Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026. Australians want a government that works for them. When the budget is predicated on poorer productivity forecasts, Australians know that means living standards will stay lower for longer. Combined with low growth, rising inflation, rising interest rates, the recent fuel crisis and the general cost-of-living crisis, Australians are not optimistic about the future. Polling from Ipsos in February found that 56 per cent of Australians think the country is on the wrong track. The budget in May must turn that around. It must address inequality in as many ways as possible. It must change capital gains tax and negative gearing and work towards changing housing from an investment back into a place to live. It needs to look at spending and say, 'Is this value for money?' If it isn't, that money needs to be deployed where it can do the most good.

Here's one example: last year, wage theft became a criminal offence, and I'm proud to say that I supported this reform. Wage theft has been a big problem in Australia—at the Commonwealth Bank, in the university sector and in many other sectors. In fact, it still is; $49.5 million over four years was allocated to empower the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate wage theft cases and, where they meet the threshold, refer them to police. For over a year, an office of 16 full-time equivalent workers has been investigating criminal wage theft cases. Over $10 million has already been spent funding this office, but not a single case of wage theft has been referred to police. Is that value for money? It's really disappointing, given how prolific wage theft has been and still is in Australia. Thankfully, the Senate yesterday supported my referral of this matter to an inquiry, which is due to report in June. Then, yesterday, we learned that the contractor that turned the BoM's, the Bureau of Meteorology's, $4 million website redesign into a $96 million downgrade is back for more. A $16 million contract was awarded to Accenture to build a platform for the Australian Climate Service. How is that company, which went 2,400 per cent over budget, even allowed to bid for Commonwealth contracts, let alone win one, so soon after such a massive blowout? If the budget for the contract is blown out by as much as the last one, taxpayers will be on the hook for $384 million. Anything less than that is a huge improvement.

The government is very reluctant to give up on contractors. Last year, Deloitte produced a $400,000 report that was littered with AI generated mistakes. When this was revealed, Deloitte paid only part of the fee back and then released a new report, which had even more AI generated errors. The bar is on the floor, but I'm confident that Accenture will somehow be able to squeeze under it.

Speaking of AI, I would like to turn to the government's AI policy. The policy, which runs across the whole Public Service, is administered by the Digital Transformation Agency, which sits in the finance portfolio. The policy for the responsible use of AI in government requires more agencies and departments to publish statements about how they use AI and how they manage the inherent risks of AI, as well as appointing a high-ranking officer to serve as the accountable official for AI.

Dozens of agencies have failed to publish AI transparency statements and appoint officials responsible for AI by the deadline. According to DTA correspondence, released under an OPD, bodies that fail to meet the deadline include the Future Fund Management Agency, the Federal Police, the Federal Court, the Australian Research Council, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

There is such little interest in this policy that some organisations have given evidence in estimates that conflicts with DTA records. The Organ and Tissue Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care have all claimed to have appointed an accountable official within the deadline, but DTA's records list them as having been non-compliant some time after that deadline. The National Health Funding Body, the Commonwealth Grants Commission again and the Royal Australian Mint claim to have published an AI transparency statement on time, but, again, DTA's records disagree.

Conversely, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research openly admitted to not meeting the AI transparency statement deadline and refused to explain why. In the case of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Auditing and Insurance Standards Board, the Digital Transformation Agency wasn't even able to speak to either organisation about their obligations. Throughout March 2025, DTA attempted to reach out to the two boards, but to no avail. The most extraordinary case was the National Competition Council, which did not know the policy existed until more than six months after the deadline passed.

Version 2.0 of the policy came into force in December, requiring agencies and departments to develop a strategic position on AI adoption by June. I'll be keeping an eye on this during estimates later in the year, because it is really important for us to see what takes place. We've seen artificial intelligence technology advanced at a very terrifying pace. When the government makes the rules around artificial intelligence optional, there are serious consequences. We do not want another robodebt.

It was recently reported that the AI advisory body will no longer be going ahead. This followed a 15-month recruitment process, which cost nearly $200,000. The government is preaching fiscal responsibility in the lead-up to the budget, and yet massive sums of money—of your money, of taxpayer money—are being wasted. Not only has that money gone to waste, but we'll no longer have an AI advisory body. As the AI revolution is going on all around us in our workplaces, in our schools and in our homes, the regulation is not keeping up. We won't have an AI act. We won't have specialists advising an AI policy. The government doesn't even comply with their own policy. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

I'll now pivot from one cancelled agency in the industry and innovation portfolio to another. In February, it was announced that the Australian Space Agency Advisory Board, which had spent a year with no meetings and no members, would be dissolved. The board had its members removed in 2024 after a review into the Australian Space Agency's governance began. After another lengthy recruitment phase, the government gave up and got rid of the board entirely. That's more taxpayer dollars down the drain. Katherine Bennell-Pegg, the first Australian to qualify as an astronaut under Australia's space program, was Australian of the Year this year. What is the next generation of young Australian astronauts meant to think as they watch this government slowly strip away the very infrastructure of our space industry before it's even had a fair go?

These advisory bodies have had millions of dollars allocated to them. The money for the AI Advisory Body was allocated in 2024. If the government wasn't going to use the money, it should have put it somewhere else. Instead, it ummed and ah-ed about what it was going to do before shutting these boards. I think a lot of Australians are expecting a budget that doesn't tinker around the edges but that engages in wholesome reforms which set Australia on a path towards higher living standards and a lower cost of living. The whispering and leaking campaign of doublespeak is all well and good within the Canberra bubble, but Australians around the country shouldn't believe it until they see it. We need more action from this government in this May budget.