Remember When The Coalition Backed Away Quickly From The Internet Filter? Apparently That's Now A Thing

That Internet filter that was rather plainly written into the Coalition policy announced earlier today? Apparently, it was just "poorly worded" and not what the Coalition meant at all. Or something.

I'm tempted to call this backpedalling at the speed of light (or in this case, I guess, copper), but Malcolm Turnbull is now stating on his website that

Online Safety for Children

The Coalition has never supported mandatory internet filtering. Indeed, we have a long record of opposing it.

The policy which was issued today by was poorly worded and incorrectly indicated that the Coalition supported an “opt out” system of internet filtering for both mobile and fixed line services. That is not our policy and never has been.

The correct position is that the Coalition will encourage mobile phone and internet service providers to make available software which parents can choose to install on their own devices to protect their children from inappropriate material.

The policy posted online today on the CHQ website has been replaced with the correct version.

Poorly worded? Having read through the original document, that was rather a lot of "poor wording".

MORE:

Five Questions About The Coalition Policy Backflip Gizmodo Wants Answered

Still, clearly an opt-in, education backed policy is vastly preferable, whether this was just an error or is in fact a policy backflip.

[Malcolm Turnbull]


Comments

    Malcolm called some people and yelled REALLY loudly.

      Yeah from the interviews he's given about it today I get the impression that is exactly what happened.

    In other news, in Sydney the FTTN has been installed in a few places with speeds of approx 100/40 mbps being achieved. So while it's not going to be the incredible speeds of FTTP, 100/40 is still a mighty improvement over the original 25/5 that was originally said.

    I know speeds will vary based on distance etc, but it's at least more promising than we were expecting.

      Were those speeds recorded inside the node?

      Uh, into an apartment block. That's a very, very different scenario.

        It's a better scenario than most people would have, but either way it is possible.

          Yeah, the scenario where they happen to run the fiber to your basement.

      Thats FTTB genius, essentially putting nodes in the basements of every apartment block... so you want to do that for every house? why not give everyone their own DNS server while you're at it...

      This is 'best-case-scenario' and in an apartment with new copper with no degradation and will have very few 'new developments in copper transmission' allowing any potential upgrade.
      This was done to 'prove' FTTN pre-election.

      They're doing another trial in Melbourne which is going to be the other end of the spectrum.
      This will; be done to prove they are 'obligated to do FTTP'.

      Liberals aren't daft - just super sneaky spin-doctors.
      Speed of light > anything.

      Really comes down to: do you want a significantly upgradable fibre network or a maxxed-out copper network with major maintenance issues?

      Bhahaha they got you hook, line and sinker

      40mbps upload speed on FTTN, that's hilarious.

    If they got this so completely wrong, what else is "poorly worded"?

    "Did we say stop the boats? That was poorly worded. What we meant was issue a blackout on reporting of boat arrivals"

    Wait, that already happened...

      So they took all this time to polish their policy document only to realise they needed to grammar check it AFTER it went public - bs....

      Joe Hockey looked like he was going to have a heart attack at the dodgy costings they launched - called an end to the press conference real quick when he realised he was dehydrating on the spot.

    Nope. There was backlash. They panicked. They backpeadaled. That's all there is to it. All they want is to be elected. You can't trust a word they say, this just proves that further.

      And the party that has changed leaders twice in the last 4 years just before an election because they didn't feel the current one could lead them to a victory is any better?

      Frankly both these parties are filled with morons at the moment, the Liberals are actually admitting they made a mistake here. If you re-read what was read in the original release then you can clearly see how they've made it sound as bad as they did.

        Amen. They're politicians. NONE of them are credible, by default.

        No better, but better the devil you know!
        Liberal and Labor will be second and third last respectively on my ballot. Family First will remain bottom of the list as they have since their inception.

        @soulblade64

        While I agree with your sentiment- none of the major parties are trustworthy- Labor's scenario didn't involve massively changing policy WITH leader.

