To summarise: A federal body called Wine Australia has to approve all Australian wines for export, rejecting any that they feel will bring the Australian wine “brand” into disrepute. A UK importer who had tasted this wine was very keen to import it, but Wine Australia decided to reject it as having too much volatile acidity, an excess of which is considered a wine fault, even though it tested well under the legal limit. So it was just their subjective opinion that the wine was faulty, an opinion not shared by the importer, myself, or the sommelier at some two-bit restaurant called Tetsuya’s, where the wine has been on the by-the-glass list. The wine has also been on the list at high-end Melbourne restaurants Flower Drum and Rockpool.

At a time when sales of Australian wine have declined worldwide (in no small part because of a perception that it is bland, industrial and undifferentiated) I think there’s an argument to be made that we don’t need a bureaucracy telling paying overseas customers that they aren’t allowed to buy our wine. But then again, if we didn’t have Wine Australia, terrible things might happen. You know, like overseas consumers being exposed to wines not fitting into a range of government-approved flavours.

OK, so what? It’s a little illiberal to force people to have liability insurance, but it’s hardly an unusual step. The problem is that insurance to indemnify midwives who practice individually is simply not available. One of the reasons is that the statute of limitations on legal action is extremely long, since the baby’s right to sue doesn’t even begin until 18 years after birth. It may also simply be too risky to indemnify individual midwives of uncertain ability, given the massive payouts that are likely to result from negligence. In any case, liability insurance for individual midwives cannot be bought for love nor money.

If midwives can’t practice individually, that has a number of consequences. Obviously it restricts the ability of midwives to practice as they please. It also reduces a woman’s chance of having the same midwife throughout pregnancy and thereby developing a personal relationship before the birth. But most importantly, it makes it essentially impossible for women to choose home birth in practice. Obviously hospitals don’t send out midwives to carry out home birth – women have to come to the hospital for that. And since midwives can only be indemnified when attached to hospitals or other large health practices, that means there are no midwives available to assist in a home birth. Anyone a woman recruits to help with a home birth will be acting as a midwife while unregistered, which attracts a $30,000 fine. (Bizarrely, the woman giving birth also gets fined for “enticing” the midwife to practice).

It’s a regressive step towards a monopoly health services system – where people don’t get to choose how medical care is provided, even for something as personal as birth.

AUSTRALIA’S third largest internet service provider (ISP) has pulled out of the Government’s web filtering trials, saying the plan is “no longer just about stopping child porn”.

iiNet says the ambiguity of “unwanted material” is what caused it to pull out of the trials.

“We are not able to reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility, our customer service objectives and our public position on censorship,” iiNet managing director Michael Malone said in a statement.

“It became increasingly clear that the trial was not simply about restricting child pornography or other such illegal material, but a much wider range of issues including what the Government simply describes as ‘unwanted material’ without an explanation of what that includes.”

Of course the history here is that iiNet are fierce opponents of the filter – they openly stated at the beginning of the trial that they were only participating to prove it wouldn’t work. Still, this sounds ominous. Between this and the “inaccurate” leaked ACMA blacklist, it’s pretty clear to me that child porn is a Trojan horse and that the government would like to use the filter for a variety of purposes. Given the presence on the list of several gambling websites (including the completely legal betfair.com) this probably includes enforcing the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, which criminalises the provision of online gambling services to customers physically present in Australia.

I accept that there are always aspects of a party’s policies that I won’t like, so there are not many unforgivable policy sins for me. But attempting to gain divine control over the internet is one of them. I preferenced Labor over Liberal in 2007, but they’ll be going dead last next time. I’m going to need a lot of convincing to vote Labor again as long as Conroy has his greasy hands anywhere near the levers of government.

Thankfully, at the moment it’s looking like the Senate can be counted on to kill this ghastly idea. Credit where it’s due to the Greens, who whatever their other shortcomings can usually be counted on to support civil liberties (firearms aside). Also a lot of credit is due to Nick Xenophon, who I cordially dislike, but who has taken a sensible stance on this issue. While I’m sure he’d like to impose internet controls on his pet issue of gambling, he’s had the sense to recognise that the filter is a bad idea which won’t work.

A shadow has been cast over the future of the spread as a Federal Government taskforce considers special taxes and other deterrents on the sale of fatty, sugary and salty foods…. but today Ms Gillard said Vegemite’s future on Australian grocery shelves was assured.

“I am a very happy Vegemite eater and there is no way in the world that Vegemite would be banned in this country,” Ms Gillard said.

Vegemite’s safety is assured, since it’s an iconic and popular foodstuff and is enjoyed by no less a luminary then the deputy Great Leader. However, if your tastes for unhealthy food run to something a little more obscure, you are instead invited to eat… well, this is a family website, so fill in the blank.

