Our Dystopian Future of Digital ID Prisons

,

The ink isn’t even dry on Minister Gallagher’s Digital ID Bill, yet abuses are already surfacing. Digital ID is supposed to be voluntary, with an alternative method of identification available, however this is not happening.  Federal and State Government departments, alongside crony corporations, are mandating Digital IDs and failing to offer paper alternatives. This blatant disregard for their own legislation reveals the government’s true intention: to force everyone to get a Digital ID for greater control.

Thanks to Minister Gallagher and Prime Minister Albanese, we’re falling into a dystopian future of digital prisons.

Transcript

In the break, opposition leader Peter Dutton joined Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to support a uniparty age ban of 16 on social media. When Minister Gallagher introduced the digital ID, she promised that every Australian over 16 would need a digital ID and that it would be voluntary. The ink was not dry on that legislation when the uniparty advanced this idea for a compulsory social media age limit, a simple idea raising many red flags. The issue is not who signs into social media; the issue is who’s using the account. This requires the device camera to always be on, to check the user’s image against their digital ID to prevent, for instance, younger siblings from taking over the session. Penalties for spreading misinformation, or opinions, as they used to be called, can then be levied against the correct person, with a photo of you making the post to prove it was you.  

The uniparty campaign to stamp out wrong-think on social media will require a camera in every adolescent’s bedroom, running every moment their computer, tablet or phone is in use. Hacking into cameras is easy. This proposal will be a paedophile’s paradise and will increase crimes against children. Using social media in public— cafes, public transport, shops—will be a nightmare. Social media companies will need to run artificial intelligence to work out which image is the person operating the device and which is someone in the background. 

To answer the question, ‘Is this person over 16?’ will require every Australian’s biometric data. Who knows what else this identification and surveillance AI will do without our knowledge? The uniparty that introduced this bill under Mr Morrison and passed it under Mr Albanese will produce unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefit. One Nation believes in the primacy of parents over the state. Parents must be free to raise their children as they choose, not as the government dictates. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Digital ID Act was passed with the promise that it would not be compulsory, per section 74(1). Your act includes a provision that alternative methods of establishing identity must be provided, in section 74(1A). My electorate office is receiving complaints from members of the public who are being required to obtain a digital ID in order to, in one instance, get their own medical report as part of a job application. This was a real-world application, not an online application. Minister, what options are available to a person who is not offered an alternative method of identity verification, as the act requires? Where can people complain, and what penalties are imposed on an entity who fails to follow your legislation?  

Senator GALLAGHER: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. As you’d know, Senator Roberts, the digital ID legislation has not come into effect yet. It doesn’t come into effect until 1 December this year. Essentially, we’ve legislated the existing system, which was unregulated. That’s what we’ve done with that legislation.  

There is a requirement, in the legislation, to continue to provide alternative opportunities or ways for people to engage with government for their personal use. Of course, businesses already engaging with the tax office do use the myGovID system, but, for your personal use, the law is very clear that there must be alternative ways provided for the community to engage with government. That has been made very clear across government. 

I would say that, if you want to forward me that constituent’s issue, even if it’s de-identified, I’d be very happy to look at it, but we have been very clear that it is a voluntary system, it is a safe system and it is a secure system. It’s simply a means of verifying yourself in a way that gives you control of your own documentation. So, instead of having all your ID documents photocopied or emailed around the place, you are the one verifying your identity and you’re able to hold those documents to yourself. It’s actually a much safer way of engaging with government than paper based systems, and I am very hopeful that more people will take it up once the legislation and the regulator are in place. Of course, once that legislation is enacted, there will be a regulator. The ACCC will perform that role. So there would be the ability to make complaints and have those complaints investigated. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The entity responsible was the Queensland state government. Will you now instruct the Queensland Labor government to follow the legislation and ensure an alternative option is allowed or will you do so after the legislation is enacted? 

Senator GALLAGHER: The legislation does enable a national digital ID system, or ecosystem. There are private sector digital IDs and there are also state government versions. But what the legislation means is that those state governments can apply for accreditation through the national system, and we are hopeful that they will do that. In fact, in a meeting I had on Friday with states, they are all certainly indicating that they will be part of that national system. But, for a state based system which has its own processes for engaging on rates and other things, that is a matter for the Queensland government and would have to be taken up with the Queensland government. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, was the failure to include penalties for not providing alternative verification options a failure of this government or was the imposition of a mandatory digital ID the plan all along? 

