TONY JONES: Good evening, and welcome to Q&A, where answering your questions tonight we have the Shadow Minister for Innovation, Sophie Mirabella; American-born now Beijing-based internet consultant Kaiser Kuo, who is in Australia to argue against the proposition that freedom should be absolute at tomorrow night's IQ2 debate; the controversial Melbourne columnist and broadcaster Helen Razer, who this week closed her Twitter account; the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor; and the founding director of GetUp, Brett Solomon, who has now moved to New York to champion online freedom. Please welcome our panel.

Remember that Q&A is live from 9.35 Eastern Time. If you have a question you can send it by SMS to 197 55 222 or go to our website, abc.net.au/qanda, and you can join the Twitter conversation through #qanda. We'll also be showing a small selection of the thousands of live Twitter comments on screen, and we'll have a lot to say about the internet tonight. But before we get there let's talk politics. A year ago Kevin Rudd was among our most popular Prime Ministers. But according to the latest opinion polls, he's now in danger of being voted out. Many are saying he's disappointed those who supported him in 2007. Our first question tonight comes from Daniel Guerra.

DANIEL GUERRA: Oh, thanks, Tony. Given Kevin Rudd has turned away from the commitments such as real action on climate change and ending mandatory detention of refugees, what choice do voters have in the upcoming election if they want real, progressive change in Australia?

TONY JONES: Brett Solomon?

BRETT SOLOMON: How did I know you were going to ask me first? Well, I mean, you know, the polls today, I think, are stunning in their disappointment. If you look at the numbers, there's actually, you know, 14 or 15 per cent. It's actually literally millions of people who have changed their minds in the last couple of weeks, and I think you're right to point out those issues around refugees and asylum seekers. I mean, the deaths today - the missing five people, it harps back to the Howard years. The end of processing of Afghanis and Sri Lankans, I mean these are major issues that I think that we, as a people, thought we'd turned away from, not to mention climate change and the pushing off to the Never Never of the emissions trading scheme. So I think that, you know, the ballot box is really the place, right? I mean this is where we as Australians, we exercise our democracy. In the media, through organisations like GetUp, I think there is a whole range of different opportunities that we, as Australians, can exercise. It's not just actually about voting every three or four years, it's actually about the role that we play as citizens in shaping the policies that our (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: Brett, let me interrupt you, because GetUp did play a significant role in getting Kevin Rudd elected. Any regrets?

BRETT SOLOMON: Well, there was, you know, two people really to choose from, after all, and in fact, if you look at the parties now, I don't think that there is that much of a difference. I was thinking maybe Sophie might like to start working for the ALP, the policies are almost, you know, not far off.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: You haven't had a good look, obviously.

BRETT SOLOMON: But I mean, if you look at those issues around asylum seekers, around indigenous rights, around the emissions trading scheme, there's actually not that much distinction between the political parties.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, actually, the fact that there is a distinction, and with a change in leadership we saw greater distinction in some policy areas, saw the polls turn around. Now, some people may say that the polls have changed because Kevin Rudd has failed to deliver on an ETS. He's failed to deliver on prices coming down. But, remember, he got elected claiming to be John Howard light and what he's shown the Australian people is he can come up with all the promises, but he can't deliver. He promised to be like John Howard on border protection and he's failed dismally and we've seen the record number of boats: 120 boats in the last financial year.

TONY JONES: Sophie, I'm going to take you back to the question because...

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Yeah.

TONY JONES: ...he may be shedding voters like confetti at the moment, but the fact is they're not going to the coalition, and that person was asking about what progressive party would be the alternative.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, by progressive party I'm assuming that means left-wing party. Well, that's not the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is a mainstream Party that represents mainstream views, concerns and values and...

TONY JONES: So tell me this: why do you think these voters aren't going to your party? Well, aren't going to the coalition?

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, if you look at two party preferred vote, there has been a significant increase in the coalition. The best position since August 2006 and, yes, of course it's going to be a tough battle, but I think the really interesting thing about the current polls is that for the first time since I can remember voters out there are having absolute, direct personal experience with the government failing to deliver on its policies. Whether it's the insulation in their roof being newspapers, whether it's their room being in danger of blowing up or firing up, whether it's the waste they've seen at their local school and the fact that they know their school principal is intimidated into coming out publicly...

TONY JONES: Okay.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: ...these are direct experiences.

TONY JONES: Make your point, because it's a political point. It's off the question and I'm letting you make it. Let's go to Helen Razer, and if you could address yourself to the question.

HELEN RAZER: Indeed, with - you could say the same thing, Sophie. I'm sorry, I'm not addressing the question but I must - I must address Sophie first. I mean, you didn't mention WorkChoices, so I shall. There was many people of my immediate acquaintance who had a direct experience of WorkChoices and that was one of the reasons that there was a change in government, as well, not simply because Rudd positioned himself as Howard light, although I take your point. Absolutely, he did. Perhaps I'm not as altruistic as you, but I think conceivable that - I mean, I read today that there was conniption fits in Melbourne with the Labor Party saying to Kevin Rudd, "You're not on message. Basically you're doing a bad job within the media, you know, presenting what your views, separate or not from the Coalition's as they may be," and he has become progressively a dreadful communicator. The man, to my mind anyway as a casual consumer of political news media, seems far more interested in what The Chaser, Robin Williams or two-bit comedians from Sydney are doing than in the national agenda. It's his obsession with pop culture, I think.

TONY JONES: All right, let's go to Brendan O'Connor. Do you want to address the question? Kevin Rudd has turned away from commitments such as real action on climate change, ending mandatory detention of refugees. What choice do votes have in the upcoming election?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure, and look...

