It’s a fairly complex situation. Most people just don’t realise all the encroaching police state laws even exist (I refer to the real ones Federally, not the temporary State-Government health orders that some people have tried to blow out of proportion).
We have very little media diversity. The few billionaires who own the few outlets enjoy the continuing tax cuts, random free grants, advertising spend, etc. from the conservative Government, so run what some critics have called a ‘protection racket for the Liberal National Party’. Almost nothing about any of the mass surveillance laws then really gets into the media, and if something is mentioned, it’s mostly presented in light of the Government’s line on it.
The times any of this does get into the news is if there is any opposition from the Opposition party (Labor), who theoretically could get the numbers to block laws in the Senate by one vote. If it looks like they might not allow the Government to sweep them through, the Government then does what we call ‘wedging’ the Labor party. This is where they say “Labor wants the terrorists to win” or “Labor is voting in the interests of paedophiles”, and the media amplifies that narrative.
Unfortunately it works because nobody knows what the laws are about (even though human rights groups, law groups, civil society groups, often even the Government’s own security legislation review committee have raised serious flaws, tried to get them out in the open but are ignored by the media).
The Government also makes a mockery of any due process - sometimes having a public consultation period but ignoring it when basically every submission is negative and it’s clear nobody actually wants the laws (it’s just a box ticking exercise - if people bring it up later, they will seriously claim “but we consulted the public and experts” even though they ignored all of them). Some of these laws they have pushed through both Houses of Parliament in one or two days, with basically no debate.
It’s a truly atrocious situation. There is an election coming up, but with most of the media enthusiastically running the protection racket and pushing basically just lies about politics, and only fairly actively politically informed people knowing what’s actually going on (that’s a small proportion of the population - the conservative party relies on that a lot), things may not improve.
As an Australian I respectfully disagree with you and agree with the article - most Australians just don't care. I've consistently mentioned this to my Australian friends, colleagues, family members for about 10 years now and it's always met with complacency. Most people don't care, some people care but won't do anything about it, and some people think that "If i'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about". Most Australians trust the government will do the right thing.
> Most people don't care, some people care but won't do anything about it, and some people think that "If i'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about". Most Australians trust the government will do the right thing.
I think that is because of media portraying these laws as a positive thing. Almost exactly the line you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I have heard politicians saying exactly: "If i'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about"
Its a sad but true fact that 99% of Australians (probably rest of the western world) only gets their ongoing education (beyond high school/bachelors in a specific industry) from the mainstream media. And we have close enough to dictator level of media diversity pushing a single narrative. Its not wonder people dont care about their privacy being eroded.
As an Aussie as well, I think not knowing about something is often aligned with people also just not caring. This goes for most things technology really, most people don't care until it impacts them.
We all have only a finite amount of things we can care about in a day and for many Aussies, laws, especially laws around the use of technology aren't front of mind for the average Australian. But as time goes on and these laws actually start to impact us, then you will see people caring.
I know people who go so far the other way. They don't vote because they think it's all rigged. They don't follow politics so they think all the parties are the same.
It's moronic. I try to explain but I'm met with looks like _I'm_ the moron.
Greens and some Independents are the only ones who have voted against these bills, so if you have those, they should be higher preferences than the major parties.
If somebody doesn't vote, then they're basically giving a free pass to the incumbent - which if you're in a Liberal, National or LNP seat is literally making things worse in these respects.
Both/most parties are complicit in privacy invasions. I just assume whoever I vote for will invade my privacy. So I don't vote based on that. I vote based on the other remaining factors that they _do_ differ on.
How about explain why you disagree? Instead of saying shit like that? Also I never called anyone a moron outright.
There is more to a political party than their stance on a single issue. If you can't see that then you are a moron. And yes, I did just call you that, outright.
What you are describing is a fake democracy.
You are given the choice between two cheeks of the same arse. Don't be too quick to confuse stupidity with a difference of opinion.
What I am describing is realistic. No independent will ever win. If that's a fake or flawed democracy so be it - I can't help that, it's out of my control. What is in my control is whether I get to pick the lesser of the two evils. The cheek that's slightly bigger, juicier.
But you understand that no independent will ever win right? That isn't realistic.
It is technically preferential and sure, it could happen, but none of the independents have, or will ever have enough of a following to win a federal election.
