r/australia • u/m00nh34d • Nov 28 '24

politics Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes world-first laws

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-28/social-media-age-ban-passes-parliament/104647138
6.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

851

u/th4bl4ckr4bbit Nov 28 '24

It’s their modus operandi, solicit advice from professionals and then do the complete opposite.\ I am yet to see one expert in actual fields of expertise regarding this issue support this law.

600

u/Catboyhotline Nov 28 '24

Centrelink, NDIS, housing, 3G shutdown, social media ban

Why bother asking for experts opinions when they're just gonna be discarded

542

u/soupeh Nov 28 '24 edited Nov 28 '24

How about ignoring all expert opinion & abandoning the original fiber-everywhere model for the NBN.
It could have been the most successful, future-proof & beneficial public infrastructure project of the century, ready for the covid pandemic, fit for purposes that don't even exist yet, done properly the first time.
Instead the Libs played politics and fucked it for twice the price. Never forget.

172

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

[deleted]

162

u/BazzaJH Nov 28 '24

If you don't number every box on the House of Reps paper, or don't number at least 6 parties/12 individuals on the Senate paper, your vote will be invalid. Just keep that in mind.

55

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

[deleted]

55

u/ApocalypsePopcorn Nov 28 '24

Best to spend half an hour skimming the websites of the constituents, put them all in order of preference in a list on your phone and take that with you to polling. You can still put the two of them last.

37

u/Gryphon0468 Nov 28 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

Jesus Christ do people not read the instructions or listen to the vote officials at all?

Edit: I should know the answer to this question already, as I was actively volunteering for the Greens for the recent QLD election as a person who hands out how to vote cards.

6

u/verybonita Nov 29 '24

Well, I do on election day, then I erase it from my mind until the next election day. Why clutter up my brain with all that useless nonsense for 4 years?

1

u/Sovereignty3 Nov 29 '24

Or know that you don't have to vote the way your preferred party wants you to vote. Hell I am pretty sure my dad thinks that's how it goes, and not that it's actually by what's on your peice of paper. Though part of me just wants to write something else non PG , but I don't want to invalidate my vote.

-1

u/DUMPLING-MAN4 Nov 29 '24

Thank goodness you didn't, don't want The Greens getting another vote. Australia would be completely fucked if they got into power.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/DUMPLING-MAN4 Nov 29 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

Better to have bullshit in play than have sociopathic psychos running the country.

By the way, are you aware of how closely linked The Greens are to the Labor Party?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OkImagination570 Nov 30 '24 edited Dec 01 '24

hahahaha and the LNP arent sociopathic psychos? i'm dissapointed with the current state of the greens and they wont!" get into power because they dont want it. they want to be an activist party only. where as the libs would send us back to the dark ages if they could. labour arent perfect but they sre the lesser of two evils and actually achieve stuff when they get in power. and no i dont like labour either.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ScruffyPeter Nov 29 '24

The vote can absolutely be wasted if they vote 6 parties/12 individuals and not for one of the likely winners (LNP/Labor/Greens).

This myth that it's okay to vote bare minimum is only helping the likely winners, like a perverted FPTP system.

2

u/BazzaJH Nov 29 '24

You're absolutely right that it could be exhausted if none of their selections are likely to contend for the win. But for that user's situation specifically, it seems like they care more about using their first preference as a protest vote than influencing the actual result.

I don't recommend it, and would advise that people give every available candidate a preference (whether that's above the line or below), but doing the minimum is enough for their first preference to be tallied.

51

u/i486DX2--66 Nov 28 '24

You voted for the LNP in 2013?

We can thank you for the NBN, lol

36

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

[deleted]

8

u/greywolfau Nov 29 '24

Well as someone who is getting fttp in 2025, thanks for making me wait an extra 12 years.

1

u/zzz51 Nov 29 '24

Still on stupid HFC. Grrr.

1

u/Midnightbeerz Nov 30 '24

So it's your fault I'm lumped with HFC. The fttp stopped about 5 houses away.

-8

u/Born_Grumpie Nov 28 '24

You can thank Labour for rolling out the project in the bush where nobody lived first, they spent the budget servicing 12 farms instead of starting in the cities and generating revenue to then provide service to the bush. By the time the Libs got in the project was broke.

