Hockey praised for filtering stance

 

Shadow Treasurer describes mandatory ISP-level filtering as "unworkable".

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has earned a rare feat for a Liberal Party politician - a glowing report from Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) for his stance against the Federal Government's proposed mandatory ISP-level internet filtering scheme.

Unlike shadow communications minister Tony Smith, who has struggled to form a policy on just about anything, Hockey came out as a clear opponent of the internet filtering bill in a speech delivered to the Grattan Institute last night.

Describing Senator Conroy's plan as "unworkable", Hockey said Australia would be better served by returning to a scheme in which parents could choose what level of filtering required for their children.

"We see the current Federal government seeking to introduce laws that will effectively censor the Internet," he said. "Of course we all want to stop unlawful material being viewed on the Internet. There are appropriate protections that are in place for that.

"But I have personal responsibility as a parent. If I want to stop my children from viewing other material that I feel is inappropriate then that is my responsibility to do something about it - not that of the government."

Hockey said any policy on filtering would have to consider the potential for scope creep.

"Perniciously, it is a scheme that will create the infrastructure for government censorship on a broader scale," he said. "Protecting liberty is about protecting freedoms against both known and future threats."

The EFA applauded Hockey's speech in a statement to the press today.

"Mr Hockey correctly identified several of the fundamental problems in the Government's mandatory Internet filtering policy," said Peter Black, EFA's campaign manager. "Most importantly that the filter will not stop children from accessing inappropriate content and will not prevent criminals from accessing and distributing sexual abuse material."

The EFA is encouraging opponents of the filtering scheme to participate in a lobbying effort ('Lobby a Lib') to convince the rest of the Liberal Party to adopt Mr Hockey's position.

"It is looking increasingly likely that our best chance to stop the filter from ever becoming law is to convince the Liberal Party to vote against in the Senate," said Black. "That is why we are encouraging people who disagree with the Government's impractical and costly policy of Government censorship, to visit or write to Liberal Party Members of Parliament or Senators."


Hockey praised for filtering stance
"@Snigger11: "Form your education levels and posts, I can tell that you all live in safe labour seats anyweay". Form your spelling I can tell your education level is that of a battery fowl...anywe..."
By btone
 
 
 
Comments: 24
Mordd
Mar 12, 2010 5:04 PM
Finally someone in the Opposition has woken up and smelled the coffee, and realised that the Clean Feed brand is not fit for consumption!
TuffGuy
Mar 12, 2010 5:31 PM
Nobody has woken up and smelled the coffee at all, you got that wrong big time. It is time for the readers to wake up and smell the coffee, it is an election year. Need I say more? Hockey is just another snivelling Liberal who will do anything to get re-elected. This has been an issue for quite some time now so ask him why up to now his silence has been deafening?
Sams
Mar 12, 2010 5:42 PM
I have to (partially) agree with TuffGuy - the current opposition has shaped up to be merely taking a contrary stance on just about every issue, rather than any meaningful debate. I think Abbott thinks it is some kind of boxing match, and he doesn't care who gets hurt by the wild punches. Hockey is a bit more moderate though - it is possible he is sincere on this. In any case, it was not the Libs idea to bring in the filter.
gikku
Mar 12, 2010 6:15 PM
I don't care for coffee, and care less for filtering.
Another big tick for Joe Hockey.
Mordd
Mar 12, 2010 7:36 PM
I don't care how the Clean Feed is stopped, as long as its stopped.
Mutant
Mar 12, 2010 8:26 PM
Instead of spending the already millions of dollars just to look at the idea of filtering what we see, money would be better spent educating parents on how to better use the inbuilt filters that just about every good modem/router has already, instead of building a system that can be bypassed simply by using a proxy service.
Lamby
Mar 12, 2010 11:07 PM
Great stance, and made in a public forum.

The only problem is that he is NOT the leader of the opposition party, Tony Abbott, a right wing religious fundamentalist, is!
anonymous
Mar 13, 2010 9:45 AM

A plague on both their houses, if they won't come out and say that they will oppose secret government censorship, full stop.

Nick Xenophon, Kate Lundy and Joe Hockey seem to be the only people with the intelligence and guts to say they oppose this monumentally stupid filter. Perhaps we need Kate and Joe as comms minister and shadow minister!

And the Greens seem to want to walk both sides of the street. Some say they are opposed, but Green senators are merely saying that they might move some amendments.
Neutrino
Mar 15, 2010 10:15 AM
Whatever one does, one should not assume that any statement made in an election year will be carried out! It would be a major mistake to vote in Hockey and his party and get Abbott as a leader just to see the end of Internet Filtering. Remember, there is more than one way to tackle this problem! Note that the US and other International governments have made statements about Australias attempt to filter the Internet and see it as an attack on freedom (amongst other things). It puts us in the same basket as Iran and China. No democratic government wants to be told that! Look it through and see all sides for what they are really doing, not just what they are saying.
Mordd
Mar 15, 2010 10:33 AM
I wasn't suggesting we elect Abbott and Co. merely to stop the CleaN Feed, but it makes it easier to convince ordinary mum and dad aussies that the Clean Feed is NOT a good idea when at least 1 politician *most* aussies trust more than Greens/Pirate Party aka *fringe* politics. When mainstraim politicians start publicly attacking the scheme, it makes it a heck of a let easier to get the truth out to everyone else.

