news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has delivered a major speech arguing that government regulation is not the solution to societal challenges posed by the onset of new technology such as the Internet, in contrast to what he said was the Federal Government’s “command and control” approach to the medium.
Since the current Labor Federal Government took power in November 2007, it has attempted to implement a number of measures which seek to control how Australians access and use the Internet. The most high-profile of these was the failed mandatory Internet filter project, which would have blocked Australians from accessing a ‘blacklist’ of banned sites.
However, a number of other measures have also been discussed, from including even the smallest bloggers in media regulation, to the creation of a new media regulator to focus more on the Internet, and also the controversial data retention and surveillance project currently being considered by Federal Parliament, which would see much of what Australians do online logged for law enforcement purposes. In addition, Federal and State Attorneys-General are currently considering new measures to deal with social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Speaking to the National Radio Conference in Sydney last week, Turnbull said: “Labor’s clear bias lies in favour Government command and control of new platforms — whether it be through the Internet filter, through the ‘super-new media regulator’ suggested in the Finkelstein report, through creating a new category of ‘content service enterprises’ as suggested in the Convergence review or an onerous data retention scheme.”
The Liberal MP went on to outline three “very good reasons” why Australia should oppose or “at least be very sceptical indeed” of increasing Government regulation over new digital technologies and platforms. The first reason, he said, was that regulation imposed “a huge cost on the economy and enterprise”, where it may not be needed. For example, much more video was uploaded to online video platform YouTube than was broadcast on television – and yet, YouTube’s own processes were capable of identifying offensive or copyrighted material, without the need for government intervention.
Secondly, Turnbull said, old business models in the media industry were currently undergoing “a radical shift”, and it was important for Government not to put them under “under even greater threat” by implementing wrongheaded regulation.
Finally, Turnbull said, there was “a very real risk” that regulators would be tempted to try and get ahead of technological developments and “strangle the very trends that we out to be encouraging”. “Regulation should not be the quick fix method to deal with emerging technologies,” he said. “Trying to impose old regulatory models on the new media environment will only serve to stifle speech, innovation and competition.”
“Our view in the Coalition is that we need less regulation, not more … All too often, changes to regulation have been made without consideration of the extent of existing regulations or with an overall objective of what the regulations are seeking to achieve,” Turnbull said.
“When in government, the Coalition will aim to streamline existing regulations and remove unnecessary legacy regulations, while focussing on a more flexible and adaptive regime. The test we should apply is simply this: what is the objective the regulation is seeking to achieve? Is it any longer relevant or necessary? If not, the regulations should go. If it is still relevant or necessary, then the next question “can we achieve the objective in a simpler, less expensive manner” and if we can, then we should.”
One example cited by Turnbull was the impact which a social media campaign has had over the past few weeks on radio shock jock Alan Jones. The Shadow Minister argued all of the regulation imposed on the radio broadcast industry by the Australian Communications & Media Authority had not had “any discernible impact” on the broadcasting practices of radio shock jocks, but one social media campaign had had “quite an impact” – with the result that last week, Jones’ show temporarily halted all on-air advertising.
opinion/analysis
Let’s just take a step back here for a second and consider what Turnbull’s arguing for here. It is very seldom that we hear politicians of any kind, in any first-world country, arguing for less or even the same regulation of the Internet; normally they universally argue for more control. It is simply fantastic to hear that not every poltician thinks the big old evil Internet needs to be reined in for the good of the people — at least one politician, Turnbull, wants to simply leave it alone. Amazing.
This speech, along with another major speech given by Turnbull last week on the topic of data retention and Labor’s Internet filter project, do much to illustrate a sharp difference in approach to the Internet between Labor and the Coalition.
Turnbull is correct that since it took power in 2007, Labor’s instant response to any issue relating to the Internet has been to legislate and regulate. From blocking access to content, to investigating methods to control Internet media and social media, and monitoring what Australians do online, Labor appears to believe that the Internet is the big evil, and that the correct approach is to stamp out this Internet freedom thing before it becomes a threat to the Government (while paradoxically working on its National Broadband Network project, which will massively boost Internet access in Australia). Labor loves the Internet, it appears, as long as you’re using it for approved processes.
