DOCUMENTS

Senator PAYMAN (Western Australia—Australia's Voice Whip) (10:09): I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. When you make a mistake, you should own up to it. In August, officials from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts told the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that certain broken links in the Ageassurance technology trial report were not broken at the time the report was handed over.

This evidence, the department said, was based on evidence from the company behind the report, the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme. It was later revealed that ACCS had lied to the Guardian Australia and Australian age-check provider KJR by claiming that AI had not been used in the preparation of the report when, in fact, it had. When asked whether the department had verified that the links had only become broken after the report was presented, an official grumbled, 'It's very difficult to go back and check what may have been replaced a year ago.' Now, I'm not normally one to put on the tinfoil hijab, but there was something off about all this.

So I took on this 'difficult task' and investigated the department's claim. Using a digital library of archived webpages, I was able to confirm that these links pointed to the wrong papers when they were supposedly accessed and when the report was handed to government. Dr Reuben Kirkham, a former computer science academic, told the committee that the existence of this archival evidence 'puts the position beyond any real doubt'.

I noted in a dissenting report that, on evidence I had seen, ACCS had misled the department and that, based on this misleading advice, the department had misled the committee. I do not believe that the department set out to mislead the committee, but I did describe the failure of the department to verify ACCS's claim as a serious dereliction of duty and recommended that the department review the incident to determine whether a breach of the APS Code of Conduct had occurred.

Not only was I able to disprove the department's claim but I was able to do it so very easily. Aren't these guys supposed to be the experts? I understand that these are very serious allegations, and I do not make them lightly.

In response, the secretary of the department wrote to the chair of the committee about this issue. The secretary wrote: I do not accept the conclusion that officials are failing in their duties if they give evidence to a committee based on advice provided to them that, at face value, can be accepted as accurate. The representations made by officials were based on information available to them at the time and were honestly and reasonably held.

There was not one word contesting what I had said, but nor was there one word taking accountability for providing misleading evidence to a committee of the Senate. There was no acknowledgement that these officials had provided false evidence based on advice from ACCS, who have lied to multiple parties, including the government, about this report. It doesn't seem like ACCS will be penalised for this, which sends an unacceptable message: you can win contracts paid by the taxpayer, deliver shoddy work, lie to the government about it and get away with it.

There won't even be a departmental investigation. It just isn't good enough. It's inevitable that the department's evidence will be revealed to be, without a doubt, incorrect.

Despite this, the department has yet to acknowledge its misleading evidence, let alone apologise to the committee. Even the liars at ACCS have come out and apologised for what they now describe as 'outdated or incorrect links'. This saga of obfuscation will be for nothing.

When I brought to the attention of the Commonwealth Grants Commission that it appeared to have provided misleading evidence to the Economics Legislation Committee during estimates, it was quick to not only clarify what its evidence should have been but apologise for the error. This is the gold standard for APS accountability. Meanwhile, the department has provided incomplete responses to questions on notice and dragged out FOI timelines.

It has failed to take accountability for the mistakes it has made. Years from now, these actions will make for an unseemly tale of resistance to scrutiny.