I'm not sure why people assume that im advocating electing Abbott as Lamby seemingly thinks, I guess I can't support a politician being against something without wanting to vote for that pollies entire party hey Lamby, im sorry but politics isn't that simplistic mate.

By the way what are you trying to imply I am trying to imply by the "Great stance, and made in a public forum." - yes I think trying to stop the Clean Feed is a great stance to take, and im proud to state it in a public forum, if you thought that by "any means" im implying I would rather trade the Clean Feed for Abbott for PM, well you reading a little too deep into that.

The great thing is by Hockey coming out in opposition to the Clean Feed thats enough to change the minds of a large number of ordinary mom and pop voters, doesn't mean they will all vote Liberal though, just like not everyone will vote Pirate Party just because they are also against the clean feed. Love the assumptions made in these comments though.
Ace
Mar 15, 2010 12:16 PM
The point is, when some like Hockey makes such a public comment, it is reported in the mainstream media (hopefully), potentially triggering a bigger/wider public debate on the matter, which to this point, has not really occurred.

It needs to be discussed in the mainstream media/talk-back radio etc for any real effect. Maybe if it was known that illegal immigrants will flood our shores if filtering goes ahead, then people will sit up and take notice. It might not be true, but then, neither are so many political promises.
Sams
Mar 15, 2010 5:37 PM
Indeed, I don't advocate voting for Libs because of this. It would be a tragedy for Abbott to get in for so many reasons. I think I would move to another country.
RDEFCON1
Mar 16, 2010 2:52 PM

It wouldn't be much more of a tragedy to get Abbott than it is to have KRudd.

Who you vote for aside, if you're against the filter (which I think every reader of IT News is), then you have to give it up for Joe Hockey on this occasion.
Ace
Mar 23, 2010 4:09 PM
The details are out...almost universal condemnation:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cybersafety_plan/transparency_measures/submissions
Digger11
Mar 23, 2010 5:20 PM
Agreed, It would be a total tragedy if KRUDD was left in power any longer as he is slowly but surely destroying this once great country.
For the 0.0012% of people who care about an Internet filter, and the even lowere percentage who are old enough to vote, your vote is too small to be relevant.

Form your education levels and posts, I can tell that you all live in safe labour seats anyweay.


anonymous
Mar 23, 2010 5:29 PM

If you are going to lecture us all about literacy, dig, you may need to polish up the tenor of your own contributions ;-)

The latest scandal about the proposed secret internet censorship is that Conboy's minders have put out a media release claiming that the 174 submissions were all merely suggesting ways to "improve" the filter. They really do think we are stupid.
Ace
Mar 24, 2010 1:36 AM
The NSW Council For Civil Liberties (click here) seemed pretty opposed. A good read. @Digs submission (under the Christian Lobby Group banner) seemed to be the only one (of any seriousness) totally for it, although they are slightly concerned it doesn't go far enough. Even another Christian group (FamilyVoice) was not that keen on the options.
Digger11
Mar 24, 2010 8:01 AM
@Ace, Wow !! a pro-criminal lobby group calling themselves Council for Civil Liberties is opposing the Internet Filter . This is really surprising stuff - NOT.

When the Internet is filtered it will be tough for the terrorists to get designs to bulid bombs - so of course Civil Liberties will oppose it.
FrankJackson
Mar 24, 2010 11:39 AM
Dig:"When the Internet is filtered it will be tough for the terrorists to get designs to bulid bombs"

Oh dear Jesus. Digger have you ever heard of encryption? Do you think real terrorists will actually surf teh web looking ofr bomb schematics??

Your an idiot.
Ace
Mar 24, 2010 12:56 PM
That would be 'you're an idiot' ;)

But you're right Frank, Stephen Conroy has failed (so far) to introduce any email filtering mechanisms. For @Digs sake, I hope he doesn't take too long to get around to it. We need to be catching them terrorists who subscribe to the 'BombsAreUs' newletter.
FrankJackson
Mar 25, 2010 9:10 AM
Ace:That would be 'you're an idiot' ;)

Note to self: Don't sledge people about intellectual capacity and make typo's.
anonymous
Mar 25, 2010 12:14 PM

Pssst, Frank, "typo's" is one of your typos ;-)
.
TruthSphere
Mar 28, 2010 2:10 AM
My favourite part of itnews is reading Digger's comments on almost anything, friggin hilarious! I never saw the 'terrorist' word coming!

Hey digger.....pssst I heard Sadaam hid the WMD's on the internet!!!!!!! That's why your mate Bush couldn't find them.
btone
Mar 28, 2010 3:54 PM
@Snigger11:

"Form your education levels and posts, I can tell that you all live in safe labour seats anyweay".

Form your spelling I can tell your education level is that of a battery fowl...anyweay...back to buliding them bombs folks...
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Vito Forte: A CIO for tough times
Fortescue Metals CIO talks vendor management and innovation.
 
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Vodafone Australia churn nears half a million for 2011
British joint owners 'not pleased'.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  84%
 
No
  16%
TOTAL VOTES: 243

Vote