Page 1654 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do have concerns, as many people do, about the potential for such a system being used as a very thick part of the wedge in forming an ID system. Once it has been happening and nobody has complained about it, and, as I said, it is useful for this and this, we find that the government has already accumulated information on all the citizens. It can then access it readily and cross-reference everything. It can know more about us than we remember ourselves. Mr Kaine mentioned that there are many people who would find it useful. Many people do not have a licence. Since a law was passed in this Assembly to cancel people's licences, there are hundreds and hundreds who do not have a licence now. Their licences have been cancelled and not renewed, although many of them still drive.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (12.24): Madam Speaker, there was much kerfuffle from Mr Moore about backflips and I think I need to set the record straight. Our position on a proof of age card, the pubcard, has been consistent throughout. We have said, and the published platform of the Labor Party says, that so long as there is opposition from the youth sector we will not force through the proof of age card. There was quite organised opposition to this. We had set up a principal youth advisory body. You berate us for not being consultative. One of our hallmarks, we say, is being a consultative government. We have set up a whole series of mechanisms to consult with relevant sectors. You berate us from time to time for not listening, and then, when we listen, you berate us for listening.
We did not see a pubcard as a panacea, as have some of the more enthusiastic Liberals from time to time. If a pubcard solved the problem of under-age drinking there would be no under-age drinking in Sydney, and, patently, that is not the case. We always had reservations that it was not a panacea and it could be useful, but only if it were embraced warmly by the youth sector. We had a consultative mechanism and there was consistent opposition. The Liberals should not be surprised at the opposition because it was exactly the sort of opposition that, several years ago, they were whipping up around Australia over the issue of an Australia Card.
Mr Stevenson's remarks were very valid. There is a real nervousness in the community that once you introduce these forms of identification it will go further and further and will become compulsory. Mr Kaine may have been overgenerous to his colleagues in saying that nobody would ever want to make this compulsory because, without anticipating further business, Mr Humphries has indicated in a matter on the notice paper that he would like the police to have power to demand photographic identity from any citizen in a whole range of circumstances falling well short of arrest.
Mr Humphries: When a crime has been committed.
MR CONNOLLY: Or where witnesses could assist them in connection with a crime. It is a slippery slope. It is very easy on these issues of civil liberties to go down the path. Pragmatic reasons will often dictate that we snip away at these issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .