Digital ID will be voluntary the way Covid vaccines were voluntary
In the latest edition of Politician Does Doublespeak, Finance Minister Senator Katy Gallagher says that Australia’s Covid vaccination policy is voluntary and that infringements on human rights were justified because of the government’s good intentions, even if they were completely wrong.
It is very important to understand what the word ‘voluntary’ means to Senator Gallagher, as she is currently working to legislate Digital ID, which she maintains will also be ‘voluntary.’
Senator Gallagher, in her capacity representing the Prime Minister, said in response to last week’s Queensland Supreme Court ruling that Covid vaccine mandates for emergency workers were ‘unlawful’,
“The Government’s position on Covid-19 vaccinations is that it is voluntary, as are all vaccinations in Australia, although we do encourage and aim to vaccinate as many people as possible.”
Under Australia’s No Jab, No Pay policy, family assistance payments are withheld from parents of children who are not vaccinated according to the National Immunisation Program schedule. Vaccination objection is not a valid exemption.
Additionally, in most states and territories, unvaccinated children cannot attend early education or care services.
‘Voluntary.’
And of course, under Covid vaccine mandates, unvaccinated Australians couldn’t work, couldn’t travel, couldn’t visit grandparents in aged care, couldn’t go to a gym, couldn’t sit in a restaurant, couldn’t attend their school ball.
‘Voluntary.’
Though most Covid vaccine mandates have now lapsed, there are still industries and workplaces requiring proof of vaccination.
“In times of emergency, a pandemic, a one in a hundred year pandemic, decisions that State Governments and the Commonwealth Government took were difficult, and they balanced up, as is always the case with human rights, they balanced up a range of factors when making those decisions.”
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that the Queensland Police Service Covid vaccine mandates were ‘unlawful’ because the Commissioner didn’t balance up human rights against other factors. Senator Gallagher is not one to get bogged down by facts, however,
“You know, that is always the case. Human rights are not absolute. They are seen in balance, and I think Governments did what they believed was in the best interests of their communities of protecting Australia, whether it was the border closures, whether it was the vaccines, whether it was closing schools, whether it was having lockdowns.
“I think with the benefit of hindsight, people will always argue whether those decisions were right, but I think those decisions were made in the interests of the community.”
What Senator Gallagher is saying is, if there is an emergency, governments can ride roughshod over human rights, and as long as they say it’s for the good of the people, it doesn’t matter if the results are beneficial or catastrophic.
It is helpful to know that this is how Senator Gallagher views things, because she is heading up the push to legislate a national Digital ID program, which she says will be ‘voluntary.’
One can only imagine what cyber emergencies are around the corner to justify a ‘voluntary’ Digital ID program in which you will not be able to work, travel or socialise without ‘voluntarily’ opting in.
Not that an emergency is required. The Australian State, Territory and Federal Governments already see fit to withhold benefits and access to services to drive “voluntary” uptake of vaccination.
I asked my friend Nathan at Milkbar TV (on X) to make this mash-up of the double speak on vaccination policy, and the parallel rhetoric around Digital ID. He nailed it 🎯 (Watch on X here)
Watch Senator Gallagher’s full response to Senator Malcolm Roberts’s questions on the Supreme Court ruling, human rights, and the Government’s pandemic response here.
If you’re interested in learning more about the “voluntary” Digital ID that the Federal Government wants to legislate, some links here:
Read the Government’s Digital ID bill here.
Read the Finance Department’s rationale behind the Digital ID bill here.
Senator Alex Antic, who views the Digital ID bill as a “power grab”, has a petition that has amassed over 122,000 signatures. You can view it here.
Former politician and conservative activist George Christensen says the Digital ID bill threatens citizens’ privacy. View his petition against the bill here, which has gathered over 25,000 signatures.
To support my work, make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account and/or subscribe. Thanks!
Thanks Rebekah, great summary and untanglement of doublespeak, which is indeed all theatre- bread and circus's was the Roman way to control the masses apparently- maybe it's bugs and boring TV today? Doesn't work for me though.
I'm going back to grow some vegies, they know how to grow and live honestly - non-GMO of course.
I remember discussing with a friend a few years ago, he said the government should refund the taxes when we don't get the subsidy or social funding because we object to a jab. object and get money back ;) what could go wrong? :)
this is a good post by Cameron - I like his logic. pay the family or the mother and let her decide. decentralize. don't pay the childcare companies :)
https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/the-macroeconomics-of-childcare-policy