People do not need to provide ID to vote at a federal election so why bother with this! Voting is far more important than this unlawful requirement from a corporate political party masquerading as a government. If we had a legitimate government then there would be no need for this unlawful requirement. Catch 22.
Agenda 2030, ALP, Anthony Albanese, ASIC, ATO
www.cairnsnews.org 
A building contractor hires an Englishman, an Irishman, and a Chinaman. He gathers them all in his office and tells each of them their jobs. The Englishman to shovel a pile of sand. The Irishman has to take the sand in the wheelbarrow to the truck. The Chinaman is in charge of supplies. The boss comes back two hours later and he sees the Englishman and the Irishman having a cup of tea. ”So have you done the work then?” he asks. The workers both shake their heads and tell him that the Chinaman didn’t give them a shovel or a wheelbarrow. The foreman is infuriated by this and asks the workers if they have seen the Chinaman, they tell him they thought they saw him going toward the truck. So the boss sets out towards the truck and just as he is getting close to the truck the Chinaman jumps out from behind a wall and yells, “SUPPLIES!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having learned from the best demockrassy can buy (political Come on wealth puppets in UK parliament) in the whole big world, Aussies were never far behind picking up “things” especially when it came/comes to increase their own pay and huge eternal pensions – in crowded sessions – while in others not soooo important matters the honorables found themselves too busy elsewhere to attempt.
What will the new year bring in Aua stralian politics? Well, inflation that is already here accompanied by adequate rises of benefits for those who help that this great nation plunges deeper into the global sewer. That we can be very sure of. Truth? Not so much!
Well done you care takers and proud Aussie patriots in Federal and state politics. May you live forever or at least until the states cash register has been sucked so dry that there is nothing anymore to pay you with.
Chinese political scientist Yuan Peng wrote: “It no longer matters what is true or false – what matters is who controls the discourse.” As a new year resolution maybe it is time to learn Chinese.
A “happy” new year to all of CN’s commentariat and may God be with you – it could come handy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do NOT have to obtain a digital identity (DE) as a prerequisite to a director’s identity number (DIN). You can still take the slow, but equally valid paper-based approach to applying for a DIN. Overseas based company directors must do that anyway. This is what I have done (admittedly as a practising lawyer).I might add ABR staff were quite helpful in this regard. It’s true many accountants and lawyers are recommending you get the DE first, but this is mainly because doing it that way saves time. But they are not paid to tell you about the political risks, it’s up to you to so inform yourself. Personally, whilst I agree introduction of the DIN is like taking a sledgehammer to a nut, it is a low risk privacy issue. A mandatory DE though is another issue.
LikeLike
The Corporations Act t that George refers to does not mention digital ID, rather a Director Identification Number. He mentions this two or three times and in each case the requirement is for a Director Identification number.
LikeLike
“If we had a legitimate government” we most likely had ONLY ONE law system for all citizens and not a selection of Corporate laws amalgamated as Federal & State laws inducing a imaginary government as the front puppet of internationally organized crime. Why doesn’t Christensen (or any other one of the HONORABLES) talk about that for a change while receiving a very nice and endlessly repeating paycheck from the taxpayers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter Gargan and the Battler discuss stopping the Director’s ID. The law denies the Parliament any power to attempt to limit our rights and freedoms.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0yKFxYVcrK11/
LikeLike
Editor is spot on.
George, please research what is law and what is legislation, there is a difference and it matters. The law applies to men and women, legislation applies to PERSONS. The question therefore is are we a PERSON? Men and women hold liability to do no harm, whereas PERSONS are non gender [corpus] and that is why when you read any copyrighted to the state legislation, proof is on the last page of any govt leg or reg and it only refers to PERSON/S and never to men and women. The form that was shown is a means of contract to joinder the living with the dead. Any form with boxes renders the form devoid of most of the info that is entered in the boxes, it is called the four corners rule, they are after the living signature that will appear thereon if filled out. Bait and switch slight of hand to lure the unsuspecting into voluntary servitude… This is not legal advice, please look up the Butterworths legal dictionary for definition of “PERSON” and see if it represents the people that are trying to avoid oppression by the corporate government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My mother had to do this because she has a self managed superannuation fund (I told her not to because I knew the agenda behind this). But she did so anyway on advice from financial adviser and the threat of $13,000 fine.
This is yet another scheme is it not to capture those with assets (perhaps previously not available to the government)? It also links them I believe to mygov.
The ABC reported recently this:
“ATO’s director ID system deadline looms, with more than 1 million people facing $13,000 fines”.
and also from the article
“Key points:
It will be mandatory for all company directors covered by the Corporations Act to have a unique ID number by end of November
The director IDs will allow authorities to track activities through various government databases
Those IDs are being introduced in a bid to crack down on so-called “dummy directors” and company “phoenixing”
The Australian Tax Office (ATO) is making so-called director IDs mandatory for every person covered by the corporations act by November 30.”
Always a selling point to the public to “crackdown” on those few that do the wrong thing. According to the article there are approx 2.5 million Australians as directors. I would like to know how they are going to pursue these fines, which from my understanding are totally unlawful in the first place.
Two things stand out with the wording used “so-called director ID’s” is the author giving us a hint here? Secondly, “mandatory”, where has everyone heard that before?
Article here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-23/director-id-ato-update-one-week-left/101682400
LikeLike