The year-long delay which Stephen Conroy has introduced before the planned implementation of the Federal Government’s mandatory internet filter project has had a dramatic impact on the activities of the Communications Minister’s Department.

According to a departmental official who took questions on the matter in a Senate Estimates Committee hearing in Canberra today, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy is not working directly on the filter project at the moment.

Instead, the official told the committee, the department’s staff were instead primarily working with the Attorney-General’s Department to frame how the review of the Refused Classification category of content which stimulated the delay will be conducted.

In addition, they said, the department was working with the three major ISPs – Telstra, Optus and Primus – which have agreed to voluntarily implement more a limited filter to block child pornography from reachng their consumers, as well as with an industry representative association, believed to be the Internet Industry Association.

“At this stage the work is all elsewhere,” they said.

The delay was introduced in July this year by Conroy, who acknowledged at the time that if the Government was to implement a mandatory internet filtering scheme, that the public would need to have confidence that the correct material was being blocked.

Today, Conroy said the review would take place “at arm’s length” from the Government, with the final details to be agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General later this year. The review is to be conducted by Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor.

Questioned on the matter by Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam, Conroy said the review process would be broadly in line with previous reviews in the area. Conroy confirmed the process would involve public consultation – stating the Government would be looking for feedback from “anyone and everyone”.

Ludlam asked Conroy what would happen if the Attorneys-General couldn’t come to an agreement on the RC area. The committee has previously been locked on other issues – such as the campaign to bring an R18+ classification for video games to Australia.

“I’m reasonably content that it’s not an issue that will be put on hold or objected to by individual states as with the R18+ proposal,” said Conroy, noting there had been some early contact with the state and territory Attorney-Generals on the matter.

Ludlam fired back at the Minister, claiming his comments sounded like the saying that you don’t call an inquiry unless “you know what the outcome is going to be”.

“It’s not a question of knowing an outcome,” said Conroy, noting the review would be independent from Government and that the outcome would be determined by the review process and feedback from the public.

Conroy said that it was possible that legislation could be drafted for the filter with the words “Refused Classification” inserted but that the actual definition of RC would be determined later, but the Minister said he didn’t see the point of that.

Image credit: Ante Vekic, royalty free

Related posts:

1. Did the US State Dept merely query filter policy?
2. Filter gets a new date: Mid-2013
3. Telstra still working with Conroy on filter
4. Conroy: We’re not walking away from filter
5. Conroy trusts public’s “common sense” on filter

Tweet

1. Rant, Rot & Ruin
   Posted 19/10/2010 at 8:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

   “Conroy said the review would take place “at arm’s length” from the Government, … The review is to be conducted by Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor.”

   So the Minister for Home Affairs is not a member of the Government now?

   “…agreed to voluntarily implement more limited filter to block child pornography from reachng their consumers…”

   Err…don’t you mean block their consumers from blocking webpages alleged to contain child pornography?

   • Renai LeMay
     Posted 19/10/2010 at 8:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

     I agree with you about the Minister for Home Affairs — clearly if DBCDE is involved in setting the framework for this review, it’s not precisely going to be conducted at arm’s length. However not sure what you’re saying about point two.

     • Mark (not Day)
       Posted 19/10/2010 at 9:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

       I believe the second point was to indicate that
       a: content does not appear on computers unless requested (except in some cases of malware infection) and
       b: how do you know the web pages contain child pornography when the blacklist is secret you have to take the Government at their word.

     • Rant, Rot & Ruin
       Posted 19/10/2010 at 11:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

       Yeah, sorry, I tried to post a correction to that last line, but it disappeared in a puff of phlogiston.

       Was supposed to read “block their consumers from ACCESSING webpages alleged to contain child pornography”.

       Plus, what Mark (not Day) said. “Block child pornography from reaching their consumers” sounds like Barnaby Joyce ranting about kiddie porn streaming through his house.

2. Blamer ..
   Posted 20/10/2010 at 11:07 am | Permalink | Reply

   If they fix Australia’s outdated RC laws and drop all this filter nonsense then it may have actually been worthwhile Conroy taking us down this dicey path.

3. Tom
   Posted 21/10/2010 at 12:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

   who cares, its just the freakin internet.

   be nice if they just turned the whole thing off for a month or two. encourage people to enjoy life without it.

4. Toms an idiot
   Posted 21/10/2010 at 3:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

   you’re an idiot tom

5. Clytie Siddall
   Posted 21/10/2010 at 5:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

   I’d have a lot more confidence in this RC review if the R18+ consultation hadn’t been such a sham.

   That committee solicited community input, received >90% support for a R18+ rating for computer games… and didn’t act on it.

   What a great example of democracy in action for all the young people who put effort into making submissions to the committee! :(