to Australia, Australians or Australian interests are proscribed, others which have membership and links to Australia have not been proscribed.
The committee was advised by ASIO that many of the organisations currently proscribed in Australia belong to a jihadist network which is global and thus, while there may not be current evidence of connections to Australia, the organisations can work into Australia through networks which can lead to people being brought into Australia. The committee was assured that other more prominent groups have not been ignored and they are being kept under constant review.
At the private hearing the committee specifically sought information about the activities of the groups under review since the last relisting of the organisations. The committee was told that where there is a lack of available new evidence regarding each or any of the organisations, this does not necessarily mean that the organisation is not still active and dangerous. A lack of evident activity may mean that the organisation is preparing for a future act of terrorism. The committee accepts that this may be the case, but it believes that it is by examination of new information that it can best decide if a relisting is warranted, and thus the committee continues to urge the Attorney-General and ASIO to provide it with as much relevant up-to-date information as possible when seeking to relist a terrorist organisation.
In view of the limited amount of information about recent activities of the groups under review, the question of the adequacy of using only information from open sources to assess listings and relistings of groups was discussed at the private hearing. The committee found that, in at least one of ASIO’s statements of reasons, the evidence for relisting from open sources was not sufficient to provide a basis for relisting the organisation and, therefore, the conclusion must be drawn that ASIO had made an independent assessment, using information that may not be open source.
ASIO advised the committee that it uses a number of sources of publicly available information on terrorist groups, but often the information from those sources is not up to date when compared to what ASIO has learned about the group through intelligence. Thus, ASIO’s statements of reasons use open-source material backed up by intelligence.
It was parliament which originally decided that only open-source material would be used when assessing the listing of a terrorist organisation and that security matters would not be discussed in a disallowance motion. This was not at the request of ASIO and the process has always relied to some extent on ASIO backing up open-source evidence with its intelligence when it decides to list or relist a group.
Using the statements of reasons and other publicly available information, the committee measured the four groups, to the extent possible, against ASIO’s stated evaluation process. The committee found evidence that at least one of the organisations has become much less active in the last two years. However, the committee will err on the side of caution with respect to these relistings and will not recommend to the parliament that any of these regulations be disallowed, even though the evidence for relisting one or more of the groups could be deemed to be inadequate for the committee to judge the case for proscription with confidence.
Regarding consultations with the community, the committee noted that, except for the Attorney-General’s Department’s media release on the making of the regulation on 3 November 2006, no actions were taken to inform the community of the relistings. The committee reiterates its previous concerns that lack of adequate community consultation means that the community is not properly informed of its obligations with regard to the relisted organisations.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the committee, who continue to undertake their duties in a bipartisan fashion and who recognise the need to put the national interest and effective parliamentary scrutiny of highly sensitive matters before any partisan political interests. The work of the committee continually presents the members with the challenge of reconciling the demands of national security with parliamentary and public scrutiny. May I also thank the secretariat to this committee for their time and effort in presenting this report. I recommend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee report entitled Corporation Amendments Takeover Bill 2006 exposure draft, together with the evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The report looked into the subject matter and the exposure draft. It was a short, sharp and sweet look into this issue as there was a necessity for the Takeovers Panel to have a decision made fairly quickly. I would like to thank the secretariat for the speed with which this was all arranged.
The bill proposes amendments to chapter 6 of the Corporations Act 2001, which regulates corporate takeovers and the powers of the Takeovers Panel. According to the explanatory statement, the bill is designed to allow the panel to continue to act in an informal, efficient, effective and expeditious manner; to act as the primary forum for dissolving disputes during takeover bid periods; and to rely on the special expertise of its members. In particular, the bill proposes to amend the definition of ‘substantial interest’; allow the panel to take account of likely future effects of circumstances; before the panel makes an order, limit those able to make submissions to each person to whom a proposed order is directed; and set a time limit for the panel to review the decision of an earlier panel.
The bill was prompted by the Federal Court’s Glencore decisions, which interpreted the limits of the jurisdiction of the panel as set out in current legislation. Concerns were raised with the government that, as a result of Glencore, the panel’s powers and jurisdiction could be viewed in a way that is too narrowly formulated to enable the panel to perform effectively the role envisaged for it by parliament. The panel has been working successfully, and we did not want to see its powers limited.
The panel is the main forum for resolving disputes about a takeover bid until the bid period has ended. The panel is a peer review body, with part-time members appointed from the active members of Australia’s takeovers and business communities. The president of the panel, Mr Simon McKeon, described to the committee the operations and compositions of the panel:
... in the seven years that we have been operating, our focus has been on providing a dispute resolution regime that is informal, expeditious and, most importantly, has the support of the market that we operate in. It is a peer review model. There are approximately 46 members of the Takeovers Panel, drawn from a wide variety of professions and businesses in this country and each appointed for the contribution that they can make to resolving takeover disputes in this country.
The committee resolved that the bill should be adopted if the two recommendations in the report were adopted. The first recommendation is:
The committee recommends that the Government introduce an amendment to new paragraph 657A(2)(b) to replace the phrase ‘having regard to’ with ‘because they are inconsistent with or contrary to’.
The second recommendation is:
... that once the bill is passed by the Parliament the Government commence a consultation process with a view to amending Chapter 6C of the Corporations Act 2001 to establish a robust framework for the disclosure of equity derivatives relating to corporate takeovers.
In this world of new financing, there are many ways that takeovers can be formulated. There are many ways that financing can be raised, and we need to ensure that the parliament is on top of these before they happen and not after the event. I recommend the report to the House.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senators Brandis and Mason have been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that Senators Adams and Fierravanti-Wells have been appointed members of the committee.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
Debate resumed from 26 February, on motion by Mr Brough:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sydney has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I rise today to speak on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, which will establish the government’s Department of Human Services access card. Labor supports the use of smartcard technology to improve service delivery and reduce fraud, but there are huge holes in this legislation. It certainly does not establish a framework for operation and administration that is even close to watertight. The member for Sydney has already moved a second reading amendment outlining many of Labor’s concerns, and I support the comments that she has made with respect to this bill.
This bill omits crucial aspects of the card’s operation, such as the appeal and review process and information protection features. I particularly want to talk about those in relation to health matters. Sadly, this bill has also missed the opportunity to make sure that this powerful technology is a viable vehicle for e-health programs. Worryingly, it seems that the government cannot even get its story straight on exactly what it wants this card to do. The current Minister for Human Services has portrayed the card as a time saver and a fraud stopper. The former minister portrayed it as an administrative revolution, with all sorts of bells and whistles. Yet the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who introduced the bill in this place, told us it was solely a mechanism for streamlined service delivery.
It seems that the ministers are at cross-purposes on the uses of the card. Some want it to be all things to all people and others want to assure us that it will have few functions outside accessing government services. What is clear, however, is that this legislation does not pave the way for improvements to current e-health. This is disappointing because this technology could herald positive developments in e-health, but this does not seem likely to happen because of the government’s incompetent handling of this issue. For example, despite the fact that previous e-health trials, like the Tasmanian Medicare smartcard, are being wound up with the introduction of this card, we have been told by the member for Longman that this card would ‘not be an electronic health record’. There is potential—and I emphasise ‘potential’—for health information to be stored on the card, on the public section if you as an individual so choose, but this bill has shirked any responsibility to ensure that the information on the public section of the chip will be protected.
The government-commissioned KPMG report suggests that the card would be a single point of access for personal and emergency contact details and personal health information voluntarily supplied and managed by the cardholder. Aside from the privacy concerns which I shall raise shortly, the provision of medical information by non-medical professionals could lead to incorrect treatment if this information is used in an emergency. As it stands in the proposed legislation, you may, if you wish, put your penicillin allergy, your blood type or the name of your next of kin on the public section of the card in case of emergency. That sounds harmless enough, but this information would be readily available and accessible to anyone with a card reader. While this of course sounds okay and sensible in an emergency, what about when you lodge your application for family tax benefit? Do we really want all Centrelink staff to be able to access this health information—or a real estate agent or the bank?
We need to look at a more secure way to maintain emergency medical information. The access card in general raises serious privacy issues. In its latest discussion paper on voluntary medical and emergency information, the government’s own Access Card Consumer and Privacy Taskforce has looked into the privacy concerns around medical information on the card. The task force’s discussion paper recommended that the customer controlled area of the access card should contain a two-tiered system of emergency and health information in which the first tier should only list data which is absolutely necessary for emergency health treatment. According to the task force, the second tier would contain other medical and health data which should be PIN protected. It is unfortunate that no such considerations have been flagged in this legislation and no regulation of the public section of the card has been set out.
In commenting on the exposure draft, the Australian General Practice Network stated that the government needed to be more forthcoming in relation to the public section of the card. The report sets out a number of other considerations on the voluntary storage of health information, and I look forward to the task force findings, although I do hope that the recommendations are enshrined in the legislation and not developed simply as voluntary protocol. Last year, the former Minister for Human Services even floated the idea that stakeholders like the AMA may want to set up their own uses for the card. But surely you cannot introduce a card that will be held by almost every Australian and then open up the uses to a range of private stakeholders and provide no regulation.
Bear in mind, as I have already indicated, that Labor are not opposed to the use of technology in the health system. In fact, we clearly understand that e-health does have the potential to bring about a range of improvements in the delivery of health services in Australia. For example, if it is done right, e-health can make accessing health services more convenient and efficient for patients and streamline and improve care by removing duplication and reducing the risks of conflicting treatment or overprescribing. This was succinctly put by Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, the President of the AMA—that is, e-health is about giving health professionals access to:
... the right information [for] the right patient at the right time in the right place in order to deliver the best quality health care.
It does not seem, however, that this card is going to do any of that.
While there are clearly enormous benefits to e-health, there remains some work to be done in ensuring public confidence in any system that is developed. By floating thought-bubbles about private stakeholders using the access card to develop e-health records, the government does nothing to secure public confidence in the system. By skiving off and dodging the hard decisions, not only has the government missed an opportunity to move forward on e-health; it has potentially developed a less secure system that will undermine public confidence in years to come. If the government sees potential to use this smartcard technology for e-health, we need to be assured that the health and medical information will remain secure. It is vital that people have the utmost confidence in the security and privacy of their medical records. That is just one of the privacy implications of the card but obviously one which, as the shadow minister for health, I have a particular concern with. There are a range of other privacy matters, and I urge the government to accept Labor’s amendments to address these problems. I will not deal with them further in my speech, as many other speakers have already done so.
I do, however, have a particular interest in another range of provisions that deal with the eligibility for the access card which will have significant ramifications for young people. Under the current procedures, people aged 16 and over are eligible to obtain their own Medicare card. This legislation will now restrict eligibility for the card to those over 18. People under 18 who wish to have their own card must request a determination from the secretary of the department to be exempted from this provision. This administrative hurdle has the potential to deter young people from accessing healthcare services and to financially disadvantage them if they do access those services without a card. It is also enormously impractical for a number of young people who, for a range of reasons, live independently. It certainly goes against the government’s clearly stated aim of merely using this legislation to streamline access to services rather than changing access to them.
This would be a serious departure from current practice in the provision of Medicare services, with no explanation from the government as to why this departure is necessary. It could, of course, be us revisiting another version of the Minister for Health and Ageing’s controversial plan of several years ago to raise the age at which parents can access their children’s medical records. The plan, at the time, was shouted down by members of the government’s own backbench and by the AMA, just as this provision should be now. The AMA strenuously opposes this provision and states that it has a significant adverse impact on the rights of young persons to privacy and to make decisions about their health and life—decisions that they are legally and ethically entitled to make—with dignity and free of interference.
It seems that this provision of the bill has been included without considering the ramifications of withdrawing services to these independent young people, and I hope that the government considers amending this provision. I think we can all agree that there should be no impediment to a young person seeking the medical treatment that they need. I have been informed that negotiations are continuing with the government about this issue and that some assurances have been given that a range of guidelines will be introduced which may ensure that the existing rules will continue to apply—but not within the legislation. I call on the government to continue those negotiations in good faith. If this introduction of an access card is actually meant to be about the technology and not about changing entitlements, it should not be used as a backdoor way to change other entitlements which we might have a more forthright debate about in this place.
So I hope that the good work that is being done across the chamber to try to get issues like this one fixed will mean that we will not have to have a debate on this particular issue, because the government will stick to its original stated aim of using this to be about accessing services, not changing people’s entitlements to do so. It is surprising, though, that in this bill—where there are so many blank spaces and where there are so many unknowns about what will be done—there are also provisions that seem very ill considered. For instance, it seems nonsensical to start registration for the card before the government has finalised the document verification service and the scheme that will go with it. Without a verification system, this fraud-busting revolution, as it is described by the government, will be based upon documents that are readily falsified, such as birth and marriage certificates. Labor has put forward sensible amendments in relation to this service and it would be careless of the government to overlook them.
Equally troubling—and of particular interest for my electorate and, I know, for my colleagues here at the bench—is the uncertainty around what documents will be required for registration and whether overseas birth and marriage certificates will be accepted in obtaining an access card. While I understand the difficulty in verifying these documents, we do have to accept that we live in a nation of migrants. Over a third of the population in my electorate were born overseas, and any number of them, of course, married overseas. What provision will there be to enable us to establish the identities of these people in order for them to have the card? Surely they are entitled to enjoy the right to universal health care and to access government services as they do now. But no thought has been given to how they will be able to produce documents for registration that are acceptable under this scheme.
There remain several further questions about the access card: the use of the public section, the documents required to obtain it, the age requirements, the treatment of dependants, document verification and privacy. While I understand that a number of these issues—and others have been raised—may be addressed in future legislation, it is not good enough to run government on a promise. This is a major change. The government has taken a long time to work through it. It is not adequate to say: ‘Just trust us on this. Let’s just do this part and then we’ll fix the rest in the future.’ You cannot and should not rush such an important piece of legislation and say that you will leave the tricky bits until later on. Surely Australians deserve better than this half-baked legislation that creates more questions than it answers.
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)
In rising to speak in the debate on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007, I must say I am amused by the turnaround of the Prime Minister in supporting legislation such as this, given his opposition in 1987 to the then Hawke Labor government’s push for a national identity card. The government says, with its platitudes, that the access card in this legislation is not going to be a national identity card; the truth is otherwise. The practical nature of what is on this card and the purposes for which it is going to be used mean that it will be a national identity card, notwithstanding the fact that clause 6(2) of the legislation says:
It is also an object of this Act that access cards are not to be used as, and do not become, national identity cards.
It seems to me that the government has got itself caught in the politics of the situation. We are getting platitudes thrown about saying: ‘Oh no, this isn’t the 1987 card; this is something different. It’s going to overcome fraud, it’s going to do all these wonderful things.’
In relation to requiring production of an access card for identification, clause 45 says:
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person requires you to produce your access card or someone else’s access card; and
(b) the person does so for the purposes of identifying you or someone else; and
(c) if the person is a delegate—
and it goes on. There is a penalty of imprisonment for five years or 500 penalty units. It beggars belief to think that members of the public will not require the production of these cards to verify identity. The government is saying on the one hand, ‘We have all these safeguards and requirements that are going to stop fraud,’ but what about business men and women who want to make sure that a fraud is not being perpetrated against them when they are dealing with a particular person? On the other hand, the government is saying that ordinary members of the public are not allowed to require these cards to be produced as proof of identification. It is not consistent on the one hand to say that this is about stopping fraud and other things associated with it but on the other hand for there to be a five-year imprisonment threat hanging over the heads of the general public if they ask for the access card as proof of identity.
We all know that when drivers licences were first introduced with photo IDs they were not going to be used for identification purposes. Of course, drivers licences are now commonly used for identification purposes. It is fair to say that that is what these cards are going to be used for. I do not care what is in the legislation in prescription of the penalty; the average punter in the street will be required to produce these cards in a range of transactions as requisite proof. I say: what is wrong with that, if this is part of the ether we are going to work through in the future? There is an inconsistency there. If we are going to introduce this, let us be honest and fair dinkum. I think a number of these provisions have slipped into the legislation as a compromise, to provide false hope, as an appeasement for some of the critics of the access card within the government and the general community. It is subject to criticism because it has not been properly thought through by the government.
The cost of its introduction has been quoted by other speakers, and I will come to that later. There has also been secrecy involved on the part of the government in not releasing figures so that we can have an informed debate on the cost of the implementation of this card. I am always concerned when governments refuse to release information. To me, natural cynic that I am, when governments do not release information, that means they have something to hide. There is a claim in relation to savings but the government refuses to release the cost-benefit case for the card. I suggest one could assume that it is not favourable to the government to release such information. To argue that it is commercial-in-confidence is, I think, a false argument. The public and we as legislators are entitled to that material to properly evaluate the pros and cons for the introduction of this card.
Producing relevant documentation to obtain a card is going to come at a cost to members of the community, not to mention what I think is going to be the length of time it is going to take to register all the relevant people. Extraordinarily, the government just dismisses that. I read somewhere that, on average, it is going to take 12 minutes to register each person. The truth is it will take longer. Any of us who have been involved in assisting people to fill out forms knows that it will take longer.
I note that there is a discretion for the secretary concerning material that may be required in relation to homeless and itinerant people—I would include Indigenous people. I think that is appropriate. Again, what it shows is that there will be a different standard of documentation for the production of the cards. I notice an assertion or statement of fact in the second reading speech that:
The Medicare card is cheap and easy to fraudulently copy.
Some examples were given and in each case it was said:
In each of these cases a false identity was created.
We are told:
With the new access card, the registration process for the card will require people to provide robust proof of their identity through substantially improved procedures.
Unlike the current arrangements, the new system will detect people trying to register under two identities. We will be able to catch fraudsters before it costs Australian taxpayers large, and often unrecoverable, amounts of money.
The truth is that fraud will be perpetrated through these cards. Let us not deceive one another. Criminal elements and people who are hell-bent on engaging in fraud find ways and means of manipulating the system to produce fraudulent identification. So this is not going to be a foolproof system. I do not care what the government say. I think there is plenty on the record to show that, in this instance, they are wrong. Indeed, in the debate last night, one of their own members, the member for Moncrieff, Mr Ciobo, was honest enough to say:
The notion that in some way this card is unable to be forged is wrong. It of course can be and will be forged. In that respect, production of the access card as a form of identity verification is of no consequence whatsoever.
He quite rightly makes the point that you can get identification fraud in relation to this particular card.
I raise that because I say let us have an honest debate and not a dishonest debate. Let us own up honestly to what the flaws and positives in the system are. Just in case you think I am invoking only the member for Moncrieff, my speech notes contain a copy of comments taken from a speech made in 2005 by Dame Stella Rimington, the former chief of MI5 in the UK. In relation to the UK ID card, she said:
ID cards have possibly some purpose.
