Prev
Next

Has Conroy just rolled on the net filter?

Paul Colgan

by Paul Colgan

09 Jul 12:13pm

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Censorship, Election 2010, Internet, Politics, Stephen Conroy

149 comments

A statement by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today appears to be a dramatic capitulation on his plan to introduce a mandatory internet filter to censor offensive websites.

Art by The Australian's Kudelka. File.

It is a stunning turnaround for Conroy who has been so vigorously defending his plan in the face of fierce criticism from a range of quarters this year, including the US Government which took the unusual step of publicly airing concern about the Australian policy.

The legislation was due to be in Parliament by the end of the year but Conroy said today it was on hold, pending a review of the types of websites the filter will block and a number of other measures which address the long-standing concerns of opponents, including appeals for classifications and an independent review of censored content.

If a filter is now ever introduced it appears certain that it will not take the form that Conroy has proposed.

There is no way to interpret this other than as a significant victory for the range of groups who have campaigned against the filter.

While the review is underway leading internet service providers have agreed to block websites known to contain child pornography. This is common in other countries including the UK.

The key objections to the plan have been that it lacks transparency, is too wide in scope, would block websites containing information on political issues such as euthanasia and late-term abortion, and would be mainly ineffective against the main distribution method for child pornography - peer-to-peer networks, and could be easily bypassed.

In short, it wouldn’t really work anyway.

And earlier this year The Punch revealed the US State Department had raised concerns about the net filtering plan on the grounds that it ran contrary to its stated goal of encouraging an open internet, and Google also joined the ranks of opponents, dramatically increasing the pressure on the minister.

The key win for opponents of the plan in today’s announcement is that what constitutes “Refused Classification” content is set to be reviewed, including, critically, “the current scope of the existing RC classification, and whether it adequately reflects community standards”.

Under any review it is a practical certainty that what constitutes RC content will be changed.

Concerns will remain about whether the filter would slow internet speeds and the wider problem of a government building an infrastructure designed to block information. But now the legislation is on hold, and with an election near, the door is open for further changes to the plan.

Conroy got himself in knots on this by arguing that it was about protecting children from offensive material online. There was an underlying message that people opposed to the filter were not concerned about child safety. This came undone when the objections started to come from the likes of the US State Department and Google.

I’ve written before that the real problem with this plan is it won’t work because it is too easily bypassed and would give parents a false sense of security that their kids would not come across offensive material.

Another year, and an election, gives some time for everyone to take a deep breath in what has been a difficult and often hysterical debate.

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

149 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Enkl says:

      01:46pm | 09/07/10

      What a disappointment.

      Reply

    • Enkl says:

      03:45pm | 09/07/10

      No Brad, not sarcasm. I’m really disappointed. I lobbied Helen Coonan about this for years. I mainly wanted an ISP-based opt-in clean-feed for families, but also the complete exclusion of known RC content, particularly child porn.

      After years of hitting my head against the wall, Labor promised me what the Coalition refused to. They knew it was politically toxic, but had the courage of their convictions to act anyway.

      For me, that was a vote changer. I’d never voted ALP before. I expected Labor to be fiscally irresponsible and administratively incompetent, but we were in good shape and I reckoned that we could afford some government waste in exchange for some moral action.

      As this election has approached, I’ve been concerned that my pet issue would get killed for politically expediency. I was really heartened to hear Julia endorse it again recently. She seemed to be to be sticking to her principles on at least one issue, and from my point of view, the most important one. Now this! I feel betrayed.

    • Jane says:

      03:45pm | 09/07/10

      ‘Shelved until after review ’ reads…‘shelved until after the election because this is vote kill’.
      “Whatever it takes’ - more deceit and manipulation from Labor. Burying all the ‘nasties’ because the election is close.
      Pathetic….and an insult to all voting Australians.

    • Craigles says:

      03:54pm | 09/07/10

      Enkl - the Labour plan is not ISP-based opt-in.  Howard’s NetAlert (or whatever)  was opt-in ...

    • BJ says:

      03:59pm | 09/07/10

      Enkl - RC is a very broad brush. I could list pages of points dissecting your argument (as I’m sure many others are probably going to do if they can be bothered - we’ve fought this a long time) however you are clearly one of those people who won’t be swayed by fact regardless of whether it comes from the IT community (we know more than you - FACT) or the many child protection groups who are against this.

      By the way, “opt in” for families? If worthless parents are too lazy to install PC-based filters (which are ridiculously easy to install and set up), what makes you think they’ll go to the trouble of contacting their ISP and opting in?

      A PC-based filter can be customised to meet YOUR family’s needs. You can block whatever content you wish and there are plenty of free ones out there. But no, not good enough for you and the other ACL loonies.

    • Ben Gray says:

      04:13pm | 09/07/10

      Enkl, you’ll be sad to know that your beloved filter is completely ineffective as child porn is never trafficked via the web.
      How is it moral to foist something on all citizens that slows the connections and creates latency in the network, and does not do the job it’s supposed to do at all?

    • Richie says:

      05:08pm | 09/07/10

      Enkl, giving parents a false sense of secuity and wasting other people’s money, are not morals that I could ever subscribe to. Sorry.

    • w. says:

      05:23pm | 09/07/10

      OK.

      Now that the Labor party has swept this disgraceful policy under the rug until after the election Mr Abbott can no longer “sit on the fence” about the issue.

      Can we get a reporter somewhere to ask the Opposition Leader what the Coalitions policy is regarding the filtering of the internet?

    • TrueOz says:

      06:24pm | 09/07/10

      @Enkl

      So you’re one of the moralising imbeciles that lobbied for this disgusting filter - shame on you!

      You need to understand that your views, those of CONroy, Gillard and other filter proponents are waaaaaaay out of step with what the majority of Australian’s want.

      You should be doubly ashamed of yourself - knowingly voting for a government that you believed would be “fiscally irresponsible and administratively incompetent” - it just makes a mockery of your so-called morality.

      More amazing than any of this is the fact that you actually BELIEVED something that a Politician said.

    • Ailie says:

      07:01pm | 09/07/10

      Enkl, it’s people like you that have made my partner and I strongly consider leaving Australia. Why should your backwards view be forced upon everyone in the country just because you think some material on the internet is inappropriate?

