Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/20: ID cards: should Australia introduce a national identity card?
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
Australia
identity
card
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
What they said ...
'I just think if we're going to deal with international terrorism ... frankly we've got to have an ID system that actually works'
Peter Beattie, Queensland premier
'A plastic card in someone's pocket would not prevent an attack in Australia'
Nationals Senator, Barnaby Jones
The issue at a glance
On July 15 (eight days after the terrorist suicide bombings in London which resulted in the death of 56 people) the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, announced that Australia should consider introducing a national ID card.
The Prime Minister stated, 'We shouldn't see an ID card as being the solution to the problem ... But I do think the world is different from what it was in the late 1980s when that issue was last debated in Australia ... The world is very, very different since then and maybe this is one of the things that is needed to be added to our armoury - maybe.'
Two days later, in a radio interview, the Queensland Premier, Mr Peter Beattie stated, 'Well, of course that's up to all our Federal parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House. But ... I think the world has changed since the Australia Card debate took place in the Hawke days. We've had international terrorism, September 11 changed the world frankly. In addition to that I think technology has changed. For example, people are used to using EFTPOS, ID is required to get any form of passport, you've got to prove it to open a bank card or get a bank account opened. I just think if we're going to deal with international terrorism ... frankly we've got to have an ID system that actually works. In addition to that it will have other benefits as well.'
Despite this, a range of parliamentarians of all political persuasions together with civil liberties groups have questioned whether an ID card will have any impact on terrorism or a variety of other ills it has been suggested it would remedy. Those opposed to ID cards argue that the disadvantages of the card far outweigh its supposed benefits.
Background
(Much of the information included in the Background note below comes from Privacy International's - Identity Cards - Frequently Asked Questions. This can be found at http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html#1)
Identity (ID) cards are in use, in one form or another in numerous countries around the world. The type of card, its function, and its integrity vary enormously. Around a hundred countries have official, compulsory, national IDs that are used for a variety of purposes. Many developed countries, however, do not have such a card. Amongst these are the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, the Nordic countries and Sweden. Those that do have such a card include Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain.
The use of sectoral (specific purpose) cards for health or social security is widespread, and most countries that do not have a national universal card, have a health or social security card (in Australia, the Medicare Card, in the United States, the Social Security number), or traditional paper documents of identity. The reverse is also true. In Sweden, while there exists a ubiquitous national number, there is no single official identity card.
Generally speaking, particularly in advanced societies, the key element of the card is its number. The number is used as an administrative mechanism for a variety of purposes. In many countries the number is used as a general reference to link the card holders activities in many areas.
In many countries, identification documents are being replaced by plastic cards, which are seen as more durable and harder to forge. Card technology companies are well organized to conduct effective promotion of their product, and companies have moved into the remotest regions of the world. Many Asian and African nations are replacing old documents with magnetic stripe or bar coded cards. The South African Passbook is being replaced by a card. The UK drivers license is also being replaced by a photo ID card from 1996. The change from one form of ID to another is invariably accompanied by a change to the nature and content of data on the document.
In Britain a national ID card for adults was introduced in 1915 under wartime legislation, dropped in 1922, reintroduced in 1939 under the National Registration Act and dropped in 1952 after Lord Chief Justice Goddard ruled in 1951 that police demands for individuals to show their ID cards were unlawful because not relevant to the defence purposes for which the card was established.
In December 2003 the UK Home Office announced moves towards introduction of a new compulsory national ID card, with prototype cards featuring biometric data (including fingerprint, iris and facial recognition information) and other personal details.
In the United Kingdom, current proposals for a national ID card have been prompted by the need to develop a document which is acceptable to other European countries, as well as a belief that the scheme might help fight crime and possibly terrorism.
In Australia, the purpose of the Australia Card proposed in 1986 was to fight tax evasion, and, in New Zealand, to establish Social Welfare entitlement.
In recent years, ID cards have been linked to national registration systems, which in turn form the basis of government administration. In such systems - for example Spain, Portugal, Thailand and Singapore - the ID card becomes merely one visible component of a much larger system. With the advent of magnetic stripes and microprocessor technology, these cards can also allow cardholders to access government services.
