Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the consideration in detail, I have a number of amendments to move and I also want to make some comments about one of the additional issues that has been raised in this debate and that I alluded to in my speech on the second reading. I move:

(1)    Clause 2, table of commencement information, item 2, Column 2, omit all words after “However,” substitute

                 “but a Proclamation must not be issued until the national Document Verification Service is fully operational.”

Now I am going to make some comments that do not relate to this amendment—that is, about people under the age of 18 applying for their own access cards. This issue was of enormous concern to members from both the government and the opposition. I am very happy to report that, because of some very hard work, I think, on the part of Mal Washer and other people on the government side, we have reached a better position than the one that was originally advocated by the minister. I want not only to congratulate Mal Washer on his excellent work but also to say that we are still waiting to see in concrete the statements that the minister has committed to making in his third reading speech, explaining the guidelines that he is proposing and the effect that they will have. We will look forward to seeing that explanation in the third reading speech and in the guidelines, and we will be watching what the minister says very closely to ensure that the commitments he has made to his own side and to us are honoured.

My amendment relates to bringing the commencement date of the legislation into line with the operation of the new document verification service. A number of Labor Party speakers have mentioned that the document verification service is absolutely integral to ensuring that this legislation does have the effect that the government is claiming that it will have. Without the document verification service—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on, Tanya, let it go.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have got it right in the first place, Joe, and we would not be here fixing it, mate. It is actually a real shame that the previous minister is leaving, because he made such a hotchpotch of this legislation that there are, in fact, 200 amendments that we could have moved. But this amendment about the document verification service actually goes to the government’s own stated reasons for the legislation. The Attorney-General’s Department confirmed in Senate estimates last week that there is no intergovernmental agreement yet on what documents are sufficiently reliable proof for identity processes. Miles Jordana, the First Assistant Secretary, said:

We are hoping for an intergovernmental agreement on identity security in the first half of this year, but that will depend on the positions taken by the various participants in the states and territories.

The department also confessed in Senate estimates that, as yet, there is no proof of identity framework signed off with the states. Senator Ludwig asked:

In short you would agree that a proof of identity framework has not been signed off by the states and territories?

Miles Jordana replied:

I think it is probably fair to say that at this stage, yes.

So there is uncertainty about the proof of identity framework; and a new, major online system that is being developed—the document verification service, which is designed to enable the Australian government to verify that documents presented by applicants for benefits or services are authentic—will not be finished until 2010. Miles Jordana further said:

... the establishment of a document verification service is something which has a time line in the order of four years—

beginning on 1 July 2006—

So where we can get to this year, if we do manage to complete an IGA—

an intergovernmental agreement—

will need to in a sense recognise where our discussions have got to, including those with our state and territory colleagues.

This means that, from the start of registrations for the access card—which are scheduled to start next year in April—through the document verification service which is coming online in 2010, the Australian government has no ability to do bulk checks on documents to check the authenticity of birth, death and marriage certificates, visas, drivers licences and other identifying documents. (Extension of time granted) What does that mean? It means manual checking of proof of identity documents produced by Australians in the course of registration.

There are 16½ million interviews planned. In each interview people will, presumably, have to provide more than one source of identification. The government are planning 35,000 interviews a day. They have set aside 12 minutes for each of these interviews and they are going to check each one of these documents manually with the states and territories. It beggars belief. Tasmania does not even have electronic records of certificates issued before the 1990s. The document verification service trial, which concluded only a few months ago, included only the New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory births, deaths and marriages agencies. The other agencies around the country have an enormous amount of work to do in scanning millions and millions of original documents, including death certificates.

Without the document verification service, registration is logistically impossible and contains dangerous possibilities of fraud. The government simply cannot credibly register 35,000 people a day and manually check those details on birth certificates, marriage certificates and so on to ensure that the details match up with the paper copies kept in registers in other jurisdictions. How will it happen? Corners will be cut, mistakes will be made and a huge backlog will develop. We do not think this is a good proposal but, if you wanted to do it, any sensible government would wait until the document verification service was online so that the public servants who are checking these documents would be able to do it electronically and do a high volume at a time. It is incredible that we heard the member for Moncrieff, Steve Ciobo, say last night:

I have no doubt that the access card will and can be fraudulently produced in the future. Those who would seek to do the wrong thing by society … would certainly be able to produce a forged access card. The notion that in some way this card is unable to be forged is wrong. It of course can be and will be forged.

This document verification service problem actually means that it will be easier to get a card in a name other than your own. If you are a criminal seeking to set up a fake identity, you would be much better to do it in these early stages when documents will not be adequately checked. I reiterate that Labor believes that the commencement date of the legislation should be brought into line with the operation of the new national document verification service.

Question put:

That the amendment (Ms Plibersek’s) be agreed to.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (2):

(2)    Clause 8, page 12 (line 23) to page 13 (line 27), omit the clause.

This amendment relates to the extraordinary amount of ministerial power included in this legislation. The legislation leaves so much to ministerial interpretation and additions and subtractions. It is extraordinary that such an important piece of legislation would have so little guidance for public servants and would leave so much to ministerial discretion. For example, under this bill, the minister and the departmental secretary already have enormous powers to add information or requests for information to the card and to the database, to expand the uses of the card and to issue guidelines that will shoulder out parliamentary oversight. For example, the secretary of the department has the power to order that original identity documents presented by a person registering for the access card be scanned and stored on the register. That in itself is a problem which Labor have raised a number of times, because it makes the register a honey pot for identity thieves. For the first time, every Australian adult’s personal details will be available in the one place: where they live, who their children are, how old they are, their place and date of birth, plus all sorts of information that Australians might willingly put on the register. In addition, you will have scanned copies of birth certificates, marriage certificates and so on.

The ministerial guidelines will be used as the primary interpretive aid by Commonwealth officers, who really should be referring back to what the parliament’s intention is in relation to this legislation rather than to ministerial guidelines that will change from time to time. One of the reasons that is so very important with respect to this legislation, compared with other legislation, is that so much in this legislation is left unsaid. There are still so many unclear areas. We do not know what will be covered in access card bill (No. 2) and access card bill (No. 3). Hopefully, some of the gaping holes will be filled in. What we do not want to see is the minister’s discretion filling in those holes willy-nilly as the minister pleases.

At this point I remind the House that the member for Moncrieff said last night that he had some concerns about ‘function creep on the slippery slope’. In this respect, I suggest that it is only a matter of time—and indeed we have some evidence of it thus far—before the private sector will say: ‘We seek access to the national registration database to ensure that the card presented is a valid card.’ It will not be very long and certainly not much of a stretch to suggest that the continued production of the card to verify identity would see widespread calls from the private sector for this purpose.

Leaving the potential to the minister and to the department to expand the information collected, to change the way the information is stored, to change who has access to it and under what circumstances they have that access, and to change the uses of the card at any time with the stroke of a pen, is of enormous concern to the Australian Labor Party. That is why we are moving that ministerial power should not override or substitute legislation in this bill.

Question put:

That the amendment (Ms Plibersek’s) be agreed to.