      All credit to you for wanting to protect your children, but rather wouldn’t they be better educated if taught how to distinguish between indecency and right if they actually knew what it is? I’m not suggesting we should all be exposing kids to this stuff, but trying to throw a blanket over it doesn’t make it go away. It’s still there, and if they ever peak under the blanket they’ll be harmed more than if they knew what was there.

      Also, RC does not equal filth as you presume, it’s just anything that doesn’t fit into the defined categories of classification already in place. Nothing should be banned, we should all be able to decide for ourselves instead of being told what is appropriate by other people. But then I guess that’s what religion is all about really, just a bunch of people telling other people what to do and how to live…

    • Tim says:

      07:31pm | 09/07/10

      Enkl,

      You need to go away and read up on the technology side of this. Stop being lazy, the information is at your fingertips.

    • me my mo says:

      09:04pm | 09/07/10

      I am heartened to see you disappointed, Enkl.

    • Jessica says:

      09:53am | 11/07/10

      @Enkl: buy your own protection that would actually work! There is plenty of software out there to actually protect your children. What is stopping you from spending a couple of bucks and getting an effective method? The back up plan if this doesn’t work for the government would be to install a protection software on every computer, or have one easily available. Take the initiative to protect your kids and don’t expect some “magic blanket” to do it for you just because you are uneducated and refuse to teach your children and monitor what they do. My mother knew what I was doing on the internet simply because we would chat so much about everything. A healthy relationship between you and your kids is the best protection you can give them.

    • LC says:

      01:14pm | 12/07/10

      3 facts, Enkl

      1. There is still no plan to make the filter opt-in. If it was, there would not be a problem. People who want to censor the net can do so without restricting others.
      2. Sever side blacklist based net filters are quite easy to get around. Chances are your kids could show you how, as they would do so at schools in order to access games or facebook. The methods they use can be used to make a mockery of this filter too! You best chances stand with a client-side whitelist based filter.
      3. As long as the planned ISP filter is NOT opt-in, then I’m voting Greens and preferencing independents or other minor parties. If the Liberals come out against the filter I’ll also toss them preferences. Labor’s gonna be last on my ballot paper for a long time, if not FOREVER.

    • Peter says:

      02:32pm | 13/07/10

      I support the filter, although i don’t support secret lists. The online world should reflect the laws we have in the real world. For those concerned about freedom of speach, i would suggest you seek a change to our constitution first which makes no provision for free speach. As far as I can tell, this filter is about things that should not be readily available to anyone and its not about limiting the things you say…

    • Shane says:

      06:26pm | 12/09/10

      This goverment has only switched tactics, instead of censoring the Net they now intend to record all online history including emails, they can then use this information as required, Privacy is a right not a priviledge, when you give that right up you dont get it back, the potential for abuse is rife with this plan, this is typical of the police state we now find ourselves in under a labour goverment.

    • LC says:

      06:59pm | 23/11/11

      @ Peter,

      No it’s not in our constitution. And that is a problem. We are the only western democracy without legislated freedom of speech.

      But for the short term, these should adequately fill the gap.
      - The High Court still recognizes it.
      - It in the UDoHR, which Australia is signatory to.

      The ACL, the primary lobby group supporting the filter, also goes out of their way to oppose any Australian Bill of Rights.

    • Eric says:

      01:48pm | 09/07/10

      A compulsory Internet filter is still an unacceptable barrier to free speeech.

      The fact that Conroy has made a show of softening his propposals should be taken not as a victory, but a sign that victory is possible with continued pressure.

      Reply

    • PeteK says:

      02:46pm | 09/07/10

      We need Abbott to step up to the plate and say that he will drop internet censorship.  Abbott needs to stop cutting and running from the issue and show some leadership and good old fashioned progressive liberalism

    • Craigles says:

      03:00pm | 09/07/10

      Abbott’s religious convictions no doubt preclude dropping it.  Bet RC includes criticism of religion, too.

    • Matt says:

      03:58pm | 09/07/10

      @Craigles

      Did you attack Rudd’s faith just as much? Didn’t think so.

      The hypocrisy is disgusting.

      Rudd instituted the filter and not a word about his beliefs but if Abbott were to institute the filter all the atheistic, new age, lefty hipsters would cry a river.

      I’m neither religious or conservative but that’s how it looks from my ivory tower raspberry

    • Vivian says:

      02:51pm | 11/07/10

      Yes, Eric, sooner or later a system of secretly administered censorship will be used to control much more than what we are being told. Some future politician will not be able to resist using the ability to do that.

      It’s been said elsewhere, but despite Senator Conroy claiming it will stop child porn (and branding as pedophiles everybody who opposes his filter), the fact is that CP is illegal and therefore not sent over the internet where it could be detected - or blocked by his filter.

      So, Senator, once the election is out of the way, your real motives are?

    • acker says:

      01:48pm | 09/07/10

      Be interesting to see how opposed the Lib’s stay to some kind filter, I hope they spend the money they were going to spend on it on additional Federal Police cyber resources

      Reply

    • coldsnacks says:

      02:05pm | 09/07/10

      Howard introduced an “opt-in” filter way back. Noone took it up. Apparently the ACL and the ALP didn’t heed that…

    • Phil says:

      02:07pm | 09/07/10

      Agree

      No one should be able to view Kiddy Porn of any type whatsoever. This only 20-200 would disagree with.  Unfortunetely and it is with limited knowledge of computers etc, this will not stop this type of activity is what you read is true.

      However to be able to block sites such as this for no reason other than they dont pander to Government of the Day’s wishes is a joke.

      Another election ploy by Labor. Drop the bad policies now, get elected and push them through!!!

      They should just hand over more money to the Cyber Police to monitor bullying ,kiddy porn etc.

    • Ben81 says:

      02:35pm | 09/07/10

      While the Liberal party has been nowhere near as strong in opposing this crap as they should be, their stance since 2007 has been that they support voluntary filtering at home rather than ISP filtering.  Nick Minchin has said it a few times. 

      I think they’ll come out with a stronger position about it during the election campaign, on the basis that it’s an unworkable waste so they don’t appear to be condoning things that Labor may want to filter.  Even if you’re shallow about it, they’d be crazy not to grab an easy instant vote winner.  We’ll see what happens once the election is called.

    • papachango says:

      03:07pm | 09/07/10

      Ben81 - to his credit, Joe Hockey has also stated his opposition to censorship, purely on principle.