The majority of cards in use in developed nations have the holder's name, sex, date of birth, and issuing coordinates printed on the card itself. An expiry date, and number is also embossed, along with a space for a signature. A minority of sectoral cards include a photograph. Official cards issued by police or Interior Ministries generally do include a photograph, and in many cases, a fingerprint.
Internet information
Wikipedia, a free on line encyclopedia has a detailed entry explaining the operation and uses of ID cards. It includes a set of arguments for and against the introduction of the card. The entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID_card
Privacy.gov.au is the homepage of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. In October 2002 the Privacy Commissioner published the text of a speech titled, 'Under the Gaze, Privacy identity and new technology'. The speech examined the impact on the privacy of Australian citizens of a range of technological developments including ID cards. The article can be found at http://www.privacy.gov.au/news/speeches/sp104notes.pdf
The Australian Privacy Foundation is a lobby group opposed to the introduction of an Australian identity card. Its homepage includes a summary of arguments for and against ID cards and the views of a range of prominent Australian politicians on the question. Despite the appearance of balance the site obviously opposes the cards.
It can be found at http://www.privacy.org.au/Campaigns/ID_cards/NatIDScheme.html
Privacy.Org is the site for daily news, information, and initiatives on privacy. The web page is a joint project of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) and Privacy International. EPIC is a public interest research centre in Washington, D.C.
Privacy International is a human rights group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance by governments and corporations. PI is based in London.
Privacy. Org has produced a summary page outlining developments world wide re ID cards and supplying links to a variety of other sites, generally opposed to the introduction of ID cards.
The page can be found at http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/
In 1996 Privacy International published a series of answers to frequently asked questions about ID cards. The information is intended to oppose the introduction of ID cards. It can be found at http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html
In an opinion piece published on July 21, 2005, in On Line Opinion Nick Ferrett published an article examining the move toward introducing an ID card in Great Britain. Mr Ferrett is essentially opposed to the proposal.
His views can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3699
In an opinion piece published on July 22 2005, in On Line Opinion Greg Barns argued that that an ID card would only not limit Australian's civil liberties if it were accompanied by a Bill of Rights.
His views can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3697
The Smart Card Alliance is a not-for profit, multi-industry association working to accelerate the widespread acceptance of multiple application smart card technology.
The Alliance has published an executive summary of the paper it produced in 2003 to describe how smart card technology can help to protect privacy and ensure security in an ID system.
The summary can be found at http://www.smartcardalliance.org/alliance_activities/privacy_report.cfm
On July 6, 2003, the British Sunday Times On Line published an editorial titled, 'Please identify yourself'. The editorial argues in favour of introducing an ID card in Britain.
The editorial can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-736224,00.html
The text of the British Identity Card Bill, currently before the British Parliament can be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/049/06049.i-ii.html
The Bill details security provisions and the terms under which it is intended the information in the database associated with the card can be accessed.
A British Home Office media release presenting arguments in support of an ID card was released on July 31 2005. The release is titled, 'STRENGTHENING SECURITY, PROTECTING IDENTITY: HOME OFFICE PUBLISHES IDENTITY CARDS BILL'
It can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1168
On January 14 2002 the US news magazine Time On Line published an opinion piece espousing the introduction of ID cards in the United States. The article can be found at http://www.time.com/time/columnist/carlson/article/0,9565,193705,00.html
Arguments in favour of the introduction of ID cards
1. A national ID card would aid in the combating of terrorism
It has been claimed that a national identity card would help in the combating of terrorism. For example, it has been suggested it could help in the monitoring of commercial transactions and thus limit the capacity of terrorists to buy bomb making materials without detection. It has also been suggested that it would help in monitoring the movements of suspected terrorists, especially when they were using public transport or moving from one country to another. The card would also be a way of centrally collating a large amount of information to enable authorities to look for suspicious patterns.
Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, has stated, 'I think the world has changed since the Australia Card debate took place in the Hawke days. We've had international terrorism, September 11 changed the world frankly ... I just think if we're going to deal with international terrorism ... frankly we've got to have an ID system that actually works.'
2. A national ID card would protect Australian citizens from deportation or detention
It has been claimed that there are numerous occasions on which it would be useful to Australian citizens to be able conclusively to establish their identity.
Errors by the Department of Immigration can result in Australian citizens or legal residents being mistakenly incarcerated or sent out of the country. The recent cases of Cornelia Rau, who was wrongly held in detention as an illegal immigrant, and Vivian Alvarez, who was wrongly deported to the Philippines, also as an illegal immigrant, demonstrate that Australian citizens need a simple, fool-proof means of establishing their identity.
This point has recently been made by the Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, who has argued, 'We've had the problems with Cornelia Rau and the Alvarez case ... one of the [things] we need in this country is a national missing persons system ... Now a national ID system will have benefits in that.'
3. The security of the cards' data can be protected
It has been claimed that administrative and legislative measures can be put in place to protect the security of the cards data. This means that only authorised personnel would be able to access the data contained on the card and they would only to able to do so for approved purposes. Any unauthorised access of information would attractive significant penalties.
California has recently enacted two pieces of legislation to protect the security of electronic information. The first, Senate Bill No. 1386 ('SB 1386'), requires any company that stores customer data electronically to notify its California customers of a security breach to the company's computer system if the company knows or reasonably believes that unencrypted information about the customer has been stolen. The second, Senate Bill No. 1 ('SB 1'), commonly known as the California Financial Information Privacy Act, creates new limits on the ability of financial institutions to share non-public personal information about their clients with affiliates and third parties.
Smart Card Alliance, a non-profit, multi-industry association working to accelerate the widespread acceptance of multiple application smart card technology, has argued that technological advances in ID cards will protect private information from being improperly accessed. 'Both privacy and security must be considered fundamental design goals for any personal ID system and must be factored into the specification of the ID system's policies, processes, architectures, and technologies. The use of smart cards strengthens the ability of the system to protect individual privacy and secure personal information.
Unlike other identification technologies, smart cards can provide authenticated and authorized information access, implementing a personal firewall for the individual and releasing only the information required when the card is presented.'
4. Australians are now used to electronic transactions and to having to establish their identity for a variety of purposes
It has been claimed that Australians are now much more used to carrying plastic identification. Thus, it is argued, there would not be the same opposition today as there was in the 1980s when an Australia Card was proposed.
In addition to driver's licences and Medicare cards, people are now very used to 'intelligent' cards carrying encrypted data, such as EFTPOS and credit cards, which assist them in the management of their money.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has stated, 'This is where the world is going. With the development of technology, access to the Net, people buying goods over the Net, all those sorts of things, that is where we are going. We either face up to the reality of this and we use a national ID card system as part of the smart card system ... or we just delude ourselves.'
5. An ID card would simplify many administrative processes
It has been claimed that many of the tasks that people routinely perform, such as opening a bank account or getting a library card require multiple forms of identification. It has been argued that such transactions would be more easily performed if people had a single form of identification that could be used.
Greg Barns, a former senior advisor to the Howard government and current member of the Democrats, has argued, 'There are some compelling arguments in favour of a national ID card system in Australia. At a very practical level, it would end, for example, the inefficient absurdity of Australians having to comply with the "ten point" test to open a bank account. The test where you need your passport, drivers licence, and a power or telephone bill that verifies your address. And it would reduce the inconvenience, particularly to elderly and ill Australians, of having to search for both their Medicare and pensioner concession card when they go to the doctor.'
The same point has been made by Age commentator, Michelle Grattan, who has written, 'There would be practical advantages: people are increasingly asked to produce photo ID, and transactions are often unnecessarily complicated'.
In a letter published in The Age on July 17, 2005, David Tidy noted a number of other administrative efficiencies that ID cards could lead to. 'Names could be automatically added to the electoral role once voting age is reached. An update of address could change databases in all government agencies such as VicRoads, Medicare, the ATO and Centrelink. Identity fraud would be significantly cut, as you would need the Australia Card to register for Centrelink benefits or lodge a tax return. Population and socio-demographics could be recorded accurately, allowing better allocation of public services.'
