Australian Internet Censorship Jan to Jun 2007

Kids bombarded by online porn as filter delayed. News.com.au 01.02.07

A $93 million plan to offer every household in Australia free internet filtering software was expected to be running by the end of last year.

But seven months after the announcement – billed as the "single biggest commitment" to protecting Australian families in the history of the internet – parents are still waiting to install the promised filters on their home computers. The filtering technology, which blocks X-rated sites and offensive words, was also to be installed at public libraries across Australia.

But a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Helen Coonan said the software would be available soon.

"These things have a long lead-in time," she said.

"We are finalising the portal and it should be ready in the first quarter of this year.

"It will be worth the wait. Every Australian family will be able to access a free internet filter that they can tailor to their own personal value judgments."

***

Internet raises Lib's ire. Courier Mail 02.02.07

ANTI-porn Liberal senator Guy Barnett will meet Communications Minister Helen Coonan next week amid mounting concern children are not being protected from offensive material on the internet.

Senator Barnett last year initiated a letter to Prime Minister John Howard, signed by more than 60 MPs, demanding stronger safeguards. But The Courier-Mail reported this week up to 2.5 million Australian families had been waiting seven months for the Government to deliver on a promise to provide free internet filtering software.

***

During the February 2007 Senate Estimates, Steve 'Happy Clapper' Fielding questioned the ACMA and Helen Coonan regarding internet filtering.

The other speakers are: 
Executive
Ms Helen Williams AO, Secretary 

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
Mr James Shaw, General Manager, Strategy, Analysis and Coordination 
Mr Chris Chapman, Chairman
Ms Nerida O’Loughlin, General Manager, Industry Outputs
Ms Andree Wright, Executive Manager, Codes, Content and Education
Ms Lyn Maddock, Deputy Chair

Content and Media 
Dr Simon Pelling, Acting Chief General Manager, Content and Media

Ian Macdonald, Liberal Senator for Queensland
Michael Ronaldson, Liberal Senator for Victoria

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion

Date: 12 February, 2007 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Page: 27 
Proof: Yes
Database: Estimates Comm.
Source: Senate

Senator FIELDING—There are some questions from the last estimates still outstanding. I was not here earlier this morning. Where are they?

Talk Mr Chapman—I am advised that we have completed our responses to those questions and forwarded them to the department.

Talk Ms Williams—As I said earlier today, there has been an iterative process between the agencies and the department and the office to make certain that they are correct. A lot went to the committee over the weekend when, understandably, the committee’s staff were not there. But they are on their way now. We hope to get all of those responses back to the committee this week. I apologise, on our part, for any lateness in that.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I appreciate the apology but it makes a mockery of the process of getting answers to questions. If they are in my in-tray today and I am here asking questions on some fairly important issues on behalf of Australian families and I do not have answers to the last lot, they are very hard to follow up. I appreciate the apology, but please—some of the questions that were there are pretty important. Some of the questions were: do all federal government-funded libraries have internet filters installed on their PCs to protect children from pornography content? Which libraries do and which libraries do not? If libraries do not have filters installed, what is the justification for this? I was going to follow up on some of these questions to find out where it is at. I do not know whether you have answered those questions, so I am missing an opportunity here to follow through a very important issue for most parents. Considering that there is library funding of some sort, I wonder if I can get an update now on that issue.

Talk Ms Williams—I will pass that across. Chris, you say that you have provided that answer.

Talk Mr Chapman—I am not sure if that was a question directed to the ACMA, but I am happy to take advice on that. Apparently it was a question directed to the ACMA. I understand that we have provided an answer, but I think it is caught up in the process.

Talk Senator FIELDING—What does ‘caught up in the process’ mean?

Talk Mr Chapman—I think it was submitted through the department, as these matters are. Maybe Mr Shaw can assist me.

Talk Mr Shaw—I believe that was one of the questions caught up in the iterative process that the secretary alluded to. We provided a response, but there has been a request for clarification on a couple of points. We are in the process of doing that.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Who has asked for the clarification?

Talk Mr Shaw—It came back from the department to the authority with the request for a couple of points to be clarified.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Was it the minister?

Talk Mr Shaw—I cannot tell you off the top of my head, I am sorry.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I know the issue of libraries having no filters installed has been on the front pages of quite a number of local papers within Victoria. The reason I asked the question was to hopefully progress this a bit further. It seems to me that zero, or very little, has happened, other than maybe wandering around about an answer. I asked the question specifically because this is a concern to Australian families. It is not a matter of whether it harms children or not; it does harm children. If there is funding to libraries from an Australian government at a federal level in any way, shape or form, it is more than reasonable to want to understand whether that funding should be tied to making sure that there are pornography filters on computers with the internet that kids can access with very little supervision, if any. It seems to me that you are paying lip service to this, and I am not happy.

Talk Mr Chapman—We do take it seriously. Ms O’Loughlin would perhaps like to cross the table this morning to talk to that point.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—As you are aware, under the government’s PAPO initiatives, there was an announcement by the minister to include measures to provide Australian libraries with free filters. That process is part of the National Filter Scheme and is being handled by the department.

I know this issue has been discussed between NetAlert and the library association to try to get a better understanding of this. As you will know, libraries fall under local government in some areas, state government in some areas and have occasional Commonwealth funding; it is a quite complex matrix we are trying to work through. NetAlert is working very hard with the libraries to get a better understanding of that and to ensure that, under the PAPO scheme, libraries will be taking up those free filters and installing them.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I notice that, quite rightly in some areas, the federal government has seen fit to look at the water issue and show initiative because there is this blame game between state and federal governments. Surely this very important issue is something that, at the federal level, we should be able to get the states together on. I think ACMA should take the lead role in making something happen on this issue. Families are sick and tired of waiting and hearing excuses. I am going to ask some questions in a moment about the $93 million plan to offer every household in Australia free internet filtering software, which the department seems to be stalling on.

It seems to me that there is a lack of leadership on this issue. This is a security issue for our children’s minds. It is not something we can afford to go soft on. The next generation of kids is coming through. The harmful effects of exposure to internet pornography are clear. It is not debatable; it is clear. It needs leadership, not stalling on how to answer questions in a politically polite way. We need action.

Talk Senator Coonan—In so far as this library issue that you have raised is an issue—and I agree it is—I have certainly written to state and territory counterparts and urged them to take advantage of the filter scheme. There is an opportunity at the next ministerial online council for us to have this matter discussed. I have certainly encouraged and will reiterate the need for all state and territory libraries to protect children by taking up the offer of free filters when they become available. They should be available in about May.

I note that libraries in the ACT and Tasmania already offer filtering on most of their computers. We will obviously follow that up. From the federal government’s perspective, we have made it abundantly clear that our position on library filtering is that all libraries should do this. The National Library, which is the only one under our current jurisdiction, is of course compliant. It is an important issue and it will be pursued.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I appreciate the minister sharing that. I understand that there is intent to make something happen. I suppose the real question is: if there is funding to libraries—there seems to be a lack of action from the libraries in either picking it up or moving forward with it—why would we not tie funding to making sure that filters are mandatory on their computers?

Talk Senator Coonan—It is very important to appreciate that, unlike other state and federal issues, we do not directly provide funding to libraries. But the whole issue of how these filters are provided will see a very significant change in take-up when they are available. The department can explain in more detail what steps are being taken to ensure that we get this right, that parents, or indeed the library, do not end up being offered a filter that does not work. The tenders have now been let. As I understand it, the design of the system is pretty well advanced. My colleagues in ACMA can certainly fill you in on the various steps that will be taken.

We will also, as part of this funding, have a very significant education campaign. I will be writing to every Australian family alerting them to the availability of the filters. That is really an important part of pulling together the threads of bits of information around this. It will be a coordinated, clear campaign. I do not think any other country in the world will have tried what we are trying to do on this—the design of it and what we are trying to achieve right across everybody’s home computer plus libraries, plus NetAlert initiatives, plus a big campaign to educate people. All these threads coming together will provide the kind of leadership you are advocating.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Can someone go through the steps the minister was just referring to.

Talk Ms Williams—I have not jumped in simply because we are in ACMA at the moment, rather than in 3.1. I might have to call on more detail if you want to go deeper. We have recently completed a tender process for the provision of expert advice on the operational requirements of the government’s filter portal. This will include advice on security protocols and the development of a registration, tracking and payment system. We are also about to release tenders for the testing of content filter products and a tender to call for the submission of filter products for testing and inclusion in the scheme.

This selection criteria for the filters will include the requirement that filter manufacturers provide technical support, including reasonable telephone support, and that the provider’s filter sites have been included on the ACMA black list. A separate tender will also be undertaken for the installation, operation and maintenance of the filter portal. It is quite a complicated series of tenders that we have to let for this. We are working closely with ACMA to get the scheme up overall.

