Digital Disruption – Page 60 – Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog

Financial Sector Digital Disruption In Full Swing

The latest edition of the Disruption Index, a joint initiate between Moula and Digital Finance Analytics, shows disruption continues apace. In the latest results, focussing on small business lending, more of the market is in play, with an overall disruption score of 36.18, up 2.99%.

SME service expectations continue to rise with the continued deployment of online applications and tools, in concert with the ongoing rise in mobile, always on smart devices. There has been a significant rise in awareness of non-traditional funding alternatives this quarter, following recent publicity and government innovation statements on fintech. As a result, a slightly higher proportion of SMEs are willing to trade their data.

Business confidence amongst borrowing SMEs has risen, as a result of the announced budget tax changes, and more favourable business conditions, especially in the east coast states. This was offset by a fall in confidence in WA and SA.

While knowledge of non-bank lenders is starting to increase, we are still seeing low usage of such credit options by small businesses (at less than 10% of all businesses in the sample); with increasing awareness, and increasing focus on the fintech sector by media commentators, we expect that non-bank lending to small businesses will become mainstream in time.

SME expectation of the time it should take to access unsecured finance has continued to collapse, with the most recent observation at 6.5 days. This is reducing quickly, and highlights the small businesses sector’s increasing awareness of alternatives in the market, coupled with the expectation that lending decisions should be fast in an era of data availability.

We are witnessing a significant trend in terms of borrower’s preparedness to provide electronic access to private information, mainly in the form of bank and accounting data feeds. This trend has been evolving quarter on quarter, with the most recent quarter showing an 11% increase in loan applicants that permission data, and a doubling since the Disruption Index began a year ago.

The key interpretation here, we believe, is that consumers and small businesses have accepted that data permissioning and data transfer are:

necessary to access new financial service offerings, and
data transfer is generally accepted as being secure.

The Disruption Index is an important tool which will highlight the changing face of financial services in Australia. There is no doubt that new business models are emerging in the context of the digital transformation of the sector, and bank customers are way ahead of where many incumbents are playing. The SME sector in particular is underserviced, and it offers significant opportunity for differentiation and innovation.

Digital Finance Analytics says that in the last three months we have seen a significant shift in attitudes amongst SMEs as they become more familiar with alternative credit options and migrate to digital channels. The attraction of online application, swift assessment and credit availability for suitable businesses highlights the disruption which is underway. There is demand for new services, and supply from new and emerging players to the SME sector.

Moula ramps up for long-term growth

Moula, the data-driven lending platform for small businesses has announced the appointment of former Managing Director of Xero, Chris Ridd, to its board as it positions itself for significant growth. They also released the latest edition of the Disruption Index, which measures the digital intrusion of new players into the Financial Services Sector. Ridd’s appointment comes off the back of strong growth for Moula over the past twelve months, as Australian small businesses change the way they access loans.

The Disruption Index, shows that the number of data-approved loan applicants has doubled over the past year. The Disruption Index index has been jointly developed by Moula and research and consulting firm Digital Finance Analytics (DFA). It is an initiative designed to track the waves of disruption in Australia in the small business lending sector.

Business confidence among SMEs seeking finance has risen over the past quarter as a result of taxation changes outlined in the recent Federal Budget along with more favourable business conditions, according to the latest findings from the Disruption Index,

Figures from the Disruption Index reflect the changing way in which SMEs access finance, including:

the number of data-approved loan applicants has doubled over the past year as more businesses become comfortable with providing bank and accounting data to access unsecured finance

SMEs want faster access to unsecured finance, with the average expected wait time reducing from 7.5 days to 6.5 days over the past year

The Hon. Philip Dalidakis, Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade welcomed the role that alternative lenders like Moula play in supporting the economy.

“Having access to capital is one of the most important requirements for a small business to get off the ground or stay operating.”

“It is wonderful to see fintech companies like Moula providing our small businesses with innovative new ways to access capital and manage their finances at the same time. This is another great local success story that cements Victoria’s growing reputation as the number one tech and startup destination in the Asia Pacific region.”

A fully Australian-owned and operated platform, Moula enables businesses to grow by providing loans that are approved via a short online application process.

“Small business owners know that to survive in business you need to meet customer expectations. We live in an age of instantaneous transactions with the increasing availability of data at our fingertips. This means that the pace of business has increased exponentially and in line with that, so too have customer expectations. The lending space is no different,” said Moula CEO and co-founder Aris Allegos.

