Rubénerd!

A case of another leader who started with a lot of promise but failed to deliver like so many other politicians, so they were replaced. Which of course is the politically correct way to say said person didn't fulfill the desires of some faction. So who do we have now?

Late last night a cabinet reshuffle ousting thingy (they're valid political terms, look them up) former Aussie Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been replaced with Julia Gillard. No, that's me in front of Parliament House, not Julia Gillard, sheesh get your glasses checked.

Position on internet filtering?

Because this is a tech blog (or at least it's supposed to be) I'm more interested to hear what happens to Mr If You Are Against The Mandatory Filter You're A Pedophile Senator Conroy's position. My very good friend and all around awesome guy talkingduck informs me that he could be replaced by Kate Lundly, patron senator of IT and open source. Sounds great, almost too great, so I'm hedging my bets that it won't happen. I hope I'm wrong.

What I'd love to see is a person put in charge who not only recognises the need for open standards, but a transparent bidding process for government IT contracts and who understands that a mandatory internet filter is a futile exercise that will hurt Australia's standing in the world. Oh and it'd be great if she took the NBN seriously, and if she pledged to make all government documents open and available in standard formats, or if not her then someone she puts in charge. We'll have to wait and see.

Positions on other whatnot?

As for other issues, Kevin Rudd talked the talk when it came to asylum seekers, emissions trading and the environment, but failed to follow up on any of them. Preliminary chatter on Twitter by my Aussie friends suggests she won't be changing much of the party's policies, bummer. Ah democracy, its such a productive exercise.

One bit of good news is she's an atheist, like me. I have no problem with people of any faith being the leaders of countries provided they don't let their influence their policy decisions, and Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd unabashedly proved they couldn't in that recent embarrassing debate. If anything only addressing Christian voters was an insult to people of all other faiths and not just heathens like me.

Not sure when the Governor General will be swearing her in on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and all that. I suppose in these circumstances I can see where having a separate head of state and head of government is a good thing, sort of, kinda, maybe.

Just when we thought this nonsense couldn't get any worse, ZDNet Australia is reporting 80% of respondents to a phone poll support Labor's plan for a mandatory internet filter.

Unfortunately I'm not surprised. Most of the voting public aren't tech savvy and all the information they're getting about the plan are from government sound bites and talking points that misleadingly tell them such a plan will protect their kids. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Much like the republican referendum ten years ago, I think the wording of the question is critical in a situation like this. 80% of people may support this proposition:

Do you support a mandatory internet filter?
YES / NO

But what about this?

Do you support a mandatory internet filter that:
- is similar to ones in China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea
- will slow down internet access
- drive IT investment out of the country which will cost jobs
- does not prevent access to material secretly deemed inappropriate by the government?

YES / NO

I've heard the argument that voters don't like reading long, complicated sentences and are much happier to answer a simple question such as the first one above, but I figure they'll see big scary North Korea there and change their mind.

The Brockman Factor

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we will approve the bill to [defend Australian children against questionable material by creating an internet filter...]

Senator: Hold on, I'd like to tack on a waiver to that to that bill. [Can we make it mandatory regardless of its effectiveness?]

Speaker: All those in favour of the amended mandatory internet filter say aye? [80% aye! Motion carried.]

Kent Brockman: I've said this before but I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

Sometimes it's just so simple for people like Michael Atkinson to pass the legislation he wants. Other times though this dang thing called democracy gets in the way and ruins everything. What's the point of being able to pass laws if the people the law will effect want to debate? Sheesh!

South Australia Attorney General Michael Atkinson says the upcoming public consultation on videogames will likely show "overwhelming" support for an R18+ rating because the only people who care enough to get involved in the debate are gamers.

Clearly the fact this issue is even an... issue, suggests this debate is not just limited to the discourse of a bunch of computer gamers high on Mountain Dew and virtual AK-47s. But I digress from the primary point.

Since when do I have a point?

If you're not aware of what's going on in Australia, there's debate as to whether mature games should be legally purchased and sold instead of people downloading them off the internet for free or importing them from overseas in parcels with customs labels that read "steam ironed doilies". Currently it's illegal to buy them, so people simply get them from elsewhere and continue to live their lives as mature adults able to decide for themselves what's appropriate and what isn't.

Unfortunately -- as has been pointed out to me in various online realms of discussion -- politicians tend to not understand logic or sarcasm, both of which are the preferred tools of the computer nerd in getting points across, as I have just illustrated. In fact, it's as if they're immune to both of them, like a Mountain Dew-powered AK-47 wrapped in doilies. Bummer.

James Blunt pencils

To be blunt, as an Aussie who spends most of his life overseas, this mature gaming category farce is just another embarrassment for Australia on the global stage along with the proposed Great Firewall of Australia and our woefully outdated telecommunications infrastructure that we were promised would be fixed in the last election and, surprise surprise, nothing has come of it. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. Well okay it is a little funny, in a hollow sort of way.

And for the record, I do not play any mature age games, unless Commander Keen had some subtle erotic references of which I wasn't aware. The eyes on those aliens were awfully long.

I value government integrity and I'm willing to pay for it!

This evening while grabbing a bite to eat I made the mistake of reading the Adelaide Sunday Mail. I know, I know, it was reckless and irresponsible, but sometimes I feel as though with my news sources from around the world on Twitter and predominately from Singapore I forget about more local news. Ah but The Sunday Mail tabloid newspaper has nothing to do with news... touché sir/madam.

What I did read though in the opinion section was a brief letter from someone in Hahndorf (beautiful place in the Adelaide Hills) talking about how having a registry of lobbyists won't solve any problems. Now right off the bat I don't have the faintest idea what this proposed lobbyist registry is, but I'm assuming its something lobbyists have to register with before they can pay politicians to do their bidding. Maybe?

Onto the primary issue though: can anyone actually explain to me why lobbyists are tolerated at all? Isn't the idea of paying off or financially persuading a politician to advance your position in the hopes of legislation in your favour going against everything democracy stands for? Doesn't lobbying concentrate the power in the hands of the few instead of the many that democracy is supposed to be about?

I'm not a legal student, but I am an economics student (and computer science, but not sure what bearing that has) and all I see of lobbying from my perspective is the means for the rich or powerful in business to institute change or to get around perceived government "problems" in their businesses which may or may not be in place for a reason. For example, not being allowed to dump waste into rivers or allowing people to grill cheese sandwiches in areas where the population is lactose intolerant.

Leaving aside the more sarcastic answers that could be given, why is it that lobbying is legal in most democracies? Do they serve a legitimate function I'm not aware of? Am I being overly simplistic by dismissing them?

South Australian State Election Supplemental Episode.

The results of the state election, the seat tally for the lower house and the complete speeches made by Rob Kerin of the Liberal Party and the residing winner Mike Rann of the Labor Party. Includes my take on the results, why I am overjoyed that Labor has been re-elected, why I voted for The Greens 1, Labor 2 and Liberal 5, and my disgust with a few Liberal candidates' attitudes.

Download MP3 ↓ 28:30 minutes, 13.10MiB

You can also stream it and view its Internet Archive page. It also originally appeared on Ourmedia but it may no longer be accessible there.