6. ID cards can be forgery-proofed
It has been claimed that a range of measures can be introduced to ensure that ID cards are valid and cannot be forged. Chief among these are what are called biometric markers, these include the incorporation of thumb prints, iris scans or facial dimensions. Already the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is moving towards a new generation of passport (including potential incorporation of microchips that feature facial biometrics).
The UK Home Office Briefing Paper justifying the introduction of ID cards in Britain stated 'An ID card is more than just issuing pieces of plastic. It is about recording on a central database basic personal information such as name, address and date of birth securely. This data is then linked to biometric information - such as facial image, finger prints and iris patterns - which is unique to that individual ... the security which the scheme offers in protecting a person's identity from theft and preventing criminals from creating multiple identities rests ... on the database and its use of biometric technology ...'
The security crux of such a scheme is claimed to be the use of biometric marks that are unique to each cardholder and the fact that a card is only issued in person to the individual whose biometric markers it carries. This is intended to ensure that no one will be able to claim and use an ID card which is not their own.
7. People who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear from an ID card
It has been repeatedly claimed that for those who have nothing to hide, an ID card should provoke no concerns. In an editorial published in The Sunday Times On-line on July 6, 2003, it was claimed, 'The law-abiding have nothing to fear from ID cards. The criminal, the terrorist or the illegal worker does.'
Michelle Grattan, a commentator for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald has stated, 'These days, when commercial organisations routinely use extensive databases about individuals, it is hard to see why honest people have anything to fear from an ID card properly set up.'
Arguments against the introduction of ID cards
1. An ID card would not protect Australia against acts of terrorism
It has been repeatedly maintained that an ID card system would do little to protect against terrorism. For example, in the case of the recent London bombings, the suicide bombers were all British citizens who had not engaged in obvious illegal activities in the lead up to the bombings. It is therefore claimed that an ID card is unlikely to have led to any of the men being apprehended before the bombs were detonated.
In a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald on July 18 2005 Ian Alexander noted, 'ID cards to fight suicide bombers: what a brilliant idea!
First, you spend absurd amounts of money making ID cards for everyone, then you spend even more to make sure that people swipe their card every time they get on or off a bus or train. Next, after a bombing takes place, you find the black box that contains all the ID card information and, by a complex process of elimination, determine which of the dead people was the terrorist.
You are then in a very strong position to make sure that they don't do it again.'
Similarly, Simon Palomares wrote in a letter to the editor published in The Age on July 19, 2005, 'A national identification card to stop terrorism? Spaniards have had one for more than 40 years. It was introduced by the Franco dictatorship. Sadly, in the Madrid bombing, it was used to identify the victims.'
It is further suggested that ID cards could actually assist terrorists. The Australian privacy Foundation in its outline of the case against an ID card has noted, 'A centralised system has weaknesses more easily exploited by people intent on terrorism ... It means only one database needs to be hacked into, or only one official needs to be bribed, to create a new "fake identity", or steal someone else's "real identity".'
2. An ID card would not prevent errors being made by the Department of Immigration
It has been claimed that both Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez both carried sufficient identification to be recognised for who they were. It has therefore further been suggested that the failure to recognise their Australian citizen or permanent resident status rests with the Department of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Indigenous Affairs.
The National Party's Senator Barnaby Joyce has stated that he is 'very largely unconvinced as to whether a piece of plastic in your pocket is capable of stopping ... immigration bungles such as the Cornelia Rau or Vivian [Solon] Alvarez incidents'.
Senator Jones then went on to claim, 'Cornelia Rau would have had a tax file number. She would have had a Medicare number. [Any identity checks] slipped through the system regardless.'
It has also been noted that ID cards would not be useful if for some reason the person suspected of being an illegal immigrant carried no identification. Ms Alvarez was taken to hospital after either a hit and run incident or an assault. She was not carrying her Medicare card at the time.
Her lawyer has noted, 'I don't think a national ID card is going to solve this sort of problem, particularly in the case of Vivian Solon (Alvarez) because she had no identification.'
What remains concerning in this case is that though Ms Alvarez carried no identification she claimed to be an Australian citizen and gave Department officials enough information to verify her claim.
Therefore, in both cases, the failure to recognise the status of these women resulted from administrative incompetence rather than a lack of ID.
3. The range of information on the ID card is likely to expand and that confidential personal information could be used against card holders
It has been argued that an ID card is likely to undergo 'function creep'. This means that the number of transactions for which the card is used and the range of data that can be accessed through it will increase.
Richard Thomas, the independent Information Commissioner, has warned of the temptation for governments to add powers to the card once it is established. Britons, he has said, are 'sleepwalking into a surveillance society'.
It has been suggested that ID cards may soon contain health information, purchasing records, employment records and other details that could be used against card holders.
In an article published in The Age on July 23, 2005, James Button noted, 'What most worries critics is not the card but the National Identity Register that goes with it. They say that once people use the card to access public services, as the Government intends, the data trail on the register will be huge. People's employment records or use of health services could be scrutinised without their knowledge or consent.'
Critics are concerned that access to sensitive personal information could limit people's employment opportunities or see them denied insurance.
4. The information given by an ID card could be exploited for commercial purposes
There is concern that the data able to be accessed through the ID card database could be used for commercial purposes, without the permission of the cardholder. Information about people's spending habits, modes of travel, number of children, annual salary, holiday destinations, car usage etcetera could be made available to or fraudulently acquired by commercial interests. These businesses could then target the cardholder and attempt to sell him/her products matched to spending preferences and income range. Already commercial exploitation of private databases has become a problem on the Internet.
The British Colombia Civil Liberties Association has stated, 'Twinned with our concern about the uses to which government would put the card is an equally pressing question about possible commercial abuses of the technology. The enhanced identification of consumers, and the building and sharing of information that might develop from a single centralized system, would be an invitation to private sector exploitation and abuse.'
5. An ID card system would be expensive to establish and maintain
It has been suggested that the cost of an Australian ID would be prohibitive and that if terrorism is a concern then Government money would be better spent on more cost-effective measures.
In Australia, the cost of the ID card proposed in 1986 failed to take into account such factors as training costs, administrative supervision, staff turnover, holiday and sick leave, compliance costs, and overseas issue of cards.. Other costs that are seldom factored into the final figure (as was the case in Australia, are the cost of fraud, an underestimate of the cost of issuing and maintaining cards, and the cost to the private sector.) As a consequence, the official figure for the Australia card almost doubled between 1986 and 1987.
Private sector costs for complying with an ID card are very high. The Australian Bankers Association estimated that the system would cost their members over one hundred million dollars over ten years. Total private sector compliance costs were estimated at around one billion dollars annually.
The official figure for the Australia card was $820 million over seven years. The revised estimate including private sector and compliance costs, together with other factors, would have amounted to several times this figure. By 2005 the probable cost of such a system would be many, many times what was calculated in 1986.
It is likely that the large cost of such a card would result in citizens having to pay a fee when they received their card. Nick Ferris in an article published on July 21, 2005, on Opinion On-line noted, 'The new identity card about to be introduced in Britain will be heavily subsidised by the government. Even with that subsidy, citizens will have to pay more than $A200 on the British Government's own figures. Some estimates put it at higher than $A400 - more than the weekly unemployment benefit for a single Australian. That would be payable every time you wanted to obtain one.'
6. ID cards can be forged
It has been claimed that despite all the technologically advanced forgery protections that may be installed on the card, it is still likely to be able to be copied.
The Australian Federal Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, has raised concerns about ID cards being forged. 'If your ID card is based on evidence which itself can be forged in some ways, then the ID card is not of any great use,' Mr Costello said. 'I am somebody who is open to new information but certainly won't be supporting it until such time as I heard persuasive information.'
