NSW Opal Card Not Compatible With Airport Train

Getting off a 14 hour flight from Vancouver, I was disappointed to find my Opal card did not work at Sydney international airport station. The Opal card has a $10 minimum balance, but a train ride from the airport to city costs more than $10 (the link from the "fare calculator" page to say how much airport access costs is not working). As my card had a balance more than the $10 minimum it had not been automatically topped up to the minimum $40, but was less than the cost of the train fare and so was rejected. I suggest NSW introduce the system as at Vancouver airport, where those with pre-paid tickets do not pay the airport surcharge.

ps: Even when the card has been accepted at a railway station, I noticed that after the gate opens a red "Card Rejected" is displayed.

How is Value Added to a NSW Opal Card?

I purchased an Opal Smart Card for NSW public transport at a newsagent for $10 and was told it had $10 credit on it, but it did not. Registering the card online and attempting to add to the balance did not work either. The $40 top-up I requested was returned (with an SMS message saying:

The top-up requested on DD/MM for Opal card ending in 9999 wasn't collected and has been returned. Please do not reply to this SMS.

No explanation of "collected" was provided. But this may indicate that the card has to be used within a few days of money being added. My reason for getting the card was to travel from Sydney Central Station to the international airport by train. The buses in my vicinity are not equipped for the Opal card, so there is no reason, or way, to use it before then.

 

While the Victorian "Myki" smart card had some problems, at least I was able to put some money on the card and not have the money vanish.

How Much Does a NSW Opal Card Cost?

I purchased an Opal Smart Card for NSW public transport at a newsagent for $10 and was told it had $10 credit on it, but it does not. I registered the card online  (this is optional you can have an anonymous one). This was reasonably simple to do and the system sent me a conformation SMS, which is useful. But I was surprised to find the card had a balance of zero. So I added $40 online (the minimum), the balance remained at zero for several minutes, before changing to $40. Other online translations only take a few second: why does the Opal system take minutes?

The other annoying aspect of the Opal card is the need for yet another smart transport card. This is my fourth Australian state smart ticket card (I already have cards for Victoria, ACT and West Australia). I only need one electronic tag to driver my car in multiple Australian states, why can't I use the one travel card across Australia? The reasons can't be technical, as these cards all conform to the same smart card standards. In fact I also have a card for Singapore which uses the same standard (as will the Vancouver Compass Card).

Sydney Smart Ticket on a Bus to Nowhere

The city of Vancouver is introducing their Compass electronic fare card progressively on buses, trains and ferries, saying "... we've learned from cities around the world that extended-delivery schedules are common with major-system changes...". That is certainly the case in Sydney, with the Tcard system supposed to be in place for the Sydney 2000 Olympics, but abandoned in 2007. The replacement Opal system has started being used on ferries and trains (and some buses from Monday). But when I went I tried clicking on "View a list of bus services that accepts Opal" the page was not found.

ps: I had hoped to try Vancouver's Compass card later in the month, to get from the airport (and avoid a $5 surcharge which international passengers are slugged with). But the smart cards are not generally available yet.

National Smart Transport Ticket Needed

While Adam Carey's article on the use of motor vehicle electronic toll tags on public transport was an April fools day joke, the idea has some merit ("E-Tags the go as myki take its toll, lobby group says", The Age, 1 April 2013). A traveler from NSW cannot use their MYKI card interstate, but a motorist can use their e-tag on a toll road interstate. This is not due to an inherent technical incompatibility between the smart card technologies, they all use the same standards. State governments have chosen to block the use of smart tickets interstate to protect their own revenue, inconveniencing the traveling public and increasing cost. If state governments wished them to do so, travelers could use their MYKI from Melbourne interchangeably with Translink go card Brisbane, SmartRider Perth, Metrocard Adelaide, and the future Opal card Sydney.

 The federal government could provide a forum to plan this interchange. The encourage states to cooperate, the federal government could threaten to use its banking powers to open up transport payments to all financial institutions. The contact-less smart cards issued by Australian banks are compatible with the state's ticketing systems and the federal government could require the states to accept these cards under federal banking legislation. Faced with ticketing competition from all banks, states are likely to be willing to cooperate as a second best option.