Over the past twelve months, Moula has aligned itself with best-in-class partners including Liberty and Xero to deliver its unique lending solution to Australian SMEs.

“The Disruption Index indicates a significant shift in the way SMEs expect to access finance, and there is a huge opportunity to help SMEs grow through accessible finance that is based on a thoroughly transparent, data-driven approach. Having somebody of Chris’ calibre on the board, with his track record of building exceptional businesses, is a tremendous boon to Moula,” Allegos said.

“He has a genuine talent and a passion for this space. He ‘gets’ small businesses and the challenges they face and is a huge advocate for what Moula is trying to achieve — to help Australian SMEs grow via a simple loan application that is fast, affordable and responsible.”

As a Xero preferred financial services partner, Moula was the first online lending platform globally to use Xero’s API integration to analyse and underwrite a business loan.

“Over the course of my five years at Xero Australia, I saw a marked shift in the way SMEs use online data to streamline business process and drive growth. The findings from the Disruption Index support this with a slightly higher proportion of SMEs willing to trade their data,” Chris Ridd said.

“There is an opportunity to help support the continued success of small businesses. Lending based on the strength of accounting data is a unique point of differentiation in the market, and one that is the way of the future for finance-as-a-service.”

Ridd joins the board of five executives, including Moula co-founders Aris Allegos and Andrew Watt, Sherman Ma, Managing Director of Liberty Financial and tech entrepreneur Nathan Cher.

UK Internet Users Reject In-Store Shopping

From eMarketer.

Internet users in the UK prefer digital channels to in-store shopping in almost every stage of the path to purchase, according to a survey from retail consultancy Pragma conducted in June 2016. In fact, only when it comes to making the final purchase decision and resolving any post-purchase issues do those surveyed prefer the in-store experience.

Internet users in the UK overwhelmingly prefer digital shopping for keeping up-to-date with the latest products, attaining detailed product information, and even simply browsing products. The Pragma survey reveals that in-store experiences are failing users for these basic shopping tasks.

Even the act of making a purchase is one preferred to be done online. Brick-and-mortar shopping was only judged better for making the final decision on a purchase or sorting out any issues afterward.

It’s little wonder that internet users in the UK are directing ever more of their shopping activities to the web. In fact, nearly 95% of those surveyed said in June that they shopped online the same amount or even more often than two years ago. And while, at some point, as more and more people shop exclusively online, that “more” response will top out and shrink, the fact that only 4% say they’re shopping online less than they used to—compared to 32% shopping less in physical stores—reinforces the idea that in-store shopping is failing users.

In June 2016, eMarketer estimated that there will be 44.4 million digital shoppers in the UK in 2016, which accounts for 93.8% of all UK internet users. These digital shoppers will browse and research products online, but not necessarily make a purchase that way. However, a large share of them will go on to buy: 94.9% this year, suggesting shoppers are happy with the experience. By 2020, 95.3% of digital shoppers in the UK will make a digital purchase.

ANZ and Amex the winners in Australia’s banks’ fight with Apple over payment apps

From The Conversation.

Australia’s banks have always enjoyed a lucrative income from credit card “interchange fees”, the charges that the banks levy on merchants’ sales. These fees amount to AU $2.5 billion a year which are ultimately passed on to consumers.

Unwilling to share any of this revenue with Apple, all but ANZ and American Express have refused to adopt Apple Pay. Instead, four of the largest banks, NAB, Westpac, Commonwealth and Bendigo and Adelaide have asked Australia’s competition regulator, the ACCC, for permission to act collectively to negotiate with Apple over access for their own digital wallet products on its phones, tablets and watches.

The banks, along with their industry representatives are claiming that they are taking this action in the interest of providing “Australians with real choice and better outcomes”. They are also allegedly concerned about security and standards surrounding the way in which customers add their cards to Apple Pay.

Even if granted, the likelihood of Apple negotiating access to the underlying payment mechanisms in the phone to the Australian banks is zero. Ceding on this would not only require Apple to create the mechanisms by which third parties could integrate with the hardware and software in their devices but it would essentially be giving up on the substantial global revenue derived from Apple Pay that is only set to grow.

