David Clarke

NSW State
Member of the Legislative Council
Liberal Party

In May 2005 he spoke out against the bill that would have seen X18+ legalised in NSW.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL

Page: 4 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 May 2005. 

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [2.30 p.m.]: The Opposition is opposed to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Peter Breen. The purpose of the bill is stated to be to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995, as follows: 

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and 

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and 

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material.

Effectively, the bill will legalise films rated X 18+ in New South Wales. Provisions in the bill restricting the sale of such films to specific premises and increasing penalties for allowing minors access to such material are merely a sugar-coated overlay, the effect of which is to give the bill the semblance of controlling pornography when its effect will be precisely the opposite. 

I believe that the Hon. Peter Breen is a thoughtful and compassionate man, and a person who is well intentioned. But from time to time I believe he reaches conclusions that are way off beam, and on this issue he is way off beam. I believe that he is genuinely concerned with the deleterious effects of the almost universally agreed negative aspects of some X-rated or unclassified films, such as those promoting violence, bestiality or child abuse. But I believe that he is monumentally misguided and tragically wrong in what he believes his bill will achieve. His bill will legalise much of the pornography industry which the State Government purports to oppose but, through inaction, condones by turning a blind eye to the law being enforced. 

In his second reading speech the Hon. Peter Breen argued that I show an inconsistency by, on the one hand, supporting freedom of speech in relation to religious matters and opposing religious vilification laws and, on the other hand, opposing the liberalisation of laws to allow greater access to sexually explicit films. He argued that I support a wide freedom to express religious views but a narrow freedom to watch sexually explicit films. I believe that I maintain a consistency. The real inconsistency is in the position of the Hon. Peter Breen himself. On the one hand he supports a greatly expanded freedom to view sexually explicit films, and yet he is probably the leading proponent in this Parliament for the introduction of religious vilification laws in New South Wales which would have the effect of restricting free speech. In fact, so strong is his view that there should be limits on what people can say on religious matters that he has proposed a bill introducing an offence of religious vilification. It is his position that is contradictory and inconsistent. 

The Hon. Peter Breen is wrong in his assertion that my position is one of inconsistency. I believe it is one of total consistency. I believe in freedom to express religious views, even though I might find such views to be in bad taste or unsavoury, and even if such views are unfounded in fact, or ridicule or reflect adversely on the religious views of others. If, however, someone expresses views or comments that breach the civil or criminal law, that is a different matter. If someone is defamed, then there is recourse to the civil law, or even possibly the criminal law. If there is incitement to violence under the guise of religious expression, there are existing criminal laws in place to deal with that situation. So far Australia's tradition of freedom of religious discussion has worked quite satisfactorily; it has been uneventful. There has been no significant disruption to the social fabric. There has been no major outbreak of criminal activity that can be pinpointed to an abuse of freedom of speech on religious matters which could not be dealt with by existing laws. 

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: Normally I would not interrupt the Hon. David Clarke on this issue, but the bill is about X-rated videos; it is not about religion. Most of the Hon. David Clarke's contribution thus far has been about religious tolerance, which is the subject of other legislation. I ask you to remind the honourable member that his remarks should be directed to the bill before the House. 

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: To the point of order: I was comparing the stand of the Hon. Peter Breen with his contradictory views on what he proposes under this bill. 

The PRESIDENT: Order! It has been a convention in this House that comments made during debate on a bill may be more general than, say, comments made in question time. However, I remind the Hon. David Clarke that imputations must not be made against another member of the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: There is no strong correlation between religious expression and criminal conduct; there is no evidence of such freedom of speech initiating or fomenting criminality. On the other hand, whilst I believe in a wide freedom to read what we like and watch whatever film we like, from time to time this right may result in the fundamental rights of others being infringed upon or placed at risk. There is, for example, the right of children not to be sexually preyed upon or sexually abused. There is the right of women not to be raped or sexually molested. There is the right of every person not to be subjected to acts of violence. 

If there is a very definite or overwhelming nexus between the availability of certain sexually explicit material and the perpetration of crimes against, for example, women or children, that puts a very different complexion on matters. At what level, if any, do we set the bar in allowing unfettered access to such material? The answer is that we need to set the bar at a level necessary to restrict material that has a proven high propensity to produce criminality, the effect of which infringes upon the rights of others. I believe that the Hon. Peter Breen's bill has not set the bar at the right level; I believe that he has set the bar far too low. I believe that his bill will allow the liberalisation of material that has a very strong causation in the perpetration of crimes that infringe on the rights of others in our community. These films are a major contributing factor to such crimes. I believe that there is an abundance of scientific and other evidence to establish this nexus beyond reasonable doubt. 

There have been numerous investigations and studies of the deleterious effects of different types of pornography. One of the most comprehensive was the 1,960-page report of the United States Attorney-General's Commission on Pornography some years ago. Among its many disturbing findings, it established a very clear correlation between sexually explicit films portraying the violent abuse of women by men and acts of sexual violence, including sex crimes against women. The report found that, at the very least, such films led to the degradation and humiliation of women. It found that the actions of sexual violence against women contributed to what is known as the rape myth, that is, the idea, believed by some men, that women really want to be abused even when they vigorously deny it. The report established that pornography was addictive and progressive in nature. It showed that X-rated films eventually, and inevitably, reached a certain percentage of minors despite supposed legal safeguards. One of the report's most disturbing findings was that certain types of pornography are often used by paedophiles to soften children's defences against sexual abuse. It found that paedophiles lure children down a pathway via pornography to accepting as normal the depravities and abuse that are perpetrated on them. 

The report established that premises used for the distribution of such X-rated materials very often acted as a natural magnet to a secondary industry of support services such as prostitution or drug distribution. A study commissioned and funded by the United States justice department found that even magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler , which are usually not included in the X-rated category, have been responsible for promoting children as sexual objects. The study also found: 

… from the very beginning since 1954 (with the commencement of publication) children had appeared in sexual contexts with adults in these magazines. 

The report noted:

 … over 6,000 depictions of children were found in these 3 magazines alone from 1954 to 1984. 

One could also refer to sexually explicit films in which young adults are portrayed as minors. Such films cunningly achieve the desired effect of portraying sexual abuse of children without exploiting children as participants. At present the only legal outlet for X-rated videos in Australia are the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; they are not legally available in any of the States. 

The Hon. Peter Breen promises that his bill will regulate this industry and thereby get rid of the criminal element. I seem to recall that this was the same argument that was bandied around to support the legalisation of prostitution. We were promised that by legalising prostitution in New South Wales we would get rid of the criminal element. And what has been the result? We have had the proliferation not only of legal brothels but also the continuation and, indeed, increased proliferation of illegal brothels. Both legal and illegal brothels are saturated with organised crime. The organised crime element is alive and thriving in both. Would anybody suggest otherwise? 

As a consequence, we have more illegal brothels than ever before, and we have more criminals attached to both legal and illegal brothels than ever before. What we have is the worst of all worlds, and we will get the worst of all worlds if this bill becomes law. We will have a proliferation of X-rated videos, many of which will be prodding the law to see how far it can be pushed, but we will not see a reduction in the types of videos and DVDs that the Hon. Peter Breen says he is keen to remove from the marketplace. X-rated videos will continue to reach the hands of minors but in greater numbers because the passing of this bill will simultaneously result in an automatic commensurate proliferation among minors. More severe penalties will be of little consequence. 

