Convention on the Rights of the Child contains right of child for their names. For the grown person such right is missing among human rights. That might look not so serious unless one gets in the position of realisation that no documents comes from government departments in own name. Name might be recorded somehow somewhere, but would not be given each time they issue documents for you. There is no law that would require government to use only name which was disclosed to the department. The departments feel free to cut, edit or alter the name by the way they discreet to do. Usual way is to use first and last name only. Then how one can proof that you are the person who was born in certain place under certain name (with middle names) and not someone with the same first and last names who was born in another place with other middle names?
What we can put forward when asking government to issue documents in the name that was actually disclosed to the departments?

You can change your name in Australia, it's called changing you name by deed poll.

As for say being born with one name, adopted out and the name is changed to that of the adopted parents. This happened to me. Current Australian law allows you to find out that name.

It is then a matter of changing one's name by deed poll, if you want to.

In Australia only the last name is mandatory.I.e. My adopted mum's correct first name is Mary but when we went to PNG "mary' is what all native women are called in pigin. So she changed it to Carol and for 50 years she is known by carol to some Mary to others depending on where they met her. My adopted father changed his first name from Duncan to Lawrence to avoid 'dunny can' (toilet) teasing at school.

To make it a human right strikes me as a little unnecessary
"a rose by any other name still smells as sweet" William Shakespeare.

Hi Examinator
I have noticed your sharp comments on many of the threads. Thank you for your comments here.
I am familiar with the proceedings of change of name. Apparently deed poll is not registered anymore in Australia after 1995 or so. Registration is now under statute – Birth, Deaths and Marriages Acts of the states. That is also usual common law change of name where name is considered changed once the person start using and to be known under different name(s).
The problem may arise, believe you or not, when you ask government department to produce you all the documents in your name. Agency might response that personal information is recorded on the system, but they have business rules to use on the documents only first and last name, for instance, or other combination. In my case, they would use first name, initial for one middle name and last name, missing initial for second middle name. Thus name on the most of my documents would appear different of what I have provided. And there is no law to pursuer them to give me documents in my name. It seems that they can discreet on it. They say, that electronic record system limitation would not let them to have full name or both initials for middle names on the documents issued such cards, tax assessments, refund notices, government loans, superannuation statements etc – very important legal documents

Even electoral poll cuts one letter from my name! And that is where legislation provides that I have right to have my name on the poll !
After that, other government departments insist that or name is changed or I am not the person who has two middle names because the documents I can show do not display any indication of second middle name. etc etc etc Name with two middle names also is on the Citizenship Certificate that brings even more worry.
Legal proceedings would bring affirmation of the decision of government departments in those two contradicting aspects:
1) agency can issue with the document in the name which is not the name is disclosed to the agency;
2) you are not the one with two middle names (see my worry about Citizenship Certificate too) or name was changed and change has to be registered against my will thus registering alternate identity (I have never wanted this name and that against common law principle of change of name) etc etc.

In fact topic is large despite of simplicity on the first sight.

Now, I do believe that there could be corruption element in all this proceeding of recording of personal information. Definitely, that laundering of identity could take place (too much to post…).
And back to the beginning, there is no supporting right or not advised to have documents coming from government departments in the name that was actually provided.
I do believe that name should be basic human right so at least declaratory right to be here.
There is even more probplems with identity records in Australia but it appears that giverment wants to maintain system in current messy state and not to properly identify people. For instance, my Citizenship Certificate has only name and date of birth. Australian passpost name, date of birth and city of birth, but does not state country of birth. there is much more to say on the topic

As a first step, I just want basic right to request for my name to be on each and every document produced by government.
Should this basic right to be included into Agreement on Human Rights? Would you consider this proposition if you got refusal to have your own name on the documents from government etc

Tatiana: have you tried your Local Member to despatch letters to relevant government departments on your behalf? This will save you a great deal of timely and exhausting work ringing, emailing and phoning different government departments.

The Local Member will sit down with you to discuss the omission of your letters in your name problematically demonstrated previously and liaise with the Electoral Commission, Births Deaths and Marriages, The Ombudsman of the relevant govt bodies involved in rectifying this problem if the Departments are not addressing the issue raised.

Too lengthy a wait writing to Ministers: approach your Local Member; it is a quicker process.

