Access card
So the government's plan for a national ID card is coming true.
What am I saying? It's not a national ID card, it's a Access card and it's entirely voluntary. You don't have to have it, unless you need to access medical services, or centrelink and saying otherwise is nothing more than fear mongering and unAustralian.
Joe Hockey, our federal minister for human services, has unvieled his Access card. The card that will drag the medicare card out of the 20th century kicking and screaming into the 21st. What is wrong with the medicare card? Its plastic and only has a name and number on it. Where the Access card is a smart card, with a hidden data chip that will hold a biometric photo, your address, your full name, benefits currently being recieved. As an optional extra you can also include allegeries, emergency contacts, organ donation and your likes/dislikes.
Worried about that sort of information being on a single card? Thieves can get all that information from stealing your wallet. Plus the card will be data encrypted, meaning if someone does steal your card the information is safe. Just like other data encrypted services like pay tv signals, ATM cards and computer firewalls. No one but authorised users, like centrelink will ever be able to read your data.
Hockey also assures us that there will be legislation to stop the card from being used as a ID card. It willbe illegal for banks and pubs to force people to produce the card as ID.
The oppositions's position? Legislation can be changed, particually if a government holds both the House of Reps and the Senate. But surely the Howard government has promised not to do so. And they nver break a promise, unless it's a non-core promise, or circumstances change and there's a bombing in Bali or something. Sometimes they retro-activate laws too, making new laws come into effect years earlier. But they wouldn't do it to the access card, would they?
The opposition also believes that data encryption is not safe and if someone stole your card they could hack into it, change the data, steal your identity or even use it to hack into the government's data base where all information is held.
Oh and they say that while the card is voluntary, you must have one to access services like medicare, centrelink etc. Tax payer funded services, available to all Australians. So, based on the government's stance on university unionism, if I don't access a service I should pay for it. So if I don't get a Access card I won't have to pay my medicare levy? Reduce tax because I can't access centrelink?
Go here for Hockey's views and here for the Opposition views.
The AMA, champions for the Access card and replacing the medicare card in the first place have spoken out over Hockey's unveiled design saying that breaches people privacy. A interesting change of stance from one of the few groups championing the new card. Go here for that.
What am I saying? It's not a national ID card, it's a Access card and it's entirely voluntary. You don't have to have it, unless you need to access medical services, or centrelink and saying otherwise is nothing more than fear mongering and unAustralian.
Joe Hockey, our federal minister for human services, has unvieled his Access card. The card that will drag the medicare card out of the 20th century kicking and screaming into the 21st. What is wrong with the medicare card? Its plastic and only has a name and number on it. Where the Access card is a smart card, with a hidden data chip that will hold a biometric photo, your address, your full name, benefits currently being recieved. As an optional extra you can also include allegeries, emergency contacts, organ donation and your likes/dislikes.
Worried about that sort of information being on a single card? Thieves can get all that information from stealing your wallet. Plus the card will be data encrypted, meaning if someone does steal your card the information is safe. Just like other data encrypted services like pay tv signals, ATM cards and computer firewalls. No one but authorised users, like centrelink will ever be able to read your data.
Hockey also assures us that there will be legislation to stop the card from being used as a ID card. It willbe illegal for banks and pubs to force people to produce the card as ID.
The oppositions's position? Legislation can be changed, particually if a government holds both the House of Reps and the Senate. But surely the Howard government has promised not to do so. And they nver break a promise, unless it's a non-core promise, or circumstances change and there's a bombing in Bali or something. Sometimes they retro-activate laws too, making new laws come into effect years earlier. But they wouldn't do it to the access card, would they?
The opposition also believes that data encryption is not safe and if someone stole your card they could hack into it, change the data, steal your identity or even use it to hack into the government's data base where all information is held.
Oh and they say that while the card is voluntary, you must have one to access services like medicare, centrelink etc. Tax payer funded services, available to all Australians. So, based on the government's stance on university unionism, if I don't access a service I should pay for it. So if I don't get a Access card I won't have to pay my medicare levy? Reduce tax because I can't access centrelink?
Go here for Hockey's views and here for the Opposition views.
The AMA, champions for the Access card and replacing the medicare card in the first place have spoken out over Hockey's unveiled design saying that breaches people privacy. A interesting change of stance from one of the few groups championing the new card. Go here for that.
posted by Renegade79 at 10:46 am
23 Comments:
Evil.
Amazing. I thought this numbskull idea went into the bin ages ago? It reminds me of Douglas Adams' 'Ident-i-eze' (or similarly named) card, but that could just be because both ideas are ludicrous to the point of hilarity (at least, Joe hockey's would be if I wasn't about to 'volunteer' to let it ensnare me).
Not at all. It resurfaced last year after the second Bali attack. Vanstone was calling for one because of the belief that it would protect us from the terrorists hiding under our beds.