TONY JONES: And as you know there's been a flow - a flood, really - of votes to the Greens.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure. Look, I think that the only surprise in an election year that that we should have had would have been in the polls or the views of people didn't converge. The fact is every election we have in this country is a two-horse race. Every election we have in this country is close and should never be assumed. Never assumed by a government or by an opposition. And, look, that's healthy for democracy and, in fact, I guess it means that government has to work harder, if it's message is not getting out, but I think it's unfair to categorise the government as changing its position. The fact is it went into the last election with a commitment to introduce climate change. It's been stymied in the senate. The change of leadership in the coalition, as Sophie said, did bring about a change. It meant that for - what we didn't have was the two major parties supporting serious attention to climate change and mitigating its effects.

TONY JONES: Well, Brendan O'Connor, take us, if you can, into the caucus room today, because you were there, and let's test the limits of free speech in politics. What was it like, because we understand a tremendous amount of angst was directed by nervous backbenchers at the Prime Minister?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, I think the media played up the so called angst. Each party room have their discussions around what they must do. The Prime Minister has laid out, I believe the - and I think we forget this in the recent debate about polls, the things that have been undertaken successfully by the government. The fact...

TONY JONES: But was he put under pressure in the caucus room? That's really what I was asking.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, I think, it's important...

TONY JONES: I'm trying to get a sense of what it was like in there.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure you do.

TONY JONES: And you're the only person on the panel who was there.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: And caucus's are for parties to discuss matters but the important thing is to remind - and I think the Prime Minister emphasised this - to remind the Australian people that we confronted the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime with the global financial crisis and we came out of that global financial crisis the best performing economy and that has taken up a large part of the government's time, and as it should, Tony, because we are now - we have the second lowest unemployment amongst advanced economies. We have the lowest deficit and debt and we have 200,000 jobs...

TONY JONES: All right.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: ...which wouldn't have been there if we hadn't respondent to the global financial crisis.

TONY JONES: I'm just going to interrupt you, because a web questions has come in - just come in from Joe Kunnel or Kunnel in Victoria. "Can the Labor Party guarantee the Prime Minister will serve a full term if re-elected, or will the leadership be handed over to Julia Gillard?" You might want to take that one up, Brendan O'Connor.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Look, I think that's a nonsense. People would like to, you know, speculate on these matters. The Prime Minister will go to the election as our leader. If we have the confidence of the majority of the Australian people he'll be our Prime Minister for the full term. I mean, there's no question that that would be - there would be a different scenario.

TONY JONES: Let's just hear quickly from Sophie on that.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Tony, if Kevin Rudd was fair dinkum about the ETS, he'd be a man of his word. And he talked tough about going to a double dissolution. He'd go to it. But he guts out because he knew what he was presenting was a dud. He knew he couldn't sell it because he probably didn't even understand it himself. It was an absolute dud. The Greens opposed it. We opposed it and he should have lived up to his word but like with so many promises, he just moves on to the next sideshow and...

TONY JONES: Okay. No, that wasn't the question at all. The question was whether you a expected a change of leadership.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well...

TONY JONES: Let's just have a quick answer to that question then we'll move on.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Yeah. Well, if I was the Labor Party, I would be asking myself who would be better placed to performer better against Tony Abbott and when you answer that question you will answer the question of who should be the preferred leader. Look, if it gets desperate enough, I think there are enough people in the Labor Party who don't have too much affection for Kevin, who would support Julia Gillard because perhaps she would be their best chance. It depends what happens with the polls, and it depends how many other people Kevin Rudd abuses in his office behind closed doors.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm going to bring in our international guest. Kaiser Kuo, how much affection is there for Kevin Rudd in China?

KAISER KUO: Well, he's a Mandarin speaker and so naturally the affection is boundless. I mean, he's actually a pretty competent speaker of Mandarin.

HELEN RAZER: He really is?

KAISER KUO: He really is. He's really not bad. I've heard him speak.

TONY JONES: That's what I mean...

KAISER KUO: I'm just...

TONY JONES: Sorry, go ahead.

KAISER KUO: I'm struck by the similarities - I mean, the parallels aren't perfect, of course, but for what Barack Obama is facing in the US. I'm an American citizen and I watch American politics, of course, much more closely, you know. Obama was also being chastised by people to his left for failing to attack Wall Street vigorously enough, for failing to close Guantanamo as quickly as he had promised, for not pulling out of Iraq as quickly as he'd promised - for a whole bunch of things that have been disappointing to the left. Of course, he's not at 14 per cent approval rating right now, but, you know, after pushing healthcare through, things really - the troops rallied again and we have a robust president once again.

TONY JONES: Yes, we had an attempt at health reform, as well. Okay, you're watching Q&A. It's live and interactive and if you'd like to ask a question you can go to our website - the address is on the screen - to find out how to do that, how to join the studio audience or upload a video question, like this one from Thomas Karpiniec in Hobart.

THOMAS KARPINIEC: The net is not some robot but the result of how everyone uses it. Since the internet is effectively a democracy in its own right, do you believe that any nation should have the right to impose regulations upon it? Could it have its own sovereignty?

TONY JONES: Brett Solomon, what do you think? You're championing internet freedom. Should it or could it have its own sovereignty?

BRETT SOLOMON: Well, in a sense it does. I mean, it is - you know, it is not just a tube or a channel, it's a whole environment which we operate in, which we shop in, we bank in, we communicate in, we meet our lovers and we get divorces in and, of course, we do politics in. And I think this is, from my perspective, the key issue is like how do we actually keep this sovereign space open when at the same time there's all - it's a death by a thousand cuts. We've got, you know, the Chinese with the great firewall of China, we've got the Iranians censoring the internet, we've got the Australian government and, you know, Brendan to my right championing this internet filter, which, you know, seems to - all relatively sane people to be, you know, a crazy move, when we have got this opportunity to express in a way which we've never been able to do before. So I do think it's almost like a sovereign space, but the regulation that we want to involve in it or that we want to impose upon it should be very light-handed because the more that we regulate, the more that we impose, the more that we filter, the more that we censor, the less space that's available for us to experience in the way that we have over the last 15 years or so.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Kaiser Kuo on that, because you were given the role of opposing that view.

