Australia Plans to Censor the Internet

SenatorLuddite writes "From January 20, 2008 new content laws introduced by the Federal Government will force sites to verify the age of users before accessing content intended for mature audiences (MA15+ and R18+). The laws bring internet classification into line with Film and Book classification laws and completely prohibits X18+ and RC content from the internet. ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority) claims that adults will not be affected by the new laws, yet user-generated and even chatrooms are required to be assessed for classification and powers are granted to ACMA to send 'take down' notices to offending sites."

Re:This will solve itself...

[1u3hr]

Just wait until they try to shut down 4chan.

TFA: "rules for companies that sell entertainment-related content".

Not free sites.

King Canute?

[serviscope_minor]

People keep tagging these stories "kingcanute". Canute was trying to prove to his courtiers by demonstration that he could not hold back the tide. Somehow I doubt these would-be censors are trying to demonstrate its ineffectiveness.

Re:Ahh yes, the "benefits" of tax fed governments.

[daBass]

In most multi-party parliamentary systems, the prime minister has much less power than the president in a system like in the US. (no veto!) On top of that, the prime minister can only pick from elected officials to create his cabinet, not his Yale friends and business buddies, making them far more accountable.

Also, that one party with 33% doesn't hold all the power, the entire parliament holds the power. Yes, the party that creates the cabinet has more opportunity to introduce bills, but it takes a majority vote of parliament to pass them.

Lastly, Australia uses "Preference Voting". To translate that to real US terms: you can safely vote for Nader without by doing do increasing the Repugnicans' chances to win the election.

Re:Ahh yes, the "benefits" of tax fed governments.

[Detritus]

Electoral College actually make it possible to win with minority vote anyway.

That's intentional. It's an attempt to balance the power of small and large states. A pure direct vote can suck if you live in a less populated region of a larger entity. You can end up with a situation where a few heavily populated regions have so many votes that they ignore the interests of everyone else. It's a real problem in many states.

Another issue is recounts. What happens if candidate A beats candidate B by a tiny margin of the direct vote? There will always be allegations of fraud in some places. What if candidate B asks for a nation-wide recount? The current system tends to limit the damage to a small number of states where there were allegations of fraud and the race was close enough for it to matter.

Re:Ahh yes, the "benefits" of tax fed governments.

[zsau]

It's not illegal not to vote if you aren't enrolled, no, but it is illegal not to be enrolled for Commonwealth elections and elections in most states and territories. (I think South Australia is the only exception there.) Break one law, break the other, up to you.

Re:Ahh yes, the "benefits" of tax fed governments.

[largesnike]

Yes, that's essentially correct, but illegal is a rather strong word. The worst penalty you'll get is a fine, if they even know where you are. Most of the time, if you are not enrolled, then you are also unknown to the Australian Electoral Commission. Even if they do fine you, they'll let you off if you can show reasonably why you're not enrolled.

So yeah, voting is compulsory, but they're not going to bust your balls if you don't.

Re:Ahh yes, the "benefits" of tax fed governments.

[hr raattgift]

On the contrary, the Prime Minister in a Westminster style system has much more power than the President of the USA, because the PM fully controls the legislative agenda.

In the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, laws that spend public money or raise taxes must be accompanied by a "Royal Recommendation". Since the Monarch of each country with respect to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative has been an automaton since at least 1936 (and for hundreds of years with respect to the UK and its legal predecessors), acting only on the advice of the Prime Minister, this means that the PM has a veto on whether Parliament can even consider most important bills. Ireland and India have similar rules, but have (appointed) Presidents instead of a (heridtary) Queen and (appointed) Governor-General.

This is Section 56 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (current version): "A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated." The Senate and House of Representatives both have rules and standing orders forbidding the debate of votes, resolutions or proposed laws that may not be passed, and the President or Speaker enforces these assiduously.

Moreover, in all of these countries except the UK, either the Royal Assent can be deferred, or the Proclamation can be deferred, in the event Parliament passes a Bill that the Prime Minister does not want. In the UK, the Royal Assent has been automatic and has not involved the Monarch or the Prime Minister since the early Victorian era; Proclamation is not a feature of the UK system -- an Act of Parliament that receives Royal Assent becomes law immediately (or at a future date fixed in the Act itself). It is pretty clear that if it became necessary, the Prime Minister could constitutionally insist that "the Queen withhold Royal Assent in order to consider the Bill" ("la Reyne s'avisera", is the Norman French formalization), which in practice would mean sending a letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament.

This is described in Sections 58 (Royal Aseent) and 60 (Proclamation) of the Australian Constitution.

Finally Section 59 of the Australian Constitution uniquely retains the power of Disallowance (it was abolished with respect to Canada and New Zealand, and never existed in the United Kingdom). (It reads: "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.")

In effect, these tools represent a Prime Ministerial veto over legislation, available even if the majority of Parliament supports a bill.

Section 59 might actually be used by the new government. It is normally considered a political mistake to do so, but since the campaign dealt with legislation forced through at the end of the Howard premiership, it is plausible that the new Prime Minister can claim an electoral mandate to exercise the power.

In short, the veto powers of a Westminster-style Prime Minister far exceed those of the President, who must veto or not within a short period of time, and whose veto can be overturned by Parliament.

In the Westminster system, the only remedy for Parliament is to refuse to pass the bills the PM actually wants, or to withhold confidence in the government (by declaration of no confidence, or the defeat of a supply bill), which likely would trigger an election. However in that case it is the PM who decides whether to name a replacement, try to secure confidence with a new set of ministers, or set an election date. The Monarch or Governor is expected to act like an automaton in this

Re:Ahh yes, the "benefits" of tax fed governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is absolutely not illegal to cast an informal vote.

No one can force you to vote, that's the point - they can force you to attend a poling place, but once you're inside, what you do is up to you.

Re:Awful

[gonebursar]

It would very likely cover content outside of Australia. This ties directly into Labour policy [alp.org.au] that will make ISPs provide a 'clean feed' that is opt-out rather than opt-in. ISPs will be required to blacklist and filter out sites containing material that is X18+ or Refused Classification, no matter where it is hosted. Our classification system is rather onerous, which means that a lot of stuff will be blocked that's seen as perfectly acceptable in, say, the US or UK.