URGENT: You have until 5pm 27 Oct to ‘’have your say’’ against the ‘’Trusted Digital Identity Bill’’ currently being proposed by the (Liberal) Government of Australia. This Bill has been deliberately kept quiet and it is now at Stage 3. Stages 1 and 2 have been passed. Stage 3 means the public has an opportunity to voice opposition to it. If we as Australians do not speak out against this Bill, the Government will assume that our silence is consent. This is a fact not rhetoric. They are proposing Facial Recognition, amongst other things. It will affect the way we shop., it also allows for our locations to be constantly monitored – more so than now.The Bill is here if you want to read it.
There are two ways to have your voice heard.
1. By directly filling in the form on the government website.
There are two short videos showing how to fill in this form. Filling in the form only takes about 5 minutes. If you attach a document on that site, best to do so as a pdf. Questions 9 and 10 are where you provide your opinion. (See below attached examples)
Or
2. By sending your concerns/opposition to Concerned Lawyers Network (CLN):
These lawyers are asking for help with contributing to the document (the submission they are developing to oppose the Bill) by adding your opinions/concerns to their submission. The deadline to the government for submissions is 5pm 27 Oct, so please send your opinions/concerns to CLN before the 27th Oct.
CLN will add your contribution, ie your words, and send it to the government under the umbrella of CLN so it will be published. You can make your own submission directly to CLN allowing it to be published with or without your name. If we don’t put any submission in, it’s like saying we don’t care if this digital identity social credit slavery system goes ahead. CLN can lodge it but they need help with contributors emailing in their opinions and opposition.
CLN has been around for some time and has been helping people with advice on how to keep jobs during this virus insanity and they are now in the process of developing a submission to oppose the Digital Identity Bill. ‘’We are an Australian Network of Lawyers who are concerned about how laws are improperly used against Australians’. Their website is here.
Whichever way you choose to voice your opposition, you can remain anonymous if you desire.
Also, it doesn’t need to be lengthy, one paragraph is enough, just clearly state you oppose this Bill.
So, that’s two ways you can express your opinion in opposing this Bill. Now please have a look at these two videos which explain a bit about the Bill and how to fill it on the government website:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKmEKWSfVi8
and
If you need some ideas of what to say, there are some examples below you can use, change, add to, combine etc as you see fit.
KNOWING WHAT TO WRITE
If anyone is struggling to write a personal submission for the digital identity bill please refer to the questions below as once you’ve answered them you’ll have your submission. Otherwise see the attached temples and the examples below.
(Background): On 1 October 2021, Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Stuart Robert, released the exposure draft of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill and the related legislative instruments for public consultation. The exposure draft stage is the third opportunity to provide feedback on the legislation.
One problem with the Trusted Digital Identity Bill is the absence of ‘no-impediment to service’ opt-out provision. Meaning if this Bill passes, we cannot opt-out. If a routine government service could not be accessed without access to personal biometric data and financial data, this would prohibit the exercise of free and informed consent about the use and sharing of such data.
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO FORMULATE YOUR RESPONSE:
Do you support a ‘no-impediment to service’ opt-out option to be explicitly stated in the proposed Bill?
Another problem with the Trusted Digital Identity Bill is the lack of clarity regarding ownership rights over the unique personal information contained in our bodies. Biometric information could plausibly be used to covertly modify, control or counterfeit our conscious agency, be used to access personal accounts, and be commercially exploited.
Do you agree that we must have clarity regarding legal ownership of the unique personal information contained or extractable from our unique biological characteristics?
How will this Bill affect those who don’t have access to technology devices that support digital identity, such as the elderly, the disabled? Will they effectively be cut off from society?
How does this Bill relate to the Privacy Act? What happens to those who choose not to consent to digital identity? Will they also be cut off from society?
As a member of parliament, do you support the Trusted Digital Identity Bill that takes us one step closer to the social credit system of communist China?
