What do they think doing this serves, in their opinion? In the US, there's at least the excuse that there's this big block of neoconservative religious-fundamentalists to win the votes of. Does Australia have those too?
More likely some back-room deal has been done with vested interests and the implementation of this policy somehow benefits them (financially or politically).
It is likely a combination of: rightsholder companies who will eventually twist the filters to block internet-based competition, large IT contracting companies who will get lucrative contracts for implementing it, and (tin-foil hat time) the Catholic church.
There are some VERY skeezy links between the federal opposition and the Australian Catholic church which see the church hold significant lobbying power over LNP policies. See: marriage equality, abortion rights, royal commission into child sexual abuse etc.
As a small, uncontroversial example, the current government handed over regulation of charities (including churches) to an independent regulator last year. The Catholic Church in particular hates being under the thumb of a regulator it doesn't have in its own back pocket. Conveniently the LNP plans to scrap the regulator if they win the election. Even mainstream newspapers are reporting that this is at the behest of Cardinal George Pell:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bad-liberal-policy-will-damag...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013...
"The answer, in part at least, may be the lobbying power of church conservatives, the Catholic Church in particular, and the office of Sydney Cardinal George Pell, more particularly still."
"And the Victorian and Tasmanian-based Churches of Christ Community Care has begun an online petition to save the commission, warning that the Coalition alternative would be ''an advisory body with no teeth''. That, say critics, appears to be the point."
That's pretty awesome that that was even done, though. I cannot imagine something like that happening in the US. I am so sick of seeing religious institutions abuse their tax-free status to play Real Estate Tycoon.
We had some issues in the past with some very high-profile sports people setting up "charitable funds" which undertook a lot of fundraising and tax deductible activities without actually doing any philanthropy. That undermines trust in organisations who actually help people (Salvation Army, World Vision etc).
I'm not defending censorship (one look at the list shows what a STUPID idea it is) but I think implying that it was used to "block Wikileaks" overstates what happened.
Remember: this is a secret list that Australians cannot legally see.
He became the leader of the opposition by one vote (internal votes) after a debate between him and the previous leader over climate change (which he successfully argued to his party wasn't occurring, later changing his mind to satisfy the polls)
It is all about power, money and special interests corrupting democracy. Abbott for all his Catholicism will have signed his soul over to big carbon polluters, the tobacco lobby, Rupert Murdoch and lots more to take the election.
Outside of politics, it really depends on what you look at. There's certainly a strong urge to conform in mainstream anglo America (clipped lawns, identical houses, visible laundry is unsightly, etc) that doesn't really have a parallel here, but on the other hand, Americans are a bit more socially outgoing than Australians.
AU successfully managed to de-militarize its police force? The US needs to use you guys as a case study! However, I suspect that you were only able to do that because of your very low tolerance for firearms violence, as evidenced by the near-complete disarmament of your civilian population via that massive buyback program & subsequent legislation after the Port Arthur massacre. I wouldn't be surprised if US citizens like the idea of a militarized police, ready to respond with overwhelming force to whatever movie-plot terrorists happen to pop up.