Slashdot Mirror

Independent Senator Nick Minchin

Nick Minchin is a Liberal, not an independent. Did you mean Nick Xenaphon?

You're wrong about women in Australian politics. With the possible exception of Julie Bishop, none of them are stupid.

Federal
Julia Gillard - current deputy prime minister.
Julie Bishop - current deputy leader of the opposition.
There are plenty of women in cabinet at the moment. Ministers are listed on the government website.

State politics
In NSW the Premier and Deputy Premier are female. In QLD the Premier is female.

Non-elected leaders
The NSW Governor and the Australian Governor general are women. Both positions are not elected but are the figureheads of the state and the nation respectively and therefore the highest public office in each case.

For those unfamiliar with the australian parliment - the definition of what "Parliamentary Privilege" is: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/briefs/brief11.htm#1

I think you miss understand the purpose of "parliamentary privilege", my fellow australian. Our elected representitives can discuss such issues as the authenticity of Scientology, without fear of slander/libel suits or gag orders or general legal hoop-la to silence their criticisms. It is their role to raise issues of their consitutents in such as manner, so that members of the public can come forth/organise/e.t.c to provide the necessary PROOF that the laws are being broken. Then the appropriate law enforcement agency can be engaged.

Sorry mate - I don't want to live in your world where if no-one talks about a problem it doesn't exist - that's just plain foolish.

But regardless, by READING THE FIRETRUCKING ARTICLE, you would have encountered the first two paragraphs stating:
"Senator Xenophon used a speech in Parliament last night to raise allegations of widespread criminal conduct within the church, saying he had received letters from former followers detailing claims of abuse, false imprisonment and forced abortion.
He says he has passed on the letters to the police and is calling for a Senate inquiry into the religion and its tax-exempt status."

First sentence of your post: "If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops" ... Check - he's passed on the letters to the police.
As for the rest - I can't believe you're trying to align criticism of Scientology with an attack on your freedom to associate ... Unless you're a scientologist too...

Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have ... YFMV? (Your Freedom May Vary)

I actually listened to some of the senate committees this week on censorship. Boy does this government LOVE censorship. You should hear the self-righteous prattle they were going on with. The ridiculous thing of course is they are trying to stick their fingers in the dyke while the whole thing is coming down around them.

Do Australians have a legal right to privacy?
14 March 2005, no. 37, 2004-05, ISSN 1449-8456

This is interesting to me, do you have a link about the illegal groups thing?

Australians do have a "constitutionally upheld" right to free speech according to the High Court, see http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm for details. While the ruling isn't as broad as the the US 1st Amendment it still provides freedom of political communication. With this ruling it would be difficult for any Australian law to outlaw a political party.

It's XenoPHon, not XenoFon. World of difference.
http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=8iv

Sheesh, what are they teaching kids in school these days...

Australia does not have the "right to free speech".

Nowhere in our constitution do residents have "free speech". we've assumed it comes from the UN's Human Rights, but it hasn't been enacted in law, so courts are not required to acknowledge it's existence.

For a sobering read : http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm

I think you may be mistaken http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/index.asp

Australia's had a constitution since federation, back in 1901.

This is totally to do with "Christian nutters", in particular one Senator Steve Fielding from Family First Party (i.e. the Christian Right). Other party site here. He holds the balance of power in the Senate and this is totally about getting his vote so as to enable the sitting government to get their legislation through. There are plenty of press [pdf] releases [pdf] on these sites to demonstrate their position and lobbying [pdf].
Big Media may be lobbying and pushing, but this is nothing to do with what is happening here in Australia with regards to the current push for filtering.

Taking part in the protests is the first (and very important step). Here is the list of places where protests will be held:

Melbourne:
Saturday 13 December
State Library
12pm-5pm

Sydney:
Saturday 13 December
Town Hall
11am-4pm

Brisbane:
Saturday 13 December
Brisbane Square
11am-3pm

Adelaide:
Saturday 13 December
Parliament
12pm-4pm

Hobart:
Saturday 13 December
Parliament Lawns
11am-1:30pm

Canberra:
Saturday 13 December
Garema Place, Civic
12pm-2pm


Please also consider taking the following actions:

1) Call Senator Conroy's office on 03 9650 1188. Do not be rude, do not swear, just in a very reasoned and rational voice, express your disapproval, and in a few short sentences, say why you disagree. It matters a lot.