SOME EXAMPLES: It’s important to write your own words encompassing what’s important to you. Use these following (and the attached) and change, modify it, shorten it, add to, but please let the govt know you oppose it. Don’t just copy and paste the examples. Modify them.
Example 1. Re: Digital Identity – Have Your Say
DO NOT PASS THIS LEGISLATION!
I believe it is unnecessary and fraught with too many potential problems.
Our personal identity is precious, and the process of proving it by occasionally presenting multiple documents is one of the ways it is protected. The inconvenience of preparing said documents is a small price to pay for our identity to remain safe.
I also see privacy risks associated with the constant use and accessing of personal information by third parties such as retailers. The Privacy Principles and Regulations were changed by the stroke of a pen to allow storage of medical details (Vaccine Register) without the consent of Australian citizens, so why would I trust the government to protect my personal, private and sensitive data?
Some other concerns:
People who have little or no digital literacy.
Marginalization of those who are not digital natives (the aged, for example).
Facial recognition may be confronting for some (autistic), offensive to others for cultural reasons (Islamic women), and indigenous people.
I completely OPPOSE this Bill.
A Concerned Australian Citizen.
Example 2. Centralised systems are more vulnerable to security attacks and failures.
I do not trust my identity to exist digitally in the hands of some other entity, government or private enterprise.
Example 3. I DO NOT AGREE with the Digital Identity Bill or any associated Bills/laws
For reasons that it is not essential
It is not necessary
It has the potential to discriminate
It is a major breach of privacy
It does not allow a person who does not have a mobile phone to access essential services not even to make purchases
This Bill must be scrapped.
A very concerned Australian Taxpayer
Example 4. I do not approve of any part of the Digital Identity being discussed by my peers who have been elected to either represent my views in parliament or their employees engaged to carry out the public’s wishes.
I believe this digital Identity scheme is nothing but human farming. You will keep tabs on our vaccinations and more.
Further I will not enter a supermarket if the QR payment comes in – I will only shop in markets, direct farm sales, independent stores etc
I have tried to live decently and honestly in my lifetime but now find that this has been a waste of time. I fear for my children and grandchildren’s future as their life/health/family connections are completely in the government’s hands.
(name) (suburb/state)
Example 5. More government intrusion into our lives is not welcome in our society.
The proposals outlined in this Bill are another means for that to occur, only at a much more significant level.
The ramifications of introducing a system like this are clear for the public and open up opportunities for greater control, discrimination, abuse, and tyranny by an already out of control, authoritarian government.
Our democracy is clearly eroded to the point where the government is acting against the will of the people. How can we, the citizens of Australia, have any faith in entrusting a powerful and privacy stripping system to the very same people who have so happily betrayed us already?
I do not agree with any plans to introduce this system, or anything like it, into Australia now or ever. I don’t agree with the use of technology already in use such as QR codes. To suggest that we utilise more advanced, invasive technology, such as surveillance systems for greater scrutiny, control and loss of privacy, is completely abhorrent to me and my family and many others in the community.
It seems the infrastructure has already been placed here in Victoria. Is that because the government intends to forge ahead with this Bill regardless of the will of we, the people?
I do not agree to having my privacy completely removed and my freedoms trampled any further.
So I say “no” to this Bill.
Thank you Gab and Dover for your time and resources on this issue.
You are shining lights of what we stand to lose under this move to a surveillance state.
LINO
Thanks folks! Good stuff!
Another argument is with the process itself. The website says:
Erm, no, you haven’t. And it consultation just telling us what it is going to be regardless, or are they listening and taking on feedback? You could FOI this.
And who is watching the watchers?
Thanks Gab for your hard work shining a light on this monstrous Orwellian idiocy.
Our political class truly are the most evil of scum.
Just imagine this apparatus in the hands of those loathsome vindictive mediocrities, labore and the greenfilth – it’s appalling enough the stupid bloody gliberals having access to it.
Lysandersays:
October 18, 2021 at 12:44 pm
And it consultation just telling us what it is going to be regardless, or are they listening and taking on feedback? You could FOI this.
You’re totally on the money with this. “We’ve conducted extensive consultation” is meaningless. There have been occasions where tax legislation has been put up on the basis that it’s been drafted after “extensive consultation” with professional and industry groups, and somehow there’s no mention that the legislation is exactly the opposite to what those who were “consulted” recommended.
Incidentally, why is the Coalition creating an authority which will determine who are the “participants” in this new trough?
One of the rules of Australian politics can be expressed as:
“Any statutory position which carries power over access to significant economic benefits will end up being occupied by a Labor maaaaaate.”
Consultation? Allow a few letters to the editor writer types to huff and puff – then do exactly what you feel like.
More lamp-posts in Australian politics!
Done and emailed same to my MP
Remember the “Australia Card”?
They leaned not to discuss this sort of thing too openly after that debacle.
Submitted my disapproval – for whatever that is worth.
Thank you Gab and Dover. This truly is a public service you’re providing.
I’ve spoken to people about this evil Orwellian proposal.. completely unaware of it and, funnily enough, mostly unconcerned.. “Naah, it’s all good, we’ll never be like China!”
Apathetic mouth-breathing imbeciles are everywhere!
The only reason the Uniparty is pulling this stunt is because they know they’ll most likely get away with it.. with no repercussions.
They are getting away with the COVID clusterfuck, so why not this?
Here’s my submission, cobbled from around the interwebs and put into my words; but it doesn’t have to be this long (2 pages). Use it but change it into your own words; use some of it or all of it.
I object most strenuously to this form of identity as it is yet another gross invasion of privacy. A democratic government does not need to hold this much power over its citizens.
In 1984 the then Labor government, led by Bob Hawke, introduced the Australia Card Bill. The then Liberal Party Opposition rejected the Australia Card Bill overwhelmingly and was instrumental in preventing the Australia Card Bill from proceeding in 1987. So it is with great disappointment and dismay that the current Liberal government of Australia is now stealthily pushing forward the ‘’Trusted’’ Digital Identity Bill.
Back then there was a very real fear in the Australian community that the fundamental balance of power was shifting. Justice Michael Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, observed:
Source: In evidence to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, 1986
Whilst we have become more reliant on the digitised world, it does not mean we want to become digitised ourselves. The digital world exists to serve us, not enslave us. We have seen the beginnings of tyranny and overreach by government authorities during COVID-19, which have gone beyond any other world governments’ control measures. I fear that this ‘’digital identity’’ proposed Bill will be the first step to a social credit system similar to China.
Many of our leaders in Australia have already proven they are ready, willing and able to crush normal citizens and their freedoms underfoot – for a virus with a 99+% rate of recovery. This can only be seen as a power grab as it certainly could not ever provide the protection promised. What will people in authority do when they convince themselves of other threats they need to “save us” from? It is far too dangerous a proposal.
Unfettered power is an irresistible vice to some and one that only produces poverty and fear in the people they hold power over. Look to socialist and communist countries for proof.
Additionally, here are some of my concerns:
5.1 Providing Legislative Authority for Expansion. Rather ambiguous – expansion into what? We already have our details in the MyGov system for medical, Centrelink and tax purposes. Most Australians’ health records are available to governments as well, along with their banking details. How much more of our lives does the government need to control? I do not believe it is necessary to expand the government’s control further.
5.2 Strengthening Privacy and Consumer Protections. This sounds like government-speak to do just the opposite. Tell me how you are protecting my privacy by taking it? Data breaches are a regular occurrence as no system is 100% secure. I do not trust government, or any other system, which promises absolute protection. It has never been possible and I doubt it ever will be. People need to have multi-layered protection themselves. That is the responsible and democratic way.
5.3 Establishing Governance Arrangements. This is a statement that assumes you already have the Digital ID in place. No government or third-party entities can guarantee absolute privacy. Additionally, no government has a right to my life or my privacy.
