The Australian ID Card

**craigb** · 19th January 2006, 08:04 PM

Look at is as a cost benefit amalysis.

Cost $15 billion - of our taxes

What exactly are the benefits to us that are paying for it?

How exactly does it help in the fight against terrorism?

All those blokes that were picked up in Sydney and Melbourne a couple of months ago were Australian citizens for the most part.

How would them having an ID card have stopped their alleged plotting?

Actually I agree with Bruce in that it's largely a smoke screen. Especially with all this AWB stuff that's going on at the moment.

**E. maculata** · 19th January 2006, 08:18 PM

I don't believe either side of this debate is arguing that terrorism isn't prevailent, or a "real & present danger", we're debating whether an Identification card is a apt step to take to counter this likely threat to our way of life. Therein lays the problem, "papers" to be carried at all times smacks of repression to me, panicking and not keeping our unique "aussieness" throughout this period is a huge issue. When we come out the other side of these current troubles, will we be proud of our stoic nature as individuals & a nation or will we be snivelling cowards and asquiesce to whatever our drama queen, fearfully scared leaders want, what freedoms will we have traded away with no effect, never to be regianed again, or worse still our grandkids grow up in an Australia that our grandparents would be ashamed of.

I probably am one of those left wing bleeding heart civil liberterians, actually no secret I am

.

**Grunt** · 19th January 2006, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Canadian Justice Department

4.3 Level of Threat to Canada

Participants were divided on the issue of whether the risk of a terrorist attack in Canada is increasing. On one hand, there is no hard evidence in the public domain indicating a higher level of risk since 9/11. On the other hand, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was viewed as increasing the threat to Canadian troops. Also, while several participants stated that Canada is not a primary target, more attacks have been unleashed recently against "soft" targets. Whitaker notes that the recent targeting by Al-Qaeda and associated groups of softer targets such as Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey ought to be a warning for Canada. Also opportunistic attacks on soft targets could threaten Canada. Furthermore, Brynen notes that neutrality may be less of a protection than in the past as UN and humanitarian personnel have been attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. Charters notes that several individuals with Canadian backgrounds and possible connections to Al-Qaeda have been captured, arrested, or detained here or overseas and some remain at large. Some of those detained have eventually been released owing to lack of evidence. He adds: "None of this makes Canada a 'haven for terrorists' or a primary target for attack. But it introduces an element of doubt about its immunity from terrorism."
Martyn adds that greater access to information increases the potential for the use of more destructive weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons. The scarcity of these weapons, however, makes it less likely they will be used against Canadian targets.
Wark asserts that public statements by CSIS indicate a "significant terrorist presence" in Canada. That presence can include fund-raising and other activities that might not be related to attacks on Canada. It would be imprudent to assume that we are immune from attacks. Canada may not be a first tier target but the risks increase as transnational groups seek new bases and targets. Stribopoulos believes that Canadian interests overseas are at greatest risk. Attacks in North America are likely to be launched against the US.

They don't believe that they are a primary target. Plainly we are.

Grunt for P.M.

I'd never make PM because I am not very good a lying and I have ethics.

**Gumby** · 19th January 2006, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Grunt

They don't believe that they are a primary target. Plainly we are.

So now we are defing primary and non primary targets. That's not what you said earlier.

Originally Posted by Grunt

T
I'd never make PM because I am not very good a lying and I have ethics.

That is a very sad outlook to have.

**Groggy** · 19th January 2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by E. maculata

... we're debating whether an Identification card is a apt step to take to counter this likely threat to our way of life.

what he actually said was "A lot of other countries have ID cards , and with the changing times, international terrorism etc do we need ID cards or can we stay the same as we are.", which is not the same thing. terrorism was only part of the question. There is a greater need for a unique identification method for other reasons - health, legal, financial, gov't benefits etc.

Originally Posted by E. maculata

Therein lays the problem, "papers" to be carried at all times smacks of repression to me, panicking and not keeping our unique "aussieness" throughout this period is a huge issue. When we come out the other side of these current troubles, will we be proud of our stoic nature as individuals & a nation or will we be snivelling cowards and asquiesce to whatever our drama queen, fearfully scared leaders want, what freedoms will we have traded away with no effect, never to be regianed again, or worse still our grandkids grow up in an Australia that our grandparents would be ashamed of.

That's a bit emotive and unfair don't you think? You claim to be a libertarian, but label those with opposing views as "snivelling cowards". Maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future there is a tiny, slim, possibility they'll say "it was a wise move". We have had identification documents before, and they did go away once they were no longer necessary.

