I'm afraid to say that in Australia the reaction to these privacy and personal rights issues has been lethargic and frankly lazy. Under some circumstances, a lowly under educated clerk with no security clearance of any kind can, with the approval of a single supervisor, access data such as metadata for a variety of reasons. The reaction of the vast majority of the population is complete political apathy.
Australia began it's modern europeanised existence as a police state, and I honestly don't think that it's evolved through law beyond that initial modality.
It has never had in it's constitution the expectations on rights of the citizen that underpin the US constitution.
It's unlikely that there'll be much resistance from the public to these proposals.
Well so far it hasn't happened. In fact it hasn't even reached the point where it might be seriously turned into law. I'd say it's getting the exact level of reaction it deserves, since we keep winning on the issue.
People will get more active when it looks more likely to go before parliament.
You complain that the public's reaction to these issues has been lethargic and lazy, but then the rest of your post reads as an obituary of freedom in Australia.
I, for one, am sick of this defeatist attitude which I see all too often from (small-l) liberals in Australia.
Australians have fought against authoritarianism, and we need to continue to fight. We stopped the Internet filter, we pirate more than any other country, and we have Green party representatives in both houses of the national parliament.
I think a Bill of Rights is non-democratic in Westminster-judicial societies. Whereas in the US the judicial branch is somewhat accountable to the people, in the UK, Canada and Australia, the people's will is only expressed in parliament. So, if the Australian parliament amended our constitution with a bill of rights, it would be handing power from our elected representatives to our non-elected High Court judges.
Furthermore, bills of rights are only superficial in protecting rights - they are always subject to the whim of the culture and society in which they operate. Canada has a bill of rights [0] supposedly protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right, yet "discriminatory speech" is illegal (e.g. a comedian discriminating against homosexuals [1]).
Or, another example, look at how well the US' Fourth Amendment is protecting Americans from mass surveillance. I would posit that the reason the US has maintained more freedoms than other countries isn't thanks to its Bill of Rights, but thanks to their cultural belief in the importance of liberty. (or maybe its their distrust of government oppression of liberty? I can't tell)
So, as an Australian, I have no problem with not having a bill of rights. If we become a republic, and our High Court judges are then accountable to us? Maybe. But I'll want to hear from respected law professors before making my mind up. See [3] for a good discussion, and links to reading material.
Anyway, more on-topic, I do agree with you that Australians need to step up their game to fight against authoritarianism. I don't agree that what we need is a bill of rights, and I do think we still have hope as a society.
I agree with most things you have posted in this thoughtful comment, specifically to do with the lack of need for a bill of rights in a Westminster democracy (which most people do not understand).
However, characterizing having Greens party members in parliament as some sort of measure of liberalism made me do a double-take. The Greens are many things, but small-l liberal they most definitely are not. While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base, they also include many, many policies which are an anathema to people interested in freedom. They were a large backer of government regulation of the press, they have many policies which bring in serious regulation of many industries and frequently talk of population caps. They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator. There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.
Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.
Liberalism is a really broad idea. In general, it's based on the principles of achieving liberty and equality for everyone. There lots of differing (often incompatible) views about how to do that.
> While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base
I think that's a really unfair position to take on their policy here; it trivializes the effort they (in particular, Scott Ludlam) are putting into it. [0] They've fought more than just the Internet filter - Scott Ludlam has introduced a bill [1] that would end mass surveillance by Australian intelligence agencies, he's continuously made motions in the Senate to inquire about mass surveillance, and made speeches about the importance of whistleblowers in a democracy.
Look, sure, I would agree that the Greens party could do more. Ending mass surveillance and supporting Internet freedom aren't a central tenet of their platform, but that's their right (I'm not a Greens member). It's why I vote for the Pirate Party in the senate (and I would vote for them in the lower house if they had a representative in my seat). I plan to volunteer for the Pirate Party at the next election, if I'm in Australia then.
If you take issue with a party taking a particular position to appeal to a certain voter base, then you take issue with representative democracy in general.
> They were a large backer of government regulation of the press
The Australian Greens believe that:
- Freedom of the press and effective, affordable and accessible media and communications systems are integral to the functioning of a successful democratic society.
- Australia must have an independent regulatory framework for media, communications and advertising.
- Net neutrality is important for an open internet.
- Documents placed in the public domain by government should be accessible with free non-proprietary software, and public data should be made available in open, inter-operable formats.
- The government should lead by example and embrace open source and open standards.
That said, if you believe that government is anathema to liberty (I don't), you would consider any law relevant to any part of the press as being "regulation". I think these aims of the Greens make sense (mostly):
- Diversity of both opinion and ownership of media across Australia and a strict limitation on the number of media outlets an individual entity can own or control.
- Truth in political advertising legislated.
- Individuals protected from defamation actions designed to stifle participation in public debates.
- Effective regulation of the digital games industry to ensure children are not exposed to excessive violence or sexual content.
My support of that last aim wavers on the meaning of "effective regulation". I do support a rating system for games to help parents choose, but I wouldn't support censoring anything outright (I don't think the Greens would, either).
> [the Greens] frequently talk of population caps
Source?
> They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator.
I really don't care. I only care about their policies and their actions - and I mostly agree with them.
