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

Senator Andrew Bartlett, who was due to speak in this debate, is outside addressing a rally against the government’s somewhat draconian and regressive proposed changes to migration law. In lieu of Senator Bartlett’s contribution to this debate, I will put on record yet again some of the concerns that the Australian Democrats have in relation to last night’s budget and, in particular, reiterate and elaborate on some of the concerns that I expressed last night in relation to the so-called smartcard—referred to in the budget papers as a health and welfare access card.

Madam Acting President, as you are no doubt aware, in last night’s budget there was an allocation of $1.1 billion over the next four years for the establishment and implementation of the so-called access card. The measure also includes funding of $47.3 million over four years for a communications strategy to ensure that all Australians are aware of the process for registering for the card. So a hefty entitlement, a huge allocation of money is required in order to implement this particular access card—as it is being referred to but which I prefer to call a national identity card, because, let us face it, it is an ID card by stealth; it is a de facto ID card.

You only have to look at last night’s budget paper, which only gave us eight paragraphs on the actual card in relation to Budget Paper No. 2, to get a sense of how it will be the key identifier of Australian citizens. I find it extraordinary that $1.1 billion, minimum, over four years is allocated to what is arguably the biggest privacy breach in Australian history. It is the most intrusive measure into the lives of ordinary Australians that this country has ever seen.

I thought, ‘Okay, I’ll look at the budget allocation for the Privacy Commissioner, because the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is undoubtedly going to have to deal with growing intrusion into the lives of Australian citizens and, knowing this government, when they thought through the so-called access card measure, they would have wanted to put in place safeguards.’ So, whipping through the budget papers and referring to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, I found that the additional funding allocated for that commissioner is $6.5 million over four years. This is a commission that is already dealing with the cumulative effect of a raft of legislative changes with regard to security that have come through the Attorney-General’s Department and through other portfolios, changes that deal with increased invasion into the lives of Australian citizens.

As I have said before. and as I have no doubt most legislators in this place recognise, privacy is not an absolute right. There is a balance. It is about balancing the privacy of individual citizens with other competing factors. In this day and age, key factors obviously include security and terrorism. All of these issues have to be taken into account when we devise legislation and policy and strategies that are appropriate for this nation.

The Australian Democrats note that the original rationale for the so-called access card or smartcard was security related. This government was fighting the war on terrorism and it saw that an access card, smartcard or national ID card would be helpful in that process. But I notice that that rhetoric has died down. In fact, the government has changed its rhetoric. It is not about security; it is not about protecting the security and safety of individual citizens in light of the war on terrorism. Instead, it is about reducing and combating fraud. It is about accessing health, welfare, social security and other benefits in a way that combats fraud but at the same time theoretically makes access to bureaucracy and administration in this country simpler.

The problem is, apart from the expense—and we do not know the real financial implications of this measure, apart from the minimal information we have had in the budget papers—what about the privacy implications? We know that there has been a report done by KPMG. The government has said that it will release that report, but it is going to release it in an edited format. I call on the government to make available to the members of parliament the full version of the KPMG report, not an edited version, and to do so with alacrity. This government has not given us the time frame in which it is going to table this particular report. We can wonder about the urgency of this issue.

This is why I was talking last night in the adjournment debate about how senators in this place need to see that report, particularly those senators from the opposition parties but also senators across the board. I do not think that this is an issue that splits people on simple partisan lines. There are a number of small ‘l’ liberals in this place who are very concerned about the impact of an identity card who were actively involved in defeating the Australia Card back in the 1970s, as indeed the Australian Democrats were. We should have an inquiry into this proposed card. We should have a committee that scrutinises in great detail the financial, social, health, welfare and privacy implications of this particular proposed access card.

If we were convinced of the need for an inquiry or some discussion, that need has become even more pressing given the developments this week. I am sure that senators in this place would recall the front-page story from Monday this week. The head of the government’s task force relating to the implementation of a smartcard, Mr James Kelaher, resigned. The reported reasons for his resignation included his concerns about the card and its implementation and the fact that the funding will be contained within a couple of departments and a couple of line item areas—in particular, Centrelink and Medicare. His reasons also included privacy concerns—namely, whether or not there would be an external advisory board.

