Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the government's Digital ID Bill 2024. I'd like to begin by thanking my coalition colleagues who have already outlined many of the concerns we on this side of the House have with this legislation. Trust me when I say that there are many. Over the last few months, I've received an overwhelming number of emails and inquiries concerning this legislation. Now, I'm sure that it's not just my Liberal or National colleagues and senators who have been contacted in such numbers. I'm sure those on the government's side have also had significant numbers of correspondence as well. During this time, I've taken into consideration many of the widely held concerns, particularly surrounding whether there are enough safeguards to ensure signing up for a digital ID is truly a voluntary decision.

As the shadow minister for government services and the digital economy made clear this morning in the House, the coalition is not opposed to the many important efficiency and productivity benefits that an effective digital ID system can deliver. We acknowledge that. In fact, the coalition established the Australian government digital identity system following the 2014 Murray inquiry, which was commissioned by the Abbott government. In government, we spent over $600 million developing the Australian government ID system. We established the trusted digital identity framework and we created myGov, which is currently used by over 11 million Australians.

In 2021, we released an exposure draft of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill. This legislation would have further regulated the Australian government digital identity system. As well as seeking to improve efficiency and productivity, the bill also sought to reduce the amount of personal data that businesses hold about their customers, which in turn would reduce the risk to Australians from data breaches. Data breaches, unfortunately, do occur too often, and more recently we've seen data breaches with the likes of Optus and Medibank.

However, Labor's bill before us today is very different to that exposure draft, as it contains many serious weaknesses. When the legislation came before the Senate earlier this year, the coalition put forward amendments designed to fix these weaknesses. Our amendments included the following: a much stronger guarantee that having a digital identity would be voluntary, that no Australian would be required to have one, that someone would not face a lower quality of service should they wish to use traditional paper based identity documents, removing the phase-in provisions so that the private sector can be involved from the outset and imposing a clear requirement that changes to the Privacy Act must be made before this legislation comes into force.

Unfortunately, the government rejected these amendments. They also guillotined debate, which was an interesting move from a government that ran on a platform of transparency. It's reasonable to ask: how can Australians trust Labor to manage the digital ID system when they chose to ram through these bills and deny proper scrutiny?

As I've said, the main issue with this legislation that has been raised with me is whether this bill will provide for a truly voluntary system. Those opposite love to say that criticisms are just misinformation or disinformation, but these concerns aren't unfounded and they are already playing out. Take, for example—it's not a good example; it's probably a bad example—the WA Labor government's student assistance payment, which was announced earlier this year, in effect disadvantaged those without a digital ID. For parents to access the payment, they could either apply through the COVID-era ServiceWA app, which requires you to have a myGov digital ID, or through an alternative online or postal method. Not only did the government fail to properly inform families of the alternatives to ServiceWA, my submission is that they, indeed, hid that there were alternative ways. It's also my understanding that those who chose an alternative claim method were told they would expect to wait 30 days for their application to be processed. This compared to just seven days for those using the ServiceWA app.

Politicians are consistently warned that trust in government is failing, so this is something that all of us in this place and parliaments across the country should be concerned about. I believe that one of the main reasons for this is because people feel like they're being coerced into making decisions that they don't want to make. Unfortunately, this latest WA Labor government example is a stark example of what we're actually debating here.

It's undeniable that in the middle of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, many families are struggling. I think we'd all agree on that. In fact, under the Albanese government's budget to date, the typical Australian household with a mortgage is more than $35,000 worse off. This is before we even mention the rising cost of food, fuel, electricity, gas and insurance. But just think of the position some of these families will be in when the WA Labor government announces they will prioritise those with a digital ID. Do those Western Australian families—those hardworking families who all need a break—who might not want to sign up to the digital ID system but who are in desperate need of immediate relief have a real, genuine choice? I would argue that many of them do not. For it to be truly voluntary, those who choose not to sign up, whatever the reason, should not be disadvantaged. Every Australian deserves to receive the same quality of services. Certainty of quality should not be dependent on whether they have an Australian government digital ID.

Now, this very bad example from my home state of Western Australia clearly demonstrates that we need to work more closely with the states and the territories to ensure that the system is a voluntary one. However, the states and territories have not yet signed up to the finance minister's so-called national digital identity and verifiable credentials strategy. It's frankly unacceptable that the government is proceeding with these bills without first having the states and territories fully on board with a consistent national strategy.

In conclusion, it's time those opposite reconsidered adopting the amendments we put forward in the Senate. But until such time I won't be supporting this legislation, and I urge the government to take very seriously the concerns of my Durack constituents that I've outlined.

See this speech in context