Giving in to Australian banks, which in total represent a small fraction of their overall Apple Pay earnings, would mean opening up access to Apple Pay to every bank globally. Something that Apple would never do. Apple would be more likely to forego Australia altogether before taking that radical a step.

If anyone had an anti-competitive complaint to make, it would be Google and Samsung whose Apple Pay alternatives, Android Pay and Samsung Pay are also not compatible with the iPhone platform. The fact that they haven’t complained about this as such is because it wouldn’t be worth their while competing with Apple Pay which is integrated into the underlying operating system.

The banks would like to claim that their own technology somehow would be better than using Apple Pay. The banks’ tap and pay apps however require opening them up and entering a PIN, logging in or using a fingerprint login, rather than simply holding the phone against the tap and pay terminal with your thumb on the home button. The banks’ apps have also been historically beset with issues and delays in supporting new versions of Android in particular.

Perhaps Apple should not feel particularly victimised however. The Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and NAB have rejected any support for Android Pay or Samsung Pay as well.

ANZ is the only Australian bank to have taken on Apple Pay after originally being part of the other banks’ initiative to collectively bargain with Apple. The move by ANZ CEO Shayne Elliott to be the bank to adopt the latest mobile digital technology is a smart one because it has clearly differentiated ANZ as a technological leader in this space. Elliott claims that the support of Apple Pay has attracted new customers to the bank.

ANZ’s and American Express’s support for Apple Pay and Android Pay has actually given customers what they want. What they want is to be able to use what large numbers of other people in other countries can use. Being part of the “Apple” or “Samsung” or “Android” group forms part of a user’s self and social identities and fulfils a psychological need of relatedness. Being excluded from this group by banks whose predominant consideration is profits will only cause dissatisfaction and resentment amongst their customers.

ANZ’s acceptance of Apple Pay will presumably also weaken the case of the other banks that they are being disadvantaged by Apple’s closed payment system. The brinkmanship of the banks will come to a head next year when the NSW transport system starts trialling the use of tap-and-pay cards to pay for travel. If the experience in London is anything to go by, this will drive even greater use of mobile tap-and-pay which for iPhone or Apple Watch users benefits only ANZ, American Express and Apple.

Author:David Glance, Director of UWA Centre for Software Practice, University of Western Australia

Consumer Choice and Third-party Mobile Wallets

A group of Australian financial institutions have lodged an application with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) seeking authorisation to enter joint negotiations with providers of third-party mobile wallets according to NAB. The application cites three digital wallets in particular: Apple Pay, Android Pay and Samsung Pay.

Through joint negotiations, the applicants want to ensure that Australian consumers can make payments easily through their choice of mobile wallet providers, have access to the latest developments in contactless payment technology, and can benefit from common security standards across the mobile payment system.

The applicants believe consumers will benefit if they can choose the best mobile wallet that suits their own needs using their own devices. That way all consumers could have access to new features, apps and technologies developed by the makers of different mobile wallets.

“This is about providing Australians with real choice and better outcomes. If successful, the application would have tremendous benefits for the entire Australian mobile payments landscape including for public transport fares, airlines, ticketing, store loyalty and rewards programs and many more applications yet to be developed,” said Novantas Senior Advisor Lance Blockley, on behalf of the applicants.

The application lodged by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac is subject to authorisation by the ACCC. A notable absence from the list of applicants is ANZ which is the first Australian bank to offer support for Apple Pay.

The application does not request authorisation to enter joint negotiations on the amount of fees or charges, meaning financial institutions are responsible for individually negotiating contractual arrangements with wallet providers. The period of authorisation sought is three years.

Australia is at the forefront of contactless card payments, which have been well accepted by consumers and merchants. The negotiations, if successful, will ensure that consumers and merchants can be confident that Australia has a competitive, innovative and transparent system of mobile payments, including third-party wallets. With major public transport systems in Australia soon to begin trials of open loop contactless payment technology, the time is pressing for consumers to be offered a choice of mobile wallet providers.

If the application is granted, other businesses and institutions can join negotiations if they believe it would benefit their customers.

The application to the ACCC can be accessed here.

Fintechs can help incumbents, not just disrupt them

Interesting piece from McKinsey showing that the structure of the fintech industry is changing and that a new spirit of cooperation between fintechs and incumbents is developing. For example, in corporate and investment banking, less than 12 percent are truly trying to disrupt existing business models.

