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,