Australian Budget 2013: Canning the internet filter saves AU$4.5m

Australian Budget 2013: Canning the internet filter saves AU$4.5m

Summary: Abandoning the controversial internet filter will see the Australian government save AU$4.5 million.

SHARE:

The decision to abandon its plan for the controversial mandatory internet service provider (ISP)-level internet filtering is expected to save the Australian government AU$4.5 million over the next three years.

The government said in the Budget statement documents for the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy that the "cybersafety enhancement program" will achieve the savings, because the government will instead force ISPs to only implement the Interpol filter.

The government was originally planning to force Australian internet service providers to block any content that was deemed to be "refused classification"; that is, sitting outside of the current rating system that the Classification Board uses to determine ratings for content.

Opposition to the proposal saw the filter become the subject of a major campaign against the government, with many saying it would lead to government censorship, and would ultimately be unworkable.

Prior to the last election, the government ordered a review of what was deemed to be "refused classification" in response to criticism that the classification was too broad. In the meantime, a number of ISPs have implemented a filter of the Interpol "worst of the worst" child abuse websites.

The government sat on the recommendations of the classification review for a number of months before canning the filter project entirely, instead saying that it would force ISPs to block the sites on the Interpol list under obligations in the Telecommunications Act.

It is understood that Telstra, Optus, and Vodafone are already complying with this. iiNet has previously said it would comply if given the notice to comply. The government has so far refused to disclose which ISPs have implemented the filter.

The move to shelve the filter was broadly welcomed by most, apart from religious lobby groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby, but there has been growing concern from the Greens that the filter is operating under the radar, and the party has suggested that it could be expanded over time to cover more content than is just on the Interpol list.

Topics: Government, Government AU, Security

About

Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

3 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • You wouldn't have got a working filter for 13m anyway.

    And no-one but harradine really wanted it.
    meski.oz@...
  • Do we trust them?

    "... there has been growing concern from the Greens that the filter is operating under the radar, and the party has suggested that it could be expanded over time to cover more content than is just on the Interpol list."

    We still have to get it into the minds of the pro-filter people that the "worst of the worst" is hosted in countries with different moral standards from ours. When it comes to what really is the WORST material, none of it hosted, it is shared through very high encryption that no filter can possibly recognise.

    Will this "minor" filter that shouldn't affect 99.99% of the population gradually turn into "censorship by stealth"?
    Treknology
  • It does clogged up internet speeds

    With filter it did slowed down internet speeds which is bad.
    Jennifer Henry