Obtaining a Melbourne Tram Ticket

Next month I am speaking at an international conference in Melbourne. Most of the other delegates are from China and will be staying at the conference venue. I am staying in the city and so need to get to the venue. The Melbourne tram network is extensive and they has introduced a smart transit card ("Myki"). But working out how to actually buy a ticket has proven much more difficult than getting the equivalent electronic ticket in Istanbul.

There are plans for a Tourist Pack, for visitors, preloaded with $8. But currently if you click "visitor" on the "Which MyKi is for you?" page, you are advised to buy the regular MiKi card. Curiously, while full fee paying passengers are told that the card will cost $6, visitors are not told of this cost.

I attempted to purchase a MiKi card, with MiKi money already loaded on the card. Also I chose a registered card, which allows topping up the money online and a refund if the card is lost. This required filling in not only details of where I wanted the card sent, but my email and phone details, a user id, and password. The first few times I tried this the system rejected the transaction after I had completed several screens full of information. The text on one screen was overlapping and unreadable and in other cases the text I was trying to enter would not fit in the boxes, due to poor web page design.

After several attempts I was able to order a registered card. I then tried to order a non-registered card for someone travelling with me. In this case I could not work out how to order a card with money on it. I could order a card with no money on it, but that would be of no use, as there would be no way to use it for travel. Perhaps this as done for security reasons, as the anonymous card acts as essentially like cash. But it seems silly not to allow at least a small amount of money on the card, as without it the card is useless.

Several Australian cities have, or are introducing, smart transit cards. All these cards use the same technical standards and are capable of being interoperable. The Australian Government could boost tourism and lower carbon emissions by encouraging the state governments to allow their transit systems to accept each other's smart cards (just as toll roads accept interstate electronic tags). This would allow interstate visitors to use their current card and international visitors to pre-purchase a card.

Deficiencies in Accounting for MyWay Canberra Bus Tickets

Several weeks ago I sent Canbeera's government owned ACTION bus company two old magnetic stripe tickets to have the usnused portion credited to my new "My Way" smart card bus ticket. Today I received an email from the MyWay Administration office saying this has been done. I used the "check your balance" page to check this had been done (which it had). But curiously the email was vague about when the transaction had happened, saying "Beetween the 20th - 24th". This did not match the date reported by the online system, which was 02/06/2011. The funds appear to be unaccounted for, over a period of a week.

Also the misspelling of "Beetween" in what must be an email sent out to thousands of people is of concern. This suggests that the MyWay system has not been implemented with the care needed for a system handling millions of dollars.

MyWay Canberra Smart Bus Ticket

Needing to get from a seminar at the Australian national University to Information Awareness Month the National Library of Australia last night, I decided to take the local ACTION bus. This was my first use of the new Canberra "My Way" smart card bus ticket, which have a few problems.

MyWay has been introduced, so I went to the newsagent at the university to buy one. The staff were relieved to find I wanted an ordinary card, as they had been busy processing special student discount cards. I expected some sort of complex registration process, but I handed over $20 and was handed a card. The cards have no obvious electronic wizardry on them, being a relatively plain two colour printed plastic card. There is no embossing and no electronic contacts visible. There is what appears to be a serial number on the card.

Getting on the bus I placed the card on the MyWay reader next to the driver and got a reassuring beep. However, travelling into the city I noticed the reader on the back door of the bus had a red light and an error message. Most of the passengers at the Civic interchange exited via the front door of the bus, not the rear one, as they were unable to "tag off" with their card at the rear door. This held up those passengers wishing to board, as they had to wait for the alighting passengers.

At the National Library stop I decided to use the front exit, but was presented with an error message by the card reader. I tried several times and then looked at the driver who just shrugged their shoulders and drove off. I have no idea what I was charged for this journey. I thought I might be able to check online, after registering the ticket. However, registering the ticket can take 24 hours.

After the event at the library I had some time (having missed the earlier bus, so decided to register my card. There is a form to fill out online, which is not too complicated. At the end of the process I was offered a "receipt", but I did not have a printer available. These was also a receipt number offered, but this was so long it was impractical to write it down (the library was closing and I had to leave). I thought I would simply wait for ACTON to email me the details.

