Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007. I say at the outset that I support the amendment to this bill previously moved by the member for Sydney. The many concerns raised in that amendment have been noted by other speakers today.

Whilst Labor support the use of smartcard technology to improve service delivery in Medicare and social security, particularly with the aim and intention of reducing fraud, we do not support this proposal, because it is full of so many problems that need addressing. Many of those problems are listed in our amendment. Like much—or, indeed, some would say most—of the Howard government’s legislation, the Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007 has been rushed through without proper consultation, costings or indeed Senate committee input.

Whilst this may be typical of the Howard government, it simply is not good enough in terms of its impact upon Australians. This bill will have serious consequences on the day-to-day lives of all Australians. Firstly, it will be expensive to implement, it will be time consuming for families and it will certainly forever change the way in which Australians access government services. For all of those reasons it therefore deserves careful scrutiny—something which has not occurred in relation to this particular bill.

The human services bill will allow for the introduction of a new microchip smartcard for Australians to access everyday government services. Using smartcard technology, the proposed card will replace up to 17 governments cards—of which the most commonly used are Medicare and Centrelink—in an attempt to streamline government services. In addition, the bill will establish an electronic register of the information stored on the card—information which is likely to be accessed by government departments and the police—with limited frameworks in place to protect this information. It is estimated that 16.5 million Australians will be required to produce an access card to carry out everyday activities such as going to the doctor or applying for Centrelink payments. So we will have a situation where 16.5 million Australians will have their information stored on a register, with limited safeguards in place.

The government claims that it is not an identity card by stealth and it will not be used as a surveillance card. Before outlining the multiple problems with this legislation, it is important to understand exactly what we are talking about here. We are talking about a card which will contain a citizen’s photograph, name, digital signature, identifying number and an expiry date. The register will contain a person’s date of birth, citizenship or residency status, sex, residential and postal address, date and status of registration, PIN, veteran’s status, as well as the documents used to prove the person’s identity. All of this information on 16½ million Australians will be available on one registry. Scanned identity documents for over 16 million Australians will be sitting in this registry and it will be able to be readily accessed. Looking at the bulk of information that will be stored on the card, I would like to know what assurances the government has in place to ensure that this information will not be outsourced offshore and also what safeguards it has put in place to ensure that that does not happen down the track.

Indeed, there are many problems with this bill—privacy, costing, convenience, security and fraud. They are all very valid concerns when considering the implementation of the access card, but none of them has been dealt with appropriately in the legislation in its current form. In looking at these problems, I will first examine those associated with costings, because the government has refused to release the full cost-benefit case for the card. The government commissioned KPMG to report on the business case for the card, but the report has been highly censored. Every time the government speaks about the savings generated by the card, the figures seem to change. When asked for an explanation, the government claims that the information is commercial-in-confidence. KPMG said that the access card could possibly save $1½ billion to $3 billion over 10 years. The government claimed that it will be around $3 billion, and the Prime Minister stated that it could even be $4 billion. Once again with this government, the numbers are all over the place; they do not add up. More importantly, potential savings in relation to fraud could be blown out of the water by the final cost of the card, which is likely to be a great deal more than $1.1 billion.

Perhaps the most serious issues pertaining to this legislation are those of privacy and fraud. There are several facets to my concerns in relation to these. The access card is due to be released before the document verification service will be completed. This system will be an online verification system connected to the states’ registers of births, deaths and marriages and will be able to detect anomalies in documentation produced. However, according to representatives of the Attorney-General’s Department during Senate estimates hearings, it will not be operational until 2010. Surely it is imperative that this technology be perfected long before we roll out this new card. Surely there need to be assurances that this technology will be in place before 16½ million Australians turn up at a registration point, all with their birth certificates.

A recent study conducted by Westpac and the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages found that 13 per cent of all birth certificates presented to banks were fraudulent. Thirteen per cent is quite a high number. Without the document verification service, it is not realistic to manually check all of these certificates. If we calculate 13 per cent of 16½ million, the final figure is about two million. So two million access cards could be given out to the wrong person and used to commit some form of criminal activity. As a former police officer, I saw people engage in a wide range of criminal activity using identity fraud. Whether the cards were lost or stolen, they were used to commit a vast range of offences. I have major concerns about fraud in relation to this card. Also, the fact that the document verification service is not online is a huge concern.

With identity fraud on the rise, the last thing the federal government needs to do is introduce a card which can be easily given to the wrong person. We can and must wait for the document verification system to be operational before going ahead with this card. We need that to ensure that all Australians are protected. This is one of the amendments that Labor has moved in relation to the access card bill. The proposed access card makes the personal information of all Australians staggeringly vulnerable.

Each card will contain a microchip to hold a person’s personal information, but not all of it will be protected with a PIN. This means that, with a stolen card and the purchase of a card reader—which is cheaply available from many electronic stores—an identity could be easily stolen. Interestingly, the government commissioned research on the amount of identity fraud currently occurring in relation to Medicare, PBS and Centrelink cards has been withheld from the public. This information would have been insightful if it had been released. As I said, I have seen many instances of identity fraud and have major concerns about it.