The bill's intended object of ending the trade in the repulsive categories of films which the Hon. Peter Breen seeks to target will fail. Why would the authorities be any more dedicated to enforcing a new law against these films when they do not enforce the present law under which these films are already illegal? The Hon. Peter Breen's argument that the X-rated video industry in New South Wales is unregulated is just not true. The fact is that the industry is already regulated; it is regulated so that X-rated videos are illegal. It cannot be more regulated than that. Let us be very clear: X-rated videos are illegal in New South Wales, and so are those that fall into the unclassified category. Why is it then that such films are so readily available from outlets in New South Wales? Why is it that the Hon. Peter Breen was able to so freely purchase X-rated videos as well as videos which, because of their perversity, have no classification at all? The answer is: because the law is not being enforced at all. 

If the Hon. Peter Breen was so easily able to purchase such films from New South Wales outlets, as he advised this Parliament, then why is it so difficult for the police to locate them? Why do the police not enforce the law? We have probably all received written representations from Fiona Patten on behalf of an organisation called Body Politics, which lobbies for the passage of the bill before us. I do not agree with her views, but she puts the case for this bill articulately and rationally. Many of her statements are factual, but I cannot agree with her conclusions. She does, however, highlight the absurdity of the position in this State, where, despite the large number of illegal videos and DVDs sold from New South Wales outlets, there are very few convictions. 

According to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, in the four years from 2000 to 2003 inclusive there were only 14 convictions for selling or exhibiting X 18+ or refused classification films, with only six receiving what were, in fact, nominal fines. What a triumph of law enforcement that is! Everyone would surely agree that if there is such a widespread illegal activity, but so few prosecutions—whether or not they agree that it should remain illegal—something is amiss. It is not difficult to find a reason for that: It is a reluctance to pursue the offenders; it has nothing to do with difficulties of apprehension or prosecution. 

We can all recall the days when New South Wales was top-heavy with illegal casinos. Despite the very occasional stage-managed police raid purporting to close down an illegal casino here or there, they continued to thrive. It was as if those casinos had protection from, shall we say, a highly placed unseen source. But then the State Government decided to legalise casinos and take a substantial cut of the profits. Amazingly, from that time forward the illegal casinos ceased to exist. And why did they cease to exist? It was not because they had no clientele; it was not because the new legal casinos forced them off the market; and it was not a case of market forces at work. It was because the police got the green light to close them down—I mean to really close them down. With the shackles removed, that is exactly what the police did. The veto no longer existed. When there was the will to close down illegal casinos they were closed down. If there were a similar will to stop the New South Wales trade in Commonwealth-classified X-rated videos or unclassified videos it would be stopped. It is as simple as that. 

The Hon. Peter Breen's bill proposes increased penalties for exhibiting and selling the perverse and unsavoury films presently refused classification. It proposes penalty increases for those who peddle films involving bestiality, child sex abuse and so forth. Most people agree with that proposition, but we do not need to legalise Commonwealth-classified X-rated films to achieve that effect. The main effect of this bill is not to stop the already illegal trade in such films; the real effect is to legalise and encourage the spread of X-rated films. We do not need this bill at all. What we need is for the present law to be enforced. We need the shackles to be taken off the police and for them to locate this illegal material, which I am sure they can do with the ease demonstrated by the Hon. Peter Breen. We need the police to confiscate this material and prosecute those who break the law by exhibiting and selling it. 

Stephen Conroy

Vic Federal
Member of the Senate
Labor Party

In March 2006 the Australian Labor Party announced that if elected it would attempt to censor the internet. As the Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology, it has been up to Stephen Conroy to explain how this would work.

A Beazley Labor Government will give peace of mind to parents concerned about their kids' exposure to violent and pornographic material on the internet.

Under Labor, all Internet Service Providers will be required to offer a filtered "clean feed" internet service to all households, and to schools and other public internet points accessible by kids.

Labor's "clean feed" system would prevent users from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, including sites containing child pornography, acts of extreme violence or cruelty, and X-rated material.

Only Labor understands the concerns of parents who want their kids to access the internet without exposure to pornography and violence.

John Howard has had ten long years to address these concerns but instead he just defends a failing system of regulation which doesn't do enough, by advising parents to "do it themselves" with internet filter software.

The reality is that cost and poor computer literacy mean almost two-thirds of parents don't have internet filters on their family computers.

This is not good enough when research suggests that the exposure of children and others in the community to this sickening content can lead to aggression towards women and child abuse.

Under the current law prohibited content can be removed from the internet if it is based in Australia, but around 85 per cent of prohibited content, like child pornography, is located offshore.

Governments can and should do more to stop extreme Internet content from getting into Australian homes and being accessed by kids.

Through an opt-out system, adults who still want to view currently legal content would advise their ISP that they want to opt out of the "clean feed", and would then face the same regulations which currently apply.

Last year a Government report confirmed that the technology to implement mandatory filtering by ISPs is feasible and won't slow the internet down.

Leading telecommunications companies overseas like British Telecom and Telenor are already employing this technology.

Labor recognises the introduction of this filtering will impose costs on Internet Service Providers. We will work with industry to ensure this service is provided at no extra cost to the householder. We will ensure that the costs of providing a clean feed are shared fairly and competition is not adversely affected, particularly for small providers.

This proposal should be part of a multi-pronged attack on illegal content. Last year, Labor called for a subsidy for a family's purchase of internet filtering software - a good idea ignored by the Howard Government.

Labor would also look to put extra resources into the Net Alert program to promote internet safety for kids and parents and strengthen ties with international law enforcement to bring publishers of illegal content to justice.

An out of touch Howard Government's ignorance of kitchen table issues like these is letting Australian parents down.

The Labor Government I lead will give peace of mind to mums and dads when it comes to violent and pornographic images no child should see.

***

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Internet Safety Question Senator CONROY (2.54 p.m.)—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?

Answer Senator COONAN—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 seems 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)

Question Senator CONROY—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 of 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?

Answer Senator COONAN—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.

***

Quoted from:
Pressure builds for censorship. The Australian 28.03.06

Opposition IT spokesman Stephen Conroy said Government research showed the blacklist ISP filtering system that Labor had proposed would have had minimal impact on network performance.

"In 2004, the Government received independent advice that ISP filtering to remove blacklisted sites would take just 10 milliseconds and that this delay is generally not noticeable to the user," Senator Conroy said.

"The Government should stop making excuses and do all in its power to prevent children from being exposed to prohibited internet content."

***

Wednesday 12 April 2006

Coonan out of touch on porn filtering

Labor welcomes the announcement that two Internet Service Providers in Tasmania will soon begin trialling a service which filters out pornographic and violent material.

The trial comes just weeks after the Minister, Senator Coonan dismissed Labor's plan to require ISP filtering as too expensive and claimed that it would slow down the internet.

International experience from Britain, Norway and Sweden demonstrates that ISP filtering is feasible and can be provided at no extra cost to the consumer.

It is two years since the Government received advice from an independent expert that the kind of ISP filtering advocated by Labor would cause a delay of only 10 milliseconds and would not generally be noticeable by the end user.

