Hi loyal reader. I’m sure there is at least one of you.

When I began blogging back in December 08, I didn’t put too much forethought into this place. All I wanted was a site which allowed me to express my opinions on things. So each time I had a bright idea, I’d create a new topic. Eleven topics later (you can’t count them on your fingers, unless you’re special) and I decided that enough was enough. I’ve cleaned up my list of topics to just five.

• Civil Liberties – I’m a strong believer that our rights can and will be eroded if we do not monitor what politicians, advocate groups and other interested parties try to force on us. I’ll present my view on the issues that I think are important or that affect me personally.
• Internet – If I’m posting about Twitter, the current No Clean Feed debate or the new National Broadband Network, then I’ll post it in the Internet Category. I will expand this as time goes on to look at other issues of interest to me.
• Politics – I’m an interested political observer and enjoy commenting on the current political landscape in Australia and the world. I’ll sometimes agree with those in power, but often not. Either way you’ll hear about it in this category.
• Religion – I’m a believer in a secular society free from the interference of religions and deities. I used to believe in the Christian version of God, but now I’ve come to understand that there is no God and that religion can be dangerous in some forms. So from time to time I’ll blog about issues I think need to be discussed. I’m also tolerant of other’s beliefs and options, even if I don’t agree.
• Meta – I left this to last for a reason. My wife suggested the name for this one as I was stuck. What should I do with stuff that isn’t really related to my other categories, but is either related to me or to this blog? That’s what Meta is for. It isn’t a miscellaneous file but will contain posts either about me or what I’ve been thinking about lately. Perhaps a clip on the Internet that I’ve enjoyed and think will add something to your life.  I’ll also cover other information related to this blog. I think it’s important to get a better understanding about the blogger behind the posts, so hence the need for Meta.

I hope that this new set of topics make more sense for you the reader. After all, they are really just a way to help you navigate the site better. Please let me know your thoughts and any good suggestions will be taken, mashed into my brain and taken on board.

(Thanks to definatalie for salvaging this post for me after my earlier error.

Also I should note that CentreLink have come to the party. – Nicholas)

Public servants need to keep in mind something very important. They are there to serve the public. Not as a lesser class or in servitude, but provide a service to the public. So why do we hear so many disastrous reports about the public sector? Public servants can be very behind the times.

There is currently a report in Brisbane’s The Courier-Mail regarding the wife of a comatose man. He is unlikely to ever regain consciousness and will remain in his bed for the rest of his days. He hit is head on his honeymoon! How much more sob story can you get? Really, it is an unfortunately thing.

I’m just concerned with the advice provided by the Australian Public Service, namely CentreLink. As a public servant myself I realise that they would have been following process, and that is all that they ‘can’ do. They can only follow the rules and do as they have always done.

Actually, they don’t have to. I mean it.

Why not try and give better service to the client. Stop seeing members of the public as  burden. They are why we are in the public service. In this case, more compassion could have been shown. Why not give Mrs Dodd some attention and assistance!

Perhaps her husband isn’t eligible for the full pension. Nothing will change that, other than an overrule from the Minisiter. I can see that forthcoming soon due to the publicity.

My issue with this is why did nothing get done about this sooner? Why is it that it takes the media’s interaction to have any change of heart? There should be processes to allow Ministers to be advised of such cases so that they can have the chance to intervene. It shouldn’t be a hole in the service plugged by the media.

The public should be given the best service possible by the public service. No ifs and no buts.

So it’s time for Election ‘09! ALP v NLP. Bligh v Springborg. The electors of Queensland, sick of the tired Labor government will do the only thing it can. Re-elect Anna Bligh.

Does that sound a little strange to you? Well it should.

You see I have always been a staunch conservative when it comes to my politics. I have voted Liberal federally every election since I turned 18 – except the last election. I just had to vote for Kevin Rudd. Was it my politics that had changed? No, I felt the government was tired. We needed change.

Public Transport is a major issue in Election (Source: mythoto@flickr)

The state government is tired too. Public transport is overrun and underwhelming to say the least, there have been a number of scandals involving ministers, nine retirements in the last few weeks and the economic ‘meltdown’ (which isn’t as bad as it could be) has thrown the budget into a spin. So why do I think they will win?

Look at the Opposition. They couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag. No one seems to take Lawrence Springborg seriously. Who goes around calling themselves “The Borg” for crying out loud? Yes I know we need a change of government badly, but can Lawrence do the job?