        The only policy that changed with Rudd coming back in was the ETS was brought up sooner (not really a policy change, just a timeframe change) and The PNG solution. Which, I grant, was a change in policy.

        The Liberals, in my eyes, AREN'T admitting they made mistakes- because the policy must've been written before 14:30 this afternoon....so why didn't they read it?? Sorry, that doesn't wash. They produced this policy either:

        1- Thinking it'd slip by OR
        2- Accidentally put out the "non-toned down" version when the policy document was drafted

        They can't possibly have not read what both Abbott and Turnbull said in August had been "ready for months."

      http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/media/listen.htm?show=jukebox&xmlUrl=/triplej/media/mod/hck4.xml&mediaType=audio&launchType=play&pluginTarget=undefined&pluginTitle=undefined&pluginColour=undefined

      At 27 minutes in, it sounds like even Turnbull thought it was an opt-out thing.

    This is so confusing, Malcolm Turnbull has spent the last hour trying to persuade the public on twitter that the internet filter policy is a mistake, was poorly worded. yet within the last hour we've also had Liberal MP's spruiking it on websites proclaiming it's going ahead.

    http://www.zdnet.com/au/coalition-confirms-internet-filtering-by-default-7000020272/

    Does anyone in the Liberal party have any idea what is going regarding this policy...

      Does anyone in the Liberal party have any idea what is going regarding any policy...

        Abbot said it best himself - they don't need to understand it, they just have to vote for it.

        Democracy at work, people!

          According to my friend: "Abbott doesn't have to explain his economy policies, Liberal's are just better at handling the economy and Abbott's gone to university for Economics, it would just go over most people's head anyway".

          I try not to let politics crucify our relationship.

      Turnbull was personally defending this policy tonight on Triple J's hack program, he clearly knew what it was, how it worked and what it would do.

      It wasn't until later he changed his mind and said that wasn't it.

        That's right.
        He was actually defending the policy. Saying that it's wasn't compulsory, it was default.
        Meaning, there was an opt out option.. Because most people aren't "tech savvy" and probably wouldn't be able to set it up.

        Last edited 06/09/13 8:19 am

    Policy, that's what you put out to get voted in, and then you break them.

    As someone who was undecided, then made up my mind to vote Labor the instant I heard of this policy out of spite, I am now utterly confused :(

    The C&B party looks like a good option I guess...

      might as well vote labour, at least they're a bit more forward thinking in the investment in the NBN even if they're nearly as much a bunch of arseholes as the libs

        Labor*

        Also, there are far more issues to decide who to vote for based on than purely an internet infrastructure rollout.

        Educate yourselves: http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/policy/

          Considering is one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country's history and the fact that liberals will literally ruin it and cost us an insane amount of money in the long run by making it obsolete before its finished, yes, i would consider it one of the most important points this entire election.

          Other than that the Libs are fiscally irresponsible lying SOB's all they do is piss and moan about labour for the last 8 years calling every single thing a failure despite evidence to the contrary. They want to slash budgets left and right to get a surplus when its not possible in current economic climate and would risk putting australia into a reccession for no reason (we have fantastic debt levels and credit ratings, we have no need to make a surplus so quickly).

            I quite agree. While Labor have stuffed up a lot of things (pink batts, school buildings, carbon tax), ONE of the things they DID NOT stuff up is the economy. The world economy was responsible for that. Yes, things may be a bit tough, but it's nothing like the US, Spain, Greece, or the UK, to name but a few. Yes, Kevin Rudd got the country into debt, but it's a LOT less than if he hadn't done what he did - and because of that we were NOT hit by the big recession that the rest of the world was hit with. That's why the AUD was so high compared to the USD : because the world economy thought it was a good place to park their money!!

            People don't see that. They don't understand how that works. They can't see past the flaps in their wallets. While I understand the principle of compulsory voting, I also believe that one should have to earn the right to vote, or at least take a test, akin to a driving test, to see if you're actually competent enough to be allowed to vote.