KAISER KUO: Sure, I'll step up as villain here. With all due respect to Brett, who I admire greatly, I think that's a bunch of techno-utopian fallacy. These cables, these servers or routers, they live in physical space. They cross international borders. There are sovereignty issues that come into play and we must not, you know, ignore these. The kind of, you know, enthusiasm that we mustered over, say, Iran, where there was tremendous international support, including support in China, where people turned their Twitter avatars green in support of the Iranians, look what actually happened in Iran? Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, these were all double-edged swords. They were used to round up dissidents. We can live in these fantasy worlds like this but, you know, the real rules apply.

TONY JONES: Isn't that what China uses email for: to round up dissidents?

KAISER KUO: Yeah, unfortunately yes. I mean, and China is a terrible example of it. China regime of censorship is particularly Draconian. I know, I have to live there all the time but there's no question in the minds of the Chinese that these ideas of yours that it exists somehow above the petty fray of nation states - well, that's just nonsense.

BRETT SOLOMON: It's not that - I don't - I mean, the idea that it's some sort of fantasy world, I think, is inaccurate. I mean, the internet itself was designed as a multi-polar distributed, equal space, and I think...

KAISER KUO: The internet itself was designed so that governments could survive nuclear catastrophes.

HELEN RAZER: Like all technology, it is the by product of war. You do have a point.

BRETT SOLOMON: The internet, but the World Wide Web is a...

KAISER KUO: Sure.

BRETT SOLOMON: ...is actually designed as a space for all of us to engage in and play with in the way that we - I mean, have we ever seen such an extraordinary explosion of political participation, of personal expression? And I'm not a cyber-utopianist. I completely understand the limitations upon the internet. I understand how the internet has been used by regimes to filter and to survey and to monitor, but if you speak to the people on the streets of Iran, which I do regularly, and you speak to the people, similarly, that you do on the streets of China, this is a lifeblood to communication, to expression...

KAISER KUO: Absolutely.

BRETT SOLOMON: ...and a boon that's never been experienced like this before so...

TONY JONES: Okay.

HELEN RAZER: I've seen you speak, Kaiser. I'm sorry.

TONY JONES: No, that's okay. Go ahead.

HELEN RAZER: I've seen you speak and by your own admission you say the internet has no off switch. I mean, even though China and now in Australia apparently we'd like an off switch for the internet, you can't deactivate it, so surely we have to, rather than talking about what the internet should or shouldn't be, because it just is. You know, it's such a...

BRETT SOLOMON: But that's actually wrong.

KAISER KUO: (Indistinct)

TONY JONES: No, I'm going to bring you back to something very basic, which is the question, and the question asked. The first part of it...

HELEN RAZER: I was getting there.

TONY JONES: Do governments have the right or should governments have the right to regulate the internet. That was the first part of the question. What do you think? Does china have a right to regulate the internet with the great firewall et cetera, as it does?

KAISER KUO: It certainly has a right. Whether it's right in doing so is another question entirely. I think that in 99 out of 100 instances it's absolutely wrong in the way that it carries out internet censorship.

TONY JONES: Can you see a defence of them regulating the internet heavily, because I know that you've actually written about the speed that information travels...

KAISER KUO: Sure.

TONY JONES: ...as compared to when the Bill of Rights was brought down in American.

KAISER KUO: I'll sum that up very quickly. In the year 1789 when James Madison and his cronies wrote the Bill of Rights and really enshrined the idea of freedom of expression for the first time, what was behind the proverbial floodgates, there were - you know, there was nothing. Information travelled at the speed of a galloping horse. It crossed the oceans at the speed of a clipper ship. The literacy rates were alarmingly low. The franchise was held by only a few educated, elite men. This was a very different world than if you fast forward to 2010 in China, where there are 404 million people using the internet, where there are twice that number of people carrying around with them every day a device capable of sending text, pictures, all over the world instantaneously, so there's a lot more water behind that floodgate. I argue that we should have more internet freedom in China, in Iran, everywhere, but the realities are that blowing it open with a dam buster is going to be absolutely catastrophic. Gradualism is a preferable way to go. I think that they're not pushing fast enough. I think that it's not gradualism that's granted by the state that matters but what's taken by the people that really matters but in recognising that gradualism is a viable option, you must recognise that some modicum of control must exist in the time being.

HELEN RAZER: So you're saying free speech is all right, as long as it's only exercised by the founding fathers?

KAISER KUO: No, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's a complete twisting of...

BRETT SOLOMON: Can I just jump in there?

TONY JONES: I didn't read it like either.

BRETT SOLOMON: I understand the process of, you know, ensuring that there isn't like a revolution perhaps.

KAISER KUO: Right.

BRETT SOLOMON: Maybe I don't. But the point is that, you know, we have more people, more bloggers in jail in China than any other country. We have cyber...

KAISER KUO: And I object to that. I think that is absolutely a horrible thing.

BRETT SOLOMON: And...

KAISER KUO: I am not defending human rights violations here.

TONY JONES: Okay. We're going to come to more of this later. I want to hear from the politicians. Let's hear from Brendan O'Connor first and let's bear this in mind. The US Ambassador, Jeff Bleich, came on this program not so long ago and very passionately said, "The internet needs to be free, the way the skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, polar ice caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free," and he was pointing at your government and say...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure, we'll that's a...