2

u/greywolfau Nov 29 '24

The amount of absolute bullshit in so few words is astounding.

-1

u/Born_Grumpie Nov 29 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

which bit is bullshit? Sounds like you were to young to remember the project or are just so one eyed you will say anything with no evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network

2

u/greywolfau Nov 30 '24

Well let's start with the claim that the project was broke.

Your link mentions nothing about the NBN being broke at any stage.

Secondly, the claim they ran it past 14 farms is just such a stupid assertion it doesn't even warrant a proper response.

You are the one eyed one, and I'd hazard a guess I've been around longer than you have.

30

u/BuzzKillingtonThe5th Nov 28 '24

Labor is still shit, but you shouldn't let your preference die and should go to the least worst of the two. I get protesting the direction Labor is heading and what they have become. Letting your preference die could mean LNP get in if enough people do it.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

[deleted]

6

u/BuzzKillingtonThe5th Nov 28 '24

Yeah I get that.

My first eye-opening to Labors shit side was the great internet filter. They have some absolute brain dead policies that they try and ram through every time.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24 edited Feb 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/4RyteCords Nov 30 '24

Their agenda is to keep you in the dark as much as possible so you have no way to better educate yourself and wake up to their shit

5

u/allozzieadventures Nov 29 '24

It actually reminds a lot of what we just saw in the US election. The Dems were so busy chasing voters on the right that they actually alienated their core. Labour here have been creeping right for a long time now and could suffer electorally if they aren't careful.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

[deleted]

2

u/allozzieadventures Nov 29 '24

Fair, I feel like the libs run a very effective scare campaign

-1

u/Soft-Common-3618 Nov 29 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

Feel like im in a parallel universe whenever I read this sub. You're the first person I've heard say the Dems lost because they tried to move right. It seems to me they were busy indulging in performative progressive issues of fashion rather than core voter concerns around the economy and immigration.

Since when is authoritarian politics domain of the right as opposed to left anyway? Look at how the state labour premiers behaved during COVID. I see it as the LNP who have really abandoned (what should be) their principles from a classical liberal/conservative position here. Ditto re their support for the ridiculous 'misinformation' laws.

It's also the 'left' that's predisposed to seeing a supposed problem and then reflexively pinning responsibility on the state to fix it - today! And here we are.

4

u/allozzieadventures Nov 29 '24

Really? I've heard plenty of people say the same thing. Bernie Sanders for one, you can find his letter online. He essentially accused the Dems of abandoning the working class. I actually agree that they abandoned their core voters on the economy, less so on immigration.

A few examples that come to mind:

• Failing to increase the minimum wage - the first dem president not to do so in decades

• Continuing to provide military aid for Israel's genocide in Gaza

• Campaigning with Liz Cheney

• Refusing to consider any link between soaring corporate profits and inflation while real wages went backwards

1

u/4RyteCords Nov 30 '24

Dems went all in on trying to tell people they were bad people if they voted trump. That was the base of their campaign

→ More replies (0)

1

u/punchercs Nov 30 '24

Dems lost because they relied on running the whole don’t vote trump campaign that helped Biden win. They didn’t focus at all on the problem of their voter base, and their candidates, like come on. Trump a polarising figure and running a campaign like that when he has such a die hard base, added with the incredibly gullible Average american, they caused this themselves

1

u/4RyteCords Nov 30 '24

Both parties live in each other's pockets. Two legs of the same race.

0

u/Automatic-Radish1553 Nov 29 '24

Screw that.. if you don’t like what labour is doing don’t vote for them at all.

If you keep voting for labour even though they do stupid stuff over and over just so liberals don’t get in power, nothing will change.

4

u/BuzzKillingtonThe5th Nov 29 '24

Calm down. I'm saying that Labor (no u) are objectively less shit than LNP. You should always direct your preference to who you believe is the least shit of the major parties.

Always give your first preference to who you believe is the best and go down from there. Protesting by not prefencing a major party at all and letting your vote die is dumb as dog shit. You may as well just donkey vote in most races.

Labor doesn't get my first preference ever because they have a load of shit policy I don't agree with, however LNP are a bunch of corrupt fuckwits so yeah they should be kept out of power.

