Just after I put up my previous post with the response from Christopher Pyne, @Tarale on Twitter made me aware of this great response to Senator Conroy from Simon Hackett of Internode. He concludes:
Either way, given the facts I have noted here, it is clear that mandatory URL level web page filtering actually harms society (through a false sense of security) and has no positive impact.
There is no justification for the path that the government is pursuing, none at all.
I recently emailed Christopher Pyne, my local federal member, on his views on senator Conroy’s proposed internet filter. Here is his response:
Dear Peter,
Thank you for contacting me and providing me with your views regarding the Rudd Government’s proposed mandatory internet filtering system. I note your opposition to the proposed plan.
The Federal Coalition supports sensible and workable measures to protect children from inappropriate online content. Obviously, it would make sense to prevent access, if this could be done, to material that would be a crime to possess. When looking at ways to protect children online, the main issues are – what is effective and achievable, and what approach will deliver the best results.
The previous Coalition Government provided all Australian families with access to a free, optional PC-based content filter, which could be specifically tailored to assist parents in protecting their children from being exposed to inappropriate content.
The Rudd Government cancelled this program at the end of 2008 without putting in place any alternative.
Experts say that most predatory risks to children lurk in those areas of the online world that are largely immune to filtering, such as chat rooms, email and peer-to-peer networks.That is why, in relation to unlawful online activity, it is essential that our nation’s law enforcement bodies are adequately resourced to tackle it in the most sophisticated way possible.
The fact it has taken the Minister two years to produce his plan and release results of filtering trials highlights the complexity and problematic nature of his proposal. The Coalition is yet to be convinced that mandatory filtering will be effective.
The Coalition would like an independent audit of the trial results and we hope this can happen as soon as possible.
The Coalition will continue to consult extensively with the telecommunications industry and other stakeholders to enable a fully informed response, if and when the Government puts forward any formal proposal or legislation.
Yours sincerely
Christopher
So it doesn’t look like the coalition will support an internet filter and they seem to be supportive of giving people tools to filter unwanted content if they wish although they have made no real comittment. I hope they don’t resurrect the free software trial though, by all reports that software was pretty easily circumvented.
I recently addressed a number of questions on technology to the candidates for the seat of Morialta in the upcoming South Australian state election. My efforts were not spectacularly successful in gaining responses with only Scott Andrews from the Greens responding.
Here then is my assessment of the technology credentials of each of the candidates based on the response I received and on information gleaned from questions I asked at the Campbelltown Speakers Forum
Lindsay Simmons, the Labor sitting member, stated that she didn’t know much about technology at all. She does not have a Facebook page or understand social media at all and even prefers to let her staff deal with email. Whilst I respect her committment to dealing with issues raised by her constituents she appears to prefer an older style of interaction that enfranchises those who have the time and capacity to interact in person and by letter. In my opinion there is no chance that she would be able to influence government technology policy in any menaingful way and certainly she would not be able to curb the excesses of Michael Atkinson in the Labor Caucus.
John Gardner, the Liberal candidate, seems to understand technology and how it could be used to improve the political process. He has a Facebook group and is a member of Facebook although there have been no updates since February 25. I feel that John may be able to influence technology policy.
Scott Andrews, the Greens candidate does not appear from his response to have a great grasp of technology and its uses. His party the Greens, however, seem to have a great set of technology policies that will make a real difference.
The Save the RAH Party do not even seem to have a website that I could find so enough said about the technology credentials of their candidate Peter Maddern.
Despite several requests to the offices of Family First and a written letter delivered to their candidate for Hartley, Suzanne Neal, I have received no response from their candidate Elizabeth Smit. If Suzanne Neal’s performance at the Campbelltown Speakers Forum is anything to go by they don’t seem to have much of a clue about a lot of things and their website is pretty bad (see the text in the image on the front page rendered illegible by JPEG compression artifacts).
So my endorsement for candidate technology credentials for Morialta goes to John Gardner although if he really understood wouldn’t he update facebook more often? Highly commended are the Greens for their party policies.
I just finished watching the Australian Prime Minister’s speech to the national press club announcing his plan to radically reform the Australian health sector (full report here). I feel that the plan overlooks two critical concerns that could potentially undermine the goals it sets out to achieve.
The plan fails to recognise that splitting administration into smaller local health networks may introduce more duplication of resources as local health boards take on functions that formerly were centralised in state health departments. One of the key areas I see running into this problem is ICT support. South Australia recently centralised its health IT in order to address inefficiencies introduced by fragmentation across hospitals and regions. Mr Rudd’s plan would reintroduce this fragmentation and then replicate it across the country.
The second issue I have is that of accountability. At least at the moment if we have an issue with the way that a state government is running the health system it is an area of focus and we can vote them out at an election, as is likely to happen in New South Wales. By spreading the accountability for health delivery across a number of local health networks the focus of the issue is diluted which decreases the accountability of the state government who appoints the boards and allows the state government to remain at arms length. The potential for mismanagement and local corruption has been increased.
These issues aside I think that the plan shows great vision and a promise of addressing the large hole in health funding coming through Australia’s aging population and the rise in health costs.
