Queensland Opposition Senator Sue Boyce (pictured) has written to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith asking for more information on the US government’s inquiry about the Government’s internet filtering project.

Boyce wrote the two page letter to the ministers yesterday (and sent a copy to the press) asking for clarification of US State Department spokesman Noel Clay’s statement that the US Government had “raised concerns on the matter” and a statement by Conroy’s office that the US State Department had “asked for, and received, background information”. The letters to Conroy and Smith are almost identical in content.

In her letter, Boyce wrote: “I am sure that Mr Clay would have chosen his words carefully and I find it difficult to reconcile a statement that the US Government had “raised concerns” with your assertion that the US Government had only asked for background information.”

“I would be grateful if you could explain how the two statements can be reconciled. Were concerns raised by the US Government or did it simply request background information?”

The inquiry comes three weeks after Clay’s comment that the US had raised concerns, as reported on News Ltd blog The Punch.

When Conroy was approached on the subject that same day, he said: “I haven’t had any direct contact with with the US State Department” and “They are maybe speaking with the Department of Foreign Affairs … It could be that it just hasn’t been passed through.”

Three days after, Conroy’s office issued the statement that the US state department had asked for background information.

Boyce highlighted US Ambassador Jeff Bleich’s appearance on the ABC’s Q&A program last week when he said the US were searching for “the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle … so we have been working with Australia on this issue, we’ve had healthy discussions on it.”

Boyce said that it’s hard to make sense of Bleich’s statement of “healthy discussion” when Conroy said that the US had only asked for background information.

“Certainly I hope that your reply will not persist with the fiction that the US Government has simply asked for “background information” and shows the same honesty and frankness on this important issue so ably demonstrated by the US Ambassador,” the Liberal Senator added.

She went on to to berate Conroy and Smith about what she said was their inability to be transparent about Australia and the US Government’s discussions on the filter, calling their claimed refusal to be open “deplorable”.

The letter raised Bleich’s statement that the filter was inessential and that US had been able to capture child pornographers and other deviants without the use of a filter. “I would appreciate your advice about how that has been managed in the USA and why Australia cannot employ a similar strategy,” said Boyce.

Image credit: Office of Sue Boyce

Related posts:

1. Did the US State Dept merely query filter policy?
2. Conroy not aware of US filter complaints
3. Conroy re-commits to filter, slams Lundy amendments
4. Conroy can safely ignore Tony Smith
5. Conroy publishes filter submissions

Tweet

1. Darryl Adams
   Posted 22/04/2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Great article Jenna!
   .
   I did like the firewall Conroy put up: “They are maybe speaking with the Department of Foreign Affairs … It could be that it just hasn’t been passed through.”

   Maybe you can talk to DFAT to see who their point person in the tech world is? It would be intresting to see how DFAT view the tech issues in the Internet age, as they will be the ones negotiating it

   • Jenna Pitcher
     Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Thank you, Darryl!

     Great idea finding DFAT tech contact. It would be amusing to see if they know who that contact is.

2. Matthew Hatton
   Posted 22/04/2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

   You know, it’s probably not too much of a stretch to think that the US have had discussions about the filter, just not with Conroy or his department. I imagine that they’ve either been with DFAT or the PM’s office. The latter is probably more likely given how KRudd loves any excuse to suck up to one of our larger allies and Conroy’s general incompetance in his own portfolio.

   • Robotic Buttocks
     Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Hey Matt, how did you link your gravatar into the delimiter comments? I was trying to figure that out the other day.

     • Renai LeMay
       Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

       You just have to register at Gravatar.com, and then use the email address you registered with when you comment on Delimiter.

       • Robotic Buttocks
         Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

         Bammmo, I didn’t know gravatar supported that. You learn something on Delimiter every day.

   • Jenna Pitcher
     Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Good point, not hard to imagine that the US have their slick tentacles all through the Aust Gov in regards to the filter.

3. Robotic Buttocks
   Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Now DFAT has the clean feed stench all over them.

4. Andrew
   Posted 22/04/2010 at 2:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

   DFAT Filtered the US State Department’s concerns.