openaustralia 1.0.0

data/lib/openaustralia/debates.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# XML mapping classes for OA queries
+# relating to debates
+
+require 'xml/mapping'
+require 'openaustralia/search_info'
+
+module OpenAustralia
+
+  # a record returned by a debate search
+  #
+  # represents a debate in parliament
+  class DebateSearchResult
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    text_node :gid, 'gid'
+    text_node :hdate, 'hdate'
+    numeric_node :htype, 'htype'
+    numeric_node :subsection_id, 'subsection_id'
+    numeric_node :relevance, 'relevance'
+    numeric_node :speaker_id, 'speaker_id'
+    numeric_node :hpos, 'hpos'
+    text_node :body, 'body'
+    text_node :listurl, 'listurl'
+
+    # FIXME: incomplete 
+  end
+
+  # wrapper for debate search results 
+  class DebateSearch
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    # general information about the
+    # search results
+    object_node :info, 'info', :class => SearchInfo, :default_value => nil
+
+    # a human-readable description
+    # of the search
+    text_node :search_description, 'searchdescription', :default_value => nil
+
+    # search result records
+    array_node :results, 'rows', 'match', :class => DebateSearchResult, :default_value=>[]
+  end
+end

data/lib/openaustralia/divisions.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# XML mapping classes relating to divisions
+# for OA queries
+
+require 'xml/mapping'
+
+module OpenAustralia
+
+  # a record for a division search
+  class DivisionMatch
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    text_node :name, "name"
+  end
+
+  # a resultset for a division search
+  class DivisionResult
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    array_node :matches, "result", "match", :class=>DivisionMatch, :default_value=>[]
+  end
+
+end

data/lib/openaustralia/hansard.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# XML mapping classes for OA Hansard queries
+
+require 'xml/mapping'
+require 'openaustralia/search_info'
+
+module OpenAustralia
+
+  # office held by a hansard speaker
+  class HansardOffice
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    text_node :dept, 'dept'
+    text_node :position, 'position'
+    text_node :pretty, 'pretty'
+  end
+
+  # speaker in a hansard entry (1 per entry)
+  class HansardSpeaker
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    numeric_node :member_id, 'member_id'
+    text_node :title, 'title'
+    text_node :first_name, 'first_name'
+    text_node :last_name, 'last_name'
+    numeric_node :house, 'house'
+    text_node :constituency, 'constituency'
+    text_node :party, 'party'
+    numeric_node :person_id, 'person_id'
+    text_node :url, 'url'
+    array_node :offices, 'office', 'match', :class => HansardOffice,
+      :default => []
+  end
+
+  # search hit for a hansard search
+  class Hansard
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    text_node :body, 'body'
+    text_node :listurl, 'listurl'
+    numeric_node :section_id, 'section_id'
+    numeric_node :subsection_id, 'subsection_id'
+    numeric_node :relevance, 'relevance'
+    numeric_node :speaker_id, 'speaker_id'
+    numeric_node :hpos, 'hpos'
+    numeric_node :htype, 'htype'
+    numeric_node :major, 'major'
+
+    object_node :speaker, 'speaker', :class => HansardSpeaker,
+      :default_value => nil
+
+  end
+
+  # hansard query container
+  class HansardSearch
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    object_node :info, "info", :class=>SearchInfo, :default_value => nil
+    text_node :search_description, 'searchdescription', :deafult_value => nil
+    array_node :results, 'rows', 'match', :class => Hansard, :default_value => []
+  end
+  
+end

data/lib/openaustralia/representatives.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# XML mapping classes for OA query results
+# relating to representatives
+
+require 'xml/mapping'
+
+module OpenAustralia
+
+# office held by a representative
+class RepresentativeOffice
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  text_node :department, 'dept'
+  text_node :position, 'position'
+  text_node :from_date, 'from_date'
+  text_node :to_date, 'to_date'
+  text_node :person, 'person'
+  text_node :source, 'source'
+end
+
+# record for an individual representative
+class Representative
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  numeric_node :member_id, 'member_id'
+  numeric_node :person_id, 'person_id'
+  text_node :constituency, 'constituency'
+  text_node :party, 'party'
+  numeric_node :house, 'house', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :first_name, 'first_name', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :last_name, 'last_name', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :entered_house, 'entered_house', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :entered_reason, 'entered_reason', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :left_house, 'left_house', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :left_reason, 'left_reason', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :title, 'title', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :full_name, 'full_name', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :name, 'name', :default_value => nil
+  text_node :image_url, 'image', :default_value => nil
+  array_node :offices, "office", "match", :class=>RepresentativeOffice,
+    :default_value =>[]
+end
+
+# record for foresults of a representative search
+class RepresentativeResult
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  array_node :matches, "result", "match", :class=>Representative,
+    :default_value=>[]
+end
+
+end

data/lib/openaustralia/search_info.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+require 'xml/mapping'
+
+module OpenAustralia
+  # debate search info
+  class SearchInfo
+    include XML::Mapping
+
+    text_node :s, 's', :default_value => nil #what to call this?