Kindest wishes

Dear We All
I have come even further then you suggest with the issues.
Apparently AAT has decided that HECS loans (whatever it’s called now) in first and last name and Notice of Assessments in first name, last name and only one initial can go because ATO claims necessity of lengthily adjustment of whole system. I have evidence that nesessity of expansive and leghtly adjustment to the record system seems not being true - once on my request ATO hase issued computer generated document with initial for two middle names in no time. Also I do believe that Statements of Loans and Assessments, cheques they have to issue in legal name of the person thus as minimum initials for both middle names have to appear.
Currently they match my identity into integrated system (matching between government departments) with initial for one middle name only. At the same time I have found that two people using my full name which I consider unique. I have to have in mind possibility that could be done as [organised] activity through government departments when for me, for instance, documents are issued with one initial for middle name only and for imposter all the documents with two middle names.
ADT has decided (under appeal) that because I have used cards (Medicare etc) and documents with indication of only one middle name, then Birth, Deaths and Marriages have to register it on Change of Name Certificate (decision is under appeal)

Then we all in the position, to have the name that allocated by government department. Please, note that I can not proof that I have change my name to the name with only one middle name just because I have not changed my name, but once it has appeared in the Certificate it would mean so and I would not have any supporting documents on the event. For all the future I am going to be in position of uncertain identity and Citizenship. BDM also recorded that I was born under marriage name (!) and now they advised that they have difficulties to correct this “mistake”, recorded some invented name (!) etc etc.
They also advise that they would record any usage name. That have huge application. Just think if someone stolen documents and sais that name was used then BDM welcome the thief and retrospectively register the name. Looks like kind of identity laundering scheme. There are much more to say.
I don’t also think that Local Member can do something except to listen and to talk on the topic in the Parliament if I will be so happy. My case already was presented on the conference in respect of Security of Identity with AG in Canberra. That does not resolve anything and I want resolution. After years going through the issues I do really know how identity matching should be organised, but departments would not change anything for better. I do believe that thousands of clones with be apparent on government records once proper system is implemented. Just in ATO the last audit (random check) brought figures that number of TFN were in excess of 3 millions of the last sensus of all population of Australia where number of duplicates were more then 200,000. Now think about social security benefits, housing, Medicare, Citizenship and more

The last occurrence of clones in the terrorist attack in Dubai did not surprised me at all. Making my relevant investigation, I have noticed and advised to RTA, that once my driver’s licence was issued twice on the day. RTA wrote to me that it was administrative mistake and duplicate licence was destroyed. Mother of one of the identity theft victims advised that photo on the Australian passport was doctored photo of her son. On the documents given to me by Passport Office I have also noticed that my photo is doctored. I still have photo given to the Passport Office for the passport etc. I would not be surprised too that that they can issue duplicate of my passport. Etc etc
I am receiving strong resistance to give me documents in the name I have disclosed. And I can see that it is well established system. Law in this regard is underdeveloped. Queensland is going first in making relevant legislation with some states going back so to keep recordkeeping system in mess. Commonwealth is well beyond the critics. Even AEC on the poll has produced "full name" without ending for second middle name and to give computer generated correspondence with initial for one middle name only. AEC advised that they have system to record all given names on 25 characters only where AS-4590 suggest 40 characters for each given name and 500 characters for full name of the person (it seems that AEC they a bit undated the system to have 26 characters so to accommodate my given names; I appreciate it). AEC seems would not match voters under full names, but first and last and initial for one middle name only (also think about correspondece to the addresses other then residential address).
Etc etc etc
Currently whole system of government records facilitates fraud. It appears that Government does not understand that identity becomes valuable commodity. And where is the right for own name and own identity?

Tatiana: you are well versed in all of the legislation regarding full name complexities. The next step is for you to be voted into parliament to amend the current legislation. Best wishes and I hope all goes well for you [and others] facing the same dilemma.

You do well to raise this subject, Tatiana.

Tatiana, in her post of Tuesday, 2 March 2010 at 2:17:24 PM, says:



"Now, I do believe that there could be [a] corruption element
in all this proceeding of recording of personal information.
....... There is even more problems with identity records
in Australia but it appears that government wants to maintain
system in current messy state and not to properly identify people."



Tatiana could well be right.

It seems there may exist an anomaly with respect to the total number of names recorded upon all of the separate Commonwealth Divisional electoral rolls that together constitute what may be loosely referred to as 'the electoral roll'. That anomaly is that a study over many years of the number of persons meeting the qualifications for electoral enrolment in Australia indicates that close to 100% of the number of names expected are in fact carried on the rolls, whilst the government's September 2009 Electoral Reform Green Paper claims that at the 2007 Federal elections more than 1.1 million persons qualified to be enrolled were not in fact enrolled.

Both claims cannot simultaneously be correct.

An obvious explanation that, in the light of Tatiana's claimed experience, suggests itself, is that the electoral rolls carry many names that are, effectively, accidental duplicates of names legitimately on the rolls. This explanation, however, falls foul of the Electoral Commission's oft-repeated claims that duplicates of names have largely been removed in recent years from the rolls.

