Ausvotes 2010: Party Policy Guide
(click above to enlarge or download a PDF version)
Here is an at-a-glance guide that summarises the positions of the main political parties on two issues close to the hearts of our members and supporters: Mandatory internet censorship, an R-18+ rating for video games and the National Broadband Network. We also include a few notes on other issues that you may wish to explore further.
We hope that this guide will help guide Australian Internet users as they balance online issues against the wider party platforms as they decide where to cast their vote this year.
(Update) Note on other minor parties
Limitations of time and space prevented us from including all parties on this document, however we are working on a separate page which will detail the positions of as many parties as we can gather together.
(Update 2) Note on R-18+ games (12/8/10): At a public forum Tony Abbott gave in-principal support to an R-18+ category for games, but as it was apparent from the context that this was the first time he was made aware of the issue, we will await further clarification before changing the Liberal policy from "no stated position".
(Update 3) Dems support NBN The Australian Democrats have released their policy supporting the NBN. Unfortunately the update came too late to get the chart altered before the election.
Surely broadband infrastructure plans are a key Internet policy issue?
Oli has a good point, surely you should include the respective parties policies on broadband infrastructure? Your chart above makes Liberal look like an almost acceptable choice.
Yes, Oli, the NBN is a core issue. However, there is a lot of misinformation circling about it.
As it stands, Labor are not upgrading it. They say they are. But they're actually going to desecrate it! Why? Because they are not running enough lines (there needs to be 2 to each place of residence). This will result in a system similar to cable, whereby the first person in the street gets priority, and everyone else suffers.
What happens in 5 years time when South East Queensland has expanded, and houses are knocked down to build blocks of flats? There'll be an extra 100 people tryinfg to share the same line as the existing residents. This is stupid! They will have to dig up all the roads again in less than a decade.
Also, Liberals are NOT scrapping the NBN, they are simply waiting a little longer and planning to release their stratgey soon. I can't say whether it will be better than Labor's plan or not.... but I CAN say that the current NBN strategy under Labor is a WASTE of time and money!
I'd suggest keeping the language a bit more neutral, because if you're honestly going to champion the coalition as the civil liberties alternative you're not going to be taken very seriously.
Pistolero, who is your comment directed towards?
Being factually and technically correct might help with the "being taken seriously" too…
Good guide with some good information. Why did you leave out the other parties such as the Secular Party and LDP though? If the Sex Party is there, they should be.
Also, there are plenty of reasons to remain sceptical of the NBN in its current Labor government form. Has anyone actually considered how expensive it really is? Is it going to be cheaper to sign up to a cable plan than it is to get an adsl2+ plan? I would love to know how much I will have to pay for 100Mb, and 50+ GB/month, plus unrestricted uploads. Somehow I think it is going to be like the scenario we had with Telstra selling adsl wholesale to retailers: Not cheap like adsl2+. The government has remained very silent about these issues, or else I'm looking in the wrong places for these answers. The only thing I've heard is hearsay that data allocations will be small.
@james — http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband...
Thanks for that Oli. Although this is only preliminary and there are sure to be more retailers to come to encourage competition, it still seems kind of expensive. More expensive than adsl2+ anyhow.
Including the LDP would be great as they're a broadly anti-censorship anti-regulation party with a full policy platform.
Why have you excluded the Socialist Alliance from this round-up? It has excellent policies in this regard: Please see a more complete guide at https://spreadsheets1.google.com/ccc?key=tLBnCYZY...
I wish I could have ADSL2+, but I'm stuck in a regional area where Telstra hasn't bothered to upgrade us from ADSL1, and they won't allow anyone else in the exchange, so I just wish I could get the great prices ADSL2 offers. :(
Let's face it, the NBN, being much faster than ADSL will always be more expensive, as it's totally new infrastructure. If you want a Bugatti Veyron, you'll have to pay a bit more than a Yaris. :)
And I agree, even without the NBN, technology will move forward. The Liberals plans for broadband would have been better for me in a regional area, as the OPEL plan would have meant an upgrade of my exchange. So for me, I am not happy that Labor have ripped out one plan and replaced it with a strategy that won't hit my backwater area for years. :(
@James (10:51am)
Compare those prices with Internode's current Naked ADSL2 plans on their own (Agile) network (http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/adsl/nakedextreme/pricing/) and you'll find the prices to be comparable if not very attractive depending on your needs.