+    numeric_node :results_per_age, 'results_per_page', :default_value => nil
+    numeric_node :page, 'page', :default_value => nil
+    numeric_node :total_results, 'total_results', :default_value => nil
+    numeric_node :first_result, 'first_result', :default_value => nil
+  end
+end

data/lib/openaustralia/senators.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# XML mapping objects for OA queries
+# relating to senators
+
+require 'xml/mapping'
+
+module OpenAustralia
+
+#search result for an individual senator
+class Senator
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  numeric_node :member_id, 'member_id'
+  numeric_node :house, 'house'
+  text_node :first_name, 'first_name'
+  text_node :last_name, 'last_name'
+  text_node :constituency, 'constituency'
+  text_node :party, 'party'
+  text_node :entered_house, 'entered_house'
+  text_node :entered_reason, 'entered_reason'
+  text_node :left_house, 'left_house'
+  text_node :left_reason, 'left_reason'
+  numeric_node :person_id, 'person_id'
+  text_node :title, 'title'
+  text_node :full_name, 'full_name'
+end
+
+# record for foresults of a representative search
+class SenatorResult
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  array_node :matches, "result", "match", :class=>Senator, :default_value=>[]
+end
+
+# search results for a list of senators
+class SenatorFound
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  numeric_node :member_id, 'member_id'
+  text_node :name, 'name'
+  numeric_node :person_id, 'person_id'
+  text_node :party, 'party'
+end
+
+# record for foresults of a representative search
+class SenatorSearchResult
+  include XML::Mapping
+
+  array_node :matches, "result", "match", :class=>SenatorFound, :default_value=>[]
+end
+
+end

data/lib/openaustralia/version.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+module OpenAustralia
+  VERSION = "1.0.0"
+end

data/openaustralia.gemspec

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# -*- encoding: utf-8 -*-
+require File.expand_path('../lib/openaustralia/version', __FILE__)
+
+Gem::Specification.new do |gem|
+  gem.authors       = ["Henare Degan", "Alex Cooper"]
+  gem.email         = ["henare.degan@gmail.com"]
+  gem.description   = 'OpenAustralia API'
+  gem.summary       = 'Ruby wrapper for the OpenAustralia API'
+  gem.homepage      = 'https://github.com/henare/openaustralia-api/'
+
+  gem.files         = `git ls-files`.split($\)
+  gem.executables   = gem.files.grep(%r{^bin/}).map{ |f| File.basename(f) }
+  gem.test_files    = gem.files.grep(%r{^(test|spec|features)/})
+  gem.name          = "openaustralia"
+  gem.require_paths = ["lib"]
+  gem.version       = OpenAustralia::VERSION
+
+  gem.add_dependency 'xml-mapping'
+  gem.add_dependency 'rake'
+end

data/test/comments.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
+<result>
+    <comments>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>195</comment_id>
+            <user_id>722</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>231713</epobject_id>
+            <body>Dennis
+There a lot of discrimentary practices by Government with ADF super indexation being the main one. Other matters are Defence widow gets 62.5% of her Veteran husbands DFRDB, PS widow 67% and MPs widows 82.2%, War Widow should get same as MP widow;Commutation (lump sum) taken out by ADF memeber continues to be repaid till one dies and not ceased when original sum is repaid = continual deduction of repayment regardless; if ADF member does not commute the current CPI indexation is applied as though one had commuted = indexation of much lower figure than full FN entitlement; Vietnam era War widow entitlement to bury her husband is much lower than entitlement experienced by present day &quot;Digger's wives&quot;- costs same to bury a Digger regardles of which War they fough in; use of 1962 Actuarial Tables in 2009 = how rude and financially crippling is that for Digers from the 50s to the 90's who come