At that point I realised I had not been asked for an email address, not to set a user-id. So exactly how ACTON send me my registration details was unclear. Today checking the web site I see a "check your balance" page which asks for the card number, my date of birth and the answer to the "secret question" (which seems a bizarre way to provide security). Entering these details, the two bus trips were displayed. The first trip cost $2.52 and the second $2. It would appear I was overcharged 50 cents for the first trip because the MyWay reader was not working correctly.

Your Card Transactions

Date / Time	TX Reference No / Type	Boarding Type	Route	Stop Name	TX Amount	Deduction Type	Payment Type	SV Balance
May 3 2011 9:17PM	000006 Normal TAP OFF - Stored Value		6A	Macpherson St opposite O	$-2	NORMAL	Stored Value	$15.48
May 3 2011 9:03PM	000005 Normal TAP ON	INITIAL	6A	Langton Cr Car Park				$17.48
May 3 2011 9:03PM	000004 Synthetic TAP OFF - Stored Value		6A	Langton Cr Car Park	$-2.52	DEFAULT	Stored Value	$17.48
May 3 2011 4:58PM	000003 Normal TAP ON	INITIAL	319A	Westfield Shopping Centr				$20
May 3 2011 3:21PM	000002 Initial Product Issue - Cash				$20		Cash	$20
May 3 2011 3:21PM	000001 Card Fee Update - Cash				$0		Cash	$20

Also I have two unused old magnetic stripe tickets which in theory I can exchange for credit on my new ticket. However, this requires filling in a form and sending the tickets by paper mail, or at a Canberra Connect shopfront or MyWay centre. The refunds can't be made where tickets are sold.

Bus rapid transit for Australian cities

After a tour of the New Belconnen Bus Stations in Canberra I was reading the Wikipedia entry on "Bus rapid transit". The idea is simple: use buses for a rapid transit system, by providing stations, and dedicated roadways where possible. This is cheaper and easier than putting in rail lines and is almost as efficient.

One limitation is running buses in tunnels. Unless complex and expensive hybrid or electric buses are used, the there will be emissions from the bus engine, requiring ventilation. But it occurred to me that newer buses will have less emissions and so will require less ventilation in tunnels (I edited the Wikipedia entry to point this out).

Another point is that road tunnels are designed mostly for cars, which will emit much more pollution than buses, per person carried. Also engineers designing the tunnels have to assume that the cars are old and not well serviced and so will be emitting more pollution than the latest regulations allow. In contrast a tunnel just for buses can be designed specifically for the latest emission standard and the bus fleet monitored to check they meet the standard. So less ventilation will be required, and for short tunnels, not mechanical ventilation at all.

New Belconnen Bus Stations in Canberra

The Westfield Bus Station and Belconnen Community Bus Station come into operation at the Belconnen Town Centre in Canberra on Monday 15 November 2011. During the Belconnen Community Festival, yesterday, an Action bus was providing free tours of the new stops, so I took the tour.

The Westfield Bus Station is built on the western side of the newly expanded Westfield Belconnen building (aka "Belconnen Mall"), with a convenient door to the shops. The station will have an ACTION information office and cafe (both yet to be fitted out). The bus stops appear to be at ground level, but are built up over what was previously a cutting (presumably there are shops and/or car parking beneath). The shops in the new section of the mall have not yet opened, with access provided to the old section. Even so this should be a convenient way to access the western end of the mall.

The Belconnen Community Bus Station is built on the site of the demolished (and not missed) Belconnen Bus Interchange. The previous interchange was built like a railway station, with one long island platform down the middle and bus bays on either side. There were pedestrian bridges for access from either end. While in theory this made the interchange safe and convenient for passengers, it meant a long walk if you wanted to get to the community centre right next to the interchange (you had to walk to the end of the platform, over the bridge and then back up the hill). The new interchange has the buses in the middle and platforms on either side. This requires some passengers to cross the road (traffic lights are provided) but the platforms are at ground level and accessible from several points on either side. One issue will be that with many buses using the station, it may be inconvenient for pedestrians to cross the road. A fence has been built to discourage those wishing to cross at other then at the lights, but the fence would not appear to meet pool fence standard AS1926.1 2007 and the average teenager is likely to be able to vault over it.