Senator GALLAGHER: The legislation is very clear. It’s a voluntary system—that is, people, for their personal engagement with government, have the right to choose whether they use a digital ID or they use the more traditional way of engaging with government. In terms of penalties, the legislation does set up the ACCC as the regulator of the system. That would be the way that complaints and other issues would be assessed. So there is a system in place. I don’t have the legislation right in front of me, but we were very clear that putting the digital ID ecosystem in legislation is actually about ensuring that it is safe and that consumers’ needs are fundamental, are front and centre and are protected through a regulated system. At the moment, I have a digital ID, but it doesn’t exist under a regulated system. All that the legislation did was take a lot of what’s happening now outside of a regulated system and regulate it. 

 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to digital ID. 

The Digital ID Act was presented to the Senate and to the Australian public as a convenient way to establish identity and that it would not be compulsory. It has taken precisely two weeks to discover that’s a lie. Already federal and state government departments are demanding digital IDs be created for the most mundane tasks. A constituent of mine in Queensland who attended a health clinic to undergo a physical before starting a job with the Queensland government for which a medical was mandated was told he couldn’t have the results of his physical until he got a digital ID. This is a real-world transition. The clinic knew who he was because he had to prove his identity before starting the physical. The digital ID requirement came from the Queensland government. In this case, there’s no earthly reason for a digital ID except that the public service have taken it upon themselves to impose a digital ID on every person in the country. Without penalties, there will be no attempt to provide the alternative method of verification that the minister promised. 

COVID proved the power of using employment for the purposes of blackmail, and it’s a lesson the government has embraced. The digital ID website, digitalidentity.gov.au, rolled out the new webpages for the digital ID within days of the legislation passing. The public education campaign on TV and online started within just a few days. The regulations upon which so much of the bill relies are finished and on public display already. All the ducks were in a row to introduce a digital prison in Australia before the Senate even voted and well before the new law’s implementation date in December. No wonder the government did a dirty deal with elements of the crossbench, guillotined the debate—there was no debate—and delivered government the powers they crave. What a disgraceful display. What an abuse of the social contract between the government and its requirement to act in the best interests of the public. One Nation will repeal the digital ID and legislate privacy protections for all Australians. 

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

ASIC Grilled on Banking Code of Practice and Crypto Scandal

,

The Banking Code of Practice was originally designed to safeguard consumers from bad banking practices, however since the first code was issued, there has been a continual watering down of these protections, effectively rendering the code meaningless.

Currently, ASIC is conducting a review of the code. During the recent Senate Estimates, I inquired whether certain protections would be included, such as protections against de-banking, ensuring access to cash, and maintaining in-person banking services at branches.

Unfortunately, the responses provided were not encouraging. If this review fails to restore consumer protections to the Banking Code, One Nation will pursue a legislated response by way of a mandatory code.

Additionally, I inquired about ASIC’s handling of the recent crypto scandal, where Australian investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to ASIC failing to advise of the risks. This contrasts with the Mayfair scandal, where ASIC’s enforcement action actually caused the company and their investors to undergo a loss that would not have occurred without ASIC’s actions.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Last estimates I raised a series of concerns regarding the Banking Code of Practice, and Ms O’Rourke was very forthcoming in her answers; thank you for that. At one point, Ms O’Rourke, you said you would update me if there was any progress on the negotiation for the new banking code. Could you provide an update now, please, in respect of these four matters. Is ‘prudent and diligent banker’ still in there? It’s a meaningless phrase.  

Ms O’Rourke: Yes, we had that discussion at the last hearing, about the code of practice. I’m happy to update in relation to the discussions we’ve been having. To step back a moment—  

Senator ROBERTS: On those specific four points: is ‘prudent and diligent banker’ still in there?  