7.3 Two Voluntary Schemes. Will this be voluntary the way that COVID vaccination is voluntary? In other words you comply or miss out? That is called coercion. This is a move towards totalitarianism – I am not convinced this will be voluntary for long. I do not believe any scheme that involves putting all of a person’s private data in one place, or controlling it via one entity or third-party, is safe. I do not believe that governments need to know everything about a person. That is not their role. They are to govern, serve and protect – full stop. This proposal is beyond protection – it is enslavement.
I firmly believe this type of ‘’digital identity’’ in the government’s hands – any government – is not necessary, nor do I believe it will be used appropriately – not now and not in the future. Only a fool could believe that. I think the writing is on the wall if you introduce this type of ID.
I absolutely reject that any government needs this much power over – and information about – the good people it is supposed to serve. No amount of convenience or cost savings is worth a person’s freedom – of choice, of conscience, to assemble, to speak. This will be the end of a free Australia.
No matter how virtuous you may think this is on paper, in reality it will be quite the opposite.
I completely reject and oppose the ‘’Trusted’’ Digital Identity Bill, it is nothing short of tyranny.
A Concerned Australia Taxpayer
Since when did OUR politicians take any notice of what WE think or want?
If it happened in Germany, it could happen here. And we’ve been warned by history on how easily democracies collapse. There were alarm bells then against complacency and fatalism —“the politics of inevitability”. The alarm bells are going off again.
Do nothing, we have no chance to stop this.
Do something, and we do have a chance to stop this. We may not succeed but then doing nothing guarantees the ID atrocity will go ahead.
Your choice.
I recall writing to Sir Charles Court objecting to the Australia Card.Got the expected dismissive response.
Cha Cha Charles @ChaChaC87311797 -36m
https://twitter.com/ChaChaC87311797/status/1449949454627328000
The following is what I propose to submit. It’s a bit lengthy, and might not make any sense at all. It could be a bit too fluffy as well. Feel free to scroll or ridicule:
I OBJECT to this Bill on the basis it will lead to a further marginalization within Australian society of those who already face significant comparative disadvantages. This marginalization will produce not only detrimental social consequences – including a greater erosion of trust in and disengagement from, the political process – but also impact negatively on the economic capacity of our taxpayer base.
Sub-populations likely to be further disadvantaged by this Bill include Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people, the aged, those with an intellectual or developmental disability, people from a non-English-speaking background, and our Islamic community.
The aforementioned are likely to suffer further impediments to seeking quality life outcomes comparable with the statistical ‘average’ Australian, due to a concept called Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants.
Permit me to briefly explain:
Two decades ago, U.S. education theorist Marc Prensky introduced the concept of the Digital Native and the Digital Immigrant. While initially presenting these terms in the context of state-funded education, they have since been accepted into wider use, including all of the major reputable dictionaries, such as Collins, Cambridge, etc.
Simply defined, a Digital Native is a person who, from their early stages of childhood development, in both a formal (schooling) and informal (social interaction) context, has been exposed to and adapted to, digital technology. A Digital Immigrant is a person who has not had that exposure to digitalization during their formative period, and thus must adapt to the digital world using the non-digital skills that formed the basic tools of their early learning. Essentially, a Digital Immigrant must learn a second language, utilizing their first non-digital language to do so.
While the [X] Bill states it will be ‘optional,’ we must assume that this choice is a temporary one, and plan for it to become mandatory in due course. Undoubtedly, the embrace of the process by Digital Natives will be interpreted as a general acceptance and desire for the same process to become universal. The problem with this will be that the feedback used to justify the transformation from optional use to mandatory use, will be sourced primarily from those who already speak the language, the Digital Natives. The Digital Immigrants will be largely excluded from participation, as they do not possess the language needed to participate.
One specific example of a sub-population which will be dramatically disadvantaged by this Bill, is that of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
As a health worker, I am familiar with the broad range of initiatives across multiple disciplines, designed to improve the statistical and individual life outcomes for Aboriginal and Islander Australians.
Education and health programs, employment opportunities, and small business economic engagement, all depend on a culturally-sensitive, community-based approach. The capture and ‘ownership’ of elements of one’s identity by a faceless ‘Government’ is not conducive – and is indeed antagonistic towards – this co-operative and respectful philosophy.