TONY JONES: ...you're about to diminish that freedom.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I'm not sure the skies are entirely free. We have to regulate the skies for a whole range of things, including aviation industry. But, look, I think fundamentally...

HELEN RAZER: I think it was a metaphor.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, I think it was - well, good on you, Helen but the fact is...

HELEN RAZER: Tread softly.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: ...the fact is it was a mixed metaphor or at least it was not a perfect one. The fact is this that the government believes that - we believe that the internet is a magnificent education tool. It's a magnificent social tool and it is an exciting virtual world that can be used and should be used by our citizens and it's critical for people's learning and engagement. That is a given. The issue then as to what we would look to restrict comes down to the national classification scheme that we have in place now. We have a classification scheme in place now to restrict certain material. Certain material in film, in publication and we do so because we are concerned about some material causing harm. Either causing harm to all members of the community but particularly causing harm to minors. Such things as...

TONY JONES: Well...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Can I - but this is really important.

TONY JONES: No, we're going to talk in more detail about the filter.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: So if we're going to talk - sure.

TONY JONES: I promise you there are questions specifically about that.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Okay So there's (indistinct)...

TONY JONES: I wanted to hear your general position on internet freedom and from you, Sophie Mirabella?

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well...

TONY JONES: And bear in mind that your colleague Joe Hockey has championed internet freedom. Do you do so equally?

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Oh, I'm very familiar with Joe's views and we have robust debates in the Liberal Party room. As a general rule, of course, I would err on the side of saying, well, governments should be quite judicious in the exercise of any censorship, whether it's on the internet or elsewhere. Having said that, we do, as a coalition - we would support something if we were convinced that that it did actually protect children and restrict their access. Our problem with the government's current proposal is we're not convinced from a practical perspective it's going to work. We're not convinced it's actually going to do what it says and protect children. It will - it may give parents a false sense of security. The fact that the government hasn't been able to prove to us or provide legislation to outline how it will practically work leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

TONY JONES: Okay. No, we're going to come to those questions. We actually have a question in the audience from Greta Coll. We'll take that first. I note some people have got their hands up. We'll come to you later.

GRETA COLL: My question is for Kaiser Kuo. What is it about the internet that you think provides us with too much freedom and too much choices rather than challenging our beliefs?

KAISER KUO: I don't think that that's a fair restatement of anything that I've said. I don't believe that it provides us with too much freedom. I think that there are specific circumstances and these tend to be sort of culturally determined in which freedoms can actually - when exercised poorly, can result in genuine human suffering. Let's take the case of India for example. Google has been a uniform champion internationally for internet freedom. But in India they practice censorship. The social networking service Orkut there routinely is censored by Google at the behest of the Indian government because in its absence - in the absence of censorship, anything that impugns the honour of a Hindu nationalist party, like Shiv Sena, can result in people rioting and burning buses and it has happened. They've attacked internet cafes and burned them and there have been deaths that result. There are times, and I don't think this would happen in Australia. I certainly don't think it would happen in the United States, where this is a problem.

TONY JONES: Let me ask you this: you've made an argument about the internet being a space that creates confrontation between, for example, Chinese citizens and American citizens. About the only place them meet in large numbers is on the internet.

KAISER KUO: That's right.

TONY JONES: And you talk about this distinction between red guards and rednecks.

KAISER KUO: Well, I...

TONY JONES: So that you actually get a very bad result from this from this interaction.

KAISER KUO: I don't - when I point this out, I'm suggesting that there needs to be ways to engage each other still on the internet and not with fetters on, with a little more compassion and understanding. The rednecks - and the rednecks, of course, are, you know, the bigoted, the racist sort yahoos who - the hate filled anti-Chinese forces in the United States. The red guards, on the other hand, are the sort of stridently nationalistic types. These are - they're sort of code words for them. And they do - they do, you know, inhabit these spaces where Chinese and Americans find themselves online. I mean, the answer is not to censor the internet. That has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I'm just making an argument that these things do actually spill over. They affect, they constrain and the strain international relations - the bilateral relations between China and the US.

HELEN RAZER: I mean, how do you gauge that and, also, how do you gauge - because I'm desperate to know with the net filter and the other things that you oversee, such as the R18-plus rating and what have you. Is this evidence-based politics? Where is the evidence that these things - is this based on anything more than a gut feeling that certain materials will end in certain imitative behaviours?

TONY JONES: Helen, you've just taken us off the subject. We're going to go back to the internet filter shortly. I'm going to go to Brett Solomon just to respond to that, because there is a disillusionment about some aspects of the internet, and that is that it seems to be a place where people go to hear the views of people like them quite often and you find these spaces where you get these arguments and, you know, it isn't necessarily all positive, is it?

BRETT SOLOMON: Well, I mean, there's two different things here. One is that people go to places where they want to hear and meet other people like themselves and then I think the point that Kaiser's making is that they're actually going to a place where they actually are hearing the opposite views of people that they dislike before they even get there and I think that, you know, from my perspective, yes, it's true but we - where else would we have an opportunity for rednecks and red guards to actually meet? And I'm sure that there is, you know, violence and aggression but there's also contemplation and engagement and, I mean, if we just look at the 400 million users on Facebook and you think about that incredible engagement and connection that people have had across borders, across countries, across genders, across political perspectives, I mean this kind of engagement, I think, is new and, again, as I say, unheard of. I know I'm sounding like a cyber-utopianist and I know that, but it's important that we see that there's a whole spectrum of activities that are happening on the net here.

HELEN RAZER: And horrible things do happen on the internet. Horrible things happen on Facebook daily. One of them was Sarah Palin, of course. The whole fiction of the death panels, evil men of the left who seemed to have no other task in life but to kill Sarah Palin's offspring, that fiction was on Facebook. I mean, I think Facebook's a bit of an evil place. I'd sack myself.