      You’re right, however - Abbott has only expressed concern about the practical details, which to me suggests he’s not necessarily opposed to censorship in principle. I don’t think it’s because he doesn’t want to be seen as condoning kiddie porn; rather that he doesn’t mind the idea of censorship, especially if Labor take the heat for it. He is a religious conservative after all.

      As you said, opposing it unconditionally would be an election winner, so it’s pretty clear than people haven’t fallen for Conroy’s idiotic argument that you must be pro kiddie porn if you’re anti-censorship.

      Therefore the fact that the Liberals are not grabbing an easy vote winner is a big concern. I’m opposed to 90% of the Greens’ policies, but at least they oppose this.

    • Lee from WA says:

      03:48pm | 09/07/10

      Actually, the Howard government made a filtering program available through a subsidy and people in my church, including me, ordered a stack load but it never eventuated. Which is a real shame.

    • Daisyduke says:

      01:49pm | 09/07/10

      There is another way to interpet it actually: he clearly has instructions from Jooolya to sweep it under the rug until after the election.

      Watch this rolled back out if Labor are re-elected.

      Reply

    • Louisa says:

      01:56pm | 09/07/10

      Exactly, Daisyduke.  Just put aside for another day.

    • Jason R says:

      02:40pm | 09/07/10

      As one of Australia’s greatest ever politicians (Peter Garrett) said prior to the last election “Once we get in we’ll just change it all”.  At least he got one thing right in the last 3 years….

    • Markus says:

      03:00pm | 09/07/10

      This.
      Considering how despicably he has rallied for it previously (from claiming the ISP most publicly opposed to it supports him, to accusing everyone opposed of being a pedophile), combined with Gillard’s recent statements that she still supports the filter, I am not sure how the Punch could read his actions as anything other than keeping it out of the public forum long enough for Labor to get re-elected.

    • Matt says:

      04:01pm | 09/07/10

      I’d go so far as to say the only way to interpret this is Daisy’s way, not the one proposed in the article. The words ‘there will be no gst in this country’ from Johnny Howard still ring in my ears..

    • Chris says:

      01:51pm | 09/07/10

      I think there must be an election coming up?

      Reply

    • SR says:

      02:01pm | 09/07/10

      This appears to be a smoke screen.

      Good luck getting the all the AG’s to agreeing to modify the definition of RC to represent community standards.

      They can’t even agree to establish an R18+ rating for computer games (which means anything that can’t be defined to be suitable for a person older than 15 is determined to be refused classification for sale).

      The filter will be back, along with Conroy, but it won’t matter anyway as if the filter does secretly block digital products deemed RC (what ever the outcome of the review or RC) the government could very well find itself before the WTO for violating the AUSFTA.

      And even if the don’t find themselves sitting before the WTO for secretly blocking the importation of digital products from a country that we have a FTA with, a person will always be permitted to subscribe to another digital product from the United States called a VPN service.

      After all a VPN service could not be determined to be ‘unwanted’, ‘inappropriate’, ‘abhorrent’, ‘offensive’ or against community standards. It would just permit a person to judge what content is and what content is the above for themselves – the way that it is at the moment!

      Reply

    • coldsnacks says:

      02:15pm | 09/07/10

      “While the review is underway leading internet service providers have agreed to block websites known to contain child pornography. “

      Of course they have. None exist.

      A website has a geographically trackable IP address. It also needs to be registered with a name, address and method of payment. And of course, websites are hosted on servers. All of which can be seized under existing legislation.

      When will the Luddites and dunderheads in policy making learn that this is an underground thing already. You won’t stamp it out (it’s a psychological issue)  and the “measures” being voiced to block it will be 100% ineffective.

      Reply

    • TrueOz says:

      07:08pm | 09/07/10

      The knuckle-draggers also need to get their heads around the pact that we already have laws against possessing or viewing child pornography. People who view this material are ALREADY committed to breaking the law. An internet filter is not going to miraculously turn them into law-abiding citizens - nor is it going to stand in the way of them using the internet as a way to indulge in their perversions.

    • PaulD says:

      02:16pm | 09/07/10

      ummmmm? Can Julia and her Government please get it together! Just for 1 day would be good.
      On Wednesday she said this -http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2946907.htm

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      07:46pm | 10/07/10

      Even 6 hours would be a good start! !

    • Ben Gray says:

      02:16pm | 09/07/10

      Thank Golly, I just hope that they’re not sweeping it under the rug for the election.
      Nightmare scenario: They take it off the table so it doesn’t become an election issue, then they bring it back after the election claiming that it’s been policy all along, therefore they have a mandate.
      I have no objections to the Christian/Fielding/Xenophon lobby having a useless filter that doesn’t work or have any practical purpose, all so they can sleep at night knowing that they don’t have to worry about being responsible parents.
      What I DO object to is the rest of us being held back by that filter because it’s mandatory.

      Reply

    • BJ says:

      02:26pm | 09/07/10

      Actually, Xenophon is opposed to it if I recall correctly.

    • Ben Gray says:

      03:27pm | 09/07/10

      BJ, if you’re correct, I stand corrected.

    • LC says:

      08:56pm | 12/07/10

      The reason he’s opposed is more on the specifics of the Conroy’s plan rather general idea of mandatory net filtering.

    • julia says:

      02:17pm | 09/07/10

      It’s on hold because you can’t put legislation to the House when there’s an election on. And he didn’t get it in on time.

      Makes you wonder how he got a degree. I mean, he would have had to have got his assignments in on time. Or did he outsource them?

      Reply

    • papachango says:

      02:21pm | 09/07/10

      Let’s not break out the Champagne just yet. This is ominous and potentially much, much worse.

      Cornoy is an idiot and I do not trust the man for a second, but he’s figured out (or more likely Jooliya told him) that this might just be a contentious issue with an upcoming election. So it’s going on the ‘backburner’ until a bit later, and if they are re-elected I’ll bet you London to a brick they’ll ramp it back up again quick smart.

      People will kick up a bit of a fuss initially, but they’ll have 2.5 years to forget about it until the next election. Then they can get on with the business of expanding the blacklist in total secrecy.

      Do not be fooled people - vote these fools out.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      02:26pm | 09/07/10

      Only if you can get a better bunch of fools to replace them.