In comparison, the Coalition has often been critical of Labor’s Internet “command and control” approach. It was Turnbull and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey who effectively killed the Internet filter project, by discussing the issue inside the Coalition and eventually pledging to vote down any filter legislation (because the Greens also opposed it, this meant that legislation would not make it through the Senate), and Turnbull has also recently heavily criticised the Government’s “onerous” data retention plans. Similarly, Turnbull has been a big supporter of social media freedom.
Of course, it’s also hard not to feel that quite a lot of these Internet freedom and deregulation ideals are also quite dependent not upon official Coalition policy, but more on the whims of various members of the Shadow Cabinet of the day. Turnbull might personally be in favour of Internet freedom, for example, as a leader of the progressive branch of the Liberal Party, but does Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, a conservative leader, have similar feelings? It seems pretty unlikely. To me, this makes it hard to take the Coalition completely seriously on these issues – if the Coalition won government and a different politician from the conservative side of the fence (that is, not Turnbull) was appointed Communications Minister, would we see a policy backflip in this area?
It’s important to note that it was a Coalition figure, then-Communications Minister Richard Alston, who first introduced broad censorship of the Internet in Australia a decade ago. And Coalition attorneys-general have similarly taken very similar approaches to Labor attorneys-general when it comes to controlling and monitoring the Internet as well.
In the end, it all comes back to policy. Speeches by politicians are fine and dandy. But it’s when those speeches become concrete policy documents – that Australians can hold them to – that the fluffy clouds of idealism becomes the harsh concrete of reality. And in Australia, as in other jurisdictions, our politicians have a bit of a bad history when it comes to forming policy dealing with the fast-moving world of the Internet.
Image credit: Vincent Diamante, Creative Commons
Like with the NBN I gotta say:
Turnbull- Put up or shutup. No policy = no deal.
This.
+1
Nice sentiments………. but poor form in following through to real actions. I wonder what the Coalition cabinet think about this?
You’re comparing a single politician’s opinion with the policies of a party.
He doesn’t have to put a a policy, the Coalition would do that – Turnbull does not equal the Coalition.
He also does not have to shut up. His opinions are very influential in the Coalition. It’s much better to praise his point of view to help disrupt Labor’s plans.
As a party, Labor has made their policy intentions in this area quite clear. Go vote for them at the next election if you want what they propose.
Agreed.
If you criticise him for making these comments I can assume by implication that you support Conroy’s alternative, the internet filter?
No. Conroy has, for better or worse, outlined his filter and made clear he still supports it. I do not. I never have.
This is in contrast to Turnbull who has made clear he opposes it and still does, like me. The difference is, on the filter Conroy and Turnbull are stable in their consistency. On the NBN Conroy is stable and Turnbull is….flighty, to be generous, as they have spent the last 5 years switching technologies and stances according to public opinion, rather than come up with a decent planned policy that has thought and foresight in it.
I have no doubt Turnbull would unabashedly abolish the filter, where Conroy doesn’t want to. I have NO idea what Turnbull will ACTUALLY do with the NBN when he gets in, if public opinion changes in the meantime.
As I said, Turnbull needs to put up or shutout- Conroy has done so on both the NBN and the filter. Turnbull has not.
So are you criticising Turnbull on the filter issue for not having a policy when you have just said that you have no doubt he would abolish it? I don’t know if you are arguing for him to outline an explicit policy of opposing the filter (already do), opposing addition forms of regulation (already stated he would repeal new media laws) or what?
If it criticism based upon the NBN then that is fine for NBN issues. But why conflate NBN issues with filter ones?
Ah, Michael, you were the one who brought the filter into it. I was replying to your indication I was being two faced of put up or shut up on Turnbull for the NBN, but not asking Conroy to do it for the filter.
The NBN and filter ARE separate. What I was saying is that Turnbull DOES have a policy on the filter he doesn’t want one and WILL repeal it- end of story. He DOESN’T have a policy that I could explain in detail and make sense or even try, nor could he. Conroy is consistent on both- he wants the filter and he wants the NBN. Both solid policy. Turnbull ISN’T solid on the NBN.
