Secret web forum typical of Conroy: Ludlam

Renai LeMay
30 April 2010, 11:26 AM


Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says the secret web forum where crucial internet censorship discussions are taking place are typical of the way Stephen Conroy conducts his politics.


Greens Senator Scott Ludlam (pictured) has described a protected online forum used by the federal broadband department to discuss the internet filter project with industry as typical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s approach and again called for the whole project to be scrapped.

Conroy’s office confirmed the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy was hosting the forum to discuss controversial issues about the filter with internet service providers — including the lack of a complete draft of the planned legislation as of several weeks ago and the possibility of making it an offence to promote methods of circumventing the filter.

Ludlam said this afternoon the initiative was “consultation, Conroy-style” — the department had gotten industry engagement “half-right”. “But then of course, they just open themselves up to the kind of criticism they’re going to cop now … by trying to hold those consultations in secret,” he said.

In a statement this afternoon, Conroy’s office appeared to reject forum suggestions from departmental officials that the Government could make it an offence to promote methods of circumventing the filter.

“They’re finally confronting the logical inconsistencies in what they’re trying to do,” said Ludlam, adding Labor faced a difficult decision — if it became an offence to circumvent the filter, it was likely the legislation would actually trap legitimate as well as criminal activity, whereas if it wasn’t an offence, the Government would face institutionalised circumvention.

He said if the Government didn’t make circumvention an offence, the generation of web browsers might have a “click here to circumvent” button built in.

Ludlam also called for the Government to re-examine the filtering policy as a whole after Conroy’s office confirmed to the Australian that the filter legislation would not be introduced in the May or June sittings of parliament, meaning it would be likely to be shelved until after the next Federal election.

“I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister has put Senator Stephen Conroy’s unworkable plan on the backburner, but they need to go a step further and just hit delete,” Ludlam said in an earlier statement today.

“Merely putting it off because it’s massively unpopular is a cynical pre-election clearing of the decks. The Government needs to clearly indicate that it’s going to scrap the idea completely and work on a new policy in collaboration with all stakeholders.”

“Opposition against the internet filter is widespread because it will do precisely nothing to curb the distribution of illegal material online, while establishing the architecture for greater government censorship in the future.

Delimiter


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

This type of behaviour is duplicitous in the extreme, but Australia, you voted for them!

30 April 2010, 11:53 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting petert:
but Australia, you voted for them!

Well a considerable minority of Australians voted for them. And then there were preferences. Mandate from the people, my @ss.


01 May 2010, 10:35 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting petert:
but Australia, you voted for them!


I certainly didn't! Labor and their various supporters were placed last on my ballot paper. Work Choices was nothing compared to the evils Labor had in their policy documents.

02 May 2010, 3:44 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

vikeyev (New user):


Quoting Tin:
Work Choices was nothing compared to the evils Labor had in their policy documents.


It really doesn't matter, whoever it is you vote for is going to screw up this country next, Howards "reign" was as bad as Rudds is and Abbots will be just as bad as the rest of them. I'm not even sure i want Abbot in, but then i don't want Rudd in either... why can't we vote for someone else.



10 May 2010, 4:38 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user