But I don’t think that anybody in the intelligence services, particularly in my former service, would be pressing for ID cards.
My angle on ID cards is that they may be of some use but only if they can be made unforgeable—and all our other documentation is quite easy to forge.
If we have ID cards at vast expense and people can go into a back room and forge them they are going to be absolutely useless.
That, of itself, is not a basis for not having these cards. You have to look at what the positives and the negatives are. All I say to the parliament and to colleagues on both sides of the House is: let us have an honest debate and let us be realistic; let us not talk in language that is unreal—and it is unreal to say that these things cannot be forged.
I also object to a term that was used in the second reading speech. During that speech, reference was made to this bill perhaps being opposed by some on the other side of politics and the phrase ‘friends of fraud’ was used. I think that is unbecoming of the government and unbecoming of a second reading speech. That is a cheap political point. It is not even a decent political point. It demeans the debate and, in effect, it does not go to what our genuine concerns are—and it is quite pejorative. When people descend to using terms like that, it tells you that they do not have a lot to put forward.
I think, frankly, in reply, we are owed an apology in relation to that term, particularly when you consider that it was the Labor Party in 1987 that actually wanted to introduce an ID card and it was the conservatives that opposed it. There is every chance that, if that proposal had got up in 1987, this would not have been necessary. The Labor Party’s history is not one of going out and aiding and abetting fraud, and I take exception to that term being used in the second reading speech. That is something that I would expect of an over-the-top backbencher; but I would not expect someone introducing a serious bill into this place to turn around and make that allegation against members of the opposition and those who might oppose the introduction of this bill in its current form. I note that already press reports are saying that the government is making some modifications to the bill as a result of the concerns of the honourable member Dr Washer and other government backbenchers. So I found that phrase to be quite offensive.
An argument has been mounted in terms of terrorism offences. The Parliamentary Library has gone into arguments for and against the card assisting counterterrorism and security services, because some terrorists use false or multiple identities. With great respect to the argument put, I have to say that it is a nonsense. Modern terrorists do not have to use false or multiple identities but are quite happy to use their own identity when engaging in terrorist acts. You only have to look at the example of the bombings that took place in London within the last couple of years. They were home-grown terrorists who used their own identities. Basically, they had resolved to die for the cause of terrorism. So that argument, in my view, just does not wash in relation to this bill.
It is interesting that in the second reading debate speeches on this bill government members attacked Labor’s Australia card as ‘a true national identity card’ which was ‘rightly rejected by the Australian people’. There are efforts to differentiate the access card established by this bill by claiming that it will not be a national identity card. I have said already that I believe for all practical purposes it will be an identity card. I think it is quite wrong for the government to be putting in legislation that criminalises what will be in some people’s eyes reasonable requests to get someone to in effect prove their identity before they engage in a transaction that occurs outside the purposes of this act. That is a real inconsistency, I believe, because you are going to criminalise conduct that will be engaged in on a regular basis in the community. I would be very surprised if the government were able to maintain the prosecutions that would flow from that.
The idea that it will not be compulsory for every Australian is a nonsense. If you are going to access the benefits, you are going to be required to, in effect, have the access card. That is compulsion. It is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. It will be compulsory to have this card. It will be compulsory for all those Australians who, for the purposes of the act, are accessing particular benefits. We have heard that it will not be required to be carried at all times. You can leave it at home; you can do whatever you want; but if you do not carry it with you and produce it at the appropriate time then you are not going to get the benefit, and they are inextricably linked. That is where I think the government is being dishonest. I think it would be better if the government just fessed up and said, ‘These are the requirements. This is what we’re producing it for.’
I am not saying that there is not going to be a reduction in fraud as a result of the production of this card. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that we are kidding ourselves if we think that fraud will not still take place even with the production of this card. This card will spawn another industry. That is just a statement of fact based on what has happened in the past every time technology like this has been introduced—there are those in the community hell-bent on abusing it. I concede that that of itself is not a reason not to proceed. That is not my argument. My argument is about having an honest debate. If you are going to proceed then be up-front with the community, tell them up-front and do not put in provisions that are unworkable provisions—and I suggest to you that these are unworkable provisions. As someone who has been in this place for 17 years, who has dealt on a regular basis with people involved in government departments and non-government organisations, I know what happens out there on the street; and so do most members of this place.
The opposition has moved a second reading amendment to this legislation and will foreshadow a number of other amendments in relation to the legislation. We know what will happen, but I think it is inexcusable that the government continues to keep secret key information about the cost of the cards. I think we are entitled to know what it is going to cost. We know it will cost taxpayers a lot of money in terms of getting a card, and in fairness the government have been honest on that. (Time expired)
I rise to address the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. I would like to start by addressing some of the macro issues the member for Banks and others have raised, because these are issues that are valid and that people are concerned about—they are questioning the efficacy and the purpose of this card—and I think it is important that we put some appropriate context around some of these issues. The member for Banks, along with others, has talked about whether this really is an identity card. He raised the issue of whether it is inconsistent for the government to put into this legislation a prohibition on people demanding this card as a form of identification except for the purposes of the act. What he and many others fail to recognise is that it is quite legitimate and it is quite consistent with normal practice for a business—whether it be a bank, a video store or whatever—to demand some form of identification. We have accepted that for a long period of time. It could be a passport or a drivers licence. Under this legislation, if an individual wants to choose to use their access card—and this is the important point that members are not recognising—as that form of identification, they are quite free to do so.
What we are saying is that your video store owner, your bank or the provider of any other third-party service that is not under the purpose of this act cannot demand specifically this card of an individual for the purposes of identification. They can demand identification. They do now. But they cannot specifically demand this card. If I choose to use it, that is up to me—it is my card, it identifies me and it suits that purpose. That is a really important difference from what is being purported—that is, that somehow this will become a default identity card or that people will on a broad basis break this legislation. What we are saying is that you can only demand this card specifically for the purpose that it is intended—which is the delivery of government services.
Others have said, ‘Well, it’s fine to write it in there but at the drop of a hat that could change.’ The fact that it is in the legislation and that there is no ability to change it via regulation means that if a future government did want to take another step and say, ‘Well, now we have this infrastructure we would like to extend this to become an identity card,’ it would still have to come back and pass both houses of this parliament. It is a legislative prohibition, not something that can be changed by a minister or by a department. I think that is as good a protection as what we have right now; we are faced with this bill having to go through two houses of parliament to get to this point. It is a legislative protection. I think it is fairly clear that, whilst this card can be used at the choice of the individual holder for identification, it cannot be demanded by a third party who is not associated with the purposes of this act. That is a really important foundation point to make.
I come to the issue of privacy. A number of people have highlighted their concerns about privacy and said, ‘All of this information is now going to be available to somebody with a card reader.’ It is really important to understand the underlying architecture of the system behind this card. And it is important to understand that each of the relevant departments of the government is going to maintain the existing information technology database and infrastructure. Anyone who has ever used a relational database like Microsoft Access or something where you have a number of tables and some common identifiers that link will find that this is a similar system.
Here, the register for the card will take common identifying information, but none of the detailed information specific to portfolios is going to be stored on the card or accessible to other parties within the system. That means that we will get benefits in terms of the ability to update common information through one entry. As opposed to having to change it with every single department that you have an interaction with, you would do it once and that would spread across the agencies. It provides, at the fundamental design part of this system, privacy for the more detailed information that pertains to each portfolio.
On the surface of the card there is probably going to be less information than most people have on their drivers licence: your name, photo, signature, a card number and the expiry date. That is certainly less information than is on my drivers licence, and less information than is on the drivers licences that most people in Australia carry without any qualms.
On the chip will be that same information as well as some detail about children and dependants, a digitised version of the photo, your concession status and, if you want, a PIN. That information is not a lot different to that provided through things like drivers licences. But, importantly, it does not mean that anyone with a card reader can suddenly access all of your medical records, your Centrelink data et cetera, because they are on separate databases.
Lastly, I turn to the issue of the photograph. Some people have questioned why we need a photograph on the card—or, indeed, the biometric photo. The photograph on the card is an important element in reducing fraud. As the member for Banks and others have pointed out, no system is perfect and it is possible that the physical card could be forged. But it is a little bit like a flight safety model—my background is as a test pilot—because no single system will ensure your safety. So we have layers. In the flight test world and the flying world we call it the ‘reason model’, where you have layers of protections. Collectively they produce the outcome you are after. So, in reducing fraud and protecting privacy, there are a range of protections. No one, by itself, is the answer but together they produce a highly efficient and effective model.
I guess fraud is one of the core principles that underpin this. Australia is a country where we believe in giving people a fair go. We believe in giving those who need it a hand up, but it really gets up our noses when people choose to abuse the support that we have offered to them. Fraud runs into billions of dollars each year but it is going to be overcome, in part, by the provision of these photographs.
Let us take a couple of examples. There was a woman who, between 1999 and 2005, fraudulently claimed the parenting payment single and family tax benefit by creating a number of false identities for herself and 18 children who did not exist. Through her employment she was able to get hold of forms to certify the births and she received over $600,000 in social security payments and family assistance that she was not entitled to. I do not think there is a taxpayer in Australia who thinks that that is fair or reasonable.
One of the elements of protection that this card will provide is the biometric photograph. That photograph would mean that if she had gone to register under another name—regardless of how good any of her forged documents were; providing, perhaps, a different identity for her—the data matching would have very quickly flagged that this was something that needed to be looked into. The chances that this would have prevented that fraud are incredibly high. So the biometric photo is an important element.
The photo on the surface of the card is another important element. I will give you another example. Through a tip-off from the public, Medicare Australia identified a person, who, on separate occasions, had fraudulently used Medicare details and identities of other people—remember, the Medicare card at the moment uses decades-old technology; it has a name and a magnetic strip but no other way of identifying the person—to access prescription medication that they were not entitled to. In this case the value was only $1,400, but the principle is that people can abuse the current system, and just the presence of a photograph would be a significant deterrent to the people who engage in that low-level fraud. They would not look to go and spend the money and take the time to have a card specifically made, but in the absence of a photo it is quite easy to do, and they go and do it. Bit by bit, those frauds of $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 add up and start costing the taxpayer a lot of money. As I said, it gets right up the nose of people who are happy to give others a fair go. They do not like to see it abused.
Convenience is probably one of the other benefits that this card will bring out, and I think it is important to highlight. There are a number of cards that are issued to people, and this will reduce not only the cost to government of producing the cards but also the inconvenience to people of carrying the different cards. Importantly, it will reduce the administrative burden for people in maintaining the accuracy of the details on the cards.
It also provides an avenue for veterans to be recognised for the sort of service that they have given to our country. We have done that traditionally through things like the gold card and the white card, and it is important that under this card we make a provision that, if the person wants to, they can have a coloured card that recognises their level of service. If they are a TPI recipient, that can be recognised, and if they have a visual disability because of their service they can have the word ‘blind’ on the card. If they have been a prisoner of war they can have the card annotated with ‘POW’—or ‘war widower’, ‘war widow’, ‘DVA dependant’ et cetera. So it is important that this card does make provision to recognise the service and the sacrifice that veterans have made and to make sure that they get the recognition, the level of service and the entitlements that we as a community owe them for their service.
I want to briefly look at the electorate of Wakefield to say: what difference would this card make in the electorate of Wakefield? That is why I particularly support this card and what it is looking to do. In Wakefield, we have got three main locations where there are Centrelink offices or Medicare offices: in the City of Playford, the town of Gawler and the City of Salisbury there are Centrelink offices; in Playford and Gawler there are Medicare offices. Around the electorate of Wakefield in the smaller country towns, like Watervale, Two Wells, Saddleworth, Riverton and Port Wakefield, various post offices or pharmacies act as agencies for Medicare. They provide services with some of the forms, and there are a couple of part-time agencies for Centrelink that operate out of Balaklava and Clare. This means that there are a range of people who live in those more remote communities who have to travel significant distances in order to access services.
A number of government agencies have reported an incredibly high number of occasions where people come in and find that they have not got all the details or documentation they need to complete a transaction. Having this card will be one way to mitigate some of that unnecessary travel and they will potentially be able to update details in their locations rather than having to come down to Gawler, Playford or Salisbury.
More specifically, I wish to talk about some areas that are recognised as having a high degree of dysfunction and disadvantage in the electorate of Wakefield. As I go around and talk to health providers, providers of welfare services and school principals, it is very apparent that there is a percentage of the population who have low literacy levels. This has a number of impacts on things like employment but equally it has an impact on these people’s ability and willingness to access services that they are entitled to. In fact, one could argue these services are essential to help support them and their families. If somebody is reluctant to admit they cannot fill out a form then the best way to help them is to give them a card or a system whereby they are immediately recognised and the forms can be prefilled with their information.
Obviously, there are programs that we are supporting and looking to put in place to help young people and young parents with literacy skills et cetera but, in terms of helping them to access services, the ability to overcome some of the barriers which include literacy is really important. A card like this will enable them to complete transactions more seamlessly, particularly where that involves access to health care or other benefits. It is important for the welfare and the health and mental wellbeing of those families that we provide as many opportunities as possible for seamless and easy interaction with government services.
In conclusion, I think it is clear that this card has a number of benefits for individuals and for the government. It is not an identity card. I believe that is clear when you look at how it is intended to be used and at the protections in place in the legislation. It will go a long way to reducing fraud. It is going to increase convenience and it will not decrease privacy.
Many of the issues people have raised show they have not taken the time to read the legislation and understand the detail—for example, the issue about age. People have said younger people cannot access the card. If you read the legislation, even the exposure draft, it is clear that what is currently in place for a Medicare card will be grandfathered across to this card. There never has been a prohibition on people under 18 obtaining this card. Just as younger people can obtain a Medicare card today, they will be able to obtain this card.
Lastly and most importantly, I believe that this will enable people in the electorate of Wakefield, whether they are living in the country or the metro area, or specifically those people who struggle with literacy levels, to access better health and welfare services. I strongly support this bill because it supports our community, particularly the more vulnerable.
Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.
I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
I rise today to speak on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. This bill is about the $1.2 billion introduction of the government’s proposed health and social services access card. Labor supports the use of smartcard technology in service delivery. We also support the aims of improving service delivery and reducing fraud in Medicare and social security. But we do not support this proposal. We do not support it because it is full of holes and problems. I fully support the amendment moved by the member for Sydney. I also note, as other speakers have, that Labor reserves the right to move further amendments in the Senate, particularly any amendments to come out of the Senate inquiry.
Today I want to not only focus on the general concerns I have with regard to this bill but also highlight the specific concerns I have as shadow minister for veterans’ affairs. Under this proposal, by 2010 a person will need an access card to obtain any Commonwealth benefit, including Medicare, PBS subsidised pharmaceuticals, social security and, importantly, veterans’ entitlements. The cardholder’s photograph, name and digital signature, along with a new identifying number, expiry date and other information, will appear on the face of the card. Other information will be contained on a chip in the card—some in a public area of the chip, which can be viewed by a simple card reader, and some in a PIN-protected private area. All of the information on the surface and chip of the card will be held in a new massive database called the access card register. Officers at Medicare, Centrelink and other Australian government agencies will be able to access the register.
Labor has three main concerns regarding this current proposal for an access card. Firstly, we are concerned about the accuracy, security and privacy of data to be stored on the card and the database which supports it. Secondly, we are concerned about the registration process and the undue administrative burden that will be placed on people. Thirdly, we are concerned about the cost of implementing and manufacturing the card.
Labor is concerned about the security and privacy of this proposal. Under this proposal, information will be stored on the face of the card, within the chip contained in the card and on a database. The bill provides that a name, personal number, digital signature, photograph and expiry date must be displayed on the face of the card. In addition, people can choose to have their date of birth, veteran status and, if they are blind and on a disability support pension, the fact of their blindness on the face of the card. I am extremely pleased that an appropriate recognition of veteran status will be implemented on these cards. For example, gold card holders will be presented with a gold card and TPI recipients are able to also have their status reflected. This is very important to the veterans community. There had been great fears that this would not be the case. I therefore congratulate the government on at least getting this right.
However, the fact remains that there are real privacy concerns regarding the information that is to be displayed on the face of the card. The respected former ACCC chairman Professor Allan Fels was commissioned by the government to report on the privacy aspects of the card. He recommended to the government that the unique identifying number and electronic signature not be displayed on the card because they are unnecessary and pose a risk to people’s security. The government ignored this recommendation. I think that it is very unfortunate that the government failed to give this recommendation proper consideration. I know many veterans and war widows who remain concerned at the prospect of being defrauded and will now face the possibility of having an access card which they know displays information that the government has been told by an independent expert should not be required. The government should have accepted this recommendation. At the very least, it would have provided the community with greater confidence in this card.
In addition to the information which appears on the face of the card, information will also be contained in a microchip embedded in the card. The information will include data that can be read by a card reader, which can be purchased for a few dollars by anybody at an electronics store such as Dick Smith. It will also contain information that requires not just the card reader but also a personal identification number known only to the cardholder.
Many people may choose to have some health information stored on the public section of their card because in a medical emergency they may not be conscious or able to remember or state their PIN. It is likely, therefore, that medical information will be available to anyone with a simple card reader. I am not sure that the veterans community will appreciate the possibility of their medical conditions being available to strangers. Many veterans and war widows have sensitive medical issues and the last thing they need to worry about is having their privacy invaded.
Labor also has concerns regarding the information that will be stored on the central registry. The registry will contain your date of birth, citizenship or permanent residency status, sex, residential and postal address, date and status of your registration, PIN, veteran status and documents used to prove your identity. It will contain scanned copies of all original documents that have to be presented at the registration interview. This would make the registry an enormously valuable resource for criminals who hack into it or bribe public servants to get access to it. A criminal could steal a whole identity by accessing someone’s registry record. Identity theft is well known in the veterans community, where problems of impostors posing as war veterans have surfaced from time to time.
There are good reasons to be concerned about identity theft in our society. It was reported in August 2006 that 600 privacy breaches occurred within Centrelink, where staff had accessed customer records without proper cause or authorisation. Also, a report by the Child Support Agency found that 405 privacy breaches occurred in nine months. In at least two of these cases, mothers and their children had to be physically relocated at taxpayers’ expense because improper release of information had put them at risk.
Also, there is the problem of errors contained on the central records. According to an internal Centrelink random sample survey conducted by the Audit Office and published in June 2006, around 30 per cent of Centrelink records contained an error which resulted in wrong payment. I am sure that some veterans and war widows would be familiar with the problems of errors in records leading to incorrect payments. It would be a tragic thing if the new central registry exacerbated this problem.