TONY JONES: Okay. You're watching Q&A live and interactive. If you'd like to ask a question, go to our website - those of you with your hands up, we'll come to you in a moment - the address is on your screen to find out how to do that, who to join the studio audience or upload a video question, like this one from the founder of Child Wise, Bernadette McMenamin. Bernadette McMenamin in South Melbourne.

BERNADETTE MCMENAMIN: Why shouldn't internet service providers be held much more accountable than they currently are for dissemination of illegal material, much of which is child pornography? Why shouldn't the government be supported in its efforts to prevent the sexual exploitation by introducing the filtering of child pornography?

TONY JONES: Okay, let's hear from Brett Solomon first?

BRETT SOLOMON: Well, I mean, the internet filter as proposed by the government is just - it is just not going to work and for a number of reasons, but addressing the question here, I think that, you know, if we're actually looking at protecting children, the subcategory that the filter is addressing now is refused classification. That's not going to stop any access to any porn sites at all. Every single porn site that's on the internet, apart from the ones that are in refused classification, will still be there. The way to address this issue is through policing, through parenting and through education and all of the evidence says that. You know, I had to agree with Sophie's former boss...

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Why? Why?

BRETT SOLOMON: Because...

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Because you're biased?

BRETT SOLOMON: No, because generally I disagree with many of the policies including on, you know, asylum seekers and climate change and so on but in relation to the filter, John Howard did actually pump out millions of copies of filters that could keep the home computer safe for the end user.

HELEN RAZER: Net Alert was a good thing. I don't know...

BRETT SOLOMON: It was a good thing.

HELEN RAZER: I don't know why the government suspended helpdesk support for Net Alert. I mean, for the last eighteen months parents haven't had free government subsidised helpdesk to say, well, how do - and updates for the Net Alert at home, opt in system to say, "Well, how in heck do I use this?" So for the last 18 months we've been completely unprotected.

TONY JONES: Brendan O'Connor.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure. Look, the Net Alert, the previous government's initiative, had a very, very low take up rate. The issue about refused classification - I guess I disagree with at least one panel member, is about extreme violence, extreme sexual violence, including child pornography, which I can assure you is refused classification at a film level or any other form of medium and it has to, in my view, involve it being prevented wherever possible on the internet. The issue about how we do that is a challenge and that's why we're continuing to talk to the sector about how we do that. I don't think there's anybody in this room would think that if we could deny access to child pornography we shouldn't do that and that's what the government is seeking to do. Not to limit legal pornography, if you like, but to only limit what is already refused classification in film, you know, in newsagents in terms of buying certain material, on our library shelves - that type of material. Limit it down to that. We are dealing with the technical issues and, of course, we'll continue to do that because what we don't want to do is sacrifice the benefits of the internet as we go about fulfilling our objective in protecting people and also preventing outrageous, unlawful material being distributed, which exploits children.

HELEN RAZER: Not all RC material is illegal though, is it, just to get this straight?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: All RC material is - well, it is not - it's is unlawful in that it cannot be distributed. It doesn't mean it was produced unlawfully. But a lot of it has, yeah.

TONY JONES: Okay. I'm going to interrupt you because we've got a couple of people with their hands up. I keep promising to go to them. They may be comments, they may be questions. We'll try and get a few of them. You, sir.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just had a quick question for Brendan. Isn't it the essential difference that the last time somebody took our choice away it was the national socialists with book burning and the good thing about Net Alert, wasn't it, that it left the choice with the parents and with the individual citizen and the great shift that you're advocating is to take our choice away from us?

TONY JONES: I'm going to take that as a comment and we'll go up to the back there and this gentleman with his hand up right in the top corner there.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's my understanding that it is relatively simple to circumvent the proposed internet filter. I was just wondering, if it is so simple as I have led to believe, would it not become publicly acknowledged how simple it would be and in the end redundant?

TONY JONES: Brendan?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, that goes to the - clearly some of the technical issues that, in particular, Senator Conroy, as minister responsible for the internet, is engaged in. But what we've said is firstly let's identify that material that we believe should be limited and it's consistent with the limitations placed on other forms of material or other medium. Now, let's first do that. Let's then tackle the question - the technical questions about how we do that. I don't think anybody - and just to...

HELEN RAZER: They have been tackled though.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Can I just say - I mean, just in response to the question by the gentleman earlier, look, quite frankly, I'd quite happily burn a book if it was entirely contained with child pornography and all we're looking to do is to limit the material that's offensive to almost everybody in the community.

TONY JONES: Brendan O'Connor, we saw on Four Corners earlier this evening that the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Scandinavia have child pornography filters at the ISP level. They limit strictly child pornography, nothing else. Why can't you do that here, if that's what you're really objecting to?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, and that's the issue too. It's how we approach it. So the first thing is we would be looking to have a refused classification list that would be applied to internet service providers. The facts are, though, that the classification board does refuse other material of a - I would say of a highly offensive...

BRETT SOLOMON: But, Brendan, we've heard this.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, can I just say...

BRETT SOLOMON: No, we've heard the same point.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Hold on. But there's two - there's two debates here though.

BRETT SOLOMON: But the...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: There's two debates here. Firstly, there's how we go about...

BRETT SOLOMON: You've been through the consultation process...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, can I just finish? Can I just finish.

BRETT SOLOMON: ...and nobody wants this.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, can I just finish? I think the question...

BRETT SOLOMON: (Indistinct)

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well...

BRETT SOLOMON: Have you ever heard - can I just interrupt you?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure.

BRETT SOLOMON: Have you ever heard an American ambassador stand up publicly and say, "We're having "healthy discussion" with Australians"? We're in two wars with America and I've never heard that phraseology. I've been to meeting after meeting internationally, and Australia is raised at every meeting. This is...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, I'd have to - sorry.