2) Write a letter to Senator Conroy, make sure it's between half a page to one page (no more than 400 words). Again, in a polite tone (that doesn't have to be formal, and doesn't have to have letterhead, etc., just your name and address) let him know why you disagree with him. His address is:
Senator Stephen Conroy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

3) Write a letter to your local MP. It doesn't matter what party he/she is from, Liberals will use your letter to back up their claims in Question Time, which gives publicity to the whole issue and will bring it to mainstream media's attention. Labor members will also express their criticism, privately, to him. This specially matters if your local MP is a Minister and serves in the Cabinet. To find out who your local MP is click here.

4) Write a letter to Prime Minister Rudd. Let him know that when the Australian people voted him in office last year, they didn't know "Education Revolution" means censorship. Rudd's address is:
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

5) Donate or become a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia . Right now the EFA is the sole organisation fighting this. They need all the help they can get.

6) Write a letter to your ISP. It doesn't matter if it's the Evil Telstra; on this, we're all together. They are fighting the battle for us right now, but it would help them to know that what they are doing is a good business practice, that you expect them to fight this to the end.

Don't just sit around and do nothing and then complain about how evil governments are. We, the citizens are the ones who allow governments to become evil, by our political apathy. Move! Take Action! Now!

Lastly, how is this any different than what China is doing? I'm surprised nobody has made this connection and accused the government of being no better than anti-free-speech China.

It has before been alluded that it is just like what China have implemented, even in the senate. To quote Senator Conroy (the nut in charge of the department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy).

I was wondering if I could get the questions without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.

From http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11346.pdf.

No, you great twat, you can't, not when what you're proposing is so damn much like it.

actual the greens and some independents including Fielding have the balance of power in the senate.

The greens are against the bill and all of the sentors not in the oposition would have to suport this

The only reason a government can get away with this is if we, the citizens, don't act, and let our liberties gradually slip away.

If you are an Australian, please take action:

1) Call Senator Conroy's office on 03 9650 1188. Do not be rude, do not swear, just in a very reasoned and rational voice, express your disapproval, and in a few short sentences, say why you disagree. It matters a lot.

2) Write a letter to Senator Conroy, make sure it's between half a page to one page (no more than 400 words). Again, in a polite tone (that doesn't have to be formal, and doesn't have to have letterhead, etc., just your name and address) let him know why you disagree with him. His address is:
Senator Stephen Conroy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

3) Write a letter to your local MP. It doesn't matter what party he/she is from, Liberals will use your letter to back up their claims in Question Time, which gives publicity to the whole issue and will bring it to mainstream media's attention. Labor members will also express their criticism, privately, to him. This specially matters if your local MP is a Minister and serves in the Cabinet. To find out who your local MP is click here

4) Write a letter to Prime Minister Rudd. Let him know that when the Australian people voted him in office last year, they didn't know "Education Revolution" means censorship. Rudd's address is:
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

5) Donate or become a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia . Right now the EFA is the sole organisation fighting this. They need all the help they can get.

6) Write a letter to your ISP. It doesn't matter if it's the Evil Telstra; on this, we're all together. They are fighting the battle for us right now, but it would help them to know that what they are doing is a good business practice, that you expect them to fight this to the end.

Don't just sit around and do nothing and then complain about how evil governments are. We, the citizens are the ones who allow governments to become evil, by our political apathy. Move! Take Action! Now!

"People should ask for a personal refunds from the morons who devised this scheme"

IaaA and yes this is a complete waste since there is already an ISP sponsered option for filters and everyone knows this mandatory crap will get nowhere. KRuddy is pandering to this guy who (under certain circumstances) holds the balance of power in the senate, this dick sells his vote to whoever will "do something about the internet" - so KRuddy is doing "something" in order to gain Fielding's support to get certain more serious legislation passed through the senate. KRudy and Conroy are doing their best to weaken Fielding via "Conroy's" plan. The ISP's are already foaming at the mouth so I would say it seems to be working and come next election the senator may get booted out and the FF party may just find themselves in a political desert, it's just like the simarly rediculous "One Nation" party - it's highly likely many of their supporters are the same nuts under a different flag.

The mandatory thing will come to naught (as it has done every other time for the last 10-15yrs), the money is being wasted and will continue to be wasted by both major parties in an effort to appease and curry favour from a pro-censorship minority that, no matter how irksome, do have a right to be heard (now that's irony!).

It doesn't help when Conroy is so dismissive of anyone who has a valid point to argue or at least discuss in a neutral or negative light in respect to the idea of compulsory internet censorship.

see this & read from 3/4 the way down page 77 through to 3/4 or so the way down page 83. Here's a snippet of how dismissive the guy gets when anyone decides to rationally approach him with a question (from page 81 & 82). It also approaches the whole idea of the "slippery slope", once we start, where and when do we stop, if ever?

