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

by leave—I move:

(3)    Clause 30, page 31 (line 10), table

                 “Information on the surface of your access card”, omit item 2, substitute the following item

(4)   Clause 30, page 31 (line 10), table

                 “Information on the surface of your access card”, omit item 5, substitute the following item

Amendments (3) and (4) that I am circulating reflect key recommendations made by Professor Allan Fels in his report on the privacy aspects of the access card. Professor Fels recommended that people’s digital signature and a new, unique identifier number not be printed on the access card itself unless an individual prefers those things to be printed onto the card. Of course, Labor agrees with Professor Fels. More importantly, we certainly trust his views on the privacy aspects of this card much more than we do the drafters of this legislation, who have absolutely botched this from start to finish.

We believe that Professor Fels’s judgement on how to protect people’s private information is certainly better than the government’s, particularly as the government have so many competing interests here and have made so many unacceptable compromises in relation to people’s privacy from the very start. The government appointed Professor Fels in the first place to advise them on the privacy aspects of the card. It would be great if they actually took his advice.

There are many pieces of information that the government already proposes be contained on the chip of the card or the register and not on the face of the card. We do not see why the digital signature, if it is necessary at all, and the unique identifier number could not be included in that category of things including date of birth, address, donor status, concession status and so on. Certainly, if people preferred to have their individual number on the card for reasons of convenience, they could opt to do so. I am not saying that they should not be able to opt to do so if this legislation passes. However, having it there automatically makes very little sense.

There has been a strong argument put by many, including members of the government’s own backbench, that the photograph need not be included on the face of the card either and could be read with the card reader that would be available to doctors, pharmacists, Centrelink officers and other people who actually need to use the card to verify someone’s identity. I think there is a very strong argument that the photo could also fall in this category.

The government have given no convincing argument as to why they have said yes to the rest of Professor Fels’s recommendations and not to these two. The only reason the government have given for having the number is that it is convenient for people who are ringing up Centrelink. If they want that convenience then they can opt to have that convenience or they can store their number separately if they prefer to and not risk putting this vital piece of information on a card, where it is easy to steal and misuse. Also, having the number on the card will not prevent people having to go through the rigmarole of answering other questions of identification like mother’s maiden name, first pet and all of the rest of it.

The obvious problem with the signature being stored on the card is that many businesses will photocopy a person’s card. I know that the government pretend that this will not happen because the card, of course, is not an ID card, according to them. But anyone who has half a brain will realise that it will very quickly become used by businesses as a de facto ID card. We have seen so many examples where businesses have misused signatures and other identifying information to commit identity fraud or to misuse a person’s credit card details. We saw a range of these exposed on A Current Affair recently, which showed shonky businesspeople saving signatures intentionally to commit identity fraud.

There are a number of very strong reasons that the information contained on any card that is designed, as the government says, simply to facilitate simplified access to Centrelink, Medicare and other services should have as little information on it as possible. The more information that is on the card and the more information that is contained on the register, the easier this card is to steal and misuse, the more attractive it is to criminals seeking to do that and, more importantly, the easier it is for this card to then become, with the stroke of a pen, the national ID card that the government keeps saying is not intended here. The more information that is contained on the face of the card, the more like an identity card this is. Certainly, given it has a name, a photograph, an individual number, a signature and so on, I would really challenge anyone on the government side to explain how this card would be any different to a national identity card used in other countries. Indeed, it certainly contains more information than was ever proposed for the Australia Card. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the amendments (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 (5):

(5)    Clause 42, page 39 (line 11), omit

                 “You are not required to carry your card at all times.”. substitute

                 “You are not required to carry your card at any time.”.

Amendment (5) seeks to clarify what this government has said about the card not being a national ID card. If this is not a national ID card, then Australian citizens should not be required to carry it in their day-to-day lives. At the moment the legislation says that Australians will not be required to carry the card at all times. That is fantastic. So if they are in the bath they are not required to carry it or if they are out swimming they are not required to carry it. Labor believes the legislation should say that they are not required to carry it at any time other than the times they need the card to access particular government services. This is a simple change that the government should agree to on the basis that it will clarify that it is not their intention for this to be a national ID card—unless it really is their intention for this to be a national ID card.

I am not sure whether the wording the government has used is an example of poor drafting—it could be because, goodness knows, there is enough poor drafting in this legislation to move 200 amendments—or whether this set of words is intended to leave open the possibility for the access card to be demanded in broader situations than just those of accessing health and social security services.

The need for this amendment was exemplified a couple of nights ago during the debate when the member for Moreton enthused in the parliament ‘Perhaps police officers will be furnished with a portable smartcard reader’ in the future so that Australians can be stopped in the street for an identity check. I thought this was not an ID card. Are we going to have police checking people’s identity cards with portable smartcard readers?

It is worth remembering that there is a Crown exemption included in this legislation, which means that if you are a public servant and you ask for the card, even when you are not entitled to ask for the card, you cannot get into trouble for doing it. If you are a Department of Immigration and Citizenship official and you stop someone and ask to see their identification card, you are doing the wrong thing, but because of the Crown exemption in this legislation you do not get pinged for doing the wrong thing. If you are a police officer and you ask to see a person’s card, although you are not entitled to see their card in the circumstances, because of the Crown exemption you do not get into trouble for it.

We believe that if it is true, as the government says, that it is not its intention for the access card to be an identity card then the government should clarify that by changing its wording that you are not required to carry the card at all times to, ‘You are not required to carry the card at any time,’ obviously with the clarification that you need to present it when accessing particular services.

The member for Moncrieff hit it on the head when he said that this is a Trojan Horse for an identity card. We think the entire legislation is incredibly problematic, but we are hoping that the government will improve some of its most glaring weaknesses by accepting our amendment on this point.

Question put:

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