BRETT SOLOMON: This is a bad policy that won't work. There are alternatives.

HELEN RAZER: Yeah, I mean ultimately it won't work. It will...

TONY JONES: No. No. I don't want to appear like only the left side of my brain is working, so I'd like to go over to this side. Let's hear from Kaiser. Listening to this debate, do you have any particular thoughts? You're obviously an expert on the internet.

KAISER KUO: Sure. I mean my instincts, of course, are - I mean, as an American and as somebody who understands the banality of evil that is internet censorship, unfortunately, I think that it's sad to see a country that so steeped in liberal traditions taking steps backward like that and sort of taking it out of the hands of teachers, of parents, of community members and putting this in the hands of government. It's, to me, a sad thing to see.

TONY JONES: We've just actually got a web question come in for you. It's from Matthew Solley in Kew. "My question is directed at Kaiser Kuo. Under what circumstances do you believe internet censorship is at all acceptable?"

KAISER KUO: I think that I've already answered that with the example from India, for example. I think I could probably...

TONY JONES: You wouldn't - let's take pornography as an example, because that's what we're discussing here?

KAISER KUO: I don't think that government mandated internet censorship...

TONY JONES: Child pornography particularly.

KAISER KUO: ...of child pornography - I think that, you know, different communities will arrive at different solutions to these things. The fact that a robust debate is taking place within Australia about this is a sign of a very, very healthy polity and of a liberal polity, which to me suggests that the debate should, you know, close very quickly around the idea that this is a bad idea.

HELEN RAZER: The material itself is illegal.

KAISER KUO: Right, the material itself is illegal.

HELEN RAZER: As you said, I mean, nobody wants it.

KAISER KUO: That's right.

HELEN RAZER: And anybody who does is not going to publicly own that.

KAISER KUO: The other thing - right. The other...

HELEN RAZER: The fact is the filter does not work to censor child pornography.

KAISER KUO: Again, right, the experience of China. I leap the firewall of China daily. I mean, I'm on a VPN all day long. I can watch pornography of an sort, you know, to my heart's content from, you know, within the city of Beijing without any of the internet cops knowing about my nasty habits and...

TONY JONES: I think they might know about it now, somehow. Let's go to this questioner down here on the floor.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. My question is actually to the journalists on the panel, including Tony, since no one's asking you many questions tonight.

TONY JONES: No, I don't tend to answer them, either.

KAISER KUO: He'll take that as a comment.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, you were mentioning the blacklist earlier and it's quite a mysterious list. Not many people even know what's on it. It's kept private, despite being by a public - a government organisation. John F Kennedy famously said, "Secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society." How, as a journalist, do you feel operating under such a regime of secrecy?

TONY JONES: I don't think you can just direct it at the journalists. I'm actually going to direct it to Sophie, because we haven't heard her for a while and then I'll throw it back to Helen and to Brett.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: What's your question?

KAISER KUO: Is secrecy repugnant.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Is secrecy repugnant? Well...

KAISER KUO: In a free and open society.

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, that's - it's a rather theoretical and open question in a democracy - in a free democracy like Australia. Yes, we have freedoms. Yes, we have rights. But we also have limitations. You can go out in the street and do whatever you can and there are reasons to have secrecy. There are issues of national security, for example, that require a certain level of secrecy. We can't even access cabinet documents for 30 years and there are reasons for that. But there are rights that are quite rightly not absolute. We live in a sophisticated democracy and we can't just think in black and white.

TONY JONES: Okay, we've got quite a few people with their hands up. I'm just going to go round now. Maybe it's best to make comments here, so we can get a sense of what the audience is feeling. We'll start with this gentleman here with his hand up with the glasses.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I guess I'd make a statement about the fact that there's billions and billions of pages on the internet with millions of more pieces of content being added every single day. How does a ratings organisation possibly hope to actually classify all of this stuff and to do it accurately and in a timely fashion and in a non-punitive sense so you've got lots of great content out there which possibly is going to get court up in all of this?

TONY JONES: Okay, keep your comments brief like that. That gentleman at back.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just wondering considering that we don't have legislated the freedom - the right to freedom of speech in this country, how are we going to ensure that this censorship isn't going to spread to other parts of society or be controlled by future governments?

TONY JONES: All right. We can actually throw that question directly to the minister.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, can I - I guess...

TONY JONES: That's the fear, isn't it? I mean, people think this is a thin edge of the wedge.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Sure. Sure.

TONY JONES: Whether they're right or not, that's what they think.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: And that's why I think applying the refused classification benchmark is important, because the refused classification benchmark has been there for years and it has to be undertaken cooperatively between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments and it is limited. And I guess it becomes - and it's become, over time, a benchmark that's been accepted by the community as the line that's drawn. But can I say the governments, and certainly the Labor Government, would always want to ensure that we can provide as much access to material as possible, but there are certain things - very limited things - that are so harmful and so extreme that certainly the majority in the community would not want to see disseminated or accessible.

TONY JONES: Just to pick up on that person's point down there, the young gentleman who asked that question earlier, They're so extreme that you're not even allowed to know what they are.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, again, that's another issue which is peculiar to the internet in this sense that you would list, for example, books that were to advise how to commit a terrorist offence or to incite sedition or whatever. Those things might be limited because of the danger to people, the state, the community. But with respect to an address, an URL, an address on the internet, the problem is just to publicly provide those addresses out would, of course, enable certain people to seek to actually hit onto those web pages.

HELEN RAZER: I understand that but how...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Can I just finish the answer? I was just going to say, but of course the government is mindful of that and that's why I know Senator Conroy is looking at, for example, having an independent body that is at arm's length from government making this - possibly a retired judge - making sure that governments are not making erroneous decisions. Now, I mean, we are only - we're doing this because - I mean, I agree scale of the challenge is - you know, is large.

