- August 2016
- July 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- April 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- April 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- April 2007
Why The Greens will definitely block the filter
Geordie Guy today has a blog post suggesting that The Greens will “probably” block the filter, but suggesting that the outcome is far from certain. He’s not alone. I’ve heard similar sentiments on the subject from other quarters, usually by those predisposed to be sceptical of The Greens for other reasons. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to come to a firm conclusion on this.
Let me put your minds at rest – The Greens will never vote for the filter. First, let’s see what’s on the record.
Looking at the official Greens policy on communications, point number 52 states:
ensure that regulation of the internet is transparent, accountable and protects freedom of speech, expression and access to information.
As a statement of principle to which the party is committed, it seems pretty hard to imagine any way in which support for the filter could be reconciled with this. This policy made it into the national platform only after significant debate and scrutiny, and is a true reflection of the will of the party as a whole. However, it’s broadly worded, and is far from an unequivocal repudiation of the particular proposal put forward by Conroy. But look at The Greens policy page itself, which provides a strong hint – the prominent inclusion of the #nocleanfeed and #openinternet tags as two of the four key policy bullet points. That should reassure some skeptical punters.
As for comment on Conroy’s policy itself, we have to look elsewhere. Senator Scott Ludlam has been the most vocal opponent of the filter in parliament, although it’s true the other Greens senators have said relatively little. This isn’t due to a lack of conviction, however, just a matter of respect for Senator Ludlam’s communications portfolio. It is incorrect to read this as lukewarm support for the party’s stance on the issue.
Through Ludlam, other Senators and candidates, a lot has been said about the filter, and all of it has been entirely negative. This includes, as Geordie suggests, speeches at anti-filter rallies, though how that might raise any doubts is beyond me. If you want something more official, how about a speech to Parliament, outlining The Greens official policy with regard to the Government’s net censorship policy?
In this speech, Senator Ludlam committed the Greens to opposition, including a passionate exposition of the danger the filter poses to free speech. He starts with an assertion by Conroy:
“If a majority of the Parliament in the future want to broaden the classification – meaning of material caught by the filter-well then, Australians should stand up and say ‘just a minute’, and I’ll be one of them.”
Of course, by that time it will be too late. That is the future of this filter: a majority of a future parliament, probably under pressure of some kind of moral panic-whatever that may be-broadening the filter to include a larger scope of banned material and Stephen Conroy standing there in the minority, saying, ‘Just a minute,’ shortly before losing the vote.
Once the architecture is in place, the idea that future governments will not be tempted to expand its scope is impossible to entertain. The reasons are technical, as well as political. The time for Australians to stand up is not down the track in that hypothetical vote; it is right now. People are standing up, and I will return to those thoughts in a moment.
The speech culminates with a completely unambiguous statement of opposition:
“If the government presents its mandatory internet censorship scheme to the parliament in the form that the minister has been describing to us, the Australian Greens will vote against it.”
This speech is preserved here, with a transcript here, on an official Greens website. I covered the speech for EFA here.
I don’t see what more we can expect from The Greens on this. This constitutes the Greens’ official commitment to oppose the filter, and leaves – as far as I can see – no wiggle room. It makes no sense for this to be enshrined separately in the party’s policy document; a party’s official policy platform is defined by their own agenda, not by hypothetical legislation that has not even been introduced into Parliament. (Were the filter currently in place, The Greens policy document would no doubt call for its abolishment.)
Those determined to cast doubts might suggest the the Government may make support for, say, an emissions trading scheme contingent on on Green support for net censorship. It’s hard to imagine the Government going down this path, but The Greens are on the record firmly opposing cross-trading on legislation. The Greens Senate team have committed themselves to considering each piece of legislation on its merits.
Perhaps the biggest spanner in the works is the previous candidacy of Clive Hamilton, once a vocal filter proponent, as The Greens candidate for the Higgins by-election. This is definitely a legitimate point of confusion. Dr Hamilton was apparently selected as a candidate due to his profile as a vocal critic of inaction on climate change, but his personal views on filtering were somewhat at odds with the Party. Although he came out against the particular filter proposal of Conroy’s, The Greens immediately put out a statement indicating that Hamilton’s candidacy had not shifted the party’s position. In any case, this is now history – Hamilton is no longer a Greens candidate (and as far as I know, not even a member). The Greens tolerates a diversity of opinion, but should one member or even one candidate disagree, that shouldn’t undermine the position arrived at by the vast majority of the party. After all, even the ALP has dissenters.