    • papachango says:

      02:47pm | 09/07/10

      I don’t think that would be difficult Trevor. There’s a guy who sleeps under a bridge near me that would probably do a better job.

      Though it would be nice if Abbott acted like a real liberal for a change and opposed this ridculous, totalitarian policy. He’s been suspiciously quiet on something that would otherwise help his election chances.

    • Trevor says:

      03:04pm | 09/07/10

      Sorry papchango, but you only get to choose between the people actually standing for election. The guy under the bridge PROBABLY doesn’t fit that requirement.

    • Debbie says:

      03:49pm | 09/07/10

      “Only if you can get a better bunch of fools to replace them.”  Well that counts our every political pary in Australia.  And most Australians must be fools as well to vote for any of them.

    • PS says:

      05:19pm | 09/07/10

      What a poor choice we have before us. Under Labor it seems a dead cert (they’re not changing their tune, even in the face of such vocal oppsition) and the libs are still a relatively unknown quantity… but we know tony’s a Godboy so I can see there’d be more problems ahead.

      so what about the Greens? If I vote for them, will my vote end up putting Labor back in anyway?

    • Jane says:

      10:00pm | 09/07/10

      PS- “the libs an unknown quantity’????  WTF? Are you for real?...they’ve just come off almost 12 years of running the country 2 and a half short years ago and you say ‘unknown quantity’?...give us a break. :o

    • MarK says:

      02:25pm | 09/07/10

      Can they be any more transperant?

      Can they be any more cynical?

      Can they continue to lie to us and expect us to believe the bullshit?

      Another backflip. Another policy reversal until after the election of course.

      Name one thing this government has done or proposed to do that they have followed up on. All we have had for 3 years is waste and symbolism in the name of “putting Australia forward” where the only that has gone forward is the debt level.

      This is a disgrace. They stand for nothing, They believe in nothing except power for powers sake. They are weak and cowardly.

      What a disgrace. Abbott sets the agenda from opposition. Joolia is already show to be a pathetic liar.

      Bring on the election. Should be a hoot.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      05:05pm | 09/07/10

      What MarK said.

    • Front up says:

      07:02pm | 09/07/10

      MarK,
      Let’s put the nasty truth that the Communications Minister and the Attorney General - the Govt - could shut down virtually anything they wanted to, with no appeal and no media coverage to the side if this went through. That’s chilling.
      But consider this.
      If it’s true as they say that 30 percent of web searches are related to pornography (as a general heading) what would it do to Telstra’s share price if they brought this in and it did work.
      Let’s say that 30 percent goes back to ten percent.
      What would that cost Telstra and Optus.
      How much would that, in turn, take out of the 2013/14 Federal budgets?
      How much traffic would it take out of the NBN? How does it affect the business model to lose such a huge amount of search traffic?
      Has Treasury modelled this?
      I don’t know the answers, but I do know this:  These bozos don’t have a bloody clue.
      The PM is making it up as she goes along.

    • Kordez says:

      02:38pm | 09/07/10

      Internet filter version 3.64… By the time Conroys monstrosity is completed he could have laid 2 national broadband networks.
      The Pirate Bay (a file sharing site) has been afloat since 2003 despite continuos attacks by the movie, music and software industries, though unsuccessful after almost 7 years. They have; been threatened legally, been DOS (Denial Of Service) attacked, had Federal Agents remove servers the site relies on, been URL blocked by some countries, been taken to court,  been put in prison and a 10-20 grand fine a day continue to compile for every day the site stays online. They resiliently circumvent every intuitive and legal effort the intellectual property proprietors make to have them sink to the bottom of the Caribbean. I love reading about their shenanigans and their extremely funny replies to legal threats.
      The same will happen when internet filtering is introduced. Although not quite the same, effortlessly a site can be blocked but seconds later a new URL or avenue to access it will appear, we see this with Youtube already.
      Furthermore the items listed for blockage are Child Porn, Bestiality and Terrorist advocating sties. These sites are widely condemned, because of this they are unlikely to stay in one place for very long anyway and short of being the one to shift the web address we will not immediately know what to block, but those who frequent the site are informed prior to anyone else. The entire process is a complete waste of time and money and it is typical of Australian Government to ignore the public opinion.

      Reply

    • papachango says:

      05:54pm | 09/07/10

      The proposed blacklist is not just child porn, bestiality and terrorism. Euthanasia, drugs and abortion sites are ALREADY on the list, as well as adult women with small breasts (seriously).
      Ift would be extremely naive to think the categories wouldn’t expand once it’s implemented and the scrutiny removed.

    • Nevan says:

      06:52pm | 09/07/10

      Probably one of the smartest comments I’ve read/heard on this so far. But this is australia remember… We don’t even have a bill of rights to protect us….. just a thought.

    • Ryan says:

      10:36am | 11/07/10

      @Kordez : under which of your categories would wikileaks fall under?

    • Kordez says:

      02:26pm | 23/07/10

      @Ryan, I compare Wikileaks to Perez Hilton Online, it has some of the most entertaining information known to man.

      Although I’d say under Conroy’s plan, Wikileaks will be black listed as it wil be an offense to publicise the list. Personally I don’t think the list should be under lock and key because there should never be a list.

      Even so, if Wikileaks is blocked by Austrlaian ISP’s it doesn’t mean you can’t obtain access through one of many daily released lists of proxy servers located in countries whose blue collar employees only just learnt how to turn a computer on.

      A quick update on the Pirates themselves! A few days ago The Netherlands deemed The Pirate Bay an illegal website (almost 2 years after raiding their servers) and informed the owners that the site is to be taken down or an additional fine will be charged to them daily. The problem is no one really knows where the site is located anymore, so The Netherlands are passing judgements that they cannot enforce.

      Whats amusing is that the Australia is about to do the same thing. They can enforce a filter, China’s tried and it’s a complete failure there too.

    • dale says:

      02:43pm | 09/07/10

      So what is the difference between wht they want to block and what the telco’s are going to block? arnt they going to block all the bad stuff now? so why do we need to waste millions on this then???

      Reply

    • Mick says:

      02:51pm | 09/07/10

      A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned - Shephard Book
      So very true. If they cant govern themselves then they have no right to dictate how we govern our own private lives.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      02:58pm | 09/07/10

      ‘Has Conroy just rolled on the internet filter?’ 
      No, just shelved it.

