Australian government shelves controversial data retention scheme | Hacker News Reader

Australian government shelves controversial data retention scheme

smh.com.au

159 pointsra34 comments

Possibly helped by 20% of the Australian electorate taking the newly formed Wikileaks Party seriously, and there being a Federal Election in 90 days [1].

[1] http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/roy-morgan-research/2013/0...

Unless they've changed in recent years, Roy Morgan research is utterly worthless. I had a friend who worked there and he brought home one of their questionnaires. It was full of the most leading, biased questions you could hope to write. I'd sooner trust a guess from a random stranger in a pub than Roy Morgan's cooked books.

I have to second this. Once Scott Steel started blogging as "Possum Comitatus" a few years back, Roy Morgan fizzled and evaporated like spit on a BBQ plate. It's just not very good polling.

Australia also has compulsory voting:

> Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

Notably, this results in election candidates adopting populist policies that more closely represent their constituents.

Saying voting is compulsory isn't 100% accurate. The actual requirement is that you attend the poll, there is no way anyone can enforce that you cast a vote. You can simply turn up, get your name crossed off and walk right out the door without voting, or as many others choose to, cast an invalid vote.

However, while it is in practice unenforceable, you are still legally obliged to vote. In Australia it is considered a bit of a crisis if turnout falls below 85%.

> Notably, this results in election candidates adopting populist policies that more closely represent their constituents.

I think a better term is more centrist policies. In compulsory systems, the Median Voter Theorem [0] is a much more accurate description of behaviour.

In particular it means that the major parties can't be captured as easily by highly motivated minorities. And it also means that our politics is very transactional compared to countries with voluntary FPTP. No need to "get out the base", so no need for soaring rhetoric and less need for negative advertising. Some people see our generally uninspiring politicians as a bug; I see it as evidence of underlying features.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

The numbers were large enough in the most recent English elections to arrive at the same kind of 'centrist' outcome as in the most recent Australian general election. In England, turnout increases generally when important contention arises.

I think your point is correct, but not unique.

My point is that all our elections tend to lead to centrist outcomes because all our elections have, by voluntary standards, very high turnout.

That they are populist I would tend to agree. Having voted in both the UK and Australia, I've concluded that compulsory voting in Australia leads to a type of popularity contest, and that the so called informal vote is viewed as either one of an error, a wasted opportunity for democratic engagement, or an act of stupidity. Certainly when counting votes, the informal votes are discarded as merit less.

In the UK the election turnout percentage is just as important a metric for measuring overall confidence in the political process as the proportion of votes gained for the candidates. Another dimension to voter attitude which is lost in the compulsory system I believe. As it shows a general vote of confidence, the entire political class is highly observant of it.

The act of deliberately not voting is an under appreciated form of protest and non-consent.

It would be easier and more explicit to add "None of the Above" to the ballot.

It should be pointed out that due to the way Australia's preferential voting system works [1] candidates that don't actually stand a chance of winning have a lot of power at election time.

When voting, all candidates are numbered in order of your preference. If your first candidate doesn't secure a majority of votes, their votes are removed, and then allocated to the voters second preference and so on, until a winner is found.

Candidates also hand out 'how to vote' cards [2] that show how the candidate suggests you allocate your preferences.

If a smaller candidate or party is getting decent support before the election, the other parties will then try to make deals with that candidate to secure their second preferences.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#P...

[2] http://www.prsa.org.au/htv_cards.htm

Preference deals only really matter in marginal electorates in close elections.

In Australia seats are laid out by a politically neutral Electoral Commission. There's no gerrymandering, so seats can and do have a varying distribution of "safeness" for each of the major parties.

In a safe seat, the necessity for preference deals is greatly diminished.

Only in marginal seats do preference deals count, and only when the nationwide margin of preference is sufficiently close that a few seats will decide the election.

The upcoming election is absolutely not shaping up that way. On current figures, the Labor Party are going to be thumped very hard; potentially the worst drubbing in Federal election history. The Liberal-National coalition have somewhere between zero and zilch requirement to kiss up to minor and microparties.

> "... seats are laid out by a politically neutral Electoral Commission. There's no gerrymandering ..."

Would love to see this here in the states.

Yeah. We actually have a pretty sensible system in Australia.

When I first heard that some parts of the US have elected electoral officials ... well, I boggled.

Some parts of .au only recently got independant bodies (though federal elections are always managed by the federal body)

That's a strength of preferential voting, but you make it sound like a negative somehow. It means you can vote for who you like, and your hand is not forced by 'but they'll never get in', as seen with the Lib Dems in the UK.

In the senate it's not the case since each state currently elects twelve senators each, and each territory two. Since there are a greater number of people being elected from the same pool, it's more likely that a minor party candidate will be elected to the senate.

On the other hand, in the house of representatives you're most likely going to get a candidate from one of the major parties since most people preference them first.

I feel like you are short-changing the very hard work done by Electronic Frontiers Australia and some ISPs (iinet in particular) to campaign against the worst excesses of this government and the government before it.

> "A controversial "data retention" scheme that would have allowed Australians' internet and telephone activities to be stored for up to two years...

... in fact, the proposed scheme would have been mandatory.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hous...

"its Prismlike scheme"

Yes, please edit the title to replace "it's" with "its". In this context "it's" means "it is". /petpeeve

If this is a pet-peeve of yours, how the hell do you manage to be a reader of this site?

Why make our own system when the DSD and ASIO can just listen in thanks to the US?

I have to wonder whether this is because it would have been (suddenly) unpopular, or because they found out what kind of data the NSA is able to offer to every secret service in the world ...

Also, SCNR: it's "its" (possessive), not "it's" (= it is) in the title (says the non-native speaker who firmly believes that such mistakes are contagious).

says the non-native speaker who firmly believes that such mistakes are contagious

In that case, you should know that the comma in your first sentence shouldn't be there. To understand why, consider this sentence with a similar form: "I have to wonder whether this is an apple, or an orange."

I know it's pedantic and doesn't add anything to the conversation, but there are lots of people in here and we wouldn't want it to catch.

Whether that comma should or not be there is actually not universally agreed. This punctuation is known as "Serial comma"[1], and some style guides require its use.

On that sentence though, I think it's different. The first part of the sentence is long enough that the comma is welcome as a natural stop (and breather) before delivering the second half.

By the way: I'm not a native speaker either.

[1] Also better known as "Oxford comma": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

Did you not even read the first sentence on the wiki page you linked to? Here it is:

In punctuation, a serial comma or series comma (also called Oxford comma and Harvard comma) is a comma placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and, or, or nor) in a series of three or more terms.

Note the last four words. three or more terms

On that sentence though, I think it's different. The first part of the sentence is long enough that the comma is welcome as a natural stop (and breather) before delivering the second half.

Despite your feeling that commas should, be inserted randomly when we feel the sentence, has gone too long, that is not standard English. You also missed the entire, point of my comment. It has nothing to, do with commas.

Oh, God...

Too bad ... it would have been hilarious to see them attempt to announce this now, in the current political climate and the brouhaha over NSA spying going on.

Reading between the lines of this article and the "at this time" weasel words, it sounds like might still be on their "things to do" list.

Still can't play Left4 Dead 2.

I don't know if people are down voting because they don't get the reference, or because it's irrelevant, but this is what he's talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_4_Dead_2#Australian_ban

Leaving those who actually played the game scratching their heads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com