To summarize: While I cannot speak officially for The Greens, I am well aware of the attitudes towards this issue by the party membership, and have been fortunate enough to have met the Senate team as well as most of the incoming MPs. I have never heard even the most lukewarm support for mandatory internet censorship. I have no doubts whatsoever on the The Greens position.
After all, what possible upside could The Greens have by backflipping on an issue on which they have been so clearly identifed, and which is so dear to their members and supporters? When it comes to standing up for principles in the face of potential electoral gain, The Greens have a pretty good record, but in this case there is not even that conflict. It’s hard to see any upside, even for the ALP, in the filter policy. It would be political madness for The Greens to backtrack.
It’s really just troublemaking to suggest that the fact that Bob Brown isn’t constantly wearing an #openinternet lapel pin implies lukewarm support for filtering. Don’t worry – as long as The Greens are in Parliament, you can rest assured that the censorship scheme will be vigorously opposed.
I don’t trust politicians as much as you seem to. “usually by those predisposed to be sceptical of The Greens for other reasons”. I voted Greens for about 10 years, then they lost me on Global warming position. I’m sceptical of all politicians. Look at the Libs! They started this nonsense. I wont be surprised if we get them supporting a filter and the Greens still remain clean.
The most significant issue for me is that even today we have Conroy spruiking the filter. If he thought it was dead why would he still be spruiking? They’ve won the election. Will we see T&Cs for ISPs to use the NBN they must have a mandatory filter? Conroy still seems to have something up his sleeve. I wish it were over but Conroy is a great politician. That’s a insult btw.
I agree, Colin. The Greens will vote against Senator Conroy’s censorship scheme.
However, despite celebrations in some quarters, I believe the filter is far from dead. My biggest fear is that it still only requires 6 to 8 conservative Coalition MHRs and Senators to be white-anted by a certain lobby group, cross the floor and vote for the filter.
I know Hockey said on JJJ that the Libs would oppose it, but that was only AFTER the Senate group voting tickets were lodged, locking in all those lovely Family First preferences. If they were that committed to opposing the filter, why were the Coalition so quiet before then?
@jimboot: Setting aside my starry-eyed naivete towards Green politicians, the discussion about their stance is moot. There’s no mileage whatsoever in backflipping on an issue where principle and pragmatism are in perfect alignment.
@Mike: You’re absolutely right the Libs are the ones to watch. This could still be a wedge issue for them. I remain optimistic – because the filter won’t work, which hopefully they have comprehended by now, crossing the floor or a conscience vote would seem pretty pointless. But it ain’t over til its over.
I was surprised to hear Conroy talking it up again – talk about a true believer! It’s certainly not time to completely let our guard down at all.
Colin
Broadly speaking I share your analysis. But it seems to me to miss the point. The EFA is not here to explain the Greens polices. The Greens Party is capableof doingthat.
The EFA’s purpose should be to get ACTION on the core EFA issues – such as retaining an unfiltered internet – from ALL relevant parties.
Surely THIS is the time for a major push to get the Federal ALP to drop this appalling policy, without further delay.
I’m told there will be several Labor caucus meetings in the coming days, starting today. We need this issue – and ideally the Ministerial allocation – to be a major issues in these meetings. WE should be aiming for a new Minister – and at the very least, for the formal dumping of the mandatory internet censorship policy.
To this end, I’ve written an open letter to my own ALP Senator up here in bananaland.
I urge others to write in similar vein to their own ALP Senators and MPs.
Open Letter to Senator Jan McLucas
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2010/09/08/open-letter-to-senator-jan-mclucas/
@Syd: You’re right it’s not up to EFA to defend the Greens – although EFA does have a role in clearly explaining what’s going on to the public, which includes the positions of all the parties. This post is on my personal blog for a reason.
For its part EFA will continue to lobby members of all parties and openinternet.com.au isn’t going anywhere. Now is still a good time to put pressure on the ALP. It’s also IMHO a good time to start raising awareness about other issues such as data retention, three strikes, R-18+ games, and others that are of importance to Australia’s digerati.
You are probably roright that the Greens wont backflip as they may find it to be their GST if they do. I think it is dangerous for some to assume tho (like Getup) that the fight is over. We still have a ridiculous blacklist, link deletion notices etc etc. Whilst that exists, it’s easy for a Govt to say exactly what Conroy has been saying. We’re improving on the blacklist.
Colin,
Thanks for your response,
I’m currently a member of the Greens, so FWIW I have no problems with supportive comments. I also think the Greens are the strongest part of the parliamentary mix from the civil liberties / anti-censorship perspective.