The MyWay contact-less smart card ticketing system was installed on the bus used for the tour ( but the tour was free). The new ticket system is being fitted to all busses, with the old magnetic stripe reader ticket machines relocated to make room (the old units look a little battered compared to the new equipment).

When the new MyWay system will be in use is unclear. In July the ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, announced this was due to commence in the second half of 2010, but ACTION are now advising "early 2011". Such smart card systems have had problems in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. But Canberra is using the more successful system used in Perth ("SmartRider"). The hardware used appears to be the Parkeon Wayfarer 200 Electronic Ticket Machine and Parkeon Astreo Contactless Smart Card Validator. The Canberra system should be easier to implement, as there are no trams, ferries or trains to use the system, just buses.

Data Protection in Japan

Greetings from the Australian National University, where Professor Andrew Adams, Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University (Tokyo) is speaking on "Information privacy & data protection in Japan". This outlined the work reported in his paper "The Development of Japanese Data Protection (with with Murata and Orito in Policy and Internet, 2010). He will also be speaking at the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, Teaching room 101, UNSW Faculty of Law building, Sydney, 1 pm, 15 September 2010. Andrew asserted that it was a myth that Japan does not have a concept of privacy similar to western countries. Japan introduced similar legislation to protect citizens privacy in government systems and later legislated on a national electronic identity card system.

Andrew described the "Uchi-Soto" (内外) concept of relationships in Japanese society. He then talked about vertical relationships within organisations, where information is passed up and down the hierarchy, more than a western country, but under strict social rules. He then discussed the origins of these social rules, with buildings with (literally) paper thin walls. Under the "as if" tradition, if you do not official know something, you act as if you do not know.

Andrew then discussed the Kanji data input problem. Government started using data entry in the 1980. But it was only after methods for simple entry of Kanji characters were made generally avialable in the mid 1990's that there was widespread input of personal data by companies. He argues that the property crash of 1989/90 and ongoing economic problems placed pressure on companies to make more use of their data holdings. At the same time the Japanese government had financial difficulties and so wanted better data to reduce costs and collect more taxes.

Andrew claimed that there was rumoured to be a 1940s proposal for computerized national identity database for Japanese citizens by the then US occupation government. Even a single tax number required the 1990 financial problems to be introduced. Japan already had several existing registration systems.

The Basic Resident Registers Network (住民基本台帳ネットワーク) or Juki Net (住基ネット) was the proposal for computerising some of these systems. In the late 1990s, companies were then able to send individualised junk mail and this then caused concern over the security of the government system. The government system was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court of Japan in 2008, however concerns and limited political support is still holding up full implementation.

INFORMATION & HUMAN CENTRED COMPUTING SERIES
DATE: 2010-09-13
TIME: 16:00:00 - 17:00:00
LOCATION: CSIT Seminar Room, N101
CONTACT:duncan.stevenson@anu.edu.au

ABSTRACT:
There has been an academic myth since at least Benedict's 1940s "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" that the Japanese have little or no sense of privacy. This myth has been challenged by a number of scholars in recent years, all of whom point out that while the exact details of Japanese people's concepts of the various kinds of privacy (bodily, surveillance, information) differ in detail to those of other countries, these ideas still exist, and in fact contain no greater difference than that between other countries such as Germany and the US.

One of the arguments put forward for the Japanese lack of a sense of information privacy was the limited Japanese data protection legislation of 1988 which only covered government use of data, leaving commercial use of data entirely to voluntary codes of practice. However, in 2003, the Japanese government introduced revised data protection legislation for the public sector and introduced legislation it publicly stated was hoped to bring Japan under the EU's third country export regulations.

Prof Adams of Meiji University will present recent joint work with Murata (also of Meiji) and Orito (of Ehime) on the Japanese Sense of Information Privacy, historically and how this has been effected by computer and networking systems, and the broader political background to the development of the 2003 data protection legislation.
BIO:
Professor Andrew A Adams Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/

Sydney Electronic Ticketing System Selected

According to media reports, the Pearl Consortium, made up of Downer EDI, Commonwealth Bank and Cubic Transportation Systems has won the Sydney electronic transport ticketing system. Key to the consortium is Cubic_Transportation_Systems which has provided electronic ticket systems to large city transport systems, including the Oyster Card for London Underground. Downer EDI is an engineering company (the EDI does not stand for "Electronic Data Interchange"). The Commonwealth Bank has experience with MasterCard PayPass and Visa payWave these are contactless payment cards. These and similar cards are now being distributed widely to bank customers. However, it unclear if the NSW will permit their use for travel payments.

