Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You could come down to Melbourne, it's got a very healthy nightlife and music scene. It has a little bit of wowserism happening at the moment (no new licenses for bars open past 1am anymore, for example, and some more restrictions on 'music pubs'), but as far as I'm aware, no legislation about timing requirements on mixed drinks (which sounds truly crazy). The main article reads like a horror story for nightlife.

It's a problem in Australian politics in general at the moment - there's a lot of conservative christian politicians in power at the federal level, and at some state levels, and they don't reflect modern australian values. One clear example is around gay marriage, which poll after poll shows the people overwhelmingly want (usually 70-80% support by respondents), but both major parties have too many conservative christians for that argument to fly. Same thing with late-night clubbing, methinks.

Still, it's better than it was 50 years ago when bars had to close at 6pm :)

> ..there's a lot of conservative christian politicians in power at the federal level, and at some state levels, and they don't reflect modern australian values.

How come they don't, if they consistently keep getting elected?

A wild guess: The most influential backers are Christians. They have the money to lend to the party so it can build effective marketing and political campaign to go after the rest of the voters.

Given that the majority of Australians are Christian it would indeed make sense that the most influential backers are Christians too. Probably been like that for a long time?

Still there might be something in their campaigns that resonates with the views of the majority. One wouldn't imagine them consistently winning fair elections in predominantly Hindu or Muslim country, no matter the campaign spending.

The majority of Australians are secular. Take me: I'm from a family that's Church-of-England (C of E). I've been an atheist since at least 10 years old (first strong memory of it), yet the first time I filled out a census form, I ticked C of E because that was my family's religion. These days the religion question on the census form is the only contentious one on it, because of things just like this. Lots of people associate with a given religion but don't really practice it - churches in Australia are fighting falling attendance and graying congregations.

That's very much incorrect. Most Australians are agnostic.

Well according to this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/is-australia-losing-its-relig...

..while non-religious make up a fair portion of Aussies, most still identify as Christians.

If you scroll down a single comment, you'll see one from me pointing out at least one issue with the religion question on the census.

Your own link shows another - the option for 'no religion' has historically been obfuscated or separated. Once upon a time, it didn't even exist. The whole point of your linked article is about how that question can be played with in order to fudge the results.

Money - conservative Christians don't usually cause trouble for corporations.

Age - conservative retirement-age voters are far more likely to vote than the 18-30 demo.

Networking - churches can, and do, bully-pulpit entire parishes.

So policy is far further to the right than the population median.

Voting is compulsory in Australia.

Only if you enrol, which is not compulsory.

Wrong. Enrollment is compulsory.

Is it actively enforced ?

Yup.

Yes, but not particularly harshly. The Electoral Commission's target is 95% of eligible voters enrolled, and it's currently at 93.5%. You are supposed to enrol at some time between your 18th birthday and the next election (which roll around every 3 years or so), so some of that non-enrolled percentage are folks who will do so shortly. A small amount of people are eligible to vote, but not capable, such as people with severe intellectual handicaps. In practice, most folks are enrolled.

The penalty isn't particularly harsh ($20 first time missed a vote, $50 afterwards). I have a 40-year-old friend that's not enrolled, and as far as I'm aware, she has never been fined for it.

Money - conservative Christians don't usually cause trouble for corporations.

That's not been my experience.

Age - conservative retirement-age voters are far more likely to vote than the 18-30 demo.

Australia has mandatory voting. We have something like 98% voter turn out. You don't know what you are talking about.

Networking - churches can, and do, bully-pulpit entire parishes.

Facts not in evidence.

Australian christians don't really advertise the fact. You won't see an Australian politician saying "God Bless 'X'" at the end of a speech (as appears to be the usual case with US politicians) unless they're speaking to an overtly christian audience. It's fine to be christian in Australia, but proselytising is very frowned upon, and christians who often publicly state their faith are generally seen as 'wowsers' (fun-killers).

Also, MPs are generally voted in by party affiliation, so people vote more for the party rather than the individual person. Anyway, I'm not sure how it's happened, but the power-brokers of both major parties have a greater proportion of staunch christians than the wider population. So, when a party wants to do X or Y, often a bone will need to be tossed to one of these power-brokers to get the numbers.

Highly motivated ethnic or religious people are bloc voters who turn out and can wield a disproportionate influence.

It's not really a Christian thing, it's any bloc. I don't know much about Australian politics, but I can think of several political machines in the past driven by Irish Catholic turnout, and a few current ones driven by ultra-conservative Christian and Jewish groups.

Actually its more people of the far left who are trying to do away with alcohol.

First they went after smoking, with that nonsense about plain packaging. I fail to see that if something is legal, why a company shouldn't have the right to brand and market that product appropriately.

Now they are looking doing away with alcohol. Just you wait. In 10-15 years they will be calling for prohibition due to all the 'damage' caused by alcohol.

After all it was King O'Malley who banned alcohol from Canberra during its construction. He also is why its spelled Labor.

> First they went after smoking, with that nonsense about plain packaging.

Plain packaging is nowhere near the first against smoking; it's more like the start of the end-game for it. The government has been very open about wanting to get rid of smoking altogether, and has been so for decades. I was at high school in the late '80s and remember a bloke from Quit saying that they were funded by cigarette taxes, and his job was to put himself out of a job. Punitive taxes and advertising bans long predate plain packaging, as do bans on smoking in hospitality venues.

Alcohol isn't going to go away any time soon for exactly the same reason negative gearing isn't - too many pollies like it for themselves. Alcohol is also a major industry in Australia, unlike tobacco. Similarly, mainstream Australia identifies strongly with a tipple - for example, we like to boast that one of our PMs held a world record for skulling beer. I've never heard any such patriotic murmurings on the topic of tobacco.

Yes, and that end game has been ratcheting up for 40 years.

At one stage practically everyone smoked. Now, so few smoke.

Its not like they are going to rock up tomorrow and ban alcohol. They are going to do it like boiling a frog. So slowly that it becomes fait accompli.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com