My fear with this Bill is that the transformation envisaged will lead to the development of two new categories of citizen: The Digital Explorers, and the Digital Convicts.
I reiterate my objection to this Bill, for the reasons stated above, and others which have not been included for reasons of brevity.
Muddy, it doesn’t have to be long but there’s nothing wrong doing that.
—————————————————-
I OBJECT to this Bill on the basis it will lead to a further marginalization within Australian society of those who already face significant comparative disadvantages. This marginalization will produce not only detrimental social consequences – including a greater erosion of trust in and disengagement from, the political process – but also impact negatively on the economic capacity of our taxpayer base.
Sub-populations likely to be further disadvantaged by this Bill include Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people, the aged, those with an intellectual or developmental disability, people from a non-English-speaking background, and our Islamic community.
The aforementioned are likely to suffer further impediments to seeking quality life outcomes comparable with the statistical ‘average’ Australian, due to a concept called Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants.
Permit me to briefly explain:
Two decades ago, U.S. education theorist Marc Prensky introduced the concept of the Digital Native and the Digital Immigrant. While initially presenting these terms in the context of state-funded education, they have since been accepted into wider use, including all of the major reputable dictionaries, such as Collins, Cambridge, etc.
Simply defined, a Digital Native is a person who, from their early stages of childhood development, in both a formal (schooling) and informal (social interaction) context, has been exposed to and adapted to, digital technology. A Digital Immigrant is a person who has not had that exposure to digitalization during their formative period, and thus must adapt to the digital world using the non-digital skills that formed the basic tools of their early learning. Essentially, a Digital Immigrant must learn a second language, utilizing their first non-digital language to do so.
While the [X] Bill states it will be ‘optional,’ we must assume that this choice is a temporary one, and plan for it to become mandatory in due course. Undoubtedly, the embrace of the process by Digital Natives will be interpreted as a general acceptance and desire for the same process to become universal. The problem with this will be that the feedback used to justify the transformation from optional use to mandatory use, will be sourced primarily from those who already speak the language, the Digital Natives. The Digital Immigrants will be largely excluded from participation, as they do not possess the language needed to participate.
One specific example of a sub-population which will be dramatically disadvantaged by this Bill, is that of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As a health worker, I am familiar with the broad range of initiatives across multiple disciplines, designed to improve the statistical and individual life outcomes for Aboriginal and Islander Australians.
Education and health programs, employment opportunities, and small business economic engagement, all depend on a culturally-sensitive, community-based approach. The capture and ‘ownership’ of elements of one’s identity by a faceless ‘Government’ is not conducive – and is indeed antagonistic towards – this co-operative and respectful philosophy.
My fear with this Bill is that the transformation envisaged will lead to the development of two new categories of citizen: The Digital Explorers, and the Digital Convicts.
I reiterate my objection to this Bill, for the reasons stated above, and others which have not been included for reasons of brevity.
—————————————————————————
Muddy, I olded the above so you don’t forget to include the name of the Bill.
Also, there is no opt-out option in the Bill, if memory serves, (happy to be corrected) so maybe that should be mentioned.
Well done, you!
Bolded not olded.
For others, your objection can simply be something like:
I completely oppose and reject the Trusted Digital Identity Bill as it is a gross overreach by government and the government already has access to much of my personal and sensitive information. Additionally, no system is 100% secure so the government cannot guarantee that my biometric and financial data will be secure from cyberattacks or from being shared with third-parties without my knowledge.
Thanks, Gab.
Yes, I will include the name of the bill, and re-check the optional reference. Aside from that, I’ll keep it that length because I’ve put the time in now, though I’m aware it will be barely scanned.
Submitted my response, but I don’t hold any hope it will mean anything.
Those who remember Hawke’s Australia Card will also recall that while that one did not go ahead, the government instead brought in tax file numbers, which have achieved exactly the same thing.
