The Impact of the New Digital ID on Our Freedoms
In the 1980s, Australians fought against a national ID program known as the Australia Card. The government’s Digital ID bills have now been passed, and Australians will have to adapt to the digital equivalent of “papers please.” This raises questions about the state of present-day Australia and what has changed since the days of fierce opposition to the Australia Card.
The author expresses surprise at the lack of resistance from Australians in recent years. The famous Aussie spirit of insubordination seems to have been replaced by compliance with authorities’ orders. The author suggests that previous generations would not have accepted lockdowns, forced vaccinations, or an identity card linking government and private sector accounts.
The Australia Card, introduced in 1984, sparked intense debate and triggered a double-dissolution election in 1987. Opposition to the card came from various quarters, including Labor Senator George Georges and Labor backbencher Lewis Kent. The government ultimately withdrew the card due to a technicality, suggesting a sense of relief.
However, the author notes that there has been little outcry this time around regarding the government’s Digital ID. The Murray Inquiry into the Financial System recommended a form of this ID in 2014 but avoided recommending a government-issued identity card due to the Australia Card debacle. The current government has chosen to make it a government-issued card, raising questions about their motives.
The author suggests that this move may be indicative of the Labor government’s desire for control and suspicion of private enterprise and competition. There is concern that such measures chip away at individual freedoms and restrict citizens’ ability to express themselves, teach freely, and associate with whom they choose.
Recent events involving authorities censoring footage from stabbing incidents highlight the potential dangers of these proposed laws. The eSafety commissioner ordered Meta and X to remove videos, raising questions about justification for censoring information that individuals should be able to access. The author expresses concern about the government’s interference and the potential for bureaucrats to control citizens’ free will.
The author also discusses the voluntary nature of the Digital ID, questioning its true voluntariness. While some activities may still be accessible without the ID, certain circumstances require its use. Company directors, for example, are now required to have a Digital ID. This raises doubts about the government’s claims of voluntariness.
The article suggests that Australians may be acquiescing to this scheme due to a combination of compliance and a gradual acceptance of digital surveillance. The author highlights the power abuses of social media companies and their manipulation of information during elections. Governments are seen as equally untrustworthy, with concerns about their motives and lack of transparency.
In conclusion, the implementation of the Digital ID in Australia raises concerns about individual freedoms and government control. The lack of resistance from Australians is seen as a departure from their historical spirit of insubordination. The article emphasizes the need for citizen awareness and vigilance in protecting their rights and privacy in an increasingly digital world.