There was much public outcry aganist and Howard announced that they would not introduce a national ID system, but overhaul the medicare system. When the opposition attacked it as a convert ID card and a breech of privacy, the government formed a task force to determine ways to do such a system and not breech privacy. They apponted Professor Allen Feld, former chairman of the ACCC to head the task force.
The task force has handed down it's findings and the government has ignored most of its recommendations (surprise, surprise)
So the question is, will the government push the Access card's introduction prior to the next election, or afterwards?
You assume a liberal Party victory, then? That's rather pessimistic of you.
Howard's current changes to the corcus (or however you spell it) has pushed his party even further right, and this time around the opposition leader seems to have remained a little more mild in its approach (mild to left...but only because of Garrett[who wouldn't have much power to do anything anyway...]).
Who are the swinging voters? Who would appeal more to them? I was a couple of weeks too young for voting last time around...maybe theres many other Clare's out there that'll make the difference.
Anyway, back to the card- I think it's a bit too risky for him at present- aside from getting rid of 'multiculturialism' and his leading female he looks to be playing it safe. For further example: http://ethelapsley.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-months-until-jhs-de-election.html
I assume nothing.
John Howard has been the at the very least the most medicore prime minister we have ever have. At the very worse he's the most criminal prime minister we have ever had. This is the man who came up with "core" and "non-core" promises, over saw the worst corporate scandal in Australian historian, has not punished ministers for massive, criminal failings in their departments (immigration) and doesn't appear to recieve briefings on anything (Tampa, children overboard)
Yet he contiunes to be elected. Why? Popular theory is that the opposition was weak. This may have beent he case, but the real reason is because he's good at manipulating the electorate before an election. First it was 9/11 and the first Bali bombings. Then it was Tampa and "we decided who comes into this country" and then it was interest rates.
Now Rudd and Gillard appear to be making up lost ground in the polls, both in the party polls and in preferred prime minister. But they are reaching the end of their honey moon period. Then they're in trouble. If they don't release some policies to match their rhetoric then they start to lose ground. If they release policies too soon then they run the risk of Howard stealing said policies and realeasing them as his own, or poking holes in them.
As to Howard leaning more and more to the right, well you're thinking like a leftie. Which is fine, I'm a leftie. But most people are conservative. Especially in times of turmoil and uncertainity.
And Howard has yet to play his trump card. His administration has left services and inferstructure in a shoddy state. The surplus is not big enough to fix this. The only way a Labour government can afford to fix it is to raise taxes.
No one likes taxes.
If taxes must be raised, taxes must be raised, whichever govt. is in power.
So options are to:
...lie about what you are going to do and lull the stupid masses into a false sense of security (well, that's original!).
...beat Howard to it, expose 'trump card' as a weakness of his governing ability, trust in the intelligence of the masses and put forward a good plan to manage these affairs effectively.
...avoid the topic altogether while ripping the other party to shreads.
I remember now why I don't like politics.
Nat's first rule of humanity:
People are stupid
The intellegence of a mob is the iq of the dumbest person divided by the number of people in the mob
Though I personally like paying taxes, it pays for hopsitals, schools and defense. Provides a safety net if something goes wrong.
So your advice to anyone that felt like beating JH this time around?
Four things:
1. I'm going to retract/clarify my statement: "If taxes must be raised, taxes must be raised, whichever govt. is in power." This statement assumes one actually wants to fix the services/infrastructure.
It would seem tha our current govt.'s idea idea of good management is to run things into the ground and then under-sell bits and pieces of them, buggering up the new management in the process. That's what their "mandate" (I hate that word too, linds) is all about, right?
2. I also challenge your assumption, Nat, that most people are conservative. Granted, during 'times of turmoil'(what time hasn't had its fair share of turmoil?) they are over-represented. However when you start to get people thinking, and talking there does seem to be an even spread (I was going to use sbs's 'insight' as an example as it's audience is diverse yet balanced- but I suppose they construct it that way?).
There's an interesting US based web page out there that does a statistical analysis of left/right political leanings vs IQ. I haven’t seen it in ages, nor checked over it’s method of analysis, but if it’s conclusion is apt (ie if people with a higher IQ are more likely to be lefties) perhaps your 'first rule of humanity' is affecting your estimation?
Though on the whole, I concur with Tommy Lee Jones in MIB...
3. Do you think people will remember the “We decide who comes into Australia?” (*wrapped in flag, hand over heart staring earnestly to the left*), and the “We decide who comes into ‘The Shire’” (*wrapped in flag, hand holding knife in other persons chest, oggling a beer keg off in the distance*) and add inciting stupidity/violence/racism to Howard's list of cons?
4. Even if they don’t, I have three *words* to say to you:
I. Wheatboard
II. “work choices”
III. Interest rates
He has A LOT of baggage…
and if none of the aforementioned reasons is convincing enough,think about that same face representing us for another 4 years...