under DFRB/DFRDB entitlements; Howard Government used the same stall tactics over 12 years in power; 2% COMPULSORY decrease in CPI indexation not paid by Hawke/Keating Govt in the 19770s/80s and NEVER reinstated for Defence superannuants; Officer discrimination for early retirement before Notional Retirement (Maj = 42 in 1980s) age of 2% discount from entitlements for each year under age; Defence couple cannot &quot;SPLIT&quot; yearly entitlements in half for Taxation purposes, PS and MPs (pre 1998 can = why????); Annual 2009 DFRDB entitlement is $22,092 PA = below Hendereson Poverty Line and well below Age Pension people = why as DFRDB/DFRB is paid for, taxed by three times (During service, on discharge, and last when entitlements are paid?) and Centrelink Age pension financially souced from Taxpayers of Australia; finally in the last 20 years military retirees? superannuation entitlements have increased by just under 70%, whereas the Age pension has more than doubled, by 110%, and MPs? superannuation entitlements have increased by over 130% = speaks volumes of UNJUST, UNEQUAL &amp; UNFAIR indexation of Defence superannuation!!!!WE just wish to be treated the same!!!!!
+Bernie mcGurgan (A Vietnam veteran &amp; DFRDB superannuant)
+Brisbane
+            </body>
+            <posted>2009-11-27 13:42:53</posted>
+            <major>1</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2009-11-25.124.3</gid>
+            <firstname>Bernie</firstname>
+            <lastname>McGurgan</lastname>
+            <url>/debate/?id=2009-11-25.124.3#c195</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>180</comment_id>
+            <user_id>634</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>226813</epobject_id>
+            <body>A couple of points on Warren Truss's speech:
+
+&quot;There is no emissions trading scheme planned anywhere in the world that includes agriculture&quot; This is not the case, our near neighbour New Zealand is considering its conclusion in its proposed legislation.
+
+You talk about increased costs from the proposed CPRS from cheaper imports due to the lack of a carbon price in foreign and international markets. The evident momentum globally for a carbon price or regulation otherwise to reduce GHG emissions makes this unlikely, but there is an  alternative in the form of a big stick. Despite the Coalition's previous enthusiasm for American policy on this issue, you do not seek the alternative sought in the US, that of possible tarrifs on imports from nations that have no equivalent regulation.
+
+&quot;Because Australia signed the Kyoto accord, Australian farmers cannot get credits for the carbon abatement activities that they undertake...This is the nonsense of Labor?s CPRS&quot; Strange how one can blame a treaty that the Coalition itself designed for it's own interests, allowing for a 108% increase in emmisions in Australia due to its special situation and now you can blame a Labor bill for a problem not of its own making? The ability of farmers to gain credits or offsets that can be sold on international markets is determined by international regulations and scientific reality of their measurement.
+
+Farmers should certainly be recognised, like all sectors that emit GHG for their potential to be constructive in this regard. Which brings us on to your next point, in which you bring up the tired old myth about baseload power. While I welcome a debate on the merits of all sources of energy, nuclear included, the potential of renewables should not be debased in favour of the status quo. To prove this, simply take a look at Spain, where just last Monday (9.11.09) 53% of demand was catered for through wind power alone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/spain-national-record-power-windfarms), equivalent to apparently 11 nuclear power plants or 11.4 Gigawatts, which was only a fraction of their potential, 18 gw and many other countries in which renewables play a vital role.