The value of what could be as many as a million 'proxy votes' to unelected interests within or near to the apparatus of government as a means of effectively controlling, let alone influencing, Australian politics across the whole political spectrum I am confident would be instantly obvious to Tatiana, even if not so obvious to the many native-born Australian citizens possessed of less enquiring, or more complacent, minds.

Welcome to OLO, and Australia, Tatiana. Please do take full advantage of the recently increased posting limits to more fully explain the anomalies and problems you have encountered.

Hi Forrest
It appears that your main interest is about records of personal information on electoral roll. I will post my thoughts about personal information on AEC polls today latter on the day.
I have noticed that this thread has gone from the list of the discussion, hope that you will get email(s) so to know about postings.
Regards,

Tatiana,

Your topic has not gone from the list of discussions, merely been pushed down on the default OLO General Discussion list display. The default display is in chronological order of opening posts, and displays only 5 discussions per category.

At the top of the index list you will see a clickable box between the words 'Show' and 'discussions per category' that will display a drop-down menu that will allow you to select 10, 15, etc discussions per category by simply left-clicking on the number you want. You then activate this selection by clicking on the button marked 'Display' at the right-hand end of this line, next to the clickable words '(Advanced filter).

The index page can also be made to display topics in order of recency of postings, by clicking the words 'Last Post' at the top of the right-hand column. This is probably the most used display mode by OLO viewers wishing to keep up with postings to a number of discussions, but nothing other than the default display is a 'sticky' preference, so after around 120 minutes of inactivity on the Forum, your display will revert to the default.

Clicking the word 'Posts' will display the index in descending order of the numbers of posts made to topics, while clicking 'Sort by post date' will return you to the default display order.

By default, topics display for one month, but you can also alter this by clicking the drop-down menu box marked 'One month back', selecting the display choice you want, then activating it by clicking the 'Display' button.

The Articles Discussion Index operates identically, except for the fact that there is no sub-division by categories of discussion as exists in the General Discussions area of the Forum.

Newly posted articles first appear here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/ , which page can also be reached by clicking the button 'On Line Opinion' at the very top of any Forum page. The thing is, that until an article receives its first comment, it will not show up on the Articles index page.

Got it! Thank you, Forrest
Will be back

AEC enrolment.
(1) the same problems. Full name of the customer does not go to the integrated system; the best for people with only one middle name they do is to match with one initial. You understand that duplicates would occur. Also think about the screen with your name that will go to the paper electoral poll to be recognised by the people (also sometimes not your correct full name) and the name that goes for the matching purpose within electronic recordkeeping system that usually used by the government auditors. They most ofetn different. For matching would go short name only! In my case for instance, that will be cut of one whole middle name and given initial for the first middle name.
(2) AEC would collect and sent the form to the mailing address which could be different from the address of enrolment or they can make enrolment address to be private. Hello!!
(3) AEC or other agency would not identify person under name at birth and/ or other birth identifiers that could not be changed in a life time; for instance in Québec all Medicare proceedings is linked to the birth information about the person. Once it is recorded then it can not be changed. That seems the key for no duplication.
(4) AEC does not seem match date of birth information at all or immigration, citizenship information even it has to be provided as for their curiosity

(5) AEC would not link or follow any changes of names of the person. Such for instance they would accept your statutory declaration about change of name without requesting or recording relevant documentation or proof of change of name; just give them driver’s license number if you have one or to ask someone to sign that someone know you under this name/ address. You understand that possibilities are endless. Now for enrolment they ask only Statutory Declaration. Mistakes are welcome! Link to the person you say you are now on the declaration and one you were before on the declaration would not go to the matching system. Only goes your new name and new address. Address though could be taken as private or mailing address whatever you pleased. Lucky you if you were accurate or have good glasses or understand that once you overlooked and have it ‘Jon” instead of “John” you identity might be stolen. All the forms are scanned and destroyed. The best you can see then is copy of your signature and copy of the form. Hope that it was the one that you then meant to do. You do not have any right to mistake, but government have it all.
(6) I do collect evidences. Once I have corrected my name on the electoral poll (also they referred to the computer system limitation and give me name without “a” in one of my middle names) and then missed local government election so to see how will look like my penalty notice. Guess what, penalty notice has come without second middle name at all! Again! Apparently legislation provides, that change of information on hard copies of electoral poll shall be approved by the registrar, but no one has to approve when information is changed in the electronic recordkeeping system. Thus I shall think that onnce electoral poll are printed for you and me then elctronic records can be amended for matching purpose without need for anyone to approve. Computer settings that all it takes etc

