The article title itself contains the word you are all missing "your choice", and concludes as:

The question isn’t whether citizens have something to hide. The question is whether the government is *entitled* to demand, record, sift, sort, match and share our private information and biometric identifiers without making a solid case

Here is Principle 1 of Privacy Act [and its not in Swahili so even a mushroom can understand]

Principle 1
Manner and purpose of collection of personal information
1. Personal information shall *not* be collected by a collector for
inclusion in a *record* or in a generally available publication unless:
(a) the information is collected for a purpose that is a *lawful*
purpose *directly* related to a function or activity of the
collector; and

So you can go to a judge and say I want an injunction to stop The Rodent [or anyone, eg CSA] from doing anything at all in the 11 priv priciples - simple. So as I said, Rodent has stopped all that by his firewall the Priv Commissioner who makes an excuse for the accused and then tells the porky that once she has said no there is no path to court

and it worked, and no other mushroom has ever challenged Palmer case, so yes as in all his exploits, IR law, fam law, CSA of last year, every bit offends Constitution BUT someone has to make a case and not even uni students complain anymore as Howard has them all counting their Telstra shares. So we will GET the card and it WILL be illegal but who cares? - well nobody, and I read the article as simply lamenting that apathy that has consumed Oz

bazz,

nice try mate.

bzzz... wrong answer.

cheerz.

If the proposed system can guarantee that no other man’s child will appear on my card without my permission, I’d vote for it in a flash. Just on that.

yes you are talking other side of coin now, DNA proof is something the govt does not WANT you to know, for starters because it would decimate the Child Support Agency as you hint. So with the pesent Liam MaGill circus the govt is using it to INDUCE blokes to think along those lines ie DNA at birth and CSAAct based on DNA and not the 3 assumptions of parentage at present [eg you were married etc]

But as soon as you vote for card there will be "ethical/PRIVACY matters" to rule out DNA, well unless you are Tony "DNA" Abbott

"thanks for having me dad" - pity he wasn't dad, but it got the DNA Kid some votes, without even needing to throw one kid overboard

DNA fingerprinting... at birth.

BINGO.

And its implications for parenting and who pays. As usual with this stuff... FOLLOW the MONEY TRAIL. That yields the answer.

That is the thinly veiled agenda of the author's piece.

Its very insidious too, because the govt will prolly be able to get men, who would ordinarily be highly aversive to DNA fingerprinting (on privacy grounds), to support it (on both pragmatic and deeply emotional grounds, namely paternity).

Typical, govt back door strategy. Quite brilliant really.

Once they get our support, the thing will quickly spread and has the potential to touch peoples lives in many ways, both good and bad, not initially considered.

Then there is a good chance that the reason we supported it will become redundant if the govt and courts REDIFINE paternity by introducing the concept of SOCIAL PARENTS, an viola, back to square one on that front, whilst getting what they want (DNA fingerprinting).

So, those that want DNA fingerprinting will be happy. Those that want the child support dollars to keep flowing will be happy. The articles author will be happy. She has been championing the idea of SOCIAL FATHERS for a while now.

The courts have already telegraphed their intentions to go down this path by making duped dads continue to pay for someone else's progeny, refusing refunds or damages on the basis of paternity fraud... all, of course, in the BEST INTERESTS of the CHILD. Funny that, children grow up to become adults and are then ultimately exposed to the inherent injustice. The whole thing becomes a red herring, as l (an adult) am also my parents' child.

These folks are very cunning, very clever, very slyyyyyyyyyyyy foxes indead.

yes trade I could not have said that better my goodself [maybe with a few sics between friends]

Hey I already DID say it above

but nice to have a mushroom come INTO the light and proclaim "I had a dream" and all that stuff

but always remember:

" We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after
cow, village after village, army after army. And they call me an
assasin. What do you call it when the assasins accuse
the assasin ? They lie.. they lie and we have to be merciful
for those who lie. Those nabobs. I hate them. How I hate them..."