Anyone looking at this policy idea, regardless of their views on it and regardless of how they feel about that concept of an ID card or a health and welfare access card, would be surely convinced of the need for some kind of transparent, accountable, independent mechanism of review and analysis, such as a panel of experts advising on the implementation and the appropriateness of such a card. Surely that goes without saying. But when I asked Senator Rod Kemp, the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, about this issue on Tuesday, we had the idea of an expert advisory committee or panel not confirmed and not denied, and so we have no idea whether the government is indeed going to scrap the initial notion of an expert advisory panel. Indeed, that is apparently one of the reasons why Mr James Kelaher, the head of the smartcard task force for this government, resigned. He was concerned that we would not have an external advisory board.

In yesterday’s Australian Financial Review I noted there were comments by Minister Hockey, the Minister for Human Services, who is responsible for the implementation of the smartcard. He said:

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.

Instead of the external review board, the government has suggested it will ‘pay people for their advice’ on a seemingly ad hoc basis. And we are talking about one of the biggest single policy measures this government has been responsible for, not only in terms of expense but in terms of privacy.

When I asked Senator Kemp about this issue, he stated that having an external review board would be being unfairly selective of certain groups. I do not even understand what that answer means. I do not see how removing the plan for an external review board and leaving the minister with the ability to arbitrarily appoint whichever advisers he sees fit to pay for on an ad hoc basis makes the process of implementing a smartcard any more palatable. If the government are going to introduce measures that see such an invasion of the privacy rights of Australian citizens, then at least they could do it in a transparent manner. That gets me back to the KPMG report, and I call on the government to release the full version of that report as soon as possible.

With reference to the minister’s comments yesterday in relation to keeping the project within the Department of Human Services and keeping the funds within Medicare and Centrelink, I note that Mr Kelaher has apparently stated:

KPMG and my team specifically advised against both of these steps and I am very surprised to see both now being contemplated. The dearth of skills inside the DHS and even Centrelink and Medicare, for such a large, expensive, and delicate project, is I think a major risk.

Why is it that the government commissions reports only to then disregard what the experts have to say, let alone engage a head of the task force—employ someone in that manner to overview such things—and then apparently disregard his advice to the point where he is so concerned by the government’s proposals, or at least their abrogation of what seemed to be commitments, that he resigns? It seems that the scrapping of the advisory board—if that is the case—goes against commitments that may have been made to stakeholders, ministers, departments and other agencies. The government clearly needs to explain what is going on here.

I mentioned briefly last night the Prime Minister’s contradictory comments on some of these matters. Originally he said that the government was not going to proceed with the compulsory national identity card, but look at the budget papers. We are talking photo, card number, possible personal sensitive health details, details of dependants, microchip, biometric photograph. This is without doubt the biggest attempt to centralise data about Australian citizens in our history. And privacy? What money is being put towards privacy concerns? It is not just people who might be a little obsessed with privacy issues, like me, but ordinary Australian citizens who are going to look at this and say: ‘It just doesn’t ring true. Why would the government seek to implement such a measure and yet disregard privacy concerns of Australians?’

What about the Prime Minister’s comments in relation to young people? On the one hand he said most recently that some young people would be particularly keen to have a national identity card. He did not say national identity card—I correct that. The Prime Minister said:

I have been impressed since the announcement was made by the large number of people, particularly in the younger section of the community, who say thank heavens we are going to have something that reduces the enormous number of cards that we have to carry in order to interact with Government agencies.

Contrast that with what the Prime Minister said a couple of weeks ago:

I would imagine a lot of, well a number of younger people who feel immortal and permanently healthy and so forth will not think any of this is necessary.

What is the truth? What is the issue? Where is this research or poll driven move or information coming from? Are young people for the card? Are young people against the card? Why are we worrying about young people in particular? Why are we picking on people who primarily need access to health and welfare services? Let us look at the numbers.

If everyone in Australia who has a Medicare card has to have this microchip, biometric photo, et cetera, et cetera ID card then that is more than 17 million Australians. How dare the government suggest this is not a national identity card. It is a national identity card. Three-quarters of the population at least will be affected by this proposal, if not more. If the government says that it is specifically those who access government services such as social security, health and welfare, are we picking on a particular section in our community? Are we talking about people on lower incomes, or pensions or social security and maybe not the rest of the community? Or is it, as the budget papers state and others have mentioned, everyone with a Medicare card? That is pretty much the entire population. (Time expired)