Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (12:04 PM) —I rise in the debate on the Privacy Amendment Bill this afternoon to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Banks (Mr Melham). In doing so, I suggest that other members of the opposition have made clear that this bill does not extend protection of privacy into the private sector when it should. More importantly, I wish to make some points about how this bill does not even do enough to extend protection of privacy to contractors in the new employment services market, which is supposedly one of its express purposes and which I think is fundamentally important at the moment in the face of the government's changes with respect to the employment delivery services market.

I also suggest that this bill is a belated and inadequate response to a long process of complaints about how the government has failed to protect the privacy of information about unemployed people. As if they do not have enough difficulties when they are out there looking for a job. The government first announced its intention to privatise the provision of employment services in the August 1996 budget. What a mess it made of that decision. I also remind the House that when it made that announcement it even dared to suggest that there were some unemployed people who would have to meet a capacity benefit test to be entitled to a free and universal employment service.

Ever since then there have been major unresolved concerns about the effect of these changes upon the privacy of information about unemployed people. When the government presented its Reform of Employment Services Bill 1996 to the Senate, it sought, among other things, to change the law regarding the protection of information about unemployed people. That was something that was fairly instrumental in former decisions of the parliament in ensuring that, as we created a competitive model, people's privacy was protected.

When the bill was debated, the opposition raised a number of concerns about the government's bill at the time. Unfortunately, Senator Vanstone, who was then the minister, was not prepared to take on board these concerns. Rather than fronting up to a fair and reasonable debate, she decided to withdraw the bill and to, in essence, take her bat and ball and go home. In that debate, opposition senators set out these concerns in detail in a minority report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

Clearly, the issues that we sought to raise were properly considered and developed in consultation with a Senate committee following community concerns. These concerns included the need to ensure that legal requirements for privacy and secrecy were effectively enforced in relation to the new employment placement enterprises. Part of our consideration included that that be through the scrutiny of the Privacy Commissioner. This followed clear evidence, without a satisfactory answer from the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), that at least one private employment agency had been going around headhunting case managers.

Our concerns also followed evidence that some people inside the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs had been using access to confidential data. They were using their inside knowledge of how local labour markets operated and the success rates of various case managers to benefit personally in the new employment services market. Our concerns also followed evidence that many employees had in fact been disciplined for trying to set up tendering rolls for new employment placement enterprises. I might remind the House that some of these issues were raised in the Senate in the form of questions to the then minister.

I believe that the clear conflict of interest between those actions and their responsibilities as public servants to guard privacy made it all the more important to pursue amendments to the government's bill to protect privacy in the future. Accordingly, the opposition did pursue several amendments. These included putting a new objectives section into the bill which suggested a number of principles. One was that the employment assistance services should be provided in accordance with high ethical and professional standards. I know that is not a requirement under the tendering out process of the government's decision to privatise the old employment service delivery market. If anything, probity has gone missing and one cannot suggest that some of the successful tenders operate on the basis of high ethical and professional standards. I need only refer, for example, to the Khadar Roude story which has been raised in successive questions in the House.

Another concern was that employment services should be provided with respect to the right of users of the services to privacy. What happened when this amendment to insert a new objectives section succeeded? Strangely, the government withdrew the bill. It was not interested in a fair and proper debate. It proceeded towards implementing its new employment services market without proper legislative underpinning. So much for accountability by this government to the people. So much for a willingness to debate issues of major concern in the parliament. It denied, in essence, the national parliament its democratic opportunity to moderate a major and harsh change in social policy—Dr Kemp's cruel experiment on the unemployed.

A number of further serious concerns were subsequently raised about the implications of the government's course of action for privacy, including possible breaches of other Commonwealth laws. I suggest that we are entitled to raise those concerns because I have also raised in this House questions, for example, about a company in South Australia that has been selected by this government to deliver employment services, a company that is associated with the presentation of dud cheques, a company that cannot meet requirements with respect to provision of disabled employment services to workers with a disability, a company that has had difficulties with respect to meeting its requirements to pay its bills for electricity. That is the type of company selected by this government with the privatisation of employment services in South Australia.

It all goes back to the very debate that occurred in the Senate about a certain level of quality to be required with respect to the companies successfully selected through the tender process and also proper accountability with respect to that selection process to the parliament. In that context, these concerns were set out in a detailed paper by a former senior officer of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, a Mr Tom Brennan. Following the issue of the employment services request for tender in August last year, Mr Brennan identified a number of significant legal issues arising from the tender.

The first of these was that the system provided for flows of information to providers of FLEX 1 could be in breach of criminal provisions of the Social Security Act. The second was that the Crimes Act protections of information held on behalf of the government in computers might not effectively extend to conduct of employees of contracted providers. The third was that the Crimes Act prohibitions on communication of personal information might not effectively extend to staff or subcontractors of contracted providers. The fourth was that information privacy principles in relation to collection of personal information will not apply to contracted providers. Fifthly, Mr Brennan, who had extensive experience in the case management competitive model developed by the former government, expressed concern that the Privacy Commissioner would appear to have no role in investigation of complaints about conduct of providers.

