Malcolm Roberts Probes the Digital ID By James Reed

Malcolm Roberts of One Nation probed the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, on the claim that the coming digital ID would not be compulsory. Just in the same way the government claimed that the Covid vaxxes would not be compulsory. He also mentioned that section 74(4) of the Digital ID Bill would allow the Digital ID to be made compulsory if a bureaucrat is “satisfied it is appropriate to do so.” That seems conclusive, as there will always be bureaucrats that will see that it is appropriate to do so. It is the big thing for that mob.

It is also interesting to see the Minister’s response to Senator Roberts’ question, that in the light of a number of hackings in Australia, why the Digital ID will be secure? The hackings: “June, Russian hackers compromised top secret Australian Defence Force data. In July, NDIS participants were exposed in a data breach, and the Department of Home Affairs leaked personal small business information. In August, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs leaked medical data. In September, Australian Federal Police data was hacked.”

According to the Minister, this hacking will not occur as the Digital ID is owned by the person and reduces the amount of information that the government has. That does not answer the question of hacking safety, since if hackers can access Australian Defence Force data they will get into the Digital ID system. And the so-called reduction is really a centralisation of data, so the problem will be intensified, not solved.

https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/tough-questions-asked-on-digital-id-bill/

“How can Minister Gallagher claim Digital ID will be secure given government is one of the largest perpetrators of data breaches?

I questioned whether it “wouldn’t be compulsory” in the same way the government claims vaccines were never compulsory.

What Minister Gallagher failed to mention is that Section 74(4) of the Digital ID Bill allows the Digital ID to be made compulsory if a bureaucrat is “satisfied it is appropriate to do so”.

This will almost definitely be abused and makes a joke of the claim Digital ID would be voluntary.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is for the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. ABC reports in July revealed that hackers were able to exploit loopholes in the government’s myGov system and, as of February 2023, lodged more than half a billion dollars in fraudulent tax claims. Given the minister’s claims that a digital identity would be secure, can the minister please provide an updated figure on how many billions of dollars in fraudulent claims hackers have lodged to date in exploiting myGov system vulnerabilities?

Senator Gallagher: The first thing I would say about that is myGov is different to myGovID; they are completely different things. I don’t have updated information. MyGov is the site you go to, as many people in this place will have, to engage with government in an online way. But myGovID is a digital ID that you control and own and use for verifying your identity and, if you are a business, for engaging with the tax office in particular. There are 10.5 million Australians who have a myGovID and use it for that purpose, but it is very different to the question that Senator Roberts raises around the myGov system, which I don’t have an update on. It falls under the Minister for Government Services’ portfolio. I am happy to see if there is something that minister would be able to provide you around an update on that.

MyGov obviously is a system that we invest heavily in to make sure it is useable and safe for people when they are engaging with government, but that doesn’t change the comments I made last week about the digital ID system being safe and trustworthy and voluntary. If you are an individual, you will not have to have one of these digital IDs but, if you do want one, the option is there, and it’s a way of reducing the amount of information that government collects in order to verify your identity. So, the two things, myGovID and myGov—I accept they are similarly named—are very different things indeed.

The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in June, Russian hackers compromised top secret Australian Defence Force data. In July, NDIS participants were exposed in a data breach, and the Department of Home Affairs leaked personal small business information. In August, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs leaked medical data. In September, Australian Federal Police data was hacked. Why is it falsely claimed the government’s digital ID is secure when the government can’t keep data secure?

Senator Gallagher: I don’t accept the proposition that’s being put by Senator Roberts. Yes, government systems are under constant attack and threat, as most businesses are in this country, from cybercrime, from hackers, and from scams and criminals that are engaged in such activity, so the government invests heavily in protecting our systems, making sure they are safe. But in a sense, you are making the argument for a digital ID, because a digital ID is about reducing the amount of information that the government holds on you about you for services. Because of the way the system works, you retain the information, but you’re able to have your ID verified through a process of exchange that allows those systems to be unlocked. Absolutely fundamental to the digital ID system is reducing the amount of information, having the safeguards in place— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will the government support a One Nation amendment to the digital identity bill explicitly stating that no Australian will ever be denied access to services because they do not have a digital ID? Or is the claim that the digital ID won’t be compulsory just misinformation?

Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to engage with you genuinely on digital ID. I accept your interest in it and I am very willing to work with anyone in this chamber to make sure that the legislation that passes this place is the best that it can be. In relation to your specific question, as part of the bill we do require that services be maintained and offered for people that don’t want to have a digital ID. That protection is there. I am very happy to engage with you more broadly on the bill, including in other areas that you might have concerns about.

That clause relates specifically to individuals. As you know, myGov ID is required for business-related services, and part of that is about minimising fraud and identity theft, verifying individuals as part of their engagement with the tax office.”