Fintechs, the name given to start-ups and more-established companies using technology to make financial services more effective and efficient, have lit up the global banking landscape over the past three to four years. But whereas much market and media commentary has emphasized the threat to established banking models, the opportunities for incumbent organizations to develop new partnerships aimed at better cost control, capital allocation, and customer acquisition are growing.

We estimate that a substantial majority—almost three-fourths—of fintechs focus on retail banking, lending, wealth management, and payment systems for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). In many of these areas, start-ups have sought to target the end customer directly, bypassing traditional banks and deepening an impression that they are disrupting a sector ripe for innovation.

However, our most recent analysis suggests that the structure of the fintech industry is changing and that a new spirit of cooperation between fintechs and incumbents is developing. We examined more than 3,000 companies in the McKinsey Panorama FinTech database and found that the share of fintechs with B2B offerings has increased, from 34 percent of those launched in 2011 to 47 percent of last year’s start-ups. (These companies may maintain B2C products as well.) B2B fintechs partner with, and provide services to, established banks that continue to own the relationship with the end customer.

Corporate and investment banking is different. The trend toward B2B is most pronounced in corporate and investment banking (CIB), which accounts for 15 percent of all fintech activity across markets. According to our data, as many as two-thirds of CIB fintechs are providing B2B products and services. Only 21 percent are seeking to disintermediate the client relationship, for example, by offering treasury services to corporate-banking clients. And less than 12 percent are truly trying to disrupt existing business models, with sophisticated systems based on blockchain (encrypted) transactions technology, for instance.

Assets and relationships matter. It’s not surprising that in CIB the nature of the interactions between banks and fintechs should be more cooperative than competitive. This segment of the banking industry, after all, is heavily regulated.¹ Clients typically are sophisticated and demanding, while the businesses are either relationship and trust based (as is the case in M&A, debt, or equity investment banking), capital intensive (for example, in fixed-income trading), or require highly specialized knowledge (demanded in areas such as structured finance or complex derivatives). Lacking these high-level skills and assets, it’s little wonder that most fintechs focus on the retail and SME segments, while those that choose corporate and investment banking enter into partnerships that provide specific solutions with long-standing giants in the sector that own the technology infrastructure and client relationships.

These CIB enablers, as we call them, dedicated to improving one or more elements of the banking value chain, have also been capturing most of the funding. In fact, they accounted for 69 percent of all capital raised by CIB-focused fintechs over the past decade.

Staying ahead. None of this means that CIB players can let their guard down. New areas of fintech innovation are emerging, such as multidealer platforms that target sell-side businesses with lower fees. Fintechs also are making incursions into custody and settlement services and transaction banking. Acting as aggregators, these types of start-ups focus on providing simplicity and transparency to end customers, similar to the way price-comparison sites work in online retail. Incumbent banks could partner with these players, but the nature of the offerings of such start-ups would likely lead to lower margins and revenues.

In general, wholesale banks that are willing to adapt can capture a range of new benefits. Fintech innovations can help them in many aspects of their operations, from improved costs and better capital allocation to greater revenue generation. And while the threat to their business models remains real, the core strategic challenge is to choose the right fintech partners. There is a bewildering number of players, and cooperating can be complex (and costly) as CIB players test new concepts and match their in-house technical capabilities with the solutions offered by external providers. Successful incumbents will need to consider many options, including acquisitions, simple partnerships, and more-formal joint ventures.

Tax challenges, disruption and the digital economy

From The OECD Observer.

The digital economy is a transformative process, brought about by advances in information and communications technology (ICT) which has made technology cheaper and more powerful, changing business processes and bolstering innovation across all sectors of the economy, including traditional industries. Today, sectors as diverse as retail, media, manufacturing and agriculture are being impacted in some way by the rapid spread of digitalisation. In the broadcasting and media industry, for instance, the expanding role of data through user-generated content and social networking have enabled internet advertising to surpass television as the largest advertising medium.

In other words, “digitalisation” is pervasive, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to ring-fence the digital world from the rest of the economy, including for tax purposes. This is the first finding regarding the tax challenges of the digital economy agreed by all G20 and OECD countries, under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project. BEPS refers to tax strategies that allow Multinational Enterprises to shift profits away from the locations where the actual economic activity and value creation takes place, into low or no-tax locations.