              And our debt is socialised to the government rather than privatised to individuals which is what will/would happen under Lib economic management.

          I have and that is why I am voting Labor in the House of reps and the Greens in the senate

    Oh wow... this is just confirming my decision to put them last on the preferances; they are all a bunch of dishonest hacks!

      So is every other party. Are you going to put them all last?

        I just ask myself "Which ones are the lesser of the evils". At least the Labor party give a damn about the taxpayers

        Last edited 06/09/13 9:00 am

          You're more forgiving than I am, then. They're all equally undesirable scum as far as I'm concerned.

          Yep, also most do not seem to realise that the ALP raised the tax threshold to $18,000, meanwhile we may just lose that and be pushed back to something like the $6,000 it was before under the Liberals.

    What I am failing to understand at present, is what is the big deal about the filter anyway? I don't want it, but I thought that was the whole point of an opt-out filter. If you don't want it, make a phone call and say... "I don't want this, turn it off please kthxbi."

    I understand that in this situation, the fact that Turnbull said something about it then said "No, wait a minute this is not what we're doing," is kinda dumb, but really, expected of current day politicians.

    At least it is a whole lot better than the blanket filter that was being proposed a year or so ago. A whole lot of fuss about whether something is opt-in or opt-out seems to me like a whole lot of fuss over nothing.

      Essentially its pretty much facilitating spying, where there is power people will abuse it no question, be it selling logistical data to marketing firms or tracking shifts in what people think of stocks / bonds and companies giving a certain privileged few an unfair advantage.

      It was one thing for the blanket filter, then labs went and said interpols worst of list (which im fine with), now we're back to blanket filter with a "supposed" opt out. Oh not to mention a fair bit of computing power would be required to implement real-time traffic analysis... who's paying for it?

        yup filters will slow everything down. >.<

        FTTN would be easier to monitor than FTTP; conspiracy? :P

      The article i read about it last night suggested that opting out would have put you on a watch list (though i cant see any mention of that in the original policy document they took down, i wouldn't put past them).

    I'm going to cry when these clowns win on the weekend.

      I'm just going to get very drunk.
      For 3 years.

        I think i will join you.....maybe we can start the Australian Drinkers Party, we have policies but we forgot what they were....

          Haha. Awesome idea.
          And we would still be better then most of the parties out there.
          At least we wouldn't back-flip on anything because we forgot what our policies were in the first place.

          I'll stand for a seat in that, next election.

          Just so I can pass out in it.

            and I'll stand on the seat so I can fall off in a comical way.

            Last edited 06/09/13 2:48 pm

              and say "I love you man" over & over again.

                I wouldn't have it any other way.

                  and our slogan would be "party with the party that parties" & the core policy would be "party till ya puke"..... :D

    Are you all really so clueless as to not understand that this is allready very possable via DNS by your ISP.
    Or do you not rememeber the Casey Donovan fiasco a few years back ?
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/22/1100972330977.html

      Whats that article got to do with ISP's and DNS?

        Back in 2004 Some Telstra marketing person advertised a .com URL instead of a .com.au for an Australian idol winner.
        Turned out to be a gay pornstar.
        Telstra altered their DNS records of the .com to point to the IP of the .com.au

          Telstra's action at the time was illegal and they copped a lot of flak from the tech industry for it. 'Possible' and 'allowed' are completely different things - it's not legal and Telstra won't be doing it again in a hurry. Though I'm sure someone as 'clueful' as you already knew all this.

    Remember, Rudd was voted in in 2006 on one single policy. . . "Time for change" and everyone ate it up.

      I think he actually won moreso on a platform of "hey, where the hell did everyone's workers rights go?"

    I find it fundamentally wrong that they could go to an election with a policy that includes any form of censorship, announcing it at the last moment, during a media blackout....
    Its a big issue, and it needs far far far more consideration and discussion!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now