I’m more concerned about the Coalition – and of course the Government is Labor and it’s been Labor that’s pushed for the filter policy so far.
The incoming Federal Parliamentary Labor Party is currently caucussing and Gillard is working out her ministry. That’s why I say I think the time is ripe NOW to strike hard on the filter issue and knock it off.
It’s true that might apply to other issues (privacy, games licencing etc). But Conroy’s ‘filter’ is THE current issue.
Nick Ross, ABC Technology commentator, expressed the view that the filter may have been crucial in the election outcome. It’s not just me making this up. You must know that?
Yet from where I sit (admittedly seeing only part of the picture) it’s as though we’ve won a prize but no-one has stepped forward to claim it.
Get Up might have done that. Its spokespeople seem proficient in the media and well connected. But Get Up dropped the filter issue out of its election campaign and if its doing anything now, I’m not aware of it.
The only other possible organisation – and the most appropriate organisation – that could corner the media on this is the EFA.
I appreciate this is your personal blog. I also understand that that I only have a partial view of things. You may well be doing stuff I don’t now about.
But I WOULD like the EFA, at this time, to be claiming credit on behalf of a very large grass roots campaign for affecting the election outcome and more importantly I WOULD like the EFA to be LOUDLY demanding the end of Conroy’s filter NOW – and ideally, a change of Communications Minister too.
@syd hear hear. Not to diminish EFA or CJs work.
But as we know the issue is much wider than the filter. Data retention, ACTA & an NBN that supports Net Neutrality. If it is a private network where is legislation that protects it’s openess?
Also just because I’m a global warming, ETS, Carbon tax skeptic doesn’t mean I’m a climate change one. Nor does it mean Im NOT an environmentalist. Free renewable energy is what I spend all my spare time researching.
How do we raise awareness further on these issues, during these politically opportune times.
Odds are they won’t oust Conroy for Lundy because through Windsor’s support of the NBN, the ALP narrowly won govt.
What we will need to do in the short term is lobby the government to drop the filter as a separate policy and ensure that they do not bring it in through the back door of the NBN technical structure.
The time is ripe for that because if they are going to bring it in, it will be before July 2011.
What we will need to do now is beef up polling to show that the filter was a signficant reason for the swing against the ALP, in particular in places like Denison, Melbourne and Grayndler as well as WA, QLD and SA more generally. Which, by the way, a number of anti-filter activists have been working since 2008.
And make this very public while mobilising the anti-filter troops for a potential future protesting play-off.
I believe this can be done, and I suggest the sooner the better.
Some kind of ‘People’s NBN Charter’ mught be handy for lobbying purposes.
Four key issues IMO:
1/ No mandatory censorship
2/ Best-practice privacy
3/ Guaranteed net-neutrality
4/ Affordable universal access
Hi Syd, I really like the idea of the “People’s NBN Charter”. I might take that idea and run with it….
Excellent idea @Syd. If we’re paying for it why should the ISPs & Govt get to decide. Wasn’t that the problem with TLS?
Fantastic Colin. It prolly needs some tweaking.
Busy politicians – like the rest of us – can focus on a few dot points. With EFA endorsement they’d be very powerful.
@Jimboot
Thanks and good onya Jim.
The point you make is so obvious yet so true: We (the people) are paying for this. We’re the piper; we should call the tune.
@Jimboot – I am confused at how the Greens could have lost you on global warming. If you are referring to their opposition to Rudd’s trading scheme, I suggest you investigate/research further. Their opposition (and subsequent proposed amendments) were due to both environmental AND economic diligence. Effectively, they identified problems which would have resulted in 1) initial targets not meeting those internationally accepted by scientists as required, 2) penalties to government awarded to industry should targets be revised, 3) near certainty that international trade would require a revision in targets, leading to 4) a loss either way as either lost trade due to insufficient targets or the revision of targets for international trade resulting in large (and binding) compensation claims from industry.
It’s obvious that not only was the ALP’s scheme insufficient in tackling climate change, but that it was also extremely economically irresponsible. A “better than no scheme at all” approach is only worthwhile if it doesnt Lock In Failure (and cost).
If you are s climate skeptic, I’d be interested in why you supported them in the first place!
Otherwise, I’d suggest any people skeptical of Greens agenda to read their constitution, policy or become a member. There is no hidden agenda, nor us there any allowance for them to act against the will of their members. They are the only party I know of who allow anyone who joins to Immediately become involved in policy discussions with the highest echelons of the party…