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      02:59pm | 09/07/10

      Labor and its policies is collapsing faster than a house cards. Labor as a government has lost any credibilty as Gillard disintergerates every policy- any credibity left by Rudd is now gone. What does Labor stand for,what does Australia stand for with Labor in government now, today?  Labor in government behaves like some twobit third world government, cutching at straws saying anything. Is there anyone governing Australia today? Gillard in two weeks has turned Australia into an uncertain place - she became PM overnight by ousting Rudd, and everything Australians believed Labor stood for is changing daily overnight. I can’t remember ever feeling so uncertain about any Australian government as this one today. Gillard has to go- this is not the Australia we want- a government uncertain of its direction

      Reply

    • Sally M says:

      03:13pm | 09/07/10

      I want to hear what the Libs have to say.
      I don’t think too many people would have a problem with an opt in system that gave parents a useful tool to protect their children.

      But frankly, there are commercial providers of filters already that parents can use! What would a government opt in filter add?

      Think of all the money Conroy is wasting, and think how many more federal police officers that money could support to hunt down and prosecute the purveyors of kiddie porn material.

      Reply

    • Anon says:

      03:14pm | 09/07/10

      This is just an election gimmick.

      Victorians are the only ones who can save us by voting below the line on their senate ballot and putting Conroy last.  Vote his arse out.

      Reply

    • SkepDad says:

      03:22pm | 09/07/10

      Mr Coglan, your naiveté is breathtaking.

      This is nothing but a cynical ploy to remove the filter as an election issue.  The government knows that the filter is deeply unpopular and will likely cost them numerous votes.

      By announcing this review, they hope to avoid the gen x/y/z hemorrhage that they are facing.  Make no mistake, if the ALP is returned, they will claim an implied mandate for the filter and railroad it through in whatever form Conroy, Fielding and the ACL desire.

      A victory?  If anything this is a blow to the campaign for an open internet.  As usual, Conroy knows that his proposal can’t stand up to scrutiny and is relying on tricks and misdirection to get it in by stealth.  And going by your article, it’s a strategy that’s working.

      Reply

    • SkepDad says:

      03:40pm | 09/07/10

      Of course, I mean Colgan not Coglan.  Apologies for that.

    • chris nis says:

      03:22pm | 09/07/10

      Good we do not need the ‘nanny state’

      Reply

    • Dayton says:

      03:23pm | 09/07/10

      This is just a smokescreen to delay it until after the election. Julia must feel it poses a threat to her winning, and shes right, but Conroy will get his way as soon as they are elected again. Australia, please vote responsibly and vote for freedom of speech.

      Reply

    • Scott says:

      03:28pm | 09/07/10

      I’m actually not against imposing a filter but it has to be something that works.  Conroys plan doesn’t accomplish anything except wasting tax payers money.  It certainly doesn’t stop child pornography as he keeps claiming.  I’m glad he has put it on hold but I still wouldn’t vote for the fool.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      03:30pm | 09/07/10

      I still won’t be voting Labor until this is scrapped entirely.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      03:44pm | 09/07/10

      Me neither.  The fact that they’ve announced a review now - after campaigning about the evils of an uncensored internet, shows how hastily cobbled together the legislation is, and how unpopular it is.

      This, and the ETS.  Shelve them both or I’ll vote for a bloody bag of sawdust before I vote Labor.

    • thingy says:

      03:44pm | 09/07/10

      Paul - it’s interesting that you read this change of stance by Conroy as him rolling. Call my cynical what’s going on here is they’re taking it out of the equation for the up-coming election (especially as Julia m,entioned they were still going ahead with this only yesterday). All we’ve had from Labour regarding this is stubborn refulsal to admit the whole thing is flawed and they’ve approached it all in an extremely undeomcratic way.
      After the election, I expect them to bring it back in almost untouched. It’s quite obviously a thin end of a edge. You’re not fooling me, Conroy.

      This filter needs to be canned as it quite simply will not work and leaves the door wide open for much worse censorship. No concessions.

      Viva the Peoples’ Republic of Australia!

      Reply

    • Dean says:

      03:49pm | 09/07/10

      “the current scope of the existing RC classification, and whether it adequately reflects community standards”

      This sounds like a dog whistle code-word for the Christian far right that the current list of RC material is TOO SMALL and should also include things like regular X-rated material.

      If that’s the case, then this so-called “reversal” is actually very scary indeed…

      Reply

    • Ripa says:

      04:01pm | 09/07/10

      Any government that says they will filter the internet for our own good, and any person that says if you are against the filter you must be pro child porn, is against free speech. I am an adult i can make up my own mind about what is appropriate and what is not. The internet is a haven for alternative media, things you would never see on local news you can find on the internet. CONroy should migrate to a socialist country where freedom of information is frowned upon. A free internet helps keeps our politicians and media honest.

      Reply

    • Debbie says:

      04:20pm | 09/07/10

      Nothing could keep politicians honest ..... honesty just isn’t in their DNA. But freedom of speech and any in depth scrutiny obviously scares them. Since much of that scrutiny comes about via the uncontrolled public transfer of information over the internet they want to control it. Trouble is I doubt whether any of them really understand how this internet thingy works smile

    • Randal says:

      04:09pm | 09/07/10

      Another day another policy back down.

      The ALP each day seem to re-define the term political cowardice.

      Reply

    • vic says:

      04:12pm | 09/07/10

      Not a SINGLE person I know will vote Labor while Conroy still has a portfolio. It’s past the point of him just dropping the filter, it’s at the stage where he himself has to go. Nothing less is acceptable.

      Reply

    • Rowan says:

      04:12pm | 09/07/10

      Your comment:The between-the-lines back-story to today’s announcement: ‘I Stephen Conroy am announcing that Julia has asked me not to bring up this really sensitive issue before an election we still can’t be guaranteed of winning. She makes a good point, and she’s my boss, plus, oh man, I don’t want to be in opposition that would be really hard work. So yeah I’ll allay people’s fears by recommending a committee appointed by the government examine a government initiative. The results of which are far enough away from this election not to matter to the voters, but just happen to land far enough way from the election after this one and that hopefully we’ll be able to get it through in the 18 months remaining in the next term.’

      Don’t be fooled this isn’t a back down this is nothing more than a time sensitive delay!