Senator LUDLAMâ"What about, for another controversial example, euthanasia related material?
Senator Conroyâ"You would have to ask them whether that falls within their definition. There are calls for,
as an example, banning pro anorexia websites. Again, it falls into that sort of category. So there are calls for a
whole range of material to be included in the black list, but I do not think that they fall inside the existing
definitions under the law. I do not think that they are caught.
Senator LUDLAMâ"Can you then see the basis on which some people might be raising concerns that once
we have such a list it can go from being a black list to a very grey list very quickly, depending on how much
the government thinks should be filtered. It is almost reversing the burden of proof, which is a very different
approach to sending law enforcement agencies after people who are postingâ"
Senator Conroyâ"I do not agree with the basis of your assertion that we haveâ"
Senator LUDLAMâ"You have not heard the assertion.
Senator Conroyâ"You said it basically reverses the onus of proof. I do not agree.
Mr Rizviâ"The ACMA black list has been around for quite a number of years now. It is not a new list.
Senator LUDLAMâ"I suppose what is new is having complicated automated software deciding what
Australians can and cannot see on the net. The black list, as the minister is rightly pointing out, can become
very grey depending on how expansive the list becomesâ"euthanasia material, politically related material,
material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet.
Senator Conroyâ"Existing provisions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 are able to deal with
suicide related material that provides detailed instruction or promotion of matters of crime or violence. It is an
existing law.

Whatever "lobbying" was being done previously, it seems to have been completely effective. Many countries have signed, without dispute, so-called "free" trade agreements which essentially codify every US-corporate-friendly dream that could be devised by the Bushites - including DMCA-ish and software patent provisions, to speak of 2 issues in the IT area. In non-IT areas, similar capitulations are even worse. Pharmaceuticals, agriculture, all get twisted into poisonous American corporatised pretzels, to pave the way for overpriced patent drugs and monstrosities such as GM products (which should be flat-out illegal anywhere). It's as if the "sovereign" countries didn't even read the agreements, let alone take heed of the public outry that always accompanies them.

It must be so easy for them, when the signatories are Bush-puppet governments such as the Howard government in Australia (thankfully rejected at last) and Harper (which malignancy we should pray is thrown out tomorrow, or at least held safely to a minority).

Let's be honest. "Globalisation" never meant anything more or less than "America buys your stuff cheap, you buy America's stuff dear". The world does not need Wal-Mart, Microsoft, McDonald's, or any other substandard, exploitative American brand. The height of absurdity is Wal-Mart selling rice to Indians. What do the Wal-Marts in China sell? Crappy plastic Chinese crap back to the Chinese? The whole concept is absurd. What is Wal-Mart even doing in Canada?

The ultimate irony is that those tilting the playing field towards the USA, and who would most vehemently deny the insuperable insult to sovereignty that these agreements represent, also claim to believe in a "free market" - the Bushites, the Reaganites, the Friedmanites, the corrupt fuckwads, the ignorant lying Sarah and Todd Palins, the criminal Cons and neo-Cons whose chickens, we hope, are coming home to roost at last. If you're wondering why you're having trouble competing - maybe it's because you're not competitive! Top example - Microsoft can't compete on merit. They have to be anti-competitive; and you betcha they love them some FTA help. Pity they got caught at it.

But perhaps as the world wises the hell up, we finally see some logic in Bush's response: More lobbying. "Bring it on", in the Texan moron's famous catchphrase: Just expect more pushback!

But we'd prefer if you'd just Bugger off.

Actually, no they didn't - no one is forced to eat GE crops, so at best you have a quibble.

Yes they do. Unlike what Monsanto said, and you fell for, GE crops do cross pollinate with non GE crops as well as wild relatives. Scientific studies have found this to be true, Parameters Affecting Gene Flow in Oilseed Rape. And because GE crops cross pollinates with wild relatives superweeds are created. With widespread use of GE seeds even organic farmers can't prevent cross pollination from happening. And once contaminated a crop is always contaminated. Unless trouble to remove the foreign genes is taken. Why in the world should someone who did nothing to make their crop GE be the ones to pay for it? Monsanto won't pay. Actually Monsanto will force a non GE crop farmer to pay if GE genes are found in the crop. Monsanto did that when they found Percy Schmeiser's farm was contaminated with Monsanto's patented genes.

Falcon

The purpose of reading it out is to ensure that it is recorded in the parliamentary records (eg, Australia's Hansard. I'm assuming there is an equivalent system for the US Congress

If its posted to the records office, it doesn't count because it wasn't part of the verbal proceedings (which is transcribed into the records)

Australia? Where the hell are you from?