Talk CHAIR—I would like to take up the point Senator Fielding made about answering questions on time. It is very important for questions to be answered as expeditiously as possible and got back to the senators. We had a lot of questions outstanding under these portfolios in this group of estimates left over from last time. I am told it was the highest proportion of any group in estimates. I would appreciate it if the various agencies could get their questions back more quickly in these estimates.

Proceedings suspended from 1.01 pm to 2.02 pm

Talk Senator FIELDING—Dr Pelling was going to go through the steps that someone referred to before.

Talk Dr Pelling—I am wondering what exactly you want me to go through.

Talk Senator FIELDING—The steps of where the filtering is at, at the moment.

Talk Dr Pelling—Essentially there are a number of tenders which the department has to let in relation to establishing the portal. Broadly speaking, in two streams of activity, one is to establish a content portal, which is accessible through the internet where people can go to download filters, and the other is to establish or to select the filters that will be available on the portal and available to send out to people. They can either download them or get them on a CD. We are in the middle of that process at the moment.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I was not aware of the time frames. Is there a set time frame that the department has got in place?

Talk Dr Pelling—This is a very high priority for the department and for the government, so we are aiming to do it as quickly as possible and, as the minister said, we are hoping to get a product on air in around about the May time frame.

Talk Senator FIELDING—What does ‘product on air’ mean?

Talk Dr Pelling—A service from which people can obtain filters.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I will just return back, Minister. You said that you had written to the states. When was that?

Talk Senator Coonan—I do not have it in front of me. I can pick that up and even give you copies. I would think that it would have been some months ago. It was probably about the time that we announced this initiative. It could have been a little before that or a little after, I am just not sure.

Talk Senator FIELDING—What was the intent of the communication with them?

Talk Senator Coonan—The intent of the communication was to encourage filters to be made available—of course there are some available now, although we say that they can be improved—and to alert them to the fact that we are going to have this initiative.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Can I get a copy of that?

Talk Senator Coonan—I will see whether I have got copies of the letters that I can make available to you.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Thank you. What has been the states’ response to that letter?

Talk Senator Coonan—My understanding is that a couple of the states have implemented some of those library and indeed even school initiatives. I will have to take it on notice so that I can give you a proper response because I am really relying on my memory as to where they are up to.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Will the government look at tying funding to mandatory filtering for libraries? This is all about a communication that you have had the intent in wishing the libraries to have filtering on their internet services to protect children from internet porn—those people using those library services. If the states do not get on with the job of protecting children, will the federal government be tying funding to the libraries in a way that ensures that they do put filtering on?

Talk Senator Coonan—We do not fund libraries, apart from the National Library. What we will do is make filters available and encourage state authorities to take them up.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Is it correct that the only library that the federal government funds is the National Library?

Talk Senator Coonan—Yes, that is correct.

Talk Senator FIELDING—No other funding at all?

Talk Senator Coonan—They have agreed to do it. In fact they already have a fairly significant filtering arrangement. I have inspected it personally.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I would like to go back to the budget for providing internet filtering. There have been reports in the press of $94 million. Is that right?

Talk Dr Pelling—$93.3 million. That is the package over three years, which comprises an element for the filters and the information campaign as well.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I now turn to the complaints system from ACMA. I get a lot of people coming to me—to Family First—saying that ACMA is a bit of a toothless tiger, that nothing happens when we complain to them. Can you walk me through the process of how people complain to ACMA regarding, for example, standards on television?

Talk Dr Pelling—I will pass that to my colleague. I would like to correct what I just told you. It is $93.3 million for the filter component and $18.3 million for the community information campaign. They are both over three years and I told you that $93.3 million was the total and in fact that is just the filter component.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Thank you for that clarification.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—With regard to your question, in the first instance the process that we go through with internet complaints.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Thank you.

Talk Ms Wright—Over the last six years in relation to internet content we have had approximately 5,500 complaints to us relating to prohibited or potentially prohibited material. Those complaints are most usually lodged electronically. The complaint is immediately acknowledged electronically and, in the majority of cases, within 48 hours the investigation into that complaint is completed and the information relayed to the complainant. Where we need to obtain specific classification information from the Classification Board, we contact them. I have a five-day turnaround time to come back with a decision. Where that material has been hosted in Australia, if we think there is cause for concern, we will have already issued an interim take-down notice and then referred the material to the Classification Board so that the material is no longer up there. When we receive the classification from the Classification Board, in the majority of instances our original view has been upheld, and then we issue a final take-down notice.

One of the good outcomes in the life of the scheme is that every year we have seen an incremental decrease in prohibited or potentially prohibited material that is hosted online in Australia; but we do not stop there. We also have a special pathway for material that is internationally hosted and we work in conjunction with 25 other countries and 27 hotlines to exchange complaints. Per quarter, those hotlines between them investigate 100,000 complaints, and this goes to material which is very often referred to law enforcement. In order to be a member of the scheme, each hotline must have direct contact with law enforcement agencies. For example, a lot of the material that we get complaints about that is internationally hosted comes from the USA. We forward the material complained about to the hotline in the United States of America, which is hosted by the National Centre for Missing Children. They have their own FBI officers seconded to them and we know that, within 48 hours of receiving our complaint, if they decide that it is illegal content in America, it is then dealt with by the police. We would consider that a fast and very comprehensive service. It is one that not only goes to removing the image, but dealing with the image as a crime scene if it involves children. With the material that we forward to the international hotlines or through the AFP, we also provide that material to the blacklist for filters, which was referred to earlier. If you have a filter then all that material is automatically barred for users. It is that multifaceted approach, given the fact that a lot of the material is hosted overseas, that we think is important. Therefore we value our participation within INHOPE, which grows every year with more hotlines. I think when it started in 1998, there were eight hotlines. There are now 27. Each year there are new applicants. We think that that has been a very effective mechanism for dealing with complaints in relation to internet content.

Talk Senator FIELDING—The people complaining about the internet sort of sites go directly through yourselves for the complaint system. I think I heard you saying that over the last five years or seven years—I cannot remember—there were something like 5,000-plus complaints.

***

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion

Date: 12 February, 2007 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Page: 27 
Proof: Yes
Database: Estimates Comm.
Source: Senate

Senator FIELDING—Could I ask a question of the department. It may not be your area. How many complaints has ACMA had directly in that same period about content on television?

Talk Ms Wright—For the 18 months of ACMA we have had 92 investigations into material hosted on commercial television stations. The difference is because we are the second port of call for free TV investigations.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—We do not have the detail with us on the number of complaints. What Andree is referring to is complaints which have resulted in us starting an investigation. In the commercial broadcasting code area, as Andree was saying, the first port of call is actually to go to the broadcasters. Complaints will go to the broadcaster. Where the complainant has not been satisfied with the answer that they have received from a broadcaster, then they can refer that complaint to ACMA.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Complaints through to ACMA from television, you need to take that on notice?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—We would have to take it on notice, particularly if you ask for a comparative figure over the five years.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Yes.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes, we can take that on notice.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I have had many families come to me saying, ‘Why can’t people get access to ACMA rather than just to the provider for their complaints?’ You do it with internet, why not for free-to-air television?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—One of the comments I would make in that regard is that when the internet system was put in place, it was acknowledged that there were approximately 600 ISPs and, therefore, it was not always clear to people where they might complain. The numbers of licences for television is more finite, and people are more aware of that relationship.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I have had many families come to me who find it very difficult to feel as if they are getting any response back. It seems to be cumbersome. Has the department ever looked at having a single point of contact for people to complain about content on television so ACMA can be at least aware of it at first hand rather than have it probably filtered through people that have got to go through television station, wait for a response to come back and then work out where to complain to if they do not like that response. How long does it take for a normal complaint to go through to the television and then to arrive at your desk for you to be aware of it?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—There are provisions which give the broadcaster 60 days to respond.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Sixty days?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes. However, the broadcasters voluntarily committed to a code which means that they must respond in 30 days.

Talk Senator FIELDING—If something happens today realistically it could be 30 days before they can go somewhere else other than the person that is providing the information. That does not sound like you are going to make it easy for families at all to raise their complaint with someone other than just the provider that potentially can investigate it further. I know most of the free-to-airs make sure they try and do the right thing, but I would think that it would be fair and reasonable for ACMA, which sets the standards, should be aware of complaints from individuals and be able to look at them. There may be a situation that arrives today and it could be 30 days later before someone can get to you.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—We are very aware of that. ACMA itself can initiate its own investigation at any time, if it so wishes. I think Andree will correct me if I am incorrect, but we do get a lot of people who call us direct. If there is a level of concern out there that the authority felt warranted it, they could launch an investigation immediately if they so wished. We think there is a balance between those two.

Talk Ms Maddock—The other thing that we are most particular about is ensuring that, when the providers do respond, they make it very clear to the complainant that they can complain to ACMA, because the system falls down if that does not happen.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Just repeat that.