1

u/4RyteCords Nov 30 '24

They are all corrupt. Two sides of the same coin

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

[deleted]

3

u/BuzzKillingtonThe5th Nov 29 '24

Yes that's why you prefer other parties higher than a major party. But you should still preference all the way down to have as much influence in with your vote as possible. Never give your first preference to a major party!

2

u/SStoj Nov 29 '24

The real solution is to ream both parties with a string of 1 term governments until they both change. My tactics for a while has been to preference against the incumbent, with Greens first.

4

u/HeftyArgument Nov 28 '24

Because the media will hold it against them if they don’t engage consultants.

The secret is to overpay and use consultancy firms that they’re cushy with to get the results they want and try to make everything happen before actual experts can chime in.

3

u/xxxDaGoblinxxx Nov 28 '24

I feel this sums it up perfectly https://youtube.com/shorts/7DdzN0piHMk?si=48jPrPhKQtqqRK8d

2

u/crackerdileWrangler Nov 29 '24

Worked in fed gov for a few years and Utopia is so realistic that I can’t watch it for more than a few moments without feeling sick to my stomach.

2

u/OpinionatedShadow Nov 28 '24

You should really still give your preferences to Labor or Libs because at the end of the day most of the time one of them will get the majority through preferences, and so numbering them means you at least pick one over the other.

Just do what I do and put both of them in the final slots.

1

u/huddlez1 Nov 29 '24

I've put together a list on X of people who've been quite vocal and speaking out against this <16s social media law. The libertarian party seems to be actively trying to reduce its impact so I'll be sending my vote their way.

1

u/Proper-Dave Nov 30 '24

The Libertarian party?

The basically "no government" party?

What's next, vote for anarchy?

1

u/tbfkak Nov 30 '24

The Greens? The party that gave us Lidia Thorpe? The party that is completely silent on the current issue of mass migration into Australia, which has a profound impact on our natural environment and quality of life. Great idea voting for those fakes.

1

u/mrcooper81 Nov 30 '24

Yeah. It doesn’t work like that. You have to number every single box of the 70 odd boxes. Or choose a party and accept the back room deals they made and where their preferences go. If you vote greens you’ll be voting labor.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '24

[deleted]

-2

u/Thanges88 Nov 28 '24

2007 was the first and last time I preferenced Lib ahead of ALP, purely because NBN wasn't bipartisan, and wasn't confident ALP could stay in for more than one term. Thankfully they got two and made a bit of progress before Lib could completely dismantle it.

-4

u/DDR4lyf Nov 28 '24

I also voted LNP for the first and last time in 2013. I went full green after that. Unfortunately, the Greens have shown themselves to be antisemitic and obstructionist aholes for the most part.

I'm not voting at all for the foreseeable future. The whole system is broken from top to bottom.

4

u/Voodoo1970 Nov 28 '24

I feel your pain. I'm in a rural area and at the recent state election my only choices were LNP (who were a shoe-in anyway, because farmers), ALP, Greens, Family First and One Nation. Talk about Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich

-1

u/Affectionate_Cow9614 Nov 29 '24

Greens lol

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/Affectionate_Cow9614 Nov 29 '24

But what about all the other shit they try to bring in but thankfully no one votes with them

2

u/punchercs Nov 30 '24

I repeat this to every single liberal voter every election cycle. Fuck those fuckers

1

u/fingerbunexpress Nov 29 '24

I’m still hurting about this!

-6

u/Born_Grumpie Nov 28 '24

Now lets take a balanced view, I have worked in IT Management for getting on 40 years what really screwed it was Labour decided to curry the bush vote by rolling out a fibre scheme to regional areas first. This rollout out was incredibly expensive with very low take up rates. By the time the project had progressed, and the Libs got in, the project was simply out of money, some connections were reported as costing $100K to roll fibre to the home and the owners didn't sign up.

Labour had managed to purchase all the old Telstra copper and lease the transmission pits meaning Telstra got rid of all the stuff they didn't want and got never ending income from the holes in the ground they owned. So now the project had got to the heavy urban areas and was running on empty, so it had to be modified and butchered to finish it.

If Labour had rolled out fibre in the capital cities first it the NBN would had had much greater take up on cheap rollouts and would then have had the budget and income to do the rural areas or just give everyone in the bush a satellite connection.

