Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1624543.htm
Broadcast: 26/04/2006
Smart Card gets cabinet approval
Reporter: Michael Brissenden

MAXINE McKEW: Well, is it an ID card or not? The Government today
announced the introduction of a new welfare 'smart card' that will
need to be carried by anyone receiving Government payments. The Prime
Minister says it's a good balance between the need for enhanced ID
security and privacy concerns, but he says it's not a national ID card
because it won't be compulsory. In reality though, by 2010, most
Australians will need to carry a card that has a digital photo and
sophisticated computer chip detailing health and welfare information.
And, predictably enough, not everyone is happy with that idea.
Political editor Michael Brissenden reports.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN, POLITICAL EDITOR: The idea of a national ID card
has been under the political microscope in this country for almost 20
years now. In 1987, the Hawke government tried and failed to introduce
the Australia Card. Back then, there were some pretty high-profile
opponents to the idea.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER (1987 Footage): Weeks go by, the
proposition will become more and more unpopular and I predict now that
the government may well chicken out on the ID card.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But a lot has changed since then. The politicians
have aged a bit and their views have changed a bit too. Just a few
months ago, in response to the London bombings, John Howard put the
idea of a national ID card back on the table. And since then, Cabinet
has been tossing around a range of ideas. Today, the Government has
announced what is, in effect, a technological and political
compromise.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: I mean, I deliberately put it back on the
agenda, because I think it is always important to recontest
assumptions in relation to things like this, when there's been a
change in the whole paradigm in which we're operating and that has
happened: 20 years ago when the Australia Card was knocked over, we
didn't know of Osama bin Laden; we hadn't had the 11th September; and
we didn't live in such a globalised world economy. Everything has
changed so much. But I think what we've done now is to reach a very
good balance between the enormous advantages of this access card. I
mean, there are huge advantages with its enhanced features without
the, I suppose, what some people would still see the Orwellian
dimension of a compulsory national identity card.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The political world has changed a lot since 1987;
technology's moved on as well. Today, 'smart card' is indeed a lot
more intelligent than just the old bit of plastic with a name and a
number. This one, for instance, will have a biometric photograph and a
computer chip loaded with personal information. This is not new
technology, but it is new political ground.

DAVID VAILE, CYPERSPACE LAW & POLICY CENTRE, UNSW: It seems, at the
moment, like there's a lot of information that's going to be tied
together with it. That there's a capacity to store information on the
chip and it will be used to tie various systems together. So, I'd just
be expecting that the sky is really the limit.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So, cards can be pretty smart. But is it a 'smart
card' a national ID card or not? The Government says it is not.

JOHN HOWARD: The fundamental features of a national ID card, as I
understand it, is, firstly, it is compulsory and, secondly, you've
gotta basically carry it with you all the time. Now, you've got to
carry it with you to the pictures - the movies - to the beach, to the
cricket, to the pub and - whereas you don't have to carry this card
anywhere.

PETER COSTELLO, TREASURER: People who are taking family benefits,
people who are taking pharmaceutical benefits, people who are taking
child care benefits: a 'smart card' would ease their doling with the
Federal Government. Now, if you don't take those benefits or you don't
want to take those benefits, you don't have to use a 'smart card'.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So you don't have to use it. But given there's
already more than 11 million Medicare cards out there, plenty of
people will want to make sure they don't lose the benefits they
already have. The welfare 'smart card' will replace up to 17 other
cards now being used by those receiving Government payments of one
sort or another. Inevitably, any move to put personal information of
this kind on to a card that not all, but most people, will eventually
need to have, has come worried. David Vaile from the colourfully named
Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre at the University of NSW is one of
them.

DAVID VAILE: Well, I'm not really sure what a 'smart card' is. It's
starting to look very much like the Australia Card mark II that we've
all been waiting for. They say that it's initially voluntary and just
restricted to a few users, but, on the other hand, it seems to be
likely to be necessary to be used by everybody who's going to deal
with the Federal Government. And, you know last time I looked,
everybody had to have a tax record, they needed a passport if they
wanted to go overseas. So, it doesn't seem as if it will stay just
with the welfare sector. I wouldn't surprised if in a year or so, or
perhaps a couple more longer, it starts to look very compulsory.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: And David Vaile says even if this information is
restricted, at the moment, to welfare recipients, it will provide a
platform for anyone looking to load more information on to it into the
future. But even the information that's likely to be stored on the
card as it is proposed now, could create real privacy issues.

DAVID VAILE: For a bureaucrat, it looks fantastic, and for a database
developer, you know, I've developed databases - we love the idea of a
single number and a single thing tying everything together. For the
individual at the other end, it's a real problem because, you know you
might be happy, for instance, for your doctor to know that you've got
a psychiatric problem; you might not want your physiotherapist's
receptionist to know that. You might not want your dentist to know
your tax details, or want a lot of people to know things outside of
their own little patch.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But as we've seen, this is a compromise.
Technology has advanced - the Government argues - so, why not use it?
After all, it will certainly help prevent welfare fraud and do away
with a considerable amount of red tape. So, what's the big deal?

JOE HOCKEY, HUMAN SERVICES MINISTER: You need a photo now to rent a
car. You need photo ID to hire a video in many places. You need photo
ID to come into Parliament House. But you can get a $12,000 a year
pension for life and not have to present as robust an identification.
It's taxpayers' money, and if you're claiming taxpayers' money, from
any source, I think there's - it's understandable that you have to be
able to prove who you are.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But, as many of those who make your identity their
business will attest, it's not just the card or the photo that you
have to look at. It's the technology that supports it and the cyber
world it feeds into. The 'smart card' itself will likely create more
data sharing than already exists - not necessarily a bad thing, but
almost a certainty. Will it be used ethically? Will you always know
who has access to it? There's no doubt it will inevitably be used by
security agencies in some way, and although it's not a national
identity card, it will be the most sophisticated form of identity
around. In fact, there are some in the Government who wanted to see
this go much further than it has, but the Cabinet says it's got the
balance right.

PHILIP RUDDOCK, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What we are dealing with here are
enhancements that are able to help in that task. I mean, a digitalised
photograph gives use a better opportunity of knowing who it is you are
dealing with than you have now, otherwise you wouldn't be go through
the task of developing an access card, which is robust in
identification. But - so, it has that enhancement. You could add to it
by a variety of means. What you would add would give you some
additional benefits, but the view that we took on balance is that the
benefits we obtain through what we are doing are appropriate,a
response that the Australian community would be prepared to wear, and
anything further is a matter that we are ruling out.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So, the message is: trust us. This isn't 1984.
It's not 1997 either. It's 2006.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1624543.htm

Archived from group: aus>education