Talk Ms Maddock—One of the obligations on the providers, the broadcasters, is that in responding to complainants they make it very clear in their response that they do have the fallback to ACMA so that people are aware that, if they are unhappy, there is an escalated place to take it. We are very rigorous with ensuring that that happens.

Talk Senator FIELDING—We need to make it easier for families. This is the feedback that I am getting, that the process seems long-winded to get through to somewhere. The general feeling in the community is that complaining to the television station falls on deaf ears. Surely you must have the same understanding or feeling of that in the general community. Would that be right or wrong? I am happy for you to disagree with it.

Talk Mr Chapman—I think we are conscious of that level of frustration. There is a code in place. It is part of the self-regulatory approach. We anticipate a commencement of the review of that code, as we periodically do, in the middle of this year. As Ms O’Loughlin said, we try to strike a balance between responding only when the complainant is dissatisfied with the licensee’s response to them and in certain circumstances launching our own investigation. The minister has on several occasions expressed to us her desire for us to review those processes to see if we can come up with a more streamlined approach. An example of that was with the Big Brother incident last year where we did fashion with the broadcaster a different and shorter approach. We took a microcosm of the issue and on a bilateral basis came up with a more streamlined approach. There is natural justice and certain time constraints built into the legislation which gives rise to the extended time period that you are referring to which is the cause of some frustration. We acknowledge that.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I will make a suggestion here and you can take it or leave it. I would suggest that having a single point of call for people to go to to make a complaint and copied to ACMA—it can be sent to the television station but copied to you—would make sure that you are fully across any of the hot issues that come across. Because I can seriously tell you that Australian families are feeling very frustrated that they feel like they get nowhere when they complain. That is the sentiment and surely that is not a state that any government should be happy with, that people are feeling absolutely frustrated. I will come to the second point now. What penalties are there for breaching this voluntary code that you have?

Talk Ms Maddock—There is a range of penalties and Andree will correct me when I do not get all of the detail right. It can be anything from putting in place remedial activities through to taking at the second most extreme action to refer it to the DPP and, subject to various processes having gone through, through to potential loss of licence. One of the things that has happened quite recently is that we have got enhancement to our powers which enable us now to amongst other things take enforceable undertakings from people if we consider it necessary for them in terms of their general approach to issues. So we have enhanced powers which we are starting to use which came through late last year. Sorry, it came into effect in early February and passed through the house and the Senate late last year.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Can you give me an example of the last five times they have been used?

Talk Ms Maddock—They only came into actual practice on 4 February.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The example I can give to you is that in the case of the PBL and the Seven deals enforceable undertakings were offered to us for the broadcasters to take certain actions which were accepted by the authority. That is a very early indication that we can use those effectively to get results quickly.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I am not convinced that there is enough penalty in place. First of all I am not convinced about the speed of even knowing what people are complaining about because you are so far removed from the process to start with. And then there are the penalties. I am talking on the street with people and they do not get the sense there are any penalties. They do not get the sense that there is anyone listening. I think you can make it a lot easier than you currently do. It is as if the system is designed to not have people complaining, and then when they finally get through not a lot of action seems to come out of it.

Talk Senator Coonan—Senator Fielding, in all fairness we have just had the package come into effect that provides an entire suite of penalties. You must remember it, because I can remember going through it with you in some considerable detail. It provides a whole suite of things so that a proper, tailored response can be made to the gravity of the offence. In addition to that in relation to the time frames, I have been very concerned about that. It is one of the reasons why I have instigated, quite apart from all of the things that are in place, a review of reality TV, because that seems to be an issue that is quite rightly a concern to a lot of people. So we are onto this whole issue of time frames and severity of penalties and gradation of penalties, but in all fairness to the authority I have to say it has only just literally come into effect, so they could not have really been expected to implement something that has only just now at their disposal.

Talk Mr Chapman—To add to that, those new enforcement powers that have just come into effect a week ago include powers to pursue civil penalty orders by the Federal Court; acceptable enforceable undertakings, which we have touched on a number of times; seek injunctions in circumstances where a person has failed to comply with requirements; seek injunctions to ensure there are no unacceptable media diversity situations, which is not relevant to your question; and finally issue infringement notices for certain contraventions. They are in addition to the existing—

Talk Senator Coonan—Criminal sanctions.

Talk Mr Chapman—range of powers that Ms Maddock alluded to.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—As the minister raised, we are undertaking a review of reality television at the moment. We are due to report to the minister at 31 March, and this issue I am sure will be raised and considered in that context.

Talk Senator Coonan—The long and the short of it is the concern about time frames is quite an appropriate one, which is why we have taken this action and also why I did spend a lot of time last year in trying to get the enforcement suite of powers right.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Family First has made a submission to that and I have raised the points here today for that particularly inquiry as well, so I am certainly looking forward to seeing what the outcome of that particular inquiry or review is going to be. One other area I want to touch base—

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Are you moving on to something else?

Talk Senator FIELDING—No, it is the same area.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Minister, I was reading some other information. Did you make any mention about what the international experience is with this sort of program? Is there anywhere else in the world where it has been done?

Talk Senator Coonan—I made that comment in relation to the filtering that the government is proposing to put in where every Australian family will have an opportunity to install a filter on their home computer to tailor make their child’s experience of the internet. It will be a world first. It is a most ambitious program and we expect that the take-up will be very high because we are also going to have a national education campaign to assist parents to understand how their children can effectively use the internet and not be subjected to this sort of pernicious traffic on the internet. Because it is such an ambitious program, Senator Ronaldson, you are quite right, it is important that we get it right. This is taxpayers’ money. We want to make sure that it works and that no parent who takes up this offer ends up being disappointed that we have not properly tested these filters and that the claims we make for them are not able to be borne out. But you are quite right, it will be a world first.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Was there a blueprint or did you have to start from scratch?

Talk Senator Coonan—No, this is why we have had to build the system from scratch. It is a massive undertaking, which is why, as Dr Pelling was pointing out, it involves tenders and a couple of streams of inquiry to do the content and to test the efficacy of the filters. It is a very big undertaking. Whilst we are not magicians, we know clearly where we are going, we know what we think will be the best system in the world and we are determined to implement it in a way that actually provides an appropriate protection for Australian families.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—All power to you, Minister.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I appreciate those very helpful questions from Senator Ronaldson. On that point there is another view—

Talk Senator Coonan—I thought you would be pleased to know that, Senator Fielding.

Talk Senator FIELDING—There is another view around the world also that filtering at the ISP level is a better way of blocking some of the harshest sites, that gets 100 per cent of those sites for every Australian family rather than just those that actually can find their way through the system and still remaining to wait for this system that the government has put in place. I make it quite clear that Family First feels that there should have been mandatory filtering at the ISP level. This additional step is all well and good, but there is still the first step; the most serious and dangerous sites should be blocked at the ISP level. British Telecom are doing it. Telstra should be doing it.

Talk Senator Coonan—I imagine that because you are so interested in this, Senator Fielding, you would have caught up with the Manchester report two days ago which showed something like about 42 per cent was missed with ISP filtering. 42 per cent of what they purported to be able to block was missed. We do not really think that that is going to assist Australian families and it will provide a quite unfair assurance to parents. We want to make sure that we have the very best; not some second best, Senator Fielding, the best.

Talk Senator FIELDING—We can debate that 58 per cent is being blocked and with time and technology—

Talk Senator Coonan—The report has just said that that is wrong.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Your own figures said there was 42—

Talk Senator CONROY—That is the opposite of 42. It was 100 minus 42.

Talk Senator Coonan—It is not 100 per cent of 100 per cent, is it? You have to actually know the site to be able to list it for the purpose of any ISP filtering. Even when you list it, that is the figure that was wrong, 42 per cent.

Talk Senator FIELDING—There are sites known to this government that are not being blocked at the ISP level in Australia.

Talk Senator Coonan—The sites will not be blocked, according to this report. This government will not be a party to some ineffective mechanism that provides a totally false assurance, and no government worth its salt would do that.

Talk Senator FIELDING—It is a debating point and I suppose we can move on, but Family First believes that we should be something at the ISP level and also something at the PC level. Both can be done quite clearly and to walk away and not cover the worst sites is ridiculous.

Talk Senator Coonan—No government does clean feed. It is done by a telecommunication company. It is not done by government. The government is putting up taxpayers’ money to get the very best solution we can and we think that it is a proper use of taxpayers’ money to ensure that we have the very best response, not some half-baked solution that will not do the job.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I have a separate issue. Family First is interested in what I describe as raunchy ads on television at night designed to sell dating services, phone sex and mobile phone screen savers. What can you tell me about such ads?

Talk Senator Coonan—I cannot tell you anything. I am sorry about that.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—That would be a matter for the Advertising Standards Board.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Have you had many complaints?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—No. But I cannot speak on behalf of the board. The Advertising Standards Board is a separate body.

