I agree with much of the comment . In principle , I do not object to producing documentary indentification , but I do not have a driver 's licence , and , whenever anybody asks for ID , they always ask for one . Although I can produce a passport , this is usually grudgingly accepted as being an inferior form of ID .

There are people who do not have a passport or a driver 's licence . With an increasing number of elderly people who will no longer be able to renew driver's licences , producing evidence of identity will become difficult for them .

During the Australia Card debate , civil libertarians objected to the proposed requirement to hold such a card , but it would have been useful to those who do not hold driver 's licences or travel overseas . It is noteworthy that no civil libertarian objects to the requirement for persons having to produce a driver 's licence , when they are not driving a vehicle .

There should be legislative provision enabling non - drivers to obtain some form of government issued ID , if they wish , without compulsion to do so .

Jaylex says "It is noteworthy that no civil libertarian objects to the requirement for persons having to produce a driver 's licence , when they are not driving a vehicle."
I think you will find that any civil libertarian worth the title would object strenuously to a requirement that they show a drivers licence when they are not driving a car. I certainly object to it.
Also I believe that the Licensing office, in Western Australia anyway will provide an official identification card. This is called a "proof of age card".
However, we should not have to show photo ID for domestic flights for all the reasons given by the author. I suspect that most drugs are smuggled by way of interstate trucks anyway.

Indeed, isn't this yet another heavy price tag that we pay for "the war on drugs"?

Don't get me wrong, drugs are disgusting, but the honest public should not suffer for the sake of those junkies: if they want to kill themselves - let them do so, and quickly please! There is no justification for ordinary good citizens to live in fear of house-break because they find the drugs so expensive to obtain; there is no justification for ordinary good citizens to be searched and treated as suspects; and there is no justification for us, tax-payers to finance their police, court and prison and rehabilitation expenses.

As for terrorists, if the government stepped aside and did not care, soon enough the terrorists will have no incentive to operate. They are not interested in killing you and me - they want to influence government policies: if they blow up a plane and the government is indifferent, they will have no reason to continue. The suffering we experience in airports already exceeds the direct damage of terrorist operations. Best leave security wholly to airlines, so people who want more security will take more-secure flights and others who care less may take less-secure flights.

This proposal just reaks of more micromanagement and nanny state -ism. The beaurocrats and their politicians see someone free and want to enslave them. The thought that someone is not fully documented and controlled terrifies them.

In the end what does this achieve? So a name on a ticket matches a licence or ID, so what? Except for having everyone under 24 hour surveillance what does it achieve? They aren't checking your bagage (very closely). They aren't checking why you are going. It would give them a nice list of who was some where or travelled together. But the innocent have nothing to fear. No problem for someone because they happen to frequent the same place as some terrorist/murderer/paedophile (pick current bogeyman).

The only trouble I see with a jury is the general problem of common law trials. The trial isn't interested in 'truth' but a debate between two teams and who won, not trying to establish the truth of what happened and who was or was not involved and were they directly culpible of the actions that occurred.

Also why shouldn't the jury ask questions? Just because the lawyers/barristers question the witnesses, why shouldn't the jurors also be allowed to ask questions. Especially if the two sides have already decided on the result they want for whatever reason and therefore each only asks questions that lead answers they want.

Oops! Wrong article for my previous comment!