+
+I would also like to recognise your party's support for voluntary reductions of emissions that can be factored in to the national cap, just as the greens have yet the government has not.
+            </body>
+            <posted>2009-11-17 22:27:41</posted>
+            <major>1</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2009-11-16.71.1</gid>
+            <firstname>Shaun</firstname>
+            <lastname>Lambert</lastname>
+            <url>/debate/?id=2009-11-16.71.1#c180</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>177</comment_id>
+            <user_id>634</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>226230</epobject_id>
+            <body>I'd like to thank Mark Coulton, whom I have not had the pleasure of reading before. Your remarks are above the level of debate that is reported in mainstream media and what I would otherwise expect of this current Opposition and would seem to be much more constructive criticism than otherwise is usual. I would add but a few points in response:
+
+1)That it is important for all sides to not inflame the debate with hysterics, as some have and provide both constructive criticism as well as debate that frames our predicament as a crisis that results in opportunity, spurred on by government and individual action.
+
+2) That the criticism of Australia's individual participation in a global effort should never be misconstrued as a waste of effort on our part. Our effort is not about saving the entire planet on our own. No. It is about what forms the guiding principle for the UN and the Kyoto protocol on these matters, the principle of &quot;common but differentiated responsibilities&quot;. Australia's role in reducing our emissions is important not just for it's own sake, but a part of a greater and global movement to reduce emissions- to think that we should become some sort of a haven for carbon-intensive industries is flawed and wrong, not that we already aren't one...
+
+3)You make the point well about our trade-exposed emissions intensive industries and what an ETS might mean for them. Surely there is a solution? Even Ross Garnaut advocated for these industries to be compensated- for their loss of competitiveness only, and a tariff system could also be put in place for those trading partners that are not playing their proportionate part as we should and will be.
+
+
+4)You speak also of reductions on an individual basis and with agriculture specifically in mind- surely the Nationals could be talking constructively to the Greens on such an issue?
+
+Keep up the good work, just don't forget our 'common but differentiated responsibility'.
+            </body>
+            <posted>2009-11-01 13:11:39</posted>
+            <major>1</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2009-10-29.35.1</gid>
+            <firstname>Shaun</firstname>
+            <lastname>Lambert</lastname>
+            <url>/debate/?id=2009-10-29.35.1#c177</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>141</comment_id>
+            <user_id>557</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>207472</epobject_id>
+            <body>What is needed is a total shift in community attitudes at all levels.
+
+If community members instigated sustainability efforts on the home front, such as urban food gardening, recycling, hanging clothes on the line, turning off power points, composting, grey water systems, shorter showers etc., were less worried about 'stuff' they want (not need), then maybe we might stand a chance.
+
+However, government needs to be BRAVE by putting in place legislation that may be unpopular. For example, not decreasing the size of urban blocks but limiting the size of houses on blocks. Our blocks have been getting smaller, houses have been getting bigger, back yards smaller (our kids have been getting fatter too).
+
+If you have not seen this film, then please watch it. Each person I have shown this to has been impacted by it. It shows the process of 'stuff' we use. It is called THE STORY OF STUFF
+http://www.storyofstuff.com
+
+This film has been watched/downloaded by over 7 million people. It is brutal, makes sense &amp; certainly gets you thinking.
+
+We have 20 years to start turning back the effects of climate change and global warming.
+
+At a recent climate change launch at a university in Melbourne, we were shown the Story of Stuff (above) and the following movie:
+WAKE UP, FREAK OUT - then GET A GRIP
+http://www.vimeo.com/1709110
+
+For people who lack the education (disbelievers) regarding climate change, both these movies put a lot of the facts in perspective. You cannot argue with the content. It is backed up by evidence. ALL politicians should be made to put aside 1/2 hours of their time to watch these. Maybe then they will not fight the change that needs to happen.