Ms O’Rourke: I think, prior to that particular question, you said, ‘What’s the state of play?’ The state of play is that there’s not yet a final code that has been finalised by the ABA to put to us for approval. The answer is that it’s not yet determined whether or not that phrase ‘prudent and diligent’ will or will not be in the final code. Can I give a little bit more detail?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Ms O’Rourke: It is in the existing code. In the draft code published by the ABA last year, in relation to which we’ve had a consultation process, there was a proposal to narrow the application of ‘prudent and diligent’ to very specific circumstances and for other circumstances to rely on other legal provisions. That has been something through the consultation process we have had submissions in relation to, and it is something we have been speaking to the ABA about. The ABA is still considering its position, and there isn’t a final outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a guarantee of face-to-face banking services?  

Ms O’Rourke: That is not in either the existing code or the proposed code from the ABA. Like I say, there is no final position in relation to what the final code will look like but that’s one that’s not been proposed, nor was it particularly raised in the submissions we received.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is not a comment aimed at you, Ms O’Rourke, but we’re not interested so much in whether or not something was in there or will be in there; we’re interested in—purely, that’s something we believe is necessary. Is there a guarantee of access to the King’s currency of cash?  

Ms O’Rourke: The current code does not have that, nor does the proposed code. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a guarantee not to debank a customer for competitive or social reasons like, ‘We don’t agree with your politics’?  

Ms O’Rourke: That’s not in the current code nor is it proposed to be in the revised code.  

Senator ROBERTS: I believe you took on notice the debanking issue, but the response only answered ‘other matters’. Has ASIC considered the debanking issue? It’s a device by which the banks harm the business of their competitors and manipulate the markets to their financial advantage—as they have, for example, with cash in transit. This says misuse of market power to me. Has ASIC considered the debanking issue?  

Ms O’Rourke: ASIC has been part of discussions around the cash-in-transit issue you referred to. I’m not sure whether you’ve had an opportunity to speak to other agencies, including the RBA, Treasury or others involved on the government side, or, indeed, if you’ve had opportunities to speak to the ABA or others. We’re more interested observers than participants in relation to cash in transit. We don’t have any regulatory hooks or provisions that particularly go to the provision of cash or its transportation.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about debanking?  

Ms O’Rourke: Similarly, there is no requirement to bank or to take steps in relation to debanking in relation to which we could take action.  

Senator ROBERTS: On the crypto scam: Senator Hume asked some very fine questions today. Your testimony was that you were aware of this scam for quite some time, yet the scam companies Infinity CapitalG, Topmarketcap, Iron Bits and Richmondsuper were added to the scam list just yesterday. Why did it take so long to get those companies onto the scam list?  

Ms Court: As I said in my answers to Senator Hume, when that information came in to us it was for the purposes of a continuing criminal investigation at that time. At that time, in August 2023, we didn’t have up and running the investor alert list we have now; that commenced in November 2023. We hadn’t received any reports of misconduct or any indication that any of those entities referred to in the article—that consumers were continuing to invest or lose money as a result of investments in those entities. However, following the media reporting, we went back and had a look at those entities, and I think we took a decision that we would put four out of the five—even though we had no information about continuing losses to investors—on the investor alert list, for completeness.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. On Mayfair 101: ASIC went after a company that appears to have been trading *legally. Mayfair 101 were up-to-date with repayments to lenders and, as demonstrated over the last three years, had financial resources as they fought your action. ASIC considered Mayfair’s advertising misrepresented their investment product and took immediate action to freeze the company’s asset. By doing that, ASIC almost cost 500 Australian investors $200 million but the company has survived. ASIC’s actions have, however, caused a lot of damage to investors and the company for no good reason we can see. One Nation, I must mention, as I previously stated, is one of those investors. This matter has been dragging on for three years and now ASIC is going for another round. What’s the state of play now?  

Ms Court: I gave quite a long answer to Senator Bragg earlier, when you weren’t in the room, about the status of Mayfair—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay; we’ll leave it. I want to get on. Thank you for that. Your actions were ostensibly to protect investors, yet the investors in Mayfair have not had access to their funds or a return on their investment since you started your action, despite the entity they invested in still being viable. Why are you hurting the people you profess to protect?  