The actual ideas- the filter and the NBN, are entirely separate and I can happily oppose the filter without opposing the NBN. I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Thats what I thought, I mainly brought in the filter as the best example (in my mind) of government attempts to regulate the internet. It is one of the examples of concrete policies out there that the ALP comitted to. There is the Finklestein review and convergance review that makes proposals relating to the internet but the ALP has not released a position on those yet. Malcolm Turnbull on the other hand has said that he would be opposed to any new regulation for the internet previously to this speech.
My point is that with regards to internet regulation, Conroy has made his position clear (more regulation) but the ALP policy is not clear. On the other hand, Turmbull has convinced the LNP to oppose any new regulation. So I feel that while your criticism can be applied to his NBN policies it cannot for this issue.
As an aside, haveing no “new” policy is the same as being in favour of the status quo. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Great. Solution to our problems? Re-elect Labor in a landslide next year, forcing the Coalition to give leadership back to MT, then in 4 years we can elect MT and he can de-regulate our shiny new fibre connections. Brilliant plan, who’s on board?
Awesome.
I, and anyone else, can VPN past censorship and monitoring.
However, I’
Ah, delete please.
Lol Dominique
I thought you were using that as an example of “regulated censorship”
You know, like when you try and call the government a bunch of
See what I mean ;p
I, and anyone else, can VPN past regulation, censorship, monitoring and basically everything bad.
However, I’m pretty sure one can VPN neither faster download nor upload speeds.
Except that they can ban VPN connections for the purpose of hiding your data transmissions, then require ISPs to monitor anyone trying to break the law and then penalise you for using a VPN or similar.
So you’ll get your data out/in in an encrypted fashion, and shortly thereafter pay a penalty for hiding your data.
Even China doesn’t ban VPNs. No Arabic country does either. The only country that’s tried to really ban VPNs seems to be Iran, and they’re building a whole new Internet to make that work. Pakistan too, apparently, but it seems to be unenforceable for the most part, with plenty of work-arounds. If the government tried to ban VPNs here, there’d be a civil war tomorrow. Not least of all from companies that require VPNs to protect their intellectual property. And if VPNs banned, then people will just use some variation of HTTPS to tunnel through. That’s required by banking.
And lastly, I’d rather have NBN plus data retention and crap rather than no NBN plus data retention, since Malcolm Turnbull seems to be, as usual, one of the dissenting voices in the coalition in the first place:
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/10/11/labor-coalition-block-data-retention-transparency/
It doesn’t matter what any other country does.
It’s what is within the power for our federal government to do that matters. They could ban VPNs. I’m not saying they will or that it is likely – just that they could.
…and we are saying your thoughts are flawed and wrong. Simple. There are so many alternatives anyway.
The more removed from power one is, the greater the rhetoric can be.
It is one thing to muse about the ideal world. It is another to deal with the compromises often necessary to combine governing and staying in power.
Oh yes, and the Coalition have never been in power… they wouldn’t know anything about running government right?
Turnbull hasn’t been.
According to wikipedia he’s been in the house of representatives (the lower house) since 2004. Which means yes he has been in government in the Coalition under John Howard.
The coalition has at least 75-80% of its policy ready to go
It will be cheaper and will be built quicker, so majority of Australians can afford the broadband they are entitled too.
Tell us more! You seem to know a lot more than most of us.
Put up or shut up Mal.
Where is your Fully Costed Policy that you said you had?
To be fair:
https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/250479796621025280
“the AFR journalist took more than a few liberties in that story, read what is in the quotes.”
But Malcolm, that 25% is the most crucial 25%- the cost to build and the timing to build it.
It would be relatively simple for the Coalition to come up with an FTTN plan, from Telstra’s old one and even integrate it with the current FTTH already laid, although that layers on a level of complexity which adds more time.
But what you haven’t told us is HOW you will ensure it is built in less than 8 years and HOW you will ensure it is cheaper and HOW you will ensure it is more affordable to Australian Internet Users.
Policy based on nothing but “look at them, they did it” is not policy- it’s called brainstorming. It is the stage BEFORE policy, but you wish the Australian people to accept it as policy anyway.