Mobile phones as transport tickets

Deutsche Bahn (DB) are trialling an electronic ticketing system Touch&Travel which may overcome problems with the smart card systems of Victorian and NSW. The DB system uses mobile phones and Near Field Communications (NFC). The key difference to contact-less smart cards, as tried with limited success in Victoria and NSW, is that the system is reversed: the card is attached to the train and the passenger's mobile phone is used as the card reader. As a result little infrastructure is needed to be installed by the transport system: the mobile phone provides most of the smarts.

Health informatics Conference

A Health informatics conference "HIC 2009" will be held in Canberra 19 to 21 August 2009. This covers the use of computers and telecommunications in healthcare. The Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has courageously revived the idea of a medical smart card for Australia. Given the failure of the previous government to do this, due to a poorly thought out project, it will make an interesting topic for discussion at the conference.

• Personalised medicine and bioinformatics
  • Discovering new knowledge in biomedicine
  • Applying knowledge in biomedicine: Informatics role in translational medicine
  • Biomedical systems: delivering personalised medicine
• Next generation electronic health records
  • Integrating new health data sets
  • Data visualising and data management
  • Personal health records
  • Privacy, security and confidentiality
• New Models of Healthcare Delivery
  • Monitoring systems
  • Assistive Technologies
  • Smart Homecare environments
  • Telehealth, telecare and video conferencing and virtual reality environments
  • Information innovations to support healthcare communities and social networking
  • Knowledge and education
• Preventative healthcare and wellness
  • Chronic disease management
  • Building wellness: engaging and supporting the health consumer
  • Population monitoring and preventative health
  • Options for innovative care delivery
  • Genes and proteins to predict and prevent ill-health

The Online and Communications Council, a meeting of Australian local, state and federal governments in Melbourne 12 December 2008, has issued an Online and Communications Council Communiqué outlining a "Framework for the collaborative development and use of broadband in Australia" and some dubious proposals on the use of smart cards.

The framework is a 4 page, 415 kbyte PDF document, two pages of which are taken up with decorative graphics. At more than 200kbytes per page of content the document will consume ten times the network bandwidth it needs to and will produce ten times the greenhouse gas pollution. This runs counter to one of the stated of the framework which is to: "Extending the environmental benefits of broadband by promoting green ICT policies and smart building applications." Here is the text of the document, in 9kbytes of HTML:

Framework for the collaborative development and use of broadband in Australia

online and communications council

We, the members of the Online and Communications Council, express our commitment to this Framework as a basis to work together to enhance the development and effective use of broadband in Australia.

We agree that promoting the development and effective use of broadband will enhance Australia's economic performance and environmental and
social wellbeing.

Australia should aspire to become one of the world's leading digital economies. We intend to work together to facilitate this outcome.

We share a vision of a cohesive national approach to stimulate and strengthen economic, environmental and social outcomes, through the development and effective use of broadband, for all Australians.

Overview

The Online and Communications Council (the Council) was established by the Council of Australian Governments in 1997 as the peak ministerial forum for consultation on, and coordination of, information and communications matters of national strategic importance across all governments.

A key task of the Council is to propose strategic priority areas for online and communications policy and program development. In May 2008, the Council agreed that a Framework for the collaborative development and use of broadband in Australia was an important step forward.

Australia's development will require world-class communications infrastructure and services. Similarly, high-speed broadband access is critical to achieve business competitiveness, social networking and the promotion of social inclusion, and the delivery of public and private sector services. This Framework reinforces the need for the collaborative development and effective use of broadband.