      Reply

    • Tracker says:

      04:12pm | 09/07/10

      Are you for real Paul Colgan ??? All the Government has done is SHELVE the filter until after the election then like the lying, cheating, dishonest, corrupt, scum of the earth Australian Labor Party that they are, they will bring it back with a vengeance and a “how dare mere mortals interfere with our plans to control the masses”. NOTHING has changed, this Government are as sick and as low as the pedophiles they are claiming to stop and need to go before they completely destroy this great country of ours. Trouble is.. 52% of Australians are idiots which guarantees their return to power :-(

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:48pm | 09/07/10

      Bit like Liberals and their policies…..

    • Bob says:

      04:27pm | 09/07/10

      Its no backdown on reading the contents of the current filter the majority is political opposition on-line gambling and gaming.
      Its Not Conroy controlling the web filters It’s the Labor Party under the false pretence its to protect the children.
      The Labor Party took a page out of Adolf Hitler book, Mein Kampf, (1925

      The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

      Reply

    • John says:

      04:28pm | 09/07/10

      So what happens if these jokers are re-elected. They will be in control of the NBN and Net Filter. It’s starting to sound like china!

      Reply

    • Dee says:

      04:38pm | 09/07/10

      Clearing the decks before the election - put “on hold” any contentious issues.
      We have come to expect backflipping and deceit from this deplorable Government. The Rudd/Gillard Government is no different to the Gillard/Swan Government.
      Don’t let Joolya, foolya.

      Reply

    • On Ice says:

      05:08pm | 09/07/10

      Did they clear the decks of the Titanic as well?

    • Richie says:

      09:28pm | 09/07/10

      On Ice - probably not. Perhaps the captain took the Conroy approach:
      Officer:  “Sir…We’re headed for an iceburg” 
      Captain: “Well I’ll just cover up this porthole and voila…problem solved”
      Officer:  “But the iceburg’s still there - we just can’t see it now”
      Captain: “And your point is…?”

    • Hudson says:

      04:40pm | 09/07/10

      For those of you who won’t vote Labor over this, have a guess at who the other options are: The Greens and the Liberals. Now, the Liberals are most likely going to support this due to Abott’s Catholic views (so he’s in the ACL’s pocket as much as Rudd was over this issue) and the Greens preferences generally go to Labor anyway.

      As for the technical side to the filter, what is so hard about contacting the police and getting them work with their collegues overseas and get the websites taken down - as opposed to merely filtering them? I mean, filtering them only means that a very small part of the already small market for child abuse materials cannot access it through ONE of the channels it is available through. However, removing the site from the internet (though it’s a very futile thing to do given the dynamic nature of the medium) will stop anyone from accessing it via said method. Slowing my internet down because of a very small part of the population is absolutely ridiculous policy and flawed from the beginning, it’s like in high school where we all get held back because one kid was talking.

      It’s a shame that nobody in politics actually understands how technology works so they just capitulate to the demands of groups like the ACL who also do not understand said technology. It’s a shame that Conroy only listens to those groups and not those who understand the medium he is working with who want to work for a viable solution.

      Reply

    • john says:

      04:56pm | 09/07/10

      mere speculation Hudson, you presume to know what Abbott is going to do. I don’t hera you talking about Krudd and his pious churchstop soundbites.
      Get the facts before you comment on what soemoen else “might do’
      It’s just amazing how labour cronies always bring up Abbott’s religion but not rudd’s ...or Gillard’s aethiesm for that matter

    • SkepDad says:

      05:03pm | 09/07/10

      Hudson,

      The Greens have specifically stated that they oppose the filter.  The Libs have stated that they are waiting until they see the actual legislation, but many Libs have come out in definitive opposition, e.g. Joe Hockey.

      Much is being made of Abbott’s catholicism, but I’m yet to see any of his policies that are being driven by it.  I’ve been looking closely, as his reported overt religiosity worried me greatly, but so far it seems to be a lot of hot air, and Abbott is almost embarrassed about the focus on his faith.

      Abbott is smart enough to see that the filter in its current form is unpopular enough to lose Labor the election.  No way he’ll support it in Government.

    • Arash says:

      05:31pm | 09/07/10

      the problem isn’t getting websites taken down - the whole reason why this “protect the kiddies” argument is a joke is that most paedophiles seem to be using harder to trace methods like peer-to-peer networking, directly emailing contacts, etc - posting stuff on the web proved too easy to get caught with, so they changed tactics!

      Ultimately, I loathe this intrusion because anywhere the “Christian” right has struck, they end up over-reaching. Suddenly, all material on abortion, sexuality in general or even ART gets suppressed under some obscure, hard to fight in the courts judgements.

      Anyone who seeks to censor the media because it offends their personal morality is clearly insecure in their faith - they shouldnt need the world to change for them if their faith is strong enough.

    • Bunch says:

      05:53pm | 09/07/10

      “Now, the Liberals are most likely going to support this due to Abott’s Catholic views”

      Yes, because he couldn’t possibly oppose something, given his religious views. That’s why the atheist Julia Gillard is against it, right?

      Oh wait, she isn’t. You might just be an idiot.

    • Ripa says:

      06:13pm | 09/07/10

      @Hudson where did you read such rubbish, Abbott will support this because he is Catholic, like all Catholics are for the filter? where do you come up with this drivel?  i would laugh but its sad you think like this.
      The libs have already shown, under Howard, and have said they would not support this. So if you see the libs have not introduced this in the past and will not in the future, labor is forcing it, so now you have to wonder who is afraid of free speech and who is not.

    • Tedd says:

      07:23pm | 09/07/10

      SkepDad - there are reports he initially refused to sign RU486 into use when he was Health Minister, despite being required to do so under the Therapeutic Goods Act or similar legislation.

      Given the vagueness of the proposed filters function, one might be concerned it would be used to reduced criticism of religion or religious entities, or used to decrease promotion of other social constructs such as humanism.  There seems to be a disproportionate number of Catholics or hard Christians on both sides of politics.

    • LC says:

      10:12pm | 12/07/10

      Hudson, the Greens oppose the filter in as it is currently planed and will block it in the senate, unless the government puts up amendments to the currently proposed legislation, so that:
      1. The scope of the stuff filtered out is more customizable, say one could choose to filter out RC, while another can choose to filter out all porn, while a third person can choose to filter out all porn, RC and social networking. And more importantly:
      2. The option to have an uncensored internet is protected by law.