I’m really not sure and that makes me sad. So what can you do?

Get into the ears of your friends and neighbours. Talk about the real issues of the election, not the politicking and the pork barrelling that will come from the Federal Government’s stimulus package. Think about the schools, the public transport, jobs, housing affordability, climate change.

Think about health, dental plans for all, giving our kids the best chance of success. Why do we have to pick and choose just because the parties are always at two opposite ends of the scale? Why can’t we just pick the best people for the job and be done with it.

Vote for the best person to be your local member. If they are from the Greens, an Independent, Democrat (if they come out of the woodwork) or whatever – elect them on their ability. Even if you don’t agree with the party politics, vote for the best person with the best plan for your area.

If we all did that for a change, perhaps we would have a parliament that leads, rather than a parliament that squabbles and fights.

January 26 is Australia Day for me, not Invasion Day. I don’t agree with the word ‘invasion’ and think it is divisive.

Over the Australia Day long weekend, Australia has been pulled kicking and screaming into community discussion on the day that we celebrate our country. For those not from this nation, January 26 celebrates the arrival of the First Fleet at Botany Bay and the British colonisation of Australia.

Now there were other inhabitants of this continent before they arrived. Throughout our short history it is fair to say that these Indigenous Australians have received a raw deal. Aboriginals were slain for no reason, denied natural justice, cheated of their lands in unfair deals and have, until recently, been an issue always left in the too hard basket.

Indigenous Australians have a lower life expectancy than other Australians, live in substandard housing conditions and are still treated poorly by some in society.

There is currently debate surrounding the date of Australia Day, with some suggesting it should be moved as it represents Invasion Day for some Indigenous Australians . Invasion Day mourns the invasion of this country by the British on 26 January 1788. Same event, same day, whole different perspective.

I think it is now time to come together as one nation and move past this talk of invasion. I certainly don’t think we should be changing the date of Australia Day. Talk of invasion is divisive and does not help to bring together all sides.

We need to work together to bring the living standards of the indigenous up to the same level as other Australians. We need to recognise the unique cultures of all people living in Australia. Whether that be indigenous culture or the unique national identity formed during the last 221 years.

What doesn’t help is talking of an invasion. It’s a powerful and emotive word but I don’t believe it is the right one.

Some sections of the media are reporting that a majority of Australians support mandatory Internet filtering. This is misleading, quoting a biased survey from a biased source.

ABC radio ran a story yesterday on AM reporting on the planned rallies against mandatory Internet filtering (link is to the transcript).  In this story they spoke to Professor Charles Hamilton, Vice Chancellor at Charles Sturt University and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute. Here is part of the transcript:

DAVID WEBER: Professor Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University commissioned a study into the issue when he was with The Australia Institute.

He says there’s wide support in the community for a mandatory filtering system.

CLIVE HAMILTON: We found an extraordinarily high percentage of parents, 93 per cent, said that they would support that proposal for mandatory filtering.

This statistic was also included in the story run on ABC News in Brisbane last night without any reference to Professor Hamilton.

Since information without a source isn’t valuable, I looked into this a bit further. My research has found some rather concerning information on both Professor Hamilton and The Australia Institute’s role in promoting mandatory Internet filtering.

A 2003 media release from the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) discusses this exact survey quoted by Professor Hamilton. So did 93% of Australians support mandatory Internet filtering in 2003? Only if adults could opt-out.

The question put to survey respondents was “Would you support a system which automatically filtered out Internet pornography going into homes unless adult users asked otherwise?” Quite clearly this is different to the proposal being presented by Senator Conroy and the Australian Government.

Now in the transcript for the AM story it notes that the survey was commissioned while Professor Hamilton  was the Executive Director of the Australia Institute. However this was not mentioned on the ABC News in Brisbane. Until I researched this I thought that this was perhaps an independant survey.

Neither story mentions Professor Hamilton’s or The Australia Institute’s support of the internet filter, which could leave those unaware in the dark. If you’ve never heard of the Australia Institute’s proposal, I suggest you read the EFA’s comments on their proposal and their suggested methods of implementation.

It is misleading to suggest that 93% of Australians support the mandatory Internet filter. It is even more misleading to report this fact without any background information on the survey or even mentioning that the survey is five years old. Poor work, ABC.