Principles

Four key principles guide this Framework:

1. Australian governments recognise the importance of being world-class in the deployment and use of broadband as the basis for domestic and international competitiveness.
2. All Australians should have equitable access to high-speed broadband, and the social and economic benefits this capability brings.
3. Broadband and the digital economy should be driven by a pro-competitive environment that advances the interests of users, promotes efficiency and choice, maximises flexibility, and fosters innovation in the development and application of broadband technologies.
4. Each government jurisdiction has different roles, processes and responsibilities, and these different roles should be acknowledged, respected and utilised in a cohesive national approach to broadband development and use.

Roles

The Australian Government maintains responsibility for telecommunications services policy and the regulatory environment, which includes the roll-out and operation of the National Broadband Network. In performing this role, the Australian Government consults with other jurisdictions and the private sector as required.

The Australian Government continues to safeguard broadband opportunities for all Australians, particularly for those in remote areas, through the Australian Broadband Guarantee and other initiatives, where commercial investment does not achieve the required outcomes.

All governments can enhance government service delivery through innovative and effective use of broadband, including in health, education, emergency services and the environment.

All governments can foster inclusion and participation in the digital economy by addressing barriers to access and effective use, including by building confidence, trust and expertise.

All governments acknowledge the primary role of the private sector in delivering broadband investment, infrastructure and services, and in the collaborative development of technical standards and industry operating arrangements.

All governments also acknowledge that communities can have a major role in raising awareness and coordinating local initiatives to stimulate the deployment and effective use of broadband.

Priority Areas, Objectives and Strategies for Collaboration

The following priority areas, objectives and strategies have been identified for collaborative action:

Priority Area 1: Broadband availability

Objective: All Australians have access to high-speed broadband at equitable service levels and prices.

Strategies: We support the Australian Government initiative to establish the National Broadband Network to deliver high-speed broadband to 98% of Australian homes and businesses, and to provide comparable broadband services for those not covered by the National Broadband Network.

We agree to extend the benefits of the National Broadband Network and related initiatives by:

• Continuing to develop better practice models for the provision of broadband infrastructure and services in regional, rural and remote areas.
• Utilising the benefits of government purchasing and contract arrangements, where feasible, to optimise broadband availability.
• Promoting consistent and cohesive planning guidelines for state and local government authorities, and effective infrastructure implementation, that facilitates the efficient deployment of broadband.
• Encouraging open standards to ensure interoperability.
• Encouraging open access to infrastructure to promote competition.
• Extending the environmental benefits of broadband by promoting green ICT policies and smart building applications.

Priority Area 2: Broadband take-up

Objective: Australians are fully aware of the benefits of high-speed broadband, and are able to choose a broadband service that meets their needs.

Strategies: We agree to work towards:

• Identifying and reducing social, cultural, economic, educational and other barriers that people face in becoming aware of the benefits of broadband and the internet.
• Fostering programs and initiatives that promote the availability of affordable broadband.
• Recognising and enabling the potential of broadband to provide enhanced services to people in regional, rural and remote communities, including Indigenous communities, and those with disabilities and special needs.
• Building confidence among users, and strengthening the resilience and security of broadband infrastructure and applications through researching and addressing emerging security risks.

Priority Area 3: Broadband usage

Objective: Australians use high-speed broadband to improve economic, environmental and social wellbeing.

Strategies: We agree to work towards:

• Supporting innovation and best practice in the development and use of broadband applications and services in the public and private sectors, including education, health and other services.
• Improved government service delivery through world-class use of broadband and the internet.
• Encouraging and supporting research to identify the economic and social benefits of high-speed broadband, to encourage further investment in such services.

Next Steps

1. We will task the National Broadband Development Group to develop and implement an annual work plan, addressing the priority areas, objectives and strategies contained in this Framework, including developing a strategy for measuring progress of the priority areas.
2. The National Broadband Development Group will report to the Council, through the Standing Committee, on the progress of its annual work plan.
3. The Framework and the National Broadband Development Group's work plan will be reviewed regularly, and updated as necessary, to reflect changed needs of the Australian community, and further developments in broadband services and the digital economy.