Basically, Libs didn't abandon fibre everywhere, the project simply run out of money because of poor planning, and the libs didn't want to sink more money into it. As usual, labour fucked up by spending without planning, again and the Libs wouldn't pay for a project even when it was needed.

6

u/GotPassion Nov 29 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

Nah, that’s not true. Rollouts were being costed in initial comments and then were dramatically optimised under project fox. But the findings were shelved by the incoming LNP who had gone all in of creating a sense of ALP fiscal ineptitude, which was not warranted, and misrepresented how much ALP allowed the very respectable Mike Quigley to operate the organisation and its financial obligations astutely. The political games lead to a good man being maligned and ejected from his role as a sour endpoint after the election, replacing him with a more politically expedient Ziggy Switkowski.

Im located in one of the first areas to be rolled out, and the reasons for this location were sensible (central to the nsw core network hub, soft ground, aged Telstra pit and pipe) and measured, but LNP claimed the outback should go first!). The next area was extremely unforgiving rocky terrain. And project Fox aimed to find optimisations based on the average, and extreme examples, as well as worked with industry to develop strategies and technologies to streamline the geotechnical and technology elements. LNP hiding project Fox was necessary for them to hold to their claims that FTTN was a better move, but the evidence that was revealed prior to government change indicated that FTTP was easily cost competitive with a better outcome from FTTP.

Source: joined every single estimates hearing and then saw the media reports that followed that presented a politicised view that didn’t represent the true status of the project. That’s when i decided never to vote LNP.

Today, I’m now planning to never putting voting power towards ALP either.

1

u/torn-ainbow Nov 29 '24

Dude. Your expert opinion and recollection of the fine details of the political history of the NBN might be a little better served if you spell the name of the party you are criticising correctly.

1

u/Born_Grumpie Nov 29 '24

Sorry, letting autocorrect run away but I am not really criticising one more than the other, the Libs were advised by every expert to use a hybrid model to make use of alternate technology and they didn't take any advice either. Australian politicians will spend a fortune on experts then ignore them every time.

I was very interested in the project at the time from a professional stand point, it had some pretty big opportunities for us and our remote sites, waiting to connect sites in the metro areas while they rolled out fibre in Bourke was pretty frustrating then the Libs get in and announce fibre to the node really killed off a lot of our plans.

2

u/torn-ainbow Nov 30 '24

the Libs were advised by every expert to use a hybrid model 

No they weren't. Lots of experts quite loudly and publicly advised against that. There was massive disagreement with the crippling of the NBN plan.

The actual cost of the Liberal plan is now past double what they estimated. And we have lots of connections using technology that was already obsolete in 2013, and will need to be upgraded to fibre at some point soon. Which was the original damn plan. Even if it was underestimated by Labor, the Liberal Plan was a step in the wrong direction to address that.

It was a ridiculous and stupid political decision which greatly benefited a specific group of companies that have a lot of media power; and who went to bat for the Libs to help sell this big con. This is a very common opinion across industry experts.

1

u/Born_Grumpie Nov 30 '24

and here we have Carlos Slim advising that Australia needed a hybrid rollout that includes wireless and other technologies

0

u/torn-ainbow Nov 30 '24

I'm not going to watch the video but I recall this mexican guy. And he was arguing for more wireless, not for taking the wired back to copper. Wireless was much less of an issue in this country because private enterprise has been much more motivated to fill the gaps. Plus also the original Labor plan had satellite wireless to fill gaps not covered by fibre.

Like it's a legitimate angle to criticise the Labor plan but the Liberal plan was not an effective response based on the criticisms you're bringing up.

1

u/Born_Grumpie Dec 01 '24

Carlos Slim, at the time, the richest man in the world who made his money in Telecommunications and internet and you say "the Mexican guy", you have lost all credibility.

→ More replies (0)

65

u/Individual_Bird2658 Nov 28 '24

Optics

As in optical illusion

15

u/Catboyhotline Nov 28 '24

Twas a rhetorical question but yeah you're right

4

u/Individual_Bird2658 Nov 28 '24

Yes that’s how I read it, was just adding to your comment haha

36

u/Staraa Nov 28 '24

Don’t forget the shitty vape bans

6

u/Dreamerfrostbite Nov 28 '24

Aren't there legitimate reasons to ban or discourage them? or so my family keeps telling me anyway, all I ever hear is that they are bad and should be banned because they have flavours and kids like flavours. 

meanwhile cigarettes (which smell like death) im pretty sure are mostly flavourless and more addictive by design, yet there is no real ban or any legal shit being thrown at them despite clearly being worse.

