Yuyutsu,

I'm with you on this “terrible world”, and I'm two years off the average lifespan for Australian males. I think we should just act dumb until we leave this world. They reckon we are old and silly anyway. Australian society has never had much respect for the elderly.

Company directors already have digital IDs.

I take it that SMFS is a self managed super fund. I know nothing about that, leaving all my affairs to a financial advisor. I guess the government's evil eye is still on me, though.

None of government websites work. They need to get technical people in to sort out their mess rather than mucking around with something else that will be a flop.

The obsessive objection to responsibility has been growing in popularity among those bleating Democracy.

The horror of contemporary governance. Kudos Graham Young.

Having been scammed I am nervous about having
a digital ID. I imagine quite a few people
feel the same way. I doubt if this will take
off quickly.

Dear Ttbn,

«I take it that SMFS is a self managed super fund.»

Yes, so here is another chain of distortions:
Money is no longer backed by anything real and more of it is printed at will.
Therefore inflation eats away our savings, so we are forced to "invest" just in order to try and keep what we already have.
But government usually taxes our "investments", even if they do not keep up with inflation - unless it is in "super".
If we keep our savings in commercial super-funds, then they are is robbed by unscrupulous managers, thus we need to manage them ourselves, in an SMSF.
And to have an SMSF and be able to manage it yourself alone, you [stupidly] "need" a "company" to hold it in "trust".
And to have a company you need to be a "director"
And to be a "director" you need a "director-ID".

This life-long "director-ID" is designed to stop failed company-directors who have done the wrong thing or mismanaged their company to get away by creating new, "phoenix" companies.
Let's suppose that it is OK and reasonable for real companies that have employees and shareholders and trade with customers and suppliers, etc., but what has it to do with ordinary people who just want to preserve their own savings (rather than having to immorally receive and rely on government age-pension)?

Anyway, other than the headache of creating this director-ID once, then reporting it to the SMSF's auditor, assuming one never becomes a real director of a real company, nothing else ever needs to be done with that number.

I am still waiting to hear what connection is there between this director-ID and the dreadful "digital ID" which the article claims it necessitates.
If that claim is correct and as I am not eligible for a digital ID, I am concerned that I would therefore not be allowed to continue having my SMSF to manage my own savings.
Anyone?

'Your papers, please' - I think we should have another referendum, so I can waste my morning voting 'No' again.