Talk Senator FIELDING—ACMA themselves, you received—

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The complaints would not come to ACMA.

Talk Senator FIELDING—They go to the television stations, don’t they?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—No, the Advertising Standards Board.

Talk Mr Wright—That is correct.

Talk Senator FIELDING—What are the rules governing these ads?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—That is not an area of responsibility for ACMA.

Talk Senator FIELDING—It is not?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I would not have those at hand. No, it is for the Advertising Standards Board.

Talk Senator Coonan—It is a classifications standard.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Which government department looks after that?

Talk Senator Coonan—Attorney-General.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Thank you.

Senator IAN MACDONALD—Just before we get off that subject, has your department ever considered spending some of the money that they are spending on these programs that Senator Fielding has been talking about on an education program for parents who, I think you would agree, must ultimately have the principal responsibility for what their children watch on television or on the computer? Has there ever been any thought to that, or do you think there is a need for that?

Talk Senator Coonan—There is a need and we have budgeted out of the $116 million some $18 million that is going to be spent very shortly on a nationwide education program for parents to educate them to the dangers lurking on the net and in respect of these matters and to assist them to understand how they can have some assistance with a free filter that will be available for them to tailor their family’s experience of the net.

Talk Senator IAN MACDONALD—You would accept that it is the principal responsibility for parents and not the government for looking at what children watch and do on their computer?

Talk Senator Coonan—This government takes the view that it is not our role to be in every household in Australia.

Talk Senator IAN MACDONALD—Absolutely.

Talk Senator Coonan—I think most parents in Australia would not wish the government to be in their living rooms, but they do want to have assistance and information in providing an optional free filter, together with information and education. We think that is the best combination in the way in which we can help Australian families.

***

Coonan's PC porn filter six months late. ZDNet Australia 16.03.07

...... a spokesperson for the minister told ZDNet Australia the first free filters should be available for download from a government portal within six months.

However, tender documents published yesterday revealed the government does not expect to start evaluating the market for such software until April at the earliest.

"A request for tender for PC content filters is expected to be released in early April 2007," the documents stated. "Tenders, including copies of proposed ISP-level filtering products or services, are expected to be received by the middle of May 2007."

In addition, while Coonan in June said the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would be responsible for testing the filters, the government has now gone to market for a third-party consultant to carry out the work.

The consultant will provide final reports at the end of May for the PC filters being evaluated, and mid-June for the ISP-level filters.

The department is expecting to evaluate approximately 20 PC and 10 ISP-level content filters.

***

Communications News 
Senator the Hon Helen Coonan 
Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate

May 2007

.XXX domain rejected 

The international body responsible for overseeing global Internet domain names (ICANN) recently rejected a proposal to establish an .XXX Internet domain for adult content. In February, I wrote to ICANN expressing the Australian Government’s strong opposition to the proposed domain.

This decision complements a number of Australian Government measures that limit offensive material online, particularly with the aim of ensuring children are not inadvertently exposed to such material.

A website and information campaign to be launched later this year as part of Protecting Australian Families Online will give parents detailed information about ensuring the safety of their families online, and legislation will soon be introduced to extend existing safeguards to cover content delivered over convergent devices, such as 3G mobile phones.

***

Senator The Hon Helen Coonan
Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts

Speech to the Cyberspace Symposium
Thursday 17 May 2007

Welcome

To the National Coalition Against Bullying Chair, the Hon Alastair Nicholson AO and board members;

Members of the Centre for Strategic Education;

State Minister for Skills, Education and Employment, the Hon Jacinta Allen;

The Board and Dr Judith Slocombe, Chief Executive Officer of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation; 

and importantly,Advocates and supporters of children here today.

It is my pleasure to be with you in Melbourne today to open this important Cybersafety Symposium to raise awareness about the many challenges confronting parents, carers, educators, policy-makers and governments when it comes to how we can best protect our children in the online world.

The broad and diverse mix of speakers at this two day Symposium highlights the impact online technology is having in the lives of an increasing number of Australian families.

Internet and Opportunity
The Internet is indeed a window on the world and has transformed the way we communicate.

Properly harnessed, the World Wide Web has enormous potential as a tool for education, entertainment, interaction and global engagement.

The Internet can make a positive contribution to the way our children learn, develop and are supported.

Examples of this include inspire.org.au which provides young people with the opportunity to engage with inspirational people who are making a difference in the world or ybblue.com.au, the youth website of beyondblue aimed specifically at young people providing information, tips, personal stories and links for young people dealing with depression.

However, left in limbo without a proper legislative framework, technology and educational support, the Internet (and other emerging technologies) pose a genuine risk to society's most vulnerable citizens; our children and young people.

Risk and Challenges
Internet chat rooms, web content, social networking sites (such as ‘My Space' and ‘You Tube'), SMS and MMS communications, instant messenger and emails and now, peer-to-peer networks, have all challenged the ways we go about protecting our children.

Macabre websites are targeting vulnerable young people and encouraging them to commit suicide (and providing detailed information on how to do it) – often live online, pro-anorexia sites are setting up online support networks for sick girls to join ‘starvation clubs' and paedophiles are proving adept at exploiting every new and emerging technology, now including Skype, to prey on children.

Technology moves at an astonishing pace and any government policy, regulatory or legislative response in this area must be adaptive, multi-faceted and responsive.

It cannot be ‘set and forget'.

Matters relating to the protection of children must remain a ‘top of mind' consideration for governments and policy makers because as a parent myself, I know that parents are concerned about their child's wellbeing day, and night.

Whole of Government Approach
In the three years I have been Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, I have worked closely with my other Minister ial colleagues to develop a ‘whole of government' approach to child protection.

In a large and complex portfolio that deals with global players and powerful industries such as media and telecommunications, there is no issue more important than protecting our children.

But as many of you here today know all too well, there is no ‘one size fits all' way to protect Australia 's young people.

Multi-Faceted Approach
Protecting our children requires a multi-faceted approach that encompasses educators and schools, parents and carers, state and federal governments, policing authorities – here and overseas, and the wider Australian community.

On a national level, the Federal Government's response to the online protection of our children is broad, comprehensive and a mainstay of the Government's ongoing agenda.

As I said before, effective ways of protecting children cannot be a set and forget exercise.

Technology Revolution
The technology revolution and the cunning of online predators make it critical that we remain vigilant, responsive and ready to move quickly in order to stay ahead of online predators.

Many of the ways content reaches children and the types of devices by which it is received – be it home computer, hand held device, mobile phone SMS or MMS, or any other digital service – poses real challenges to many of our existing legal frameworks, and indeed, many long-held legal principles.

I will take SMS communications as an example.

Whilst we can prohibit the movement of offensive content via the Internet, the nature of SMS communications is that as a point-to-point transmission, it falls under the same legal definitions as normal telephony calls. And, as the lawyers in the room well know, the interception of telephone calls in Australia is highly proscribed and requires a warrant.

This is because we hold telephone calls, and SMS, to be private communications and as such, subject to robust privacy protections.

In light of these valid privacy considerations, how do we protect young people from offensive and illegal SMS material being sent around mobile phone networks.

It is clear that we need a developed and reasoned community debate about the level to which we are prepared to re-think our long-held legal principles to address changes in technology and ensure we continue to best protect our children.

These policy and regulatory considerations are not easy and they challenge the very framework of accepted orthodoxy, nevertheless we have a proud record of internet action and these challenges will not defeat us.

Australia as Internet World Leader
To date, Australia has been a world leader in many areas of Internet policy. We are leading the world in the development of a robust anti-spam regime with the SPAM Act and under this Government, became one of the first countries to regulate internet content over seven years ago.

Online Content Scheme
Known as the Online Content Scheme, this regulatory framework was established under Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA).

The Online Content Scheme has three main elements:

the regulation of Internet content hosts and Internet service providers (ISPs) through the industry codes of practice and a robust complaints mechanism provided for by Schedule 5 of the BSA;

a tough, ‘take down regime' for inappropriate, offensive and/or illegal content;

a community education function intended to raise community awareness of Internet safety particularly in relation to the risks children may face on the Internet and the means by which those risks are best managed or minimised ; 

and criminal sanctions through State and Federal legislation.
The Online Content Scheme is designed to address community concerns about offensive and illegal online content at the same time ensuring that regulation does not place unjustifiable burdens on industry or place barriers in front of further industry development.

The Act provides for the development and operation of Internet industry codes of practice that are registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The codes require ISPs and Internet Content Hosts to take appropriate steps to protect the public from ‘prohibited and importantly, potentially prohibited' Internet content.

Internet content is ‘prohibited' if it has been classified RC or X18+ by the Classification Board or (if it is Australian-hosted) classified R18+ by the Classification Board and access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system.

Internet content is considered ‘potentially prohibited' if it has not been classified by the Classification Board but if it were to be classified , there is a substantial likelihood that it would be prohibited.