HELEN RAZER: And the list can actually only contain 10,000 effective URLS at a time, I understand.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: No.

BRETT SOLOMON: And I think the real issue here...

HELEN RAZER: No, that's what...

BRETT SOLOMON: That is right.

HIS HONOUR: ...Senator Conroy said to...

BRETT SOLOMON: That's true.

HELEN RAZER: It can. That's the truth.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: (Indistinct)

BRETT SOLOMON: The other point here is that, I mean, inherent historically in censorship practice is mission creep. I mean, this is what happens. We start off with fine intentions and over periods you have the infrastructure in place and then you start to censor things that were not originally part of the - and can I just add, just coming back to the original point around broken promises and the Prime Minister, there was a consultation that this government went through, a very extensive one, about a human rights act, that would have enshrined the right to freedom of speech and access to information and freedom of expression and opinion. All of that stuff could be enshrined in the Australian legislative framework at various different levels but last week and without many people knowing, the government also turned its back on that process and said that they wouldn't be implementing a human rights act.

TONY JONES: All right. Now, as you know, we're running tweets across the bottom of the screen. You can't see them here but one just came in asking for a show of hands in the audience for who is against the filter. Can we do that? That's quite a lot. Now, that's probably more than the voters you lost in the past week.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I don't know.

TONY JONES: What do you think when you see that, Minister?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, I guess I see...

TONY JONES: You get the sense that there's a lot of people against you...

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I get a sense that a lot of people are concerned and, therefore, the government needs to assure the community that what we're seeking to do is to only - and I repeat this for emphasis - only limiting the information that is either unlawful - I mean, you know, I've got - as Minister for Home Affairs I'm responsible and I work closely with the Australian Federal Police. There's an actual crime centre in Canberra that deals with the prevalence of child pornography being distributed throughout our community.

HELEN RAZER: Are you increasing the funding?

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: And I can tell you - and I have - we've had to dedicate more resources in this area because it is a real issue. Now, I know a lot of people don't - fortunately don't come across this matter but it's a serious crime. There are people willing to use this fantastic tool, this magnificent place, the internet, for improper purposes and there is an occasion in which we have to act to protect the interests of people. The last thing we want to do is to restrict access to material or beyond what has been refused classification in this country for years.

TONY JONES: Okay.

HELEN RAZER: I simply must say this or I'll explode.

TONY JONES: No. No. No. I'm going to - sorry?

HELEN RAZER: I'll be apoplectic. There'll just be like a smear of Helen on the desk.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, that's a good thing.

HELEN RAZER: Oh, to think I once voted for you.

TONY JONES: So are you going to come to your point or just explode?

HELEN RAZER: No. No. No. No. The minister just insulted me and it was pretty witty. I had no comeback. You know, right, because you're a sensible bloke, you're a smart bloke, you know that the net filter is not going to block any of Dante's seven circles of hell, don't you? You know that the NX lab tests only blocked world wide web pages - Conroy has publicly said that peer to peer technology won't be blocked. Now, all of that evil stuff that any rational person feels nauseated by is not going to be blocked by your filter. It's not.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: That's not right. No, child pornography can be blocked. The issue of...

HELEN RAZER: No, not by your filter. Maybe by somebody else's filter, but not by the one that you have tested.

BRETT SOLOMON: Well - well, that's not right.

HELEN RAZER: No, it is right.

BRETT SOLOMON: Okay. Well, we'll disagree.

TONY JONES: No, I'm sorry. All right. Okay. Let's move on to another aspect of the web that seems to have discovered limits of freedom. I'm talking about the recent Twitter controversy. We have a question here from Trish Marinozzi.

TRISH MARINOZZI: Following the sacking of Catherine Deveny after her Logie tweets the other day, from what I can see through the use of my own Twitter account, it's just another medium where you can have your 140-character rant into cyberspace. What exactly is difference between doing that and saying those exact same words in a crowded, public space?

TONY JONES: Yeah. Helen Razer, you've de-Twittered, for some reason, and perhaps you could explain to us why in the course of this answer?

HELEN RAZER: Well, I think that anybody who has endured my rants this evening would know why I might remove myself from another public forum. It seemed like the only sensible thing to do. I, rather like Catherine, whom I know, unsurprisingly...

TONY JONES: Well, you've shared some particularly obscene exchanges over a period of time and...

HELEN RAZER: Have we? How do you know, Mr Tweet?

TONY JONES: I gather they no longer exist.

HELEN RAZER: No, they don't. No, I just didn't feel that I needed to - they weren't particularly obscene. I didn't leave a Hansel and Gretel, you know, trail of obscenity breadcrumbs on the internet.

KAISER KUO: They weren't refused classification.

TONY JONES: I said...

HELEN RAZER: What was the question, I'm sorry?

TONY JONES: It's about - I can't remember exactly, to be honest with you.

KAISER KUO: The question is: is it any different for you to say this in a public space or on Twitter?

TONY JONES: No, that's right.

KAISER KUO: And it comes back to my first question to you: is the internet special?

TONY JONES: That is a good question. Because Catherine Deveny actually said, "It's like passing notes in class."

HELEN RAZER: Yeah.

TONY JONES: "Except in this place you pass them to the principal."

HELEN RAZER: Yeah, I can't concur. I think that was a little disingenuous of her to say that. I do it for the same reason that I presume that Catherine does it: because we're dreadful show-offs and we...

TONY JONES: Did you find yourself crossing the line, as she evidently has found herself doing and suffered as result?

HELEN RAZER: Well, she is far better known than I am and was, up until last week, far more gainfully employed. So she had a lot more to lose and I don't attract as much attention. But, no, I mean I didn't really cross the line.

