I will preface this by stating that, as per usual, this is simply my opinion. However, it is a point I feel very strongly about.
When Don Chipp founded the Australian Democrats, he famously spoke of the need to “keep the bastards honest.”
Perhaps we need to revive that principle — but apply it rather more broadly.
Because if we want to keep governments honest, we also have a responsibility to be honest about what governments are actually doing. And that applies regardless of what we think about the government of the day.
There are a number of exaggerated claims doing the rounds on social media currently. One in particular concerns Australia’s Digital ID legislation, which was passed TWO years ago.
There are perfectly legitimate concerns about Digital ID.
Privacy. Data security. Cybersecurity. Function creep. The increasing involvement of the private sector. And, importantly, whether something described as voluntary in legislation remains genuinely voluntary in practice as its use expands.
Those are debates worth having.
They are also precisely the debates we risk undermining when legitimate concerns are buried beneath a mountain of hyperbole.
One widely circulated post claims that without Digital ID Australians will eventually be unable to access a bank account, cash, Centrelink, MyGov, flights, fuel, medication or even vote.
Apparently we can also kiss goodbye to renting a home, owning a car, using social media, shopping online, accessing the internet, having a phone number and buying groceries.
It then moves on to “digital tyranny”, a “surveillance state” and “China-style social credit”.
My eyes glaze over.
Not because I have no concerns about Digital ID. I do.
They glaze over because the moment an argument moves from scrutinising what legislation actually says to presenting speculation about some dystopian future as established fact, I switch off.
And I doubt I’m alone.
Yet these posts attract thousands of likes and retweets because outrage travels further and faster than nuance.
But here’s the problem:
Virality among the already convinced is not persuasion.
Taking legitimate concerns, layering them with a lack of understanding of the legislation, adding a very thick slab of hyperbole and then presenting predictions about the future as established fact achieves precisely the opposite of what was intended.
It makes it easier for governments to dismiss perfectly reasonable concerns about Digital ID as conspiracy theory.
And that plays directly into their hands.
We complain — often with justification — about governments labelling inconvenient arguments MISINFORMATION. DISINFORMATION.
So why hand them the ammunition?
Why make it easier to lump legitimate criticism in with claims that simply cannot be substantiated?
Worse, it risks losing the very people who might otherwise be persuaded to examine those concerns.
People who don’t buy into OTT alarmism simply switch off. The legitimate argument gets lost along with the ridiculous one.
And once you lose credibility on claims that can easily be disproved, people are understandably less inclined to listen when you raise concerns that genuinely deserve scrutiny.
There is an important distinction here.
Something can be voluntary in law while still raising legitimate questions about whether it will remain voluntary in practice.
That is where scrutiny should be directed.
Will Australians who choose not to use Digital ID continue to have genuinely practical alternatives? Will those alternatives gradually become more cumbersome? Will businesses increasingly encourage its use? Will future governments expand its application? Are the privacy protections adequate? How secure will the system be? What safeguards exist against function creep?
Those are serious questions.
They don’t require claims that tomorrow morning you’ll need to produce your government Digital ID before Woolies will sell you a loaf of bread.
And this is where political tactics matter.
If we want to keep the bastards honest, we have to hold ourselves to the same standard.
If your objective is to persuade, inform and encourage people to scrutinise government, exaggeration that appeals primarily to those who already agree with you is self-defeating.
There is more than enough in government policy worth questioning without inventing things that aren’t there.
So scrutinise the legislation.
Highlight its weaknesses.
Question the safeguards.
Watch what governments do next.
Challenge function creep when it occurs.
Demand that “voluntary” remains genuinely voluntary.
And keep the bastards honest.
But for heaven’s sake, be tactically smarter.
Don’t make their job easier by giving them an excuse not to take legitimate criticism seriously — or ammunition to justify restricting the debate we should be having.
Stick to the facts.
They’re usually powerful enough.