High Level of Compliance
Since the commencement of the online content scheme to 31 December 2006, the media regulator, ACMA has issued 356 take-down notices in relation to prohibited content hosted in Australia, and referred more than 3700 items of prohibited overseas-hosted content to filter makers so that offending content is identified on the system and blocked.

During the same period, over 950 items of child pornography and similar content has been referred to the relevant police authorities.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA is the regulator responsible for the Internet in Australia and in addition to the ‘take-down' notice regime, ACMA operates a ‘black list'.

This list of addresses of prohibited or potential prohibited Internet content hosted outside Australia is provided to suppliers of family friendly filters so that relevant overseas-hosted websites can be identified and the content blocked.

Online Child Protection Squad – AFP
Notwithstanding these regulatory protections, the Federal Government has also established a new online child protection squad within the Australian Federal Police.

Once again this goes to my central belief that the protection of children must be ‘whole of government' and include all of the available regulatory, legislative, policing, technological and education-based methods at our disposal.

Online Child Sex Exploitation Team
Under the National Child Protection Initiative, the Australian Federal Police received almost $30 million in 2004 to fund the Online Child Sex Exploitation Team (OCSET) [pron. Ok-Set].

The Online Child Sex Exploitation Team was created to provide the AFP with national assessment and coordination capabilities for international and national referrals of child pornography.

Public education is a key responsibility for the OCSET team and $1.7 million of the AFP funding is being used for the continuation of its education and prevention programs aimed at parents, teachers and community groups.

Child Pornography Arrests
In the same year that OCSET was established, the largest ever online child pornography investigation resulted in the execution of 503 search warrants, the arrests of 250 people across the country and the laying of 2279 charges.

US Sex Offender Email Registration Bill
I am also aware of a recent Bill introduced into the United States Congress by Senators Charles Schumer (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican).

The ‘ Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Bill' 2007, known as the KIDS Bill, has recently been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and whilst no text of the Bill has been made public, I note in media reports that the Bill will require registered sex offenders to submit their email address to law enforcement and that their email address would also then be placed on the US National Sex Offender Registry.

I will look at this Bill closely, as I am sure so too will the Minister for Justice, although I am advised that no direct representations have been made on the matter to date.

On a practical front, I am keen to understand how the enforcement mechanism would work and what could be done to ensure that any email address provided by a registered sex offender is properly and effectively monitored and how the same offender could be prevented from using alternative online identities.

Unlike registration of their residential address, which can be physically verified at any time by law enforcement officers on the ground, anyone can be anyone online.

I would also expect to see greater engagement by many of the companies operating online social networking websites in measures to protect our children.

But as I have said, I am committed to using any reasonable means and any available technology to protect young people and if this Bill has workable, practical and legal merit – and provided it is supported by the states and territories – we will look at it closely.

In terms of our current legislation in this area, the Howard Government has also toughened child pornography offences under the Criminal Code and ensured that these laws keep pace with technology.

Tough Criminal Code Provisions
Under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act 2004, the Federal Government introduced amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code ) which came into effect on 1 March 2005.

The offences target the use of the Internet to access, transmit and make available child pornography and child abuse material, as well as the possession or production of such material with the intent to place it on the Internet.

These offences complement other existing offences prohibiting the importation of such material into Australia , and each offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

These amendments to the Criminal Code place an obligation on Internet service providers or Internet content hosts to refer details of Internet content which depicts child pornography or child abuse material, to the Australian Federal Police once they become aware that their Internet service can be used to access child pornography or child abuse material.

Under the legislation, ISPs and content hosts face significant fines if they are aware their service has been used to access child pornography or child abuse material, and do not refer it to the AFP within a reasonable time.

The offences in the Criminal Code also prohibit using a carriage service to procure or ‘groom' a person, who is under 16 years of age, for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with that person or so that a third person can engage in sexual activity with that person. The maximum penalties for these offences range from 12 to 15 years imprisonment.

Extension of Criminal Code to Bullying
There is also a general offence in the Code that prohibits the use of a carriage service with the intention to menace, harass or cause offence.

This offence provision also captures the use of a carriage service to encourage or incite violence, or use it to vilify persons on the basis of their race or religion.

Importantly in relation to today's Symposium, these legal provisions also extend to the crime of Cyber Bullying.

Rapid Technology Advances
But as many of you here today know only too well, technology does not stand still and whilst the content has stayed fairly constant over recent time - be it offensive web material, child pornography or bullying - the ways to distribute it and ‘take it to market' change almost weekly and with convergence, multiple forms of content can be delivered over a single device.

This is why as Minister, I have maintained a watching brief on technology and our regulatory frameworks and have sought to ensure our laws keep pace with the deployment of new devices and delivery platforms – now and into the future.

Content Services Bill
After a lengthy period of policy formation and substantial industry and stakeholder consultation, I am pleased to advise that last Thursday, I introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill into the Parliament.

The objective of this legislation is to create a regulatory environment which allows new and innovative services to be made available for Australian consumers.

Critically, it aims to do this while also establishing effective means to protect consumers, particularly children, from accessing inappropriate or harmful content on convergent devices such as 3G mobile phones and through subscription Internet portals.

It is certainly not a form of censorship as adults will continue to be able to access content that would be inappropriate for children.

New Platforms
Historically, existing content regulation is specific to the platform over which it is delivered (for example, television under the Broadcasting Act, the Internet under Internet specific provisions or telephones under the Telecommunications Act).

The introduction of new services like 3G and video services through mobile phones, means that our platform specific regulations are becoming increasingly strained as they are applied to new media forms.

The development of a comprehensive and practical content regulation framework is a significant challenge in an era of convergence and new emerging technologies and services.

The Content Services Bill aligns, as far as is practical, the principles for regulation of content over online and convergent devices with those for traditional media.

Content Bill Outline
The Bill as proposed will –

extend the current safeguards that apply to content delivered over the Internet or television to content delivered over convergent devices including live streamed services, for example, MA15+ streamed Internet content as part of a television program such as ‘Big Brother';

prohibit content rated X18+ and content which is refused classification;

ensure that R18+ material is limited to adults only with appropriate assess restrictions;

prohibit availability and online distribution of electronic editions of print publications which have been classified ‘Restricted-Category 1', ‘Restricted – Category 2' or ‘Refused Classification' – for example, adult magazines currently available in some newsagents and adult shops.
provide that material made available for a fee (ie commercial content) must provide an MA15+ and R18+ rating again with age restrictions to limit access;

toughen the current ‘take down' regime, where it forces illegal content off the Internet, and introduce stronger sanctions for non-compliance including criminal and civil penalties.

Under the modified Scheme, the Government will also allow for industry co-regulation as a means of providing for regulatory frameworks to evolve and adapt with the technologies and services which they regulate.

Industry Cooperation
It is the Government's intention that this Bill be passed without delay and I place on record my recognition of the collaborative role industry has played in the development of this new framework.

Everyone's Responsibility
As I have often said, the protection of our children is a responsibility that we all must share.

Our approach must be whole of government and across the all levels of government – local, state and federal government.

And importantly, it must be above politics.

You have heard from me today about the work that has been done to date in the development and implementation of a strong national legislative response to child Internet protection, and the robust enforcement and policing response that has been a key plank of our protection regime.

Protecting Australian Families Online
And whilst I am proud of the Federal Government's work to date, this commitment to our children will be taken to a new level with the launch of the Government's new Protecting Australian Families Online program over the next couple of months.

Just as new technologies have been used to help curb the road toll through the introduction of seat belts, air bags, ABS brakes and mobile breathalysers, so too must we use technology to help parents, carers and educators protect children online.

Technology is there to help. It must not defeat us.

But, just as with the road toll, the deployment of these new technology measures must be backed up with support for schools, parents and carers and a public awareness campaign.

The Protecting Australian Families Online initiative is a $116 million package of measures that aims to bring all of these elements together and includes:

$93.3 million dollars to establish the new National Filter Scheme to provide every Australian household and public library with a free PC filter or subsidised Internet Service Provider filtered service.

Previous filter options were fairly blunt instruments but new filtering technology is sophisticated and capable of constant updating as things change.

Not only can it protect children from inappropriate web based images, but critically, protect them in chat rooms, via peer to peer networks and when using emails.

Parents can create a safe web for their home and only permit visits to sites that parents ‘white list' on the filter. They can prevent children from providing identifying information online – such as their last name, home address or phone number. And importantly, new filters can be adapted to different filtering levels for each member in the household – more filtering for the 6 year old and less for the 16 year old.

Filtering options can also keep a watch on content that whilst not strictly illegal under state laws, such as ‘suicide' and ‘anorexia', do cause parents great anxiety particularly if their children are subject to peer pressure or suffer from mental illness.

The filter selected under this Scheme will also block access to websites on the ACMA “Blacklist”.