+
+I look forward to seeing the courage being displayed that I hope the Labour Party has regarding this issue.
+
+Thank you.
+            </body>
+            <posted>2009-08-15 16:31:31</posted>
+            <major>101</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/lords/2009-06-22.19.14</gid>
+            <firstname>Judie</firstname>
+            <lastname>Gade</lastname>
+            <url>/senate/?gid=2009-06-22.19.14#c141</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>140</comment_id>
+            <user_id>552</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>210764</epobject_id>
+            <body>People wonder who is behind the town hall riots when anyone discusses health care reform, or Obamacare ? the answer is Conservatives for Patients' Rights. Conservatives for Patients Rights, or the CPR, is headed by one Rick Scott ? who isn't a doctor ? but used to be the CEO of a hospital, and under his watch, his medical administration defrauded Medicare of $1.7 billion through a practice called upcoding, wherein a Medicare patient gets treated, but Medicare is billed for additional tests that never took place.  (That's fraud.) Realistically, Conservatives for Patients Rights  and Mr. Scott will never need short term loans, and the only reason why they oppose the bill is that they want the money from the program for themselves.Read more click http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/08/06/rick-scott/</body>
+            <posted>2009-08-13 17:17:49</posted>
+            <major>101</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/lords/2009-08-11.25.2</gid>
+            <firstname>LalaM</firstname>
+            <lastname>hgj</lastname>
+            <url>/senate/?gid=2009-08-11.25.2#c140</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>139</comment_id>
+            <user_id>548</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>210556</epobject_id>
+            <body>The Right Honorable PM Mr Rudd,
+
+Can you please explain why your environment Minister is at odds with expert opinion on the Four Mile Creek (Beverley) Uranium Mine? A Miner which is clearly breaking Australian laws ( Mark Parnell - SA Parliament - Atomic General - duress - Native Title - ATLA).
+
+Is this to become a standard for the operation of business in this country and is the federal government planning to cover the costs of land rehabilitation post the ISL Chemical Leaching of uranium and the re-pumping of waste materials back into these same aquifers. Is the Minister Garrett going to be let off his lead and resume a position of intelligence, in opposing for the good of all Australians, a business and a process which from so many angles is producing so much harm.
+
+Does the PM see a relationship between the lack of oversight with the Beverley Mine and the Federal governments plans to purchase military hardware from the US parent General Atomic? If this is the case can the PM explain why the impacts of the conflict are not placed now on the public record.
+
+Can the PM explain why Clean Energy funding is channeled to Petratherm and partners Tru Energy and Beach Petroleum in supply of the above Uranium Mine with electricity and can the PM explain how the ISL Chemical Leaching process fits the definition of 'clean energy' or for that matter how the process and large embodied energy costs of the uranium mining process is equated in these grants with 'clean energy'?
+
+Can the Minister explain why the Australian Government is not following the example of Australian Ethical Investment in removing itself from the reach of such mining processes which are causing damage to the indigenous population in the area and the water systems connected to the Great Artesian Basin?
+
+http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/image/australian-ethical-gets-cold-feet-hot-rocks-paralana
+
+Thankyou Mr Prime Minsiter we look forward to truth and straight answers to these questions and hope the Parliament of Australia can resume the business of honest government without the distraction of the nonsense ETS legislation which will no doubt be opposed on good grounds.
+            </body>
+            <posted>2009-08-12 11:55:09</posted>
+            <major>1</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2009-08-11.26.3</gid>
+            <firstname>Hadley</firstname>
+            <lastname>Baker</lastname>
+            <url>/debate/?id=2009-08-11.26.3#c139</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>108</comment_id>
+            <user_id>309</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>164297</epobject_id>
+            <body>I think the better Idea would be to adjust the legal drinking age  to 25 years of age,also more heavy penalties or loss of licence for the vendors that sell these alcopops to under age drinkers,and also anyone that is of legal age should be prosecuted to the fullest of the law if they purchase  the drinks for them.
