7 ms·

I don't think this is a vote-winner; this policy has been as well-hidden as it possibly could be. 99% of voters will not even know about it. More likely some b

I don't think this is a vote-winner; this policy has been as well-hidden as it possibly could be. 99% of voters will not even know about it. More likely some back-room deal has been done with vested interests and the implementation of this policy somehow benefits them (financially or politically). It is likely a combination of: rightsholder companies who will eventually twist the filters to block internet-based competition, large IT contracting companies who will get lucrative contracts for implementing it, and (tin-foil hat time) the Catholic church. There are some VERY skeezy links between the federal opposition and the Australian Catholic church which see the church hold significant lobbying power over LNP policies. See: marriage equality, abortion rights, royal commission into child sexual abuse etc. As a small, uncontroversial example, the current government handed over regulation of charities (including churches) to an independent regulator last year. The Catholic Church in particular hates being under the thumb of a regulator it doesn't have in its own back pocket. Conveniently the LNP plans to scrap the regulator if they win the election. Even mainstream newspapers are reporting that this is at the behest of Cardinal George Pell: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bad-liberal-policy-will-damage-charities-20130902-2szep.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/bad-liberal-policy-will-damag...

westicle 13y ago
Sorry, this link probably outlines the relationship much better than the above: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/church-lobby-in-win-over-charities-watchdog-20130831-2sxqs.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013... "The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church conservatives, the Catholic Church in particular, and the office of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, more particularly still." "And the Victorian and Tasmanian-based Churches of Christ Community Care has begun an online petition to save the commission, warning that the Coalition alternative would be ''an advisory body with no teeth''. That, say critics, appears to be the point."
Wingman4l7 13y ago
> the current government handed over regulation of charities (including churches) to an independent regulator last year That's pretty awesome that that was even done, though. I cannot imagine something like that happening in the US. I am so sick of seeing religious institutions abuse their tax-free status to play Real Estate Tycoon.
- westicle 13y ago
  For what it's worth most of the sector (including religious charities) strongly support the regulator. We had some issues in the past with some very high-profile sports people setting up "charitable funds" which undertook a lot of fundraising and tax deductible activities without actually doing any philanthropy. That undermines trust in organisations who actually help people (Salvation Army, World Vision etc).
TheZenPsycho 13y ago
It's worth noting that when the Labour party attempted an internet filter, they insisted INSISTED that the only sites on the black list would be pedophilia sites. Wikileaks ended up on the black list.
- nl 13y ago
  Reference requested. I don't believe that is true.
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    I don't know whether it is true, but similar things have happened in the UK, Germany and Finland, so it could well be.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist,_18_Mar_2009 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_... Which points to: http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009.txt http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009....
    - nl 13y ago
      The blacklist contains one url from Wikileaks, which (judging form the URL) is yet another (non-Australian) leaked blacklist of banned sites. I'm not defending censorship (one look at the list shows what a STUPID idea it is) but I think implying that it was used to "block Wikileaks" overstates what happened.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        It overstates the case for that point in time. But it doesn't overstate that they were prepared to do it. Remember: this is a secret list that Australians cannot legally see.
jacques_chester 13y ago
Labor's NSW Right faction is a bit of a Sunday mass too. And they're the most powerful single bloc in the ALP.

westicle 13y ago

Sorry, this link probably outlines the relationship much better than the above: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/church-lobby-in-win-over-charities-watchdog-20130831-2sxqs.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013... "The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church conservatives, the Catholic Church in particular, and the office of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, more particularly still." "And the Victorian and Tasmanian-based Churches of Christ Community Care has begun an online petition to save the commission, warning that the Coalition alternative would be ''an advisory body with no teeth''. That, say critics, appears to be the point."

Wingman4l7 13y ago

> the current government handed over regulation of charities (including churches) to an independent regulator last year That's pretty awesome that that was even done, though. I cannot imagine something like that happening in the US. I am so sick of seeing religious institutions abuse their tax-free status to play Real Estate Tycoon.

westicle 13y ago
For what it's worth most of the sector (including religious charities) strongly support the regulator. We had some issues in the past with some very high-profile sports people setting up "charitable funds" which undertook a lot of fundraising and tax deductible activities without actually doing any philanthropy. That undermines trust in organisations who actually help people (Salvation Army, World Vision etc).

TheZenPsycho 13y ago

It's worth noting that when the Labour party attempted an internet filter, they insisted INSISTED that the only sites on the black list would be pedophilia sites. Wikileaks ended up on the black list.

nl 13y ago
Reference requested. I don't believe that is true.
- cabalamat 13y ago
  I don't know whether it is true, but similar things have happened in the UK, Germany and Finland, so it could well be.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist,_18_Mar_2009 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_... Which points to: http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009.txt http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009....
  - nl 13y ago
    The blacklist contains one url from Wikileaks, which (judging form the URL) is yet another (non-Australian) leaked blacklist of banned sites. I'm not defending censorship (one look at the list shows what a STUPID idea it is) but I think implying that it was used to "block Wikileaks" overstates what happened.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      It overstates the case for that point in time. But it doesn't overstate that they were prepared to do it. Remember: this is a secret list that Australians cannot legally see.

jacques_chester 13y ago

Labor's NSW Right faction is a bit of a Sunday mass too. And they're the most powerful single bloc in the ALP.