Ms Court: As I said in my response to Senator Bragg earlier, ASIC acted quickly in relation to the Mayfair matters for the purposes of protecting future investors. The matter’s been before the court, and Mayfair has been found to have engaged in misleading conduct. The court has imposed a $30 million penalty on Mayfair, which I understand remains unpaid. There are still several matters currently before the courts, and the courts are testing ASIC’s claims and the defences to those claims. That is an appropriate place for them to be determined now. 

/1 Comment/by

Government Miscalculates Governor General’s Salary

,

This Government is spending money recklessly, treating it as if it were mere monopoly money. This is partly because of their reliance on career bureaucrats for advice, individuals who have enjoyed very high incomes within the Canberra bubble for so long that money has lost its value to them.

They are probably surprised by the public’s outraged reaction to their decision to raise the Governor General’s salary from $495,000 to $719,000.

Such a large salary increase in the middle of a cost of living crisis showed a severe lack of awareness. Canberra bureaucrats aren’t experiencing the cost of living pain felt by the broader population, as they are insulated by their excessively hire salaries.

Rather than meeting the public outcry with a mea culpa and reducing the salary, Minister Gallagher huffed and puffed. She failed to grasp simple maths (an increase from $495,000 to $719,000 is a 43.2% rise), conflagrated the situation by raising the previous Governor General’s military pension and then accused me of misleading Parliament.

In truth, the Government and their bureaucrats were just looking after a mate and got called out for it.

Transcript

The Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is yet another display of poor judgement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To increase the salary of the Governor-General by 43 per cent in a cost-of-living crisis is an insult to everyday Australians who are struggling with the Albanese government’s cost-of-living crisis. 

The salary of the Governor-General is fixed for the period of her term, so the rise by $214,000 dollars to a new salary of $709,000 is the only increase in the next five years. A 43 per cent pay rise suggests that the government knows inflation is going to get much worse. Not only will Ms Mostyn be earning $709,000 but the role also includes two homes: Government House in Yarralumla and Admiralty House in Kirribilli, right on Sydney Harbour. The role includes free travel, free food, servants and a pool. The Governor-General receives a pension which is legislated at 60 per cent of salary or $425,000 for life—not a bad pension. 

The appointment of Ms Mostyn is a controversial choice. The tradition for 124 years has been to select our Governor-General from the ranks of the judiciary, the military, state governors and senior politicians. This reflects the skill set a governor-general needs to lead the Australian people in a time of civil crisis or war. The Governor-General is, of course, commander of Australia’s armed forces; the Prime Minister is not the commander of Australia’s armed forces. Ms Mostyn comes to the role with a background in activism. It’s an appointment which may serve to politicise the role of the Governor-General, and that’s sad to see. 

The Commonwealth of Australia deserves more respect than the Prime Minister has shown with this appointment and with this obscene pay rise. One Nation opposes this bill. 

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, if a salary rises from $495,000 to $719,000, what percentage increase is that? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure under which part of the portfolio this comes, but I think it relates to the Governor-General’s salary and the bill that this Senate passed this morning. The point I was making there was that it is misleading to suggest that a salary is increasing from the figure that you have used, Senator Roberts, to that high figure, because what it does not take into account is the other income streams that were available to former Governors-General. So this is an adjustment, yes, but it’s an adjustment being made because the incoming Governor-General does not have a military pension that will supplement the income stream and because the Governor-General’s salary has been traditionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 

I think the point you were making this morning in debate and the point that Senator Waters, surprisingly, was making in debate was this was some significant pay increase in the order of 43 per cent, when that is not correct. Former Governors-Generals have had two income streams, particularly if they’ve been in receipt of a pension. This legislation we passed today was to ensure that a commensurate salary be provided for an incoming Governor-General who only has one income stream. So it is not accurate to say that a position has had an increase of that order. It is simply not correct. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and it’s seeking a popular headline, which I agree is easy to get if people don’t understand the detail that underpins that decision. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The answer is 43.2 per cent. Governor-General Jeffery’s salary was $365,000. Quentin Bryce, Labor’s last appointment, was paid $394,000, $20,000 less than the then salary of the High Court Chief Justice. General Cosgrove was paid $425,000, and then General Hurley was paid $495,000. Minister, how much was outgoing Governor-General Hurley’s salary reduced for his military pension? 