      As for the liberals, while Tony Abbott may have to political experience and common-sense to see that the plan is political suicide, if he gets in, even if it’s made a huge deal out of during the election, his hands are tied, as long as the Christian-right want it, he has no choice but to do it. After all he knows that they, not themselves, are their bosses. Besides, he has so much other party polices so backwards that I wouldn’t risk voting him in even if he promised to block the net filter, support r18 games and a bill of rights. Do you remember his ACL backed proposal for mandatory bible classes?

      Yeah, the Greens is the way to go. If they hold the balance of power in the senate we will not have to put up with mandatory net filtering, or even blanket data retention will not become a reality.

    • LC says:

      07:22pm | 24/07/10

      “and the Greens preferences generally go to Labor anyway”

      Unless you vote below the line on the senate paper and put labor as last preference in the House of reps paper.

    • Denis says:

      04:41pm | 09/07/10

      Memo to Stephen Conroy
      I thought I’d share a radical approach with you.
      Try consulting and .. wait for it… listen. You will maybe detect (not certain) that there major objections across the board to this idiotic proposal.  To steal a quote from Steve Roach, I suspect “your eyes and ears are painted on” as this can be the only reason you don’t say its off the table completely.

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      05:01pm | 09/07/10

      Those who are going to vote for these turkeys after all this, must be braindead!

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      05:04pm | 09/07/10

      My objection to the filter was that it would be used not to censor porn, but to censor whistle blowers reporting on important matters .. as happens in China. Conroy never addressed that concern.

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      09:37am | 10/07/10

      No, he normally just gets upset that people are comparing this to China’s system and then refuses to answer any of the concerns.

    • S.Printer says:

      05:06pm | 09/07/10

      Just goes to show even at a dawdle labor cant do “policy on the run”

      Reply

    • Firzen says:

      05:19pm | 09/07/10

      Big, big loss for us anti-filter people.

      Know why? Telstra, Optus and Primus have all now pledged to implement mandatory filters - and Labor hasn’t even created one line of legislation.

      Reply

    • MatLon says:

      11:19pm | 09/07/10

      Yes, it is quite confusing.

      Although they are not using ACMA’s RC blacklist, but another list of known kiddie porn addresses compiled by international agencies.

      While I would rather no filter at all…if they are ONLY blocking kiddie porn and not RC, then I think I can live with that. There has to be independent oversight though.

      But it is stupid, considering the likes of Google already self-censor this stuff.

      No other country in the world has a classification similar to our RC…it is ridiculous. Just dump it completely.

      I have been following this for years now, I am tired of pulling my hair out over this.

      Conroy, go dig a hole and bury yourself in it. You would have to be one of the most hated politicians in recent history. Get rid of this looser and put someone in who actually understands the portfolio…

    • Arash says:

      05:20pm | 09/07/10

      There are way to many comments here, so I don;t know if anyone’s mentioned this - If we’re busy with the RC debate, how about we crush the States’ hilarious stranglehold on material that IS CLASSIFIED BY THE OFLC, but is ILLEGAL to distribute? Hell, it’s apparently illegal to own or distribute X-rated stuff in Queensland, even though our State Attorney-General signed up for the current set up! Let’s get that stupid crap right BEFORE we roll out nation-wide policies for creating impossible technologies.

      Reply

    • Anthony says:

      05:28pm | 09/07/10

      Wonder if Enkl is Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby. Seems only these fundies are pro this useless filter.

      Reply

    • Angus says:

      05:54pm | 09/07/10

      Redefining the scope of RC should be pretty simple.

      If it’s legal for consenting adults to DO something in the privacy of their own home then it should be legal for consenting adults to WATCH other consenting adults doing it.

      Reply

    • Bunch says:

      05:57pm | 09/07/10

      More predictable “reviews” and “shelving” of unpopular policy, to be coincidentally concluded and implemented after the election.

      I hope people don’t fall for this horse dropping again.

      Reply

    • Lindsay says:

      06:14pm | 09/07/10

      Matt, 301pm- get your facts straight, yes Howard did say he would not introduce a gst. HOWEVER in the future he then stood on a platform of introducing a gst in the NEXT election campaign and WON the vote based on that announcement. He did not lie to the voters or backflip. so just a recap, Labor’s record includes a failed insulation scheme, failed green loans scheme, rorts in the schools’ building programme, numerous backflips including on the internet censorship (till re-elected), on asylum seekers, climate change,a 40 billion dollar possible white elephant in the NBN (8 years to build-surely wireless will surpass the speeds before then)....the mining tax debacle-and change of so called leadership-if the Libs did this they would be crucified by the media and the voters for being in ‘disarray’....oh i could go on but really THINK about your vote and if you want more waste of YOUR money…..with this Labor incompetence..

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      09:21pm | 09/07/10

      Having been on the Internet for longer than any of you.. I think it is extremely important that we keep on top of this madness and prevent it from happening at any cost.

      Reply

    • steve says:

      09:24pm | 09/07/10

      Listen in folks. Who gives a stuff whether Conroy or any other Minister or even the PM engage in “dramatic capitulations” and “stunning turnarounds”?
      It only means that they have listened to the voice of reason, they have read the mood of the electorate and they have revised and refined their policies into something better. Big flamin deal. Isn’t that what we want from our politicians? Of course it is. Now, Paul, you’re a good writer and for any journalist worth their salt election time is a dream for hyperbole and spin. But, please, some respect to your readership. Who gives a hoot whether the US State Department raised concerns over Australia’s internet policy? They are the masters of intelligence resourcing and big brother syndrome. Sure, Conroy’s plan may have pressed the limits but let’s not have the US lecture us on democracy. In God they trust?

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      09:59pm | 09/07/10

      This is not a backflip but rather an election ploy. Does Conroy take us all for mugs or what. Are we that stupid as to believe this pre-election spin. After the election, if they get re-elected, the filter will be back on, no question. If this is a true backflip, Conroy with kill it now. But he won’t. They we have the internet monitoring. The two combined will make Australia a true big brother state with Canberra watching our every move. I have it on good authority that Abbott will not proceed with the filter but rather go back to old Howard policy of handing out software to families who want them. This makes real sense to me.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      11:06pm | 09/07/10

      It still doesn’t change the fact that it would be doing the world a favour if someone were to push Conroy down a well or something.