For too long Senator Coonan has made excuses for her failure to act.

She continues to blame parents and says that they should purchase filters for their computers.

The Minister ignores the reality that for reasons of cost and or computer literacy, two-thirds of households do not use these filters.

The Government's flawed regime leaves children in these households completely exposed to disturbing internet content.

Labor is concerned that after the trial is finished families will be asked to pay for the filtered service.

Labor believes that all Australian families are entitled to a clean internet feed at no extra cost.

62 members of the Government's backbench support Labor's policy of mandatory ISP filtering. Senator Coonan's failure to act on this important issue shows that she is out of touch, not only with the concerns of Australian families, but also with her coalition colleagues.

***

The following speakers are:
Steven Conroy - Labor Party
Helen Coonan - Liberal Party -Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Kate Lundy - Labor Party
Michael Ronaldson - Liberal Party

Senator CONROY—I want to ask a few questions about Telstra’s approach to protecting children from extreme pornographic and violent material on the internet. I understand that Telstra offers its customers PC based filters at cost price; is that correct?

Talk Mr Quilty—Correct.

Talk Senator CONROY—How much do these filters typically cost to customers? What is the price range?

Talk Mr Mullane—The NetNanny filter is about $54.

Talk Senator CONROY—I think NetNanny is around $55. Can you advise the committee what proportion of Bigpond customers have taken up these filters?

Talk Mr Mullane—I would have to take that on notice, but it is not a high percentage.

Talk Senator CONROY—What about the kids in those households where parents have not installed a filter to their PC?

Talk Mr Mullane—I would expect that the parents would be operating some form of parental supervision. There is also quite a lot of information about what to be aware of with children using the internet.

Talk Senator CONROY—So at present Telstra does not provide kids in these households with any protection from exposure to things like child pornography and violent sex sites?

Talk Senator RONALDSON—With the greatest of respect to Mr Mullane, it is a bit hard for him to say what is happening in households without filters.

Talk Senator CONROY—I asked about what Telstra was doing.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—The question before. There could be a wide variety—

Talk Senator CONROY—This is just straight-up interference in—

Talk Senator RONALDSON—I think we need to—

Talk Senator CONROY—Mr Mullane is answering the questions perfectly competently—

Talk Senator RONALDSON—The question needs to be—

Talk CHAIR—We are probably drifting away from technological sorts of answers into sociological ones.

Talk Senator CONROY—I am asking what Telstra is doing. Cut it out.

Talk CHAIR—I am not really sure that is Telstra’s responsibility, but there you are. If you wish to answer, please proceed.

Talk Mr Mullane—Telstra is making information available to its customers and we are providing filters for those customers that desire to access those. We operate in close conjunction with the Internet Industry Association and the codes of conduct that they recommend their members follow. The ACMA has done some analysis of what is going on in the industry in this regard, and Telstra Bigpond was given a tick on all counts. Basically, this is an issue where Telstra’s position is that we are very happy to go to great lengths to advise our customers what they should be aware of. We recently emailed all of our customers about dangers to internet users and what sorts of steps they need to be aware of and to take. I think there was a mail-out to 2.3 million customers quite recently. We will continue to adopt those sorts of proactive approaches.

Talk Senator CONROY—A remarkably non-technical answer there, and quite detailed I thought, Senators Eggleston and Ronaldson. You may be aware there is a trial of ISP filtering to be held in Tasmania at the end of July. I understand that Telstra does not intend to participate in this trial; is that correct?

Talk Mr Mullane—That is correct.

Talk Senator CONROY—Can you explain why?

Talk Mr Mullane—We fundamentally believe that the protection achieved through PC based filtering is much more effective than any network based approach. The PC based approach can actually be configured to suit the particular situation that exists and the customer’s requirements. It can block other services, not just web based content—so chat rooms, news services, peer-to-peer types of traffic. In fact, the PC based filters are quite difficult to circumvent. On the other hand, ISP web based filtering only blocks out particular web pages. It is a sort of one-size-fits-all approach and it does require a large amount of processing power, particularly for large ISP operations. It has the potential to degrade network performance. We are concerned about the scalability of this for a large operation like Bigpond. I think the overriding issue that we will have, or the area of concern, would be that it would lead to a false sense of security for our customers. They would think that everybody is going to be now safe because we have undertaken this activity and, as I say, it does not—

Talk Senator CONROY—Is there a suggestion that, accompanying this, nothing else would happen—you would stop selling the filters, you would stop writing to them explaining the dangers? You would just automatically do that as well, would you?

Talk Mr Mullane—There could be a tendency for customers to form that impression themselves.

Talk Senator CONROY—Not if you wrote to them and told them it was not sufficient.

Talk Mr Mullane—Yes, but we—

Talk Senator CONROY—Like you are doing with the filter.

Talk Mr Mullane—Exactly. You cannot make customers’ minds up for them. You can inform them. We would not want customers to be of the opinion that their household was fully protected.

Talk Senator CONROY—To use your own description, you said that the number of people who have taken up filters was on a ‘small scale’.

Talk Mr Mullane—By their choice.

Talk Senator CONROY—So a small number have taken up the—

Talk Mr Mullane—A small percentage, I would say.

Talk Senator CONROY—A small percentage? Yes, that would be a small number.

Talk Mr Mullane—Not necessarily.

Talk Senator CONROY—So the overwhelming majority, the vast majority, of children do not have any protection and Telstra is not interested in assisting in the process—

Talk Mr Mullane—No.

Talk Senator CONROY—of protecting children from child pornography?

Talk Mr Mullane—I think all the answers I have just given would not lead to agreement with that.

Talk Senator CONROY—The proponents of the trial think they can do a bit better than the current filters. They are not advocating doing away with filters; they are not advocating with the other arms of your policy. Why not be in it and see if it adds an enhanced protection for children?

Talk Mr Mullane—We are not persuaded that it has sufficient merit for the size of Bigpond’s operations.

Talk Senator CONROY—Is ISP filtering just bad for business?

Talk Mr Mullane—People are interested in purchasing internet services for a very wide range of reasons, and they do so in significant numbers. I think filtering is a very important part of what customers are able to access and we will continue to make sure they are well aware of it.

Talk Senator CONROY—Would it reduce traffic over your network if you filtered? Would it be bad for business and would customers would leave?

Talk Mr Mullane—Let me put it this way. Spam is another thing that is perhaps not so great for business. We are filtering out something like 24 million emails a day that are from spam related sources. That is a very high percentage of traffic. It is bad for business. We do not like it. We wish it was not there, but it is. It is there and it is a fact of life.

Talk Senator CONROY—Have you made any estimate of what proportion of the traffic over the internet is porn?

Talk Mr Mullane—No. I have not.

Talk Senator CONROY—No figures at all?

Talk Mr Mullane—I do not have it here, but—

Talk Senator CONROY—If I said to you that I have heard statements that the two biggest items on the net are gambling and porn, would that be a surprise to you?

Talk Mr Mullane—I am not sure. I have not thought about it.

Talk Senator CONROY—No idea?

Talk Mr Mullane—Spam is pretty big, too.

Talk Senator CONROY—No, but spam coming in is something that you do not want. These are things people are going out and getting.

Talk Mr Mullane—I do not have a view on that. If you would like me to see if Telstra has a view on it, I could take that question on notice.