The award for the worst question after the speech goes to the Adelaide Advertiser who completely ignored the health agenda and asked some lame question about Tony Abbott getting lost in the desert. The Prime Minister gave some motherhood response and the discussion moved on with barely a ripple in the intellectual landscape. If this is the standard of newspaper journalism that the Advertiser promotes then it is no wonder they are under threat from online sources.
Damien Mason posted a response to my post on Technology and the South Australian Election from Gay Thompson, the sitting member for the seat of Reynell. I’m going to repost sections of that response here and provide some analysis and commentary.
Damien
Thank you for your message.
Because of the impending election it is important that all information provided to the community about the policies of the party of which I am a member are clear and consistent. For this reason, and especially because many of the questions you ask relate to powers held by the Federal government, I have forwarded your message to our policy coordinators.
OK stop right there. Of the questions I posed only questions 6 and 7 could be construed as federal policy and all that was being asked was a personal opinion. The others were either personal questions designed to get a picture of a candidate’s use of technology or South Australian state issues. There was no attempt to answer the specific policy questions.
The IT I have available is provided by the Department of Finance as part of the package they supply (phones, photocopiers etc) to enable members of Parliament to do their jobs. Within the choices that are available to members, I chose a laptop rather than a PC. I also make full use of an HTC Diamond for emails, calendar etc.
OK
While I recognise that some of my constituents may like to make use of the new technologies for communication my investigations indicate that this is a very small number. Indeed, you are the first to seek information on the topic. However, I monitor the situation in order to provide relevant information and to maximise my accessibility to my constituents.
Few respondents to my recent survey of constituents provided an email address although they were invited to do so. Emails to my office from constituents are also less frequent than letters or personal visits with telephone calls (with landline contact details), by far the main method of contact. I use web based material such as the City of Onkaparinga Social Atlas for information. This material shows that in general the suburbs I represent have lower internet connection than either the City of Onkaparinga or the Adelaide Statistical Division. I have included the site for you.
http://atlas.id.com.au/DefaultMap.aspx?id=119&pg=2010&c=3070&t=10075#empty-anchor
What this is saying is that not many of the constituents in Reynell have the internet or, if they do, they don’t choose to connect with their local member this way. Therefore it is more productive to use traditional means of communication. I don’t buy this. The penetration of Facebook alone in the Adelaide region is huge and I suspect that the constituents in Reynell are no exception.
Accordingly, I use my limited resources to provide regular communication to my constituents in the traditional formats.
Being able to communicate electronically and in real time surely is more efficient than more manual processes and therefore a better use of resources.
Other information is available through the government and party websites. I contribute financially to the operation of the ALP website so that constituents who choose this method can access policy information. I am also pleased that recent government initiatives will allow better internet access through Adam to some areas in the South.
Use of static websites that allow one way broadcast communication.
I cannot commit to a time frame for additional responses as many people ask questions on a vast array of topics at this time and it is important that each individual get a clear response consistent with the party’s plans for action if elected.
Yes this is a lot of information for one elector to ask and yes this is a busy time.
I hope the information I have provided assists you.
Gay Thompson MP
MEMBER FOR REYNELL
From this we can glean that Ms Thompson uses a laptop and a smartphone, has a knowledge of email and of static websites. She does not seem to have a knowledge of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. There is nothing in the response above that would indicate a willingness to promote good technology policy within government.
For an incumbent in a safe Labor seat this is probably enough to win but it shows a complacency that would be vulnerable to an opponent who can work smarter to engage with the electorate. It will be interesting to see what the other candidates can do.
I read this this morning: SA’s A-G steps up fight with video gamers – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and I had to comment.
No-one in Australia should be subject to threats of intimidation this way. We have a political process and significant freedom of speech. There is no excuse for resorting to these sort of tactics to try and put a political view. Not only that it weakens the argument by allowing Mr Atkinson to characterise all those who hold a view that R18+ video games should be allowed by the actions of a few bad apples.
I may have different views from Mr Atkinson on a number of points but I respect his right to express an opinion. He and his family should feel safe in their home.
Update: More details on the threats to Mr Atkinson from News Limited.
Recent controversy surrounding the attorney general Michael Atkinson’s attempts to censor the internet have made one thing abundantly clear: we are served by a bunch of politicians who have no idea about technology. With a South Australian state election coming up on march 20th I’d like to do something to change that. What I propose is this: That a list of technology questions be sent to each candidate for the election and the results published.
I propose to do this for the seat of Morialta which is the one I live in and publish the results here. I will offer to link to any other posts that do the same for other electorates.
I don’t seriously think that this effort will unseat Michael Atkinson in Croydon but I do think that technology is an issue that affects many people’s lives and we owe it to ourselves to elect as many people as we can who actually have a clue what is going on. To that end here is my draft list of questions, comments are welcome:
Update:
Question suggested by @lordfolland on Twitter:
What are your thoughts on the funding of computers for schools?
Other Electorates:
The following people have offered to do other electorates:
GeoURL
Subscribe