The only nations for ID cards at one time were dictatorships or totalitarian countries. If howard, with his record of lies, deception and deceit says ID cards are good - then all good citizens should beware. If he or his little unthinking brainless sycophantic followers (with the exception of the three or four who ACTUALLY thought for themselves recently and forced mean spirited howard to show a little leniency re Baxter etc.) say that the country needs them for its security and for the common good - then all good citizens should beware.
Quote: Of all tyrannies,a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelity may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;but those who torment us for our own good (or security-My word)will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience: C.S.Lewis
Should this card be foisted upon us in the near future we will have these ID cards forever numbat

I would agree that the issue of “dichotomy” becomes crucial, as the ID card system will likely become a black and white system with no middle ground, or any other option.

Some sections of the Liberal party are supporting the concept of the national ID card, but another supporter has been Qld’s Premier Peter Beattie, and in some ways this is not surprising, considering the size and scope of his Premiers Department.

Apparently with an annual budget of $300 million, this department employs numerous journalists to fashion the statements made by this state government, and I personally know of a local state representative (Labor party) who will regularly transfer correspondence from their constituents back to the Premiers Department, so that this correspondence is answered by a centralised group who spin the official line. Seems very similar to the Cheka, and numerous other like minded centralised information organisations, that have eventually collapsed under their own weight.

While there is the chance that fraud may actually increase through having a centralised ID system, the system can easily become an industry that basically spies on the public, and everyone becomes suspicious of each other, and a person can become guilty simply by association.

In China, a person cannot officially access the Internet at an Internet café without using their ID card, with systems in place to track their online movement, and of course the Internet is heavily censored in that country for political reasons.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6707

The UK government intends to basically spy (although the official term is “monitor”) Muslim groups for “extremists” (although what constitutes an extremist is subjective and non-defined)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/british-spy-units-will-keep-tabs-on-muslims/2005/07/20/1121539033185.html

In the US, the FBI has been amassing information on groups such as Greenpeace and the American Civil Liberties Union, although this was only exposed through the Freedom of Information Act, and without that Act, it would not have been known about.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071805Z.shtml

So, the principle that “either you are for it, or against it” can easily become a recipe for a severe limitation on people’s right to free speech and free association.

Eighteen years I opposed an ID card. Times have changed. Now we are not only at war, but we have a fifth column in our midst. We had identity cards during World War 2, and we will have them now. When the threat is over, we can discard them.

In addition, the opportunity to deport the large number of illegal immigrants here is another reason to support its introduction.

Most of us may well have nothing to fear - today.

Trouble is most of us do not know what we may have to fear tomorrow, or after the introduction of an ID card.

What is legal today may well be illegal tomorrow.

Inciting terrorist acts today, opposing "western" (of unknown and variable description) values tomorrow.

Seems like we are moving back to the middle ages.

Federal Income Tax was a temporary measure introduced in WWII. Somebody forgot to repeal it when the war ended. And it has been a blight on personal liberty every since.

No to a national ID card. And please remove income taxes

Something significant has changed since the Australia Card was proposed. Many of us are now used to being required to wear and display an ID card to earn our living.

That may dull the edge of concern at an proposal to introduce a national card. Personally I don't see an ID card making my train safer.

R0bert

The argument that somehow an ID card will hand to the government an endless supply of information about an individual, which could be used at any time to persecute them, is quite ridiculous.

The ability on the behalf of the government and security organisations to access individual's information/details is hardly limited as it is. Already, through credit cards, passports, birth, death and marriage certificates, the government and other security organisations have all the information they may require provided.

The idea behind an ID card however is that this information, instead of being spread out across various organisations, is centralised.

Currently, the situation arises too often where an individual has details registered with one government department yet not with another, allowing them to evade the law(enforced by the second department)despite the fact that the information on that individual needed by that department is within the government system.

For example, an individual who pays tax and has a file with the ATO, may not have a file with the Electoral Commission as they may never have registered, and are never fined for not voting. Despite this example seeming petty, the situation can arise in far more significant circumstances of fraud, insider trading etc.

Likewise, in the case of certain detainees deported to the Phillipines, the department of immigration, having an individual's details and not needing to go to another government department to get those details, may have saved a lot of time and trouble.

The idea is that if one civil servant in one government department types in an individual's details, all civil servants in all departments can access that information should that individual come into question.

For this to occur, a physical ID card is not necessary, but the idea behind the ID card (centralising an individual's details) would, with the proper restrictions, only benefit society and create a far more efficient Public Service.

Positing the idea of an ID Card has been a master stroke by Prime Minister Howard, the Palmer Report is very damaging, and the reaction to new IR legislation has been poor. The possibility of an Identity Card has created a huge diversion. Apart from that, the Coalition Government has set up a wonderful strawman. It goes along the line of debunking the Identity Card as a number of Coalition politicians have already done. The subtle message being you can trust us, we wouldn't introduce legislation that is against ordinary Australians; that is, the new IR legislation.

Ant is probably right. Howard doesent care whether we have an ID card or not, but needs a big distraction from other major blunders his government is being exposed for right now.
However, back to the card idea. I am not totally opposed to the card for those who want it, but it must be totally optional. Or rather, what must be optional is what goes on it. I could support the idea as long as I had complete say over whether such as the following are on it or not:
(1)medical data (2)tax file number (3) address (4) phone numbers (5)record of engagement with the justice system (6)banking and financial information (7)pretty much everything.

Ant,
I would accept what you suggest that Howard’s proposal of a national ID card has been made for political reasons, and in some ways he can’t lose.

If it is proposed as a bill in parliament, and it is rejected by Liberal members who vote against it, then this will look as though the Liberal party is concerned about the public.

If it is accepted, then there will be a centralised system where unknown amounts of information will be kept on every member of the public, and such information becomes extremely useful to cut down any type of opponent (eg. can be readily used in “dirty politics”).

So there is little to lose, but potentially, there is a lot to gain.

“King of the hill is a dangerous business. And all hills are born without kings.”

To my knowledge, all government centralised information systems have become impossible to secure, highly expensive to develop and maintain, and invariably they become misused by corrupted governments that seek to extend and secure their power as much as possible. They have become a heavily misused political instrument wherever they have been implemented.

Most countries in the West have ID cards. I think we are fooling ourselves about what is known about us. I have Medicare cards, passort, driver's licence and numerous credit cards. At work many of us have ID cards with our photos and when I travelled overseas recently I could not pass via the domestic airport to travel without some sort of official photo ID. In the Armed Services all carry ID. Who's fooling whom?.We carry numerous disparate ID cards and need them.
I think a national ID card is a non-event and will help bring some uniformity to ID which will continue regardless. Eventually it will include medical details perhaps on a different card but which will have enormous benefit as all one's medical tests, CT scans, medications and previous medical letters from various specialist and GPs can be incorporated into one. We are all kidding ourselves if we think this is not going to happen.

Odysseus,
while compiling your medical records into one reference or media format would certainly be efficient, why are you suggesting that it should be as part of a public system? that information is and should allways remain totaly private.

The HIC while supposedly remaining private has a record of every test, consultation and item number you have ever used. Insurance companies including life insurance, superannuation and health insurance, WorkCover etc compile huge dossiers on people. Many people now pay our health bills and visits to doctors and dentists by credit or debit cards. Anyone in the system who wants to find out what type of dental floss, medications, shrink and colonoscope you prefer only have to do a bit of collation and it's all there. What do you think ASIO does...call the Tooth Fairy? We will all have a separate medical card soon and it will contain even CT scan images. It can be done now. So maybe we will have two cards but eventually big brother will know what you eat for breakfast and how often you walk the dog because it is now possible by the satellites sitting above you now....smile...say cheese. It's all inevitable I am afraid.

