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.
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]).
[0]: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/page-1.html
[1]: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/20/comedian-dinged-for...
Sure, "discriminatory speech" has been ruled illegal in Australia too [2], but my point is: what's the point of a bill of rights, then?
[2]: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-irresponsi...
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.
[3]: http://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/q7xhm/what_are_the_a...
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.