Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, has identified more than 2,000 overseas websites containing prohibited internet content, including disturbing images of child pornography and sexual violence? Does the minister maintain her claim that Labor’s plan to require ISPs to filter out pornographic content for households, schools and libraries would cost around $30 million per year? Given that the government is sitting on a surplus in excess of $14 billion, can the minister explain to Australian parents why she thinks $30 million is too much to pay to block access to websites identified by ACMA as containing prohibited content?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Conroy for the question. The government takes the view, quite frankly, that it is not the expense of a potential solution to this problem that is the barrier. If in fact we could be certain that the kind of proposal that Labor has put up would actually deliver a better outcome, that would be something that the government would seriously consider. We have not rejected the possibility of having ISP server level filtering. We have in fact looked at it three times. On each occasion, it has not been found to be effective. The point about it is that, before you would impose mandatory filtering on ISPs, some of whom are very small businesses, you would want to be absolutely certain that it would be effective. The point about it is that the government is very serious about protecting families from offensive content. The issue is not so much where you filter but making sure that the filtering that you do do is as effective as you can get it. This government is prepared to do whatever it takes to protect Australian children from inappropriate internet content.

As most in the chamber would be aware, the government has a comprehensive three-pronged strategy for protecting children on the internet. That is made up of three things: legislation, regulation and of course education of parents and of children. PC based filtering does remain, in our view, the most effective technical solution for blocking unwanted content. However, the government would never completely rule out ISP level filtering, and we will continue to look at it because, as technology changes, some of the real difficulties that currently accompany ISP level filtering may in fact be better addressed. We continue to review this technology, but I say to the Senate and indeed to Senator Conroy that ISP level filtering remains an inadequate solution that misses content, does not block all kinds of content available over the internet and of course is unable to be properly adapted. For instance, what might be suitable for a 17-year-old is certainly not suitable for a five-year-old, and there is no way with ISP filtering to be able to tailor-make the kind of internet experience that people wish to have.

While I understand industry’s concerns about the impact on internet performance and costs, I stress again that this is not the issue. The issue is what is most effective and not where the content is blocked. As I understand Mr Beazley’s statements about filtering, which he continues to make about every six months or so—he talks about it as some new policy position—they seem to be based on the Cleanfeed system in use on a very small and controlled list of child porn sites in the United Kingdom. It does not remove all adult content or even make the internet child-safe.

As I have said, the government has looked at alternative ISP level filtering technology three times—first of all in 1999 and most recently in a NetAlert trial in Launceston. The final report of this research will be released very shortly but the initial findings demonstrate that even the best-performing filter in the trial missed a quarter of the content on a small pre-prepared list of sites and all server-level filters tested had a major impact on network performance, with the performance degrading even more on faster connections. The government is of the view that, until the technology improves, PC based filters remain the most effective. (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister seen comments by her Liberal Party colleague Senator Barnett that the cost of a mandatory filtering scheme could be seen as a small price to pay to protect our children? Is she also aware that he has said ‘there is a broad view within the coalition that as a government we should do all that can be done to protect our children’? Can the minister explain why she has failed to do all that she can to stop sickening internet content from entering Australian homes? Does the minister believe that her lack of action is supported by her coalition colleagues?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know whether Senator Conroy was listening, because it seems that most of the points that Senator Joyce was talking about are things that the government has under very serious consideration. Obviously, Labor has no idea as to the efficacy of filtering at network level. We know that Labor have been caught out and are on the back foot over this issue. We know that they ridiculed the government’s proposals a couple of years ago to do PC based filtering. Labor attacked ISP based filtering. Even Senator Conroy acknowledged only last week that this system would not block everything and that there would still be ways around it. We have to find a sensible solution that protects our children, educates our parents and gives the very best outcome the technology can deliver. And Labor’s solution does not do that.