Talk Senator CONROY—No. I was asking if there was a factual issue here, not for a review—

Talk Mr Mullane—I do not have information to that extent, but I can—

Talk Senator CONROY—Is anyone else in Telstra familiar with this?

Talk Mr Quilty—If you look at the most frequently visited web sites, which are sometimes published, I think you usually find that NineMSN, ABC and of course Sensis are usually up the top. We can provide more detail on that, I am sure.

Talk Senator CONROY—Thank you. In the UK, BT offers a clean feed to its customers. Why does Telstra not offer its customers a service that blocks access to these illegal sites identified by ACMA?

Talk Mr Quilty—I think we do make sure that those sites that are blocked by ACMA are blocked by our filters.

Talk Mr Mullane—If any sites are given a take-down notice, we will take them down immediately. We certainly comply with all the requirements.

Talk Senator CONROY—BT reckons it has blocked 30,000 web pages that contain these sorts of offensive, violent and child pornographic images. Do you block these 30,000 websites or are they available through Telstra?

Talk Mr Mullane—I would have to get the numbers. I suspect not, but let us get the numbers.

Talk Senator CONROY—You do not block any. I know it sounds silly, but you are not blocking anything.

Talk Mr Quilty—We certainly take down—

Talk Mr Mullane—We take down—

Talk Senator CONROY—They are Australian sites. These are 30,000 overseas sites. BT blocks them, but they are available through Telstra.

Talk Mr Mullane—I would have to have more details of those.

Talk Senator CONROY—Is this not a case where you are just doing the minimum that the government requires you to do?

Talk Mr Quilty—I know we are fully complying with the law. I also presume that the filters made available to a PC level would block a significant proportion of the objectionable content.

Talk Mr Mullane—Absolutely, very much so. It is our position that the filters are the way to go, and anyone who has concerns can get a filter.

Talk Senator CONROY—I am voicing a few at the moment. BT did this off their own bat. The government did not make them. BT did not need the government to increase regulation or suggest it. They just did it off their own bat. But there is an extra option here to protect children from these sorts of child pornographic images and violent depictions, and Telstra are just sitting there saying, ‘No, we are not going to do anything about it,’ when there is an extra step you could take by participating in this. Is Telstra happy to be used for child porn?

Talk Mr Mullane—I would not agree with that description.

Talk Mr Quilty—Certainly not.

Talk Senator CONROY—Why do you not block these 30,000 sites?

Talk Mr Mullane—For a start, I have only got your word that that is happening.

Talk Senator CONROY—No, it is quoted in an article in the Herald Sun, Saturday, 15 April 2006, page 10, Weekend section, ‘The evil trade’.

Talk Mr Mullane—I am quite happy to go away and assess what Telstra’s own views on that sort of information is.

Talk Senator CONROY—Minister, you have said you are interested in seeing the results of the Tasmanian trial.

Talk Senator Coonan—Yes.

Talk Senator CONROY—Are you disappointed that Telstra has refused to take part in it, given you are interested in the outcome?

Talk Senator Coonan—I would expect that the people participating in the trial would be capable of seeing whether this technology will work and I am vitally interested in whether or not it can work and will work, and will act if it does.

Talk Senator CONROY—Are you disappointed that Telstra does not want to participate in this trial, given that you have raised concerns about these issues?

Talk Senator Coonan—That is a matter for Telstra.

Talk Senator CONROY—It is a matter for you to have an opinion on.

Talk Senator Coonan—It is entirely a matter for Telstra.

Talk Senator CONROY—You do not have an opinion on whether Telstra should participate in a trial that could block child porn sites?

Talk Senator Coonan—That is a matter for Telstra. If they wish to do so, of course they can.

Talk Senator CONROY—You are one of the two shareholding ministers.

Talk Senator Coonan—Excuse me, Senator Conroy, let me answer the question. The trial, I understand, will trial the technology. That is the purpose of it. Whether Telstra participates or not is a matter for them.

Talk Senator CONROY—You are currently one of the two designated ministers under the legislation who acts as a 51 per cent owner of Telstra. So it is not just a matter for Telstra’s management. It is actually a matter for the owners of Telstra, which at the moment is you. So as the owner of Telstra are you comfortable—

Talk Senator Coonan—The objective of the test is to trial the technology. If it is trialled by people who participate in it and you get an answer, that is the objective.

Talk Senator CONROY—You do not think it would be helpful for Telstra to be—

Talk Senator Coonan—Not to require every ISP provider to participate.

Talk Senator CONROY—It is not every; it is just Telstra. You own it. You control it. If you told them to do it—

Talk Senator Coonan—Senator Conroy, I cannot understand why you wish to engage in this sort of argumentative nonsense. The objective here is to trial the technology, and I am satisfied it will be trialled.

Talk Senator CONROY—Have you made any representations to Telstra that they should participate in the trials?

Talk Senator Coonan—I do not make representations to Telstra.

Talk Senator CONROY—I know they do not talk to you, but you could put out a press statement.

Talk Senator Coonan—This is argumentative crap. Stop it, Senator Conroy, and get on with something sensible.

Talk Senator CONROY—You do have the power to direct them to participate, do you not?

Talk Senator Coonan—I would not be directing Telstra to do something like that.

Talk Senator CONROY—No, I said you have the power.

Talk Senator Coonan—It is not necessary. I do not have to have Telstra participating to achieve the objective.

Talk Senator CONROY—Do you have the power to direct them?

Talk Senator Coonan—You know what is in the act.

Talk Senator CONROY—Section 9 of the Telstra act.

Talk Senator Coonan—I am not going to engage in this any further. If you want to continue to ask Telstra questions, please do.

Talk Senator CONROY—If you want to run away from issues to do with child pornography, that is fine.

Talk Senator Coonan—I do not run away from it.

Talk Senator CONROY—It will be on the public record that you are running away.

Talk Senator Coonan—Labor’s clean feed is an absolute cop-out and you know it. It is not going to achieve what the government hopes to achieve with trialling this technology. We wish to proceed in a way that we will get the very best outcome, not some half-baked one.

Talk Senator CONROY—I thought you just said a minute ago that if it worked you would act?

Talk Senator Coonan—It is being trialled.

Talk Senator CONROY—I thought you just said if it works you would act?

Talk Senator Coonan—It is being trialled.

Talk CHAIR—I think it would be a good idea to move on, Senator Conroy.

Talk Senator CONROY—Thanks for your advice as always, Chair, but I get to decide my own questions per the rules of the Senate.

Talk CHAIR—Just helpful advice.

Talk Senator Coonan—Can I just say something.

Talk Senator CONROY—Senator Ronaldson got to ask nine times the same question to Mr Mullane and Mr Jennings. I have asked three and I have to move on. You sat there on your hands and shut up while Senator Ronaldson asked the same question nine times.

Talk CHAIR—This seems to be going around in circles.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—You got an answer and I did not, so that is entirely different.

Talk Senator CONROY—No, I just got abuse and was told it was ‘crap’ by the minister.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—It was.

Talk Senator CONROY—I did not know that was parliamentary, by the way.

Talk Senator Coonan—Mr Chairman, I—

Talk Senator CONROY—Is that parliamentary?

