I can’t remember the last time a member of parliament publicly commented on the defense of a defendant in a law suit.

Can you?

Earlier this week Stephen Conroy (geez I’m starting to think I need a dedicated blog for all the articles I’ve written about this guy), publicly had a go at iiNet’s defense claiming that it was sarcastically “stunning” that the company was claiming they had no idea what their users were doing.

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is under fire for potentially prejudicial comments he made about the legal battle between iiNet and the movie studios, saying iiNet’s defence “belongs in a Yes Minister episode”.


iiNet is currently defending itself in court against “34 movie studios and Channel 7, represented by the Australian Federation against Copyright Theft (“AFACT”)“.

Amongst broadband and communications, Conroy just also happens to be the minister for “the digital economy”. One doesn’t need to be an economist to see the huge marketing potential if the government is able sell the line that Australian ISP’s can be shutdown or fined over their customers breaking copyright law.

Conroys attacks on iiNet’s defense come before iiNet has even “filed its defence and evidence on key aspects of the case“, iiNet’s managing director, Michael Malone stated;

It’s unheard of for a crown minister to try to influence the outcome of an active case. Conroy said that he has seen our defence, given under oath. We haven’t even submitted our defence yet, so I am really worried that he says he has seen it.


Surely the comments from Conroy wouldn’t just be sour grapes over iiNet withdrawing it’s application to participate in the government filter trial earlier this week? If not then what else beyond getting onside with corporate lobby groups  could Conroy possibly hope to gain by publicly rubbishing iiNet’s defense before they’ve even presented it in full?

When it comes to the filter, the business relationship between the government and corporate interests isn’t so transparent.

Best mates: Stephen Conroy and Anthony Pillion

A few days ago Conroy appeared on SBS’ Insight program and was dubiously sitting next to Webshield managing director, Anthony Pillion. Webshield has a huge vested interest in supporting the filter and have been one of Conroy’s most vocal supporters.

Webshield is in the business of selling filtered internet to schools, business and the general public. The very admission by them that the government internet filter will not be effective is a self admission that their current product is not effective. Pillion cast doubt over the accuracy of the leaked ACMA blacklists and supported Conroy on his latest appearance on tv on SBS.

Far more damning though is the fact that Pillion was suggesting the government buy filtering software way back in January, 2008. Recently Pillion has shared more of his vested business interests with the government;

I’m still in discussions with the Government over some other test scenarios I’ve proposed. I hope to have them included in later rounds [of the trials].


Webshield clearly already have the infrastructure set up to url filter the internet and are presumably looking to convince the government to give them a license to resell it to other ISPs if the filter goes ahead.

Think about it, if the filter goes ahead it kill Webshield’s current niche buisiness model, so what other reason beyond a vested financial interest in the rollout and ongoing maintenance costs could they have for such public support of mandatory government filtering?

As for the movie studios and channel 7 currently taking on iiNet, surely if Pillion can get into Conroy’s ear over how easy it is to filter the net they stand a pretty good chance of convincing the government that all references to copyright material should be added to the blacklist at a later stage; all in the name of protecting the children of course.

I might sound a bit like I’m crossing over into the realms of tin foil hat territory with that last remark, but had you of told me 3 years ago that Australia would be staring down the barrel of a mandatory government filter, I’d have laughed it off and accused you of the same thing.

Make no mistake there’s some serious money to be made here behind the scenes if the proposed filter goes ahead, the begging question being just how much freedom is the general public willing to sacrifice to line the pockets of a few?

1. Stephen Conroy admits internet filter is useless
2. Stephen Conroy censors TV debate on internet filter
3. Stephen Conroy vs. Google: Who are you going to trust?
4. China backs down on internet filter, why can't Australia?
5. Hey mothers, maternity leave is bad for business!