The government has said that this card will be voluntary. This is a false argument for the general population but it is a particularly misleading argument in relation to the veterans community. Veterans and war widows will need the card to access Medicare, medicines covered by PBS, social security payments, their veterans’ entitlements and all government benefits and services that they receive. The government says that it is voluntary, but it is only voluntary if you are willing to forgo these services. Veterans and war widows who refuse to apply for the card will not be able to use any of these services.
Under this proposal all Australians needing access to these cards will have to undergo an interview process. At the interview process they will be required to present a number of documents and provide information to prove their identity and entitlements. The government has not even told us yet what documents they will be requiring, but it is thought that they will at least require Australian-issued birth and marriage certificates. As shadow minister for veterans’ affairs I have deep concerns about this registration process. This will affect at least 299,352 veterans and war widows who currently hold a gold or white card. It also affects non-gold-cardholders in the sense that all Medicare users will need to have access to this card.
Many veterans and war widows have already engaged in lengthy and sometimes stressful application processes for their current entitlements. To have them subjected to another interview and registration process to get a card that they are already entitled to seems to me to be unreasonable. They will have to go through the hassle yet again of collecting copies of forms and information to provide to the bureaucracy. In some cases this could cause them financial harm, as they may have to pay to obtain copies of original birth or marriage certificates.
When the Department of Veterans’ Affairs was asked whether any financial assistance would be provided to the veterans community due to the expected costs of the registration process, the head of the department, Mr Sullivan, replied:
... no, if a person does not have the documentation and wishes to procure it themselves, we are not offering at this stage financial assistance in procuring that documentation.
So we can expect veterans and war widows, again, to be out of pocket in order to register for a controversial card that will give them no more entitlements than they already have. I think veterans and war widows are in a special position, as they have already gone through so much bureaucracy and administrative processes to get what they have; therefore, I believe they should largely be exempted from a registration process. When the department was asked about possible exemptions at the recent estimates hearings, Mr Sullivan, the department head, said:
There will be exceptions where people are exempted from registration, and those will definitely include some of our gold card population, so they would not be required to enrol. As a general rule, a gold card holder would need to register for the access card.
When further pressed on what exemptions there would be, Mr Sullivan replied:
… they have not been decided yet, but people in high-care nursing homes and in palliative care institutions are possible examples.
I welcome this but, as you can see from that response, it is far from certain. Also, a relatively small category of current gold card holders will qualify for this exemption. Therefore, I am not sure why the government is even pushing this bill through before it has decided these issues.
Another concern I have is that veterans and war widows will also be required to travel to different locations to undertake this interview. While there will be some mobile registration vans for regional and remote areas, interviews will not be conducted in the veteran’s home. Many veterans on a high-range disability pension, a totally and permanently incapacitated pension or an extreme disablement adjustment pension will be required to travel. Many of those who fall within this category are restricted in their mobility and are already probably sick of having to travel the distance they are required to travel for their medical treatment. The department has said that it may look at financial assistance for travelling costs but, again, it is not sure. This is not good enough and again I ask: why are we debating this bill when these decisions have not yet been made?
Some of my colleagues in this debate have also raised the prospect of fraud occurring during this registration process, and I share their concerns. It is an issue that the veterans community should be worried about and should insist is fully resolved before we even look at this proposal.
So far I have outlined my concerns about the privacy and security of the card, and the undue administrative burdens that the registration process will place on the veterans community. Another major concern I have is the cost of the card. The government, in an extraordinarily arrogant move, is refusing to release any details of the cost-benefit analysis of this card. It has argued that the card will save money by reducing fraud, but it can produce no evidence of figures on this.
We do know that the card already has a budget of $1.2 billion, a budget that quite possibly will rapidly grow. The great fear is that these growing costs could mean that departments such as Centrelink, Medicare or even Veterans’ Affairs will be required to shoulder some of these costs, which means possible cuts to existing services. This would be completely unacceptable. Instead, the government are asking us today to accept their proposal that is full of holes, a proposal where they cannot provide any evidence of the benefits and one that is extraordinarily expensive.
The bill in its current state is full of holes and raises some real concerns for the veterans community. We should be clear: the Howard government is asking our veterans and war widows to accept a card that raises real privacy concerns, is costly and has yet another long bureaucratic registration process. We are asking our veterans and war widows to accept a card that many individuals and groups—for example, the Australian Privacy Foundation and the Australian Medical Association—have expressed their concerns about.
Even some coalition MPs have expressed their concerns. The member for Moncrieff has said that the access card could become a trojan horse for a national ID card. The esteemed member for Mackellar said that it does not pass the Nazi test, and the Attorney-General has admitted that the access card could in the future be exploited by governments. Yet this is the card the government wants for our veterans community. I appreciate that the government has recognised the importance of having a gold coloured card for veterans who currently possess a gold card and which also specifically recognises TPI veterans. Labor fully supports that. However, this bill is not good for the veterans community. In its current form, it gives the veterans community a card that has real privacy and security concerns that have not been addressed. It gives them a costly and burdensome registration process. It comes at great cost to government and we are yet to see any real evidence of the proposed benefits.
I do think smartcard technologies can make a difference and can be used effectively. However, the current proposal is so full of holes and will cause unnecessary hassle and burdens for the veterans community, which is why I cannot support it as it currently stands. I fully support the amendment moved by the member for Sydney, as it begins to address the problems with this bill. I also note that Labor reserves the right to make further amendments to this bill in the Senate.
I had hoped that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs would have been more successful in representing concerns of the veterans community on this issue. Instead, the government has neglected to consider exactly how this proposal will impact on the veterans community and the fact they will be left with the problems I have outlined today. This is just another example of the veterans community being taken for granted by the Howard government. This card is not good for veterans, it is not good for war widows and it is not good for their families. That is why I cannot support this bill without the appropriate amendments, such as the one moved by the member for Sydney, to address these issues.
I rise tonight to speak on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. I say at the outset that I support the amendment to this bill previously moved by the member for Sydney. The many concerns raised in that amendment have been noted by other speakers today.
Whilst Labor support the use of smartcard technology to improve service delivery in Medicare and social security, particularly with the aim and intention of reducing fraud, we do not support this proposal, because it is full of so many problems that need addressing. Many of those problems are listed in our amendment. Like much—or, indeed, some would say most—of the Howard government’s legislation, the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 has been rushed through without proper consultation, costings or indeed Senate committee input.
Whilst this may be typical of the Howard government, it simply is not good enough in terms of its impact upon Australians. This bill will have serious consequences on the day-to-day lives of all Australians. Firstly, it will be expensive to implement, it will be time consuming for families and it will certainly forever change the way in which Australians access government services. For all of those reasons it therefore deserves careful scrutiny—something which has not occurred in relation to this particular bill.
The human services bill will allow for the introduction of a new microchip smartcard for Australians to access everyday government services. Using smartcard technology, the proposed card will replace up to 17 governments cards—of which the most commonly used are Medicare and Centrelink—in an attempt to streamline government services. In addition, the bill will establish an electronic register of the information stored on the card—information which is likely to be accessed by government departments and the police—with limited frameworks in place to protect this information. It is estimated that 16.5 million Australians will be required to produce an access card to carry out everyday activities such as going to the doctor or applying for Centrelink payments. So we will have a situation where 16.5 million Australians will have their information stored on a register, with limited safeguards in place.
The government claims that it is not an identity card by stealth and it will not be used as a surveillance card. Before outlining the multiple problems with this legislation, it is important to understand exactly what we are talking about here. We are talking about a card which will contain a citizen’s photograph, name, digital signature, identifying number and an expiry date. The register will contain a person’s date of birth, citizenship or residency status, sex, residential and postal address, date and status of registration, PIN, veteran’s status, as well as the documents used to prove the person’s identity. All of this information on 16½ million Australians will be available on one registry. Scanned identity documents for over 16 million Australians will be sitting in this registry and it will be able to be readily accessed. Looking at the bulk of information that will be stored on the card, I would like to know what assurances the government has in place to ensure that this information will not be outsourced offshore and also what safeguards it has put in place to ensure that that does not happen down the track.
Indeed, there are many problems with this bill—privacy, costing, convenience, security and fraud. They are all very valid concerns when considering the implementation of the access card, but none of them has been dealt with appropriately in the legislation in its current form. In looking at these problems, I will first examine those associated with costings, because the government has refused to release the full cost-benefit case for the card. The government commissioned KPMG to report on the business case for the card, but the report has been highly censored. Every time the government speaks about the savings generated by the card, the figures seem to change. When asked for an explanation, the government claims that the information is commercial-in-confidence. KPMG said that the access card could possibly save $1½ billion to $3 billion over 10 years. The government claimed that it will be around $3 billion, and the Prime Minister stated that it could even be $4 billion. Once again with this government, the numbers are all over the place; they do not add up. More importantly, potential savings in relation to fraud could be blown out of the water by the final cost of the card, which is likely to be a great deal more than $1.1 billion.
Perhaps the most serious issues pertaining to this legislation are those of privacy and fraud. There are several facets to my concerns in relation to these. The access card is due to be released before the document verification service will be completed. This system will be an online verification system connected to the states’ registers of births, deaths and marriages and will be able to detect anomalies in documentation produced. However, according to representatives of the Attorney-General’s Department during Senate estimates hearings, it will not be operational until 2010. Surely it is imperative that this technology be perfected long before we roll out this new card. Surely there need to be assurances that this technology will be in place before 16½ million Australians turn up at a registration point, all with their birth certificates.
A recent study conducted by Westpac and the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages found that 13 per cent of all birth certificates presented to banks were fraudulent. Thirteen per cent is quite a high number. Without the document verification service, it is not realistic to manually check all of these certificates. If we calculate 13 per cent of 16½ million, the final figure is about two million. So two million access cards could be given out to the wrong person and used to commit some form of criminal activity. As a former police officer, I saw people engage in a wide range of criminal activity using identity fraud. Whether the cards were lost or stolen, they were used to commit a vast range of offences. I have major concerns about fraud in relation to this card. Also, the fact that the document verification service is not online is a huge concern.
With identity fraud on the rise, the last thing the federal government needs to do is introduce a card which can be easily given to the wrong person. We can and must wait for the document verification system to be operational before going ahead with this card. We need that to ensure that all Australians are protected. This is one of the amendments that Labor has moved in relation to the access card bill. The proposed access card makes the personal information of all Australians staggeringly vulnerable.
Each card will contain a microchip to hold a person’s personal information, but not all of it will be protected with a PIN. This means that, with a stolen card and the purchase of a card reader—which is cheaply available from many electronic stores—an identity could be easily stolen. Interestingly, the government commissioned research on the amount of identity fraud currently occurring in relation to Medicare, PBS and Centrelink cards has been withheld from the public. This information would have been insightful if it had been released. As I said, I have seen many instances of identity fraud and have major concerns about it.
KPMG were not the only experts consulted by the government. In recognising the importance of privacy, the government also commissioned a report by Professor Allan Fels. Professor Fels recommended that to minimise the risk of identity fraud a person’s unique identifying number and electronic signature should not be included on the card. Despite the government stating otherwise, this will be a compulsory card or, as the member for Moncrieff has stated, ‘a Trojan horse national ID card’. Everyday government services will not be able to be accessed without the card.
Another of my concerns is that people under 18 will not be able to receive the card. There seems to be a bit of confusion about where that stands at the moment, which is typical given all the confusion surrounding this bill. It is another example of how the bill has not been properly thought through before being brought before the parliament. I certainly have a lot of concerns about the serious ramifications for those who are aged 16 and who currently have access to Medicare or Centrelink cards.
One of the many groups opposed to the access card is the AMA, who sensibly point out that it will prevent young people from having access to or feeling comfortable seeking medical attention. Very serious issues such as depression or family violence are more likely to be ignored by teens, who would be reluctant to ask their parents for their access card in order to go to the doctor. It is an absolutely outrageous oversight. From a purely practical point of view, hundreds of thousands of teens between the ages of 16 and 18 start apprenticeships, move away from home and generally develop an independence that has not been catered for in this legislation. It seems that under this government it is fine for these Australians to be out there working and paying tax but not fine for them to have independent access to Medicare. Parents will be inconvenienced, having to lend their cards out to their 16- and 17-year-old teenagers, who should certainly be able to have access to one. There seems to be a large amount of confusion on the government side in relation to this matter. It is another example of how this has been very poorly thought out. This is a major issue for those 16- and 17-year olds throughout the community, and it has not been addressed.
One of the other ludicrous aspects of this legislation is the claim by the government that it will take approximately 10 minutes to register for this new access card. This is blatantly ridiculous. Clearly no-one on the government side has recently had dealings with Centrelink or Medicare, as they do not know the time that it takes to go through processes in relation to matters like this. The process will not be as simple as presenting one’s current Medicare card and smiling for a photo, with a machine spitting out a new card. Original identity documents need to be produced—although the government has not decided what identity documents will be required. Conservative estimates suggest that a family of four who need to obtain new original documents could be out of pocket by up to $400 in meeting the requirements. For many people living in my electorate of Richmond who are on fixed incomes, this is very much out of their income range. Having to meet that requirement would be very costly, especially with the cost of living increases that people are incurring at the moment. This would be a huge impost upon their living standards.
Another issue in relation to this is that the government has not decided whether or not to accept overseas certificates, which are more easily forged as we well know. Naturally, a person has no control over where they were born or where their birth was registered. Will this section of the Australian community simply go without an access card and, without that, access to Medicare and Centrelink provisions? On top of this, each person is required to attend an interview to register for the card. That is all very well if you live in a metropolitan area. This legislation is another example of the Howard government’s selling out rural and regional constituents, particularly many of mine in Richmond. While the government states that mobile registration vans will be in operation, I am particularly worried about farming families, who will be inconvenienced and out of pocket in their quest to obtain this new card. We have certainly seen a host of examples of how this government’s legislation is having a negative impact on rural Australia. There was Telstra, then industrial relations and now the access card.
My electorate of Richmond has a large number of senior Australians. Twenty per cent of the electorate are aged over 65. That is one of the highest percentages in the country. Not a week goes by where I do not hear about the immense difficulties that this sector of the population already has in accessing government services. This legislation will not help in the slightest. The registration process will be a nightmare for senior Australians, many of whom do not have the financial resources to track down original documents and who should not need to go through the time-consuming and stressful process of obtaining this new card. Already, I have been contacted by constituents who are understandably concerned at the prospect of their personal information being held on a register where it is vulnerable. I appreciate those concerns. Being in a regional area they have large concerns at having to travel to their interview for it.
It is somewhat surprising that it is up to the opposition to point out all the problems with this legislation. The simple fact of the matter is that, when a less extreme version of this legislation was presented to the parliament in 1986, the now Prime Minister and then opposition leader had no difficulties in understanding the problems with it. In 1987, the then opposition leader understood the privacy concerns of Australians, stating:
It is a major invasion of individual privacy ... It will concern and worry a large number of elderly citizens in Australia.
As I said, in my electorate it is certainly a major concern for many elderly people. Back in 1987, when the then opposition leader understood that this was not what the Australian people wanted, he claimed that:
... the Australian people are revulsed by it. The Australian people do not want it. If you try to ram it down the throats of the Australian people you will pay very dearly in political and other terms.
Then, quite remarkably, the then opposition leader moved a petition which expressed concern about civil liberties, stating that the introduction of a national identification numbering system was not only totally unnecessary but a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. My, how times have changed. Just like on the GST, just like on workplace relations, the Prime Minister has indeed shown his true colours. Australians cannot trust him or his government to keep their word on any legislation—to the detriment of the citizens of this country.
It is my sincere hope that the government will recognise the many shortcomings in this legislation, particularly those issues relating to privacy and to convenience. I hope that they can be honest with the Australian people about the costings to do with this access card. It is vital that the amendments that have been moved by the member for Sydney are supported in order to ensure privacy—which is one of the major concerns—and to make sure that the document verification system is online. Without those amendments, the bill in its original form cannot be supported, because there are too many problems with it and too many concerns about it. I have many major concerns for my constituents in Richmond.
I rise this evening to speak on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. Despite its rather pleasant sounding name, this bill is all about forcing Australians, or some Australians, to carry an ID card. One would think, with a title including ‘Enhanced Service Delivery’, that this bill would deal with some of the complexities that many people face when dealing with government departments and government agencies. This bill will only make it more complex, more costly and more time consuming for members of the public. At a base cost of almost $1.2 billion we must also question whether the government is really getting any value for money either. However, the bill will allow for the introduction of the new access card to replace the Medicare card, the Veterans’ Affairs card and many other entitlement cards. It will establish a new electronic register and specify which information will be held on it. The bill also outlines the registration process for the access card and creates offences for unauthorised demands to produce the card—and, of course, for unauthorised use of the card.
Those of us on this side of the House have expressed numerous concerns about this project since it was first announced by the former Minister for Human Services, the member for North Sydney. As we have progressed through this public debate, very little information has been forthcoming from the government to allay those concerns.
Before I go into more detail on our concerns I would like to point out what I believe to be the arrogance of the government and the disregard it pays to both houses of this parliament. Once again we have seen the government proceed to a tender process, even though the legislation has not passed through either house. Those opposite, I believe, are growing more arrogant and out of touch every day. It is an affront to our processes in this place.
This government has decided to ignore the proper processes of this place and has gone ahead and called for tenders, thereby exposing Australian taxpayers to potentially huge financial risks should the tender specification be altered. I understand that this unacceptable and unnecessary financial risk was exposed only after questioning during Senate estimates hearings on the 16th of this month.
Those opposite, particularly the former minister, the member for North Sydney, have stood in this place and told us that this access card is needed to prevent fraudulent claims to government departments and agencies and to stop identity theft, yet they have provided no hard evidence on how it will do either of these things. At a cost to the Commonwealth of $1.2 billion over four years, this project represents an enormous investment by the Commonwealth. But the government cannot tell us what the financial benefits will be. For example, to pay its way, to justify the prevent-fraud argument, the access card would need to prevent over a quarter of a billion dollars worth of fraud each year, or over $5 million worth each and every day. To put it another way, the government’s current systems in relation to Centrelink, Medicare, the PBS and Veterans’ Affairs would need to be haemorrhaging over $5 million each day—if that is the base of the argument. Is the government telling us that, after more than a decade at the helm, they have let government departments become this susceptible to fraudulent claims? It is fraudulent claims they are using to justify this card. Some may say that is a long bow. But that is the evidence that is in front of me.
I have some specific concerns about the registration process as outlined in the bill. To register for the access card, every adult Australian will have to provide proof-of-identity documents. Currently, there is no way of checking the authenticity of these documents, and there will not be a working system for at least another two years, as I understand it, when the document verification system is due to come online. What is the point in having this access card if it is compromised from day one by people using false, fraudulent or simply incorrect documents to register in the first place? I understand that the member for Sydney has moved amendments in the House to address this particular problem and others. I strongly endorse her amendments. They are practical, common-sense amendments aimed at making this proposal workable. In its current form, it is far from workable.
