By hyper religious, I assume you mean that earlier on his life he entered Seminary, intending to be a priest but changed his mind. Or did you mean to refer to the fact he has strong catholic based beliefs. This is important because the term hyper-religious has massively different connotations to our American colleagues, where it could/would imply that he was a member of the literal truth of the bible pentacostal brigade. At least he's been honest enough to say outright was his beliefs are, and cope with the spin/misunderstaning - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/27/2802389.htm

But if you really, really care - have a look at your local candidates and think who will do more for your area. We elect our representives, not our prime-minister. You can go and approach the candidates and ask them - "My friends and I want to know where you stand on Internet Filtering because it's major factor in choosing who we'll vote for" or "Will you oppose/support the internet filtering even against the rest of your party's position?"

Mate - If you don't tell them that this is an issue, then all they have to go off is the Media - and they really treat Internet comments with sooo much respect.

Okay - you should probably read the article before you do an analogy.

It's like going to a car dealership and picking up a demo model. You can drive it around and see if you like it. Now, after each week of using this "free car", it loses a feature. Say - it's 4 seat capacity drops to 2. then the colour paint-job changes to grey. Next the radio stops working, and the airconditioning, and so on. You're free to keep using this demo - but it will progressively lose all of it's features over time. You can stop using the demo car any time you want. If you liked the original experience, or some particular feature that stopped - then go buy the actual car.

The old "limited time" model is like going to the car dealership and picking a demo model. As you're driving down the street a couple of weeks later, it suddenly stops running and dumps you on your arse and refuses to run anymore.

Perhaps it's easier to think of it this way - Paying subscriber's weapons do not suffer decay. Those playing for free will find their weapons decay and will need to be replaced. Upgrade to your full subscription now....

Having read the article, it seems like a rather large whinge.

If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.
Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y & Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?
Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?

Whom deserves the greater inconvenience? Those who actively publish books or those who can't find the authors (dead, recluse, one name among millions) to get permission. Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so? Imho we can't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought, when it's a task that won't earn them money. It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so, and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge.

For those unfamiliar with the australian parliment - the definition of what "Parliamentary Privilege" is: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/briefs/brief11.htm#1

I think you miss understand the purpose of "parliamentary privilege", my fellow australian. Our elected representitives can discuss such issues as the authenticity of Scientology, without fear of slander/libel suits or gag orders or general legal hoop-la to silence their criticisms. It is their role to raise issues of their consitutents in such as manner, so that members of the public can come forth/organise/e.t.c to provide the necessary PROOF that the laws are being broken. Then the appropriate law enforcement agency can be engaged.

Sorry mate - I don't want to live in your world where if no-one talks about a problem it doesn't exist - that's just plain foolish.

But regardless, by READING THE FIRETRUCKING ARTICLE, you would have encountered the first two paragraphs stating:
"Senator Xenophon used a speech in Parliament last night to raise allegations of widespread criminal conduct within the church, saying he had received letters from former followers detailing claims of abuse, false imprisonment and forced abortion.
He says he has passed on the letters to the police and is calling for a Senate inquiry into the religion and its tax-exempt status."

First sentence of your post: "If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops" ... Check - he's passed on the letters to the police.
As for the rest - I can't believe you're trying to align criticism of Scientology with an attack on your freedom to associate ... Unless you're a scientologist too...

Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have ... YFMV? (Your Freedom May Vary)

In Australia, we also do things rather differently. (Props to Soliptic for the British comparison)

        * +40C == Bloody Hot Day. Better wear a hat, put on sunscreen lotion and drink some beer,
        * +30C == Summer Day. Better cook outside on the BBQ and drink some beer.
        * +20C == It's either Late Spring or Early Autumn or it's raining in Summer. Beer shall be drunk.
        * +10C == It's bloody cold. Damn winter. At least my beer's cold.
        * 0C == Winter in the middle of nowhere - with a massive wind chill factor to bring it down that low. Allegedly these temperatures exist.
        * -10C == Seriously!?
        * -20C == Seriously!?
        * -30C == Seriously!?
        * -40C == Seriously!? Where the hell are you? Antartica?