Making it easier to “prove” your identity everywhere you go

The more I examine the The Guide to the Digital Identity Legislation – the overview of the government’s determination to extend surveillance mechanisms as widely as possible – the more it becomes clear there never was the slightest intention to involve the public in any part of this discussion.

It is essentially a request to others, such as large business, the banking system and state governments, to assist in setting up the mechanisms to work as efficiently as possible to share information about each and every one of us in as simple a way as possible.

This is the aim as explained right up front by the Minister in his introduction:

[to develop] a safe, secure and convenient way for Australians to prove their identity online.

These are The Next Steps discussed at the end of the document.

A preliminary view of a charging framework has been developed in consultation with system participants. We will continue to consult with partner agencies, states and territories, and private sector stakeholders to validate and refine this. Outcomes from this consultation will be used to inform the services, charging components and mechanisms required to support a whole of economy charging framework.

The views of the public are not even invited. We are not one of the “stakeholders” they have in mind.

There is no discussion of the dangers and downsides of creating such a mechanism. There is no discussion of how the system, once in place, can be misused. There is no discussion of any problems any others have raised in the past.

I am astonished at how little interest this entire issue seems to have generated among any of those bodies whose aim is to promote and safeguard our freedoms.

You just picture Daniel Andrews with the ability to pick through every aspect of our lives and how such a process might be used.

October 27 will be the day submissions are due. This is where you may find the Submission Form to allow you to express your views.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old bloke
Old bloke
October 24, 2021 1:04 pm

I responded to their request for submissions this morning. I suggested that they insert their QR codes and their mandatory vaxxines into a specific orifice.

How on earth can these people call themselves a Liberal party?

October 24, 2021 1:13 pm

I knew that from the outset. Public consultation doesn’t mean what you think it means (to mangle a Princess Bride quote). That why it’s pointless to respond to any of these submissions, they just go into file 13.

Ellen of Tasmania
Ellen of Tasmania
October 24, 2021 1:33 pm

That why it’s pointless to respond to any of these submissions

I’m sure it’s pointless if the idea is for them to actually listen to your arguments but I don’t think it’s pointless for them to realise how many have become aware of their totalitarian plans. Evil deeds prefer darkness and secrecy.

Remember to let your pollies know what you think of it and them. I think it was the number of people waking up to that cash limit thingy they were trying to quietly pass that finally made them shelve it (for now).

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

P.S. Steve, your point about the lack of interest amongst so-called ‘freedom’ groups and the media should magnify our alarm mightily. It’s the same thing that’s happening in the covid, jab and climate world. Nothing to investigate? That tells us clearly that whoever is in control has control of all these bodies.

October 24, 2021 1:51 pm

I’m sure it’s pointless if the idea is for them to actually listen to your arguments but I don’t think it’s pointless for them to realise how many have become aware of their totalitarian plans.

Given all that has been going on in so many different spheres of life, it’s clear that politicians don’t care one bit what we think. If it isn’t on MSM, it doesn’t exist.

October 24, 2021 2:30 pm

Fear is the most powerful human motivator.
What do our politicians have to fear from we, the voters?

Without the fear of a consequence other than not being re-elected, which for some will be followed by more highly remunerated opportunities elsewhere, what is there to moderate their policy-making behaviour?

Bruce of Newcastle
Bruce of Newcastle
October 24, 2021 2:40 pm

We’re all Scarlet Pimpernels now.
Which was set in 1792 during the Reign of Terror.
More rhyming history.

October 24, 2021 3:09 pm

Presumably our Premiers and other politicians will be immune to such surveillance?

October 24, 2021 4:37 pm

Bruce of Newcastle says:
October 24, 2021 at 2:40 pm
We’re all Scarlet Pimpernels now.
Which was set in 1792 during the Reign of Terror.

Being a pedant here…
if I recall correctly, Le Terreur was from September 1793 to July (Thermidor) 1794.

On the subject of this thread.. when submitting a comment, they only require an email address “for notification”, no name details are obligatory, which suggests it’s all a charade.