+No youth under the age of 25 should be allowed hard spirits whether watered down or not and should only be allowed to consume a low Abv of beer which should only be dispensed to them in a controlled  environment ,  when aged between 18 &amp; 25 and not sold as takeaways so they can fall about the streets making an absolute fool of themselves  then bragging to their mates the following day on how they had a terrific night which was most probably at someone elses expense or discomfort.
+            </body>
+            <posted>2009-03-17 17:16:59</posted>
+            <major>101</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/lords/2009-03-16.78.1</gid>
+            <firstname>James</firstname>
+            <lastname>Hay</lastname>
+            <url>/senate/?gid=2009-03-16.78.1#c108</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>99</comment_id>
+            <user_id>309</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>160759</epobject_id>
+            <body>Lets have some backbone , eject the troublemakers it only hinders policy by all this interjecting.</body>
+            <posted>2009-02-25 09:38:02</posted>
+            <major>1</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2009-02-24.13.20</gid>
+            <firstname>James</firstname>
+            <lastname>Hay</lastname>
+            <url>/debate/?id=2009-02-24.13.20#c99</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>63</comment_id>
+            <user_id>234</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>149884</epobject_id>
+            <body>Dear Senator Conry
+
+I would like to point to a couple of flaws in your statements to the public. First one:
+
+&quot; However, the Australian Government has no plans to stop adults from viewing material that is currently legal, if they wish to view such material.&quot;
+
+Senator Conroy, you have stipulated that the Australian Government does have plans to stop adults from viewing material that is currently legal, because you nominated the ACMA Prohibited Content list as the basis for mandatory filtering. The list contains material classified X18+, R18+ and MA15+ as well as RC material which is legal to possess or display in Australia, and was originally designed by the previous Government to track material unsuitable for children. To use it as a list of material unsuitable for adults demonstrates profound misunderstanding of the existing regulatory system, and strongly suggests that the Government hasn't thought this thing through.
+
+Now you want to filter all &quot;inappropriate&quot; and &quot;unwanted&quot; material
+
+Care to explain better?
+
+Then you go on to say that
+
+&quot;This will be informed by the technology adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Canada where ISP filtering, predominantly of child pornography, has been successfully introduced without affecting internet performance to a noticeable level.The proposed ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including through industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia. &quot;
+
+There are no other overseas models suitable for Australia. The only countries which do anything like the Government has proposed are regressive regimes such as China, U.A.E and Iran. There are no democratic states anywhere in the world which practice mandatory Government-controlled Internet censorship. All of the examples the Government has ever referred to are cited here:
+http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-gl.html with plenty of debunking data.
+ The &quot;industry consultation&quot; has been roundly ignored by the Government: The IIA has made statements against this idea, and its members are on record doubting its feasibility and indicating their disagreement with it, but the Government is ploughing on regardless. What use is consultation if one ignores the results? None of the above countries have adopted what you are proposing. Also I would like to say that there is also the whole ethical position of how appropriate is it for the Australian Government to start acting like the Chinese Government
+
+ But then you make statement like this
+
+&quot;We are committed to working closely with internet industries to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds.&quot;
+Industry experts, including CEOs from some of Australia's largest ISPs, have almost unanimously come out against this proposal.
+http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communications/soa/ISP-level-content-filtering-won-t-work/0,139023754,339292158,00.htm
+The Internet Watch Foundation in the UK has doubted its technical feasibility:
+http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/05/aussie_internet/page2.html
+The Government's own study has indicated its unsuitability to application to any ISP with core network speeds greater than 1 Gbit/sec (and, lets face it, most ISPs with core network speeds under 1 Gbit/sec) Even the parts of the industry who support these systems are against making them mandatory
+
+I can only strongly agree with this statement. It is one of fundamentals in our upbringing of children.
+&quot;The internet is an essential tool for all Australian children through which they can exchange information, be entertained, socialise and do school work and research.  The ability to use online tools effectively provides both a skill for life and the means to acquire new skills.&quot;
+
+Statement like this below just makes me nervous.
