No doubt stung by the fact that no-one in the electorate actually pays them any attention at all (or maybe just because they don’t have to pal up to right wingnuts like Steve Fielding any more), the Liberal Party appear to have had some sort of cathartic experience about the role government should play in protecting people from the horrors of reality. Specifically, they seem to be making quite encouraging noises in relation to opposing the Government’s “proposed”* mandatory Internet filter:
“The Opposition firmly believes that adult supervision, supported by optional user-end filters, effective law enforcement and education should be front and centre of any efforts to keep children safe online,” he said.
“In relation to criminal conduct online, our nation’s law enforcement bodies must be adequately resourced to monitor and investigate unlawful activity.
“There is no technical substitute for appropriate adult supervision when it comes to keeping our children safe online and most parents and teachers take that responsibility very seriously and any suggestions to the contrary are patronising and offensive,” Senator Minchin said.
“Labor’s plan to implement a mandatory Internet filter at ISP level has been roundly attacked with valid concerns raised about its likely effectiveness, the adverse impact it would have on Internet speeds and performance and also the precise nature of the content the Government plans to filter.
“The Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has further fuelled concerns with his talk of filtering not only illegal content, but also unwanted and inappropriate content. This policy proposal is also causing Australia embarrassment internationally, with comparisons to the world’s most repressive regimes,” Senator Minchin said.
Wow… when they talk this way the Liberals don’t even sound like a spineless bunch of socially conservative, economically radical spin merchants. Maybe they should consider taking a leaf out of the book of the UK Conservatives, who have apparently figured out that:
1. part of true conservatism is minimising the role of government in all respects, not just in terms of controlling huge corporations as they pillage society for everything it’s got; and
2. people quite like it when politicians take principled and rational positions and stick to them.
Left: prohibited Internet content. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Meanwhile this is a nice update on Senator Conroy’s ongoing campaign to deny that he is doing exactly what he is doing, whilst also accusing anyone who disagrees with him (i.e. most people) of “wanting to have access to child porn”.
* Actually the laws are already in place and the technical system appears to have been chosen, so this is really only a policy fight, not a legal one (until someone challenges it, which might not work under our woefully rights-free Constitution).
It’s good to see the libs aren’t spooked by the ‘with us or a paedophile’ rhetoric being spun from the Catholic Right of the Labor party.
Just for future reference, minimising government intervention is a liberalist ideal. Conservatism is more about maintaining the status quo and reducing individual choice in favour of social stability.
Economic Liberalism is usually the only aspect of the Australian Liberal Party that is actually liberal.
On form it is obviously likely that they are simply attempting to differentiate themselves and don’t give a damn about the actual principles. I guess you take what you can get, though.
As for conservatism, I was alluding more to the libertarian elements of the ideology, which tend to be completely ignored in Australia. I for one would find the Libs much less offensive if they stood for, in effect, fewer interventionist laws of any kind. Instead they chamption free markets but not free people.
I think many self-proclaimed conservatives would disagree with you that it is about ‘reducing individual choice in favour of social stability’ and would point out that this is essentially the stated goal of socialism, not conservatism.