Lundy proffers opt-in filter option to Labor


Labor Senator Kate Lundy has expanded the set of options she will take to the party room regarding the controversial mandatory internet filter policy, including an opt-in approach alongside her existing opt-out option.

The Senator has previously signaled that she is uncomfortable with the filter policy, but has continued to support Labor’s party line on the issue while still working within the established party structures to attempt to inject some flexibility into the project.

Initially Lundy’s approach had been to persuade Labor to allow Australians to opt-out of the filter technology on their individual internet connections. But in a blog post today, she said she would now also put forward an avenue for people to have to opt-in for the filter technology to be applied.

“It has become clear that the community has a preference for opt-in approach, rather than an opt-out compromise,” she said.

“This blog post is to signal to the community that I now intend to present both an OPT-IN and OPT-OUT approach to the Labor caucus along with the merits and the level of community support for each when the legislation is brought forward.”

Lundy said from what she could see happening across the internety, an opt-in approach would attract the endorsement of “a wide range of community organizations”.

The Senator’s blog immediately attracted response – both positive and negative – from interested parties in the community. “DING DING DING! A Labor politician gets it,” wrote one commenter.

However, Internode network engineer Mark Newton – a long-standing critic of the filter proposal – said Lundy wasn’t going far enough – he had to “call a spade a spade” and said that the whole proposal was one more in a string of regulatory disasters that had been foisted on the Australian telecommunications industry.

“It’s profoundly disappointing that the one person in the ALP who seems to “get it” isn’t howling from the rooftops in fury about that,” he wrote.

Image credit: Office of Kate Lundy


  1. it’s hard to express how much i don’t support these ‘watered-down’ versions of the filter.

    the reasons against the filter (at least SHOULD) revolve mostly around how pointless it is against its stated aims, rather than infringing on personal liberties & all that well-trodden ground.

    after that, making it opt-in or opt-out is just a vote-grabbing farce that will cost just as much money.

    worse, it puts all this filter infrastructure in, with opt-in/opt-out regulation able to be torn down within one term by a future government. then the filterphiles will have won, and still not got what they really need.

    NO godammit, NO.

Comments are closed.