Talk Senator LUNDY—Only when the minister says it, it seems. How about a bit more impartiality.

Talk CHAIR—It is in the Oxford Dictionary, so we should proceed.

Talk Senator CONROY—The message is ‘crap’ is parliamentary now.

Talk Senator Coonan—Mr Chairman, could I answer. What I have been advised is that one of the limitations of clean feed—and by no means are they comprehensive—is that it cannot block all forms of content. It is very doubtful that this system can scale to cover the whole range of pornography on the net. There is an inability for it to be able to analyse and block web sites based on some of the more sophisticated techniques, such as skin tones. As soon as a website has been identified and put on the list, the providers of the site simply change their host and get around it. It certainly cannot protect children from offensive material on email and it certainly provides no help for them using chat rooms. I might add to this—

Talk Senator CONROY—That is—

Talk Senator Coonan—No, since you have raised it, Senator Conroy, you just sit there and listen. And the really important issue here is that parents should not be misled that a clean feed would provide the kind of protection that they think they are getting. I have always said that I think it is very important that we do not jump to conclusions about this, that we trial it. If it works, it provides a whole different range of ways for the government to be able to do it. I want the most effective result, not just some half-baked result that gives parents some reassurance that they are not entitled to have.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Policy on the run again.

Talk Senator LUNDY—Whose—the government’s policy?

Talk Senator RONALDSON—No, yours.

Talk Senator CONROY—Firstly, your system does not provide protection for at least two-thirds of households that do not have a filter. Secondly, I am just interested if all of those alleged shortcomings of a clean feed are covered off by your filters. Do your filters cover off on all of those issues just raised?

Talk Senator Coonan—Yes, they actually do.

Talk Senator CONROY—Cover off on all of them?

Talk Senator Coonan—They actually do.

Talk Senator CONROY—People do not change their names and get around them?

Talk Mr Mullane—They can be reconfigured as soon as there is another breach.

Talk Senator CONROY—Really!

Talk Mr Mullane—They are very effective.

Talk Senator Coonan—The most that—

Talk Senator CONROY—So people do not change their names, find ways around your filter? Parents can rest assured that, once they have your filter, that is it?

Talk Senator Coonan—They certainly have greater assurance with an experience that they can control in their own homes. It is certainly not perfect. No-one has ever claimed it has been. It is the best we have got at the moment, but that does not mean to say that we do not continue to look for a better response. That is precisely what I am trying to do.

Talk Senator CONROY—If you want the headlines ‘Telstra soft on child porn’, Mr Quilty, that is fine.

Talk Senator Coonan—I think that is a very unfair conclusion and I do not for a minute think that that is appropriate.

Talk Senator CONROY—Because, of course, you would never tell a mistruth and your reputation is really important. You have been stressing that all day.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Chair, are the estimates allowed to be used for the Labor Party to try and push a flawed policy? Is that the way it normally works?

Talk CHAIR—As I said, I think it would be helpful to move on, Senator Conroy.

Talk Senator CONROY—It is the minister that jumped back in. I was about to—

Talk CHAIR—I do not think we really are getting anywhere and it is—

Talk Senator CONROY—I was about to move on.

Talk CHAIR—degenerating into interpersonal comments. So let us proceed.

Talk Senator CONROY—I was not the one accusing someone of crap.

Talk CHAIR—If the cap fits.

Talk Senator CONROY—Okay. Let us be clear about the partiality of the chair. That is a disgraceful comment. You did not want to bring the minister into line and now you have added to it, but I will survive.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—We have lots of stuff to get on with.

Talk Senator CONROY—You are the one sitting there pretending you are an impartial chair. Just do not bother in the future.

Talk Senator Coonan—Can we move on, please, Mr Chair.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—He is being an impartial chair. It is a reflection of—

Talk CHAIR—My interest is simply to see the—

Talk Senator CONROY—It is certainly not an impartial chairing, that is for sure. It demonstrated that.

Talk CHAIR—estimates progress, so let us proceed to the next comment.

Talk Senator Coonan—Just because I am not a fan of clean feed, Senator Conroy, does not mean that we cannot move on.

Talk Senator CONROY—You are the one that said ‘crap’ ideas. You are the one tossing around the profanities.

Talk Senator Coonan—I have given very comprehensive reasons why I think that it misleads parents as to how effective it can be, and I have also—

Talk Senator CONROY—It is no more misleading than your belief in—

Talk Senator Coonan—given an absolute assurance to parents—

Talk Senator CONROY—filters and nothing else.

Talk Senator Coonan—that the government will act, whenever we think it is appropriate, to protect children. It is something that we take very seriously.

Talk CHAIR—That is a very clear, rational statement, so let us now proceed.

***

MEDIA STATEMENT 
Senator Stephen Conroy Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate Shadow Minister for Communications And Information Technology 
14 June 2006 

Australian families deserve better than Coonan's empty rhetoric on net porn 

Senator Coonan's address at the press club today confirmed that the Government is still unwilling to do all that it can to protect Australian families from damaging images of violence and extreme pornography Many parents are rightly concerned about the ease with which their children are able to use the internet to access harmful content In March, Kim Beazley announced that Labor would require all internet service providers to offer parents, schools and libraries a clean feed that would block out this dangerous material. International experience from Britain, Norway and Sweden demonstrates that ISP filtering is feasible. Clean Feed is essential additional layer of protection for Australian children. Under Labor's policy, clean feed is part of a comprehensive package to address the dangers of illegal internet content. Labor supports greater parental education, the use of pc based filters and more resources being allocated to law enforcement to combat this growing problem. The Government's reliance on pc based filtering ignores the fact that two thirds of households don’t have these filters installed on their family computer. The Government's flawed regulatory regime does nothing to protect children in these homes. Senator Coonan's intransigence on this issue puts her at odds with more than 60 members of her backbench who support Labor's policy of mandatory ISP filtering. The fact that Senator Coonan today arrogantly dismissed her colleagues views as being 'not well informed' shows just how out of touch she is with her backbench and the Australian people. Senator Coonan needs to swallow her pride and adopt Labor's clean feed policy. There are no excuses for the Government's failure to do all that it can to protect Australian families from offensive and harmful internet content. 

***

MEDIA STATEMENT 
Senator Stephen Conroy Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
3 July 2006 
Big Brother: Channel Ten should not profit from alleged sexual assault 

The recent allegations of sexual misconduct on Big Brother leave Channel Ten with a duty to try and fix the damage it has done to public perceptions of appropriate behaviour towards women. 

Channel Ten should do the responsible thing and donate the advertising revenue from the shows associated with this incident and the remaining $275,000 contestant’s prize pool to a body dedicated to preventing this type of behaviour (like the Centre Against Sexual Assault, a body associated with the Royal Women’s Hospital). 

Given that Channel Ten has played a part in promoting inappropriate conduct towards women, it can take the lead in combating this type of behaviour. 

It would be obscene for Channel Ten to try to profit from alleged criminal behaviour on Big Brother by staging a ‘special’ show to hear the alleged perpetrator’s side of the incident. 

Scheduling such a show for commercial gain would be the basest form of opportunism on the part of the network. 

It would be bad enough if these allegations were a one off. 

However, what makes this alleged conduct completely unacceptable is the fact that this is the second strike for Big Brother. 

