Follow up from No Mail Please, We’re the Government! [Australian Internet Filtering]
AFTER getting poor responses from Stephen Conroy’s office and being referred to my local member, Shadow MP Ian Macfarlane as discussed in Part One of this article, I started a small email chain with my local member.
First of all I want to publicly acknowledge that Mr Macfarlane has been quite efficient and reliable with his replies, and I appreciate he’s keeping in contact personally with the members of his electorate. His responses have always been received the next business day after I email him.
I asked Mr Macfarlane some follow up questions and he was kind enough to reply to me.
The questions asked were:
· What is your personal opinion of the filtering proposal?
· What will the Opposition be doing about the proposal?
· Do you intend to vote against the legislation?
· Is the filtering proposal something you’d discuss in Question Time?
Mr Macfarlane responded the next business day with the following (unedited):
“There are many concerns in the community both about the effect of this
measure on system performance and the manner in which a blanket
arbitrary determination about web content will be imposed by the
Government.Internet Service Providers are also understandably concerned
about the impact that Labor’s scheme will have on business.As I said, I fully support guarding our children from being exposed to
inappropriate internet content, and that parental and adult supervision
and guidance should be front and centre of all efforts.The Coalition will monitor the progress of this trial with great
interest and make a considered assessment based on its outcomes,
particularly performance of the filtering methods tested.If the trial turns out to be the disaster you predict, I will be pushing
for a re-think of how we protect our children when parents fail to act
responsibly.Ian Macfarlane
Member for Groom
Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources”
I have to say, it appears Mr Macfarlane has done at least a little more than some token research on the matter, and not just read briefing papers that have landed on his desk. While I don’t necessarily agree with his opinions, he’s at least clearly done some research into the matter.
The member’s comments regarding protection of children continue to perplex me, he seems to contradict himself with comments about parental and adult supervision “front and centre of all efforts”, which in my interpretation would be a similar system to Netalert, yet then talks again about protecting our children when parents fail to act.
Mr Macfarlane also seems to acknowledge that the method of which sites are added the blacklist is “blanket” and “arbitrary”.
He appears to state The Coalition’s primary concern with the filter is the performance results of the filter system, and the impact on businesses and ISP’s.
It’s at least reassuring that he’s saying he’ll be pushing for alternative methods of achieving what appears to be the common goal of both major parties, “protecting our children from inappropriate content”, when the results inevitably show the filtering systems failings.
What do you think of Mr Macfarlane’s responses?
Ian Macfarlane says: If the trial turns out to be the disaster you predict, I will be pushing for a re-think of how we protect our children when parents fail to act responsibly.”
Even if the trial proved performance was not degraded (unlikely when the Tasmanian reports proved it would be), ISP filtering is still not a tool for protecting children, irrespective of whether the parent is responsible or not.
Good to see that the polli’s are at least informed about these things, if not well-informed. But I can’t fault him really considering he’s not really anything close to an IT person
I sent a e-mail to Nick Minchin , Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy and got similar type of response. I think its sitting on the fence personally. I think the alt reasons for having it besides Child protection suit the Liberal Party just fine.
“The member’s comments regarding protection of children continue to perplex me, he seems to contradict himself with comments about parental and adult supervision “front and centre of all efforts”, which in my interpretation would be a similar system to Netalert, yet then talks again about protecting our children when parents fail to act.”
There is no contradiction and it shouldn’t be perplexing. He is simply saying that parental supervision is, and should be, the front line of defence, but also pointing that sometimes parents are irresponsible. Should we just abandon the children of these woeful parents to their fate entirely? Of course not. That is where government can provide damage control, and that is where this filtering would ‘theoretically’ come in.
I am extremely skeptical of this filtering, but will wait to see what the trials indicate. The likelihood is that they will fail on both affecting broadband performance and ability to stop any pedophile smarter than a walnut. If things go as expected, I would much rather see the money go into cyber-police taskgroups (a known way of smashing sophisticated rings) and education.
I think the whole thing is getting bogged down in protecting kids of which half the time they need protecting from themselves. focusing on the real winner is a adults right of choice and the technical flaws will be the way to go.
Unfortunately it appears that the Liberals also have a very keen interest in controlling everything we see and do. This is not about kiddy porn and all that other crap. Success in the trial is irrelevant. It’s about controlling everything you see and do. Wait to you see some of the other bills about to go before parliament. I’m outa here!
Most of the response you received is a template reply. The only paragraph that isn’t is:
If the trial turns out to be the disaster you predict, I will be pushing
for a re-think of how we protect our children when parents fail to act
responsibly.
The Libs aren’t stating their position openly however I don’t think they are going to support this since it means they would be admitting their own policy is a failure, even though it is a far more sane approach than what Labor is pushing.
Yeah, I agree it’s a “template reply” in sections in terms of The Coalition’s stance on it. Macfarlane has written multiple emails to me and actually taken the time to answer the questions in a focused way, even if some of it is just the “Liberal Machine’s Opinion” rather than his own. Still, it’s all better than Conroy’s fob off.