Australia doesn't have a national ID number, and neither does New Zealand.

You have a TFN [1] (tax file number) in Australia, which are similar to an SSN, except somewhat more limited. My TFN is only used for income tax, not for identification, and I'm not actually legally required to supply it to anybody, even my employer (although it does make paying taxes a real pain as they withhold the maximum amount). You aren't even legally required to have a TFN, although once you get one you have it for life, and without one you pay the maximum income tax.

TFNs are specifically forbidden to be used for anything other than income or benefit purposes too. Businesses aren't allowed to ask for it as a form of ID.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_file_number

Religious concerns were only a minor factor. Other objections to having a national identifier include: wasteful "big government" spending, encroachment on states' rights, potential for civil liberties abuses, and lack of consensus over whether it's a real problem that needs to be solved.

I don't necessarily agree with those objections but there have been multiple reasons.

I'm not a Christian, but those concerns are not without merit. It's a slippery slope to "the only way we can eliminate identity theft is to use biometric authentication via implanted chips to validate financial transactions"

>"All legislation aimed around allowing people to be identified by numbers has been killed due to the whole "mark of the beast" .. "can't buy sell or trade without your number" revelations rhetoric."

This is easy to solve; simply make it illegal to use the identification number so capriciously. Define a narrow use-case for it, narrow enough to allay religious fears, and forbid anything other use if the ID number. Make it illegal to require customers to provide their ID number while making purchases, etc.

But once you do that, most of the desire to implement the system starts to disappear...

> This is easy to solve; simply make it illegal to use the identification number so capriciously.

Hmmmmm, that sounds familiar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#/media/...

While it wasn't law, I don't see why legislature wouldn't renege on their promise to not use a unique identifier, already conveniently assigned to all people, for identification purposes.

Yes that's what I had in mind. It worked that time too, the general public accepted SSNs.

Maybe it's cynical, but I don't believe there is any limit on how many times you can lie to the public. There's only a limit to the frequency.

> a unique identifier, already conveniently assigned to all people, for identification purposes

One problem is that it's not unique. :)

If its primarily a religious problem why do countries less religious than the US have similar concepts? SINs in Canada, NINs in the UK, etc. etc

ID number in South Africa. Assigned at birth, used for opening of any account. Not considered private at all, can be requested by any company who might want to check that you are you. Also: ID card with number, photo and details on it, separate from drivers license.

More or less the same in Sweden.

NIN is rarely used in the UK. You need one for student financing... and later for your employer to correctly relay your taxes to HMRC. Certainly it's not needed for banks/credit cards/phones/brokerages/etc.

The last time I opened a bank account in the UK involved me sitting in a bank employee's office with two forms of proof of identity and proof of income. I could have used my birth certificate for one but AFAIK the second would cost money.

The parent means implementing national IDs provokes religious opposition in the US.