National Broadband Network

Is it just me that finds the governments handling of the National Broadband Network (NBN) legislation a little off? Legislation that's currently slated to cost around 30 - 40 billion dollars (yes, I said billion, with a b).
The government recently received a report on the business case for the NBN. Unfortunately, no-one outside the labor party knows what it says. And we're not going to find out till December. Neither are the opposition. Or the Greens & Independents that were crucial to Labor being able to form a government at the last election.
Though, the Greens and Independents are being briefed on the plan sometime next week - as long as they agree to a confidentiality clause that means they can't tell anyone else about it.

The Governments current plan is to release the study just before Parliament finishes up for the year - giving the government a breathing space in between the release and having to answer any questions regarding the plan.
Am I the only one that sees something not right in a government announcing "Here's the plan! Now, we're going to be out of contact till this blows over".

The governments reason for this - "It's a very, very considerable document with lots of complex analysis in it..."
That was part of an interview with Stephen Conroy (Communications Minister) on the ABC (link to interview is here).
Mr Conroy then goes on the describe the report as "a very weighty and substantial document", "a very significant document", "a very complex document", lovely to know that the government doesn't think that we're able to understand such a document - before they've had time to formulate their policy stances anyway.

One of the most troublesome things about the governments current position is that there is another telecommunications bill (the Telstra Separation bill) that is supposed to be up for debate today. The bill proposes to increase powers for the ACCC, and to split Telstra more or less in half, forcing the company to separate it's wholesale & retail branches.

When exactly did we decide to allow the government to force business decisions and plans on companies that they don't own? When did it become apparent that government agencies (the ACCC) could "create competition" (the communications Ministers words) by forcing successful companies to stop growing? To stimulate an industry strangled by government legislation and regulation, the answer is not more legislation and regulation - it's less.

Introduction.

To anyone that comes across this - Hello.

I've always been one of the people that insists on finding things out.
I don't bother with mainstream news, as they rarely seem to cover the issues I feel are important, and they ignore many of the issues that I do find important.

Let me throw in a quick comment on what I mean by 'Important'.
Important does not mean popular. Important does not mean high profile, high value, heartbreaking, heartwarming, attention grabbing, sensational or any of the other things that most media sources attempt to dazzle us with.
Important means something that will have an effect on my self, my property or the selves and property of those I care about.

Now, you'd think it'd be easy to find news about those kind of things. Economic news likely to have a local effect, political news likely to affect my nation, legal news likely to effect me - etc.
However I've had to spend days or weeks tracking information that is not only likely to effect me, but is likely to effect everyone around me.
And not one of the main news networks bothers to mention them.

Instead, they run stories on politicians statements regarding non issues. Political refugees in Australia (an incredibly small number). Carbon taxes (subject to endless delays, whilst politicians seem to wait for reliable, scandal free data - which is for some reason not forthcoming). Sustainable initiatives (which as far as I can tell translates to mean things happening without any real cost in resources or effort). Celebrity diets, engagements, marriages, divorces and scandals (someone must care about this stuff, but that someone doesn't seem to be among any of the people I know). All of these things make the news, usually daily, and yet other things barely get a mention, or are simply ignored.

It is now illegal in Victoria to own a knife (that oldest of human tools) that is either double edged, or is a clasp knife (the clasp knife being the most commonly used utility knife anywhere). Apparently for public safety. Now, I happen to like steel, particularly blades. I see a clean perfection of form, an object in which anything not useful has been pared away. An object used daily by most people world wide. The primary tool carried by just about everyone, throughout recorded history. Apparently our government sees a threat to public safety.

What caused the government to decide that this simple, ancient and most useful of tools was such a dire threat to public safety? Well, our primary media sources have said (in the day or so that they paid attention) that this law is to stop gang violence. Though nobody bothered to ask how the removal of a tool is supposed to remove such a large social issue. The comments from our politicians have been priceless -

Premier John Brumby: "It is a minimum interference with someones basic liberties and in the bigger scheme of things, this is about assuring that the community is properly protected.''
"the law reverses the onus of proof to 'guilty until proven innocent''

And apparently the media was ok with this. With a law that reverses the onus of proof - which our entire legal system is based on - or at least, was based on.
And to enforce this law - the police are now able to search anyone, anywhere & without cause.
And our politicians, media & police all seem to think it's a good thing.

How is it possible, that unwarranted search of private persons, seizure of private property and fines & criminal charges to support these actions - all without cause - can be a good thing?

These are the specific actions that motivated me to start this blog. These are the laws that outraged me enough that I began to take note of my personal liberties & freedoms, and of how many ways in which they are curtailed.

My liberty is mine by right, it is not a privilege to be granted by others.