I guess a single ID card would indeed rescue us from fumbling in bags for miscellaneous documentation (while simultaneously talking on the mobile, organizing an MP3 player and checking the kids).

However, convenience is a pathway to hell. Perhaps an embedded chip in your arm that you wave over a scanner is an even more “convenient” solution? We could create a Bill of Rights to make sure no one ever does anything bad to chipped citizens.

The point is the ID Card is not just a card – it is a system. All systems are only neutral on paper. Systems are “enlivened” through the exercise of power – especially systems of control, and the ID Card is a system of control (albeit a very convenient one). Bills of Rights only have sway in Courts. Otherwise, control is generally exercised in ways obfuscated to the local population. This is not paranoia; it is simply standard practice in all beurocratic States, including Australia.

I am suspicious of the Card simply because I don’t know what it might lead to. But new futures are being opened up by this idea – unsettling ones that inevitably make you uncomfortable and start wishing for a Bill of Rights. What we all know is the classic nature of power – its tendencies, its histories. The ID Card is an icon of such histories – and utopia is not yet upon us.

If there is to be a debate on the National ID card, then what type of debate. A debate in parliament, or on TV (sigh). A public inquiry (extra sigh). Since 1998 the government has not responded on time to 62 public inquiries held in the House of Representatives, and given no reply to 50%. Out of 137 Senate inquiries, it has responded on time to only 4, and not responded to 91.

This means that the government does whatever it wants, and could not care less about the views of the public. There has been nothing but lies, half truths, spin, propaganda, and back flips from this government, and there is every reason to believe that they will misuse the National ID card and its associated centralised information system, so as to entrench themselves into power for as long as possible.

A national ID card means that a person is in greater danger from their own government, as their government can simply take that card off them, and then wipe them from their computer files, and that person is non-existent. They are null and void. And millions of people have had their door kicked down in the middle of the night, taken away and never heard of again.

Keeping many documents to prove you actually exist is a safety measure all people should be taking.

A Bill of Rights means little, as a government can over ride it. It can declare the country at “war”, and then wipe legislation protecting the individual. This was done by Bush declaring that the US was in a “war on terrorism” and then introducing the Patriot Act, which wiped away so many rights of the individual.

“Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. … by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.” http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

No Greg,first of all we have a "Bill of Responsibilities",that will enable us to nail many of these sleazy money grubbing lawyers.

We could also nail a few of our corporate crooks and perhaps public servants who generate red tape and punish private enterprise with insane work place regulations.

Fear of litigation has sent the Public service comatose with conflicting rules and regulations.It is impossible for private enterprise to conform legally to the plethora confusing regulation.

When we get the lawyers under control, then we will consider a "Bill of Rights".

Right on, Arjay.

Australia needs an ID card, and even the critics of such a card admit that being able to prove identity is a big plus.

But the only thing a Bill of Rights would do for Australia, would be to create a society who's courts were clogged by people with creative interpretations of their "Rights", and where no lawyer would live in poverty.

ARJAY What is difference between a "Bill of Rights" and a "Bill of Responsibilities"? How come one is pointless and the other a "great idea"? How come you can enforce one and not the other? A Bill of Rights is to protect citiizens. To my understanding being a citiizen carries with it a social contract which is pretty well based on Greek ideas, British law and our Christian and multi-cultural heritage. Put simply the Golden Rule is kind of a universal truth that guides most people and common sense and a sense of fair play and justice usually keeps us in line. If we don't the law comes a knocking and we go before the courts. Those laws are made to further democratic principles, protect property and people's safety and so on. So why not apply this process to governments with a Bill of Rights. We already have our process to ensure we behave responsibly-people will always push the boundaries and disagree on what is responsible but at heart Australians are a fairly decent mob and do these things for good reasons. We know what the universal truths are and these truths and a fairly even power base seem to govern us in our day to day lives, but in the political arena it all goes out the door and minorities (and majorities) have zero power or recourse. That needs fixing.

Redneck,
You seem to want a national ID card, and from other forums, you seem to like people such as Saddam Hussein. But like most dictators, Saddam Hussein had his “own” spy agencies to collect information on members of the public, he had his “own” purges of his “own” political party, killed members of his “own” ministry, and even his “own” family. All was done to gain and maintain his “own” power.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/10/

Rancitas,
A Bill of Rights is not greatly tangible, and can be easily overridden by some despot that gets into power. All they have to do is say that the country is at war and there is a need to safeguard the “national interest”. This will always override the rights of the individual. They can even invent a war, or create a war. However this “national interest” normally becomes the “self-interest” of that despot.

Most people in government are power hungry, and the more power they get, the more they want. They become insatiable for information on the public, so as to exercise greater and greater power over the public. Millions of people in many different countries have found this out, many of whom now reside in mass graves.

A country can have a Bill of Rights, but not a National ID card system at the same time. The National ID card system (and its associated spy agencies and centralised information systems) will override any Bill of Rights.