Also, for the record. I don't choose either of the two evils as my number one pick when I vote. I always do choose the party I think is best for this country privacy wise. But sadly, they will never win a federal election.
Theoretically an independent could get enough support to form a party that could win. My point is that at least the system is structured that such an outcome could happen over time, or that the process of this happening forces major parties to adapt to the prevailing winds against their ideologies. In a strict two party system you get systematic pressure towards polarisation, rather than a more bumpy road to some sort of consensus that is apparently easily manipulated by media.
Do you have enough historical counter examples to show how people absolutely did end up worrying? To be fair, Australia is a long way from Europe for instance, but I'm pretty sure examples from nearer by might still be available
We can't blame the LNP for all of this. All of the surveillance related bills passed in the last 10 years have been bipartisan.
I'd also go as far as to say this is what Australians want. Many people believe these laws won't be used against regular citizens and will assist in law enforcement efforts.
They’re the main ones pushing all these laws in. I am disgusted at Labor for their part but the core responsibility is 100% with the current Government.
Just look at what’s happening now - in the last few days - Morrison and Joyce claimed they’re going to bring a bill to outlaw anonymous posting on social media sites - for the sole reason that some people were talking about a rumour that the just departed NSW deputy Premier was allegedly having an affair with Joyce’s daughter… That’s just an insane basis for legislation!
I didn't make that comment to have a political discussion, only to remark on the public's attitude to surveillance laws.
However, I would like to point out the legislation to force people to provide ID to use social media and dating sites has been in the works for some time.
One thing is that the way Australian political parties work is very different to US. In US although president Biden is a democrat not all the senators from his party approve what he wants, they have some independent positions. So there are people in Democrat party who will speak against some policies. That doesn't usually happen in Australia. If it was then opposition can at least try. The few times that has happened in on personal ideological grounds like same sex marriage etc.
We absolutely can blame the LNP, because they are the Goverment, they draft the laws, they introduce them as Government bills in the parliament, they put them on the notice paper, they determine the sitting schedule that allows them to be debated and passed, they have the majority on the House committees that scrutinise them and they direct the Governor-General to provide royal assent.
They also are the the Ministers that promulgate regulations under those bills and direct their Departments to implement them.
It wasn't a "bipartisan bill". The Opposition had zero input - they moved amendments that were rejected by the Government.
I've explained how the LNP is responsible for it - it was their bill, written by them and passed through a process they control.
Make no mistake, they had the numbers to pass it regardless of what the Opposition did on the floor. The Opposition's vote either way was merely symbolic - and frankly I find it hard to fault them for making the cynical political calculation that their future political chances could only be hindered by a pointless vote against it.
In regards to metadata retention, the shadow Comms Minister at the time outright said Labor had no plans to amend or repeal the legislation if elected.
I don't buy this "they're secretly anti-surveillance!" line. They are complicit.
It's also puzzling how you imply that amending these bills would fix them. As if one more check and balance would make them not a horrific disaster. In fact, Labor's "amendments" to "fix" the AA bill was adding mandatory judge approval for mass surveillance -- sounds fixed to me!
Labor are pro surveillance and have been for a very long time. They have voted for every single surveillance bill. Their MPs ignore feedback about surveillance from constituents.
Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak. They won't change anything, they support it.
The metadata retention bill that Labor vehemently supported has already been viciously abused. Originally touted as being a bill designed to combat terrorism and child abuse, it's now used to investigate things like littering(!!!). Federal police have been caught using it to stalk girlfriends repeatedly. Labor support this.
The ALP were in government for 6 years between 2007 and 2013. What bills like this did they pass when they were in charge?
I don't imply that "amending the bills would fix them". I am pointing out that the Government rejected all other input on these bills, so they cannot be meaningfully described as "bipartisan".
Implying they should trash fundamental principles by voting for this stuff just to cling to power is pretty weak.
I imply nothing of the sort.
"Cling to power"? What power?
I am stating that voting against a Government bill that has the numbers to pass anyway is a quixotic action, and in this case probably both a strategically poor option.
You know what's a fundamental principle? The principle that you get the laws that the Government you vote in wants to make. The Opposition can't save you from the Government you voted for.
What do you believe is the role of the opposition if not to oppose/raise awareness about contentious legislation?
By definition they represent the minority (or else they would be the government) so almost any action they take will be "quixotic".
To me the fundamental job of the opposition is to point out the failures of the government and paint alternative paths forward. The opposition can move the public sentiment and there are enough poll watchers in the government to respond to pressures.