It is clear that the current format of the show promotes alcohol fuelled inappropriate behaviour towards women. This needs to change immediately.

The object of Australia’s television codes of practice is to protect Australian families and children from exposure to this kind of potentially criminal conduct. 

If Australia’s laws can't prevent an alleged sexual assault on a prime time television shows there is clearly something very wrong.

***

MEDIA STATEMENT 
Senator Stephen Conroy Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
5 July 2006 

Big Brother: ACMA Powers need to be strengthened

The report by the Australian Communications and Media Authority on Big Brother exposes another major hole in the government's regime for regulating internet content.

The effect of ACMA's advice to the Minister was that the vision of the disturbing incident that occurred on Saturday and was streamed on the Internet is not subject to regulation.

This is a finding that will concern millions of Australian parents.

Labor welcomes the Minister's promises to address this deficiency and to review the commercial television code of practice.

The Minister has failed however to ensure that the regulator is armed with appropriate powers to enforce industry codes of practice.

Nearly two years ago the regulator warned the Minister that the remedies available under the Broadcasting Services Act were inadequate.

Senator Coonan's failure to act means that codes of practice are not effectively enforced.

Any changes to the law will be just window dressing unless ACMA is given the power to uphold community standards of decency.

Channel 10 needs to get the message from this episode that the community is not prepared to tolerate programs which denigrate women and expose them to the risk of assault for the purpose of entertainment.

The current format of Big Brother is a ticking time bomb. If Ten continues to put young people in these situations it is only a matter of time before a contestant suffers serious harm.

If Ten won't act to address community concern, then the Parliament should.

***

Quoted from:
Big Brother incident prompts review of broadcast laws. ABC Radio National 05.07.06

STEPHEN CONROY: Nearly two years ago the regulator warned the minister that the remedies available, under the Broadcasting Services Act, were inadequate. That's two years ago.

And Helen Coonan and John Howard have sat back and done nothing, and now it's come to this.

***

Quoted from:
Big Brother stays on - smut and all. The Advertiser. 06.07.06

Stephen Conroy, said any changes to the law would be "window dressing" unless ACMA was given greater powers. "The current format of Big Brother is a ticking time bomb," he said. A Network Ten spokeswoman said the millions of Australians who regularly watched Big Brother "have decided they want the show to stay on air". "We agree with them," she said. "While few programs will be to everyone's taste, in a free democracy, a program that meets all relevant laws and is popular with vast numbers of viewers should be allowed to be on television."

***

Petition: Information Technology: Internet Content

Date: 19 October, 2006 
Database: Senate Hansard
Presenter: Senator Conroy 
Page: 1
Proof: Yes 
Source: Senate
Type: Petition 
Context: Petitions

The internet is a great educational tool. However children can too easily access pictures of violent cruelty and extreme pornography on the internet. Labor wants a “clean feed” technology that can block access to these kinds of sites.

To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate, the danger of children accessing internet pornography and other internet pages.

Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to make laws that:

All internet service providers be required to offer a “clean feed” internet service to all households, schools and public libraries that blocks access to websites containing child pornography, acts of extreme violence and x-rated material. 

by Senator Conroy (from 20,646 citizens)

***

Stephen Conroy 
Senator for Victoria 
Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate 
Shadow Minister for Communications & Information Technology
Media Release
Thursday, 18 October 2006

Australians back Labor's plan to clean up the internet

In March, Kim Beazley announced that a Labor Government would require all Internet Service Providers to offer a 'clean feed ' internet service to all households, schools and public libraries that would block access to websites identified as containing child pornography, acts of extreme violence and x-rated material.

In the Senate today, I tabled a petition signed by more than 20,000 Australians endorsing Labor's policy.

This petition was circulated after the Government announced in June that it would offer households PC based filters for installation on home computers.

Labor supports this initiative but the fact is that it does not go far enough.

Two-thirds of households do not have any filtering software installed on their home computers.

Labor believes that the Government should do everything within its power to protect our kids from exposure to damaging internet content

The petition that I tabled today clearly shows that this view is widely shared in the Australian community.

As a result of the existing complaints system, the Internet regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority has identified thousands of internet websites containing illegal content such as child pornography that are hosted overseas based websites.

The technology is available that would allow access to these websites to be blocked in every Australian household.

This technology is already in use in countries like Britain, Sweden and Norway.

John Howard and Helen Coonan need to explain to Australian parents why they refuse to require ISPs to block access to these disturbing sites.

Labor is committed to using all tools at its disposal to protect Australian children from exposure to harmful internet content.

***

Glenn Milne's article in The Australian shows that the 20,000 signatures did not show 

".....that this view is widely shared in the Australian community."

What it does show is that the view is shared by those who attend Church.

Quoted from:
Liberals must catch up on climate change. The Australian 23.10.06

There was a lot of common ground between Labor and the Christian lobby. Labor shadow ministers discussed the work it has done, particularly in the areas of: schools funding, our internet clean-feed petition -- 20,000 petitions gathered through churches (via Stephen Conroy's office),

***

During the November 2006 Senate Estimates,  Conroy questioned SBS managing director, Shaun Brown, about the episode of SOUTH PARK that features Steve Irwin.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Special Broadcasting Service Corporation: Discussion
Date: 30 October, 2006 
Committee name: STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Department: Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Program Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
Page: 3 
Proof: Yes
Database: Estimates Comm. 
Source: Senate

Talk Senator CONROY—Fantastic. Congratulations. Before I move on to a couple of other areas in sport, I did notice that there was some publicity—and I note you have already mentioned South Park once today—and that there is some controversy around a forthcoming South Park episode to do with a betrayal of Steve Irwin?

Talk Mr Brown—Yes, I do not know much about that one. The South Park I was referring to was one of a previous series called ‘Bloody Mary’. I only know what I have read in the newspaper briefly about it. It is not something that is subject to an offer from SBS at this stage.

Talk Senator CONROY—Sorry, ‘it is not something that’?

Talk Mr Brown—It is not something that is subject to any sort of contract with SBS at this stage. The series that is going into America is still a year or so away from even being shown to us for consideration. So I could not indicate our view on that.

Talk Senator CONROY—Is good taste an SBS criteria—or bad taste is not?

Talk Mr Brown—It is a very vexed question in terms of comedy, because satirical comedy is almost inevitably in bad taste—bad taste used for effect. That is not to say that we are not sensitive to points where we believe a line may be overstepped.

***

Quoted from:
ISP-level filters 'unworkable' SMH 10.08.07

"We have an opt-out provision, so for X-rated [content] they can opt out, but for child porn and violent sites, they're completely blocked, there's no opt-out," Senator Conroy said.

***

Stephen Conroy
Media Release
Opposition communications spokesman
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Labor to lead on cyber-safety

Federal Labor will provide ISP (Internet Service Provider) filtering for all Australian homes, schools and public computers – under its Cyber-Safety policy announced this week.

This follows the recent high profile case of a 16 year-old student, Tom Wood who was able to bypass the Federal Government's $84 million PC filters in a mere 30 minutes.

Federal Labor supports Government initiatives to combat online threats, and believes that governments must do all they can to protect children from inappropriate material on the internet.

The Howard Government has become complacent and its Internet safety policies are inadequate.