The taskforce’s final report, due in June, is one of the most eagerly anticipated of all the health reviews under way, the newspaper says. They propose extra taxes on “energy-dense” foods;

So far, so meh. Probably unlike most of the people reading this, I don’t really care if the government wants to incentivise eating certain foods. Even if strongly opposed to this, you have to concede that it’s philosophically miles away from banning foods, or regulating their ingredients, let’s say…

regulating fat, salt and sugar content in food and drink

Which of course, the government also proposes to do. I can’t wait for the protest against this. We can all show up to Parliament House and eat huge lumps of Roquefort cheese, followed by mudcake and double-thick cream.

THE Federal Government’s controversial internet censorship scheme may extend to filter more online traffic than was first thought, Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy revealed today.

In a post on his department’s blog, Senator Conroy today said technology that could filter data sent directly between computers would be tested as part of the upcoming live filtering trial.

“Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial,” Senator Conroy said.

Oh good. Because stateful inspection of every peer to peer connection in Australia is sure to go off without a hitch.

When the government first came out with the filtering plan, I remember mentioning to less tech-savvy friends that it would be useless at stopping child porn because it couldn’t filter P2P networks. I didn’t mean that as a suggestion.

Interesting that Conroy’s statement includes the phrase “peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic”, which is sort of like saying “Australian state capitals and Sydney”, or possibly “idiots and Stephen Conroy”. It makes me wonder whether he has any idea what the hell he’s talking about, but of course he must, being Communications Minister and all.

HUCKABEE: I’m finding just out how long I can go sleep deprived. You know, running for office is sort of like being waterboarded, I think.

You really can’t make this shit up.

Under the laws, scheduled to be debated next week in the House of Assembly, South Australians who have contact with bikies at least six times a year will face a minimum maximum of five years in jail.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

UPDATE: Suddenly remembering that mass media is usually about as accurate as a drunk, blindfolded darts player, I went and read the legislation for myself. The five years in jail is a maximum penalty, not minimum, and certain kinds of associations – e.g. lawful business associations – are disregarded. Here is the relevant section in full:

35—Criminal associations
(1) A person who associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with a person who is—
(a) a member of a declared organisation; or
(b) the subject of a control order,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (1) unless, on each occasion on which it is alleged that the person associated with another, the person knew that the other was—
(a) a member of a declared organisation; or
(b) a person the subject of a control order,
or was reckless as to that fact.
(3) A person who—
(a) has a criminal conviction (against the law of this State or another jurisdiction) of a kind prescribed by regulation; and
(b) associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with another person who has such a criminal conviction,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (3) unless, on each occasion on which it is alleged that the person associated with another, the person knew that the other had the relevant criminal conviction or was reckless as to that fact.
(5) A person may be guilty of an offence against subsection (1) or (3) in respect of associations with the same person or with different people.
(6) The following forms of associations will be disregarded for the purposes of this section unless the prosecution proves that the association was not reasonable in the circumstances:
(a) associations between close family members;
(b) associations occurring in the course of a lawful occupation, business or profession;
(c) associations occurring at a course of training or education of a prescribed kind between persons enrolled in the course;
(d) associations occurring at a rehabilitation, counselling or therapy session of a prescribed kind;
(e) associations occurring in lawful custody or in the course of complying with a court order;
(f) associations of a prescribed kind.

You can parse this yourself, but here is my reading of it:

- It is a criminal offence to be friends with members of “declared organisations” (i.e. bikie gangs)
- It is a criminal offence for criminals (convicted of ANY felony, if I’m reading this correctly) to be friends with each other.

Still pretty outrageous, then.

What irks me is the pathetic excuses he used to try to justify his depraved behaviour. Like, say, the fact that he was in his own home at the time and exposed to people only because they were peering in his windows:

A 46-year-old Longridge man who indecently exposed himself in a window of his home has been given a conditional discharge.

Blackburn magistrates heard that Peter Thompson was twice seen by a neighbour and on the second occasion she was with her partner who also saw him totally naked.

Thompson, of Preston Road, pleaded not guilty to two charges of indecently exposing himself but was convicted after a trial.

He was given a conditional discharge for two years and ordered to pay £200 compensation and £400 costs.

But truly, the Law is merciful:

Because the level of sentence was below a community order Thompson does not have to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register.

That’s the trouble with judges these days, never throwing the book at ‘em.

Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.

He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.

Eventually, she asked to see Garrison’s penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.

HA! GOTCHA!

Seconds later, undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested Garrison; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park. While topless sunbathing is legal in the city’s parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

So remember, next time a half-naked woman rubs up against you and asks to see your penis, RUN AWAY. It’s probably just a test.

Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive.

Memorably phrased, isn’t it?