Subject: Trouble in your Office and Liberal Party Policy
I approach you as an Australian voter who is
currently enrolled in your electorate. I point this out because while previously
attempting to amend flawed liberal party policy, I have approached your
Modbury office on three occasions. Twice on the telephone and once in
On the last two ocassions I have
become appalled at the "Don't complain to me - I've got better things
to do with my time" attitude that I have recieved from your self
confessed financially motivated, sarcastic receptionist. A person who is
employed in a position of receptionist of any business or corporate body acts as
a "Damage Control" expert and must be able to successfully deal with irate
callers. Your ability to adaquately select a suitable staff member for this
important position is seriously in question.
I cannot stress how disapointed I was at being
ORDERED out from MY elected representatives office because the RECEPTIONIST
didn't personally agree with comments that were directed toward
current Liberal party policy. I would have prefered to say these comments
directly to my elected representative. But I was unable to do this. I was
effectively screened by your over zealous protector. I was ORDERED from your
office. Under direct threat of police intervention The only reason given
for this treatment was because I hadn't transfered to your electorate
and therefore had NO LEGAL RIGHT to be there and NO LEGAL RIGHT to complain.
How disapointing to observe the current attitude
the Liberal Party extends towards prospective supporters. The Party policy seems
to ONLY cater for big business and farmer interests. There seems
little to be little effort extended towards mainstream voters. Are you so smug
in the safety of the slight majority you enjoy at present to be so ignorant of
rising public anger at policies aimed only at thickening the wallets of the
As more and more people become disillusioned with
the treatment they recieve from their elected representatives. The more votes
the mainstream political parties will loose.
Anyway I better get to what has prompted me again
to contact your office.
Lets see if my opinion has an impact on common
sense this time.
May I enquire into your party's policies regarding
controlling access to information on the internet?
.As an existing Internet user. I wonder if the
people who have made the decision to restrict access are aware that the current
generation of webrowsers ALREADY have the capability to restrict
I would prefer an Internet that is controlled in
the home by the supervisors of that household. I object strongly to the
assumption that I am unable to manage of my family's Internet access. I
object strongly to the fact that CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS (ie: Anyone who's
rich enough to act as an ISP) are able to circumvent the current
As far as I can see the policies of your
polictical party have favored the upper echelon while restricting only those who
are less financially secure. Just as "Locks are only there to keep honest
people out of your house", You have kept the honest people away from area's they
probably never would have accessed anyway.
The other people will still be getting whatever
material they want the SAME way that they always have. Encripted with a
personalised key and renamed so that no-one has a clue what's in it. Are you
going to burden the Internet futher with decrypting software that tries all 10
billion combinations before it passes any data on to the user? Because
that's the only way this policy could be implimented fairly across the board.
What about filtering Telstra's main feed
instead of the individual ISP's? What's going on there? How come
Telstra is not restricting the content of what they carry? Don't you have a
measure of control over them anymore? OBVIOUSLY certain people still wanted to
maintain the ability to access this filtered material. But even if
Telstra was filtered you would still have a problem with all the other people
who get their Internet direct from the USA or via satalite.
So what was it all about then? It seems you just
wanted to restrict people like me and only people like me. Have I been
This is what specifically prompted me to write
this letter. I was doing a search
for:"Early Settlers in Victoria". I selected this destination from a search
And recieved the message that this page has been
filtered due to some obscure reference to something or other....
Now isn't this great... I can't access information
that I want.. Which is located, on what what I can see, is an educational
department computer system at the University of Sydney in Australia. So if this
content is so objectionable to the general public. Why was it ever available for
access from the internet in the first place.
Looks to me like there is questionable
material still available to people on our own computer systems in the
education department. Obviosly this legislation is attempting to close the
gate after the horse has well arnd trully bolted.
You should have al least made sure all questionable
material had been purged, from all computer systems under your
juristriction before even attempting to restrict access to the Internet.
This particular political policy reeks from the stench of double
If the material is unsuitable for the internet but
still deemed suitable to remain on a university computer system then this is
clearly hypocritical. This is not the Australia of the 1950's. It is nearly the
year 2000. Wake up and start making policies to match!
By the way.. You will be able to view this
letter and your answer on the World Wide Web at:
I am sick of being treated in comtempt by the
people who are supposed to represent my wishes.