Action 1 in the 15-point Action Plan to address BEPS, the work on the tax challenges of the digital economy, aimed to consider whether the international tax rules were sufficient to meet the demands arising from new business models and ways of creating value that are emerging with the rise of new technologies.

While finding that the digital economy cannot be separated out from the rest of the economy, it was equally clear that some specific features of the digital economy may exacerbate the risks of base erosion and profit shifting for tax purposes–namely mobility (e.g. intangibles, business functions), reliance on data (and other forms of user input), network effects, and the spread of multi-sided business models.

Thanks to digitalisation, we now see businesses across all sectors having the capacity to design and build their operating models around technological capabilities, with a view to improve flexibility and efficiency and extend their reach into global markets. These advances, coupled with liberalisation of trade policy and reduction in transportation costs, have significantly expanded the ability of certain business models of the digital economy–e.g. electronic commerce, online advertising and cloud computing–to take advantage of BEPS opportunities. The techniques used to achieve BEPS by these businesses however, are generally not different from the ones used in other parts of the economy, and as such, countries agreed that the digital economy does not generate any unique BEPS issues, and that the solutions designed to tackle BEPS practices in the 14 other points of the BEPS Action Plan should suffice to address these concerns.

Second, beyond the issue of BEPS and tax avoidance, the key features of the digital economy raise more systemic challenges for tax policy makers that are generally grouped into three categories–the so-called “broader tax challenges”: (i) the difficulty of collecting VAT/GST in the destination country where goods, services and intangibles are acquired by private consumers from suppliers based overseas which may not have any direct or indirect physical presence in the consumer’s jurisdiction; (ii) the ability of some businesses to earn income from sales from a country with a less significant physical presence in the past, thereby calling into question the relevance of existing rules that look at physical presence when determining tax liabilities; (iii) the ability of some businesses to utilise the contribution of users in their value chain for digital products and services, including through collection and monitoring of data, which raises the issue of how to attribute and value that contribution.

On VAT/GST collection, the project resulted in international agreement on recommendations to allocate the collection of VAT on cross-border B2C supplies to the country where the customer is located. For the remaining two broader tax challenges, the continuing technological developments and business models–the Internet of things, robotics and the “sharing economy”, to name a few–may prove influential and disruptive in the near future, and accordingly, raise questions as to whether the existing paradigm used to determine where economic activities are carried out and where value is generated for income tax purposes continues to be appropriate.

It is still too early to determine whether these challenges are sufficiently critical in scale and impact to justify more fundamental changes of the existing international framework, beyond what is proposed in the package of measures to tackle BEPS endorsed by OECD and G20 in October 2015. Some potential options to address these challenges have been analysed, ranging from a withholding tax on digital sales to a new concept of nexus based on having a “significant economic presence”. In the coming years, the Task Force on the Digital Economy under the Committee on Fiscal Affairs will continue to monitor new developments–both in terms of technologies as well as new tax policy responses governments develop to address them, with a review of the 2015 report on BEPS Action 1 planned for 2020.

Needless to say, the stakes in this work are high, and so are the objectives: appropriate policy solutions need to be considered that address these challenges, even while the digital world continues to advance at an exponential rate. In a short period of time, it is possible that we may be confronted with a fully-digital world that disrupts some of the fundamental assumptions of the international tax system.

OECD (2015), Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy, Action 1 – 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241046-en

OECD (2013), Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202719-en

Reckon Offers SME Loans

Accounting software developer Reckon has announced it will offer loans through an agreement with small business online lender Prospa, as the company extends its suite of financial services accessible to its customers. The introduction of business loans adds to recent news flow, with Reckon partnering with OFX to provide low-cost international payments and PayPal to unlock online credit card payments for companies without card processing facilities.

Small businesses loans of between $5,000 and $250,000 will be available, with terms range between three and twelve months and with daily and weekly payment options available.

Applications are made via Reckon and assessed by Prospa who can give approval inside 24 hours. The health of a business is evaluated by Prospa using a proprietary technology platform to rapidly determine the borrowers lending capacity. The process is significantly faster than traditional loan approvals.

“Data from accounting software used to evaluate cash-flow is seen as the best measure of business fundamentals, helping to determine the businesses ability to repay and manage risk during the life of a loan”, Reckon CEO Clive Rabie said.