In addition to the National Filter Scheme, the Federal Government is also providing –

$18.3 million dollars for a national public awareness campaign to educate parents about online dangers, and the provision of telephone helpline support as well as online and printed information.

The related merger of NetAlert with the Australian and Communications Media Authority (ACMA) will ensure NetAlert is best placed to proactively support the community and able to benefit from a closer alignment with the activities and enforcement powers of the Internet and telecommunications regulator.

NetAlert has recently relocated from Tasmania to Melbourne's ACMA offices and a further funding injection of $5 million dollars is being provided under the Protecting Australian Families Online program to strengthen and amplify their education and advisory activities through their online information site, telephone helpline, a national schools outreach program, and the provision of teacher support materials and classroom tool-kits.

Ambitious World First
The Protecting Australian Families Online initiative is an ambitious world first and represents the single largest commitment made by any Australian government to protect children online.

Other options around the world, such as British Telecom's ‘Clean Feed' is only a partially effective and at this stage in the technology development, not nearly as effective as PC based filters.

BT's ‘clean feed' system is a commercial service that must be bought by families and where it falls dangerously short is that –

Clean Feed only blocks known sites – about 4000 websites in an online world in excess of six million sites.

Clean Feed also only blocks websites that we can track and locate and invariably, once these sites know they are blocked, they shift to a new domain name, get through the Clean Feed filter and have to be blocked all over again.

But most importantly, Clean Feed only blocks web site content – it does not filter emails, chat rooms or peer-to-peer networks – and as such, can give parents a false sense of security.

To date, only PC based filters – loaded at the home computer level, not ISP level – can filter and or block all content and provide the more effective level of protection technically available.

Libraries Slow to Show Support
I do note however that whilst the Federal Government has committed to providing a free filter for all libraries under Commonwealth control, there has been a reticence by some state and local governments to take on board the free filtering products for the libraries under their control.

Some states have comprehensive filtering programs whilst others only offer a loose set of guidelines with no enforcement mechanisms or ongoing support.

Not every family has nor can afford a home computer and it is important that children using the Internet in public places are afforded the same protections as children in private homes.

I will continue to encourage our libraries, and the various bodies that fund them, to take on board the filtering of Internet content for publicly available library terminals and hope that the balancing act between censorship concerns and protecting our children is met with commonsense.

This matter is serious and has moved far beyond a guidelines only based approach to protecting our children.

Corporate Partnership Programme
I am also delighted to advise you that the Protecting Australian Families Online initiative has been greeted warmly by Australia 's corporate sector. I have recently written to over 300 CEOs across the country to invite them to join our corporate partners programme and the response has been overwhelming.

As I have said earlier today, protecting our children is a responsibility we all must share.

Standardised and Increased Penalties
In addition to these measures, the Government has also commenced a large body of work dealing with the protection of children across a broad spectrum of communications platforms including by Internet, mobile phones, other converged devices, digital broadcasting platforms and indeed, the postal system.

Whilst all platforms currently prohibit the transmission of child pornography, and other offensive and illegal content, I want to ensure that penalties are both standardised and increased in line with the nature of these abhorrent crimes against children.

Need to Develop a Nationwide Curriculum Module
The final aspect of the Federal Government's Protecting Australian Families Online package will comprehensive support for schools to address Internet issues including cyber bullying through our classrooms.

Physical bullying such as hitting, punching, name calling and teasing are relatively easy for schools to observe.

Covert bullying, such as isolation and exclusion, while less visible, can nevertheless have a devastating impact on young people. Furthermore, the nature of bullying is evolving as technology increasingly becomes an integral part of children's lives and a powerful way to reinforce the social isolation of a vulnerable young person.

There is virtually no reliable evidence about the nature and prevalence of covert or cyber bullying in Australia .

We need a firm evidence base on which to develop and evaluate appropriate strategies to address this disturbing form of bullying.

And that is why the Australian Government will be investing in research into covert bullying.

I am advised by my colleague, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Julie Bishop, that two important projects have been commissioned that will develop practical interventions and prevention strategies to address covert bullying at a whole of school level. It is anticipated that these projects will be announced shortly in National Safe Schools Week.

Alannah and Madeline Foundation
To conclude my remarks today, I would like to extend my congratulations to Dr Judith Slocombe and the many supporters of the Alannah (AH-LARN-AH) and Madeline Foundation for the work they have done today to highlight the issues of cyber bullying, the online protection of children more broadly and their long standing work in keeping children safe from violence.

As I have said today, protecting our children is at the very core of a civilised society and a measure of our advancement as a nation.

I hope that my remarks today will serve to reassure you of the Government's, and my own personal commitment, to leave no stone unturned in the quest to keep our children safe.

It is a responsibility for every Australian; it must occur across all levels of government and importantly, it must remain above politics.

It is unfinished business and the nature of the vice means that in all probability, it always will be.

I thank you all for your commitment to the protection of children and I want to assure you that you have mine.

***

Cyber filters give 'false confidence'. The Age 18.05.07

Martin Cocker, executive director of New Zealand's cyber-safety organisation NetSafe, said filters were not the solution. "Even the best technology will be defeated and that technology will soon appear on the internet where children will find it," Mr Cocker said. "The technology is not going to do what parents think it's going to do, so it gives them a false confidence."

He said filters were part of the response but governments and authorities should not consider them the solution. Focus groups conducted by NetSafe indicated that children as young as 12 were capable of getting around filters.

Mr Cocker said educating parents, students, schools and teachers on how to stay safe in cyberspace was the answer. Director of CyberSafeKids and education consultant Robyn Treyvaud agreed. She said that for children, getting around filters was "as simple as typing 'unblocking MySpace' into a search engine".

***

What is it with Christians and their obsession with what people are watching. Family First's Steve Fielding scored something of a coup when during Senate Estimates he managed to persuade Helen Coonan to come and join him to:

"feast on a diet of sickening porn"
Steve Fielding
MEDIA RELEASE
SF/142. Thursday May 24, 2007

You can picture this little creep drooling over her shoulder as guides her through a selection of his favourite sites. Unfortunately as it turns out he , shall we say, shot his load to quickly. Before the threatened demonstration could take place Coonan admitted that the computers in her office were, filtered!

The speakers are:

ALP
Victorian Senator Stephen Conroy
SA Senator Penny Wong
WA Senator Ruth Webber

Liberal
NSW Senator Helen Coonan
SA Senator Simon Birmingham

Family First
Steve Fielding

Mr Abul Rizvi, Deputy Secretary, Protecting Australian Families Online

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Discussion
Date 23 May, 2007
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Program Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Page 61
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate

CHAIR—Senator Conroy, while you are looking for questions, Senator Fielding has a couple of questions.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—My question is in regard to the National Filter Scheme.

Talk
Senator CONROY—It is a $20 million advertising campaign.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I have been listening intently to some of that.

Talk
Ms Scott—Senator, we have a person next door working with the chief executive officer on another answer. Would you give us just half a minute?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Yes, certainly.

Talk
Senator CONROY—Do you think they will have an answer when they come in?

Talk
CHAIR—Do you have any other questions that you wish to ask?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—No. There was a bit of discussion earlier about libraries and filters. Someone commented that Tasmania and one other area had responded back with some details about filters for libraries. This is on the National Filter Scheme, libraries.

Talk
Mr Rizvi—Yes, that is right, senator. There were responses from the states to the letter that the minister sent out on 3 February 2006.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I am just trying to marry it up with the questions asked earlier about the RFT. From my understanding, the RFT is based around home based and single-user PCs. I am trying to work out how the RFT would deal with places where you have network servers—our libraries use network servers—and how the RFT would handle it.

Talk
Mr Rizvi—If I may, Senator: this particular RFT relates to PC-level filters. Some of the PC-level filters that are in the market are in fact able to operate in a networked environment; some of them cannot. As a result of this process we will be receiving examples of both types, and we will assess all of those using an expert independent laboratory to check their performance. Separately, there will be another RFT relating to ISP-level filtering.

Talk
Senator WONG—And you will have a choice. People will have a choice.

Talk
Mr Rizvi—That is right.

Talk
Ms Scott—There will not be just one eventual winner out of the RFT in the sense that only one product will be available. A range of products will be available for parents, libraries or schools and they will be able to choose. So we are aiming to cover libraries and other situations where children will be protected from this material.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—You are confident that the people responding to the tender are aware that it also needs to cater for network servers?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—Certainly the RFT6 will elicit examples of both types of filters.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Thank you.

Talk
Senator CONROY—How did you go with the adding up?

Talk
Senator Coonan—We will do it in the morning.

Talk
Senator CONROY—If you do not have an answer it is okay. You were dobbed in. You were out the back with the calculators. I thought that as soon as you came back to the table I would ask you whether you had a number.

Talk
Senator Coonan—We said that we would take the question on notice and provide you with an answer in the morning.