Many people in my electorate of Canberra have serious and legitimate questions about maintaining proper privacy of information. They are rightly suspicious of anyone, including government, compiling vast amounts of information on them and of how that information may be used. The type and amount of information stored directly on the card is of grave concern. Remember, this card will be able to be read by an ordinary card reader attached to any computer. We have already seen numerous cases around the country of organised criminal groups using this very same technology to rip off credit card holders. There is nothing to prevent people’s whole identities being stolen in this way. With an unprecedented amount of personal information stored on the one card, I am concerned that this access card will become a one-stop shop for identity thieves. It is quite possible. Nowhere else would they be able to get all of this information on just one card—from just one source.
The Australasian Centre for Policing Research has produced an identity crime policing strategy covering identity fraud. It cites a case from the US where a hospital worker stole 393 patients’ identities. Given the access card will hold Medicare and PBS information, and therefore will be an instrumental part of the administration process in patients receiving health care, who of those opposite can say that this will not be possible with the access card? That report goes on to note that ‘criminals are often able to utilise new technologies to facilitate identity crime more quickly than government agencies can react.’
The government has ignored serious recommendations in relation to the information shown on the face of the card. The government commissioned the respected former chairman of the ACCC Professor Allan Fels to provide recommendations on the access card. Two key recommendations of Professor Fels to protect access card holders from identity fraud have been completely ignored by the government. Professor Fels recommended that the identifying number and the electronic signature not be displayed on the face of the card. I would welcome hearing the government’s reasoning for ignoring what seems to me to be a very sensible recommendation.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the type and amount of information to be held on the database registry that will be linked to the card. Information held on the registry will include your date of birth, citizen or permanent residency status, residential and postal address, date of registration and PIN and, possibly most dangerously of all, scanned copies of the proof of identity documents used at the time of registration. This last category of information could include birth and marriage certificates, drivers licences and other relevant documents.
Having all of this information in one location has the potential to make the access card a true one-stop shop for identity fraud. Criminals will be lining up to find a way to illegally obtain this information. Your whole identity could be stolen with one security breach—and let us not pretend that that cannot happen. Whilst I strongly acknowledge that the vast majority of public servants are fine workers with the highest levels of integrity, there have sadly been cases in the past of public servants inappropriately accessing information. In August last year, it was widely reported in the media that 600 privacy breaches occurred within Centrelink alone—600 cases where staff accessed customer records without proper cause or authorisation.
In June last year, a report obtained under FOI showed that in the Child Support Agency there had been over 400 privacy breaches in the previous nine months. I have only mentioned two government agencies here and already we have over 1,000 privacy breaches. The scope for these breaches with the access card is potentially huge. Now we have the government telling us not to worry and that the information linked to the access card will be safe and secure. History, sadly, shows us that this is not necessarily the case.
Despite the assurances of the former minister, Australians cannot realistically opt out of the access card system. ‘If you don’t like it you can opt out,’ are pretty cheap words. The former minister said that no Australian would be forced to apply for an access card. But they will have to register if they want to visit a doctor, buy a medicine listed on the PBS or claim a Centrelink or Veterans’ Affairs benefit. In other words, if they want to access a federal government service, they will need an access card—with all of the privacy intrusions that come with it.
A lot of this reminds me of a debate back in the mid-eighties, to which the member for Richmond has already referred—and I am sure others have as well—when a system called the Australia Card was being considered. There is a lot of familiarity—deja vu—attached to this debate. As the member for Richmond said, the current Prime Minister, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, said on 23 September 1987 in relation to the Australia Card:
The Australian people do not want it. If you try to ram it down the throats of the Australian people you will pay very dearly in political and other terms.
The question in my head that I am still attempting to resolve—though I think I am reaching a conclusion—is that the proposal back in the mid-eighties, from memory, would have included every Australian had it got up. This proposal before us now does not necessarily include every Australian. It will include only those who require a government service: pensioners, people accessing income support and other types of concessions, generally speaking. Maybe the Prime Minister was right when he said back in 1987 when he was Leader of the Opposition that ‘the Australian people do not want it’ because there were a lot of people of influence who could have convinced him that it would have been a bad decision. I do not know.
What I do know is that the people who are going to have this card put upon them by this government—not quite everybody—are the people who rely on government support and government services. There is quite a large number—many millions—but they are in a different position. Whilst it is fine for the minister at the time to have said, ‘If people don’t want it, they merely opt out of it,’ it is really a very misleading statement because it is not quite true. If you can afford to live your life with no contact with government at all, then you can probably get away with not having one of these cards, but the majority of Australians—a huge number—actually have that interaction and will therefore need these cards.
I repeat my support for the amendment. I had a junior primary school from my electorate in this building today. One of the questions I was asked was: ‘What is it like to be a member of the parliament? What sorts of things do you do in the parliament?’ I was so bold as to say, ‘We debate and argue issues. In the House, we all aim to bring out a product that will suit everybody at the end.’ I am afraid I might have misled that school group today, because if the government does not accept this amendment we are going to have a product that will not suit everybody in the end.
I congratulate the member for Canberra for her eloquent speech on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 and her advocacy for Labor’s concerns on the issue of this card. It is not my intention to canvass all of the arguments that have been broached by others. However, it should be very clear that, while Labor support the use of smartcard technology and we support innovations that improve the use and storage of personal, medical and social security information, we cannot, as others have said, support the legislation in its current form. That is why we would encourage this House to support the amendment which has been moved by the shadow minister, the honourable member for Sydney. It is clear, as the shadow minister’s amendment points out, that this bill lacks adequate safeguards to protect the accuracy and privacy of information on the card and in the register. There is a very clear and obvious concern that, because of the nature of this legislation, it has the real potential to undermine the civil liberties of many Australians.
In addition, the government continues to keep secret key information about the cost of the card. It refuses to release the cost-benefit analysis. What we do know is that it is costing us almost $1.2 billion over a period of four years. There is no guarantee that the document verification service will be fully operational, and with appropriate safeguards in place, by the commencement date proposed. That is of huge concern to us. There is clearly real concern that the money for the card will come from other areas of the Centrelink and Medicare budgets, meaning potential cuts to existing programs and services.
But most particularly from my perspective the legislation and the approach to this card perpetuate the government’s history of disengagement from, or inability to understand or address, the needs of those in our community most disadvantaged and most marginalised—particularly those Australians who live in regional and remote parts of this great country. It is that aspect that I want to concentrate on. The government has proven itself to be singularly inept in addressing the ability of those who live in regional and remote areas of this great country to access to even the most fundamental and basic services.
One key problem for the bill, in terms of its acceptance by me at least, is the requirement for identity documents. The explanatory memorandum of the bill recognises:
Of course, there will be cases where some individuals (e.g. individuals living in remote Australia, homeless persons, or people at risk) may not be able to provide the types of documents required to process their application.
It goes on to propose:
Because the registration process is intended to be a robust and comprehensive process with substantially improved proof of identity arrangements, applicants wishing to be registered will need to provide documents or information relating to their identity.
We need to observe that the government argues that the card is voluntary. So it is a matter of choice, or at least that is what we are led to believe. But of course that is not the case. The government argues that no-one will be forced to get one or to carry one. But we know that you will need to have one of these cards to get access to Medicare, medicines covered by the PBS, social security payments, veterans’ entitlements and indeed all government benefits and services. Australians who refuse to apply for one of these cards will not get access to any of these services. That makes it very clear that it may be a matter of choice for the wealthy, for those who have very deep pockets, but for those who are marginalised, sick, perhaps unemployed or otherwise reliant on benefits from government, it will absolutely be compulsory. From my perspective, that highlights a very significant issue, because large numbers of people who live in my electorate of Lingiari so qualify.
I will go back to the proof of identity requirements. We now know it will be compulsory—even though the government leads us to believe it is not, it clearly is—if you need to access government services. Instead of resolving the dilemma about the proof of identity arrangements that could ultimately result in many people in remote parts of this country not getting a card at all, the government’s solution is apparently to provide:
... the Secretary to specify an alternative process to deal with such special or exceptional circumstances.
That seems to me to be hardly good enough. We need to understand very clearly what the intention is here in terms of providing a capacity for those people who require proof of identity and live in remote and rural Australia in circumstances where they cannot get access to the sort of documentation which the government may require.
Let us take the example of birth certificates. I would dare to say that everyone in this parliament and every family member of a member of parliament could access a birth certificate in one way or another. But I do not know that this parliament or the people within it properly understand that for many Australians, Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander Australians, there never was a birth certificate and, if there was one, it cannot be found. If you ask many, especially older, Aboriginal people who live in regional and remote Australia if they know their date of birth, they say they simply have no idea. I wonder how they are supposed to prove their identity if they cannot produce the most fundamental of the certificates that we would see as an identity document in this country—a birth certificate.
We know that to register for the card you may be required to meet the 100-point proof of identification. Families may be required to produce evidence of occupancy and residence for up to a 10-year period. It should not surprise—although I suspect it does—the government and the people advocating this card that many people who live in my electorate would certainly not get the 100 points and, most particularly, if you asked them to provide documentary proof of their occupancy or residence of a particular house or community, would find it very difficult indeed.
I am certainly not satisfied that allowing the secretary to specify an alternative process to deal with such circumstances will in any way resolve the situation. What we are facing here is not a system which intends to streamline and modernise Australia’s delivery of health and social service benefits. What we confront here is a distinct possibility that, because of the reasons I mention, there will be many people who will find they cannot access those services because they cannot get access to the card, simply because of who they are and where they live.
I am certainly not satisfied with the explanations the government has given thus far about how they might address that very difficult set of circumstances. I am also wondering how it is proposed that people who live in the many scattered rural communities of my electorate and in other parts of Northern Australia—in particular, the north-west of Western Australia, western Queensland, the top end of South Australia and all of the Northern Territory—who live in small communities of 50 or 100 people will register for the card. You would think the government would understand that the Centrelink network is very deficient. How is it that these people will register?
It is worth making the observation that remote Australia makes up around 78 per cent of Australia’s landmass. I can understand how the government might argue that this registration process will be easily done in a city like Sydney or Melbourne, or even Darwin—not for all, though, but largely. But I am certainly not satisfied with the explanations we have received thus far that the solutions the government is offering in this bill will go anywhere towards meeting the concerns and needs of the people I have been referring to.
The government’s documents say that they will be required to register people around the country in remote and regional areas and will need varying equipment such as mobile registration units to manage the registration process. So, then, even if residents of the bush in the areas I have been talking about have access to the documents that the government require, many will still be required to travel some distance, one assumes, to gain access, make an application and register for a card. I am not sure whether the difficulties involved in providing these services in the bush have crossed the minds of the people who are behind this.
For six months of the year many communities are totally isolated and roads are impassable. I was at a community recently in Central Australia, where not only were all the roads impassable but the airstrip—because it is a dirt airstrip—was out as well, for some period of time. Again, I can understand how, if you live on the North Shore of Sydney, you would say this is pretty good—pretty bloody easy. But if you live, let us say, on the Nicholson River, on the western side of the Gulf of Carpentaria—most people in this chamber will not have heard of that, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, though I am sure you will have—how is it proposed that the people in your community will be registered for the card? How is it proposed that communities like that, which are spread right across the north of Australia, will get access to the documents they require for the identity test and to be registered?
I am sure that there are very well-meaning people beavering away in the bowels of the Public Service trying to find solutions to these problems. But I have to say that without seeing the solutions in this parliament I am not prepared to support this proposal. I am not here to buy a pig in a poke; the people I represent in this place would abuse me if I did, and well they might. We have, as the member for Canberra rightly pointed out, a responsibility in this place to represent the interests of all Australians, and we need to be able to have a dialogue across the chamber to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for all Australians. But I do not believe, as the member for Canberra said, that the proposal before us is going to provide the best possible outcome for all Australians. It is clear to me that many people will miss out, and when they get crook or require access to benefits they will find that they hit a brick wall.
I was going to talk at some length about the appalling failure of the government as evidence of not only the difficulties they confront but, most importantly, the way they have absolved themselves of any real responsibility to address the needs of people who live in rural and remote Australia. This is also about the way they have dealt with rural health. It is this sort of issue that really gets at you.
This is a government that says it is trying to help improve delivery of services and that, somehow, having access to this card will do that. We know that there has been a rural health funding drought in the bush. A report entitled Rural, regional and remote health, on a 2005 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, found that death rates increased with remoteness and were 10 per cent higher in regional and remote areas when compared with major cities. The report found that death rates were 50 per cent higher in very remote areas and annually there were 2,414 more deaths of non-Indigenous people outside major cities than expected if death rates for non-Indigenous people from major cities had applied for those areas. That should give you some cause to think, I would have thought, about the needs of people who live in the bush. Apparently this government is either oblivious to or has chosen to ignore those needs, despite the crowing we hear from cockies corner here about the importance of regional Australia to the National Party. We have failed these people miserably. We know that the Senate estimates hearings of 30 October 2006 revealed that the government has failed to spend 90 per cent of a $15 million election promise to improve rural health.
What I am trying to highlight here are the concerns of the people in the bush about getting a proper deal from this government. What I am saying here is that the process designed around this card does not think of them; it does not take their particular needs into account. Never mind, as we all know, the arguments about young people who are under 18; here is another story. Imagine young kids in the bush under 18. How do they get access to a card—even when the government changes and admits it has made a mistake and seeks to fix the problem, at least insofar as the generality of children under 18 is concerned? I implore the House to support the amendment moved by the opposition.
The Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 is the much anticipated high-security chip based replacement for the existing smartcard of the previous Minister for Human Services. In a speech to the Press Club last November, the member for North Sydney said:
Human Services is now established as a viable, dynamic department that is constantly looking at better, simpler and more secure ways for Australians to do business with their Government.
At the same time, it has become abundantly clear that the current system of health and welfare entitlement cards is becoming increasingly insecure and open to fraud. The Medicare card in particular is cheap and easy to copy. The AFP estimates Medicare cards are now involved in some way in more than 50 per cent of identity fraud cases.
So what have we done? The Government’s response has been to begin work on replacing our 17 health and social welfare cards and vouchers with a single smart card that has become known as the Access Card. Smart card technology is something Australians will become very familiar with over the next few years.
He went on to say:
Put simply, smart card technology is safer than the traditional cardboard and magnetic strip cards most Australians carry around in their wallets because a microchip is more secure and harder to copy. Smart card technology offers greater privacy because it allows users to display less information on the face of the card. This means more information is kept out of the immediate view of any unauthorised person.
The bill before us proposes to spend $1.4 billion over four years to realise the vision of the previous Minister for Human Services. While some of us might disagree that the Department of Human Services is now a viable, dynamic department, we probably do not disagree with the vision that was set out in that speech. It is probably a valid vision to get all the cards into one card and into a viable technology that protects people from identity fraud, and smartcard technology can do that. The tragedy with the bill before the House is that it does not live up to the vision as outlined. There are too many flaws within this bill and the old adage that the devil is in the detail has been entirely neglected. If you are going to do something that is so progressive then you need to do it right, and you need to do it right the first time, because the horror of introducing this card and then discovering that you have sold everybody’s identity down the river is too horrible to contemplate. So I commend the amendment moved by the shadow minister in this place and ask: why the haste to introduce a bill and a system that needs greater detail and greater finetuning?
I want to address two areas of concern in my speech this evening that have been left exposed by the lack of detail in this bill. These areas of concern are not being raised by the ALP alone. In our corner we have the AMA, Professor Fels, the government’s own adviser, Liberal backbenchers and indeed some Liberal frontbenchers. The contractor is seeking a bid from the department to supply the system, and numerous other privacy experts have raised concerns about the introduction of an access card without proper safeguards. I think it is the height of audacity that the tender process has already gone out for this system when we have not even introduced the legislation into this place. But the tenderers for the system for the database implementation have raised numerous concerns, and I want to address one today.
The first issue I wish to raise is the security of the information on the register. There is currently no guarantee that collection, storage and maintenance of the information needed to create the database which forms the basis of the access card will not be outsourced. Companies tendering for contracts to administer the system may even outsource the database to offshore entities, where we know personal data cannot be guaranteed protection by Australian privacy laws. A quick look at work undertaken by the Finance Sector Union on offshoring in the finance sector paints a stark picture of what people think and fear about their personal information going offshore. If there is concern about banking details being in the hands of an Indian operation, what fear would the general public have about their very identity being handled by overseas operators?
What do I mean by ‘offshoring’? There is an increasing global trend for companies to relocate various parts of their operation to locations outside the country where the service is being delivered. This practice is sometimes referred to as offshoring. The greatest trend in offshoring has been in the area of computer databases. It could easily be done in respect of this card if particular legislative protections are not put in. The work by the FSU states:
All levels of Government in Australia should set an example by ensuring that government outsourcing of contracts include a provision that work will not be moved off-shore. 88% of people surveyed believe that the Australian Government should be forced to keep jobs in Australia.
A recent public poll of Australians conducted by McNair Ingenuity found that 96% of Australians believe that Australian companies such as Westpac have a responsibility to invest in Australian jobs and skills.
In 2004, 85 per cent of people polled said they would express concern if their information were to go offshore.
In 2004 there was no data protection legislation in India. I think that is still the case today. This lack of protection may expose customers to an increased and unknown risk. Some of you are already exposed to that risk and do not even know it. The risks of cyberfraud are beginning to emerge in places such as India, where large numbers of call centres and bank office processes are being located, through offshoring. People described as ‘data-harvesting brokers’ have offered personal details for sale. Consumers have benefited from advances in technology. However, these advances also carry risk. Vast amounts of personal and financial details are processed and stored every day. Given the increase in identity fraud and computer hacking, the importance of data security cannot be overstated.
In the McNair research, 85 per cent of people expressed concern about their personal information being stored overseas. In Australia there is currently no requirement for companies to disclose where their services are being provided or if personal data is being held offshore. The majority of customers polled in the research felt that companies should tell them if they have provided customer service from an offshore location. A logical comparison is labelling laws for various products, under which companies must state the country of origin so that consumers can make an informed decision. A recent poll of Australian consumers conducted by the FSU found that 90 per cent of respondents preferred their data to remain in Australia, while 80 per cent believed the government should take action to protect their information.