The NBN had the same issue, but they trialed rollouts for 18 months and were successful and tweaked their design as such. You will have to do the same for FTTN, because it has never been done here. At least FTTH had been done before here.
ALL of these complexities add up to time, cost and affordability issues for end users. These have been solved by NBNCo for FTTH, yet you would have them go back to square one and redo all such design and planning. I do not see ANY evidence for how or why this would be cheaper or “more cost-effective” and almost certainly not substantially faster.
You also fail to give us an indication of the % of Australians that will get FTTN. That is unacceptable- we KNOW this figure on the NBN and it is unacceptable to be able to compare these plans equally without knowing. Why would I vote for the Coalition if all I or another 25% were guaranteed “maybe better ADSL”??
Rhetoric doesn’t cut it. Give us some real world numbers and costs, then we’ll sit down and see if the short-term gain in time and money is worth the long-term disadvantage of not having a clear upgrade path to FTTH, which you ALSO haven’t outlined.
To say you have 75-80% of a plan is like being 75-80% pregnant or dead.
Also, a plan is the total some of its parts, not some portion of it.
Having 75-80% of a plan that encompasses hundreds of smaller plans is just that – being around 3/4 complete. I’m not adverse to seeing plans unfold over time. After all, it’s not election time yet and the opposition traditionally don’t reveal their whole policy until election time to stop the incumbent government from countering it.
“75-80% pregnant or dead”
I think you mean 75-80% pregnant
or
20-25% unformed (or similar).
“Also, a plan is the total some of its parts, not some portion of it.”
That is a good point – it would hold some water if you used the word “sum” instead of “some”… :)
Traditionally it’s “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” or similar.
“After all, it’s not election time yet and the opposition traditionally don’t reveal their whole policy until election time to stop the incumbent government from countering it.”
How would it counter it if it so perfect?
“75-80% pregnant or dead”
I think you mean 75-80% pregnant
or
20-25% unformed (or similar).
You though wrong. I mean either pregnant or dead. You can’t be less than hundred percent dead.
“Also, a plan is the total some of its parts, not some portion of it.”
That is a good point – it would hold some water if you used the word “sum” instead of “some”… :)
Anyone with a bit a common sense would have realised this was a typo. Obviously you did not. Furthermore, how can you say that it is a good point when you previously argued the opposite?
“Traditionally it’s “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” or similar.”
Nothing to do with tradition. What you are quoting is what is usually given as the definition of Gestalt psychology.
As for
“Having 75-80% of a plan that encompasses hundreds of smaller plans is just that – being around 3/4 complete. I’m not adverse to seeing plans unfold over time”
I would call this empty talk. Now, we have a vague (75-80%) encompassing smaller plans. Do tells us, O wise and informed one, at what percentages of development are these smaller plans? Do we have, let’s call it 77.5% of a plan that is made of full or partially developed smaller plans? I can’t wait to hear your answer.
“How would it counter it if it so perfect?”
My apologies, I don’t understand this question.
“You can’t be less than hundred percent dead.”
Yes you can. There is still cellular activity upon being pronounced dead, but that’s a topic for a different discussion.
“Anyone with a bit a common sense would have realised this was a typo. Obviously you did not. Furthermore, how can you say that it is a good point when you previously argued the opposite?”
Didn’t you see the “… :)”? That form of punctuation is meant to indicate the humour of you making an obvious typo. Hence my use of the particular phrase “hold some water”. A sort of double entendre.
I didn’t argue the opposite before hand. And it is still a good point. A full plan is the sum of it’s parts and leaving out some of it does make it an incomplete plan. If you don’t want me to argue the opposite and bag your argument instead then take the compliments as they come.
“Nothing to do with tradition. What you are quoting is what is usually given as the definition of Gestalt psychology.”
Yes it does. It is how people normally express it. In this context it is tradition. Why fight against it? Why mention Gestalt psychology? I’m pretty sure this concept predates Gestalt psychology by several thousand years. I just looked it up – confirmed as being expounded by Aristotle.