One statment Clare:
"There are core promises and non-core promises."
Right after winning his first election Howard uttered those words. He did also leave vauge promise that hese non-core may be fulfiled in time, but that proved to be false. "Non core" promises included no cuts to education, health and social services.
Also in his first term Howard constructed the ministerial code of conduct. The previous Labour government had been accused of being corrupt and Howard introduced the code to have a clean government and make people trust their polications again. Within six months 5 of his ministers, Short, Prosser, Sharp, Jull and McGauran had resigned for breeches. When Moore and Parer were in trouble he scraped it.
He also overturned the Wik decision. by extinguishing the Native title on Pastoral lease.
In his second term he intorduce the GST, despite his campaign for his first time "we will never introduce a GST. It's dead, it's buried." Interesting note, the introduction of the GST was the death knell of the growing Democrat party. The government reeked with the smell of death and the buzzards were circling, yet come election the government emerged unscathed.
In his third term, there were children over board. It was later proved to be false. He led the country into a war in Iraq on false pretenses. One that it seemed that nobody really believed except the USA government, the British Government and the Australian Government. After invading it was found to be on false pretense.
Again, not only did the Howard Government win office again, but actually gained control of the Senate as well.
Howard has gone to every election with baggage. A lot of baggage. And not only has he retained his position, it gets stronger everytime.
Also you challenge my rule "people are stupid" yet concur with Agent Kay in MIB "A person is smart, people are dumb" (the movie I got my rule from in the first place). Okay, challenge my rule. Prove me wrong.
People you have spoken to speak out aganist the government. Let me tell you about people. At work, say when we work short, people get angry. "This happens all the time!" "It's not right!" "It's illegal!" "I'll go home next time it happens!" Does anyone go to managment with said concerns? The next time it happens, do people go home? The answer is no! They keep working under the same conditions.
Why? People are stupid!
P.S. This was supposed to have been posted this morning, before all these new posts, however blogger was down. So here it is.
It would seem that JH is a mediocre PM, however he is the smartest political operator Australia has seen. Don't forget that.
How many elections have we seen now, that when going into it we all think "he cant possibly win this one, people will realise etc etc".
When a person is in power longer than a decade, as a general rule of thumb, they "run out of new ideas" and start to erode democratic foundations in their interest, not due to and evil impulse, but due to their own, now, distorted sense of needing to run the country efficiently according to their view. Checks and balances get in the road.
Same as checks and balances to privacy.
"Papers, please!"
P.S. The first "P.S." stood for PreScript, as opposed to this Post Script.
You're right Nat, each time I've thought the same thoughts as expressed above previous to the election, and each time I've been disappointed.
Einstein, I think it was Einstein, said that "stupid" was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Howard is devious, cunning; you have listed more than enough to kick his sorry eyebrows out of office and yet he remains. This time around some of his baggage has a dollar sign on it: "interest rate rises" (though technically not controlled by parliament (right?), for some reason people always blame them) and the new industrial relations legislations. It is my opinion that, if the opposition plays it smart, if there are no more terrorist attacks/similar, these things will sway voters, or at least sully his name enough that they start thinking about alternatives.
Then again, but Einstien's definition it is "stupid" to think like this.
Don't get me wrong. I want Howard out as much as you do. Election after election I have been disappointed. Don't want you to feel disillusioned if it happens again.
Besides, you must look at my sides of an argument before engaging in battle.
Know thy enemy and know they self.
You are right...I do have a horrible tendancy to live in my own fantasy land...which would be ok, except that it clashes somewhat with reality and leaves me ultra disappointed in circumstances, like election night, where one reality cannot be substituted for on'es own...
Hey! Now, I haven't bothered to confirm this via thier webpage, but last night while playing canasta with mum I heard (or thought I heard) the summer vacation gal on ABC news say that pollies in the UK were trying to introduce a national ID card with the 'purpose' of defering terrorists...
a) how does this makes sense?? Weren't their attackers some of their own citizens?
and
b) If these guys support the idea is it likly to gain support here
what I meant by b) is: if they get thier proposal for an Id card through, do you think this access vcard concept will gain popularity?
Also, has anyone found that text I was after on open boarders, a la pre world wars's?
Interest rates are independantly controlled by the RBA (Reserve Bank Aust).
They raise or lower them to control inflation, because that is their primary goal. (Secondary goal being to lower unemployment and increase economic growth).
1. Government budgets have a direct effect on inflation. This government has been doing a moderate to a fair bit to effect interest rates like this recently.
2. Governments take the credit when interest rates decrease... so they might as well get the blame.
The UK ID card is having the same debate as us here, mostly the same issues and topics come up, but they have terrorist attacks on their own soil going back a fair way (Nothern Ireland) and have been consistantly rejected. The only difference is biometrics is countering the 'identity theft' issue to some extent.