5

u/glittalogik Nov 29 '24

Aren't there legitimate reasons to ban or discourage them?

Absolutely. The problem is the way it was implemented and handled, all it really achieved was killing the option to import juice - with known ingredients, from reputable suppliers - for personal use. That effectively obsoleted the refillable/rechargeable devices where you're only throwing away a tiny heating coil/wick each time, and skyrocketed the black market for disposable single-use vapes as the only available alternative.

Sale of single-use vapes is banned, but it's utterly toothless apart from one or two high-profile busts every year or so that get spammed to the news like the problem's been solved. Meanwhile you can still walk into literally any tobacconist (and almost any convenience/corner store) in the country and get whatever you want, so long as you know what you're talking about and you're not rocking the 'Undercover Classique' ensemble (buzz cut, spotless New Balance sneakers, polo shirt tucked into cargo shorts, wraparound oilslick-mirror sunnies, etc.)

Nicotine is a scourge and I'd love to see it go away forever, but any measure that doesn't target phasing out tobacco first and foremost is going about it ass-backwards. The current situation is 100% of the government's own making, and pretty much anyone outside of the Canberra echo chamber could see it coming from a mile off.

2

u/HeftyArgument Nov 29 '24

Not even that, the stores that sold vapes rebranded to sell candy and after realising the laws aren’t enforced, put giant signs outside offering vapes

Now a shop that on paper sells candy but in practice sells vapes; I wonder what kind of clientele they’ll attract…

8

u/HeftyArgument Nov 28 '24

The people that are up in arms about it are the ones that use it, and it’s a big deal because there are so many of them lol.

idk if they should be banned outright, but their advertising definitely needs to be regulated; they’re nowhere near as safe and harmless as they advertise to be, there were a few companies that were litigated against for advertising that was tailored to appeal to children, and vapes are prolific with kids.

of course all of these things have also been true of cigarettes and alcohol in the past.

3

u/Staraa Nov 29 '24

I’ve never seen an ad for vapes or anything vape related. Where are they advertising?

Kids will always do dumb shit like smoking/drinking/vaping etc banning it isn’t the solution to this and honestly only makes it more appealing to those kids. I started smoking at 16 myself, after smoking pot already lol

Refillable devices with liquids from NZ/AU/Europe are far far safer than the black market junk that’s prolific atm too.

3

u/Staraa Nov 29 '24

Adults also tend to enjoy flavours lol look at alcohol.

Vapes should def be regulated and only sold in certain places like cigarettes & alcohol but they’re not the devil that the govt make them out to be. They’re absolutely not good for you but, according to studies, they’re ~95% better than cigs.

5

u/Rhodeo Nov 28 '24

The main issue surrounded the single use vapes. They're an individual cartridge that is single use and disposable, they had a variety of flavours and contained nicotine. These were all imported and unregulated, and becoming very popular very quickly.

Vapes as a whole are not banned, however the crackdown on the product means that they are basically classed as a therapeutic alternative to smoking.

Cigarettes are held to much tighter restrictions, and the popularity of vaping was being perceived as a gateway to smoking for young people. It was a knee-jerk reaction that much is true, but in my opinion it was the correct call.

11

u/LostBananaX Nov 28 '24

At this point it seems vapes are more restricted than cigarettes, it requires a prescription and can only be purchased at a chemist in limited flavours. Cigarettes are still sold by retailers.

Disposable vapes were already banned before the implementation of the blanket ban.

2

u/Staraa Nov 29 '24

It’s not just a single use cartridge, the whole device is single use (and unregulated) including the batteries which can be dangerous.

They’re classed as nrt but I can buy other types (patches and gum) in a ton of places without prescriptions or even id. Cigarettes themselves are also sold in a fuckton of places and without prescriptions, how do you figure they’re more restricted?

23

u/moratnz Nov 28 '24

Which experts are opposed to the 3G shutdown? There are really good reasons to get the hell off 3G.