Talk
Mr Rizvi—We are still working on it.

Talk
Senator CONROY—That is okay.

Talk
Mr Rizvi—We are happy to do so.

Talk
Ms Scott—We have given very detailed breakdowns, right down to individual elements. As the chief financial officer explained, appropriations are in one format and our expenditure could be in another.

Talk
Senator CONROY—I am happy to wait until the morning. I just thought that I would take this opportunity to ask.

Talk
Ms Scott—It is not as straightforward as it sounds.

Talk
Senator CONROY—That is why I did not want to do the calculation myself. Sorry, Senator Fielding; I interrupted you.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I wanted to ensure—because I have had concerns raised with me that people might not be clear it is server based as well as stand-alone PCs. Can you give me an assurance that they are fully aware?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—We have the RFT with us, yes. We will go through the RFT and find the relevant words in it. In relation to questions that were asked of us following the RFT, which is part of the tendering process, questions relating to that matter have been raised and we are providing further information in response to them.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Do those questions and answers go back to each of the people that are bidding?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—They will be posted on the AusTender website, so they will be available for all to see.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I might also do a bit of checking tonight. Thank you.

Talk
CHAIR—Senator Fielding, does that conclude your questions?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—It does.

Talk
CHAIR—Senator Conroy said that he was happy to conclude this section of the estimates when Senator Fielding had concluded his questions. We will adjourn now and recommence at 9.00 am tomorrow morning.

Committee adjourned at 10.47 pm

***

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts: Discussion
Date 24 May, 2007
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Page 44
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate

Proceedings suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.03 pm

Talk
CHAIR—I just want to remind senators that written questions on notice should be provided to the secretariat by the close of business this coming Friday week. If you could all take note of that, please. Senator Fielding.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I want to return to the national filter scheme. The tender looks at filters for stand-alone PCs, but there is also some reference to libraries. Can you just go through that and what is happening there?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—You are correct. The RFT focuses predominantly on stand-alone filters; however, it does also include, at page 26, provision for PC filters to be made available in libraries. Based on a discussion we have just very recently had with the libraries association and their preliminary survey outcome, a number of issues have been highlighted. One, they advised us that the survey shows that approximately 40 per cent of libraries are now using filters. That is up from 30 per cent about two years ago, so clearly the usage of filters in public libraries is increasing. They also indicated to us that approximately 85 per cent of libraries work in a networked environment. In addition, approximately seven to eight per cent have a networked environment based on what is called a dumb terminal—that is, a terminal without a CPU. From the discussions we have had with industry, we are advised that many of the stand-alone PC filter products will operate in a networked environment as long as the networked environment uses CPU based PCs rather than dumb terminals. So the products that might potentially apply within the RFT that we put out, in all but seven to eight per cent of the networked environment, will work and they will work quite well.

We do have a problem with respect to the seven or eight per cent of libraries that still use dumb terminals. We will through this tender process receive applications, we believe, from both filter products which work solely in a stand-alone environment and products that work in a networked environment. Indeed, a question we received as part of this process from one tenderer was: ‘In making the submission do I have to provide a product which works in a library environment?’ That is, they asked whether it was compulsory. We have gone back and said that it is not compulsory because we do not want to exclude a good product that operates in a stand-alone environment only. Clearly the message for us is that vendors with products that work in a networked environment are also interested in applying through this process, and we will assess them as well. Having said that, we know that, of the products that come forward, some will work better in a networked environment than others and we will select those that work most effectively. Separately at a later stage, we will be going out to tender, a separate tender, in respect of ISP-level filters and in that context we will examine the possibility of focusing more particularly also on server level and networked environment filters. But that will depend on how well this initial tender goes in terms of the networked environment, and we still do not have sufficient information to be able to make that judgement.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—You are referring to question 73 on the request for tender document, questions and answers, is that right?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—Question 73, that is correct.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I do not want to read out the question in detail, but after last night I decided to just go through those questions a bit further to have a bit of a look at what was there, and what I can see is the concern there. I think you would acknowledge that the library is an important area. That is the reason why you have included it in the RFT, and the question there is that, if someone actually submits something on the libraries for a server based network, that may not meet the criteria for the tender and therefore be invalid. Is that your reading of it?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—The legal advice we have received in respect of that question is that the selection criteria do go to the issue of the library environment, and therefore in assessing products that is a factor we can take into account in evaluating the products that are put forward.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I think we discussed this issue last time about libraries, and Family First have been on this issue for some time. Just today I found out that public libraries in Victoria—including in major centres like Geelong, Mount Waverley, Richmond—have no internet filters and children can simply go to the computers and have their minds polluted by porn and violence. Is that a concern to the department?

Talk
Mr Rizvi—It is certainly a concern. That is an unacceptable situation and it is for that reason that we are going through the process of trying to identify filter products that we can make available in a wide range of circumstances, including libraries, to assist in this regard. We did a survey of all of the state governments with regard to filters in libraries, and we did receive material from the ACT government and the Tasmanian government in respect of their library arrangements. If it is okay with the committee, I will just read two paragraphs from the response from the ACT library area. They say:

Prior to filtering we were receiving regular complaints from customers concerning children who were being exposed to undesirable internet sites that others were accessing because we do not divide up use of those PCs, or the physical arrangement of them, into separate areas for adults and children. The other complaint was that in 2003, prior to implementation of—

and I will not name the particular filter product that they use—

to those PCs, undesirable internet sites could be cached on those PCs and adults were complaining for themselves and on behalf of their children if they accidentally were exposed to those sites. Since implementing filtering for major undesirable categories of internet sites we have not had any of those complaints. We are able to ask our IT staff to unblock legitimate sites if they are incorrectly blocked because our branch staff can check the sites at branch information desks and verify that they should be unblocked and let appropriate IT staff know. Our staff can also check sites that they see our customer using that may be undesirable and recommend that they be blocked.

The advice clearly from the ACT government, and there is a similar situation in Tasmania, is that the use of filtering in that environment has worked very well. We are seeking to encourage all other state governments, and local governments, to adopt a similar approach.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I think those reports are positive. There is Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, WA—there are a lot of kids. I am a father of three and I am concerned that kids can walk up into a library, type something simple into Google, and two clicks away you can have the most horrific porn images come up in front of you. Today that is the case in Victoria, in Geelong, the second largest city of Victoria, other than Melbourne, of course, and also Mount Waverley and Richmond. Just three at random tested in Victoria, and I notice that the minister—I do not know where she is—

Talk
Ms Scott—She has been detained.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Here is the minister now.

Talk
Senator Coonan—Sorry, I was just finishing a meeting.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Good afternoon. I was just going to refer to your address to the National Press Club on 14 June, 2006. I have a quote from that.

To help protect Australian families, the Government has committed to doing everything reasonably possible to ensure that all Australians—particularly children—are safe on the Internet.

I am trying to reconcile that with a tender document a year later saying, ‘We may look at some library stuff here and some in another tender document.’ But at the moment in Victoria, we have major centres like Geelong, Mount Waverley and Richmond where kids can just go straight up to a computer, go into Google and in a couple of clicks they have access to an open slather of sex, smut and sleaze. That is today, 2007, nearly a year later. I am starting to question how serious this government is with that statement.

Talk
Senator Coonan—Who runs the libraries?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I will ask you the question: who runs the libraries?

Talk
Senator Coonan—The state government, I am afraid.

Talk
Senator WEBBER—It could be the local governments.

Talk
Senator Coonan—Maybe.

Talk
Senator WEBBER—Yes. It would seem that neither you nor Senator Fielding know the answer to that question. In Western Australia they are all run by local governments, except the central library.

Talk
Senator Coonan—That is why I was not being dogmatic. I was asking if anybody knew. I am sorry if this is an exchange as opposed to a question and answer, but if it was a library that was clearly under the control of the Commonwealth, we would have done something.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Can I draw your attention to the communications powers in section 51(5). Did the government use that communications power on the issue of internet gambling? Why cannot the government use that same power if they are absolutely serious, as per your statements that the government is committed to doing everything reasonably possible to ensure that all Australians, particularly children, are safe on the internet? Why cannot those same powers be used?

Talk
Senator Coonan—You are asking me for a legal opinion. What I will do is check the powers for the internet gambling because I do not have it in front of me, so I will take that on notice.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I am not referring to internet gambling now; I am referring to—

Talk
Senator Coonan—You are referring to the powers.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—The powers, correct. Will you take that on notice?

Talk
Senator Coonan—Yes, of course.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Given the statement, ‘We will do everything reasonably possible to ensure that all Australians, particularly children, are safe on the internet’, do you know that online porn is freely available to Australia’s federal politicians and their staff in Parliament House and their offices around the country?

