Comments on: Internet censorship in Senate Question Time today

By: The Seventh Down Under Feminists’ Carnival « Ideologically Impure

The Seventh Down Under Feminists’ Carnival « Ideologically Impure — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:07:53 +0000

[...] a cracking job following the proposed blanket mandatory Australian Internet filters, in posts like Internet censorship in Senate Question Time today as well as here, here, here and here, and a round-up here. If we reflect on the fact that early [...]

By: Beyond The Fringe » Blog Archive » Prevent the Victoriana epidemic

Beyond The Fringe » Blog Archive » Prevent the Victoriana epidemic — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:19:20 +0000

[...] Conroy is avoiding the question of exactly what ‘illegal material’ he’s hoping to block from dainty Australians’ minds, whilst attacking and attempting to gag learned critics of his plans. Is this the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge which Conroy, along with the sexually repressed, intolerant religious right, is pushing? [...]

By: Internet censorship in Australia? | blinnov's blog

Internet censorship in Australia? | blinnov's blog — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:03:38 +0000

[...] Here is the transcript of questionary where Senator Conroy failed to answer any reasonable questions regarding internet [...]

By: su

su — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:41:15 +0000

I don’t now why Senator Ludlum said that Conroy had referred to mandatory filters in Senate Estimates because Conroy didn’t answer that question when Ludlum posed it in Senate Estimates as far as I can tell, instead Rizvi said that the UK black list was being used voluntarily by some ISP’s. But everytime Conroy makes a statement to the Press he will reference the UK, Sweden etc without making it clear that none of these places impose the filtering on all ISP’s.

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:39:55 +0000

Su, "misleading" in the Parliamentary/technical sense means deliberately wrong in fact. Conroy may not have satisfied Ludlam, but the answer he gave was a) more or less on topic b) factually correct and c) more or less informative. And you can certainly mislead the House in a sitting of Estimates Committee, hence my curiosity about Conroy's answer to be provided, as was agreed. Ludlam followed up his Question without Notice: Hansard from yesterday, see p27.

By: David Paris

David Paris — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:31:23 +0000

Liam - Senator Ludlam actually provided advance notice to Minister Conroy about the question, despite having no obligation to do so. Minister Conroy still largely ducked the question. su - The statement you are referring to was made in a Senate Estimates committee hearing, so the same rules that Liam mentioned should apply. The transcript from Hansard is now available here Senator Ludlam also entered a motion to take note of Minister Conroy's answer, which you can read here

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:22:43 +0000

Did I say Grendel? It seems I did. I have no idea why I said that. Grendel is nowhere in this thread.
I apologise for my misleading, incorrect comment. I offer my resignation to the Blog Leaders.

By: su

su — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:21:32 +0000

I don’t doubt that they are correct, but they are often seem to be correct about a question that was not asked, a question that is a second cousin to the actual question all padded with spin and counterattack. Don’t you think his original statement about international filtering regimes was misleading? (I don’t think he made that statement in the Senate so he wouldn’t have been misleading the senate).

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:04:19 +0000

Su, Lauredhel, Grendel, for the record:
Ministers are required to give correct and non-misleading answers to questions in Question Time. Misleading the House is one of the cardinal sins of Parliament. As such, it’s understood that when addressing a substantive topic they’re not expected to speak off the cuff. They are expected not to be incorrect.
The President can direct a Minister to address the Question if they’re veering off the topic, but it’s generally only when Ministers veer wildly off-topic to attack the Opposition.
In order to get things right Ministers pre-prepare notes on potential Questions they may be asked, with information and a response. You can see Conroy looking down at it—this is also why Ministers so often articulate gramatically correct sentences—and it’s obvious from Lauredhel’s transcript that it was prepared as a general brief on the pilot programme, probably expecting a question from the Opposition. I suspect from the last paragraphs it would have had further detail, had the question addressed financing.
When pressed about a definition of “unwanted” Conroy takes the question on notice—as he should. A response will be provided, I’ll be interested to find out what it is.

By: su

su — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:21:41 +0000

I don’t I think I have ever seen a member or senator give a straight answer to a question. If anyone was so foolish as to do this the government whip (or some such) would be down on them like a ton of bricks. Attempting to wring mea culpas or genuine answers from ministers by making points of order etc is like getting blood from a stone, except that stones are somewhat more sanguine than government ministers. If the other parties are doing their jobs properly incompetence is exposed despite all the blather so I reckon the system works.

I’d like to know more about that list of 1300 URL’s. If they really are “predominantly child pornography” as Conroy says then surely they are subject to more than just being put on a blacklist. The AFP’s child pornography unit would be involved, international equivalents will have been alerted and investigations instituted. I have nothing but praise for attempts to shut such URL’s down but if they are genuinely child pornography won’t simply filtering them impede investigations into who is involved?