The principle of right to know has been adopted in France, and legislation has been introduced in several states in the United States. The right to know was also ALP policy in the 2004 federal election. One grave concern is the notion of the outsourcing of your privacy. The legislation does not cover this loophole, and I think it is a glaringly obvious flaw in what we are doing. The banks have also warned on this issue of privacy law. An article by Emma Connors in the Australian Financial Review on 10 October 2006, entitled ‘Banks warned on privacy rules’, stated:
Australia’s banks are steadily ramping up offshore processing activities, prompting warnings from the federal government that the financial services industry will be held responsible for any data spills or privacy breaches involving Australian customer information sent overseas.
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello said yesterday Australia’s privacy laws and the banks’ fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of those whose assets they manage meant the banks were not entitled to disclose any personal information without the permission of customers.
“If there is a bank that is exploiting some loophole or breaking that law, then I will refer it for prosecution,”—
the Treasurer told Alan Jones. The article continued:
He was responding to a report that the Australian Bankers’ Association had circulated a seven-page document that advised banks on how to avoid a consumer backlash by not telling customers that personal data had been sent overseas.
The ABA later released a statement in response to the Treasurer’s comments which said it did not think there was “any evidence of inadequacy (or loopholes)” in the regulatory framework. It noted that many banks around the globe will perform some functions overseas and “by definition, this means overseas providers will have access to the data needed for that service.”
Further on, the article stated:
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said yesterday he was concerned about the security of account information transferred by Australian banks offshore.
He said Australian organisations were obliged to ensure any information passed on to employees or contractors in other jurisdictions was effectively protected and warned any breaches could be investigated by the government’s privacy commissioner.
That is not actually the case; it is not actually the situation at hand. If your information has been sent off overseas and you do not know about it, how do you know that there has been a breach? And what law actually covers that data when it is overseas? Is it protected by Australian legislation or by that of the country where the data has gone to? Is it protected by Indian privacy laws? To the best of my knowledge, they do not have any, so what is happening?
If, in respect of this legislation, the information on your access card is not protected and can go offshore, that is a severe risk and a severe concern. I think the Australian public would be outraged to discover that there has been no protection put into this legislation to ensure that their very identity is being protected. What privacy would be afforded all Australians if there were no protection against the information on access cards being sent overseas? I would like to know, and I am sure the public would also. The public needs greater privacy protection before any access card can be issued and legislation that guarantees that databases supporting the card cannot be offshored.
The FSU has been calling for action on offshoring for many years. They have a four-point plan, which is to:
1) Require that contracts to perform work for the Australian Government agencies include a condition that the work cannot be sent off-shore.
2) Call on governments to convene tripartite industry summits to map out a future path for Australian industries ...
3) Introduce laws that ensure that no financial or personal information is sent off-shore without the express permission of the consumer.
4) Introduce laws that require service providers to disclose the country where their work is being performed at the time of the transaction.
I endorse these measures. I particularly endorse the measure that requires a contract to perform work for Australian government agencies to include a condition that work cannot be sent offshore. If we do not have that protection, we have no protection in this database. The access card is being introduced at a time when the Law Reform Commission is conducting a review into the Privacy Act 1988. Surely this review will bear greatly on the introduction of this card. Why not wait to receive the outcome of this review, which is not reporting until March next year? Why introduce this card which could compromise the identity and privacy of all Australians?
The other issue I wish to look at briefly is that of medical details on the access card. This truly clouds what the card is to be used for. Is it to be for dealing with government agencies or is it about medical alerts? This is a dangerous area, one fraught with many issues. If you do not update that medical alert on a constant basis, the information being accessed in an emergency could be inaccurate. Also, who would have access to that information? There has been a lot of discussion within the insurance industry about the information you can get about a person’s health or genetic make-up. Could that information be used when you are going for a job? Could it be found out that you are a hepatitis C sufferer and, therefore, by virtue of that information on the card becoming public, an employer will not take you on?
I think this is an area absolutely fraught with danger, and it needs to be clarified now and not added on as some whimsical prayer that says, ‘Cardholders may choose to do this.’ It is not that simple. It is not that easy. What happens if it becomes a sort of standard form for all ambulance officers attending at a scene to say, ‘I’ll get the card and I’ll screen it’? If you do not have a card, they will not know and they will not treat. It is absolutely fraught with danger, and no-one has thought through the ramifications of this.
We have just ordered a medical alert bracelet for my son because of his severe allergies. Does this legislation mean that, because my child would necessarily be on my Medicare card, if he has an allergic attack at school, somehow they have to find me to scan the card to find out about his severe allergic reactions? It does not add up. What is this card? Is it meant to be all things to all people or is it meant to be about an access card and information to deal with government agencies? You cannot keep adding bits and pieces to it. You have to define what it is and work out how to do it, but you keep adding these things.
The task force chairman, Allan Fels, said to the government that it had to consider the introduction and whether the information was to be held for medical emergencies or for the convenience of the holder, who may, for example, want to carry a list of their medications. What is the issue with this legislation? It needs to be clarified. It needs to be far clearer than it already is. Again, there are just too many serious flaws in the bill before the House. While the vision may be one thing, the reality and the introduction are another.
I must say at the outset that I have had no overwhelming opposition from the electorate to the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 or the card that will no doubt emanate from it, but perhaps that is due to the piecemeal way in which the legislation is being introduced in several phases. We do not have the benefit of much of the relevant reportage and, indeed, a Senate inquiry addressing all of those processes which I certainly believe are absolutely crucial to any fair consideration of this most important piece of public policy. When considering this government’s track record on manipulating truth or dispensing with it altogether, and when thinking about the attempts to silence dissent on government policy and the attacks on the freedoms to protest against unethical or unscrupulous behaviour by both government and corporations, my gut feeling is to go looking for a rat in the bill.
The bill introduces and describes an integrated card to replace a number of health and social service cards and vouchers that entitle the holders of those cards to various concessions, services and payments from a number of government departments and agencies. The participating agencies include the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Human Services and its agencies—that is, the Child Support Agency, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, Centrelink, Medicare, Australian Hearing Services and Health Services Australia.
On reading the various discussion papers that have been made available so far and the first two reports of the Access Card Consumer and Privacy Taskforce, as well as KPMG’s business case and the various submissions put forward by individuals and groups, notwithstanding the AMA’s reservations about aspects of this, I do accept that there exists a case for the access card and that the bill makes it very clear that it is not to be an Australia Card, even though individuals may choose to use it as a photo identity card if they so wish. However, there are quite a number of matters not dealt with in this bill to be covered by way of legislation yet to be introduced. The process of introducing this legislation without the benefit of the task force’s third discussion paper or report about the registration system and prior to the outcomes—as I said—of that Senate inquiry into the project requires me to err on the side of caution.
It is for that reason that I cannot support the bill, at least until I can see the legislative framework that also particularly guarantees the effective oversight and governance of the access card system and the protection of the information and resolving of the individual’s private area of the microchip in the card. On the other hand, the claimed purpose of the card itself, despite those misgivings, would seem to make sense. The existing so-called benefit cards to be rolled into this one access card include the Medicare card; a PBS entitlement card and PBS safety net concession card; a pensioner concession card; a healthcare card, including a low-income healthcare card and foster child card; a reciprocal healthcare card; a Commonwealth seniors health card; a cleft lip and palate card; a war widow or widower transport card; and three DVA cards, gold, white and orange.
I understand the system will work something like this: each agency’s database—such as those of Medicare, DVA or Centrelink—with its files of personal information for each of its clients will remain with that agency as it currently does. All those existing databases will continue to be unlinked, with their own customer reference numbers. The introduction of the access card system will not alter that status quo. This means that the privacy safeguards and the legislative bases and processes for data matching or information sharing between the agencies that may currently exist remain the same. Future legislation to consolidate the different privacy and secrecy provisions under the one act will make it clearer and easier to refer to. Access by police or security services to any information held by a particular agency on its database remains subject to the same safeguards and warrant requirements as currently exist. The access card itself is supposed to authenticate identity for health and social service purposes. It is not to be used to prove identity for anything outside the stated purpose of accessing health and social services and benefits from the participating agencies I have mentioned.
With known Medicare and Centrelink losses from linkage or claiming of benefits and concessions by those who are not eligible to receive them totalling nearly $1.5 billion, the card will provide immediate validation to agencies dispensing those concessions that the cardholder is eligible to receive a particular benefit or concession. The card is to be used not to ensure or deny access to services but only to validate the holder’s eligibility to receive payments, benefits or concessions conferred by the current cards and vouchers of those participating agencies.
The legislation clearly sets in place substantial penalties for individuals or corporations that explicitly state or implicitly insinuate that the provision of their goods and services is dependent on presentation of the access card. With the commensurate cost of replacing some 1.3 million cards every year due to changing details such as addresses, or the fact that there are some 520 forms in Centrelink alone requiring an individual to provide information on their identity, it makes sense to use up-to-date technology to allow one simple change of details through the card and the register which then funnels through to the relevant agency’s own records. Prima facie, it all seems so logical. Every person who wishes to receive the benefits of any of the participating agencies will need to apply and be registered for a card. This includes people wishing to use Medicare—in short, most Australians. There does not seem to be much detail in the bill about how, when and under what circumstances 17 million people are going to have to line up for their mug shots. But the cardholder will own the actual card.
Generally, the card will have on its surface the cardholder’s preferred name, provided it complies with current laws about naming. It will have the access card number, the expiry date, a digitised representation of the cardholder’s signature and a photograph—and more about that in a moment. The surface of the card may also have the person’s date of birth if they request it; some people might choose to use the card as proof of age. It could also have various DVA information such as TPI, blind, POW, war widow or widower et cetera. No other information is permitted to be included on the surface of the card, with any proposed future additional information requiring an amendment to the legislation.
A number of categories of people may be exempt from having a card at all or from having various elements appearing on the surface of the card. These include those who are over the age of 90 and those who are in palliative care or under witness protection. The latter is one of the few concerns I have fielded on this matter in my electorate, and that concern seems to have been covered. Those who are in witness protection programs will receive the same level of identity protection as they are currently afforded. I understand that the Office of the Access Card has conferred very closely with the Australian Federal Police to ensure that this happens.
The card will contain two microchips to store and process information. The card owner’s microchip will allow the owner to include information that can be accessed by anyone with a card reader, including emergency services. That might include information chosen by the cardholder, such as organ donor status or allergy information. While this kind of accessible information could be lifesaving, it also raises issues such as those discussed in the task force’s second discussion paper on voluntary and medical emergency information on the access card. Issues like the medico-legal questions raised by the inclusion of such information have not yet been addressed. This is hardly surprising, given that the discussion paper was released six days ago.
The second microchip will hold information to be accessed by the relevant Commonwealth agencies and will not be accessible by any unsecured card reader. This microchip will include the person’s legal name, date of birth if requested, sex, residential address, access card number, expiry date, signature if not exempt from providing signature, PIN protected by encryption, benefits to which the person is entitled, Medicare number or reciprocal health care number, emergency payment number and registration status. It would also hold the DVA number and status. It will hold a biometric photograph: a photograph taken to allow specific facial measurements to forensically confirm identity when compared with other such photographs. This has caused a lot of concern, but such photographic information is now required on Australian passports, so the precedent is there. It will contain other technical information necessary to the system that does not expressly identify a person in any way; in fact it contains only such technical information as is reasonably necessary for the administration of the register. Again, those under witness protection programs or certain police or security officers will be exempted from having their legal name, residential address, photograph or signature in the Commonwealth chip area.
Essentially, this bill describes the card, the basic information to be held on it and the uses to which the card may be put by third parties. It also describes the significant penalties for abuse. But the matters and issues that the bill does not address are numerous and serious enough to warrant precaution. To pass the first piece of legislation without reference to following legislation is throwing caution to the wind and is unacceptable. A system such as that which is proposed must be based on the very best and informed advice—something that we as a parliament have not yet had. The opportunity to get it right from the outset should and must be taken. The linkage between the card and agencies’ individual databases—the secure customer registration service—is probably the most important part of this process, yet the task force’s discussion paper on the registration part of the program has not yet been released.
This register is effectively the gateway between the card and the agencies’ databases. It will keep a duplicate record of the information held on the card. The card, like all other cards it replaces, provides a ‘handshake’ with the relevant agency, through the register, which can only link the access card number to the records of the agency that swiped the card. It cannot link a person to their Centrelink records if the card is swiped at a Medicare office. It cannot reveal PBS records if it is swiped at a pharmacy for concessionary treatment of medicines—beyond advising of current eligibility to receive a concession. So there are issues yet to be resolved. While some may seem fairly benign and some may raise considerable alarm, the fact that we do not have the full details of the reports available to us must, I believe, make any legislator treat this piece of legislation with extreme caution.
I accept the argument, as did the privacy task force, that the inclusion of a photograph on both the surface of the card and in the mirror file is essential to immediate identification, but I ask why a biometric photograph is necessary to provide confirmation of the person’s identity—unless the government is not being entirely forthcoming about the possible future uses of the register. Surely if this is the case, the public deserve to be informed of and educated about the possible other uses of the photograph, such as perhaps national security. Certainly it would be naive indeed to not realise that such information is already sought under appropriate warrants.
And what of the security of the photo database itself? While the recommendation of the task force that the photograph be stored in a separate database within the register has been rejected on various grounds by the government, the same government responds that rigorous access controls will be put in place. But this bill does not deal with that. In fact, it does not deal with any of the safeguards promised to protect the accuracy and privacy of the information on the card and in the register.
With this in mind, I also support the recommendation of the task force that proof of identity documents not be scanned, copied or kept on file once those documents have been verified. I agree with Professor Fels that these documents, which are already held in paper files all over the country, should not be held electronically. The government’s response that it will explore the implementation of this recommendation is commendable, but I want to see these processes confirmed in legislation before supporting it. After all, the whole point of the access card is that it is not issued unless POI documents have been verified as true—and it is supposed to be about verification, not about the amassing of data.
This brings me to the issue of the national document verification service. The success of removing potential for fraud begins with the registration of each person, using their documents of identity, such as a birth certificate. However, if the system has no way of checking whether these POI documents are fraudulent to begin with, there exists the real possibility that the access card could be granted to people on the basis of fraudulent information from the outset. Would it not be prudent to allow enabling legislation to come into effect prior to the system going online? As is specified in the explanatory memorandum, there are many other details that are not covered in this bill—for example, details about the implementation phase, the replacement of lost and stolen cards, suspension and cancellation of registration and how dependants, carers and other linked persons are treated in the exercise of this system.
This is a major change. The access card’s national photo database is a first in this country, and it raises many concerns and issues about privacy and security. Without subscribing to some of the more hysterical or misleading claims made about the card, I certainly would prefer to wait—as I know my constituents would prefer to wait—until all the relevant details, processes and security processes are presented and the identified weaknesses addressed before supporting this legislation. I support the proposed amendments as the best this House can achieve at this point, pending the availability of the Senate report due on 15 March and the privacy task force discussion paper and the report on the registration system. How can any member be required to support such a legislative shambles?
I rise to speak on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 and the proposed access card. This bill proposes to introduce a new chip based card, called the access card, which will replace numerous concession and entitlement cards, including Medicare cards, Centrelink cards and veterans’ cards; to establish a new electronic register and specify the information to be held on this register; to specify information that will appear on the surface and chip of the access card; to introduce the registration process for the access card and create offences around unauthorised demand to produce, and use of, the card; and to generally provide the first part of a regulatory framework for the collection, use and disclosure of information on the new register and card.
This legislation purports to improve the use and storage of personal, medical and social security information. Labor support innovations aimed at improved service; however, we have justifiable reservations on the scheme proposed by the government. Labor will support this legislation only if significant amendments are accepted by the government. Labor will not support this proposal in its present form. We make clear that we reserve the right to move further amendments in the Senate, in particular any amendments to come out of the Senate inquiry to ensure that the proposed access card is secure and fully protects the Australian public.
I have been contacted by many constituents who are very concerned about privacy safeguards surrounding the access card. There has been no public or non-government organisation consultation about this smartcard, which raises concerns about the government’s intentions for privacy protection for individuals and communities. Other aspects of the proposed scheme need to be addressed. The wild claims made by the government that the card will be effective in emergency situations, that it will be of assistance in the reduction of terrorist threats and that the use of biometric photography will render the card fail-safe, and the potential perils of function creep, are issues that deserve closer scrutiny.
Labor is concerned that the government has done nowhere near enough to address the issues of security, privacy and quality of data or to provide confidence to the general public that the information stored will not be used across government agencies and departments. The government panders to the public’s scepticism by labelling this card an access card. It is imperative the Australian public recognises that this is stealth by semantics. The new card is in fact a national ID card, and the government should be condemned for the lack of transparency surrounding this initiative.
The concept of a national identification scheme has been shadowing the government for some time. During 2004-06 the government endeavoured to initiate national identification schemes via the Medicare smartcard and the national identification scheme project. Both initiatives were dismal failures. The Australian public has repeatedly and vehemently rejected the concept of a national identification scheme. In spite of this, the access card proposal was approved by cabinet on 26 April 2006.
The Australian public must be made aware that the access card is more invasive than any previously touted identification scheme. Every time a card is placed in a card reader, the reader will provide data to the central register. All such transactions will be logged. This scheme will create a database of names, photos, dates of birth, ID numbers and addresses of every adult, along with the corresponding listing of their dependants, and the access card will contain extra information that will replace all concession cards and create a database containing biometric photographs of every person.
It is estimated that between 16 million and 20 million cards will be issued. Personal data will be displayed on the surface of the card, including the name, photo and signature of the cardholder. The card will be a smartcard, which means that it will contain a computer chip. There will be a considerable amount of personal data stored in the chip. All information on the surface and in the chip of the card will be held in a database called the access card register. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties note:
The “Access Card” will create an unprecedented identity database in Australia.
They also state:
While such grand invasions of privacy have come to be tolerated over time in some European and totalitarian nations, the Australian democratic tradition has been strongly and continuously opposed to such Orwellian proposals.
It remains unclear as to who will have access to the data. Mention has been made of the Privacy Act protections, but these have been hugely devalued since the act was passed in 1988 because so many agencies have won exemptions and exceptions.
The Australian Privacy Foundation states that the security working party supporting the project contains representatives of many intelligence agencies. It is reasonable to expect that primary users of the register will be intelligence, law enforcement and social control agencies. They will not require additional authority to access the data, as national security and law enforcement agencies already have sufficient authority. It is likely that all Department of Human Services agencies and the DHS itself, which does not actually provide services, will also have access.
We must appreciate that some individuals within our society require more robust protection of their identity. The inability of the government to guarantee the security of information concentrated on this smartcard could jeopardise many ordinary Australians. The possibility of information being secured inappropriately to the detriment of abused women, whistleblowers, and police informants, for example, cannot be dismissed and forms an incontrovertible reason to view this bill with caution.