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/censorship_ebrief.htm

Unfortunately, a Labour government in Australia was the lesser of two evils. If the liberals had of gotten back in, they would have spent $189m dollars on providing the exact same thing...

There was a widely run and very successful ad campaign, which just gives kids the message "weird old guys will lie to you online, so don't believe everything you're told".

I wont even get started on some of the underhanded tactics that the Liberals used to distract voters from the real issues during an election or how John Howard pledged that he would never ever bring in a GST(which he then pledged to bring a GST in the very next election). Or how he has sold off our telecommunications infrastructure to help balance his budget (Labour will get burnt by this if they do not sell off the rest of Telstra and have major troubles trying to balance this year's budget without cutting spending).

And I wont even get mention the "work place reform" that was implemented by John Howard and the Liberal government which screwed over a lot of employees who got fired and then offered their jobs back with lower incomes/benefits etc.

This is getting a bit longer then I had hoped and is actually off-topic so I will leave it at that...

If you lie to get on the jury, you will have committed perjury. ... The person will almost certainly face another trial and you will be facing charges.

If you have anything constructive and insightful to say a good person to contact would be Senator Stephen Conroy http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=3L6

This is indeed the case. I fear that this legislation is unworkable.

May I suggest that any Australian readers voice their concerns?

It is actually quite easy to find your Federal member of Parliament. Just go to this site and search your suburb. For a list of members, here is an alphabetical list, party list, list of members by state and also an electoral list.

Once you've found your member, their contact details can be found if you follow the links.

The more people who get involved, the more that politicians will listen. Don't let lobbyist groups get away with this sort of rubbish!

This is indeed the case. I fear that this legislation is unworkable.

May I suggest that any Australian readers voice their concerns?

It is actually quite easy to find your Federal member of Parliament. Just go to this site and search your suburb. For a list of members, here is an alphabetical list, party list, list of members by state and also an electoral list.

Once you've found your member, their contact details can be found if you follow the links.

The more people who get involved, the more that politicians will listen. Don't let lobbyist groups get away with this sort of rubbish!

This is indeed the case. I fear that this legislation is unworkable.

May I suggest that any Australian readers voice their concerns?

It is actually quite easy to find your Federal member of Parliament. Just go to this site and search your suburb. For a list of members, here is an alphabetical list, party list, list of members by state and also an electoral list.

Once you've found your member, their contact details can be found if you follow the links.

The more people who get involved, the more that politicians will listen. Don't let lobbyist groups get away with this sort of rubbish!

This is indeed the case. I fear that this legislation is unworkable.

May I suggest that any Australian readers voice their concerns?

It is actually quite easy to find your Federal member of Parliament. Just go to this site and search your suburb. For a list of members, here is an alphabetical list, party list, list of members by state and also an electoral list.

Once you've found your member, their contact details can be found if you follow the links.

The more people who get involved, the more that politicians will listen. Don't let lobbyist groups get away with this sort of rubbish!

Not according to this man.

...have been set up like this for a while (see here for more info).

It doesn't seem to affect the freedom of the press at all, in fact, it tends to make it a bit more balanced (Though there have been moves to change it (that obviously have nothing at all to do with Rupert Murdoch or the Packer family )).

Actually, the Australian Senate can propose new bills. They just don't usually.

From parliament's website:

Private Senators' and Members' bills
The right to propose legislation is not restricted to the government of the day. Any senator or member of the House of Representatives may introduce a bill and, in the Senate, a private senator's bill is dealt with in exactly the same way as a government bill. While comparatively few private senators' and members' bills are agreed to by both Houses, some significant proposals have become law as a result of private senators' and members' initiatives. Compulsory voting at federal elections was introduced as a result of Senator Payne's Electoral (Compulsory Voting) Act 1924. The banning of tobacco advertising in the print media was achieved through Senator Powell's Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act 1989. From the Parliament's perspective, the most significant piece of legislation sponsored by a private senator or member was the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which was introduced by the President of the Senate and which codified the Parliament's legal immunities and its powers to protect the integrity of its processes.

That really depends on your reading of Point Six in the Preamble to the Australian Constitution

I asked a constitutional lawyer once about the mechanism by which NZ could ever become a state of Australia, but she never got back to me. However that turns out cricket would never be the same again.

The Australian gov is still really 'closed' about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_between_HMAS_S ydney_and_HSK_Kormoran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_II http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr260802 .pdf

I already called the office of my representative to tell them how I feel about these laws. I'm against the laws on the grounds that I don't care how much of a nut some people are, I want my right to free speech and I don't appreciate any effort by the government to take it away, no matter how good the reason they give. There are hundreds of reasons why its a bad idea anyway but other posters can explain them better than me.