+
+&quot;However, while the internet has created substantial benefits for children it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content.  As such, parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.&quot;
+
+Does it mean that I am unfit parent for my children? That I don't know how to make a sound decision what is appropriate for my children and what is not. I beg the differ. Let me ask you how would you feel if I was to tell, indirectly, that you are unfit parent ( if you have children)? No offence intended by comment in the brackets.
+
+Why such an insult Senator
+
+It's only woolly-headed wishful thinking by people who don't know what they're talking about that makes people think this idea can work at all in the first place, when your own study has proven that and this is take out of Governments document ( chapter 1, page 15 Executive summary ) &quot; Despite of a general nature of advances in current trial and previous trial most filters are not presently able to identify illegal content and content that may be regarded as inappropriate that is carried via majority of non-web protocols&quot;
+
+To conclude
+ I support the $125m expenditure, with the exception of the line-item for &quot;clean feed&quot;, which is clearly inappropriate for Australia. World contains literally hundreds of nations who haven't felt the need to go down this path, and I question why the Honourable Member thinks Australia is such a basket-case that it's literally the only democracy on the planet that feels the need to implement this kind of scheme.
+I would like to say that I do not by any means support any kind of child online exploitation but I am afraid that if this legislation goes through that there will be nothing stopping next governments censoring more and more of internet content.
+
+There is an ISP already providing &quot;clean feed&quot; internet called WEBSHIELD.
+
+Why don't you look into it
+
+If in writing this response I have offended you by any means that was not my intention at all and I apologise for such mistake.
+
+Awaiting you reply.
+
+Kind regards
+Rastko Petrovic
+50A Hines Rd
+Hilton WA 6163
+0402392345
+            </body>
+            <posted>2008-11-22 00:06:38</posted>
+            <major>101</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/lords/2008-11-13.114.2</gid>
+            <firstname>Rastko</firstname>
+            <lastname>Petrovic</lastname>
+            <url>/senate/?gid=2008-11-13.114.2#c63</url>
+        </match>
+        <match>
+            <comment_id>60</comment_id>
+            <user_id>228</user_id>
+            <epobject_id>142329</epobject_id>
+            <body>Can I start by saying yes its a fantastic thing that Andrew Johns is doing I am sure every dollar is appreciated by those who receive it. Ok the fun stuff over !! Mental Illness not Mental Health is the topic here, Kevin Rudd your speech was all about mental HEALTH...those of us fortunate enough to have it dont need it, call it what you like, phrase it how you wish, after 30+ years working in Mental Health Institutions, Mental Health Public Hospital Wards (Psychiatric Inpatient Units) and being a manager of Community Mental Health Services and now on the &quot;dark side&quot; the NGO Sector I can stake my reputation on the fact that the term is Mental Illness and by avoiding that term we all contribute to the continuing stigma associated with Mental Illness.
+
+Let me digress do people who have a broken leg talk about leg health, do people who have a heart attack then talk about heart health or do we all simply call it what it is this person had a heart attack has cardiovascular disease and so on and so forth. Why then do we all talk incessantly about mental health, I heard today that someone got diagnosed with mental health. I wish more of us had that diagnosis.
+
+Mental Health is simply defined as the absence of a mental illness, more like the absence of a noticeable or diagnosable mental illness.
+
+After 30 years of caring and working closely with thousands of people who are most unfortunately afflicted with significant and serious mental illnesses I can safely say that their collective interpretation of their definite plight is more genuine that the &quot;Mental Health&quot; clan.
+
+Stop I implore you STOP! and think, ok Andrew Johns may have a diagnosis of Bi Polar disorder but in his defense he has millions in the bank, enjoys notoriety, and well even from a cynic like me is the best rugby player of all time which I agree is no mean feat for a person with mental illness.
+
+Lets spare a though for those of us suffering from mental illness......and I am talking about the significant portion of people who remain confined to hospital for significant periods of time, those who are severely affected and have significant life skills deficits.