As the online world evolves, government policy must be responsive.

Our children also need to be better equipped to deal with emerging online threats, such as cyber-bullying, invasion of privacy, and computer addiction.

Federal Labor will improve existing government programs in this area by:

Providing a mandatory 'clean feed' internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children, so that ISPs will filter out content identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA 'blacklist' will also be made more comprehensive to ensure that children are protected from harmful and inappropriate online material;

Providing children with age-appropriate online cyber-safety resources and making sure teachers are skilled in cyber-safety;

Establishing a Youth Advisory Group (YAG) to ensure that the Government is kept up-to-date with issues that affect children online;

Undertaking further research into cyber-safety issues in Australia to determine where best to target future policy and funding in this area; and

Establishing a permanent Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee to investigate and report on cyber-safety in Australia.

A Rudd Labor Government will transform cyber-safety in Australia by providing Australian children, teachers and parents with a first-class cyber-safety education and by providing new forums in which cyber-safety issues will be raised and addressed.

You can view Labor's complete policy on cyber safety at www.alp.org.au

***

In November 2007 Labor was elected to government and Conroy became Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. He announced Labor's promised internet censorship proposals on December 31st 2007.

Quoted from:
Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children abc.net.au 31.12.07

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," he said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.

He says the Government will work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet.

"There are people who are going to make all sorts of statements about the impact on the [internet] speed," he said.

"The internet hasn't ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn't ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it's not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe.

"But that is why we are engaged constructively with the sector, engaging in trials to find a way to implement this in the best possible way and to work with the sector."

***

Quoted from:
Onus on providers to clean up web content. news.com.au 31.12.07

....Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said everything possible had to be done to shield children from violent and pornographic online material.

"We have always argued more needs to be done to protect children," he said.

Senator Conroy said the clean feed, also known as mandatory ISP filtering, would prevent users from accessing prohibited content.

"We will work with the industry to get the best policy," he said. "(But) Labor is committed to introducing mandatory ISP filtering."

Senator Conroy said the Australian Communications and Media Authority would prepare a "blacklist" of unsuitable sites

***

Spokesman for Stephen Conroy's Office Quoted from:
Conroy wades into child porn net flood. The Australian 08.01.08

BROADBAND Minister Stephen Conroy faces an uphill struggle in his plans to increase internet censorship by boosting the official blacklist from a puny 1000 web pages to many millions of banned websites.

Senator Conroy's office is, however, not deterred.

"Admittedly, it will be difficult, but that's the intention," Senator Conroy's spokeswoman said yesterday. "Obviously there are many sites out there and they change their names. It's going to require a fairly vigilant monitoring system and it's not going to be 100 per cent foolproof."

Senator Conroy's spokeswoman said the blacklist would be expanded through liaison with the Australian Federal Police, and international agencies such as Interpol and the FBI. She said technical difficulties would be resolved in filtering trials being conducted by the ACMA in Tasmania. "We have a lot of experts coming to us saying, this can be done," she said.

"We'll be testing the best overseas models, the best advice and the best new technologies." 

Andrea Coote

Vic State
Member of the Legislative Council
Liberal Party
Electorate: Makin

Title CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL
House COUNCIL
Activity Second Reading
Members STRONG
Date 19 April 2005
Page 421

19 April 2005 COUNCIL

Page 421

Second reading

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) -- We should remember the delineation between classification and censorship when we are talking on this bill. It is salutary to look at the Oxford dictionary to see the difference between censorship and classification. It says censorship is 'the power to suppress or expurgate books, films, news, et cetera on the grounds of obscenity and the threat to security'. It says classification is 'to arrange in classes'. The purpose of this bill is not censorship. We have seen that from the contributions that have been made today, and those of us who have read the bill and understand it can see there is a lot of merit in it. Indeed it is important to address the current media; to address not just books, films and news but to have a look at what is the current scenario with the Internet, computer games and a whole range of multimedia that was not there in the past.

It is quite comical to remember some of the censorship issues of the past. It brings to mind Peter Rabbit.

We do not think of Peter Rabbit as being particularly bad, but he came under criticism for having all those bunnies running after each other, which was seen as having homosexual overtones and extremely concerning! Then we had Noddy and Big Ears, whose situation was seen as similar. Noddy and Big Ears were very bad examples to small children because once again that was

Page 428

a friendship that was not to be condoned. Not to be forgotten is Lady Chatterley's Lover, and of course the minute that was censored probably most of the people in this chamber raced off to read the explicit chapters. How harmless they seem today. I can remember being home from school once and turning on the television to watch the Loretta Young Show, which was rated AO. The Loretta Young Show had a serious amount of sex in it. Sex was absolutely out of the question; it was certainly not to be talked about at all, which is why it had an AO rating. It was very quickly switched off, and I was sent back to school the next day. However, it is very important for us to see how those things seemed at that time to be important. Today we are dealing with something quite different -- with very serious allegations, videos and Internet games et cetera.
I put on the record some of the things we are dealing with. In November 2002 the Age listed a number of video nasties. One of them was BMX XXX, in which players could choose to adopt the persona of a nude female rider. It was banned in 2002.

Then we have Grand Theft Auto III, which was banned in 2001. The first version of this game featured a scene in which the player could have sex with a prostitute, then bash and rob her. The game also involves breaking into cars and mowing down pedestrians. Then there is Postal Game, which was banned in 1997, in which players adopted the character of a crazed postal worker who kills those around him. The very first video game that was banned was Phantasmagoria in 1995, which featured a violent decapitation and other short but graphic scenes of violence. I think it makes Peter Rabbit look absolutely harmless! However, this is nothing to be humorous about, because it is actually very serious.

New Scientist deals with a number of issues regarding the correlation between watching violent video games and aggressive behaviour. I quote from an article by Hazel Muir in New Scientist of 23 October 2004:

In Manhunt, a first-person 3-D game, for instance, the gamer plays a convict retrieved from death row who shoots, beats to death or suffocates all acquaintances. The more grisly the execution, the greater the accolades earned. And in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, the gamer plays the part of an ex-con trying to recover cash lost in a botched drugs deal. The player mugs people, intimidates jurors and kills a prostitute.

And the violence is becoming more vivid as increases in computing power make the games look even more realistic.
We all recall the dreadful incidences of mass shoot-outs. For example, this New Scientist article talks about the April 2002 incident in Germany, when a 19-year-old ran amok with a pistol at a school. His 20-minute shooting frenzy left 17 people dead, including himself.

It also mentions how in April 1999 two teenagers rampaged through Columbine High School in Colorado with bombs, guns and knives, slaughtering 13 people before committing suicide.

This seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence, and there is increasingly more scientific evidence, to show the correlation between these violent video games and aggressive behaviour. It is therefore important to have a model and a framework whereby the rest of the community can understand what it is dealing with. The New Scientist article says:

Many studies have shown that people who play violent games regularly are more likely to show high levels of aggression. For instance, in 2000, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames and his colleague Karen Dill found that people who play violent games were more likely to admit to aggressive behaviour, including assaults or robberies.

