Conroy responds to Ludlum. Finally.

In what was possibly the most watched Senate Question time in memory, Greens Senator Scott Ludlum posed the following (follow-up) question to Labor Senator Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy:

Will the minister be providing a retraction to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, as the answer he gave then was substantially different to the answer that was provided to that committee? Will the minister provide us with a definition of what he meant by ‘unwanted content’ and inform us as to where we might find a definition of ‘unwanted’? Will the minister acknowledge the legitimate concerns that have been raised by commentators and many members of the public that such a system will degrade internet performance, prove costly and inefficient and do very little to achieve the government’s policy objectives?

At the time, Conroy was only allowed 1 minute to respond, a minute that he used to arrogantly treat Senator Ludlum like a child. It’s par for the course that parliamentarians treat each other with contempt during Question Time, but Conroy managed to take it to a whole new level.

We now have Conroy’s full response. Apart from artfully dodging the very real concerns that everybody but the Labor Party seems to have with this scheme, Conroy says very little, if anything, substantive. His response follows:

Given that there was only one minute to answer those questions, I undertook to provide the senator with further answers to the questions at a later time. Regarding the first answer, I draw theSsenator’s attention to the Hansard of the hearing by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts on 20 October. At that hearing I indicated that we are implementing ISP filtering, taking into account arrangements in countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. The point I made was that these countries have introduced technologies that demonstrate that filtering is technically possible. I did not claim that arrangements in those countries are mandatory. This advice was confirmed by officials at the meeting, who stated quite explicitly that the arrangements in these countries are voluntary. At no time did I mislead the committee, as alleged by Senator Ludlam.

In answer to a further question, the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s black list of sites is determined using processes set out in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. These processes involve classification of content by the national Classification Board and include classifications which are determined prohibited. Prohibited content hosted outside of Australia is added to the black list, which is provided to ISPs and filter providers. The government will also ensure that the ACMA black list includes international content of this nature identified by such agencies as Interpol, Europol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

Senator Ludlam also raised issues around the impact and performance of filters. I acknowledge, as I have continually acknowledged, the concerns raised by some members of the public about the possible impact of filtering on internet performance and costs. This is one of the reasons we are undertaking the live pilot—that is, to test these issues in a real-world environment. The government intends to take an evidence based approach to this issue. The results of the live pilot will inform the government’s policy in this area.

The senator also had a question about dynamic filtering and the opening of private mail. The government have made no commitment to require ISPs to implement dynamic internet filtering. This is, however, one of the different approaches to internet filtering that we intend to test in the upcoming live pilot. The government have absolutely no intention of requiring ISPs to open private electronic communications such as email.

Finally, I go to issues raised in subsequent motions to take note of answers. Yesterday, Senator Ludlam asked further questions about the precise approach to filtering that the government will adopt. The government does not intend to make firm decisions about specific issues before it knows the outcome of the upcoming live pilot of filtering technologies and has consulted the industry. The government, as I have said, intends to take an evidence based approach to internet filtering, and the sensible thing to do is to wait for the outcome of the live pilot before dealing with detailed questions.

This response poses an interesting ‘chicken and the egg’ dilemma. If the government is waiting on results of the live test to determine the type of filtering to use, what exactly is the live pilot testing? If all ISPs that participate are required to put forward their own filtering solution, as was stipulated in the RSOI documentation, how can anyone expect for statistically viable results to emerge?

While this task isn’t impossible to do properly, it looks like Conroy has repeated his borking of the National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN has been delayed time and time again and saved only by Conroy’s snake-oil slipperiness. This $4.3 billion plan was little more than a hastily hacked together command to Telstra and SingTel after which the government just sat back and waited for the private sector to do all the hard work.

Conroy’s Ministry is beginning to follow a predictable formula: Promise big, bully the private sector into delivering, talk fast when it turns out to be impossible.