Australia Now has a Digital ID, By James Reed

While a courageous fight was put up, the Albo government has pushed through the Digital ID Bill in the house of so-called Representatives. The Bill was passed 87 to 56, with the Greens and Teals going with the technocratic, tyrannically evil Labor Party, and the coalition and some independents, and One Nation voting no. The Bill had already passed in the Senate with the same sort of performance.

While the Bill, now Act, is supposed to be voluntary, even proverbial blind Freddy can see that this is just the thin edge of a mighty thick wedge; just like the Covid vax was supposed to be voluntary, but indirectly people were forced to have it to survive keeping their jobs. "The ability for exemptions to be granted to online only service providers creates a hole in the "voluntary" scheme that a truck can and will be driven through," said Libertarian Senate candidate for Victoria, Jordan Dittloff:

https://twitter.com/Dittloff4Senate/status/1774908419398639800

"The crux of the Digital ID System, and my biggest personal concern with it, is to what extent it is or will remain voluntary. "74 Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary (1) A participating relying party must not, as a condition of providing a service or access to a service, require an individual to create or use a digital ID. Note: The effect of this subsection is that a participating relying party that provides a service, or access to a service, must provide another means of accessing that service that does not involve the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System. (1A) A participating relying party is taken to contravene subsection (1) if: (a) the participating relying party provides the service, or access to the service, by means other than the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System; and (b) either of the following apply: (i) the other means is not reasonably accessible; (ii) using the other means results in the service being provided on substantially less favourable terms." On the face of it, (and typical for the way such legislation is often written) sections 74(1) and (1A) create a "presumption" that the Digital ID not be necessary to access a service. In other words, that an alternative must be provided on terms no less favourable than Digital ID. However, immediately after these sections, a system of exceptions. The first (and most pivotal) exception is subsection (2). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a service of a participating relying party if: (a) the service provides access to another service; and (b) the individual can access the other service by means other than the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System; and (c) the other means is reasonably accessible; and (d) using the other means does not result in the other service being provided on substantially less favourable terms. The example used within the Bill is a bank which offers an online application service with Digital ID, and also an in person application service that does not require it. But, this exception will absolutely be used with respect to online access for government services such as MyGov, Centrelink, Medicare and others. You could go and wait for several hours in person at your local govhub. Or you could just, you know (wink) get and use a Digital ID to keep accessing things from the comfort of your loungeroom. The second exception applies if a participating party holds an exemption which can be granted by the Digital ID Regulator. (4) Subject to subsection (6), the Digital ID Regulator may, on application by a participating relying party, grant an exemption under this subsection to the participating relying party if the Digital ID Regulator is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. (5) Without limiting subsection (4), the Digital ID Regulator may be satisfied that it is appropriate to grant an exemption if: (a) the participating relying party is a small business (within the meaning of thePrivacy Act 1988); or (b) the participating relying party provides services, or access to services, solely online; or (c) the participating relying party is providing services, or access to services, in exceptional circumstances. We live in an age where many goods and services are provided solely online, and Australians can and do frequently access international commerce and services. The ability for exemptions to be granted to online only service providers creates a hole in the "voluntary" scheme that a truck can and will be driven through. As can be seen from the above, it is extremely misleading to suggest that the Digital ID, even as now will be law, is truly voluntary. As should also be seen from the wording of the legislation, existing exceptions and exemptions would be extremely easy to change and widen. The privacy concerns with this system are also an incredible concern, and the government refusing to accept that a massive data breach is not a case of if, but when, is delusional."

The Act needs to be thrown out, along with the Albo government.