Labor supports a reduction of identity fraud. It is reported that identity fraud is a growing problem within Australia and may cost our community in excess of $1.1 billion every year. We must recognise, however, that the proposed access card will be a treasure chest of information. The scheme gathers personal data, concentrates it in a card and a register and makes the data on the card accessible to card readers. These card readers are to be installed throughout the country in various government offices, in every hospital, in every doctor’s surgery, in every pharmacy and in every one of the many other kinds of locations that provide health care and other human services. This will enable thousands of people to access data.
In spite of this, the government repeatedly refers to the card’s facility to reduce the risk of identity theft. The government cannot guarantee that the Australian public will be at a reduced risk of identity theft via the introduction of this card. Tens of thousands of Australians are likely to lose their card or have it stolen and, until the individual becomes aware of the loss, identity fraud is a huge concern. The card chip can be read by ordinary card readers and these card readers can, apparently, be purchased over the internet.
Information stored on the register could potentially be accessed and used by unscrupulous people. In particular, the scanned copies of original documents stored on the database could present the opportunity for identity theft and privacy breaches by public servants. Last night, the Liberal member for Moncrieff told parliament that the new access card will undoubtedly be forged. In the last 24 hours other government backbenchers have also expressed their concern.
The government misleadingly market the card as being of benefit to the Australian public. They claim it will replace up to 17 cards and streamline access to Human Services. The truth is that no-one has 17 cards. Most people have only one card—a Medicare or a DVA card—that will be replaced. Many people have two or three. Most people will not experience any such benefit.
The government has spruiked that a national identification card will help stop terrorism. Evidence from other countries exposes this as propaganda. The Spaniards have had a card for more than 40 years. It was introduced by the Franco dictatorship. Sadly, in the Madrid bombing, it was used to identify the victims. It did not stop the terrorists exploding their bombs.
The government has further suggested that the access card will assist in providing emergency payments to people who have suffered as a result of disastrous situations, such as cyclones or floods. This is a ludicrous suggestion. In disaster areas, often there is no electricity to drive card readers or cash dispensers. Catastrophic weather conditions occur frequently in areas where access to cash dispensers is not an option.
In short, categorically this scheme is not designed for the benefit of cardholders. The access card has been created to benefit service providers. Why is this so? The government has been reluctant to provide any meaningful information about the scheme’s benefits. We can assume that participating government agencies—Medicare, Centrelink, the Child Support Agency, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs et cetera—will be forced to adapt their systems and business processes in order to use a standardised central scheme instead of one designed for their own purposes. When the disruption eventually settles down, they might see some internal cost savings, but much more money will be spent centrally by the government—hence, by taxpayers—than will be saved by participating agencies.
State government and private sector service providers in health care and other aspects of Human Services will also face considerable increased costs and dislocation. The government have repeatedly asserted that the scheme will give rise to fraud savings. What the government have not outlined is how these savings will be made. They have refused to release the taxpayer funded cost-benefit analysis and refused to consider that they will recover only a fraction of the vast sums of money expended on creating it.
It is also possible that funding for the card will be drawn from other areas of the Centrelink and Medicare budgets. The repercussion of this is possible cuts to existing services at a time when the welfare sector is openly struggling to manage the impact of current government policy. The real benefit of the scheme for the government and the Public Service executives is the enhancement of social control. They want to be able to exercise more power over the public.
The potential for cost blow-outs in the access card budget is unquestionable. Over 16½ million Australians will need to be interviewed for registration. As the access card will not be issued without an interview, and the supply of it will require documentation, the government estimate of a five-minute interview per person may be a gross underestimation due to the fact that many people will forget or will not bring the relevant documents and will have to return for a second interview. Families with no original copies of certificates could suffer financial hardship—for example, it would cost a typical family of four as much as $400 to provide the necessary documentation for the smartcard.
Labor and the welfare sector have real concerns as to why the government has refused to release a cost-benefit analysis case for the card. The government argues that the card will save money by reducing Medicare and social security fraud, but this scenario could in fact be blown apart by the final cost of the card. This cost might be paid for out of Medicare and Centrelink budgets and result in cuts to existing services.
We are also concerned about the proposed use of biometric photography to identify cardholders. Biometric photography is a method of electronically reading photographs by translating the measurements of the human face into unique mathematical formulae. It is notoriously unreliable. In tests at airports, biometric readers confuse similar looking people. The government itself complains that biometric readings are only 90 per cent accurate. Biometric technologies incite fears of constant supervision, profiling and control, leading to a loss of individuality, privacy and freedom. People may feel uneasy being scanned and are alarmed about having their bodily data digitally stored in large databases along with sensitive personal information. Can we trust the accuracy of biometric technology? Many questions arise.
Another issue has to do with the fact that biometric data is digitally stored. Digital information is easily copied, transmitted, altered and searched. Biometric databases can be merged or cross-referenced with other biometric or non-biometric databases to gain even more information about individuals. Biometric data is particularly useful for data-mining and cross-referencing of databases since they represent a unique identifier that does not change over time.
While names, addresses, membership numbers and user handles can change, biometric data stays fixed, making it an extremely reliable and thus valuable commodity. If a government agency takes a digital photograph of an individual and stores it digitally alongside other personal information, the individual loses control over the data. Even if the individual in question initially consented to the collection of the data, what does this mean in terms of duration of the storage? Who is allowed to access the data and how is it protected against unauthorised access? To whom is it communicated and for what purpose? These and other questions remain in many cases unanswered.
Further controversy is caused by the automation of identification processes. Biometrics makes it possible to discard the human factor and let scanners and computers take over the task of identification and, with it, ultimately the task of granting or denying certain rights. While the whole point of using biometrics is avoiding human error and even corruption, the questions remain: what happens if the technology fails? Who programs and watches the machines? Who is accountable? The more authorities and private entities transfer important decisions over to the computer systems, the more damage is done when the systems fail.
In a study undertaken by the University of Ottawa, it was determined that, while biometrics has the potential to provide public and private entities with additional means to identify individuals and therefore make it harder for criminals to gain access to personal information, no system is infallible. ID theft occurs in a number of different ways as a result of a number of different leak points, including theft by those with access to the data and hacking into computer databases. Even the strongest biometric system of authentication cannot close all of the gaps which make ID theft possible.
The New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties has stated that the system is being designed specifically to facilitate function creep—that is, it will evolve or morph over time to serve quite different purposes and usage from the originally stated purpose. It is incumbent on us all to remember the history of the UK ID card. From its issue during World War II to the time of its abolition in 1952, the functions of the card went up from three to 39. The government cannot guarantee there will be no function creep, because it cannot restrain the powers of future governments. Any legislation it might pass in relation to the imposition of penalties could be repealed. Function creep is a real threat to the future privacy of the Australian public.
Another concern was raised by a government backbencher, the member for Moncrieff again, when he admitted that there is enormous business interest in the access card. The Australian public must be made aware that the government has not committed to legislation that would limit the functions of the new card. The access card is poised to become a high-quality identifier in addition to its function as a means of obtaining entitlements and concessions.
I urge the government to recognise the very serious concerns expressed about the proposal to introduce an access card in its current form. I urge the government to support Labor’s amendment to the bill and to acknowledge the peril of establishing a national identification scheme by proxy.
What is this access card? It is a social security card. It is not the Australia Card that members of this government were so against in 1986. At the time, the now Prime Minister railed at the dreadful nature of the Australia Card that was proposed by the Hawke government.
I have to tell you: I was not afraid of the Australia Card then, and I am not afraid of an access card now or of the social security cards that governments worldwide have brought in in order to better organise the manner in which individual citizens access government services across a range of departments. Whether the proposed access card will replace one card, say, a Medicare card, or a deck of cards—17 cards could be replaced—is not the problem. I also do not think the nature of the card itself is the fundamental problem. The basis of the problem is the fact that your individual identity could somehow be easily pinched or nicked.
The problem in 1986 was that there was a massive scare campaign. In primitive societies—and we would not like to think of our society as being primitive—the taking of a picture of someone is akin to stealing their soul. In 1986, the argument about the Australia Card was very much like that: that people’s souls might be taken from them—their very being captured. I know a place where that happened, where the command over information and the use of advanced technical processes to work through available information led to death camps and the gas chamber. The IBM Corporation did the work. The corporation analysed data not just in the United States but in Nazi Germany, where they had a major operation, throughout the war.
If you read the book by Edwin Black that looks at how IBM, as a worldwide organisation, conned and gulled not only the US government but allied governments worldwide when they worked hand in glove with the Nazis, you will understand the real concerns people have about information being gathered together that could allow a government with evil intent not just to know who you are but, if they wanted to do so, to obliterate you from the face of the earth. The Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals and six million Jews—four million of them from Poland as well as those from France, Belgium, Holland et cetera—were tracked down using machines. IBM manufactured these machines and in America they produced specialised punch cards to go into the system. Throughout the war, these cards were taken from America and provided to the Nazis in continental Europe. They were the death cards. They were access cards to the gas chamber for the people who were on the end of them.
Fundamental questions arise. The collocation of information about a person means that you are able to hold their very souls in your hands. The key question is this: how will that information be used? That is why the initial response to the access card was the same as the response to the 1986 Australia Card: if you can know everything about me then I might be in more peril. That is why the member for Mackellar said that it did not pass the ‘anti-Nazi’ test. IBM did not pass the ‘anti-Nazi’ test with what Dehomag and the other constituent parts of their company did during World War II. IBM rose to become the world’s greatest information technology company, on the back of profits made at the expense of all those people who died and suffered. In respect of how information is used, you should always keep that in the back of your mind and understand that there are fundamental problems with this.
Labor has a series of amendments. I will go a bit broader and look at some technical problems associated with the proposal. I do not have my wallet on me, so I cannot pull out my magnetic strip Medicare card, but the same technology that was around in 1986 is around now in those magnetic strips. We know that, if you scratch it, belt it, knock it around or run it through a series of different types of modems, sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not. There is a cost in terms of card replacement. What we also know is that when we hand a Bankcard, MasterCard, Visa card, Amex card, Medicare card or whatever over to someone it can potentially be misused. Given that it can potentially be misused, it is always best to keep it in sight. Scamsters want to access that information. This has happened time and time again worldwide: the scamsters take the card out into the back room and simply copy the magnetic information that is on it. What is available now can be used by people in nefarious ways.
Part of the problem with going to the next level—which we will with the access card—is that you will have a biometric photo and an electronic signature. We are in a digital age, not an analog one. It is possible that we could be putting far more information into the hands of criminals with this card than with what is available now. If a person has a mug shot and a signature, they have more to work with. This happened in the past when people first used biometric photos on bankcards and MasterCards. Some companies put those out. As a serious test in Great Britain, somebody rolled up and said, ‘I want to take money out of the account.’ They presented the card, and they were able to access the account. They got the money out and they walked away but on the card was a picture of a dog, not a picture of the person. So human error is another problem; it is not just about the information that is on the card. It is possible that the system will not be as tight as people otherwise might think.
But there are a further series of problems here. Just about everybody in this place has a passport. We all know that passport photos are not the most flattering of photos. We know that we have a digital photograph integrated in our passport. We also have a digital signature. What will be on the access card is in our passport, so the proposal is not new in that regard.
In passing I will also note that one of the arguments with regard to the biometric photos is that, if you put on weight—or, as in the case of the member for Bruce, if you lose significant amounts of weight, from all the exercise that you are doing—then your face changes, the biometrics change and it is not so easy to match people up; there is a particular problem in terms of getting that match. But anyone with a passport knows, as Al Gore said quite tellingly, that the only thing that can make you look like your passport photo is airline travel—it is never the best representation of us! Since they will not allow you to smile when you are getting your local licence, maybe that has the same sort of problem—the match-up is not what we have in our heads.
But there is a further problem. Professor Fels was asked to look at this area. His advice to the government was that the photo information and the digital signature should not be shown on the card—they should not be up-front because there would be a greater likelihood that, although the card could be accessed, that vital information would be more protected. That information would be available if you let it out. That is looking at the face of the card.
Let us look at the very nature of moving to smartcard technology. Instead of having a ribbon at the back, you actually embed a chip within the card. That chip can contain a great deal of information. In the provisions of this bill you have the fact that the chip would include your fundamental Medicare information, your name, your address—and, if you wished, your date of birth, allergies and other useful information could be appended to that. So it could be as useful as you wished and you could add information to it. But there is also a series of problems in simply choosing to have a smartcard. That chip could have a great deal more information on it. People could copy it and access it if they could break into it. I think we need to think about that pretty clearly. The question with respect to the information going to government, and the information that might go to people who want to criminally defraud the government, banks or other institutions, goes to how much you can give them in one job lot.
A core question here is how much information is concentrated into a single place. One of the problems is not the fact that so much information about people will be in this place but the fact that it could be accessed and used inappropriately. If someone wants to take your identity—and this is an increasing worldwide problem—and then use it fraudulently, digitisation of most of the things we are doing makes that easier. One of the key problems with the card is that it can make it a hell of a lot easier because you can get all the information in one go—there is a photo, but you also get a signature, date of birth and the rest of the information. The problems with the biometric recognition system has been argued by other members.
One of the things this card does not have, which I think would proof it against other people pinching the information and would make sure the biometrics work, is a DNA strand. If you had a single piece of DNA, which is unique to an individual, incorporated into a card then you would not have the failings of the rest of the biometrics. I think that one day that sort of thing will be incorporated into this or into other cards if we want absolute certainty. Against all the arguments about the fact that you cannot be really sure about what is going on here is the fact that you could be certain because you could make it particular to a single individual by doing that. That raises a whole series of other questions in relation to what might be done with it, but it would be a potent way of going beyond fingerprints, beyond photographs and beyond other bits and pieces of information and would say: ‘This individual is so singular that this is not only their universal mark but their unique mark, the one that no other person in the history of the world has. This is that person.’
But let us go a bit broader. Compared with the relatively primitive amounts of information that can be provided to people to say who I am—whether it is on a licence or something else with these card readers, where you just use the strip on the back—there is much richer information available in a smartcard. To consider the speed with which technology has changed, look at what has been only a 21-year period from 1986 to the transition to a smartcard. Really we should go back to the mid-1990s, so you are looking at something that is 10 years old. Throw forward. This would really be far more potent in terms of identification. An access card has that as its basis: getting information together to say (1) this is a person, (2) this is the person they say they are and (3) this person has a certain entitlements to a Medicare card, a pension benefit, a veterans’ entitlement or other social security benefit. Whatever the range, the panoply, of things that are involved, how might we do this in the future at less cost and with a greater certainty that the dangers of this information leaking out or being otherwise used will be less?
I suggest that the world is becoming increasingly web based. If we had had a government over the past 10 years with the wit to pursue adequate broadband coverage of Australia we would have a minimum of eight megabits a second broadband covering all of Australia—up to about, say, 25 megabits a second, which is possible with ADSL2 services—which, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, is available now and has been for a couple of years in country New South Wales and in country Australia, because that is where these very fast services have been initially set up. Telstra has just come to the party and joined the latest technology. Mobile phones and mobile PDA access will provide a very fast service. Optus and other companies will have a fast 3G service on a mobile basis throughout Australia. But linked to that every school, every office, every Medicare office in the country could have a super-fast broadband service. If Labor is elected, that is what they will get. You could then have not a card based system but a web based system in the same way that our services in Parliament House for senators and members are called ‘One Office’, where the idea is that wherever you are in the world you prove who you are not only by the access privileges you have and by remembering a PIN but also by having a small token that randomly changes the access numbers so that only you can get at your information. So there is a double process to it. You can have encrypted information that is not available on the access card.
One of the things Professor Fels said was that this should not be up-front. I think they should be encrypting the photo and certainly encrypting the digital signature. That would provide not only greater privacy but also greater surety against this thing being nicked and being used against people. Instead of having a card where, if you pinch it, you have everything I have got, we said that there might be a smarter way to do it. Instead of a single card based approach, we could have a web based approach with universal broadband access Australia-wide to a central server like we have in Parliament House for members and senators. Our information is held here on the Parliament House servers.
Medicare, Veterans’ Affairs and the other government departments could likewise run central services from Canberra, Sydney or anywhere else in Australia where you had an encrypted service between the user accessing it in Gulargambone or Bankstown and the central area where the information is held. You would have a series of protocols to ensure that only the person who should access that information is allowed to do so. You could build in a series of protections in terms of which people in institutions or departments could gain access to that. That is a smarter way of doing it than a portable card which not only can be lost—losing access to cards and information is legion—but also is legion in fraud. Westpac did a study—it is noted in the background paper—and 13 per cent of cards are fraudulent.
Gaining access to one of the access cards will involve providing information and original documents in long interviews and at a high cost. We know the same sort of process has been in place to get a passport ever since the Hope inquiry. It is right and proper that we have those secure controls in place, but it comes at a high cost. A richer, deeper, more flexible, more certain and more controllable system would be to adopt the very latest internet or Internet 2 approach to this. The world has moved on. It is not still a 1990 situation with 1990 smartcards. You just need access to an information store and you are able to protect the information much more readily by having government servers run by government personnel with protocols to ensure that the hackers cannot get into them. If you protected the whole thing with firewalls and a series of protocols to ensure that departmental employees did not aggregate what is available to them, that would be a much better process than that which we have here.
Labor is not against smartcard technology. As we pointed out, we have a series of arguments as to why the current proposal is full of holes. I had very little fear of the Australia Card in 1986 and I have very little fear of this access card—the social security card—in terms of aggregation of information, but it is how you protect the information that is critical. We would be a lot better off with a faster, smoother and more web based approach, but in order to be able to do it you need a government willing to commit to fast broadband for the whole of Australia with a minimum eight megabits per second up to 25 megabits—truly fast broadband. The Labor Party is the party of the future and the only one that will make that commitment and bring it into practice to have better access for all Australians. (Time expired)
I rise to oppose the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 and support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Sydney. I think that the contribution made by the member for Blaxland was very insightful and really encapsulated the concerns that the opposition has over the failure of this government to properly balance the tension between securing information centrally on one hand and providing and guaranteeing safeguards for people’s individual freedom on the other.
That is one of the concerns that Labor has expressed in the course of this debate. We are still unsure that the government has provided sufficient guarantees that there are the necessary safeguards. For that reason, the shadow minister has moved the amendment, which includes the provisions:
“while supporting the use of smart card technology to improve service delivery in Medicare and social security; to reduce the number of cards necessary for people using these services; and to reduce social security and health fraud;
the House is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed in its current form because:
There are concerns that are yet to be attended to by the government in relation to this matter. Throughout the course of this debate, I think opposition members have managed to emphasise the main concerns that we have. We would ask the government to consider the propositions put, because in a proper consideration of those recommendations we are confident that the government will consider incorporating them into the bill. That would, of course, provide an opportunity for us to reach some agreement on this particular matter.