+
+I implore all of the theorists to cease immediately the inane pursuit of freedom for all. Stop I tell you stop! the over riding principle for care and protection of people with a mental illness is the simple phrase &quot;the least restrictive form of care&quot; well at least that's what the theorists will have the policy makers believe. I have a real problem with the above quoted statement. well really I would like to add one word to it, I firmly believe that the statement should be and always was &quot;the least restrictive form of APPROPRIATE care.
+
+Some of you wont like this but for some people who have a serious mental illness the least restrictive form of care may be a straight jacket with buckles and padded wool skin restraints. Thankfully that would apply to a minority, but the essence is that for many people where the debate rages or is totally silent... is some misguided theoretical synapse that no matter what, everyone should live in the community.
+
+After thirty years+ I can firmly conclude without question a number of points.....
+
+1. A significant proportion of the population who suffer from a severe mental illness will need some sort of supervised care in the long term. This supervision is not always because they are dangerous but simply because the cognitive deficits experienced are so severe that they are not able to safely care for themselves in an unsupervised environment.
+
+2. Many clients with severe mental illnesses lack the insight to properly regulate their behaviors and so fail to recognize the basic principles of community living, so are unable to live in the community.
+
+3. Remaining long term in a secure closed environment for ones own safety is a real possibility for some people experiencing severe mental illness.
+
+4. We should immediately pass a law that prohibits journalists from reporting serious crimes and coupling them with a persons recent visits to a psychiatrist. How many times have you heard the following, a man was stabbed today, his assailant was caught and sources say he was suffering from, .....diabetes.....whooping cough.....had recently seen his heart surgeon....NO of course not what we always hear is ....he had recently consulted his Psychiatrist or he had a history of mental illness. In many of these cases, yes he had been sent to a Psychiatrist...who found that he was not mentally ill, or he had a history of getting admitted to psychiatric facilities because he was mentally disordered, eg out of control on alcohol or drugs or responding to a  major stressor. None of these things makes this person mentally ill.
+
+5. There are two kinds of people in this world, those of us who are inherently good and those of us who are !@#$%^&amp; not so good. With 30 years experience in the field I believe if someone is inherently good then when they develop a mental illness they continue with those good traits, if someone is a !@#$..or inherently bad then if they develop a mental illness then they are likely to continue with their original traits. Point being there is as much chance of a nasty person developing a mental illness as a good person so for a person who has a significant illness we should not automatically attribute their behavior to their illness.
+
+6. Can the &quot;do goodie&quot;, theorists and policy makers stop the &quot;crappola&quot; and concentrate on funneling the money to programs which understand the sentence &quot;least restrictive form of APPROPRIATE care&quot;
+
+7. Lastly anyone who reached this point must be a saint..so stick with me one more time.....can we get some new money to funnel towards the people who are unfortunate to be stuck in this group....yes yes those people confined to secure environments with their difficult behaviors and their inability to subscribe to the a aforementioned principles of community living...you know the ones who are marginalized, stigmatized and forgotten. Kevin Rudd hey how about for those clients you provide amenities cash.......i mean totally separated, from the doctors nurses and administrators...I mean real cash, real items, real belongings for these clients........cummon !!! In the words of a recent acquaintence suffering form a severe mental illness.....I am a real person, I am still a person, I am a human living on this planet, I am only going to get one spin like the rest of you more fortunate people, I might not vote, I might not connect with many of you....but I am in here......I see the adverts on the TV oh how I would cherish an IPOD, How I would love that WII, PS3, new jeans...new hat.....that cool makeup......I know whats happening....I have dreams like everyone else.
+            </body>
+            <posted>2008-11-20 21:15:03</posted>
+            <major>1</major>
+            <gid>uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-20.47.3</gid>
+            <firstname>Mental Health</firstname>
+            <lastname>Nurse</lastname>
+            <url>/debate/?id=2008-10-20.47.3#c60</url>
+        </match>
+    </comments>
+    <search>ets</search>
+</result>