Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

First, I thank the members who have contributed to the debate. It's an important debate and it's an important package of bills. The Digital ID Bill 2024 and the related bill will put in place the legislative framework for an economy-wide digital ID system in Australia.

I want to respond to some of the debate that I have listened to. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to all of the contributors, but I've had the opportunity to listen to a number of them. I was in the chamber when the member for Goldstein made some contributions, and I thought they were thoughtful, to be frank. I want to assuage her concerns by pointing to the fact that the bill contains a provision for a statutory review in two years so that, as this program rolls out and unforeseen matters arise, there is capacity for a full public review to deal with any of the issues that we haven't foreseen in the preparation of the legislation to date.

I want to make a few points and address some of the misapprehension or misunderstanding, deliberate or accidental, surrounding this bill. The digital ID system does not create a new digital database of ID in the country. What it does is create a safe, voluntary and distributed means of accrediting existing ID systems throughout the country. I want to make a point on something that has come up in a number of the contributions about the safety of it. I've heard members of the coalition say that they're concerned about cybersecurity, and I believe them. Frankly, you can't maintain those concerns about cybersecurity and oppose a digital ID system. In the time that this bill has been debated in the House this morning and in the Federation Chamber this afternoon, there have been literally millions of attempts by malign actors to gain access to public and private systems and databases in this country. Most of the data that they're seeking access to is the personal identification data of Australian citizens.

One of the reasons that we have a problem in this country around cybersecurity is that just about every business—sometimes because the government tells them that they have to properly verify, and have proof that they've properly verified, a person before they can conduct business with them, particularly in the financial services system—will take a photocopy of somebody's passport, licence, Medicare card and perhaps their bank statements, and then they'll store them. Sometimes they'll store them because we tell them they have to store them. God knows the safety and security around which some of this data is secured. We're not just talking about large businesses in this country; often it is stored in small businesses. Anyone who attempts to access a club or a pub in New South Wales will be regularly asked to provide a copy of their identification, and that is scanned and God knows how that is stored. That creates a safety risk to the personal identification of every Australian citizen who has had to provide that information to access one of those venues or to transact business. The digital ID system is an answer to that problem because it provides a safe and secure alternative to those businesses and those premises having to take a copy and store that personal identification. The digital ID system is an alternative to doing that, and it is safe.

I've heard concerns about whether or not this is a voluntary system. I simply make the point—and it's an important point—that there is currently no regulation which requires a private sector business in this country to provide a choice to a consumer about whether they provide a digital ID or some other means of verifying themselves for their business. There is currently no legislation which provides a consumer with the right to say, 'I want to use that digital ID' or 'I don't want to use that digital ID'—until these bills are passed into law. Once these bills are passed into law, there will be a right for a consumer to say, 'Yes, I want to use that digital ID system' or 'No, I don't want to use that digital ID system.'

To those members of the coalition who are proposing to vote 'no' because they think they're not going to have a choice: if you vote 'no' and these bills go down, you will be denying yourself and those you represent an actual choice about whether a business can require that you use some form of digital ID or some other form of digital ID. It creates the choice and creates the mechanism through which a voluntary use of a digital ID system can be maintained and mandated in this country.

I heard the member for McMillan. I like the member for McMillan; I think he's a decent bloke. But sometimes he just gets the wrong end of the stick. I have heard him speak passionately about his concerns about scams affecting his constituents and mine. I know he has heartfelt concerns about these issues, and they are very genuine. I share those concerns. We have lost $3 billion in the previous year to scams; we're bringing that down through our initiatives. But, frankly, one of the reasons we have a problem with scams is malign actors are able to access personal information because it is being asked for and stored in an insecure way. That information is then monetised and onsold on the dark web, and is no alternative mechanism for people to safely identify themselves. You cannot on the one hand say that you are concerned about cybersecurity and on the other hand vote against the Digital ID Bill. You cannot on the one hand say that you are concerned about Australians losing billions of dollars a year to scammers and on the other hand vote against the Digital ID Bill. They don't stack up. This is an answer to the genuine concerns, the heartfelt concerns, that people across the parliament share.

Can I address a point that was made by the member for Bradfield, who said when he spoke in the House that he supports the digital ID and that in some respects it was his idea. Frankly, I don't care whose idea it was; it's a necessary reform. But you can't say you support the digital ID and then go and tell coalition MPs that, when we vote on this later on tonight, they're supposed to vote against it. He complained that there was not enough political leadership or advocacy in relation to the importance of these bills in the economy and for the security of Australia's personal data. I simply make the point that the lack of advocacy and the lack of leadership is on the coalition benches. If the member for Bradfield really feels this is an important economic reform, as he said in his second reading speech, he should be doing the hard yards and having the hard conversations with the members on his backbench to assuage their concerns, and, frankly, separate himself from some of the nutso, tin-hat stuff that has been put around about what the digital ID system is. The member for Bradfield knows that a whole heap of the concerns that are being raised are simply not true. So what the member for Bradfield should do is show some leadership, show some strength and have those hard conversations with members in his own party room. Having done that, he should return to the House and vote in favour of this sensible bill. I commend the bills to the House.

Question unresolved.

See this speech in context