There were clearly very serious legal issues hanging over the entire tender of employment services due to the government's failure to properly underpin the new arrangements with legislation acceptable to the national parliament. Subsequently, the Deputy Privacy Commissioner also expressed grave concerns that the privacy rights of the unemployed were being undermined by the new tendered out employment service arrangements. On that basis, the commissioner on 8 March this year pointed out that under the new arrangements unemployed people who seek work through private agencies will risk having their details traded to debt collectors.

He then went on to highlight the fact that the new private employment services would not be directly covered by the Privacy Act. He pointed out that the Privacy Commission, which was established to prevent personal details being misused by government departments, was not able to directly investigate any breaches of private employment agencies. It confirmed that the level of privacy protection for unemployed people using private employment services was lower than that which applied to government agencies.

With this new bill the government is belatedly trying to give the impression—and that is all it is, an impression—that all these problems will be resolved. The Attorney-General said in his second reading speech:

. . . the bill also extends coverage to cases where Commonwealth agencies contract for the provision of services to people other than the Commonwealth.

He then said:

For example, where a Commonwealth agency contracts with a company to provide job seeking assistance to unemployed individuals, that company will be covered by the act.

He then went on to say:

This means that those who have previously received services delivered directly by Commonwealth agencies can be assured that the protection of their personal information continues at the same high standard required by the Privacy Act if those services are provided by contracted service providers.

The real question is: is he right? Are all the big and serious questions about privacy under the new employment service arrangements which have been raised by the opposition, by Mr Brennan, a former senior officer of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, by the Deputy Privacy Commissioner and by others over the last 18 months answered by this bill? I suggest to the House that I do not think so. In particular, this bill does nothing to address the questions raised as to whether systems proposed or flows of information to providers of FLEX 1 could be in breach of criminal provisions of the Social Security Act, nor does it do enough to ensure that privacy principles generally are respected.

I have been consistently raising, inside and outside this House, concrete examples of how successful tenders for employment services under the government's new arrangements have not operated with high ethical and professional standards. I have also referred today to what amounted to, in essence, insider trading within the department in the lead-up to the tender process, and the trading of information with potential employers in the private sector on the basis of which certain departmental officers were seeking a guarantee of employment in the new privatised employment services market.

I have also raised in this House the question of the capacity of some of those companies selected to actually deliver the services which they have now been given a tender by the government to deliver. For example, I need only refer in passing to Mr Roude in Western Sydney: a contract of the order of almost $1 million, no real experience in the delivery of employment services, and not even an office, let alone a computer, a telephone and a fax system. Yet this government expects us to believe today that the amendments to the Privacy Act are, in essence, going to put this person in a straitjacket and ensure—when there are serious questions over his head about his capacity to deliver and, frankly, the probity of the selection of him for a tender—that the privacy and information on the unemployed—their personal details—are properly protected.

The experience of the last few weeks suggests that there are significant questions over the whole tender process. The nature of the people selected also raises serious questions as to their requirement and their capacity to guarantee the proper protection of people's personal information. On that basis, I suggest that, far from guaranteeing the necessary protection, it raises serious ongoing question marks about the capacity of this government and the employment services market to actually give that necessary and vital protection to the unemployed, who are entitled to the same protection as other people in the Australian community. I will, therefore, continue to raise in the future how privacy laws and principles are not being protected in the new employment services arrangements.

It is an absolute disgrace to think that the major winner in South Australia is a company that presents dud cheques and cannot even pay its bills when it comes to electricity costs. That is the type of company that the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) is associated with in South Australia. After all, he is a close confidant of the former minister, Senator Vanstone, who was responsible for the initial phasing in of this new employment services market.

Mr Pyne —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Batman has just suggested that I am associated with companies which he has been accusing of the most pernicious behaviour, which I regard as quite unacceptable, and I ask him to withdraw the suggestion that I would associate with crooked companies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews) —Does the honourable member for Sturt find the words offensive?

Mr Pyne —I find the imputation offensive and the words offensive that were used to make the imputation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I invite the honourable member for Batman to withdraw the words that the honourable member for Sturt finds offensive.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand why the member is so sensitive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. I invite you to withdraw the words.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —And I withdraw the personal reference, but in doing so clearly indicate that he is a member of a government and a close confidant of the former minister responsible for this tendering process that has clearly selected companies without standing in the community—companies that have got question marks over their performance and companies that I suggest are not capable of delivering these employment services. For that reason the member for Sturt and his government are condemned for walking away from their responsibilities to protect Australia's unemployed and to create decent opportunities. He stands condemned and he ought to hang his head in shame because he is part of a collective that has no standing itself.

As I said, it is too little, too late. We require action. We necessarily must have an ongoing campaign to ensure that the government is required to take the necessary action. This government has been shamed into taking this bill, but has seriously not taken into proper consideration the legal and ethical questions that have been raised about the new employment services market. They will not go away. The member for Sturt knows it. His close friend, Senator Vanstone, the former minister, knows it. The new minister, Dr Kemp, knows it. The truth of the matter is that there are still serious question marks about privacy and the question of protecting personal information of Australia's unemployed when it comes to the employment services market and the operation of the Privacy Act.

For that reason I support the second reading amendment and clearly indicate that we are not satisfied, as an opposition, that the privacy information of Australia's unemployed is properly protected as a result of the privatisation of the employment services market.