It is important to note that the government is seeking to spend $1.2 billion over the course of the next four years on the so-called access card. The card itself seeks to replace up to 17 cards, including Medicare cards, PBS concession cards and all Centrelink cards. According to the government, by 2010 a person will need an access card to obtain any Commonwealth benefit, including Medicare, PBS subsidised pharmaceuticals, social security and veterans’ entitlements. According to the Attorney-General, the cardholder’s photograph, name, digital signature, new identifying number, expiry date and other information will appear on the face of the card.
There is a concern in relation to the information that would be provided. I would like to make the point that the government commissioned Professor Allan Fels to report on the privacy aspects of the proposed card. He recommended to the government that the unique identifying number and electronic signature not be displayed on the card because they are unnecessary and pose a risk to people’s security. Unfortunately, Professor Allan Fels’s recommendations fell on deaf ears and the government has chosen to instead include those pieces of information on the card. I think that exemplifies the government’s disregard for concerns raised on this matter. Concerns were raised not only by the opposition but also by an academic who was asked to provide a report upon it, commissioned by the government. Some of the recommendations that Professor Fels made were completely and utterly ignored.
It is also important to note that, although I am not sure whether government members have chosen to express their concerns in the chamber, a number of members, including the member for Moncrieff and the member for Mackellar, have expressed major concerns about the way the government has gone about this proposed access card. The member for Moncrieff indicated:
… the Access Card could become a “Trojan horse” for a national ID card.
That is the view of the member for Moncrieff. As I say, I am not sure whether he has actually visited the chamber and put his views but I am aware that many of these views have been expressed publicly by him. He may well be right that if there are not proper safeguards there will be concerns about the way this could be used improperly in future.
The member for Mackellar managed to utilise, some would argue, some hyperbole by saying it does not pass the Nazi test. I do not think I would advance the argument in the way the member for Mackellar would advance the argument that there are concerns about the card, but clearly her point underlines the fact that this government is not united on the way the minister is proposing to introduce this bill. There are major divisions within the government. Clearly the executive government is ignoring not only the concerns of the Labor opposition and Professor Fels, who was commissioned to undertake the review of the way the card would operate, but also its own members in this place. That is not the first time we have seen the government choose not to listen to concerns raised by members. I would advise the government to reconsider its failure to review the comments made by both government members and opposition members in this debate.
There are a number of other issues I would like to raise. Much of this debate could be given against the backdrop of the Australia Card debate of many years ago, of the mid-eighties. I recall at the time the then opposition leader, the now Prime Minister, raising concerns about the way that card was being proposed. In a debate that was held in September 1987, the then opposition leader indicated:
Basically, that is what the Government is doing with this proposal. It has not really discharged the onus of proving that there is a superior public claim to justify the erosion of the private right. It has not discharged that obligation and until it discharges it by satisfying the Australian public on privacy grounds and on cost benefit grounds—it is a long way short on both of those ...
You can see that the Prime Minister almost 20 years ago raised concerns about the way a particular card would be introduced and he raised, quite rightly, some concerns about whether the balance was being met between individual considerations and rights of privacy and the need to store information.
As we well know—and it has been well articulated by the member for Blaxland—the capacity for society to collect information has increased exponentially over these 20 years. Whilst that can be a good thing insofar as enabling governments to work efficiently in storing and using information—and I think the point that has been emphasised by the opposition is that we can see some benefits—there is also the flip side to that technological change over the last 20 years, and that is that there is a great capacity for people to misuse information. Governments, and third parties who hack into systems, can misuse information, and the information stored in many respects will be very sensitive information to particular individuals. That is why I think it is a very important debate to be had and it is important that the government consider the amendment being proposed by the shadow minister responsible for this area—because, without properly ensuring that there are protections in place, many constituents of mine in the electorate of Gorton and indeed many citizens of this country are going to feel alarmed by the proposition that we need to proceed along this path.
Throughout the debate I do not think the opposition has sought to be in any way hysterical or exaggerate the concerns that people have in relation to this matter. By way of contrast, I think members opposite, government members—perhaps not in this place but certainly publicly—have expressed concerns in an extreme way. I think the opposition has attempted to in a temperate manner raise concerns about the way the government chooses to propose legislation that in our view has not really met the balance between the two competing interests: the need to improve the efficiency of collation and use of sensitive information and the need to protect that information from misuse by either government or third parties in the future. For that reason I oppose the bill but support the amendment moved. I ask the government to reconsider its position.
In concluding the debate on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 I would like to first of all thank all members for their contributions. This bill is one of the more important measures to come before the parliament thus far this year, and the level and intensity of the debate certainly indicate that. As the speakers today are aware, the bill provides for the introduction of a new chip based card, a smartcard to provide access to Australian government health benefits and veterans’ and social services. The card will replace the Medicare card and up to 16 other cards and vouchers needed in order to access Australian government benefits. It supports substantially improved proof of identity arrangements to obtain the card and improved proof of identity information on the register, on the card and in the chip. The bill introduces a comprehensive and robust registration process for consumers wishing to obtain a card. The new process will mean that consumers will only need to register once for a service or benefit and only notify relevant agencies once of changes in household circumstances, such as change of address. Clearly, this is going to be a major step forward for many families in their busy lives and will streamline many of our processes.
The bill ensures that the new card will only be required to be produced for the purposes of accessing Australian government benefits and confirming concessional status. I say that again—it is key to this bill—you are not required, under any circumstances, to provide this card on demand. You are not required to carry this card with you at all times, as some people would potentially lead you to believe. This card’s ownership is vested in the cardholder. The new card will replace cards currently held by individuals with one single, high-integrity card. This will make transactions with the government in relation to benefits easier, faster and, most importantly, more secure and less complex. The new system will allow individuals to change or update data in a single operation, and the payment of emergency or disaster relief will be made far easier by the introduction of this card.
As a result of the comprehensive registration system proposed in the bill, the new access card will significantly reduce fraud on the Australian taxpayer. This will enable the government to better provide for those truly in need rather than wasting money on those who deliberately set out to defraud our social welfare system. The new card will be much more resistant to forgery because of the smartcard technology employed within it. It will also be much harder for fraudsters to use the card in order to impersonate others when accessing Commonwealth benefits. All of this will result in a significant saving in Commonwealth revenue; it has been estimated by KPMG to save some $3,000 million over 10 years. That is an enormous sum of taxpayers’ money which can be better put to use than by fraudsters.
The registration process introduced by this bill will ensure a robust and strengthened proof of identity process for card owners. It will provide Centrelink, Medicare Australia and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs with more reliable and up-to-date information, better ensuring that the right payments are made to the right person and at the right time. This is essential to the integrity of the whole benefits system. We need to be sure that the $100 billion paid each year in health benefits and veterans’ and social services goes to those who are eligible, ensuring that taxpayers’ money goes to the right people and that they get the correct payment.
The registration process will require individuals to attend an interview and provide documents verifying their identity. For example, applicants will need to produce birth certificates, passports or other relevant documents. These documents will be checked with the relevant issuing authorities to verify identity. During the interview, applicants will have their photograph taken and will also need to provide a signature. Both of these will be incorporated into the card and will be included on the card’s chip and on the customer register. Clearly, there will be circumstances where it will not be feasible or appropriate for a person to attend an interview, to be photographed or to provide a signature. The bill therefore allows exceptions to be made to these requirements by the secretary, on a case by case basis, or by the minister in relation to identified classes of people—for example, for those in hospices.
The government intends that the registration process will commence in April 2008, when people will be invited to apply for a card. Between 2008 and 2010 people will not need to apply and will be able to continue using their existing cards until 2010. However, in order to ensure a timely transition and to avoid a last-minute rush, people will be encouraged to apply sooner rather than later. As this bill is the first step in the creation of the total card scheme, it does not and is not intended to deal with all aspects of this scheme. The bill has been brought forward to give certainty about the framework of the card and to inform further debate on the issues when the information on the card and the register have been clearly set out in the legislation.
There have been a number of issues raised during this debate, and I would like to take a brief moment of the time of the House to address these issues. It is clear that the member for Hotham has a very selective memory when it comes to the Australia Card. In his speech yesterday he said that he supported the Australia Card because it was only to be used for taxation, social welfare and Medicare purposes and was not to carry a photograph. Obviously he did not know what he was supporting, because the proposed Australia Card most certainly did have a photograph. If he goes back to the original legislation and looks at clause 12, paragraph 3, of the Australia Card Bill he will have that confirmed. The Australia Card scheme would have resulted in a photographic database of all Australians. So he was quite happy to support that proposition in 1986, but his convenient memory to date does not allow him to do so now.
Under the Hawke Labor government’s Australia Card Bill you could not open a bank account without producing your Australia Card; under the access card system you can. You could not withdraw money from an account unless you produced your Australia Card to the bank; nor could a bank pay you interest on your deposits unless you produced your Australia Card. You could not invest money unless you produced your Australia Card. You could not buy land unless you produced your Australia Card. You could not purchase shares in a public company unless you produced the Australia Card. You had to produce your Australia Card when starting a job, and the employer had to record your Australia Card number on your group certificate.
This government’s smartcard is nothing like the Hawke government’s national identity card. Its purposes are limited to the provision of health benefits and veterans’ and social services. The two are as different as chalk and cheese. There are no provisions in this bill that require members of the public to produce their card in order to go about their ordinary business. Unlike the Australia Card Bill, this bill makes it abundantly clear that the smartcard is not a national ID card and is not to become a national ID card. There are very severe penalties for businesses or individuals who demand the access card for identity purposes. Under this bill you can go about your normal daily business without having to carry or produce your access card.
Members opposite have also made a great deal about the KPMG business case. They have suggested that significant portions of the business case have been kept secret and that they cannot make any informed decision about the legislation without access to the full business case. No relevant information is being kept secret. Obviously, part of the business case that may provide tenderers with sensitive commercial information or which could compromise security has been omitted from the public release document. That is only reasonable; there is no surprise in that whatsoever. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to release commercial information which may undermine the government’s negotiation strategy for the development of a smartcard infrastructure.
The member for Sydney also referred to the recommendation of the Fels task force in relation to the digitised signature and the unique identifying number. She said that the government ignored the recommendations of Professor Fels on these issues but had not given any reason for ignoring it. I refer the member for Sydney to the government’s response to the recommendations of the Fels task force, which was released at the same time as the task force report. The government’s response provides reasons for its decision in relation to each of the task force recommendations. I will not take time to detail those reasons here, but the member for Sydney is free to read the government’s decision in the publicly released response. I would be happy to provide her with a copy of that response or she can obtain a copy from the access card website.
Finally, I would like to briefly comment on the issue of function creep that was raised by a number of speakers. Legislative provisions in the bill and parliamentary scrutiny provide a robust protection against function creep. Clauses 6 and 7 of the bill set out the objects and the purposes of the bill respectively. These specific objects and purposes prevent function creep. Any changes in the objects in clause 6 and the purposes in clause 7 will require the government of the day to propose an amendment to the legislation and have it debated in this place and passed through both houses of the parliament. While members opposite may prefer to live in the past, this government is committed to moving with the times and using up-to-date technology to ensure that our health benefits, veterans’ and social services are delivered effectively, efficiently and with the least possible risk to the Australian taxpayers.
I believe that the measures in this bill strike the right balance between providing convenience for people and how they use their access card while at the same time protecting their privacy. Consumer and privacy issues were very important in the development of the smartcard. Without robust proof of identity to verify eligibility, measures that merely cut red tape and improve access for consumers would fail to eliminate weaknesses in the present system, such as identifying fraud problems which are undetected currently, and they will not deliver the benefits to the community that the government is seeking.
In summary, this government believes that the new card system will provide a number of important benefits to consumers: benefits in more efficient and productive interactions with the government’s health benefits, veterans’ and social service agencies; benefits in potential improvements to security for individuals in protecting them against identity fraud and enhanced privacy protection; benefits in preventing fraud against the Australian taxpayer; and benefits for other users chosen by the consumer. I am sure that in years to come people will look back and wonder why this debate took the turn that it did when, clearly, using the latest technology to benefit the Australian consumer, the Australian taxpayer and the Australian welfare system must be a positive step that all will applaud in years to come. I commend the bill to the House.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Plibersek’s amendment) stand part of the question.
Original question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
In relation to the consideration in detail, I have a number of amendments to move and I also want to make some comments about one of the additional issues that has been raised in this debate and that I alluded to in my speech on the second reading. I move:
(1) Clause 2, table of commencement information, item 2, Column 2, omit all words after “However,” substitute
“but a Proclamation must not be issued until the national Document Verification Service is fully operational.”
Now I am going to make some comments that do not relate to this amendment—that is, about people under the age of 18 applying for their own access cards. This issue was of enormous concern to members from both the government and the opposition. I am very happy to report that, because of some very hard work, I think, on the part of Mal Washer and other people on the government side, we have reached a better position than the one that was originally advocated by the minister. I want not only to congratulate Mal Washer on his excellent work but also to say that we are still waiting to see in concrete the statements that the minister has committed to making in his third reading speech, explaining the guidelines that he is proposing and the effect that they will have. We will look forward to seeing that explanation in the third reading speech and in the guidelines, and we will be watching what the minister says very closely to ensure that the commitments he has made to his own side and to us are honoured.
My amendment relates to bringing the commencement date of the legislation into line with the operation of the new document verification service. A number of Labor Party speakers have mentioned that the document verification service is absolutely integral to ensuring that this legislation does have the effect that the government is claiming that it will have. Without the document verification service—
Come on, Tanya, let it go.
You should have got it right in the first place, Joe, and we would not be here fixing it, mate. It is actually a real shame that the previous minister is leaving, because he made such a hotchpotch of this legislation that there are, in fact, 200 amendments that we could have moved. But this amendment about the document verification service actually goes to the government’s own stated reasons for the legislation. The Attorney-General’s Department confirmed in Senate estimates last week that there is no intergovernmental agreement yet on what documents are sufficiently reliable proof for identity processes. Miles Jordana, the First Assistant Secretary, said:
We are hoping for an intergovernmental agreement on identity security in the first half of this year, but that will depend on the positions taken by the various participants in the states and territories.
The department also confessed in Senate estimates that, as yet, there is no proof of identity framework signed off with the states. Senator Ludwig asked:
In short you would agree that a proof of identity framework has not been signed off by the states and territories?
Miles Jordana replied:
I think it is probably fair to say that at this stage, yes.
So there is uncertainty about the proof of identity framework; and a new, major online system that is being developed—the document verification service, which is designed to enable the Australian government to verify that documents presented by applicants for benefits or services are authentic—will not be finished until 2010. Miles Jordana further said:
... the establishment of a document verification service is something which has a time line in the order of four years—
beginning on 1 July 2006—
So where we can get to this year, if we do manage to complete an IGA—
an intergovernmental agreement—
will need to in a sense recognise where our discussions have got to, including those with our state and territory colleagues.
This means that, from the start of registrations for the access card—which are scheduled to start next year in April—through the document verification service which is coming online in 2010, the Australian government has no ability to do bulk checks on documents to check the authenticity of birth, death and marriage certificates, visas, drivers licences and other identifying documents. (Extension of time granted) What does that mean? It means manual checking of proof of identity documents produced by Australians in the course of registration.
There are 16½ million interviews planned. In each interview people will, presumably, have to provide more than one source of identification. The government are planning 35,000 interviews a day. They have set aside 12 minutes for each of these interviews and they are going to check each one of these documents manually with the states and territories. It beggars belief. Tasmania does not even have electronic records of certificates issued before the 1990s. The document verification service trial, which concluded only a few months ago, included only the New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory births, deaths and marriages agencies. The other agencies around the country have an enormous amount of work to do in scanning millions and millions of original documents, including death certificates.
Without the document verification service, registration is logistically impossible and contains dangerous possibilities of fraud. The government simply cannot credibly register 35,000 people a day and manually check those details on birth certificates, marriage certificates and so on to ensure that the details match up with the paper copies kept in registers in other jurisdictions. How will it happen? Corners will be cut, mistakes will be made and a huge backlog will develop. We do not think this is a good proposal but, if you wanted to do it, any sensible government would wait until the document verification service was online so that the public servants who are checking these documents would be able to do it electronically and do a high volume at a time. It is incredible that we heard the member for Moncrieff, Steve Ciobo, say last night:
I have no doubt that the access card will and can be fraudulently produced in the future. Those who would seek to do the wrong thing by society … would certainly be able to produce a forged access card. The notion that in some way this card is unable to be forged is wrong. It of course can be and will be forged.
This document verification service problem actually means that it will be easier to get a card in a name other than your own. If you are a criminal seeking to set up a fake identity, you would be much better to do it in these early stages when documents will not be adequately checked. I reiterate that Labor believes that the commencement date of the legislation should be brought into line with the operation of the new national document verification service.
Question put:
That the amendment (Ms Plibersek’s) be agreed to.
I move opposition amendment (2):
(2) Clause 8, page 12 (line 23) to page 13 (line 27), omit the clause.
This amendment relates to the extraordinary amount of ministerial power included in this legislation. The legislation leaves so much to ministerial interpretation and additions and subtractions. It is extraordinary that such an important piece of legislation would have so little guidance for public servants and would leave so much to ministerial discretion. For example, under this bill, the minister and the departmental secretary already have enormous powers to add information or requests for information to the card and to the database, to expand the uses of the card and to issue guidelines that will shoulder out parliamentary oversight. For example, the secretary of the department has the power to order that original identity documents presented by a person registering for the access card be scanned and stored on the register. That in itself is a problem which Labor have raised a number of times, because it makes the register a honey pot for identity thieves. For the first time, every Australian adult’s personal details will be available in the one place: where they live, who their children are, how old they are, their place and date of birth, plus all sorts of information that Australians might willingly put on the register. In addition, you will have scanned copies of birth certificates, marriage certificates and so on.
The ministerial guidelines will be used as the primary interpretive aid by Commonwealth officers, who really should be referring back to what the parliament’s intention is in relation to this legislation rather than to ministerial guidelines that will change from time to time. One of the reasons that is so very important with respect to this legislation, compared with other legislation, is that so much in this legislation is left unsaid. There are still so many unclear areas. We do not know what will be covered in access card bill (No. 2) and access card bill (No. 3). Hopefully, some of the gaping holes will be filled in. What we do not want to see is the minister’s discretion filling in those holes willy-nilly as the minister pleases.