“I would call this empty talk. Now, we have a vague (75-80%) encompassing smaller plans. Do tells us, O wise and informed one, at what percentages of development are these smaller plans? Do we have, let’s call it 77.5% of a plan that is made of full or partially developed smaller plans? I can’t wait to hear your answer.”
You can call it what you want. I didn’t come up with the number, someone else did further up the thread. I would guess that most plans that are announced are probably near 100% developed. That’s just a guess though. Again, the opposition are under no compulsion to put out a full set of policies before the election is announced – and the opposition almost never do.
Interestingly, when current legislation is going to be left alone the incumbent government or opposition will announce nothing in regards to that legislation. So if the coalition is to leave current legislation for internet regulation alone then there will be no announcement. They would only make a specific announcement of saying they’ll leave it alone if that was thought to help them in the polls – and they’d only do it once an election has been called.
Do you support the Labor Party plan for data retention?
“How would it counter it if it so perfect?”
You suggested that not releasing the policy would stop the government countering it.
“Yes you can. There is still cellular activity upon being pronounced dead, but that’s a topic for a different discussion.”
That’s right it is best left of a different discussio. It is a rather silly point to make, unless off course, you are trying to be right at all cost.
Didn’t you see the “… :)”? That form of punctuation is meant to indicate the humour of you making an obvious typo. Hence my use of the particular phrase “hold some water”. A sort of double entendre.
Oh I see, you have sense of humour! Well, it was not evident to me.
“If you don’t want me to argue the opposite and bag your argument instead then take the compliments as they come.”
First it didn’t sound like a compliments. Secondly, I don’t care if you argue the opposite. You would only sound illogical.
“You can call it what you want. I didn’t come up with the number, someone else did further up the thread. I would guess that most plans that are announced are probably near 100% developed. That’s just a guess though. Again, the opposition are under no compulsion to put out a full set of policies before the election is announced – and the opposition almost never do.”
It would not matter what the number was. What matters is that an incomplete proposal is not a plan. It is at best a yet unsuccessful attempt at it.
Do you support the Labor Party plan for data retention?
No.
“You suggested that not releasing the policy would stop the government countering it.”
Yes, if you release your policies well before an announced election then you give the other parties time to either copy or counter your policies.
“That’s right it is best left of a different discussio. It is a rather silly point to make, unless off course, you are trying to be right at all cost.”
The point is not silly at all – it’s a fact and a useful piece of knowledge. I suggest you absorb it. Are you suggesting I’m trying to be right at all costs?
“Oh I see, you have sense of humour! Well, it was not evident to me.”
The result of in imperfect communication medium I’m afraid.
“First it didn’t sound like a compliments. Secondly, I don’t care if you argue the opposite. You would only sound illogical.”
Again, an imperfect communication medium. I’d care if I were you – it wouldn’t be making things easier for you if I trolled you out.
“It would not matter what the number was. What matters is that an incomplete proposal is not a plan. It is at best a yet unsuccessful attempt at it.”
I disagree – it is still a plan, it is just an evolving one. I do agree that a full plan is better – but a partial plan is not useless.
“No”
Great! I agree with that sentiment.
“Yes, if you release your policies well before an announced election then you give the other parties time to either copy or counter your policies.”
If the plan is so much better as MT claims then countering should not be an issue. As for the government copying his policy, that would be a step backward.
“The point is not silly at all – it’s a fact and a useful piece of knowledge.”
To you perhaps. Furthermore, it misses the point of the analogy.
“I suggest you absorb it”
A bit patronising. Don’t you think?
“I’d care if I were you – it wouldn’t be making things easier for you if I trolled you out.”
Is that a threat?
I disagree – it is still a plan, it is just an evolving one. I do agree that a full plan is better – but a partial plan is not useless.
Is this discussion, MT’s plan is not evolving, it is, by his own admission, incomplete.
“If the plan is so much better as MT claims then countering should not be an issue. As for the government copying his policy, that would be a step backward.”
It’s not a policy. It’s his opinion. They shouldn’t be mixed up.
“To you perhaps. Furthermore, it misses the point of the analogy.”
It’s only an analogy if it’s analogous – which it wasn’t.
“A bit patronising. Don’t you think?”
No.
“Is that a threat?”