      Reply

    • Ian says:

      11:18pm | 09/07/10

      If Labor ever get this internet filter through, we will only be allowed to make comments on Fairfax and their AlpBC websites.

      Reply

    • Luke says:

      12:43am | 10/07/10

      Sadly if They get in and their way after the election anything that goes against the ALP will be blocked ie blogs like this

      Reply

    • joe says:

      01:14am | 10/07/10

      Don’t the Labor government want ISPs now to keep a record of every website that we visit for years!!!?! This is much worse.

      Reply

    • mick says:

      03:18am | 10/07/10

      I think you certainly can interpret this as simply another in a long line of lying pronouncements made by Conroy & Labor in regard to this. They just change what they say whenever it gets too hot & keep on going with their plans in secret.

      It all boils down to the same thing whichever way they are currently pretending it is going to happen: a sleazy way to extinguish freedom of opinion using a variety of different proposed backdoors.

      Reply

    • OldGirl says:

      12:17pm | 10/07/10

      I am relieved this security thing is gone. I never did understand it, I am like most older Aussie women, we get on the net and do very cautiously what we have to do, and are way past the age of wanting to go to web sites we should not be going to. I thought this scheme was to help parents to be honest with you, and to stop pedophile activity. But The Punch bloggers have shown me it involved more than that. I would never object to any attempt to stop pedophiles, even if it was to my detriment. Our kids are very precious.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      07:48pm | 10/07/10

      If they put in a filter my 14 yo son has just started a business, he’ll disable it for you for $50. LOL

      Reply

    • Eno says:

      08:26am | 11/07/10

      Dear Julia Gillard, If you’re really concerned about child pornography, then delete, don’t block. Please read information from the link below.

      http://bit.ly/bc3NOy

      This approach has been tried and worked in Germany by private citizens, and I see no reason why it wouldn’t work here when implemented by the government..

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      10:39am | 11/07/10

      Nothing more than another Labor barefaced LIE to get you to vote for them, once they are returned to office you can bet your house on a 100% guarantee of this being brought back in.. Just like the 100% guarantee you know that nothing will change with regards to boats and a 100% guarantee that you know we will be slapped with yet another tax to pay for labors spending… we already have green certificates, ETS is well on its way.

      Reply

    • tim says:

      08:55pm | 11/07/10

      What does this govt stand for?. When a policy gets too ‘hot’ it gets shelved until a more opportune time arises to sneak it through. This is deliberately designed to mislead the electorate. It makes me furious with rage that our elected representatives can treat us in this way.
      .

      Reply

    • welcome to 1984 says:

      12:03am | 12/07/10

      Conjob has NOT stopped the censorship, nor will Labor back-flip on this issue. And I’m unsure the Liberals will oppose it either. The government need legislation to initiate MUCH tighter controls over the internet and here’s why:

      A secretive global treaty, currently being negotiated by governments of the world’s largest economies would see tight controls placed on the internet and would threaten other fundamental rights and freedoms.

      The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a handful of other countries, have been involved in the ACTA negotiations since 2006.

      The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been quietly evolving for a number of years. On it’s face ACTA is described as a countermeasure directed at the rise of counterfeit goods, medicines and pirated copyright protected material, including “piracy over the Internet”.

      If officially ratified, however, ACTA would mark the formation of a major new global legal infrastructure with relation to standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.

      It would also see the formation of an international governing body to oversee implementation of the agreement. That body would operate beyond the jurisdiction of national governments and even beyond that of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.

      Leaked drafts of the agreement in 2008, 2009 and most recently in April 2010 have raised concern over the legal scope of the proposed treaty. The secrecy surrounding the negotiations has also prompted further worry over the draconian provisions within the agreement.

      THE FILTER IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
      The Australian government is negotiating global internet governance - they are giving YOUR rights away and you don’t even know about it. All of this despite the overwhelming opposition by citizens to limit internet freedoms.

      https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383
      http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique

      Reply

    • LC says:

      01:36pm | 12/07/10

      Spin spin spin. Why don’t you just admit it Julia? You not waiting for a review, you putting it aside because you know it ALONE could lose you the election. COWARDS!

      Reply

    • Rich says:

      06:02am | 26/08/10

      The demographics are that young voters tend to be more concerned with social rights issues than economics and xenophobia (the miserable boat people farce). They are internet savvy and more likely to be environmentally aware. Next election there will be more of them voting, and fewer of the older voters presently in retirement. Outcome - the filter will be even less popular next election. So ALP think that postponing it for 12 months will apease the electorate, but the electorate come next voting will be a different demographic, less-fooled by Conroys BS about the filter, Furthermore, within 12 months time the seats change in the Senate where Greens will be holding balance of power, they will block the filter.
      I doubt that ALP or even libs will ever succeed in getting a compulsory filter through now, but that they even try will make them very, very unpopular

      Reply

    • bactrim price says:

      11:56pm | 27/03/11

      It is a very good thing, <a >bactrim</a> bactrim,  8OOO,

      Reply

    • buy soma says:

      05:22am | 28/03/11

      Great, <a >buy soma</a> buy soma,  418,

      Reply

    • Cheap buy pitted dates says:

      09:54am | 11/04/11

      So where it to find?, <a >buy pitted dates online</a> buy pitted dates online,  psxw,

      Reply

    • First white panties says:

      10:49am | 14/04/11

      Beautiful site, <a >First white panties</a> First white panties,  530,

      Reply

    • compare auto insurance quote says:

      08:47am | 12/07/11

      I am no longer sure the place you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or working out more. Thank you for fantastic info I used to be looking for this info for my mission. 
      <a >compare auto insurance quotes</a> 
      <a >compare auto insurance quotes</a> 
      <a >compare auto insurance quotes</a>

      Reply

    • auto insurance rates california says:

      06:18am | 17/10/11

      Excellent items from you, man. I’ve keep in mind your stuff prior to and you are simply extremely fantastic. I actually like what you have received right here, really like what you’re stating and the best way during which you are saying it. You make it enjoyable and you continue to care for to keep it sensible. I can’t wait to learn much more from you. This is really a tremendous web site.  best auto insurance rates

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed