This is a trend in lawmaking in Australia, and it's seriously damaging. It's basically written so the Government's Minister of Communications gets to decide who to directly target (or not target) with the law.
Basically allows them to arbitarily apply the law to some parties and not others, with no right of appeal. That does lead to potential constitutionality concerns, but it would take years for it to be struck down if so, if a service is affected and eventually gets it before the High Court.
Isn’t that what the electorate desires?
By electing personable but mediocore, sometimes even incompetent, MPs over the intelligent but aloof candidates.
Someone or some committee, somewhere, still has to actually work out all the details, and if it’s not done in Parliament, because the average MP literally can’t grasp even half the agenda items, it has to be done elsewhere.
Edit: And even that is probably being too optimistic, I’ve heard of MPs who can’t even remember the key facts and figures from the last 100 executive summaries they’ve read. Let alone any detail within the reports whatsoever.
I started losing faith in democracy since Brexit. It is still better than other forms of governance, that seems like a low bar.
People making “protest” votes without bothering to understand the consequences, single issue voters, young people who don’t even bother to vote, dumb/racist/misogynist voters…
Democracy only works if voters take it seriously, only if media is at least reasonably honest/competent etc. Across the world, this is not the case today. Britain, U.S, India, Australia …
Maybe we've gone full circle here, since internet discourse drives much of that angry shallow populism.
Representatives democracy also only works if representatives take it seriously too. Much (if not most) elected ones serves their personal agenda before the voters interests, let alone those of who can’t/don’t vote.
There’s also no universal _Truth_ that someone can grab entirely and as you noted information is essential but humans can’t be omniscient and you always miss something.
- "If others players cheat, I would loose by following the rules"
- "all i know is I know nothing".
Those two reasons explain why abstention or white/protest/defence votes can be fact based with a logical reasoning IMO.
> dumb/racist/misogynist voters…
> Democracy only works if voters take it seriously
Do you mean democracy only works when all people vote for options that you think are sensible?
Im afraid you seem to have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to democracy. The whole point of it is that everyone, including people you disagree with, get to have a say. Calling people names like dumb and racist is just a crass result of disagreeing with somebody, and then extrapolating their entire personality based on an opinion.
Democracy works when everyone has the choice to vote, and excercises that choice. If 70% of the population suddenly voted to extradite all people with dark skin to Africa, under the rules of democracy you would need to accept that choice as correct and support it. If you decided to say the result was racist and that it shouldnt be carried out, then you are diagreeing with democracy full stop. In that situation you may as well just have a dictatorship, as what it boils down to is one person thinks everyone else should do what that person thinks is right.
If you feel that people should support and agree with what you think is right you need to do the same to everyone else in the world, including people whose opinion is drastically different from your own. Even if you feel it is wrong.
Calling people names and belittling their peronal opinions and judgements is only further sowing seeds of division and hate.
I was working in Mississippi during 2016 election. I met many people who point blank told me they will not vote for Clinton, just because she is a woman (there are a million reasons not to vote for Clinton, her gender is not one of them). What should we call such people?
Do you mean democracy only works when all people vote for options that you think are sensible?
How did you deduce that from my comment? Just one day after Brexit, tons of people regretted voting to leave - lots of them admitted they didn't take the vote seriously, they thought others would vote to stay, so their vote wouldn't matter. A serious voter would have voted on the merits of staying or leaving the EU, not because they were angry at some politician or some other policy <-- This is what I meant when I said "Democracy only works if voters take it seriously", I don't know how you deduced that I want everyone to vote the way I want them to.