No. Do you feel threatened? If the answer is “no” then I’d ask why you asked.
“Is this discussion, MT’s plan is not evolving, it is, by his own admission, incomplete.”
It’s not a plan or policy. It’s his opinion. You’re conflating separate issues.
I don’t see this discussion as constructive – you can have your opinion and I’ll have mine. Good day to you.
If your policy is so good for Australia, why not release to the public? If it’s not finished yet, why not release it to the public to get help and feedback?
If you hide this better policy over current policy despite many requests, won’t the delay HURT Australia?
In fact… it’s a systemic problem on the coalition side. Not exactly that, but something similar.
If the NBN is going to cost $80-$100 billion, they should detail how they arrived at that conclusion. Simple using that number as a talking point to scare people is dishonest. If they truly believe it will cost that much, they’d say why they think so. If they genuinely believe that, then they’d come out to the public with more detail than just throwing that number out there.
The coalition says that we should vote for them because NBN Co is incompetent because it’s rolling out slowly, it will take 20 years and it will cost twice or three times as much as they’re saying.
But they have made no attempt to make their methods as to how they came to these conclusions public.
Sure, there are things to be criticised around the NBN. But we need more evidence than the pure FUD, concerning the very fundamentals of the project, to be convinced.
My point being, if they want to make sure that Australia doesn’t get HURT, then they’d have done a better job of communicating their message.
> It will be cheaper
I know you’re basing that comparison on the NBN’s ARPU. But you can’t do that. FTTN ARPU and the NBN ARPU are incomparable. You need to a) add the ULL fees for Telstra b) add the cost of a normal phone line, which is provided for free wholesale to the provider in the form of NBN Co’s UNI-V service and c) subtract the NBN ARPUs from all the speeds that FTTN can’t do in the first place
If you release the report without any of these three considerations, you’ll be grilled. Then you get near a comparable set of figures. And you may find that for the average user on FTTN, a similar product on FTTH is likely not to be cheaper.
If you don’t do that, then you’re going to the public and base the claim of “cheaper” on a scenario that compares figures that include a) someone on 24 Mbps VDSL2, who also needs to buy HomeLine Budget and where $x of the ARPU get funnelled for the ULL to Telstra too compared to figures that include b) someone on 1Gbit/400 Mbps fibre, with free UNI-V service. Sure, the former is likely to be cheaper, but it’s a different product.
Oh, great, a “good guy” speech from Malcolm means there a “bad guy” one about to come next from him…
Malcolm T has said something really sensible about regulation. Based upon past performance when he’s said something sensible, I predict he will follow up with saying something really stupid before the week is out.
So is Malcolm going to support the Greens’ motion for release of the draft bill?
Just as food for thought.
Malcolm argues a point that you essentially agree with (even if you do not like him). Instead of supporting the argument for less deregulation you continue to attack him based on other issues. If this issue is important you will support it so that the message about internet regulation will get across to both sides of politics instead of just being a “thought bubble” as it currently is for the LNP.
If you try to shutdown MT when he is arguing a point you support is that not implicitly supporting Conroy’s view that you would prefer more regulation and an internet filter?
p.s. I thought the internet filter had not been shelved, it had just been “postponed” and subtly buried but never officially cancelled.
I’m not down on MT for his stand on data retention (good on him!), I was just making the observation that on his past record, he’ll be dropping a real clunker any time now :o)
Can’t disagree with that but it seems that it is true from both sides. The moment either side of politics gets any momentum something happens to blow up in their face.
Why does the Government continue to call the internet a new technology? Did they just now discover that it wasn’t all about sending and receiving E-Mail?
If the internet has been able to exist without regulation for all these years, why now?
If only we could pick and choose the best bits from both parties stands in the Comms portfolio.
The Greens …
Yeah, except then we’ve got all that pesky “don’t murder the sea kelp” and “save our nuclear whales” stuff…..
I don’t mind the Greens, but they’re still a bit….cooky on some things.
I’d go along with that line of thinking S7, but then it’s not like the main parties don’t have a few. (let’s be polite) loose cannons either.