KPMG were not the only experts consulted by the government. In recognising the importance of privacy, the government also commissioned a report by Professor Allan Fels. Professor Fels recommended that to minimise the risk of identity fraud a person’s unique identifying number and electronic signature should not be included on the card. Despite the government stating otherwise, this will be a compulsory card or, as the member for Moncrieff has stated, ‘a Trojan horse national ID card’. Everyday government services will not be able to be accessed without the card.

Another of my concerns is that people under 18 will not be able to receive the card. There seems to be a bit of confusion about where that stands at the moment, which is typical given all the confusion surrounding this bill. It is another example of how the bill has not been properly thought through before being brought before the parliament. I certainly have a lot of concerns about the serious ramifications for those who are aged 16 and who currently have access to Medicare or Centrelink cards.

One of the many groups opposed to the access card is the AMA, who sensibly point out that it will prevent young people from having access to or feeling comfortable seeking medical attention. Very serious issues such as depression or family violence are more likely to be ignored by teens, who would be reluctant to ask their parents for their access card in order to go to the doctor. It is an absolutely outrageous oversight. From a purely practical point of view, hundreds of thousands of teens between the ages of 16 and 18 start apprenticeships, move away from home and generally develop an independence that has not been catered for in this legislation. It seems that under this government it is fine for these Australians to be out there working and paying tax but not fine for them to have independent access to Medicare. Parents will be inconvenienced, having to lend their cards out to their 16- and 17-year-old teenagers, who should certainly be able to have access to one. There seems to be a large amount of confusion on the government side in relation to this matter. It is another example of how this has been very poorly thought out. This is a major issue for those 16- and 17-year olds throughout the community, and it has not been addressed.

One of the other ludicrous aspects of this legislation is the claim by the government that it will take approximately 10 minutes to register for this new access card. This is blatantly ridiculous. Clearly no-one on the government side has recently had dealings with Centrelink or Medicare, as they do not know the time that it takes to go through processes in relation to matters like this. The process will not be as simple as presenting one’s current Medicare card and smiling for a photo, with a machine spitting out a new card. Original identity documents need to be produced—although the government has not decided what identity documents will be required. Conservative estimates suggest that a family of four who need to obtain new original documents could be out of pocket by up to $400 in meeting the requirements. For many people living in my electorate of Richmond who are on fixed incomes, this is very much out of their income range. Having to meet that requirement would be very costly, especially with the cost of living increases that people are incurring at the moment. This would be a huge impost upon their living standards.

Another issue in relation to this is that the government has not decided whether or not to accept overseas certificates, which are more easily forged as we well know. Naturally, a person has no control over where they were born or where their birth was registered. Will this section of the Australian community simply go without an access card and, without that, access to Medicare and Centrelink provisions? On top of this, each person is required to attend an interview to register for the card. That is all very well if you live in a metropolitan area. This legislation is another example of the Howard government’s selling out rural and regional constituents, particularly many of mine in Richmond. While the government states that mobile registration vans will be in operation, I am particularly worried about farming families, who will be inconvenienced and out of pocket in their quest to obtain this new card. We have certainly seen a host of examples of how this government’s legislation is having a negative impact on rural Australia. There was Telstra, then industrial relations and now the access card.

My electorate of Richmond has a large number of senior Australians. Twenty per cent of the electorate are aged over 65. That is one of the highest percentages in the country. Not a week goes by where I do not hear about the immense difficulties that this sector of the population already has in accessing government services. This legislation will not help in the slightest. The registration process will be a nightmare for senior Australians, many of whom do not have the financial resources to track down original documents and who should not need to go through the time-consuming and stressful process of obtaining this new card. Already, I have been contacted by constituents who are understandably concerned at the prospect of their personal information being held on a register where it is vulnerable. I appreciate those concerns. Being in a regional area they have large concerns at having to travel to their interview for it.

It is somewhat surprising that it is up to the opposition to point out all the problems with this legislation. The simple fact of the matter is that, when a less extreme version of this legislation was presented to the parliament in 1986, the now Prime Minister and then opposition leader had no difficulties in understanding the problems with it. In 1987, the then opposition leader understood the privacy concerns of Australians, stating:

It is a major invasion of individual privacy ... It will concern and worry a large number of elderly citizens in Australia.

As I said, in my electorate it is certainly a major concern for many elderly people. Back in 1987, when the then opposition leader understood that this was not what the Australian people wanted, he claimed that:

... the Australian people are revulsed by it. The Australian people do not want it. If you try to ram it down the throats of the Australian people you will pay very dearly in political and other terms.

Then, quite remarkably, the then opposition leader moved a petition which expressed concern about civil liberties, stating that the introduction of a national identification numbering system was not only totally unnecessary but a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. My, how times have changed. Just like on the GST, just like on workplace relations, the Prime Minister has indeed shown his true colours. Australians cannot trust him or his government to keep their word on any legislation—to the detriment of the citizens of this country.

It is my sincere hope that the government will recognise the many shortcomings in this legislation, particularly those issues relating to privacy and to convenience. I hope that they can be honest with the Australian people about the costings to do with this access card. It is vital that the amendments that have been moved by the member for Sydney are supported in order to ensure privacy—which is one of the major concerns—and to make sure that the document verification system is online. Without those amendments, the bill in its original form cannot be supported, because there are too many problems with it and too many concerns about it. I have many major concerns for my constituents in Richmond.

See this speech in context