Talk
Senator Coonan—I have not accessed it and people around Parliament House have not raised the issue with me. Just getting back to libraries for a minute, my advice is that, from the monitoring we have done, about 40 per cent of libraries have filters. A lot of libraries have some issues with their IT department and their capacity to be able to do it, but we are, as I understand it, very proactively working with libraries. Obviously they are resourced from state and territory governments but, insofar as we can, we are certainly trying to deal with the issue of libraries. About your next point, I will certainly take on notice what powers may be available to the Commonwealth. Are you suggesting that the Commonwealth should override the state jurisdiction in respect of how they resource their libraries? I am just not quite sure what you are suggesting the power goes to.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I am just reconciling the statement of doing everything reasonably possible to ensure that Australians, particularly children, are safe on the internet with the communications power that was used in regard to internet gambling. I am asking you if that is a statement that you have made. If you are tough on pornography and not soft, why a year later has that question not even been asked by you about using Commonwealth powers to not be soft but be tough on internet porn?

Talk
Senator Coonan—As I have said, I do not think it is a fair statement for you to say that it has not even been considered. What I will do, for the purposes of our exchange this afternoon, is take it on notice and I will get you a more comprehensive answer as to what has been considered in relation to that power—not that it has not been but what has been considered in relation to the power.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Following on a bit further, Family First has done an investigation and discovered there is no internet filter on the Australian parliament’s computer system, making Parliament House a workplace that peddles porn.

Talk
Senator Coonan—That is a bit rich.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Why do bureaucrats have porn sites blocked?

Talk
Senator Coonan—The systems in Parliament House are not something under my jurisdiction. They are something under the jurisdiction—

Talk
Senator CONROY—Speak with the President.

Talk
Senator Coonan—Just address it to the right committee, is what I am really suggesting, with respect.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I appreciate the response but I had not got the question out. That was a statement, so I am just getting to the question. Do you think the government should be leading by example?

Talk
Senator Coonan—I think we are. By and large, I think there is bipartisan support for the government’s initiatives and, as you know, we are going to be having a world first in perhaps the most comprehensive response to the issue of pornography and the internet. What you are now suggesting is that, in addition to all of the things that we are doing, there may be some issue to do with the way in which Parliament House is run. If that is really what is being said, that is not a matter for me but you could raise it in a different committee.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I think there are two points here. One is on the library front and the question we raised before about the powers that the government has and the second is on leading by example. I still do not understand why senators, members and their staff have access to internet pornography?

Talk
Senator Coonan—Do you understand what we just passed through the House yesterday? Do you understand what is in the content services bill?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Is that going to address this issue?

Talk
Senator Coonan—It certainly does, partly.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Partly?

Talk
Senator Coonan—I think it will fairly comprehensively.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—If you are really tough on internet porn—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Do you understand what is in the bill to start with? I do not think you do the way you are framing the questions.

Talk
Senator CONROY—I have taken a lot of trouble to invite Senator Fielding home and have dinner with him. I am doing all the good work.

Talk
Senator Coonan—You are doing all the legwork. I am indebted to you as usual.

Talk
Senator CONROY—Just trying to help.

Talk
Senator Coonan—Seriously, I would have thought that there is, as I have said, largely cross-party support for the initiatives the government is taking here. How about a bit of credit for the fact that we take this seriously instead of pejorative questions when they may not be, with respect, very well based. I am not quite sure what you are putting to me, but if it is some specific question as opposed to a statement, obviously I will look at it. I never say no to any reasonable proposition. If you, through your particular interest in this matter and your diligence—if that is the right word—wish to bring matters to my attention, by all means do. I mean it.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—With all respect, I am taking it very seriously as a dad, I have three kids—

Talk
Senator Coonan—I am a mum, so we are not exactly coming from different perspectives.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Surely, a year after your statements, more should have been done—

Talk
Senator Coonan—On what?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—on ensuring libraries would have filters—local libraries where kids just walk in; a few clicks and it is up in front of them. I am wondering: can I come by and visit your office this afternoon and show you some of this horrific material that is there on the web?

Talk
Senator Coonan—I would be very pleased to. Please do. When we suspend for afternoon tea we will go up and you can show me how to access these sites. I actually do not access them so you may be able to show me something. I do not know how you access them, but you obviously do. What I think is important here—

Talk
Senator CONROY—Make sure you have got a camera!

Talk
Senator Coonan—I just have not accessed them, but if they are there and you want to show me what I can access in Parliament House if I choose to—I do not. If you want to show me that, I will make myself available.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I will do that and I think you will see the urgency, the absolute urgency—that Australian mums and dads want to see this done immediately, quickly. I cannot believe that in 2007 you can walk into a library and, with a few clicks, you have this stuff on your screen. It is just unbelievable. Unbelievable.

Talk
Senator Coonan—I will tell you what we will do, Senator Fielding. If you will come with me down to the public library here in Canberra, which is something that we have got jurisdiction over, as opposed to other libraries, I would really like you to just walk in there and, with your two clicks, show me. That is something we will do together. Why don’t we bring the press with us and you can show me?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Why not do even better? Why don’t we go down to Geelong—

Talk
Senator Coonan—No.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—in Victoria? Why don’t we go down—

Talk
Senator Coonan—All I can do is go to Canberra today. We will go down to Canberra together, today, this afternoon at the afternoon break. I am sure the committee will let me go for a few minutes, and you can show me—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Senator Conroy doesn’t want to miss out! Now this is serious. Senator Fielding, if you are going to come in here and accuse the government of not being interested in what happens in libraries, we are going to go down together to the public library and in two clicks you are going to show me graphic porn. That is good. We will have a look at that.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—The Howard Government for, what, 10 years—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Excuse me, Senator Fielding—

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Let me finish asking the question.

Talk
Senator Coonan—You have asked me a question and I have said to you that if, you are serious, we will do this this afternoon and we will see what you can get in two clicks in a public library.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Let me finish. Ten years, and today I can walk into Geelong, Mount Waverley—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Well, speak to the Bracks government about that. Do not speak to me.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Not only that; I would make the second point here—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Have you actually written any letters about this?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—and today—look, I will accuse the government of peddling sex, smut and sleaze—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Senator Fielding, be reasonable—

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Why do—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Don’t be so silly.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Why are there no filters on the internet for the members and their staff when you have them on the departments? There is one rule for politicians and another rule for everybody else.

Talk
Senator Coonan—You have asked two things in one question. Let us just take this gently. Libraries that are not under Commonwealth jurisdiction are not libraries where we can just insist that they install a filter. That is the first point. Where we can, we will. And you and I are going to go down and we are going to test this one here in Canberra this afternoon—

Talk
Senator FIELDING—And then after that one we can go and test another one.

Talk
Senator Coonan—And, if you do not do it, I will. I am going to go down and I am going to see if I can do it in two clicks. The second thing we are going to do is go to my office and you are going to show me in two clicks where there is pornography all over Parliament House. If you are correct, I will eat my words. If you are not correct, I hope you will have the good grace to suggest that you might have actually put this up a bit too high. Now, is that a deal?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I have got no problem in doing that and also, when you are next in Melbourne, I will show you a couple of other sites.

Talk
Senator Coonan—Unless I can take Steve Bracks by the ear—Senator Conroy might help me here; I am sure Steve Bracks is a good mate of his. We will go with Premier Bracks and see what we can do together, but that is his jurisdiction. Victoria is actually a sovereign state. They actually run libraries.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—This is where the government seems to pick and choose on what they actually want to take powers on. I have just shared with you earlier in this discussion about how gambling on the internet and using the communications powers there quite easily could be used in this area of libraries.

Talk
Senator Coonan—What you can do online is a very different issue.

Talk
Senator CONROY—I think he has got you there.

Talk
Senator Coonan—No, I do not think he has, actually, Senator Conroy.

Talk
CHAIR—We are running out of time because you have been going for nearly half an hour now, Senator Fielding. We have to move on to another senator.

Talk
Senator BIRMINGHAM—Just quickly on that subject, if I may. I had a couple of questions on this matter last night. Just so we do not leave the committee with any misunderstandings, I understand from the questions last night that no other government that you have found around the world has embarked on this type of program.

Talk
Senator Coonan—No, that is right, and that is why I think the kinds of accusations that Senator Fielding makes are unfair and, where they are fair, I want to address them.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Let us just say: what is unfair?

Talk
CHAIR—Senator Fielding, we are running out of time.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Running out of time. I have been here—

Talk
Senator Coonan—Anyway, it is argumentative. It has nothing to do with the operations.

Talk
CHAIR—You have had half an hour.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—Sorry, Minister; where is it unfair?

Talk
Senator Coonan—I am not going to enter into an argument with you.

Talk
Senator FIELDING—That is not unfair at all. It is unfiltered. Unfiltered. I can confirm it is unfiltered.

Talk
Senator Coonan—What is?

Talk
Senator FIELDING—I have checked that what members of parliament and staff have is unfiltered internet access to porn.

Talk
Senator Coonan—We ar