Rudd - just a control freak with his little book or are we witnessing the emergence of the 'Rudd State'?

On the issue of internet filtering, the Australian Federal Government is stepping into a field of nannying it knows nothing about, but should through open and transparent consultation with the Internet industry. Meanwhile, it seeks private enterprise to assess the problems and to make policy recommendations. Naive government must then again seek private enterprise to implement and enforce that policy. Clearly this is not a role for government. Why the urgency? By it trying to achieve a higher internet morality standard Government is embarking upon censorship. In doing non-government stuff it is making a shamozzle of its Inernet Nanny project and attracting the wrath of the Internet industry and Internet users, and deservedly so. Government should review its governance role and realise it would do better to openly consult with the internet industry and its leadership representatives to design and set Internet filter accreditation standards. Appropriatelty, Government should then apply stick and carrot approaches to encourage ISPs to comply with the new standard, allow for public comment and a transition phase. But Rudd's censorship approach smells of an uninformed kneejerk do gooder response by government with too easy access to public money to waste and which is unaccountable for the delivery return on investment. Reseacher, Nina Funnell, at University of NSW 'Journalism and Media Research centre' has written an insightful assessment in the Sydney Morning Herald, 18 December 2009, which is entitled 'Conroy will be censoring people, not the internet' In her article, Funnell observes, "earlier this month I attended a conference on internet regulation and filtering, which attracted academics, technology and industry experts, politicians and other major stakeholders in the internet filtering debate. There was general - if not universal - agreement that the proposed filtering attempt would be an ''epic fail'': surely Communications Minister Stephen Conroy knows how expensive, ineffective and easy-to-circumvent it will be?" Funnell continues, "Conroy had already backgrounded the Australian Christian Lobby" so why hadn't Conroy backgrounded all the other major stakeholders? Why was he showing preferential treatment to the Australian Christian Lobby?" So this is all about pacifying an influential lobby group, to which devout Catholic Rudd is personally sympathetic. Rudd's internet filter project has overtones of the Spanish Inquistion, albeit without the torture. Nonetheless, Rudd is abusing is position or power and influence. Funnell goes on about concerns "there will be very little transparency over what is blocked. This was made apparent in March when an earlier version of the Government's blacklist of banned sites was leaked, revealing that the scope of filtering could extend well beyond kiddie porn. Google has also released a statement condemning the proposed filter, pointing out that it would be "the first of its kind amongst Western democracies". Funnell is correct in her observation that "while..politically subversive content may be considered upsetting, fringe or distasteful to some, censoring on the grounds of taste is a wildly subjective game." Is Big Brother or Father Rudd trying to convert us all into good Catholics? Is this part of a neo-Catholic revivalism, like the Catholic fest called 'World Youth Daystaged in Sydney in July 2008 [just nine months after Rudd came to power] - the largest event ever hosted in Australia. Is this neo-Catholic revivalism also underpinning the propaganda we are bombarded with about making Mary Mackillop a saint? But as Funnell continues, the internet filter project will be a waste of time and money just like the government's super-filter that cost $84 million and which was hacked in 30 minutes in 2007 by 16-year-old, Tom Wood. "What a shame the Government hasn't learnt from that embarrassing bungle." The Rudd's Internet Nanny project is set to be another example of Rudd succumbing to pressure from lobby group and a waste of tax payer monies on an policy that won't do what it is intended. Yet it seems set to stymie internet productivity. Let's review the underlying motive - public morality. Well, public morality and decency should start with politicians setting personal behaviour standards themselves. Rudd's Internet Nanny is not only an abuse of power, it is illconceived from an effectiveness perspective, it is wasteful of public monies, it demonstrates that Rudd is stubborn, doesn't learn from policy mistakes, doesn't listen to experts (despite his fettish for expert committees at every decision opportunity), it is undemocratic, and it is politically two faced. Rudd, your motives are transparent! Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia