Mr CADMAN (12:24 PM) —I was anxious to have the previous speaker, the member for Lilley, Mr Swan, stay within those limits because that is the area that I want to confine my remarks to. The government has a very strong social conscience in many of the matters that were referred to by the member for Lilley, and which will be matters for other debates in other places. This government is concerned for people seeking jobs and for those who are on welfare.

Every act of this government has demonstrated its compassion and concern for the people, as described by the member for Lilley. Today we are dealing with the control of fraud and the abuse of welfare. The government has decided to remove a sunset clause from the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 (No. 2) . When in opposition, this government opposed the removal of the sunset clause. The honourable member was right in that regard. We were not sure that there were going to be the gains that the government of the day said there would be by going into data matching.

When in government, the Australian Labor Party's program for data matching started slowly. They were so revved up at one point that the Australian Labor Party felt, as a government, that they should introduce the Australia card to make sure that everybody was tagged somehow or other through the taxation system, social security and unemployment benefits. They felt that people should be tagged and identified under a single system which could be data-matched across departments and easily administered by bureaucrats. That is certainly a simple data-matching process but it moves into another matter, and that is the matter of privacy. It is a matter that the member referred to, but not at great length, and I believe he should have done that if he has the concern for people he seemed to express.

The conflict in this area is always how much information will be gained and stored in one place; how much information will be cross-matched, and from which agencies; how that information will be held; and whether it will remain private. That is what part of this debate is about. Of course, the other part of the debate is whether or not the removal of this sunset clause removes a capacity for greater personal privacy of the clients of various departments.

Whilst we were in opposition, we opposed the removal of the sunset clause because we felt that the government of the day had not demonstrated a worthwhile yield from data matching, in catching or dealing with fraud.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12.27 p.m. to 12.51 p.m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —A quorum not being present, the Main Committee will resume in two minutes.

Sitting suspended from 12.51 p.m. to 12.53 p.m.

Mr CADMAN —We are debating a bill which seeks to remove a sunset clause from data matching where it applies to the Department of Social Security, that department being the main agency in charge of data matching. The department is given access to a range of files across the spectrum of information held by government, including tax file numbers and other matters.

The removal of the sunset clause was proposed by the current opposition when it was in government in 1995, but at that time it was rejected by members of the current government. However, since then we have had an assurance that the results from data matching are successful and that the privacy provisions that worried us at that time are now adequately attended to.

I will refer to comments made by an Australian National Audit Office report in 1996 that said that overall the Department of Social Security had made substantial achievements through implementing legislative changes, improved reporting procedures, savings collection, better targeting and project evaluation processes. It said also that these changes had resulted in both substantial increases in savings generated by the program and efficiency improvements.

I refer the House to an inquiry commenced in 1993 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs resulting in a report in June 1995 entitled In confidence. That report dealt with the ever increasing amount of confidential information held by government and the information being obtained quite properly so that the government could provide benefits for those enrolled, so benefits could be paid and grants could be allocated.

People who provide information to government have a right and an expectation to think that that information is going to be retained in a confidential manner. A report that was prepared for the New South Wales government by the ICAC group in New South Wales identified the sale of confidential information by New South Wales agencies for huge amounts of money, and there was a concern by the House of Representatives committee that that may be occurring in Australian government agencies.

There was no indication that that had happened, or is happening, but the inquiry became aware of some very cavalier attitudes amongst Commonwealth government agencies—in particular, Telstra, which seemed to think nothing of tapping its clients' lines in order to gain information about their operations. We need to look at that privacy invasion process when we look at data matching. If my memory serves me right, at that time the Department of Social Security held something like 12 million matches on databases ready for access, and nobody was taking any care of the possible future of those matches and the information held.

I think those days have changed. The government has assured itself and, as the Privacy Commissioner has identified, the process has now become clearer. The Australian National Audit Office has said, `You have clear goals; you are managing this area better,' and the government is satisfied with the results of dealing with fraud. There have been some spectacular gains by the government in dealing with fraud, and that is very pleasing.

I would have liked to have dealt in some detail with the Audit Office report on data matching. Suffice it to say that generally the ministers have presented the details accurately, but I do consider there is a factor of ongoing privacy that must be safeguarded. The removal of a sunset clause is a protection that was put in place so that the parliament could be aware that we were about to extend the data matching for another three years—that it was going to go on automatically. Yes, I know that my time limit is 12 minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The member for Mitchell might address the chair.

Mr CADMAN —Yes, I certainly will, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need to be assured that there is going to be attention to the privacy factors with the removal of this sunset clause. I am satisfied at this point that that will happen, but the government needs to be aware that there will be numbers of us in the parliament that appreciate the need to attack fraud. But we are also aware of the high commercial value of the information held by government, of the fact that it can be sold and that it should be retained in such a way that the clients of the government have a right to expect confidentiality. I would like to conclude my remarks by supporting the bill and a splendid government which so assiduously attacks fraud but also has a compassionate heart.