Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. What is the minister’s response to the recent criticism of the government’s cybersafety policy by activist group Reporters Without Borders?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Collins for her question. On 18 December, after the government announced its position on ISP filtering, Reporters Without Borders wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to explain why they objected to it. It is fair to say they clearly had not read the government’s policy when they argued:

Filtering would be applied to all content considered “inappropriate” ...

The government was very clear in its announcement that our policy is to require ISPs to block a defined list of URLs of content which has been classified as RC under Australia’s existing national classification scheme. Reporters Without Borders say they do not know whether content will be blocked by keywords, URL or something else. As the government stated just three days before the letter was published, a defined list of URLs of specific web pages or images will be blocked—very specifically.

Reporters Without Borders suggests that under the government’s policy—and, again, I quote the letter:

... subjects such as abortion, anorexia, aborigines and legislation on the sale of marijuana would all risk being filtered, as would media reports on these subjects.

This either shows a distinct lack of understanding of the government’s policy, Australia’s existing classification scheme or both. What it does show is that Reporters Without Borders have not been well informed or have neglected to find out the facts in compiling their report. It is very disappointing that a normally reputable organisation has been so badly misled. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question, which is: can the minister explain to the Senate why Reporters Without Borders may have been so misinformed about the government’s cybersafety policy? Have other organisations being involved in misleading the public about the government’s policy?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the government’s announcement last year, civil libertarian group Electronic Frontiers Australia repeated the claims of Reporters Without Borders in an article written by its CEO, Colin Jacobs, in Crikey. While one could possibly excuse Reporters Without Borders for being ignorant of the government’s policy, the same cannot be said of the locally run EFA, who, through Colin Jacobs, chairman Nick Suzor and board member Geordie Guy, have run a campaign to deliberately mislead the Australian public. They have argued there is no child abuse material traded on the open internet, yet at the latest count there were 355 child abuse URLs on the ACMA black list and therefore the open internet. They have argued that filtering will slow the internet and will result in overblocking, despite the independent live pilot trial showing that internet filtering can be done. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of an ABC poll that showed 80 per cent of people support the government’s policy on internet filtering? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches on cybersafety?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noted comments last week by the shadow treasurer, Mr Hockey, that internet filtering of refused classification content was a threat to freedom. He said he does not trust a democratically elected government in Australia to never introduce widespread censorship. I wonder if this view is shared by those opposite. I remind those opposite that in 1999 the previous government, including Mr Hockey, supported the bill to prevent RC content from being hosted on Australian websites. That is right: in 1999, those opposite who were here at the time voted to ban RC content on the internet here in Australia. That is what they actually did. I want to remind the Senate that RC content includes child sexual abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, detailed instruction in crime, drug use and terrorism. I would like to table a document outlining some of the Electronic Frontiers’s outrageous misleading— (Time expired)