I just received the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto. Uniquely in my long experience of making submissions to such committees, all my main arguments were accepted, and embodied in recommendations of a report, with no dissent[1]. My main concern was to protect bloggers from being required to give their names and addresses and those of commenters. I argued that only paid advertisements should be subject to this requirement, and the committee agreed.
My post and submission here
A supplementary submission here
The Committee report here
Update I failed to recognise William Bowe, also quoted in the report as fellow-blogger The Poll Bludger. Well done! He has some comments on the Committee’s proposals for electoral reform here. See also Oz Politics and the Aussie WordPress blog.
fn1. There were as usual, majority and minority reports, with disagreements on topics like compulsory voting and four year terms, of which more I hope. But there was no disagreement on the issues raised in my submission.
John Quiggin 
Congratulations, John. Well argued.
Well done JQ. Please accept my thanks for your efforts.
Onya John.
[…] As John reports here: I just received the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto. Uniquely in my long experience of making submissions to such committees, all my main arguments were accepted, and embodied in recommendations of a report, with no dissent. My main concern was to protect bloggers from being required to give their names and addresses and those of commenters. […]
Onya John is right. Enjoyed your submission. Keenly argued and spot on with good practical reference to such things as talk-back radio. A pleasure to read and very concise. I wish I could write so well and not surprised they listened.
Congratulations on a job well done. Thanks, John.
Thank you John.
Great stuff John.
Onya!!!
yes, well done indeed
Fighting powers that will restrict freedom of speech is a noble cause- excellent work.
Excellent work.
Good work!
Damn you Quiggin! I was so looking forward to revealing my secret identity but now I’ll just have to remain anonymous.
Seriously though well done. Award yourself the Distingushed Blogging Cross with bars – lots and lots of bars.
[…] I’m certainly not the first to say it but congratulations are in order for John Quiggin. He has successfully argued that Bloggers should not have to give their names and addresses to make political comments during an election. […]
Yes, thank you John for going to bat for all of us.
Me too…
Congratulations Pr Q. Let us hope that all those who seek to give voice to their political opinion, or what ever ideology, at whatever standard and in whatever mode, are protected by the full strengh of the law.
Congratulations, John.
I haven’t time to read the report this week, so I hope you don’t mind answering a quick question. If the regulation applies only to paid advertising, won’t that open up new loopholes to be exploited by unscrupulous politicians? Does the committee address that issue?
thanks john , can you keep an eye on them??
Robert, as the committee recognises, it’s going to be hard to define advertising and to enforce any restrictions. But it’s better to accept this than to try and regulate all forms of internet comment
[…] John Quiggin has received back confirmation from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election that they will not be recommending that bloggers be required to provide their details or the details of their commenters in posts related to elections, as political advertisements are. This came about due to a number of blogs promoting or criticising candidates in the 2004 election and a number of people believed that these constituted political advertisements and should be required to disclose details. This article in the Age back in March outlines the initial cause of the issue. […]
Thanks for that John. I actually feel a bit guilty about the equivocal answer I gave when the committee asked for my view on tthe anonymous commenting issue, but thankfully your own good sense has prevailed.
Can anything be drawn from the fact of the existence of Sophie Panopolous’ “supplementary comments”, which are in fact dissenting remarks from a Liberal chaired committee.
While we’re on the topic of Ms Panopolous (*shudder*), I am mystified why she is given any media time whatsoever. She obviously works hard on her profile, but she is such an utter dill. Thankfully she is starting to annoy her largely rural electorate with her non-conservative opinions.
Thanks, John.
Excellent effort John. You’ve done the Aussie blogosphere a great service.
‘Can anything be drawn from the fact of the existence of Sophie Panopolous’
I have wondered that myself.
Thanks John for the heavy lifting – much appreciated.
Thanks!
Tracking: johnquiggin.com@sbate.com