Emily - what an absurd argument. Your post (and I saw it on Facebook too) sounds like you're towing some ridiculous Liberal party line. This isn't 'big media', this is the internet - we're not going to buy your embaressingly obvious spin.
The publicly stated positions are, Labor are going ahead with NBN, Liberal are not.
Hi all,
Thanks for your feedback. We have found some policy information hard to gather for this summary, but we will follow up with a blog post with a more complete roundup when we can.
Hi GavinSpaceFace. I am not pushing Liberal at all. In my post I clearly stated that I do not know whether Liberal's plan will be any better. I cannot find the article right now, but last night I read a statement from Liberal, in which they said they were not against an NBN, and would release their plans soon, and that they were considering wireless instead. I don't think wireless good idea either, because there would be isues in remote areas. Either way, I have little faith that this NBN (as it currently stands) is worth the money, so I am not going to be swayed to for Labor (or Liberal) purely on this issue.
I would absolutely LOVE a super-fast NBN, with unlimited downloads and all the rest. But I don't think Labor are going to give us one. As for Liberal, I don't know, as they haven't said anything definite.
Emily, I agree with you. I think Labor's NBN is too good to be true in some ways. It's a great dream, but I want to hear what the Libs have to say. I was at Malcolm Turnbull's internet forum last Saturday, and I feel I have to agree with them that the private sector should be more heavily involved, and that where there are market failures (rural Australia), there should be subsidy, rather than a super expensive government run monopoly. Japan's Broadband network is almost entirely privately run and it is fantastic. Innovation has always come from the private sector - don't kid yourself by thinking otherwise. I also would love super fast broadband, but one has to consider the cost. If this network is going to be a large drain on the economy in the future, and not an investment then I am most certainly not going to support it. If Labor can screw up so much in such a short period of time, why trust them with this?
Yeah because the privatisation of Telstra was great, right? The one that resulted in Telstra providing TERRIBLE outdated technology, TERRIBLE service, TERRIBLE support and to commit corporate crime. Does "$18.5m anti-competitive conduct fine" ring a bell?
A national broadband network is critical technology that is in the nation’s interest and should be put in place by the government. It's the single most important backbone of the entire country. OF COURSE it will be expensive - look at the scope of it! But there is no question that we NEED to go down that path. Just like Australia once implemented a telephone network, and a rail network, and roads, this is an infrastructure that we need, at ANY cost. What else should the money go towards? Stopping a rickety boat? Give me a break. There is nothing more worthy of funding than this.
Liberals proposition is empty, shallow political rubbish, with absolutely no substance. Wireless is FAR slower than wired solutions. Simple physics. A network of this scope needs to be tackled top down, not in a 'patchy', cherry picking, short sighted way. Any tech expert will tell you in a second that the Libs proposition is meaningless.
By the way, I assume you're aware that Australia's internet is DRASTICALLY slower than almost all developed country speeds and costs? We are WAY behind, with comparatively ancient technology, and we shouldn't be. This is a network that needs to go ahead.
I agree completely with the above post by GavinSpaceFace. I am also very aware of how far we are behind the rest of the world.
That is precisely why I think Labor needs to rethink their plan.
The NBN is incredibly important, and that's why I am so frustrated that the government is not taking it seriously enough! We need to project at least 50 years ahead, and lay enough point-to-point fibres to every residence whilst taking into account the expected increase in population, and the possibility that many houses or blocks of land will be turned into high rise units, each needing their own dedicated line.
Maybe Liberals will make MORE of a mess of this plan, maybe they will make less. We can't know until them come forward with their stategy. But we DO know Labor's plan and it's not going to last. They need to spend even more money than they have budgeted.
I'm not pretending to have a solution, but the fact is, the NBN is being rushed under Labor. And this is something that certainly must not be rushed!
Emily,
Dark Fibre has the ability to carry up to 40Gb/s, and there are technologies that don't need new cables to up this to about 60Tb/s. 100Mb is not a limitation of the cable, it is the network infrastructure. They will easily be able to update this network for 50 - 100 years without relaying cables. Also, one cable does not equal one connection, each cable carries MANY glass tubes inside, far more than a street can fit houses.
James,
Yes Japan has very good internet through private investment, but the reason is because they have 120 million people in a space smaller than NSW. This has always been a problem with laying infrastructure in Australia, small population over a large space. So to run optics around Japan, you can hit every township and still make money, in Australia, you will never profit from running optics to remote areas. This is why a government funded NBN is so important in Australia. It's also the reason Telstra (then Telecom) was funded by the government, to make sure EVERYONE had access to these services.
Also, in regards to EFA's graphic up the top of this page: "Party Policy Guide" - is the NBN not worth mentioning? Or are world class internet speeds only a footnote in national policy?
Hi there,
Actually, a version with an "NBN" column is with the designer - expect a revision shortly. (The Coalition plan was announced today.)
We recognise there are many other parties with positions on the issues but gathering comprehensive data on their policies is not always easy. I am going to try and deal with them in a separate article.
Colin
Nothing on the NBN, nothing on activity logging? Seriously? I'm all for R18+ but it's not the second-most important internet issue this election.
@SkepDad: As I mentioned above, the NBN update is coming today.
The activity logging is covered under "Data Retention Secrecy" - see note 11.
This is an "at-a-glance" guide and should not be taken as an exhaustive list of all policies and history. We try and deal with those policies on a one-on-one basis.
Thanks Colin - I do believe that the graph should stand on its own merits and people shouldn't feel that they need to trawl through the peanut gallery in case there are corrections. Looking forward to the new graph.
It seems to me that data retention and logging is a bigger concern than a footnote, though I accept that the other parties haven't made their position clear. Is EFA taking up this fight? You (we) had such success with the filter. Of course I understand that all you have to go on is one heavily-censored document and that it might be premature, but retention should be high on EFA's watchlist if it's not already.
"Innovation has always come from the private sector - don't kid yourself by thinking otherwise."
Manhattan project.
ARPANET.
Apollo 11.
Great pyramid of Khufu.
Government initiatives all. Innovation comes from everywhere, don't kid yourself into thinking it's the domain of the private sector, no matter how well that sits with your political inclinations. In fact, I would say that profit driven innovation runs a distant third to curiousity driven innovation followed by military innovation.
Next to those examples, the best examples I can think of for private industry innovation pale. Miniaturisation techniques and and other efficiency/accessibility improvements are where the private sectors strengths are, which I would term development rather than innovation, although I understand that innovative methods can be applied to development.
That said, efficiency and accessibility are primary concerns for a broadband network of this scale, so there may be something to be said for the involvement of private labs.
I just found this comment interesting as while there is no question that applications developed for profit currently pale in comparison to applications developed for other reasons, there is an ongoing debate as to whether that trend is continuing. So when you imply what is in effect, the exact opposite of the common consensus, I feel like it needs to be pointed out.
@SkepDad: I take your point. The decision to keep the diagram simple and focussed on a couple of core issues was made after careful consideration. There are/were still people emailing us with questions like "what's the Greens position on the filter?", so we needed to cover the basics.
As for the data retention, yes, this will be a big issue for us - we've dealt with this issue so far mainly through the media (and one blog post) as there is no concrete plans available. As a proposal comes to light, you can count on us to break it down and make some noise if it's as horrible as it sounds.
In fact, I'd be curious to know what innovations you were thinking of as you wrote that comment. Do they compare to things like the theory of relativity and electromagnetism, neither of which were developed for private profit?
Something I've been unable to get an educated answer on: if the Coalition is elected, can they unilaterally kill the NBN, or does it require a bill through to the Senate?
It seems to me if it's the latter, both the Greens and ALP will oppose scrapping it?
Mr Speaker, I realise Japan as a whole has a higher population density, but Australia's population is still one of the most urbanised in the world. I would still prefer to see the private sector involved - at the very minimum in the capital cities where there is a high population density. The government should then subsidise regional areas (market failures), and potentially link the major urban centres with a high speed back-bone, while upgrading the satellite and wireless network. The NBN is still going to leave out towns like Wilcannia and Tibooburra anyway, so some people are going to be left out regardless of how extensive the fibre network is.I think the coalition announced something along these lines today anyway.
And going back to the sheer cost of this project, I think they need to get their priorities straight. How can they justify spending $40 billion on the internet, meanwhile there is still no freeway over the blue mountains, and no continuous freeway from Sydney - Melbourne and Sydney - Brisbane, Australia's three most important cities aren't even linked properly physically, let alone virtually. Economically speaking that would have huge benefits. That is off topic, but I brought it up to highlight how biased and over-funded this nation building project is.
@Pistolero: I was thinking of the biotech industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nanotech, computing, automotive, engineering, green energy etc etc. Scientific discoveries may not be initially driven by corporate incentives, but the finest universities around the globe are typically private entities - businesses. You may cite military projects, but governments don't make fighter jets and weapons and avionics systems, the private sector does and then sells them to the government, based on their specifications. There was hardly any industry consultation with this network, so it is not comparable to that. Anyway, I have no qualms with government funded projects and subsidised scientific research. I stated that before. But I do have problems with the scale and cost of this project, especially when there are so many other aspects of Australia's infrastructure that need attention. I think as computer enthusiasts here we're naturally going to be biased toward a project that favours us
The NBN… Liberals or Labour? I can’t vote, so I trust my fellow Aussie friends to pick the best to make this change. Who is up for the job of creating a fair NBN for everyone? Well, 93% of the population? Not just the paper pushers in the big cities that get everything…
Btw, if you think the wireless NBN infrastructure is good... read this:
I am on wireless, and I hate Telstra. 10 GB for $119 a month….. I cannot use any other ISP, not even use any mobile services besides Telstra. Talk about fair... they are the most expensive and the worst providers... This is what I get for living less than 1 hour away from Brisbane. Because house prices are cheaper..
Because I live in a rural area I get a 3mb/s download speeds. Sure, its faster than ADSL.... and wireless is even faster in the city….. Because they have to compete with ADSL2… BUT........... when your away from the world... you dont matter.
Because wireless sucks, Telstra gave me a $400 modem for free. Yes, they upgraded me to an elite network gateway from a home network gateway. Why? Because wireless speeds suck and are unreliable.
I can now get 600kb/s download speeds (VERY RARE) because that is on a good day when traffic is low and signal is high. On a bad day, I am lucky to get 30kb/s due to weather, traffic, and this fantastic infrastructure. You never had a drop out before? Try wireless... you will feel the joys of drop outs too. The 10GB usage for wireless is UNGODLY…. As well as the price.
If you want to do Australia a huge favour, vote for someone who cares about the NBN.
Secular party is a glaring omission.
To GavinSpaceFace and others: the NBN will recreate all the problems of Telstra.
Telstra is bad because they are a monopoly. They own all the copper lines and all the exchanges. Every ADSL connection in the country must make use of both of these resources, so Telstra collects money from every ADSL connection regardless of ISP.
Telstra deliberately held back internet bandwidth. For a long time, the only ADSL availabe was ADSL1, with a maximum bandwidth of 512kb. All of this was resold from Telstra. ADSL1 actually has a theoretical maximum of 8mbits, but Telstra limited it to 512. Later ADSL2+ become available, with a theoretical maximum of 24mbits. This was because small private companies were able to, thanks to the ACCC, put their own equipment into Telstra's exchanges; however, they still use the copper lines and they still have to pay Telstra.
It is extremely difficult for ISPs to justify investment in infrastructure because they know that Telstra can wipe them out at any time, this is what has held back internet quality in Australia. Telstra gets the majority of its revenue from its copper network, and this revenue can be used anti-competitively. It is only when the copper network becomes obsolete that the playing field will be leveled.
Now, the reason why Telstra is a monopoly is because they were created as a government enterprise; no private company could ever have developed such a dominant level of infrastructure without government assistance. When Telstra were privatised, they should have been split up, but they weren't. This was the Liberal party's mistake.