Wow, that took some catching up on.
I have no idea when the last comment was posted, since dates don't appear. So... sorry if I'm joining a discussion that has long since died.
Anyway, I've always been a bit of a conspiracy theorist, so to me it seems self-evident that the 'access' card is not about Medicare and Centrelink at all (convenient excuse though). It represents the ultimate step forward in data integration: now it will be easy for all the government agencies (and private companies too) to share data with each other. Not straightaway, of course, but the tools will be there.
This is pretty cool from an I.T. perspective, but dangerous ethically (as has already been pointed out). That said, let's not forget how much data big brother could already gather on all of us, without any help from smart cards. Think about it: what do your bank statements, tax returns, medicare receipts, etc. say about you?
What's next? I'm thinking Nazi Germany: show your card or you must be a terrorist, bang bang. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch.
Ok, moving on to leftie, rightie and Howard ... I think Rudd is the first alternative PM I would seriously consider over Howard. Would Bumbling Idiot Beazley have been an improvement? Nope. And, well, Latham speaks for himself ;-)
Howard's primary strength is economic management. Yes, interest rates are on the rise now -- big deal. Economies always cycle. If we're at (or close to) the peak of interest rates right now, we have NOTHING to complain about. This is not a recession. It's a blip. The coalition's management of our economy has been, and still is, superb.
Sadly its use of the money it's made has not been so great. Basics have been neglected, peripheries have been bolstered and the wealthy are still the ones enjoying the economy the most.
The new IR laws will probably make our economy more productive ... but at what social cost? And what about the cost of our ongoing ignorance of environmental concerns? And what about our greed when it comes to immigration, Iraq, etc.?
We have a Bi-Lo government at the moment: the bottom line is the bottom line. It should not be that way. Perhaps a change is in the wind. Like you, I certainly hope so.
Whether or not it will be REAL change remains to be seen.
Johnny H was a good economic manager in his first term, possibly second. Other than that he has thrown it down the pisser on election snacks that don't structurally improve the economy.
The previous labour government actually did more to structurally improve the economy, but these things take time to kick in. Note I did not say that they were good budget managers.
You want to see a governments intent the first indicator is what they do with tax. The ATO can cross check all other government records for fraud. Cross fertilising of government databases is the first step.
JH may hate medicare, but the medicare card is the ultimate tool in the ID card game. Nobody questions the need for medical data. It's humanitarian!
Crack down on welfare cheats. Centrelink also happens to have probably one of the most extensive databases in Australia (after the ATO and medicare). How do we crack down on them? Well we need to go over their data.
Also consider a classic JH move of under the radar tactics: Nuclear power, water reform, cabinet reshuffle. All bigger news ticket items than a national ID card. What gets the media/citizens attention?
It isnt a conspiracy, just the groundwork has already been conveniently laid by other factors and now we are seeing an implementation attempt typical of a political master.
Luke, that's what happens when you miss staff meetings :-D
OKay, both you guys are correct. The Access card will lay the foundation ofr future abuse/tightening of the government's controls. Lindsay is rght that previous governments have layed the foundation for the arrival of the access card.
That's how democractic government's slip into toleritan societies. There isn't any single terrorist event that forces a crack down. No dramatic rise in crime. No war. No "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." Well, they can, but they don't last long.
It's a long, slow and above all, unplanned march towards toleritanism. You start off as a free society. Then something happens that causes people to think of freedom vs safety. So they surrender a little freedom. Eg, swimming pools. Once you could put a swimming pool in at whim, then some idiots broke water pipes and sewer mains. So then you have to get council approval to ensure it doesn't happen again. Then someone's kid dies in a pool and then we all have to erect fences. This state of affairs continues until another breach in public safety, or fraud, so more rules are introduced.
But it only happens if citizens allow it to happen. A line MUST be draw here, THIS FAR AND NO FUTHER!
For example, microchipping your pets. I was aganist it because I can see the logical progression, though it may be decades down the track. First everyone microchips their pets. Then some bright spark says why not microchip prisoners, so we can trackj them if they escape, or people with dementia (this is already on the tables in the US and there have been talks out here) Then it moves from prisoners to likely reoffenders, then to all people convicted of a crime. Then why not everyone, just to trace movements around a scene of a crime....
Like I said, a line must be drawn.
The jist of my point was that the only difference with this debate was that biometrics have been used to counter ID theft to some extent.
I wasn't getting all melodramatic... not saying any names... Nat :-P
The jist of my point was that the only difference with this debate was that biometrics have been used to counter ID theft to some extent.
I wasn't getting all melodramatic... not saying any names... Nat :-P
Had a bad morning. Melodramatics cheered me up. ;-P
Post a Comment
<< Home