Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

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)

See this speech in context