Labor wants to use two wrongs to make a right. They want to create a new Telstra, a new government owned telecommunications company, that will connect more than 90% of homes, a new monopoly. This means a repeat of all the mistakes of Telstra, the technology will be outdated, the costs will be far higher than they should be, and private companies will find it very difficult to invest because the NBN, with its deep pockets, will be able to swat them like flies.
Since the privatisation of Telstra, the ISP industry has gradually been moving towards a free enterprise system. As it is now, it is possible in many metropolitan areas to get a good internet connection at a reasonable price; shop around! If the NBN is built it will destroy free enterprise, it will mean a return to a monopoly structure, prices will rise, quality will drop, and there will be no way for private companies to put up an alternate investment.
I should also add, that an NBN is bad for censorship. As we have seen, a number of ISPs have come out to oppose the internet filter. But if everything was through one ISP, the NBN, a government controlled entity, it makes imposing a filter much easier.
The NBN may create a monopoly, but you really believe an ISP is going to spend billions providing better service to Australia? LOL
Hell, if Telstra didn’t get help from government before….. ¾ of Australia would on dialup…. Do you really believe an ISP is going to provide this infrastructure metro areas get? I don’t see any ISP spending billions to provide a decent service to a limited amount of people in rural areas around Australia. Do you?
You’re in a pipe dream if you think the infrastructure will be placed in all other areas in Australia without the Governments help. The reason cities get better deals, better infrastructures, is because there is $$$ to be made there. Out of the 20million folks in Australia, millions of folks live in metro areas. That is why your services continue to be upgraded. While the rest of us have to deal with ADSL or Wireless…
You tell those of us to shop around, when we can only us Telstra because other ISP know there is no money to be made providing coverage in our areas. We will continue to use wireless, paying an overpriced service for a limited amount of bandwidth.
Most our towers don’t have enough ports even to get ADSL, either that or we got pair gained homes. Your post was an interesting read though. Although, as I said if the government doesn’t help us. Noone will.
@Alex. Err, the NBN won't be an ISP, it's mandated as a wholesaler provider only, that's the whole point of it and basically invalidates your entire rant. Unlike Telstra, they won't be retailing products on the network, only leasing the layer 2 bandwidth to ISPs and other new options like power companies and IPTV broadcasters.
The only potential issues with NBNCo having a monopoly over infrastructure are that they may set access prices too high and that they won't have much of an incentive to continue upgrading - both things which the federal gov should be able to address through proper regulation (though if they're competent enough to do that properly is a different matter entirely).
Emily - please know what you are talking about when posting. Under the NBN plan, THREE fibres are allocated to every residential location, and FOUR to every business location.
Residential locations get THREE - two for potential use (eg: when a block of land is subdivided to include a second house), and a third as a spare. Business locations get FOUR - three for potential use, and a fourth as a spare.
Hi Michael, please can you send me a link or source for those figures? I am clearly under the impression that this would not be the case. AFAIK each residence/business would have a their own fibre to the exchange, but from then on it would be shared with many others.
CantVote, you haven't actually justified why my money should be spent on giving you super fast internet, or even anything at all.
Please justify that first.
An ISP will spend billions of dollars if they will make a profit.
Businesses aren't out to screw customers, they are always striving to improve their services to win your custom.
Pistolero: I'm glad you mentioned two government "innovations" that have killed tens of thousands of people, and ruined hundreds of thousands of others lives.
CantVote,
It would be very bad if any single ISP could spend billions of dollars and dominate the whole industry. Ideally you would have smaller companies building patches of interconnected infrastructure. It would be in every company's interest to ensure interoperability between their networks; if one company isolated itself then their customers wouldn't be able to talk to people on the other networks.
I'm sorry that you can't get decent internet in your area. Since you can't vote, I assume you are under 18? When you become an adult, why don't you move to the city? The fact is that everyone can't have everything. I live in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, it takes me an hour to drive across town to get to the beach. If I wanted to go into go for a walk in the bush, I'd have to drive north for an hour too. The fact is it costs more to provide internet in your area, so it will cost more for you. Why should everyone else suffer just for you? If you can, be enterprising, organise with some of your neighbours and see if you can spend a few hundred thousand to connect fibre to your area; build a wireless network tower and organise to point it to another tower on the internet backbone. Pay for more than one internet connection so you can double or triple your bandwidth. Don't complain to the government for them to help you, because the government can't help anyone, they can only take something away from one group of people and give it to another group of people. Should I complain to the government that it takes me too long to get to the beach?
ProNBN,
Yes, in theory, if the government does everything right, the NBN will be a good thing. But governments never get everything right, if they did then communism would work. Talking about the pricing, at $43 billion (but we know they will go over budget), that's $5000 per household.
I'm not saying that private companies are always right, but if you have a number of different private companies each investing in separate interoperable networks, then you will find that one company's mistake can be cancelled out by the others. You will also find that across the whole industry there will be some companies that will be able to take risks and innovate, whereas if you have one organisation managing the whole network, innovation is very difficult and unlikely.
Also, can I say, that, in my view, Telstra is not a private company, not a free enterprise company at least. They are a government department that was spun off as a separate entity.
I am an adult, just for clearification. I cant vote because I choose not to become a citizen of Australia. No offense, love your country just dont like to vote for politicians in general. My theory is your screwed either way.
As to the NBN and labour or liberals choices in this matter. Fibre is better than Wireless. Also did anyone watch Tony Abbotts interview with Kerry O'Brien. LOL
I do have a choice, you are correct. I live in rural areas, the pros out weigh the cons like wireless all together. Just because I love privacy and hate dealing with the population all together. But if the government can improve the network flaws currently in australia for those who have ADSL or Wireless congestion... I am all for it.
Robert, I suggest you inform yourself a little more before you start with your partisan ranting. There is debate as to whether the manhattan project saved more lives than it ended, by bringing the war to a close earlier.
Nonetheless, the use to which innovations are put does not detract from the degree of innovation. Do you think research into fusion power would be ongoing if not for the manhattan project? Do you think Australias uranium industry would be providing livelihoods for so many australians?
I notice you're happy to ignore the fact that we are communicating via what was once arpanet, about expanding said communications network.
Private industry to date has been a minor contributor to the advancement of human knowledge. That may change in the future, and perhaps already is changing (as stated, the debate is ongoing) but as of now, to claim otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance, or malice. Pick your poison, facts are facts.
Pistolero, without private industry you wouldn't even be here today. There wouldn't be any food on your table nor a roof over your head. There wouldn't have been an industrial revolution. Isaac Newton, Albert Einstien, Charles Darwin... great thinkers such as these are independent thinkers, who don't rely on government support. The development of human knowledge is a natural process that continues regardless of government efforts to support or hinder it.
That's a curious take on it Alex. The industrial revolution and the assembly line are given, but none of those persons mentioned relied on private industry either. In fact, several of them did rely on government support.
Einstein developed many of his thought experiments on the nature of light and matter while working for the government and Darwin's notes that formed the basis for On the Origin of Species were written while working for the government.
I'm not sure why people persist in posting bad information, if you aren't sure what you are writing is correct, go and find out before you post. Actually, I'm not even sure where you are getting these ideas, would be curious to find out.
In fact, if you're really interested in the subject, you should get yourselves up to speed on the debate regarding whether government organizations like CERN are as effective at propelling knowledge forward as private investors.
Is this true?
"Forty three thousand million dollars worth of shiny new cable is no good when there is still a bottleneck under the pacific.
Gillard is not spending a cent on that which means unless the ISPs themselves fork out a lot more cash to improve th...eir contention ratio, you'll still connect to the rest of the world at 3 MB/s instead of 100MB/s."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/...
If the Liberals are an X for R-18+, Labor should be too.
Neither have an official policy on the issue.
Also, the Democrats support the NBN.
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_...
@Mikel: We decided to give Labor a tick for the games because of Brendan O’Connor's willingness to put it on the agenda, and the discussion paper the government put out; plus other noises we've heard from them on this issue.
I updated the notes to say the Dems do support the NBN. We didn't hear from them until a few days ago and I didn't get a new version of the chart from the designer, so apologies for that.
I appreciate you sharing this blog.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.