Malcolm Crompton, the Federal Privacy Commissioner, noted in 2002, 'All formal IDs are subject to a degree of forgery and misuse. One view is that high quality IDs may be more risky because the greater the purported quality of the evidence of identity behind the card and the more an ID is used, the greater the value placed on it, and consequently the higher its value to criminal and terrorist elements.' According to this line of argument if a form of identification is highly trusted and widely used this means there is a great incentive for criminals and others to forge it.
7. ID cards are likely to encourage unnecessary and intrusive surveillance
A Privacy International survey of ID cards found claims of police abuse of the cards in virtually all countries. Most involved people being arbitrarily detained after failure to produce their card. Others involved beatings of juveniles or minorities. There were even instances of wholesale discrimination on the basis of data set out on the cards.
While it is true that cards containing non-sensitive data are less likely to be used against the individual, cards are often alleged to be the vehicle for discriminatory practices.
Police who are given powers to demand ID invariably have consequent powers to detain people who do not have the card, or who cannot prove their identity. Even in developed a nation such as Germany, that protects citizens' rights, the power to hold such people for up to 24 hours is enshrined in law. The question of who is targeted for ID checks is left largely to the discretion of police.
It has further been claimed that the existence of such a card as a means to deter terrorism is likely to lead to its vastly expanded use. The card is likely to be demanded of all people accessing public transport. It may also be used to monitor people's purchases, especially where these involve materials believed to be of interest to terrorists. It is also likely to be required for the postage of parcels through the post and probably for accessing medical services.
It has been suggested that the recording of commercial transactions is likely to become general. There are those who regard the prospect of the monitoring of such minor daily activities as offensive and intrusive.
Further implications
It would appear that an ID card has real practical advantages, however, these do not seem to lie in the area of combating terrorism or preventing cases of mistaken identity on the part of the Department of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Indigenous Affairs. Rather an Australian ID card appears to represent an administrative reform that would make it easier for Australian citizens to establish their identities in a range of domestic situations. It is also likely that many other nations will pressure countries like Australia to introduce biometrically coded ID cards as the price of crossing their borders. Once Britain, for example, has introduced an ID card it is highly likely that it will expect all foreign nationals to carry with them a comparable form of identification when seeking to enter Britain. The United States is already in the process of demanding such advanced proofs of identity from foreigners seeking to come into the USA.
The growing opposition to the previously mooted Australia Card through 1986 - 87 suggests the sensitivity of the issue within Australia. However, current apprehensions about the possibility of terrorist attacks may make Australian citizens more willing than they would otherwise be to accept the introduction of a national ID card.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this outline
The Age
July 4, page 13, comment (deals with plans in Britain) by Alan Taylor, `An identity (card) crisis looms for the Brits'.
AGE, July 20, page 18, cartoon.
July 19, page 3, news item (cartoon) by Grattan and Shaw, 'Coalition split on ID card issue'.
July 18, page 12, editorial, 'Yet another crisis of identity card?'.
July 18, page 3, news item by D Wroe, 'Support for ID cards strengthens'.
July 17, page 21, comment (cartoon) by M Grattan, 'Testing but timely IDea'.
July 16, page 11, news item by D Wroe, 'National ID cards "on table" says PM'.
July 15, page 4, news item by Wroe and Kleinman, 'PM orders review that could include national ID card'.
The Australian
July 19, page 13, comment by Phillip Adams, 'ID or not 2B under constant scrutiny'.
July 19, page 1, news item by Hayes and Lewis, 'Medicare "smart card" an ID blueprint'.
July 18, page 9, comment by C Puplick, 'Trouble on the cards'.
July 18, page 2, news item by Lewis and Riley, 'Vanstone supports ID card concept'.
July 16, page 18, editorial, 'Do we want Big Brother watching us?'.
July 16, page 4, news items by S Lewis et al, 'Red-faced Ruddock's ID card rethink / Details in databases of agencies flush with facts'.
July 15, page 1, news item by Lewis and Kerin, 'Howard to reconsider ID card'.
The Herald-Sun
July 20, page 20, comment by John Ferguson, 'Safety's not on the cards'.
July 19, page 14, news item by N Butterly, 'ID cards priced at $100'.