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.