If you have nothing to hide then there is nothing for them to see and they dont need to look. Go and catch some actual criminals instead of hassling the sheeple.

"The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions."

Freedom is not convenient. It requires effort and constant vigilance. Those who would give up liberty in the name of convenience dont deserve freedom.

Personally, l dont care about the why fors and where hows nor the diversionary rationalisations. My position is quite simple... stay the f out of my private affairs you nosey sanctamonious do gooding know-it-alls.

I wonder whether there will be a shoot-to-kill policy against those without an ID card...

I'd never before considered the Australian identity card an "issue" until I discovered first-hand how ineffective our privacy laws are.

A very dangerous woman, who from her (subpoenaed) psychiatrist’s notes appears to have tried to kill a man a few years ago, harassed me out of my job because I refused to date her and has continued to harass me since. After some months of unemployment, I approached Centrelink but asked that a block be put on my file to prevent her finding out where I lived (I knew she worked for them). Their policy, however, is not to take preventative measures – a violation has to have already occurred before they will place a block on a file. Eventually they investigated and found she had, though I was told this unofficially and by this time, she had already left there. Officially, in accordance with their policy, they wouldn’t name her or even what information she stole.

The security of our private information is a complete bluff. I've done casual work in a federal government department. You get the warnings "we take this very seriously - you can be prosecuted, etc." but I know from experience that they don't take it seriously. They give you the standard line, which they've given me repeatedly - you are perfectly safe because our staff are trained and know not to abuse their access to our systems. If that was true, then why did it happen to me?

I don’t have sufficient space here to describe the investigative process in detail, but it’s weak. I also have good reason to believe, on the basis of recent experience, that process servers utilise friends and contacts to steal “private” information from “secure” databases to do their work.

I now provide as little information as possible to organisations. At the moment I use a mailing address that isn't where I'm living and will eventually have a PO Box set up for a mailing address. None of them have my phone number and none of them ever will.

Australia ID card - not something I look forward to...

Bad news, AD - they'll still get your phone number. I've had numerous calls from what's now GE Capital Finance, over money my mother owed on her Myer Card when she died. I've moved twice in the 4 years since, and have always had an unlisted number. I don't live anywhere near my mother's old address. Scarier still, one of my son's friends, who IS living in mum's old house, got a call from them - they'd got his mobile number when he gave that address for his prepaid mobile phone service. They're watching very hard already, and won't a centralised data base make it ever so easy for them? Change your name to John Smith. It makes it that little bit harder to identify you.

Anomie - these people getting your phone number doesn't surprise me. I've had to change my number several times and don't even turn my phone on any more.

As part of the legal process, I had to serve documents on this woman. I didn't know where she lived or at this stage, worked. Legalaid advised me that I could get a process server who would find an address for her and serve the documents. The process server I spoke with asked me to tell her everything I knew about this woman. When I mentioned she was studying at a particular institution, she said that was good and that she knew someone who worked there...

Centrelink told me they could not investigate to see if unauthorised access had been made to my file unless I could name the person who had done it. Not having had anything to do with Centrelink since I received AUSTUDY some eight years ago (before they were Centrelink), you’d think any access in the past year would be suspicious. Apparently not.

Hypothetically, someone has personal information about you that they shouldn’t have - in your case a phone number. Possibly, the people who have your number hired a process server who knows someone who works for an agency who has your phone number in their system (eg. your telco). Unless you can name the company and the person working in it who might have violated your privacy, that person is essentially safe from any negative consequences for the violation. You would have to go to each agency who has your phone number and convince all of them to launch investigations which could link anyone who had accessed your file with the people who now have your number. Not going to happen.

The security of our private information is a complete bluff.

Reading Count Butterworth’s reply – I can assure you from personal experience that federal government departments do share information they have about individuals with each other and they don’t try to hide that fact. That doesn't bother me, but I thought it worth correcting.