Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I have a great deal of respect for Professor Fels, as does the Australian community. I obviously listen to everything that he says and take heed of certain things. Let me assure you of this: I did not invite him to take the position of head of the consumer and privacy task force with a flippant disregard for his ability to provide independent, sometimes courageous, advice. We were aware of that. That is because we are taking this issue very seriously. We do not want to see this project derailed by some fringe groups making extravagant claims about the impact on individual privacy. It is just not true. This is not just a rollout of a card; it is a rollout of infrastructure. It is going to be rolled out in a rather unstoppable way by the state governments, by the banking system. Credit card companies already do it with ANZ. They already have a smart card.

Let me explain the fundamental principle here. The fundamental principle is that the magnetic strip on the back of your cards is not safe. It is easily skimmed. The information sitting on that magnetic strip is not as robust as a computer chip in a card. It is a simple fact. Computer chips are more robust. We are not suggesting for a moment that it is a honey pot. We are not suggesting for a moment that it should be the all-encompassing identifier. In fact, I would strongly argue against it being treated by people as a 100-point identifier. I do not want that to occur; otherwise it may be argued that it is an ID card.

But there will be some people that will want to present it for identification purposes, such as when they are picking up an electronic ticket at an airport. A lot of aged Australians do not have drivers licences and have said they want to be able to present something when they are asked to provide proof of identity at various points. I think the issue raised about this being an alternative form of identification is a reasonable point. Some people might want to use it to make up a certain number of points to be able to open a bank account.

I would strongly argue that there is a strong case for us to have legislation that ensures it is certainly not to be the only demanded identifier. That is quite a compelling argument. This is so that, for example, if you want to open a bank account, it cannot be the case that the bank can say, ‘You can either present your access card or you don’t open a bank account.’ I think there is a reasonable point to be made that we could legislate to avoid that occurring. But it could be used as part of the process.

The key thing about it is that, for individuals that apply for the card, we will have a biometric identifier in the form of a photo that is more robust than any identifier out there at the moment. Even passport photos can be submitted by individuals rather than having the photo taken in the passport office. This will be a robust identifier for individuals.

Identity theft is regarded as the biggest threat to individual liberty at the moment—that is the global consumer reaction, and you will see more information about that in the next few days. I see this as a form of secure identity for individuals—for me or others. The other point to note about this card is that the individual controls the card. If a person wants to put additional information on the card, such as that they have an allergy to penicillin, instead of having a wristband there could be a field that can only be seen by medical practitioners that readily identifies that they have a medical condition. These are the sorts of issues that I want discussed publicly and that is why I have engaged Professor Fels. I am glad that the opposition are engaging in the debate.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Education, Science and Training Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,794,953,000.

See this speech in context