An increasing amount of scientific evidence is coming through, and it is important for us as a community to understand what is involved with these games and what the opportunities are for our young people. The Internet is extremely difficult to contain, and video games show violence that most of us in here would be most unfamiliar with.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995. It incorporates the commonwealth amendments which created uniform classifications for films and computer games. It is important for the rest of us to understand what the classifications mean. My colleague the Honourable Chris Strong spoke at length about the various classifications and what they mean. We need to have a guide, we need to understand, we need to have somebody who is looking at the total package to understand what it is we are facing. I commend this bill for doing exactly that.

This bill also adopts International Labour Organisation Convention 182 amending definitions of 'objectionable film', 'objectionable publication' and 'objectionable material', making it illegal to describe or depict a person who is, or looks like, they are under 18 from engaging in an indecent sexual manner or context. It is important to have that very clearly summarised so that we understand what it is we are doing.

As I said, this bill refers to incorporating the commonwealth amendments. It is important to look at the explanatory memorandum from the bill that went through the House of Representatives in 2004, entitled Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2004. The summary of amendments is fairly lengthy, but I will read it because it is important to understand that this bill deals with

Page 429

those amendments. The summary of amendments on page 2 is:

The bill --
the federal bill --

will have the following effects:

validate board decisions made, both before and after the commencement of the amendments, on the basis of deficient or defective applications for classification by commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies ...

validate review board decisions made, both before and after the commencement of the amendments, on the basis of deficient or defective applications for review of a board decision, where the relevant board decision resulted from an application by a commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agency ...

validate any later decisions or actions taken by the board, the review board or the director under the classification act on the basis of the original board decision, or, as the case may be, review board decision ...
If we look at the federal bill we can see how thoroughly the issue was researched. The community can feel confident that the federal legislation is reflected in the bill we are dealing with today, and that the new scheme has been adequately examined and been given some guidelines.

The bill is an indication that Victoria is cooperating with the federal government and the other states and territories in dealing with what has become a very difficult, and in some instances a very dangerous, sort of industry and area.

We have some areas of concern, including the inability of a court to seize property which does not form part of the offence. The government should be regulating the sale of X 18+ material instead of sending the industry further underground, providing for the situation where there is an increased likelihood of exploitation without checks and balances.

The Liberal Party is not opposing this bill, and I believe there are some facets of it that are commendable. I believe the community will be better off having a clear definition of what these classifications are.

***

Asked the following question in the Legislative Council.

Title Arts: film and multimedia -- crude violence
House COUNCIL
Activity Questions on Notice
Members COOTE
Date 6 September 2005
Page 699

6 September 2005 COUNCIL

Page 699

Arts: film and multimedia -- crude violence

4847.

THE HON. ANDREA COOTE -- To ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for the Minister for the Arts): What regulations has the Minister for the Arts put in place to ensure that crude violence has been reduced in movies and multimedia in Victoria.

Page 700

ANSWER:
Film and computer game classification is dealt with Federally by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

Elizabeth Cunningham

Qld State
Member of Parliament
Independent
Electorate: Gladstone

Picked up on the campaign by the Religious Right to ban the films BIRTH and MYSTERIOUS SKIN. 

Queensland 51ST PARLIAMENT
TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2005

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill. In so doing, I want to put on the record some comments made to me by constituents not only in my electorate but also around Queensland. In particular, I want to speak on the changes to the Queensland classification legislation. The Commonwealth’s contribution to the National Classification Scheme stands on the Commonwealth act, which establishes the Classification Board and sets out procedures the Classification Board follows in making its classification decisions. It has a number of mechanisms which it uses to determine, after viewing films or games and the like, how those classifications will be applied. Under that National Classification Scheme, the states and territories take on the responsibility of enforcement of the classification decisions. We have our own set of classification legislation, but in terms of consistency it must complement the Commonwealth act. It is my understanding that these changes came about because the Commonwealth changed its classification system a year or so ago. This legislation sets out how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated in each state or territory. 

A number of constituents—and I add my support to their comments—have commended the Queensland government on changes that have been made and additional protection that has been given to children through the government’s various pieces of legislation in terms of the child safety department and Criminal Code changes. However, some of the recent decisions by the Classification Board have been contradictory and have undermined the hard work that has been done by the Queensland government in that regard. One person who contacted my office stated— 

The OFLC has given an MA rating to the new Nicole Kidman film ‘Birth'. This film concerns a widow, and a 10 year old boy who claims to be the reincarnation of her late husband. At one point, the film portrays the two in a bath together, naked, and while there they share a kiss ... One can imagine the delight of every paedophile at this portrayal of child pornography. About this scene, one reviewer said— 

and these are people used to seeing movies of all classifications— 

‘What is shown on-screen is a bold and clear representation of the double standard held between the sexes in Hollywood. Women are seldom thought of as paedophiles or molesters. It's generally not in the nature of a female human being. Imagine Robert De Niro sitting naked in a bathtub. Dakota Fanning walks in, looks at him ... and then strips ... to crawl into the tub with him. ... The message is clear: sexual relationships between adults and 10 year olds, as long as consent is there, is OK. The film has received mixed reviews, but as the star is seen as an acceptable role model for our young people, it is likely to have wide viewing. 

The film was given an MA tag. This writer and others have said that it should have received a much higher classification. The letter continues— 

... it will be seen by children, and eventually it will be available for home use on video. Our impressionable youth will therefore be thinking that this is acceptable: paedophiles and child-porn producers will be thinking up more ways to get child pornography accepted. 

Again, the writer and others commended the Labor government on its strengthening of protection for children but see these sorts of classifications by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as undermining the very strong moves that the government has made in an attempt to protect our children. The guidelines for the classification of films and computer games state that a film should be refused classification if it includes depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or looks like a child under 16. It is the contention of this and other writers that the film Birth gives that intention. I believe that people have written to the minister with those concerns. 

A further letter that I received related to a film called Mysterious Skin. It has been classified as R18+ by the Classification Board, but a minority of the board considers that it contravenes the classification guidelines for the R category so that classification should have been refused. This film was directed in the US. It deals with the experiences of two young boys who are sexually abused at the age of eight by their baseball coach. The concern that was expressed to me was that, even though there are some very explicit scenes and prolonged explicit scenes in this film, the Classification Board in Australia in this instance has given it a classification. Under the guidelines it should have been refused classification altogether. 

The reason I bring these concerns to the minister is that, whilst this legislation is being amended to reflect the federal legislation—and that is necessary for consistency—there are concerns in the community, and very valid concerns, about the work of the Classification Board itself. I would request that, if she has an opportunity to have input into that process, the minister raise these concerns of members of our community in relation to the undermining of the good work that is being done by the government here in terms of child protection by these sorts of decisions.

Quite often matters are brought to our attention by constituents, particularly parents, concerned about materials that are released and accessible by children. It is only a fairly recent thing that video games have been classified at all. Some of them are brutal. Some of them are extensively explicit and must have an effect on the psyche of children developing their values and attitudes. With regard to anything that we as a parliament can do to reinforce the work that we have been doing over the past few years, particularly in highlighting the value of our children—the value of the information that they have unfettered access to, a recognition of the fact that not all parents are vigilant and therefore some children do access material that they otherwise should not that perhaps in some homes would be put out of their reach and, one would hope, in many homes would not even be included in the home environment—and to bolster the minister’s work and the work of other ministers in this government to reinforce the protection of children, I am sure that we would be there right behind her supporting her. 

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com