I'd advise any other Australians here to do the same: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memlist.pdf

But singling out this one has little to do with anything except another chance to paint Bill Gates as the Anti-Christ.

AFAIK the Anti-Christ is meant to be attractive to all men and women. This certainly rules Bill Gates out of the list. My money is on Amanda Vanstone being the AntiChrist and deep in my soul I hope she has a brazilian but doesn't shave her legs.

Have to go now the bathroom beckons me.

She can purchase my soul anytime.

From the Australian Parliamentary Library

In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech:

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.(1)

Members of the Commonwealth Parliament reaffirmed the principles of the Declaration during a sitting on 10 December 1998 to mark the 50th anniversary of the UDHR and pledged to give wholehearted support to the principles enshrined in the Declaration.(2)

Article 19 of the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ... (3)

Australia is a signatory to this treaty

The ammendments are here. I haven't read them all yet but they look fairly good. In a few places they have substituted "either for trade or to an extent that will affect prejudicially the financial interests of the performer in the performance" with "for trade". This means that non-commercial copying is no longer an offence. Also, private copying of a recording that you already own a copy of is not an offence.

Check out the Bill list going through the house of representatives: http://www.aph.gov.au/parlinfo/billsnet/blist.pdf

Its called the "Copyright Amendment 2006". It passed through the House of representatives on 1st of November 2006. It hasn't passed Senate though.

PDF links to the bill in question and its explanatory memoranda. And here's the existing copyright act (which the bill ammends, think diff/patch).

I'm neither a lawyer nor a member of parliament, nor have I read the whole thing in detail, but my initial impression is: this bill is actually an improvement on the status quo. Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it does introduce some exceptions for time- and format-shifting, for example. The issues the IIA points out are certainly true, but they are all existing issues with the law as it currently stands, that this bill fails to address, rather than new things introduced by this bill.

PDF links to the bill in question and its explanatory memoranda. And here's the existing copyright act (which the bill ammends, think diff/patch).

I'm neither a lawyer nor a member of parliament, nor have I read the whole thing in detail, but my initial impression is: this bill is actually an improvement on the status quo. Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it does introduce some exceptions for time- and format-shifting, for example. The issues the IIA points out are certainly true, but they are all existing issues with the law as it currently stands, that this bill fails to address, rather than new things introduced by this bill.

There's a bunch of materials regarding copyright at the moment, this is the list that the AG's newletter refers to, but I also found this bill which seems to be more generic than the DRM focussed titles in the former link. It's be nice if someone familiar the legislature wades through this and explains it to the rest of us, preferably pointing to the actual legislation. I note that the original press release doesn't bother telling us which bill they are irked about. Xix.

The Australian Copyright Agecny has an information page critical of the proposed changes http://www.copyright.com.au/copyright_reforms.htm
Please be constructive in dealing with the copyright agency. While I may have a different agenda to theirs, they are still a helpfull organisation.
From this document
What can I do?
You can submit your concerns on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006: Exceptions and other Digital Agenda review measures directly to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte
Click here to view the latest Attorney-General's Department newsletter for more information on the proposed Bill and submissions. http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/enewsCopyrightHome.ns f/Page/eNews_Issue_42_-_October_2006
The Australian Copyright Agency's website is http://www.copyright.com.au/.

It's true, yes, but it's a fairly heavily implied right. See this paper from the parlimentary library of Australia - http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn 42.htm

Unlimited freedom of speech isn't as great as what you might think. Have a look at all the unpopular cases the ACLU defends because of it. The right of freedom of speech has to be weighed against the responsibility to keep good social order, and that's what happens in Australia.

In Australia it's also the case that the least biased tv journalism is on the government funded stations (at least in my opinion). Perhaps they are held to a higher standard because of the direct relationship?

We need to be more wary of the commercial entities behind our media. Our cross-media ownership laws are slowly being eroded. Soon Packer and Murdoch will own it all (as opposed to the 90% they own now).

Thankfully there's this thing called the internet that those old codgers didn't see as a threat until it was too late.

I emailed my federal member of parliament about this. He replied the next day.

All you need to do is say that you live in their electorate and you disagree with this legislation. This is our last chance to block DMCA-style law.

Aussies, get your MP's email addy here!

If it's used effectively, a plant like this could clean up whole countries. In anticipation of it's availability, Australia has built a collection site for our most environmentally damaging garbage. Once this rubbish has been fed through a white-hot plasma, our country will be much cleaner, and it's wonderful that we'll finally be benefiting from something which has long been little more than a toxic eyesore.

I trained at the AIS, and my nephew is currently training for the australian swim team.