Menu lock


Jan 13, 2010

Labor Senator Kate Lundy speaks out against mandatory internet censorship

At least one member of the federal government stands opposed to mandatory internet censorship -- and she's prepared to fight for it.

At least one member of the federal government stands opposed to mandatory internet censorship, with Senator Kate Lundy pushing the Minister for an “opt-out” alternative from the online blacklist.

But Lundy says she has “a job cut out for me” lobbying colleagues before legislation is introduced to parliament next month. The former Labor front-bencher and passionate advocate for open IT has told Crikey she believes “the majority of caucus” wants a mandatory filter in place.

Lundy has used her blog to vent over her “discomfort” in Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s push for mandatory ISP-level blocking of websites refused classification, defying the government’s commitment to the filter by outlining a “preferred approach” including more effective parental education, internet skills development and voluntary filters at the desktop.

Late last month Lundy wrote Conroy’s proposal left “little room to move”, but she suggested allowing ISPs to offer adult customers an “opt-out” from the filter. This week she has begun canvassing support for the option among Labor colleagues.

“My feeling is I’ve got a tough job ahead of me,” she says. Conroy has vowed to introduce legislation when parliament resumes on February 2.

Lundy acknowledges the flaws in her own plan: there will be a stigma attached to requesting access to an unfiltered internet, and she admits it may “lead to interest by the authorities, even though individuals may simply want to ensure they are not having legitimate content filtered”.

But for Lundy it’s the least-worst option. It “respects people can make an informed choice” while upholding a policy Labor took to the last election (she says she was against it then, too).

Lundy backs Conroy and the process he has gone through in testing filtering technology while boosting funding for cyber crime enforcement. She never believed a filter was feasible but she says the government’s testing has proven that false and she will support the final legislative outcome. But, as she has admitted on her blog, “many mechanisms used by criminal networks will not be stopped through a filtering mechanism”.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), a not-for-profit group leading the campaign against the filter, certainly agrees. Campaign manager Peter Black calls the opt-out compromise a “significant improvement”, but the group is dedicated to a public campaign rejecting any filter altogether.

EFA is investing all its funds in Black, a senior law lecturer specialising in new media at the Queensland University of Technology who will drive the campaign at least for the next three months. New branding and a website (“a hub of campaign activity for all the different individuals and organisations” against the filter) will launch soon to “shift the focus away from the ‘no clean feed’ slogan to a more positive message not only on the flaws in the proposed filter but also provides solutions to the Australian public”.

For Lundy, this is a hobbyhorse. She is a former shadow minister of information technology, a stalwart of Senate inquiries into the subject (she claims not to have missed one in 14 years) and has been a long-time advocate for harnessing IT since working as a communications officer in the union movement. The internet, she says, “really inspired me as a tool for empowerment”.

The ACT Senator says the public has not been properly educated on net safety and filtering technology since the Howard government first put forward censorship plans; the net filter has “never really been tested” as an issue in the community.

In her maiden speech to parliament in 1996, Lundy spoke of the “rewards that come from investing” in IT. She said: “The importance of public policy relating to the use and control of credible information sources and its increasingly complex delivery technologies cannot be underestimated if we are serious about equitable and affordable access.”

From outside, the Labor ministry she has spearheaded the government’s 2.0 online public participation initiative and led public forums on policy development. Last April, Lundy took on IT consultant and open source software advocate Pia Waugh as a full-time adviser on technology policy.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

5 thoughts on “Labor Senator Kate Lundy speaks out against mandatory internet censorship

  1. Perry Gretton

    If a compulsory filter is the worst option, an opt-out filter is the next least worst, as it stigmatises those who choose to opt out. A far better option would be opt-in.

    Why doesn’t Senator Conroy trust the Australian public to choose wisely?

  2. Greg Angelo

    This proposal is the thin end of the wedge for censorship of any media content that “Big Brother” decides is not for our general consumption. This infrastructure will facilitate censorship of any topic at the whim of any government bureaucrat or politician with access to the point of control. If you want an example of how this censorship power is misused look at North Korea, China, Myanmar and Malaysia to nominate for examples . Just imagine Tony Abbott as the “Chief Information Minister” as the head of the “Ministry of Truth” (Apologies to George Orwell).

    Some 50 years ago narrow bigoted religious minded individuals were trying to stop us from reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and it took a tremendous amount of public backlash and protest for this censorship problem to be resolved. The situation we have now is even more pernicious. Secret lists of topics and subjects will be proscribed, at the push of a bureaucratic button, without any recourse as you will not know what you are not allowed to see. Topics such as euthanasia in relation to which politicians pander to right-wing lunatics could easily be suppressed without our knowledge.

    Whilst ostensibly these controls are designed to control internet pornography, it is more likely that this is a more pernicious project to control the political landscape in terms of discussion, and to allow the government to pander to conservative right-wing interest groups.

    Nothing short of a complete and open disclosure of the banned information will ensure that these proposed controls are being used for the appropriate purposes. It should be necessary to get a Supreme Court judge to issue a formal Court order in relation to the banning of the information, and for this information published in the daily law lists, with the opportunity for objectors to be heard.

    However as it is reasonably well-known that porn freaks and geeks are able to get around these controls one is forced to the inescapable conclusion that these people are not the prime target, but that this is an excuse to allow corrupt politicians to control the information landscape. The recent response from Sen Conroy’s office does nothing to dispel any concerns in relation to potential political censorship.

  3. John james

    Why dont you seek the views of parents with kids using the internet for school projects/research whom porn sites carefully target with links for their young and unsuspecting readership to the libertarians Nirvana?
    Hilarious to see Lundy in this role. She is the boofhead Labor Senator who signed off on a press release, issued from the PM’s office, denouncing Tony Abbotts suggestion that the Bible should be included in any anthology of Western Cultures ‘Great Literary Works’.
    In a hilarious gaffe, she publicly rebuked Kevin Rudd for having the temerity to try and inflict his religious beliefs on the general community.
    The thing Rudd was actually inflicting on everyone was his double standard. Often calculatingly photographed leaving a Sunday church service, the PM cloaked this ‘cheap shot’ by getting Lundy to act as point guard.

  4. Jillian Blackall

    John, it’s interesting that you mention tactics like getting Lundy to act as point guard. The book ‘God under Howard’ by Marion Maddox describes similar tactics that were used by Howard.

  5. Cry Freedom

    Cannot agree more with Greg