At this point I remind the House that the member for Moncrieff said last night that he had some concerns about ‘function creep on the slippery slope’. In this respect, I suggest that it is only a matter of time—and indeed we have some evidence of it thus far—before the private sector will say: ‘We seek access to the national registration database to ensure that the card presented is a valid card.’ It will not be very long and certainly not much of a stretch to suggest that the continued production of the card to verify identity would see widespread calls from the private sector for this purpose.
Leaving the potential to the minister and to the department to expand the information collected, to change the way the information is stored, to change who has access to it and under what circumstances they have that access, and to change the uses of the card at any time with the stroke of a pen, is of enormous concern to the Australian Labor Party. That is why we are moving that ministerial power should not override or substitute legislation in this bill.
Question put:
That the amendment (Ms Plibersek’s) be agreed to.
Order! It being past 9.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
I rise to condemn some comments that were made in the Federal Court yesterday on behalf of the federal government in the case involving David Hicks. The Solicitor-General, David Bennett QC, basically submitted to the court that the Australian government had no duty to protect its citizens abroad. That sparked a remark from Justice Brian Tamberlin, who is reported in the papers to have said:
There’s not much of a trade-off: you can be conscripted to fight overseas, but if you are taken overseas [and detained] there’s no duty [for the Government to protect you].
The government’s conduct towards David Hicks and his continued detention for the last five years has been an absolute disgrace. In recent times, we have seen some mutterings from the government as public opinion has changed. I do not want to go into the guilt or innocence of David Hicks, but the processes are important and so is the fact that Australian citizenship must count for something.
Guantanamo Bay was set up on Cuban territory and leased to the Americans to avoid the US Constitution coming into play. That way, foreigners would not have the benefit and the protection of the US Constitution. The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that Americans who are charged with terrorism offences are not tried by military commissions. What we have is a second-rate system of justice—a kangaroo court set up to secure convictions. This government have been very lax in protecting Australian citizens. They have not brought Mr Hicks back to Australia because they know that he is not guilty of any offence under Australian law. The current rules of the tribunal mean that retrospectivity and rules of hearsay will apply. It is all geared to obtain a conviction at all costs. It is about political embarrassment for those concerned.
The Australian government has to do more. It has to do more because people need to believe that being an Australian citizen counts for something. As I say, I do not want to go into guilt or innocence. My concern is that he has been abandoned and left to rot in a foreign cell for five years and it is only in recent months—as an election becomes due—that the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have had something to say. To then turn around and in effect give instructions to the Solicitor-General to say that we have no duty to protect our citizens abroad is a disgrace. We legislate so that people can be dealt with if they involve themselves in criminal activity abroad. The reverse should apply as well. As Justice Tamberlin remarked, we can conscript people to fight overseas, but if you are taken overseas and detained there is no duty on the government to protect you. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark if a government goes into a court to argue that position. Whether or not it is the law, the government should not be going into the court arguing that particular position. It should be insisting that proper rules apply in relation to the adjudication on the guilt or innocence of Mr Hicks.
Mr Hicks has served five years and he has still not yet been charged, and the process has many months—if not years—to run. If there are appeal processes, we will have a situation in which another year or two elapses before he is brought back. This is not about Hicks per se; it is about the principle of sticking up for decent values. Otherwise, how do we condemn the terrorists? We talk about Australian values. What does it mean to be an Australian citizen when you are abandoned by your government abroad and when they allow a bodgie process to take place? The British are not allowing it for their citizens. They have brought them back to the UK. We are the only silly buggers—pardon the French—that are allowing our citizens to be tried under this process. It is no good. As I said, I do not blame the Solicitor-General, David Bennett QC. He acts on instructions. The government should not have given those instructions to him to go into court with. They should be rolling over and bringing Hicks home. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to update the House on the parlous state of police services offered to the suburb of Moorooka. The Moorooka police station in Hamilton Road has served our local community well, although for many people newer to the area it is not immediately identifiable. The case that I have put to the people of the suburb of Moorooka is the need for a 24-hour police station—and, moreover, a shopfront in the Moorvale shops to provide an obvious community presence.
But it gets worse than that. I have had individual police officers who have said that the cause I am championing is something that needs to be championed. Let me tell the House a little bit about what is actually happening, based on what individual police officers have told me at the Moorooka police station. This station does not have an interview facility. All interviews must be videotaped on three machines. But they do not even have an interview room, so how can they do that? If they want to interview a suspect, they have to take them to the Sherwood police station, to Acacia Ridge or to Inala—a major problem on the nightshift, if there happens to be one operating. Police are worried that a similar thing could happen as happened to their colleague Chris Hurley on Palm Island.
This is not a 24-hour police station in any sense of the words. It only provides 24-hour patrols every second week! On the off weeks it is covered by other stations from as far away as Mount Ommaney. There is no holding cell at Moorooka. Violent offenders are told to sit on a chair in the middle of the room—and, presumably, to be quiet. The building is at capacity. While there is currently the complement of allocated staff of 19, officers are telling me that it is still badly understaffed. However, despite all the community need, and all the occupational health and safety issues associated with this overcrowding, basically if more officers were allocated to Moorooka there simply would not be enough room. A new computer system has been installed, but it has added half an hour of time to the processing of even one piece of paperwork—and it is longer for more complicated cases.
There is also a special issue around Moorooka. There is a variety of African faces, which presents its own challenge. Most of these folk are refugees, humble and keen to get on with their new lives here. But some are making mistakes in their early days in Australia. They are sitting around in public places, on railway stations throughout the course of the day and into the night; in bus stops and outside Woolworths at Beaudesert Road in Moorooka. People are actually frightened and confronted by large groups of these kids, in the main, who are hanging around. The police do their bit and they try to move them on. They say: ‘Come on, let’s play fair; we don’t put our feet up on the bus stops. We do things in a different way in Australia.’ But a few of the tough ones are taking the police on. As I say, these are law-abiding, decent people; but at the same time there are some young men who have been around soldiers in their country of birth since they were young. Some have seen people killed and feel the authorities here are really quite cowardly and too restrained by law to do anything to them. They have absolutely no respect, in some cases, for anybody in uniform. There is a need, therefore, for the Queensland Police Service to have more African faces in their ranks.
The Queensland Police Service, I must say, to be fair, has the best attendance to these community relations issues of any police service in Australia. As a former minister for multicultural affairs in this government, I know that Queensland does a good job in this regard. But there are just too few. There is only one African face at work, and there are tens of thousands of African faces in the community. We need someone to help break down those barriers and get rid of this too-thin-on-the-ground approach.
That is another reason why we need the Moorvale shopfront, why we need to see the Queensland Police Service invest in a physical presence that accommodates the numbers of police officers needed to provide 24-hour protection and points of certainty, to provide for occupational health and safety requirements for the individual officers and to reduce the stress levels that police officers face in going about their everyday duties. It is also important that the police presence is very obvious, to deal with the community relations issues.
The current station is old; it probably only has a usable life of a few years, despite some renovations. It is simply not big enough. The fact is that there is only a 24-hour police presence every second week. There is only a 24-hour police presence in that off-week by use of a blue phone. That means you pick up the phone and you talk to someone miles away. The bottom line, as the Queensland police union says, is that essentially there is only one patrol on the south side of Brisbane at night most nights of the week. The police cannot afford to have the off days that apparently the criminals are supposed to have in our community. The idea that crime should only be committed every second week, that crime should only be committed between eight and three on Monday to Friday, is a joke—an absolute farce. As the local member I am determined to represent this cause. (Time expired)
It is with some reluctance that I rise in relation to the Friends of Indi—and, more importantly, the overweening arrogance of this sclerotic government. Last night Labor called on the member for Indi to come clean about her connection with this group. It is important to remember that the Friends of Indi failed to lodge a return for the last two financial years, keeping its receipts and donations a secret. It was not until British American Tobacco lodged its return that its cover was blown. In the process, the cover of the chief ‘friend’, the Member for Indi, was also blown.
It is clear that the member for Indi was the beneficiary of donations made to Friends of Indi, including a $15,000 donation from British American Tobacco in the last financial year. That British American Tobacco was donating money to the member for Indi is made clear on page 2 of the company’s return to the Australian Electoral Commission.
Labor has asked the member for Indi to answer some simple questions about her relationship with the Friends of Indi. And it is not just Labor asking the questions. The member for Indi’s constituents, including tobacco growers kept in the dark about her relationship with BAT, have been asking questions about the member’s conduct as well. While British American Tobacco have made a decision to shaft hundreds of local tobacco growers by importing cheap tobacco from China, the member for Indi has not been telling them that she has taken what is for a local campaign a massive donation. No wonder they are angry; no wonder they feel betrayed. Some people would argue that this is not cash for comment; this is cash for no comment. It is bad enough that the member for Indi has got herself caught up in this mess. It is simply beyond belief that coalition members decided last night that the member for Indi is an appropriate person to chair the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
The Howard government has abandoned all common sense in this matter. It has made the poacher the gamekeeper. It is a sign of the government’s arrogance that the appointment was considered—let alone confirmed—by the coalition party room. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is one of the most important committees in this parliament. Appointment to the committee is an honour. It goes without saying that the chair of the committee should be beyond reproach. Sadly, in the absence of answers from the member for Indi and the completion of the current investigation by the Australian Electoral Commission, the member is not beyond reproach. It is time that the member for Indi provided the parliament with a full account of her conduct.
The bluster we heard after question time today falls short of the explanation the member is obliged to provide. Shouting at the Speaker and getting thrown out of parliament for disorderly behaviour is not good enough. Repeating allegations about corrupt local tobacco growers is not good enough. Running away from journalists and failing to return calls is not good enough. The unanswered questions are pretty simple. Who is involved in the Friends of Indi? When did the member for Indi trouser the $15,000 donation from British American Tobacco? How did she spend it? Why did she think it proper to hide the donation from the tobacco growers that she was asking to accept a British American Tobacco buyout? What other donors have used the Friends of Indi to launder campaign donations?
Tonight Labor again urges the member for Indi to offer a full account of herself. Personally, I like the member for Indi. She is a feisty and colourful character in this parliament. But until such time as the member properly accounts for her conduct, a cloud of controversy will surround her appointment as chair of the committee with responsibility for the oversight of electoral matters. This is not a personal matter for the member for Indi. This is a political criticism of someone whose political support fund is under an official investigation and of the government’s wrong decision to at the same time make her the chair of this very important committee. In my view, until the member properly accounts for her conduct, a cloud of controversy will surround her appointment as chair of the committee with the responsibility for the oversight of electorate matters.
The Howard government has long shown contempt for the parliament and this is just another example. Its appointment of the member for Indi as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in these circumstances—in the midst of a campaign finance scandal—represents a further blow to the parliament and to the quality of our democracy.
I am rather disappointed in the last speaker, the member for Melbourne Ports. I usually have a higher regard for him, but I have never heard so much rubbish or hypocrisy spoken in my life. Today in this chamber the member for Indi—a good friend and colleague—was perfectly properly correcting the record that had been so wrongly placed the night before by the member for Gorton. He is a little-known member in this place, but he is certainly well known in the union movement. Indeed, from the years 1993 to 2001, he was the Assistant National Secretary of the Australian Services Union. And guess what? During 1998 to 2001, that same union, using three related entities—but still the Australian Services Union—donated $240,000 to the Labor Party. And guess what? It did not declare it. Only for one year, the year of 1999-2000, did he bother to put in his return that they had in fact donated $12,000, when the ALP’s own return showed that in that year they had donated $75,000—a discrepancy of $63,000.
The little-known member for Gorton—though he is a well-known trade unionist—talked about $15,000 as a hefty donation. Well, what the hell do you call $240,000? I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that when the member for Indi was very properly correcting the record today, she was ejected from the chamber while defending herself. If we go further into the records of the ASU and the assistant secretary, from 1998—which is the farthest we can go back—up until 2001, with the exception of the year 1999-2000, not one ASU declaration was filed. We picked up the numbers from the ALP declaration. What of the precedent set by this trade unionist who now calls himself a member of parliament? That same person set such a good standard that, in the year 2005-06, the same standard was adhered to. No return was filed by the ASU—not filed at all—yet, in that year, $100,000 was donated to the ALP. And you stand there tonight whingeing about the fact that the Friends of Indi filed a late return—and they have filed—for $15,000.
There is not the faintest suggestion that the former assistant secretary of the ASU was trying to correct the record. It is hypocrisy, with a record like this, to come in here and to give somebody a hard time. It is outrageous and it should be condemned at the highest level. We have always known about the cosy relationship between the unions and the Labor Party, which is simply the political front for the trade union movement. Here it is in black and white—$240,532 donated and not disclosed, with the exception of a miserable $12,000. One can only conclude it was deliberate, aimed to mislead or incompetence. In any case, the member for Gorton and now, by implication, the member for Melbourne Ports stand condemned. As I said, I am disappointed in the member for Melbourne Ports. I had often thought much higher of him. I thought his standards were better, but he has dragged himself into the little-known member for Gorton’s attempt to besmirch a good member by getting into bed with him and his nasty trade union deceit.
Shame!
It is shameful and it should be condemned in this place. The member for Indi deserves an apology from that side of the House for its attempt to besmirch what is a fine reputation of a member who works hard for her own constituents. This is an attempt in the lead-up to an election to try to appear holier than thou over a late return for the year 2006 when you have failed to lodge returns over the period from 1998—and probably further back—and have hidden $240,000, which has gone to the Labor Party ‘trouser’, to use your word. It has been trousered by the Labor Party from their trade union mates. You owe her an apology, and I hope it is forthcoming tonight.
I wish to introduce a totally different tone to the debate. As members of parliament, our role is very varied. Tonight I am speaking in parliament and last week I was working in my electorate of Shortland. In my electorate office I met an amazing young woman, Kellie Nadillo, and her autistic son, Joshua. Joshua is an extremely fortunate boy as both his mother, Kellie, and his father, Simon, are dedicated to assisting him to function at the highest possible level.
Joshua is four in July. He is not an ordinary little boy. He is not like a normal four-year-old. He is not toilet trained. He has very few words. These are the words that I have heard him utter. There was a picture of a dog in my office and he made a noise a little bit like a wolf, ‘oof!’—just expressing air. He can make a noise like the hiss of a cat. He communicates with pictures. Feeding this young man is different to feeding a normal four-year-old. He likes to have the same foods all the time. His eating patterns are very rigid and his parents have to get a special formula to ensure that he gets all the nutrients that he needs to grow. It is a full-time job looking after Joshua. His behaviour is very unpredictable. At any moment he could run in front of a car. No-one in the house knows what he will do from one minute to the next. He has difficulty relating to people and to other children, which of course is an enormous handicap in life.
He was diagnosed with severe communication disorder and delayed speech and language about 18 months ago. But he is a very lucky boy. Tonight I was speaking to his father. I will give you an idea of how dedicated the family is to seeing that Joshua has the fullest possible life that he can. I rang his father and he said that Kellie, the mother, was at a course on how to communicate with autistic children. Young Joshua has had speech therapy. He has done an early intervention program. He goes to a preschool where he gets one-on-one teaching two days a week. He goes to a playgroup two days a week. This is quite an expensive exercise. He is fortunate as he has a mother and a father that have totally dedicated their lives to helping him overcome his autism and to maximising his functionality so he can enjoy a better quality of life.
Imagine my surprise when Kellie told me Centrelink had rejected her application for carers payment—not because her husband earns too much money but because Centrelink deemed that Joshua’s medical condition was not at a sufficient level to be eligible for a carers payment. I have seen young Joshua and I worked with disabled people before I came to this parliament, and I know that Joshua needs full-time care. Any person that met Joshua would know that he needs full-time care. Anyone that met Kellie would know how dedicated she is to giving him that care and anyone that spoke to his father, Simon, would also know that.
Joshua requires full-time care. The family does not go out together. Both Kelly and Simon attend special groups for parents of autistic children—they go to a fathers group and a mothers group. Kellie has been granted respite care for Joshua, yet Centrelink has refused to pay them a carers payment. I think that the process that is in place, the rules this government have put in place, are despicable. I believe that children like Joshua should be eligible. His parents should be eligible to receive a carers payment so that he can get the caring treatment that he has been offered by his family.
I rise this evening to speak about the self-inflicted implosion of the West Australian state government and the destruction of public confidence in the Carpenter selected cabinet. For those who do not know, the Corruption and Crime Commission, the CCC, are currently investigating corruption within the West Australian government. This story unfolding reads like the script of a very bad soap opera.
In August 2006, Mr D’Orazio, minister for police, was forced to resign his frontbench position and Labor Party membership after appearing at the second CCC hearing. It was revealed then that he had met with a man at the centre of an investigation into the fixing of speeding fines. Then in October a CCC report made allegations of sexual misconduct within the Department of Education and Training. Then the CCC announced it was investigating small business minister Norm Marlborough and his links to former Premier Brian Burke and his business partner Julian Grill as part of an impropriety investigation. It was revealed that Mr Burke gave Mr Marlborough a mobile phone to conceal confidential conversations from investigators, and in November Mr Carpenter sacked him as a minister.
In December there was a much awaited reshuffle. Only five out of the 16 ministers were unaffected. Ms Ravlich was dumped as education minister and demoted to a junior role. John Bowler was stripped of his resources portfolio under a cloud regarding his relationship with Mr Burke and Mr Grill but remained minister for local government. A new portfolio of climate change and the environment was filled by Tony McRae. On Sunday last Mr Carpenter sacked Mr McRae after the CCC accused him last week of using his position as a minister to try and gain a financial benefit from lobbyist Mr Grill.
Yesterday Mr Bowler appeared at the CCC inquiry over the alleged leaking of confidential government business to Mr Grill when he was resource minister. Mr Grill and Mr Burke were representing a number of mining companies at the time. Mr Bowler acknowledged being a close friend of Mr Grill’s for 30 years and said he visited him regularly at home to discuss matters affecting his portfolio because he could avoid media scrutiny and he knew the Premier would not approve of their conversations.
Mr Bowler was at the CCC again today and, after many highly incriminating recordings of his conversations were heard as evidence, the Premier this afternoon announced he has sacked him from the cabinet and called for his resignation from the ALP. Mr Bowler has tendered his resignation. It remains to be seen whether he will ignore this highly embarrassing revelation of collusive behaviour or resign his seat and cause yet another by-election. The expectation right now is that many more ministers will be called to face questioning this week.
How did this happen? After taking over from Dr Geoff Gallop, Premier Alan Carpenter foolishly succumbed to factional influences and lifted a ban on interaction between his ministers and the tenacious trio of Brian Burke, his henchman Julian Grill and Noel Crichton-Browne. Now the CCC is investigating the trio’s influence over current ministers.
Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to higher education, and for related purposes. (Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007)
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the granting of financial assistance to the States for primary and secondary education, and for related purposes. (Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007)
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for related purposes. (Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007)
to move:
That the House: