Labor's high-speed National Broadband Network is a step in the right direction, but their plan to block inappropriate websites by forcing ISPs to install content filtering systems will slow down internet access and raise the cost of service.

Unlike website filters installed on your personal computer, filters installed at your ISP need to check hundreds of thousands of websites and then decide whether they're pornographic or inappropriate. As it stands, no technology capable of doing this accurately exists. Current filters are of varying accuracy and severely affect internet performance - and the Government knows it.

A recent ACMA report on ISP filtering products showed that all of the products tested degraded Internet performance, with two of them reducing speed by more than 75 per cent. One filter reduced network speed by only 2 per cent, but it was one of the least accurate at identifying inappropriate and illegal websites. It also mistakenly blocked many innocent sites. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, seemed oblivious to this and hailed the trial a success.

Senator Conroy insists mandatory filtering will protect children from violent and pornographic content online, but that's simply untrue. It's rare that surfing the web will unwillingly land you head first in illicit pictures and movies. On most occasions you need to be searching for risqué material to find it and that won't change with a filter in place. Nor will access to it as circumvention can be easily achieved within minutes. For those occasions when you do accidently stumble across pornography, there's no guarantee a filter would block it anyway.

As for banning websites that are 'inappropriate', is the Government really in the best position to decide what that is? Does inappropriate include information on sexual health, breast-feeding, drugs and abortion? The one size fits all approach of filtering at ISP level causes problems because young children, teenagers and adults often use the same family computer. Material inappropriate in one household might be appropriate in another, but the Government's scheme doesn't allow for any fine-tuning. It's a poor substitute for the discretion and attention of parents.

A combination of supervision, education and empowerment is the only way we can be sure children are equipped to navigate the web responsibly. Arguments that filtering is worth trying, even if it doesn't work, show complete disregard for the well being of young Australians and their future standing as technology leaders.

Meanwhile, extra ISP infrastructure needed to meet the burden of filtering will drive up the cost of your internet service bill. Network engineer Mark Newton says ISPs will also require more call centre staff to deal with angry customers who can't access websites.

Large operators may be able to absorb these costs, but small ISPs risk going under and consumer choice becoming limited. As a matter of fact, all businesses risk losing out under the Government's plan. Given the rate the tested filters block innocent websites, a whopping 10,000 out of every one million at best, it won't take long for sites belonging to the local plumber or GP to be mistaken and banned. Any loss of income due to website downtime is inexcusable and it's still not clear if or how we'll be able to appeal a decision.

There's also the issue of filtering HTTPS web traffic - the protocol used for online banking transactions. Five of the filters tested for ACMA could intercept HTTPS traffic, a worrying prospect if the Government intends to use one for blocking secure websites that are inappropriate or illegal. A filter inspecting secure banking data and online purchases for unsavory content effectively opens the door to fraudsters and undermines the entire e-commerce process.

To provide a safer environment for children online we need to focus on areas posing a real threat to young Australians like cyber-bullying, identity theft and online predators. Filtering does nothing to reduce these risks. Just like we educate children about staying safe outside, we need to educate them about staying safe online. Walk them through it just like we'd walk them to the park. If that means educating parents unfamiliar with the Internet as well, then let's do it.

Despite all the shortcomings in the ACMA report, the Government is progressing to live ISPs trials using real customers. Senator Conroy and his department are unwilling to acknowledge that ISP filtering is unworkable and find themselves in a position where it seems hard to turn back, though not impossible. Instead his office prefers to brand those who object as presenting extreme views or equating freedom of speech with watching child pornography. I'm sure Labor's time would be better spent implementing their other cyber-safety promises aimed at actually benefiting children.

To make matters worse, Senator Conroy's office now says filters will be mandatory for all internet users.

Australians will pay for ISP filtering with decreased performance and higher charges, but to limit the free flow of information that makes the Internet the most valuable communication and education tool of our time, means we'll pay a much larger price in the long term.

Michael Meloni is a production manager at an online media company in Brisbane. He blogs about censorship issues at Somebody Think Of The Children.