Originally Posted by E. maculata

I probably am one of those left wing bleeding heart civil liberterians, actually no secret I am

.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

**E. maculata** · 19th January 2006, 09:03 PM

Groggy, problem with just written word, it doesn't convey the full message, I don't mean anyone whom opposed my view is a snivelling coward, although I do believe anyone who doesn't take a real interest in our countries actions may qualify, you know the type doesn't watch any news, reads only the sports section, doesn't attend any meetings, hates the abc, wouldn't know his local member if he fell over them yet somehow still KNOWS everything about what ails the country and how to fix it, probably just as infuriating is those whom blindly believe either side of politics without questioning the motives. I don't think (in itself a truism) that many here would fall into those categories, for just to read this thread implies interest and a questing mind.

I thought we were supposed to improve societies freedoms not repeat historical mistakes, no matter whom wants to terrorise us and definitely not head down any sort of Orwellian path.

**Groggy** · 19th January 2006, 09:12 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I won't be commenting further.

**redwood** · 19th January 2006, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by E. maculata

the type doesn't watch any news, reads only the sports section, doesn't attend any meetings, hates the abc, wouldn't know his local member if he fell over them yet somehow still KNOWS everything about what ails the country and how to fix it

sounds like me

**Grunt** · 19th January 2006, 09:39 PM

That is a very sad outlook to have.

Just a realist. Have a look at our current and recent past PMs. They'll do or say just about anything to stay in power. Use fear as a political tool.

**Gumby** · 19th January 2006, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Groggy

Thanks for the clarification. I won't be commenting further.

Me either. It's a no win situation all round. There's no value in continuing. We've all had our say. Let's all agree to disagree and get back to the bond that links us together - woodwork.

**Ashore** · 20th January 2006, 12:11 AM

I started this thread after seeing an item in the news saying an ID card was again on the political agenda

It will not stop terrorism international or domestic
It will not stop crime
It will not stop tax fraud
It will not stop crimes against children
It will not stop illegal immegrants,( coming to this country or working here)
It will not stop farting in church

However it may help authorities cut back on crimes etc
I would love to see an Australia where every one played the game by the rules, where every one paid their fair share of taxes, where the riots seen in sydney were stopped earlier or did not happen because police had the power and backing to stop such strife in the early stages
perhaps an ID card may have helped
On the other side of the arguement as has been previously said it is easier to loose a liberty than to regain one. and the cost, who knows

Does anyone here think that the cost of an ID card would be greater than politicans travel allounces for a five year period

The question comes down to what are we loosing , is there anyone out there who isn't on a medicard card , whats wrong with a card that is more difficult to forge that holds that information pluss a bit more
I personally cannot see a reason against the Aussi ID card Its not going to make the world or Australia right overnight but it may help to keep people in Australia less subject to fraud may make more pay the taxes they should and may help Police solve more crimes,

**DavidG** · 20th January 2006, 10:21 AM

2 bob bet-

There will not be an aussie card and the current activity is a smoke screen to cover the new medicare smart card which will be released soon.

The new medicare card will become (given time) the Aussie card.

After doing a heap of googles on "New medicare card" and "ID card australia"

**Grunt** · 20th January 2006, 10:53 AM

It will not stop farting in church

See, this is why I don't go to church.

**DanP** · 20th January 2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Grunt

Excuse me for being cynical but I would expect law enforcment officers to want to have more power.
Are you going to arrest people for not carring one?
Maybe not today but as the government gets more paranoid, they'll instruct you do so in the future.

I can arrest anyone who has committed ANY offence who fails to adequately identify themself. That will not change.

Originally Posted by Grunt

A study of history will suggest that enforcing people to carry ids and the recent enactment of laws that diminish our civil liberties have a way of being turned around and used against us.

In the '70s, the Charlie Court government in WA enacted a law (54b) that made it illegal for groups of more than 3 people to congregate in public without a permit. It was designed to stop the Hari Krishnas from harassing people. 12 months later the the Court government used this law to instruct the police to arrest anyone who attended a union meeting.

We still have laws for unlawful gatherings. We just have to find someone to say they are in fear of a gathering of three or more people and the offence is complete. It is normally only used in circumstances such as the race riots in Sydney.

There are a great many of our laws that could be interpreted in such a way that they were never intended to be used. It is usually the common sense of the police member that stops them from being misused.

Originally Posted by Grunt

I must be a idiot then.

Dan

**DanP** · 20th January 2006, 02:19 PM