Internet Filtering – It’s like WorkChoices for your computer: You never asked for it, you’ve repeatedly said you don’t want it, but the Government is determined to ram it down your throat, all the while smirking, and telling you what a great favour they’re doing you. (source)

Our federal government is trying desperately to make the Internet “safe” for families. (The previous one was not much better.) They want us to only be able to see wholesome family friendly material. We will have the option to opt-out, but that will mean our names will be on file. We will have to register ourselves as perverts.

They justify their crusade by claiming that they are protecting us from paedophilia and kiddie porn. Then they refuse to say exactly what they want to block, conflating kiddie porn with adult porn.

Now I applaud any measures to prevent kiddie porn and to prosecute those who prey on children sexually. But we must be vigilant to ensure that adult material is not demonised.

The government will never be able to prevent people from viewing “unwholesome” material, neither accidentally nor intentionally. Something will always sneak through. Spammers are always finding new tricks, and so will anybody else who wants to.

We need to accept that the Internet is just a reflection and an extension of the world we live in. We need to apply the same rules of parental responsibility to the Internet as we do to all places where there is danger. Education not regulation.

Federal Opposition MPs are furious that Mr Rudd has frozen their salaries for the next 16 months in an effort to contain inflation. The former minister Tony Abbott says politicians are struggling to make ends meet on a backbencher’s base salary of $127,060.

“We have mortgages to pay, in many cases we have school fees, we have medical expenses, we have all the normal expenses that families have, and the only source of meeting those expenses is our parliamentary salaries,” Mr Abbott said. (Source)

I am afraid I have no sympathy for Mr Abbot. If Mr Abbot was a base backbencher he would earn two and a half times the average salary. If he can’t cope, how do those who less than the average cope with their families and children?

Most Australians only have their wage or salary. Very few have investments that do anything more than make sure they will be comfortable in their retirement. Mr Abbot, you are out so out of touch.

A sea of umbrellas gathered in Martin Place to watch our new Prime Minister say Sorry to the first Australians on behalf of the government, the parliament and the people of Australia. The motion was put:

That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia. Source

The motion was accompanied by a great and moving speech and some very practical propositions. Not only has Rudd said Sorry, but he has also committed to bring the quality of life for Indigenous Australians in to line with the non-indigenous Australians.

We have finally done the right thing by the world and ratified Kyoto!

Today I have had a problem with two large companies. These are serious enough that I am likely to take my business elsewhere. One is a bank, the other an insurance company.

These days it seems that companies don’t work to keep you as a customer, in fact they seem to go out of their way to make thinks difficult. On the other hand they put enormous amounts of money into attracting new customers.

Whatever happened to “the customer is always right”? How about spending less on advertising and more on keeping existing customers happy.

“I would say to the borrowers of Australia who are affected by this change that I am sorry about that and I regret the additional burden that will be put upon them as a result.” (source SMH)

Yes, Howard has said sorry to the mortgage belt. He even did a back flip the other week and proposed recognising indigenous people in the preamble to our constitution.

But he still refuses to say sorry to the stolen generation. His reason for refusing to say sorry was (and still is) that it may expose the government to costs or litigation from those who were stolen. So does his saying sorry today mean that he accepts responsibility for the interest rate rise and acknowledges that the government could be liable for compensation for those who are effected by it?

Or is he just doing a Bob Hawke “me too” by crying in front of Australia?

Update 8 November: Howard has denied that he apologised. “I said I was sorry they occurred. I don’t think I used the word apology.” (Source SMH).

He also took pains to point out that taxpayers had received money from tax cuts back in July.

We get a share of the nations prosperity from tax cuts, but because of that very prosperity we have to give it to the banks. This dodgy accounting comes from someone we are asked to trust to run our economy!

Proof that political donations are not in the interests of democracy:

THE hotel industry is furious about the Government’s move to allow small bars to be introduced throughout NSW, claiming it has received little in return for the millions it donates to the ALP.

Source SMH

Me too! Me too!
I am also blogging on the “Me Too” phenomenon.

Two points:

First, this is a poll driven election. Both L & L appear to be formulating their policies based on polls and probably focus groups. IMHO this is why their policies are so similar.

Second, ideally elected members reach some sort of consensus on the bills before parliament. If they substantially agree now then it can only be a win for Australia.

Unfortunately, neither L nor L go far enough with environmental policies or GLBT rights. Neither will be getting my primary vote. But in preferences I will put L ahead of L.

We need money to put into health.
We need money to put into education.
We need money to put into indigenous communities.
We need money to put into the environment.

What will you vote for?
Money in your pocket!

I have just read a very poor article in SMH titled Recycling offsets car emissions – study.

It starts by comparing the recycling of a bin of paper and cardboard to driving 7200km. This is a significant error. 7200km at 8L/100km gives 1382kg of CO₂ (from Australian Greenhouse Office). This is compared to 90kg from recycling 26 bins of paper. Try 450km.

The article is based on a draft report (pdf 766k) from the Waste Management Association of Australia. The report quantifies the source of the 2.7% of Australia’s CO₂ emissions that come from solid waste landfill.

According to the report almost 50% of paper and cardboard in waste is recycled, most of it from homes. If this was increased to 100% we could reduce the annual CO₂e emissions by 5 million tonnes. A worthwhile goal. The report also explores other avenues of reducing emissions and even generation of biogasses to replace fossil fuels. Laudable goals.

However, I can find no mention of the figures Hannah Edwards used in her article. Maybe they came from Mike Ritchie, the NSW president of the Waste Management Association of Australia who is quoted saying “Recycling effectively offsets those car emissions”.

That is the problem with this article. Recycling does not absorb greenhouse gasses as trees do (over many many years). It just stops some of those gasses being produced. It definitely does not give us permission to drive our car further.

Another disturbing implication is that if increase the amount we recycle by consuming more then we are benefiting the environment. In fact we are just consuming more and requiring more to be recycled.

Don’t misunderstand me – recycling is good. But calling it an offset is at best misleading and at worst a license for people to continue polluting our poor old planet.