Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer to the minister’s speech at the National Press Club last week, where she indicated that the government would not require internet service providers to filter out prohibited content before it gets to the family home. Can the minister confirm that 62 members of the coalition backbench have written to the Prime Minister calling for ‘a ban on access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet’? Does the minister stand by her comments at the Press Club that those calling for mandatory filtering, such as her coalition colleagues, are ‘not well informed about the best available technical solutions to internet pornography’?

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

I can only assume that the senator was not here last week when I gave a detailed and very lengthy answer to a question from Senator Fielding about the reasons why ISP-level filtering is an inferior solution to effective filtering at PC level. I will go through it again, however, because it is obviously important for those who do not catch on the first time to hear it again. I have always said I would not categorically rule out ISP filtering, because, just in case the technology improves, I would like to be in a position where this government is ready to continue to look at whether or not there are better ways of doing it. The objective of this government is to get the very best and most effective way of filtering pornography so that it does not come into the hands of children.

We have looked at ISP-level filtering on three occasions, with a fourth coming up. In 1999, there was a CSIRO technical trial; in 2003-04, a review of the online contents scheme; and, in 2005, a trial conducted by NetAlert involving RMIT and ACMA. These are not matters conducted by the government; they are conducted by other parties. Unless they are completely misinformed, they tell us that there are continually problems with this particular level of ISP filtering: they tend to over-block all forms of content. Many are unable to scale effectively on larger systems, so you might be able to do it on a very small one but not a large one. They also have problems on a smaller network, so scaling to a larger one makes it very difficult. They are unable to analyse and block websites based on more sophisticated techniques such as skin tones. Many provide no protection for children using chat rooms. Surely there would not be a person in this place who would think that it was not appropriate to try to do your best to stop the kind of traffic that affects children in chat rooms. So why wouldn’t you get the very best advice, which I think the government has, on the very best way of dealing with this?

Most of these ISPs simply cannot filter content sent via instant messaging, peer-to-peer services or indeed email services. And most of them do not allow a parent to customise their child’s experience, so you would have the same kind of block for everyone in the family whether you are a medical student or a seven-year-old child. Of course, an ISP-level filter cannot actually log children’s activity, which is a very important tool in letting parents know what their children are looking at.

These particular problems have been found in every trial that this government has looked at, and there is not a developed country in the world that mandates ISP-level filters. It is true that it was mandated in Saudi Arabia, I think, and in Pakistan; but they made it so difficult, so much of it seemed to be circumvented, that I do not really know to what extent anyone could say that it actually worked. I think the really critical thing about this is that this government wants the most effective solution. We know that PC based filters can deliver that. You can get a customised and safe experience that looks after emails, chat rooms and peer-to-peer file downloading in a much more effective way than simply blocking half the internet and slowing it down so that nobody can use it, even for innocent purposes.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of comments by her colleague Senator Barnett that ‘as members of parliament we have a duty of care to ensure that pornographic and violent sites are not available to children’? Does the minister agree with Senator Barnett? If so, Minister, why won’t the government act to require internet service providers to block access to thousands of websites identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority as containing prohibited content like child pornography?

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 there is some problem with the senator’s comprehension. I have just spent four minutes explaining the difficulties—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

but she appears to have absolutely no idea of what I am saying. That is, ISP-level filters are not as safe as the PC based filtering which this government has introduced as part of online counselling. I cannot help it if those on the other side have got room temperature IQ. What you should do is try to find out what works, and PC filters work.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Coonan interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators will come to order.