AEC N3
(7) New form for electoral enrolment does not require any witnesses to sign your enrolment once you obtained state driver’s license! There is nothing easier to have more then one driver’s licenses if one has this purpose. And again I do strongly believe that they insufficient in making issue of the licenses accountable or/ and manipulation of personal information takes place. In my case, when I have changed my name, RTA did not recorded new name as legal name, but as preferred name. Thus my record remained with information that my legal name was the name that was before change of legal name. Think about that government was matching “legal names” only. Then as you can see they could produce additional identity or drivers license where legal name was my correct legal name. And that identity that was in fact my legal idenity was not me according to their records! That is on the topic about how reliable single information about driver’s license number. That appears that moving State you can have another driver’s license without link to your drivers’ license in initial State. Lovely opportunity for someone who loves to vote!
(8) Etc etc etc

General_1
Enrolment for any government service such as immigration, citizenship, drivers license, social security benefits, electoral poll and integrated government systems (State or Cmwth) does not properly identify the people.

(1) one can identify the person by using name and address together. Agency’s policy provides for taking names from primary documents. Taking names etc from Statutory Declarations or making slight misspelling is acceptable because whole approach that administrative mistake are unavoidable. When the person approaches the agency asking to correct records of personal information they appear to have discretion to decide about to correct the records or not to correct. For instance, they can say that, for instance, name at birth do not participate in administrative activity thus they don’t have to correct your name at birth. You understand that birth information about person is the main unique information. If it is current name they may say, ok will do it, but the name that was recorded we can not correct. Correct name will be recorded from today etc. You understand that identity with correct verifiable name at all times is differ from the identity that once had another name and then the name changed to the name it suppose to be at all times. Such administrative mistake would be given name “Patrici” instead of “Patricia” or other slight incorrectness that person may not recognise at first glance. Then you come back and say. excuse me, would you, please, make “Patrici” to be “Patricia”. And they record, that from 2000 to 2001 are used name with "Patrici" and from 2001 with "Patricia".
Also think about that you can not access to sight government records on government computers – many cases under FoI all confirmed refusal. The address could be given not in full on the documents issued as well. There are options with addresses for instance you can get unit and building number together in one block, or misspelled street, or building number only etc

General_2
(2) Agency have some screen for full legal name which does not participate in integrated computer recordkeeping system. Agency says don’t you worry your name is recorded correctly in this screen but we can only activate it manually. What is the purpose of this manually activated screen which does not participate in any computer generated matchin, searching and other administrative activity including issue of the documents and reports? You understand that at the moment of manual access information on that screen cold be change by the operator so to print out correct information and then amend or delete. To the integrated system for matching, searching and services will go the name altered such as short name for example. Legal name requires to identify the person. Legal name definition has disappeared from the vocabularies. I have fond it only in Black’s Law dictionary, 7th edition. Legal name is full name of the person as known under law according to this definition.
YOur pharmacutial benefits from medicare will be given in first and last names only, your other medicare with single initial for one middle name only - that what is reported and matched. Good for visiters and trevellers!
(3) Person does not know what is recorded on the government recordkeeping system as his or her personal information. Yo have to put forward request under FoI so find about your own personal information. And then kindly ask to correct if it is not. You can see just printouts of the screen and who knows if it match the screen or altered or screen will changed back after printouts are made

General_3
(4) You understand that if in Australia would be 15,000 of John Smith on the integrated inter-government computer system then it would not be probably of much concern. But where government system would show three John Allan Convey Peter Smith who was born under name Duncan Mathew Avery in Waroongah NSW on 26 July 1955 that would be alarm (also names of the parents could be stated to make identification more unique).
Sometimes address going to the matching system as only building number without unit. That also does not identify the person because the shortest acceptable recognised identification is legal name and address. Where address is not full then element is missing that might be insufficient to legally identify the person. Thus, for instance, if you whant to bring the court case against someone who uses you identity such as name at birth, place at birth, date of birth, all the lifetime changes including marriages with changing names, your education, immigration etc – against someone who practically imposer yourself but leaves at different address you might find that your position is weak in legal terms. Also a weak position might be the case where, for instance, you have for yourself or the person you want to sue the documents that missing one or more elements of address.
I saw on TV in current affairs the story about one man who has become full time engaged in catching someone who was using his identity. Writing and investigating and watching full time that sounds terrible, but …Another man would even withdraw money from the bank from the right person account from time to time! Right person come into possession of photo ID of this person, delivered the photo to the police, but nothing could be done under current law. Bank refused to do anything about withdrawals over the counter because the person would present with good identification and what they have to do is just to give the money to the person who has that proper identifications.