Contact Manager

Online and Communications Council Secretariat
Department of Broadband, Communications
and the Digital Economy
GPO Box 2154
Canberra ACT 2601
(02) 6271 1000
occ@occ.gov.au
www.occ.gov.au

From: Framework for the collaborative development and use of broadband in Australia", Online and Communications Council, 12 December 2008

Connected Government

As well as the broadband framework, the meeting endorsed five frameworks and a strategy:

1. National Smartcard Framework: verifying the identity of users and the authenticity of transactions
2. National e-Authentication Framework: the exchange of reliable name and address information
3. National Address Management Framework: developing standards for using new technologies where standards do not already exist
4. National Standards Framework: provision of standard approaches for government to publish and license information products
5. National Government Information Licensing Framework In Principle Agreement
6. National Government Information Sharing Strategy.
   

Contrary to the text of the announcement which talks about contributing to "business'/citizens' confidence, trust and assurance in easy to use government services", some of these sound like big brother, big government projects which will limit citizens freedom and restrict business. The federal and state governments have a poor record in with smart card projects. The federal, NSW and Victorian state governments have each had failed smart card projects, which wasted hundreds of millions of dollars.

No details are given of how the government propose to undertake these projects. The governments cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. On past experience it has to be assumed that these projects will fail, wasting billions of dollars, unless evidence is given of how these projects will be done differently from past failures.

Combined national public and private transport payment system

Sydney's transport smart card project (Tcard) has been abandoned and the Victorian project (MyKi)is to be having problems. Technically, smart card ticketing systems are very simple, with hardware available off the shelf. But transport smartcard projects frequently have problems, where the transport companies fail to rationalize their fee structure before implementation.

The hardware for the Victorian system seemed to be workable when I tried it. Projects seem to have been successful in Perth (Smartrider), London (Oyster Card), Hong Kong (Octopus Card) and Beijing (Yikatong). There is a UK based Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation.

In contrast to the problems with public transport smart cards, the e-TAGs used for electronic toll collection on roads in Sydney and Melbourne are working and interoperable. Perhaps the Australian Government should get the states together to produce a system which would work on public transport and toll roads across Australia. This need not use the same hardware for public and private transport, but could use the same back end payment settlement system. In this way motorists would be encouraged to use public transport as an alternative to driving on toll roads.

Access Card registration process discussion paper

Professor Fels' Consumer and Privacy Taskforce has released a Discussion Paper on the Registration Process for the Australian Government Access Card. Submissions can be made until 16 April 2007:

Table of Contents

Registration ... Background ... From Draft to Final ... Introduction to the Registration Scheme ... Public Support ... An Access Card Consumer Charter ... Privacy Impact Statement ... Outline of Discussion Paper ... Informed Consent ... Mandated Data ... Proof of Identity Documentation and Standards of Identification ... Verification procedures for POI Documents ... Additional information to be recorded in the Access Card system ... Exceptions and Exemptions ... Persons under the age of 18 years ... Disability Features ... The Registration Process ... Access Card Issue Overseas ... Conclusion ... Consultations ... Appendix I - Interview Process ... Appendix II - Business as usual for the Teens' access to Smartcard ... Criteria for people under 18 years of age for their own Access Card ...

BACKGROUND

Registration is one of the key elements of the Australian Government’s proposed health and social services Access Card scheme. It is the process by which Australians become part of the scheme by having their personal data entered on the Register (formerly known as the Secure Customer Registration Service), receive their Access Card and thereafter access the benefits which are provided by the government’s participating agencies (Medicare, Centrelink, the Departments of Human Services and Veteran’s Affairs).

The Register is established by Division 3 of the Bill. It is part of the background to discussing registration.

It should be noted that the Government has not yet made a formal decision on what the Access Card might be called. The Minister is empowered in the proposed legislation (see below) to determine the name of the card and any symbol used in relation to the card (section 27), and that name/symbol will become the protected property of the Commonwealth (section 28). The Commonwealth will also have the power to compulsorily acquire such related rights if they are currently held privately, on the payment of just compensation (section 73). For the purposes of this Paper we will simply use the term Access Card where appropriate. ...

From: Registration, Discussion Paper Number 3, Consumer and Privacy Taskforce, 21 March 2007

Access card forum, 12 March, Canberra

Deb Foskey, ACT Greens MLA, invited interested members of the public to a lunchtime forum on the Federal Government's proposed health and social services access card. As I was in Canberra, I went along. My own views on the card, which must have set a record as the shortest submission to the inquiry.