They have done this so they're not portrayed as soft on terror by the (mainly Murdoch) media. Yes, they're complicit, but I doubt they would have instigated this level of law if they were in power (though it's not out of the question).
Only if they admitted to doing it… The Access and Disrupt bill isn’t actually to do with evidence gathering. The way I see it happening is one agency would come up with a cover reason to hack you under that bill, which you or even other parts of the Government like the public prosecutor wouldn’t ever know about (it’s secret and there’s no obligation to inform anybody).
As far as most people would be able to tell, the Federal Police would have just raided you on an anonymous tip, seized your computers and found material you never knew was there…
It’s still heinous misconduct, but they’ve legalised 80% of the process and the level of secrecy around these agencies is so ridiculously high and the accountability so low, so it’s a lot less of a stretch now than it was just months ago - if they really feel you deserve it…
How would you know it occurred? The approval system for this is secret. It would require that Signals actively come forward and say that they did this, when some other government body finds the material and charges you with a crime.
You would need to both know it happened, and be able to prove it happened, and the usual targets for something like this (journalists) can usually only suspect the former at most.
It's one of the most dystopian laws I've ever seen.
Yes, but not as easy a defense as in the US. Since Ridgeway v The Queen ('95).
However, entrapment as a legal defense is less an overall a defense and rather a reason to exclude a particular piece of evidence from the case. There will also likely be no punishment for those who attempted the entrapment, even if the evidence ends up being excluded.
Australia does have other mechanisms by which something similar may sometimes be used, such as conflict of interest (such as in the Lawyer X trials) are more appropriate defenses, where the US may simply use entrapment.
They are bipartisan, but that does not necessarily imply that Labor would have enacted the same laws if they were the government.
They are waving through these laws so that they cannot be portrayed as "weak on security/law-and-order" by a predominantly hostile (read: News Corp) press.
It is extremely disappointing to see Labor raise all sorts of concerns about similar legislation and then wave it through anyway when the Libs refuse to make any amendments.
Yes, well that’s why I want some good independents (even Greens would be better than what we have now) holding the balance of power. The two party system isn’t working.
I absolutely agree with you, although I'm a little more optimistic.
2PP has Labor winning the next election. Some key figures in the Liberal party (Frydenberg, Hunt) have some tough campaigns ahead of them after the massive bias against their home state that's been on display.
Then there's the whole friendlyjordies thing, which I've heard commentary about in circles where I would have never expected it.
I don't know if the usual election lies will cut it this time.
Why would Labor winning change anything? Labor have voted for every single piece of surveillance legislation tendered over the last decade. The AA Bill, metadata retention and more. They voted for it all. They are vehement supporters of surveillance state policies and have voted for it -- repeatedly.
At best it will be a LNP or Labor minority govt. Very hard for Labor to win. Even if they did this issue will get the least priority amongst all things that Australia faces, like economic recovery, climate change, China, anti corruption body etc.
> not the temporary State-Government health orders that some people have tried to blow out of proportion
They banned single mothers from taking their child to playgrounds after being locked in their homes for weeks and then fined them thousands for doing so. They got rid of this absurd rule when cases rose by 3x, further highlighting how absolutely ridiculous it was.
Certain state governments have clearly overstepped the mark and anyone defending them will not go down well in time. Thankfully you can't delete comments here.
You're intentionally misrepresenting the facts here. They closed playgrounds - they did nothing to target single mothers specifically. And the removal was made based on vaccination position, which was announced well in advance.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, however my experience is that people who intentionally misrepresent a scenario usually don't go down well in time either.
> they did nothing to target single mothers specifically
It was example of the outcome, not a declaration of the actual law.
The Victorian government now has more cases than ever before and is amusingly opening up, dropping nearly all restrictions/curfews, they've been dragged kicking and screaming though this whole thing and have prided themselves on being the strictest state government possible with a tough on covid approach. Despite that, having the toughest restrictions and the world record for lockdowns, they still end up with the most deaths and infections in the country. Clearly whatever they are doing isn't working, yet the rusted-on types will support them no matter what while ignoring the clear and plain facts about the massive differential between state policy outcomes in Australia.
I don't think it's that complex. I always thought it was inevitable that once everything we did happened via a computer, gathering it all together would be an irresistible attraction to man+dog. It was always going to accelerate, and it was always going to go into overshoot.