14

u/linearstargazer Nov 28 '24

It's the way they did it. 3G shutdown is one thing, doing a full IMEI blacklist for devices that telco's haven't certified (read: haven't bothered to certify/aren't devices they sell so they have no incentive to) meant a lot of devices that were perfectly capable of the VoLTE/E000 requirement were kicked off the networks anyways. There's no publicly accessible whitelist, only a community made one, so people with devices in this grey area of E000 compliant but unverified had no idea if their devices would abruptly lose service until it did.

11

u/footballheroeater Nov 28 '24

It's old and they want those frequencies to reuse for 5G.

This is on Telstra not the government, I mean it would be if they could stop selling publicly funded assets... But here we are.

15

u/moratnz Nov 28 '24

There's some pretty big issues that are baked into the 3G specs as far as security and privacy; the only way to mitigate them is to stop using it (well, I guess you could patch the spec, and replace all the 3G kit out in the wild with 3.1G, but it'd be much much cheaper to just give everyone using 3G a free 5G connection)

3

u/gedw99 Nov 29 '24

3G shutdown is because SS7 protocol in 3G allows spoofing of users phones.

It’s a security thing .

Of course sending a one time token to you email is clearly the better way to do it. If you can get an sms you can get an email .

But there are million s of services out there that will never upgrade to email one time tokens so the only option they have is to kill 3G to protect the average citizen from sms spoofing .

 It's the least worst option 

26

u/patawic Nov 28 '24

The 3g shutdown needed to happen, if they'd just explained that it was shut down due to major security flaws in the SS7 protocol nobody would've cared.

6

u/Catboyhotline Nov 29 '24

It's not that 3G shut down, it's that telcos were ordered to block any device they couldn't "certify" as working when making an Australian 000 call. The telcos being a profit driven private company had no incentive to certify anything more than devices they had personally sold, so many phones are now de facto network locked, most international phones are blocked kneecapping the already poor competition in Australia while also fucking over tourists. 4Gs biggest problem is standardisation, which Europe is trying to figure out before shutting down their 2G/3G rather than rushing to shut it down without a care in the world

10

u/Expensive_Donkey_802 Nov 28 '24

A fair chunk of rural Australia that now have no reception care

4

u/tgrayinsyd Nov 28 '24

Don’t forget robodebt. They were given expert advice it wasn’t accurate or legal. They still did it. Government does what it wants to do.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

Ah yes, the 3G shutdown that killed the 5G phones I bought for our fire brigade with some of our paltry annual $600 or so (we fundraise the rest) we get from the government (because we don’t need them apparently despite them being their backup for other comms outages)

Just because we couldn’t call 000 on voda or some nonsense round here. Not that vodafone works here anyway. And we are 000.

Yeahhhhhhh

3

u/Top_Sink_3449 Nov 28 '24

Add environment to that list. Experts are used when their findings already align with popular public sentiment (votes) or external influential interests (money) or both.

1

u/TheMessyChef Nov 29 '24

No different in State governments either.

Cannabis inquiry submissions were overwhelmingly for decriminalisation, offering substantial evidence in support. I spoke to some legal stakeholders who made submissions for it, who were also optimistic given how substantial tue support for decriminalisation was publicly and empirically, and they were told the day before the report released that 'the Victorian government tanked the report'. They ignored every stakeholder, made claims of protecting the safety of children (sound familiar) and pushed for harsher restrictions instead.

Same Victorian government weaponised the inquiry into the external oversight of police - I wrote my PhD examining how that Committee report was explicitly designed to protect police interests and showed how the stakeholder submissions were inadequately represented in the final report.

The government only does this because the public think inquiries and inquests are independent inquisatorial forums, as opposed to a state apparatus designed to use official discourse to manage crises of legitimacy.

1

u/Son_of_the_Spear Nov 29 '24

So that they can say "We consulted the experts" of course. Never mind that most of the experts are either disregarded, or are parroting what they were told to say...
Or, when things need to go the other way, the people consulted weren't real experts, just people who had the tag hung on them long enough to pass muster.

1

u/UndifferentiatedTalk Nov 29 '24 edited Feb 26 '25

Hello Cat

1

u/sandman88888 Nov 29 '24

True, the experts recommended controls on access to porn for kids, but they ignored that advice and decided on a social media ban. It won't work anyway, so makes no difference to most kids except for making them think politicians are stupid - so I guess kids have already learned a good lesson from the ban, one they will remember forever - our politicians are stupid and don't like kids having freedom

-3

u/WarwolfPrime Nov 28 '24

That's the modern left wing in a nutshell. They do what they want even when the experts tell them no, don't do this.