Out of all the pollies in Canberra, I probably have the greatest respect for Scott Ludlam, the dudes just plain sensible and he has a real grip on “tech” and what it can be used for to make “things better”.
If the Greens only adjusted their crazy and loony environmentalist policies to get them more in line with the general nuclear-whale-eating and baby-seal-clubbing population, they would be so much more electable… :P
Oh just as a side point.
Denying nuclear energy is one of the dumbest methods to generate clean energy. There are methods of nuclear power that do not generate any long life radioactive products but this irrational stance against all forms of nuclear prohibits further research.
(Think fission vs fusion as both are types of nuclear reactions)
@Michael
While I agree denying nuclear energy as a green resource is stupid, I haven’t actually seen anyone protesting against fusion……
It’s true that no one protests against fusion specifically because there is too much of a link in the public mind between “nuclear” and uranium based fission technology.
There needs to be more nuance in the debate as there is also thorium fission as well as fusion which are all included under the nuclear umbrella.
A ban on nuclear energy excludes potentially safer options which do not have a bad track record. If they were truly concerned about a sustainable future all possible options would need to be considered.
Michael, fusion doesn’t have a “bad track record” because it does not have a track record at all — fusion reactors are still at a very early stage of research, unfortuanately. It will be many decades until any potential for power generation from fusion becomes clear… have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
I agree with the general idea behind your post, however. Nuclear energy (with modern fission reactors) must be considered as an alternative to fossil fuels, rationally and impassionately.
Thanks for that Zok, a really good read.
Fusion tech is further along than i thought, good on them.
I generally don’t like the greens for their economic posturing. However, Scott Ludlam has impressed me many times with his work in the IT sector. It is a pity he is not more of an influence in the party instead of all of the watermelons.
True Renai, The Greens get my upper house vote whenever Nick X isn’t up for election.
The Greens are lefties, vote Pirate Party Aus.
I disagree with again on Turnbull that the Industry does not need more regulation, the fact remains, there has been more calls for regulation since privatization of Telstra.
And that should say something!
Wait, isn’t the same party that has co-blocked a senate order, over ‘data retention’ shenanigans?
I’m sorry, what part of “command and control” is missing from retaining and tracking millions of Australian citizens and residents internet usage?
So, Turnbull is keen to stop the encroachment. But his party will happily jump into the same control-freak bed as labor. Yes?
I am forever amused as to how often the Member for Wentworth can distort facts, disown party politics (when it suits) not just of Labor policy but of the L/NP too.
I’m a little less amused that the Media continues to give such credence, but there you go.
Im Sorry but the Liberals have too been trying to Censor the internet. Does anyone remember Howards Plans? His old Opt-in Filter? ..(they said 100k plus would use it, in reality under 2k only downloaded it) or who even started the internet needs a filter debate? the Damn Liberals! (with pressure from Christan groups)
Dont be fooled by this speech. Its the age old trick of i’ll say the opposite to the Opposition! Their all the same!
While I am strongly opposed to an internet filter in general, I have no objection to personal internet filtering software. It is upto everyone to choose what they wish to view for themself (and their children). It is in this niche that op-in software can be applied as it does not have any effect other than on yourself.
Country wide proposals do.
Op-out measures do.
The reality is that many businesses already have software like this on work computers. Having the government sponsor a software program is no big deal. (Potentially a waste of cash).
I think that the Liberal work on an ISP internet filter was a sop to a certain Tasmanian senator so they could get some legislation through the senate.
They finally decided after some research that an mandatory ISP filter wouldn’t work and that the most effective filtering option was PC based filtering. This was what Howard offered not long before he was defeated.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an internet filter on your own PC, or tablet or smart phone for that. I know of no one who is anti ISP filtering who has any problem with a personal filter, In fact all the PC Operating Systems that I am aware of all have them pre-installed as part of their Internet operating system. All you have to do is set them up.
So to honest I don’t think you can say that Howard tried to bring in ISP level filtering. The truth is that it was rejected as an option by the Coalition.
General question:
How can people push for the Coalition to implement a policy that specifically legislates for a set of rights to be free from government monitoring? And a better NBN plan while they’re at it?
Letters?
A Getup campaign?
Comments are closed.