And while it's painted in forum's like this as all negative, the reality is it's not. In fact there have been some pretty big positives. Crime levels have been dropping, while prosecutions have gone up. Criminologists have put that down to better surveillance. Cameras everywhere have meant the odds of getting caught for a given offense have gone up, so more people have been getting caught on their first offence. Amusingly, it's just just the criminals who have been on the receiving end of this - it's the law enforcers too. They used to be able to hide their overreaches behind the solidarity of the blue line. Now misbehaviour is very likely caught on a camera that's not behind the line, and the results have been on the world's headlines.
I know the naturally privacy conscious feel like this is a personal invasion, I feel like that too on occasions. Their problem is that to date it's most likely been a net positive. Open societies with less criminality and corruption do better, and that seems to have been the net result so far. While like you I doubt many people have analysed in these terms, what they have done is evaluated how life is now vs before, and it seems OK. In simple terms, we can have more shiny things. Therefore the simply don't care some privacy guru seems a privacy apocalypse around the corner. So far the reverse has been true, and wot do these supposed experts know anyway?
Still, I feel decidedly uncomfortable with the Assistance and Access bill, and its friends. My problem is not that they allow enough information to be mined - it's that they don't allow enough. Specifically, while they allow the government agencies to gather information on its citizens, the bills go out of their way to ensure the citizens have no idea how much their government is spying on them, or who is being spied upon, or why, or at whose behest. Without a little sunlight to sterilise things, it's inevitable malfeasance will grow in the dark. We already have numerous examples of petty privacy theft - police spying on their ex's, taxi's chasing credit card owners and the like. It's just a question of time before one politician plunders another's emails and polling data, or one of these systems gets hacked and mined for identity data for years before anybody becomes the wiser.
The sad bit is, it is only after they have blatant examples staring them in the face that voters will conclude this overreach has downsides too. So we will have to suffer some real pain before there is a correction. The good news is the public education has already started. The Huawei bans are an example of that. It was only after Huawei won the contract to run the Danish telephone system, and later the Danish discovered their private data leaking across the world that politicians and intelligence agencies woke up to the fact the same data gathering capabilities they were exploiting could also be used against them.
They reacted by banning Huawei. One day they will figure out that isn't going to fix the problem. We've since learnt Juniper was hacked for years, apparently by the Chinese who could watch all data flowing through their gear. And that's just the foreign players. In Russia we have private criminal gangs gathering data on a scale well beyond their Law Enforcement Agencies, and using it to shake down institutions like banks. The only cure I can see for this is a transparency on a scale we haven't seen to date. We have to put the days of blindly trusting government bureaucratic caesars to determine what data is collected, who can see it and what it is used for behind us. That information is too dangerous to be kept in the dark - it must be open to all citizens to inspect.
We have very little media diversity. The few billionaires who own the few outlets enjoy the continuing tax cuts, random free grants, advertising spend, etc. from the conservative Government, so run what some critics have called a ‘protection racket for the Liberal National Party’. Almost nothing about any of the mass surveillance laws then really gets into the media, and if something is mentioned, it’s mostly presented in light of the Government’s line on it.
The times any of this does get into the news is if there is any opposition from the Opposition party (Labor), who theoretically could get the numbers to block laws in the Senate by one vote. If it looks like they might not allow the Government to sweep them through, the Government then does what we call ‘wedging’ the Labor party. This is where they say “Labor wants the terrorists to win” or “Labor is voting in the interests of paedophiles”, and the media amplifies that narrative.
Unfortunately it works because nobody knows what the laws are about (even though human rights groups, law groups, civil society groups, often even the Government’s own security legislation review committee have raised serious flaws, tried to get them out in the open but are ignored by the media).
The Government also makes a mockery of any due process - sometimes having a public consultation period but ignoring it when basically every submission is negative and it’s clear nobody actually wants the laws (it’s just a box ticking exercise - if people bring it up later, they will seriously claim “but we consulted the public and experts” even though they ignored all of them). Some of these laws they have pushed through both Houses of Parliament in one or two days, with basically no debate.
It’s a truly atrocious situation. There is an election coming up, but with most of the media enthusiastically running the protection racket and pushing basically just lies about politics, and only fairly actively politically informed people knowing what’s actually going on (that’s a small proportion of the population - the conservative party relies on that a lot), things may not improve.