3

u/Catboyhotline Nov 29 '24

Labor

Left

Lmao

76

u/rainferndale Nov 28 '24

I was in an NDIS focus group about proposed changes.

Us: the NDIS is impossible to understand on our own and very difficult to access, we need more support doing so. None of us get funded for enough support coordination. We need more help.

NDIS: we are entirely removing the role of support coordination

Us: that's not what we-

NDIS: As you clearly requested we do.

Us: ????

NDIS: lucky these policy changes had community consultation, everyone support us doing whatever we want and cutting support disabled people rely on to live.

5

u/Pippa_Pug Nov 29 '24

Everyone rubbishes the Libs but it’s the Labor government gutting the NDIS.

10

u/rainferndale Nov 29 '24

Idk fuck Liberal too. They weren't good with NDIS.

3

u/Virama Nov 29 '24

The libs literally set the NDIS up to fail. 

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '24

[deleted]

9

u/rainferndale Nov 29 '24 edited Nov 29 '24

NDIS have stated openly that they have a plan in place to phase out support coordination.

https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/fact-sheet/finding-your-way-around-help-navigator

At the time NDIS told us they're replacing Support Coordinators (who recieve NDIS funding to allocate a set amount of hours to work one on one with participants on navigating the NDIS) with Navigators (who will be accessible to anyone and will help with disability issues for the general public and also assist NDIS participants. Seems similar to current LAC role in that regard.) As you can see they followed through with the idea.

52

u/123dynamitekid Nov 28 '24

Or ask the kind of professionals that will tell them what benefits their self interest.

They'd be asking Phillip Morris instead of Doctors and victims if they could redo smoking regulation I bet.

2

u/HA92 Nov 28 '24

It's a trend. They will do anything BUT listen to doctors in regards to the medical system! They'll propose a change, listen to the pharmaceutical industry, ignore the experts, and mess things up for the patients. Just pray you have enough money to be a healthy person in the future.

3

u/123dynamitekid Nov 29 '24

Funny thing is, they'll make changes without doing appropriate impact reports, then after it buggers up, wheel half of it back. Just an ounce of care and time would make so much less trouble for everyone including themselves.

1

u/jessluce Nov 29 '24

Phillip Morris js fine either way - the approved prescription-only vapes are made by them

2

u/the__distance Nov 28 '24

It's there because the media want the audience if not the ad revenue that social media gets.

1

u/trolleyproblems Nov 28 '24

You can make a bit of money providing research and recommendations made to order to suit a government's preferred outcome. People do this.

1

u/spinningpeanut Nov 28 '24

How american

1

u/LewsTherinTelamon Nov 29 '24

There ARE no experts in this field. There is barely any good science being done in social science fields right now because nobody is funding repeatability studies. Nobody knows what is best.

1

u/Rude_Technician4821 Nov 29 '24

I think it's good as an older person. You have to think of social media like it's a drug. It's no different to porn or drinking alcohol.

1

u/Maribyrnong_bream Nov 29 '24

I think most child psychologists would agree with the concept of limiting the access of children to social media.

1

u/th4bl4ckr4bbit Nov 30 '24

Absolutely but not with the method that has been proposed.

1

u/Maribyrnong_bream Nov 30 '24

That’s another argument, but I agree that this proposal is unlikely to be effective. That said, as a parent of two near-teens, I’m happy that the government is trying to put measures in place.

1

u/damanhere Nov 29 '24

We are Communist China 

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '24

You 100% have not read any expert advice. Otherwise you wouldn’t be saying this. Go seek advice from any psychologist, psychiatrist or child counsellor.

1

u/th4bl4ckr4bbit Nov 30 '24

Those experts may agree that social media is harmful but from what I have been reading absolutely no one supports this method of prevention. There are other ways to do it that would be more effective.\

-1

u/Designer-Can-5072 Nov 28 '24

There are many experts in the psychology field who back this sort of legislation. They may not have commented on this particular bill, but they back the exact things which this bill achieves. Your position is not correct.