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have those figures at hand, but I do understand that the salary that has been agreed to and passed by this chamber this morning and by the House earlier in the week is in line with the salary that the current Governor-General has been earning with the income streams available to him. It might be slightly adjusted for the fact that it lasts over five years, because, once the Governor-General commences in the role, no further adjustments can be made to salary. But it is in line with what His Excellency Governor-General Hurley is earning at this point in time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The incoming Governor-General’s salary is now $70,000 above the High Court Chief Justice’s salary. The Chief Justice gets, as you said, periodic increases to adjust for inflation. The Governor-General does not. Noting that today’s inflation announcement shows inflation increasing again, this huge pay rise seems designed to compensate Sam Mostyn for inflation and has nothing to do with military pensions. Minister, earlier today, did you mislead the Senate to cover up the real reason for this huge pay increase, surging inflation? 

Senator Gallagher: I can assure Senator Roberts that, no, I did not mislead the parliament and I have been clear—indeed, I was clear in the last answer that I gave—that there is some adjustment for future increases based on the fact that the Chief Justice has a salary determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Governor-General’s salary cannot be increased by that, so there is work done, based on some analysis about what that should appropriately be. But, no, it’s not based on today’s inflation forecast, and it’s incorrect to continue to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that His Excellency currently is in receipt of a military pension in addition to the salary that he draws as Governor-General. The simple reality is that the legislation that passed this chamber addresses the fact that there is one income stream, and this allows them to be paid in accordance with what’s currently being paid. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding the incoming Governor-General’s salary. 

Since 1974 the parliament has approved the salary for each incoming Governor-General. The salary level has conventionally been commensurate with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The last time a Governor-General was paid less than the Chief Justice was in 2008, when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Quentin Bryce with a salary $20,000 less than that of the Chief Justice. Precedent does call for consideration to be ‘given to any pension received by the incumbent for previous employment’—for the incumbent, not for the person coming after the incumbent. 

The annual salary during Michael Jeffery’s term was $365,000. Quentin Bryce’s salary was $394,000. General Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000, which included a small reduction because of his military pension. General Hurley was paid $495,000. General Hurley is in receipt of a military pension as a result of his lifetime of military service. Sam Mostyn is not entitled to a military pension for her lifetime of service to the culture wars. The huge increase offered to Sam Mostyn takes her salary to $70,000 above that of the High Court Chief Justice, despite Labor themselves setting a precedent that less can be paid in hard times, such as in 2008, during the global financial crisis. 

In 2024 we have the crisis of the Albanese government’s runaway inflation. The inflation rate has increased again to four per cent, announced a few moments ago. This persistent high inflation gives a hint as to why the incoming Governor-General got such a large wage rise. The government knows what bad economic news is coming for everyday Australians in the next five years and sought to insulate its appointment from that ruinous inflation. This Labor government simply doesn’t know the value of money and is clearly confused when the public call the government out for it. Sam Mostyn has got a huge increase in salary. Her pension is now hugely increased, and she will have that pension for every day of every year of her life. 

Question agreed to. 

/2 Comments/by

Supporting Our Heroes: A Long Chat with Dylan Conway and Michael Lorrigan

, ,

It was a pleasure to have a long chat with two fantastic veterans – Dylan Conway from the charity, Brothers and Books and Michael Lorrigan of Two 14 Coffee Company – to talk all things Defence and Veterans.

Brothers and Books does fantastic work supporting reading therapy for first responders, with companies like Two 14 Coffee backing them up.

You won’t want to miss the incredible story of what these gentlemen are doing for the Australian community.

/by

Welcome Home Julian Assange

Australian Citizen Julian Assange was persecuted and imprisoned for 14 years because he told the truth.

Decades on from him unveiling embarrassing information about the government, no one has been able to prove who was apparently ‘put in danger’ by what Wikileaks released.

The truth is, we should know everything about what the Government is up to. With surveillance like the Digital ID Bill coming into effect, the Government wants it the other way around. They want to know everything about you while you know nothing about what the Government is doing.

Whistleblowers rarely come with perfect personalities, but knowing what the government is up to with your money is vital. Welcome home Julian, your return was long overdue.

/2 Comments/by