Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Arts and Sport (Senator Kemp) to a question without notice asked by Senator Stott Despoja today relating to the proposed smartcard.

The answer that Senator Kemp provided to me was in relation to a series of questions I had about the so-called smartcard that the government wants to introduce. In the last couple of days we have heard about the resignation of Mr James Kelaher, the smartcard technology task force head. The reported concerns that he had which apparently led to his resignation include concerns about a plan to scrap the external advisory board, plans to keep the project within the Department of Human Services and plans in relation to the funding—notably that the funding would be held within Centrelink and Medicare.

I have long held concerns about identity cards, particularly a national identity card, and I have yet to hear some of those concerns responded to effectively by this government, particularly concerns in relation to security, the privacy implications—that is, the invasive nature of such a card—and the cost and financial implications of this particular card. Let us not be fooled: the smartcard that has been proposed, which allegedly replaces 17 cards—I am not sure how many people here are using 17 cards at the moment—is an ID card by stealth. It is a national identity card.

I do recognise that privacy is an issue of balance—it is not an absolute right; it is about balance. The one thing that tends to protect our information as individuals and give us some measure of privacy is the fact that our information is contained in a range of environments, on a range of cards and in a range of databases—it is not centralised information—and, therefore, it is not able to be hacked into or used in a way that can completely give a person, an agency or a government a complete picture of what our lives are, the agencies we use et cetera.

The idea behind this card, allegedly to combat fraud—to crack down on fraud and other things, particularly in relation to social security and broader issues—is not something that anyone opposes, but this government has yet to explain to the people of Australia or, indeed, this parliament exactly how it is going to do it. The government has failed to provide any information as to how it is going to protect the privacy of Australians and how it is going to ensure that there is not a cost blow-out. The government is not revealing the technology and the specific way that it wants to proceed. Are we talking about a centralised database or are we simply talking about microchips? What about the funding of this particular exercise?

And what about the external advisory board? That was the gist of my question today. As senators would have heard, Senator Rod Kemp explained that the Minister for Human Services has not ruled in or ruled out the idea of an expert advisory panel. Some of us are concerned about this, and it looks like Mr Kelaher is as well—and if that is not the biggest wake-up call to the government and the nation on the security and privacy implications of this so-called smartcard, I do not know what is. In the absence of some kind of external assessment process—that is, a transparent, accountable, independent process—we should all be very afraid.

I do not know if the minister has ruled out scrapping this advisory board, but certainly some of his comments—those on record—are of concern. I note, for example, that in today’s Financial Review Mr Hockey has stated:

It is no use engaging an advisory board at this point if you’re going to be asking people to tender. If you’re on an advisory board, it would preclude you from tendering, or if you’re doing the work you can’t sit on the advisory board.

Does that mean that the government does not intend to introduce an advisory board until after a so-called smartcard is actually introduced and basically all the work has been done? The whole point of an advisory board—and an external one at that—is to provide some advice now, to let us know exactly what the cost, privacy and security implications and social impacts of this card are.

The reason I suggest that this is an ID card by stealth—and, because of technological change, it will be much worse than the Australia Card, which the Democrats helped to defeat many years ago—is as a consequence of one revelation we had a week ago that security and intelligence agencies and police will have access to this information and to this database—presuming it is on a database. I make no apologies for the fact that I have had a longstanding interest in these issues, something to which Senator Kemp referred—and I want more answers on the expert advisory group, for a start. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.