“This ability to provide data to a bank or fintech player so that they can do a real-time credit check and provide safer loans to small business is disrupting this space,” said chief operating officer Daniel Rabie.

Reckon will continue to look for additional services and partnerships.

Established in 2011, Prospa has funded more than $150 million small businesses loans.

From Accountants Daily and Australian Broker.

Google’s ban on payday & high-interest loan ads going into effect

From Search Engine Land.

After a week’s delay, the ban on predatory lending ads for AdWords advertisers is beginning to roll out.

In May, Google announced that ads promoting payday loans that require repayment within 60 days and loans with interest rates above 35 percent would no longer be accepted or displayed starting July 13. Yet many people have noticed that payday loans are still showing up in Google search results, a week after the ban was supposed to start.

Google’s execution of the ban was delayed, but it is now rolling out. The company posted an update to the ad policies in the AdWords help center covering personal loans, high-APR (annual percentage rate) and personal loans on Wednesday afternoon. Note, the policy on high-APR personal loans affects US advertisers only. The policy for short-term personal loans is global.

The policy includes the following reasons for ad disapproval:

Payday loans: “Personal loans which require repayment in full in 60 days or less from the date the loan is issued (we refer to these as ‘Short-term personal loans’). This policy applies to advertisers who offer loans directly, lead generators, and those who connect consumers with third-party lenders.”

High interest loans: “In the United States, we do not allow ads for personal loans where the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is 36% or higher. Advertisers for personal loans in the United States must display their maximum APR, calculated consistently with the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).”

New ads for payday and high-interest loans are no longer being accepted, and Google will be removing existing ads from the system over the next several weeks. That process will take some time, as it’s likely Google will have to manually check the loan terms listed on advertiser websites before deciding whether to disapprove ads.

ABS oversteps mark in demanding names in census

From IT Wire.

A former head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Bill McLennan, says the ABS has no authority to demand that people supply their names in the forthcoming census to be conducted in August.

McLennan, who helped rewrite the Census and Statistics Act in the 1980s, has written a paper for the Australian Privacy Foundation which appears to be the lone organisation campaigning against what seems to be an organisation that has gone mad.

The ABS made its unilateral move in December, issuing a statement that the mainstream media missed in toto, saying it had “decided to retain names and addresses collected in the 2016 Census of Population and Housing in order to enable a richer and dynamic statistical picture of Australia through the combination of census data with other survey and administrative data.”

In his paper, McLennan says the ABS is collecting the names and addresses of all Australians and will retain that information “and will match the census records with various administrative records held by government (health, tax, New Start, social security, etc)”.

In other words, it is open slather for a government that has grown increasingly reluctant to tell the public anything about itself, while at the same time demanding more and more that the people reveal everything about themselves.

Over the last few years, we have seen the introduction of a draconian data retention act. We have also seen moves to collect biometric data that would enable facial recognition.

And now comes the ABS with its demand that we provide our names for the census.

As McLennan points out, this invasion of privacy could see many people provide incorrect information or else boycott the census altogether.

And this would mean that government, business, academic and other users, who rely on high-quality census data, would have data which was substantially inaccurate.

Secondly, the census data is used to determine the number of seats that each state has in the House of Representatives. If there are doubts about the accuracy of “the population counts coming from the 2016 Census, then this would be a very serious matter indeed, and it would be difficult to redress”.

McLennan points out that the public has not been consulted before making this change and the ABS has not bothered to tell people that the exact same change was proposed for the 2006 Census and then dropped after a damning privacy impact report by Nigel Waters, a privacy expert.

The Australian Labor Party, which always bends over backwards when any proposal that violates the privacy of Australians is mooted, has kept silent on this issue. This is not surprising. The Greens are silent too. So too, the champions of the masses like Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie.

McLennan adds that the data collected by the ABS is done on a voluntary basis – and if anyone should know, he should.

As he points out, “by regulation, the ABS has prescribed ‘name’ as a topic on which statistical information may be collected and from which statistics may be produced. However, as far as I can determine, no statistics are planned to be produced from the Census about ‘name’. Therefore that statistical information, that is ‘name’, can’t be considered as being collected ‘for the purposes of taking the Census’.”

And, he concludes, “The ABS doesn’t have the authority to collect ‘name’ in the 2016 Census on a compulsory basis”.