Bruce of Newcastle
Bruce of Newcastle
October 24, 2021 4:45 pm

Gilas, I was quoting the ineffable fount of all wisdom: Wikipedia…

(wiki linky)

October 24, 2021 5:10 pm

Yes, and from this link which adds to yours:

There is disagreement among historians over when exactly “the Terror” began. Some consider it to have begun only in 1793, giving the date as either 5 September,[1] June[2] or March, when the Revolutionary Tribunal came into existence. Others, however, cite the earlier time of the September Massacres in 1792, or even July 1789, when the first killing of the revolution occurred.[a]


There was a sense of emergency among leading politicians in France in the summer of 1793 between the widespread civil war and counter-revolution. Bertrand Barère exclaimed on 5 September 1793 in the convention: “Let’s make terror the order of the day!”[7] This quote has frequently been interpreted as the beginning of a supposed “system of Terror”, an interpretation no longer retained by historians today.

Wholesale guillottining, as in the Madame Desfarges-type public spectacle, such as in the Pimpernel, happened after the Committee of Public Safety (it’s ALWAYS about safety!!) got to work on the Girondists in late 1793.
Executions prior to this were infrequent affairs, reserved predominantly for Royals and common criminals. The September Massacres referred-to above were predominantly stock-standard street massacres and drownings.
And.. if one looks closely at the data on individual guillotine victims, the frequency and number of executions didn’t change until middish 1795. But because Robespierre and his cronies weren’t involved, somehow it was all different from the real Terror and apparently A-OK!

Ahh.. the French Revolution, the real birth of mainstream socialism!

October 24, 2021 7:09 pm

I sent out information on the current state of the legislation to friends, both conservative & of the Left. Most are intelligent people. Only one bothered to reply, expressed concern & noted that their family was increasingly worried about the trends.

The rest were eerily silent – except for one who inquired “RUOK?” – implying, I assume, that I was showing signs of paranoia.

We are doomed.

October 24, 2021 7:41 pm

A bit slow, but done:

I OBJECT to the passing of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill in its entirety. Governments of all levels should be stripped of a great degree of their control over the lives of free individuals, NOT given greater authority to live an individual’s life for them. NONE of our three levels of government in Australia can get even the basic principal correct; that you SERVE the people who elect you. The proliferation of non-elected organisations and institutions, responsible not to the taxpayers who finance them, but to some other amorphous entity – or themselves – is one of the reasons why so little faith exists in the political process in this country. I repeat: I OBJECT COMPLETELY to the Trusted Digital Identity Bill.

Miss Anthropist
Miss Anthropist
October 24, 2021 7:43 pm

Cui Bono?
Some noodlenecks seem to be after some sort of power.
Megalomaniac fascists can kiss my arse.

October 24, 2021 8:39 pm

I’ve sent mine, submission as follows:

I object the the passing of this digital identity bill based on a few fundamental reasons:
1. This bill is unnecessary, there are more than enough systems in place that are more than sufficient for ‘proof of identity’
2. This massive collective network of digital data, all contained and accessible to various entities will be a breeding ground for corruption, coupled with the recent legislation regarding police having the legal power to access and modify peoples social media accounts and devices, now that will potentially be expanded to any organisation being able to access and modify our personal data?
3. We are hearing of more and more frequent cyber attacks on various systems, there is absolutely no guarantee that any government or private organisation can give me that my data will not be either stolen, or sold to the highest bidder due to corruption.
4. The face that it is clear that this bill has been kept out of public knowledge is even more reason for all members of the public to be skeptical, after all, as all citizens are being consistently told; if we have done nothing wrong, we shouldn’t be trying to hide anything?

Why should this bill, that is supposedly so beneficial for all Australian citizens, why not put it out in the media for all to see?
Prove to us that this is genuinely in ‘our best interests’ by actually consulting with the population of your country that you supposedly represent…

October 24, 2021 11:24 pm

digital identity, digital currency leads to chinese style social control – repost

Global Elites Plan To Create A “Socialist Utopia”

this guy is pretty much spot on

Mak Siccar
Mak Siccar
October 25, 2021 7:37 am

Rightly or wrongly, I’ve sent a link to this thread to Alan Jones imploring him to critically review it and the legislation and bring it to the attention of the public.

October 26, 2021 8:53 am

I have submitted my objection. 24 hours left to comment.

  1. I gave it up aged 80 after a not very long or difficult trip on an Icelandic pony. They have…

  2. Appalling to see my old Alma Mater brought down to such a low. Mark Scott was a disastrous apoointment.

  3. They are still top notch in medical research and funding via their Medical Faculty. Their Arts Faculty is a disgrace…

Oh, you think that, do you? Care to put it on record?x