> There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.
It's really useful to be able to come to terms with views that differ to your own. Your version of liberty isn't the only version of liberty.
In my opinion, the Greens are far and away the most liberal major party in Australian politics. They may not align with your view of "true liberty", but that doesn't mean they're not liberal. They very clearly support liberty (in words and actions), certainly more so than Labor or the Liberals/Nationals. The Pirate Party agrees with me here: the Greens are at the top of their preferences.
> Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.
There are a few policies of the LDP that I support, that few other parties care about. I support abolishing most federal departments and reforming the constitution to give states legal autonomy, because I believe smaller governments are more democratic and less susceptible to corruption. I support privatizing Australia Post, electricity generation, and bus and ferry transport, because those industries are open to competition, and their profit motives align with the public good. They do have a lot of policies supporting liberty that I agree with.
Unfortunately, I think their beliefs in how to achieve a free and equal society are, quite plainly, bonkers. I think there are lot of industries where the profit motive does not align with the public good (education, health, media, prison, military), or where competitiveness is intrinsically nonexistent (rural telecommunications infrastructure, metro train transport). I would always support private competition in those industries, but I think it's important to have publicly-owned offerings to provide a lower-bound in service and quality.
Furthermore, I believe there are government regulations that directly decrease liberty, but indirectly increase liberty much more. Workplace regulations (minimum wage, discrimination, safety, training), gambling, international trade (to some extent), banking, and drugs (control, not criminalization) fall into this category.
On taxation: I believe we should tax our super-profitable industries so that we can share the wealth we have now with future generations, and so that they don't create an imbalance in the rest of the economy.
A major reason I support the Pirate Party is that their entire process is really inclusive: they have a well-maintained wiki, an updated blog, and an active IRC channel. Their policy development process is open and democratic. They're like the Labor party of the 21st Century.
In contrast, most other political parties' processes are closed and private - including the LDP. It's unfortunate that for all the LDP's espousing of liberty and direct democracy, they don't seem to keen to create a democratic environment for their own party.
Yes, we should be more like the 'free' US, what with their frequently paramilitarised police and 'free speech zones', law-enforcement drones and police kicking down doors because "I smelled pot", and an incarceration rate five times higher with people doing considerably longer sentences (despite the consitutional requirement for no excessive punishment).
Australia is not the bleak wasteland you paint it as, and it's not a police state. Using this kind of hyperbole does no-one any favours. Do you really think that Australians fear their neighbours like the people in East Germany did? The PM recently said that the government broadcasting agent should not be so negative about the government and should be more like it's cheer squad. He was pilloried by the private press for saying such a thing.
I'm interested to know what privacy and personal rights you think the US has that Australia doesn't. The US has 'bear arms', true. It has slightly greater private freedom of speech, but in practice slightly worse freedom of speech for the press.
As for the content of the constitution, that's not the way we do law. Just because the US shoves every silly thing into their constitution (or at least tries to), it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist for us if it's not in our constitution. We have shitloads of law outside the constitution. Hardly surprising, since in the US, you only require politicians to amend the constitution, but in Australia, you need to hold a referendum. And even in the US, the vast bulk of nattering about the constitution is just grandstanding - a law is a law. Being in the constitution simply makes it harder to repeal. Not being in the constitution doesn't make it any less legally binding, just easier to strike down.
Also, two entire states in America just legalized cannabis completely, Australia does not share land borders with its neighbors, and the US Constitution requires no "cruel or unusual punishments" which is different from "excessive."
Those are just three points to the generalized rubbish you've posted in support of whatever argument you're making. I don't say this to be mean but to cut to the quick and point out you're not posting anything particularly insightful when you gloss over inconvenient realities in either Australia or America.
Two entire states have legalised cannabis? Cool. Australia doesn't have stop-and-frisk anywhere, and certainly doesn't have politicians proudly calling for support of the practise. That's a pretty fundamental abuse of freedom right there, that for no reason, an authority can just stop you and search your person. Yes, there is police harassment like anywhere, but it's not codified into law and openly defended by politicians. As for 'unusual' punishments, excessive sentencing is a 'cruel or unusual' punishment.
My point was that the US is not the bastion of freedom that it's PR suggests. I was pointing out the US Bill of Rights still doesn't prevent these abuses from happening, as people seem to mythologise that document. I've mentioned in other threads that the level of freedom between the two countries really isn't that dissimilar - it's just that the idea that the US is the paragon of freedom above and beyond its contemporaries just simply is not true.
Anyway, I mentioned two things about Australia that you are apparently debunking: that we don't edit the constitution in the normal process of politics, because it requires a referendum to do so; and that we don't fear our neighbours like people in East Germany did. I said "Australia is not a bleak wasteland" and you say I'm glossing over reality? I wonder if you've ever been here, or if you merely think The Road Warrior is a documentary? If you happen to be Australian, then you've got a massive dollop of cultural cringe going on.
It's certainly not a police state as the OP put forward, and neither is the US or the UK.
Australia began it's modern europeanised existence as a police state, and I honestly don't think that it's evolved through law beyond that initial modality.
It has never had in it's constitution the expectations on rights of the citizen that underpin the US constitution.
It's unlikely that there'll be much resistance from the public to these proposals.