It's exceptionally sad since Australia has order of preference, instant runoff and mandatory voting. Even with all those safeguards to prevent major parties and ensure equal representation, Australia still ends up with major parties and too many people who don't bother with the bottom of the ballot.
I think this is partly the fault of how electorates work. Imagine an election where every electorate votes 30% party A, and the remaining 70% of the vote split somehow between parties B and C. Then you get only members of parties B and C in office, and so you could argue that 30% of the population is not even represented.
This is not so far off what happens with the Greens - in the last federal election they had about a 15% first-preference vote across Australia, but ended up with only 1/150 seats in parliament.
> This is not so far off what happens with the Greens - in the last federal election they had about a 15% first-preference vote across Australia, but ended up with only 1/150 seats in parliament.
As someone who has lived in the US and Australia... the difference would be that in the US, the Greens would get nothing, zero. And due to gerrymandering, it's equally likely that even without party C in play, you can and do easily get situations where 30% votes for party A but win a majority.
Even in our recent mid terms here, whilst the House went back to Democratic control, in the Senate the Republican vote went down 20% but they didn't just keep the same number of seats, they _increased_ their majority.
ya and it will happen every year... those in power have been trying to take control of people's lives forever but so far they have been unable since it requires physically being present. but as technology becomes seamless and is woven into the fabric of society, eventually our thoughts too wont remain private. the only thing protecting us is we are just one data point in billions...
Do you think that will just magically happen on its own?
The party that may win the next election already supports the bill. They claim they would update it with a few inconsequential changes, to make it look like they're "fixing it". But that's about it.
> soured my view of him forever. He’s revealed himself to be a man of no principles.
I don't have a strong opinion of Shorten one way or the other, but I've read a lot of people express a similar POV and it strikes me as extremely naive.
If you went into politics with a view to die on your sword rather than compromise any of your values you'd have a very short career. Losing the battle to win the war is the only way to achieve anything.
I mean, be realistic. If the ALP had blocked the bill it would be political suicide for them. For now some nerds (us) are debating the issue on an obscure forum. The alternative would be for every man and his dog having our corrupt media ram the "Labor has made it easier for terrorists to kill you" story down their throat for the next few months.
> If the ALP had blocked the bill it would be political suicide for them.
They opposed the bill over the weekend and then backflipped because if there's an attack over Christmas they'll look like fools. I don't think that risk was worth selling out 25 million people, but maybe that's just me. They get attacked constantly in the media anyway, it's not going to make much difference.
> The alternative would be for every man and his dog having our corrupt media ram the "Labor has made it easier for terrorists to kill you" story down their throat for the next few months.
In some ways that would be a good thing, because it would force a public debate about warrantless surveillance at a time when relatively few people trust the LNP government or its law-and-order rhetoric.
If you sell out your principles to get that power, what's the purpose of having it? By the time you get there, you're no better than the person you ousted.
Realistically, I don't think the majority of the Australian community is particularly aware of, let alone opposed to this legislation. The idea that law enforcement should be able to gain access to encrypted communications if they have a warrant doesn't seem particularly controversial in the wider community either.
Given this, I'd assume the law is here to stay. The question we need to ask is how can we constructively engage politicians to minimise the flaws in the law. On that front Labor has been much more open and were instrumental in addressing some of the deeper flaws in the original legislation.
So to be clear:
1. The law specifically forbids the government requiring weakening of encryption / authentication / authorisation mechanisms.
2. The law specifically forbids the government requiring systemic vulnerabilities be introduced.
3. The law defines a consultation, review and appeal process.
4. The law prevents the government requiring someone commit a crime in a foreign jurisdiction
5. The law allows publishing the number of aggregate TAN/TCN/TAR received in aggregate in a 6 month period.
The question is where should the law be fixed and how do we engage Labor / Liberals to fix those aspects.
Personally I would like to see:
1. Better protection for software exported for use outside Australia
2. Better definition of what defines a 'systemic' vulnerability
3. Greater protection for individuals. For if a TCN/TAN could be otherwise issued to a company, then the law should not allow a notice to be issued to an individual.
Actually they voted on the promise from the Libs that the amendments they proposed would be revisited in 2019, just to make Australia safe over Christmas. Which is somehow even more boneheaded than unanimously agreeing.