Coalition party room erupts with data retention dissent


blog Well, well. Looks like Coalition MPs in general are not as disinterested in the Federal Government’s controversial data retention and surveillance proposal as has been previously believed. The Australian newspaper (we recommend you click here for the whole article) reports that the Coalition’s party room virtually erupted in anger over the proposals in a large meeting this morning. The newspaper reports:

“A dozen Coalition MPs warned against the proposal as a restriction on civil liberties in an important signal of support for a growing online campaign against the changes.”

As we alluded to yesterday, this is the same pattern of behaviour which we saw with respect to Labor’s similarly controversial mandatory Internet filtering policy — first there is silence from the Opposition, then, once it becomes clear that there is widespread public opposition to the plan amid a hostile response from the media, the Opposition debates the issue internally, and then finally comes to a formal public view rejecting the Government’s view on the issue. The only difference this time around appears to be that the process has been dramatically sped up. We’ve seen this kind of thing before … and this time around we know how to block this kind of objectionable proposal. Democracy is becoming more responsive.


  1. It’s just a discussion paper designed to get feedback at the moment isn’t it?

    I think Nicola should pay very close attention to the feedback she’s getting…

      • Roxon only have has herself to blame, her seemingly flippant responses to objections has pushed this into the something the Coalition can used for easy political points. I have no doubt if it wasn’t for the easy positive press they could score off this they wouldn’t be bleating about it.

    • @tinman

      Yes, It’s just an inquiry at the moment. But it has been widely publicised and I think Roxon has been taken aback at the mass of credible opposition the tech media has drummed up.

      Frankly, I vaguely supported the ideals behind the proposals, with the right safeguarding in place against misuse (as my submission to the inquiry stated). But with the increasingly weak and misleading responses from Roxon et al. I think it’s time they either rethink this or massively water down the proposals.

      Poorly handled Roxon, poorly handled.

  2. And so she should. I hope she cops the biggest belting of her political career, because it is a disgrace.

  3. ” The Australian newspaper (we recommend you click here for the whole article)”

    No can do. It requires a log in.

    • So? Will those votes move to parties or candidates with half a brain, or will they cycle around to the Coalition? Which won’t have a substantially different view, just be more sly about writing off our privacy.

  4. The kind of draconian restrictions of privacy that these laws bring are a disgrace. You can argue they are small infirngement on civil liberty but they are frankly uneccessary, the judical system should not be allowed to monitor the citizens of a nations as a matter of course but rather have reason to do it in the first place.

    The NBN is a great piece of forward thinking, this law is two steps back from those three steps forward from that.

  5. Well, if the Coalition decides not to support the bill it’s dead. Until the next attempt.

  6. Ahhh the “meeee tooo” mentality.

    You don’t want crime on the internet, but you don’t want do do what it takes to be stopping it.


    Lets read the papers and grow a brain – and lap up all the “sensationalised news” designed to sell news papers, instead of reading the actual material, and saying, “Is this a good way to make the world better, wholly, partly, which bits and which not bits? – What are my own opinions, based upon my own experience?”

    What? None? You never read the report – your a fuck wit.

    • I don’t consider an invasion of my privacy a way to make the world better. Why, do you? (An invasion of your privacy, that is.)

      Also, government agencies already have sufficient powers to fight internet crime without treating the entire online population of Australia as potential suspects in potential crimes.

      So, in conclusion, we don’t want crime on the internet, and we are already doing what it takes to stop it.

    • Interesting… what, in your view, would it take to stop it? Thousands of years of laws and policing haven’t stopped crime in shops or streets, what makes you think the Internet will be any different?

Comments are closed.