Someone who I assume is a Greens politician did an okay introduction (I don't think it was Deb Foskey).

Guest Speakers: Anna Johnston 'No ID card' Campaign Director, Australian Privacy Foundation (APF)

Anna outlined the origins of the APF in the fight against the Australia Card proposal (which was successful).

ASIDE: One memorable part of the Australia Card debate was seeing Roger Clarke and others in a dinner table discussion broadcast by the ABC. The discussion was edited down to less than an hour, but obviously was held over several courses and the discussion got more interesting as the evening progressed. ;-)

The APF is opposed to the access card and see it as an Australia Card II. Anna gave a good summary of the access card proposal and issues, such as the creation of a photo database associated with the card. The card is to be issued to every adult and anyone over 15 who requests one. The database will have what is on the card, plus more data and link to agency databases. The APF is concerned that the Federal Police and ASIO will have access without a warrant. Anna did not mention it, but presumably with access to the database the police could track almost everyone in the streets of the CBD of all Australian cities, using the existing security cameras and face recognition.

Anna suggests the Government deflected criticism of privacy by referring them to Allan Fells office. This is a little unfair as Professor Fells seems to be doing a workmanlike job of dealing with privacy issues.

It was a well written speech and will read well. But reading it out in a forum only attended by like minded people will not achieve much.

Anna criticized the Government for cutting some optional functions from the card. This is unfair as these functions would have compromised the security of the card and dropping them is justified.

Anna suggested that the current Medicare card could be upgraded instead of a new Access Card. Other initiatives, such as the on-line portal system, got a mention (I am not sure if this is the same as single sign on for government online services.

In practice an expanded Medicare card is probably what will happen, after those involved in the project recheck the costs and benefits, some time after the next election. It will not much matter who wins the election, the political climate and the costs will most likely set the direction of the project. While proposing a visionary hitech project is a boost for politician and bureaucrat's careers, actually having to get it to work is not. A Liberal government will brand an improved Medicare card as "Access Card Lite"; a Labor government will say they are scrapping the Access Card. But they will likely both implement essentially the same thing.

Julia Nesbitt Director General Practice and eHealth, Australian Medical Association (AMA)

Julia gave a less partisan, and less speech like, presentation.The AMA opposes many of the details of the card, but not the idea of a health access card. She noted there have been problems with several other e-Halth projects, which does not give confidence in the Access Card being executed successfully.

Julia argued that any Medical Emergency Information on the card should be verified by a doctor, as is done with the MedicAlert bracelets. What she didn't say was if having this on a card provided any benefit over a MedicAlert bracelet. Presumably a smart card is much less robust than an engraved metal bracelet and less likely to remain with a patient.

The forum did a good job, but was essentially preaching to the converted. Of the twenty or so people there, most seemed to be from an organization opposed to the Access Card. About the only use for the forum was to provide a media event. I felt a bit used, being just a prop for the TV cameras.

ps: I thought I would do a "live" report but did not bring my wireless modem. I turned on the WiFi but the only access point showing was "Panasonic", which was the video projector for the room. I resisted the temptation to hack in and project my own slides behind the speaker. ;-)

Access Card Briefing, Sydney, 13 December 2006

The Australian Government's Office of the Access Card (also known as the Government Smart card or Health Card) will hold a Consumer and Privacy Briefing on 13 December 2006:

"... three main aims.

• Inform the IT industry about the project prior to tenders being released.
• Provide privacy and consumer advocates with further details about the project.
• Release an exposure draft of the access card legislation for public consultation."

Also available is the Government's response to the Consumer and Privacy Taskforce Report on "Issues and Recommendations in Relation to Architecture Questions of the Access Card".

The Government's response is a model of brevity being only 59kbytes of PDF, compared to the report's 1.83mb. The original KPMG Access Card Business Case is still available on the Office of the Access Card publications page.

There is also a web address for public information about the Access Card, in accordance with the Government web branding policy. This also has an RSS Feed.

ps: The Government has responded to criticism of the project by increasing safeguards and decreasing its scope. But assurances as to the proper running of the system are less credible after the Office of the Access Card sent out the wrong attachment with their invitation to the briefing. If they have trouble working e-mail, how will they go with a highly complex access card system? ;-)