I also recall that only about 25-30 years ago, it was possible to open a bank account without any ID whatsoever. Nowadays you cannot even set up a second account with the same bank without going through all sorts of ‘checks’.
As we are now living during the ‘times of Covid’, a ‘passport’ is needed to be able to go to work. And even that has not woken most people up; in fact they fully approve and can’t wait for the concentration camps to be built.
As many in the USA are starting to realise: The only options are to secede and form a separate country, or to have a civil war, where the government will be violently overthrown.
Chances of either happening in the ‘lucky country’ are precisely zilch.
Done.
Re: Digital Identity – Have Your Say
This legislation is foolish and unnecessary.
It is designed to facilitate Government ease of access to citizens not the other way round as touted.
It creates a single source “honeypot” for criminal and government actors to access.
The governments actions during the current ‘state of emergency” show they cannot be trusted with any more information on people than they already have.
Quite apart from the massive privacy issues I can see this being used to deny people access to common services based on past personal choices.
It is an unnecessary, intrusive, privacy demolishing abortion of a piece of legislation and should be scrapped.
Gab
Thanks.
Sent off to the lawyers a couple of paragraphs about the specious nature and timing of the Bill.
Quite some mendacity in the title, ‘Trusted Digital identity’.
I put my concerns to Ian (not) Goodenough my local mp and got the standard tripe back
Thank you for resourcing us in this way. It is deeply appreciated and acknowledged.
Here is my submitted response:
I respond with an absolute NO to this Bill.
To use the word “Trusted” in the title of this bill both contradicts and underscores the deception, the silent way in which this Bill is being drawn forth and it is also dismissive, denying and white-washing the associated risks inherent in such a Bill.
Such a bill is an absolute abuse of an individual’s freedom and right of ownership to one’s own biometric information.
This bill does not include “non impediment to serve”. This is of grave concern and surely is the beginnings of unjustified exclusions. It has the potential to be used and abused to create the likes of the social credit system of China.
Such a bill would open the door for the garnished information to be controlled, exploited and counterfeited by individuals, groups and government.
Centralised systems of collecting and recording mass information already has a disastrous history of error and ineffectiveness. Centralisation also adds an open doorway for this information to being hacked, exploited and criminalised as stated above.
This bill also does not provide any option to opt out. This bill is not being openly and widely presented and debated. This means that the general public is not informed. To therefore presume, as this bill does, that if one does not oppose this Bill that they/we are giving our consent. This is trickery not “Trusted”.
Such a bill would also be discriminatory against many groups in our society including the elderly, disabled, those who are not technically literate, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples and those from non-English speaking backgrounds, leaving them unable to access routine government, social and commercial services.
What happens to those who are unable or ,by due right, choose not to consent to this digital identity? This bill has the potential to create an apartheid society, based on unjustified and amoral principles and actions. This is NOT the way forward.
It is more than evident that the relationship of trust between the people and the government, its bearers and associated offices and systems of management, has already been tragically and deplorably eroded. It would therefore certainly NOT serve the good of All to proceed with this Bill. It would in fact be deleterious and likely criminal.
The people have previously already and loudly rejected the notion an identity, ‘Australian Card’.
In the words of Justice Michael Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, in evidence to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, 1986
“If there is an identity card, then people in authority will want to put it to use….What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society and the power and authority of the state over the individual”
I most assuredly do NOT consent to the passing of this Bill.
Thanks Gab; done.
Only just come across this. WTF????
I have sent a message to the “concerned lawyers network” – but also to all close friends who might be alarmed by this – as I am.
On the other hand, all of them – as with most of Australia – seem to have accepted the outrageous assaults on our liberty in these last 2 years – the most we have seen in all our lifetimes – without any outrage at all. So you knows if they will be the least bit concerned with this latest imitation of Marxist regimes.
Sent my response.
Hopefully to some avail, but I suspect the final decision was made long ago.
At least we tried..
Addressed my submission to ‘[email protected]’, got notice saying ‘Email Address Not Known’. Can anyone advise where to go from here?.