TONY JONES: So why did you stop doing it?

HELEN RAZER: There reason that I - this relates to some of the things that Kaiser was hinting at earlier. I mean, the internet - I mean, whether you are a red guard or a redneck in real life, you can turn into one of those sort of fairly ideologically two dimensional people very easily on the internet and I found that happening to myself.

TONY JONES: Yeah, Kaiser, I just want to hear you on this Twitter phenomenon and do you agree with what you're just hearing here? I mean, the internet can be a dark place?

KAISER KUO: Well, yeah, I mean to the young woman's question - to the young woman's question, I think that there is absolutely not difference. There's absolutely no - I don't understand why the internet is constantly treated as a different form of media from the rest of them. I really don't understand it. I don't think there's anything special or particular. I mean, the scale of it, of course, is much larger, the connectivity is bigger but it doesn't - it doesn't, you know, remove itself from the same rules that govern...

BRETT SOLOMON: Well, I think what's happened...

KAISER KUO: ...other forms of media, including conversation.

BRETT SOLOMON: I think what's happened is that because technology has kind of added itself on top of, you know, our lives, we see it as two separate spheres. But I think we need to get past that. I think that the virtual world and the real world is the world now and it's only going to increase in that direction so the sooner we come to terms with that, I think the easier it will be for us to legislate and to regulate and to...

SOPHIE MIRABELLA: But I think - I think there's a big difference between having a chat with your mates in the pub or saying something in a crowd and then putting something out there on the record forever and ever and it highlights the dangers of some social media that perhaps a lot of young people, a lot of teenagers are putting stuff out there, whether it's on Twitter or Facebook, that could come back to haunt them and I think that's the salient lesson out of the whole Deveny affair that you can't just treat it as a conversation with a mate saying, "Ha ha, isn't this funny." It's out there forever for people to criticise and comment on.

TONY JONES: All right. We've got people on the floor who want to make comments or ask questions.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: And so my question is this that it seems to me quite clear that we are already identifying the dissidents, just as they are identified in China. We are identifying them here via the internet and via Twitter. So my question is, panel, are the people here tonight and the people on Q&A each week identified as dissidents to our government.

TONY JONES: All right. No, I actually will take that as a comment. We'll hear from this gentleman down here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah. Defining the fine lines, we all become much more alert into where we lean, which way we go. I wonder how much we want to focus on rights rather than restrictions. To me, I'm inclined to focus on what are my rights to freedom of expression, without assuming a right to offend and damage a child in the production of someone's entertainment.

TONY JONES: Okay, we'll take that as a comment, as well. This gentleman here with the green cardigan, yes?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Green? Oh.

TONY JONES: Oh, well, it appears that colour from here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Cream.

TONY JONES: Cream, I beg your pardon.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: There's almost an interesting bit of irony here. I mean, there's rednecks and red guards...

KAISER KUO: You really like that phrase.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Indistinct). But our media seeks out extremes because it's popular, because it wants to evoke, because it wants to sell add space, and in the same sense the internet does the same. I mean it gets extremes and extremes attract attention. I just wonder why were not - why, because we have this continuously in our media that, you know, that we are getting extremes that one side or another doesn't like. Why don't we just train our children to understand and be able to interpret these wisely?

TONY JONES: Yeah, well, let's hear from Kaiser on that and I will throw that around to some of the rest of the panel and some of the other thoughts you can pick up on as well. Kaiser?

KAISER KUO: I mean, the grown-ups among us have not been able to do it. How can we possibly expect to teach this to our children?

TONY JONES: Brett Solomon, do you want to pick upon that?

BRETT SOLOMON: Well, I mean I think this was one of the points that I made earlier is that education is really, you know, a key part of this. It's about a digital education. It's about us understanding the scope of this internet, the speed of it and it's not just the internet. It's also mobile technologies, as well, which puts a- whole-nother, you know, sort of immediacy factor and a more accessible factor into it. But I think that, you know, it's up to government and it's also up to civil society and non-government organisation and programs like this and the media to explain both to kids and to adults - and it is trial and error, as well.

TONY JONES: I mean, in a completely free society, it wouldn't be up to government, would it? It would be up to parents to decide and to educate their children. When the government gets involved, that's when people start to worry.

BRETT SOLOMON: No, but I'm not talking about the legislation or the regulation. I'm talking about the educative process.

TONY JONES: No, fair enough.

BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I mean, Tony, there's a really good initiative now that's been - Microsoft and AFP and other sponsors have been involved talking to schools about alerting parents about some potential dangers for their kids if they're online and trying to make sure the build a bridge between the virtual world that younger people have been on and with the parents, some of whom don't engage at all in that world. To say that, look, I think and fundamentally whatever filter - however successful it will be ultimately the success, I think, of this approach will be enhanced fully by education, by providing the information to people about what is the internet, what are potential risks, ensuring that the students and children generally talk to their teachers and parents about any issues that cause concern. I think education will be a key issue and that's why we've got this program up and running.

TONY JONES: Helen, final word. Brief one. Sorry.

HELEN RAZER: That's a bit of an ask. You can't turn the internet off. I can only agree. All we can do is activate our awareness of the dangers that lurk therein.

TONY JONES: That's a good way to end. We've run out of time. Please thank our panellists: Sophie Mirabella, Kaiser Kuo, Helen Razer, Brendan O'Connor and Brett Solomon. Okay. It's budget week in Canberra and next Monday Q&A will present a special budget program with the Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner and the Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey. So go to our website to join the audience or send your questions in and join us next Monday night to see the economic decision-makers go head to head. Well, we'll finish tonight with an animate comment from David Knight on Kevin Rudd's opinion poll slide. Good night.