“While parents were certainly concerned about what their children might be exposed to on the internet, when details of the proposed mandatory filter were explained and they became aware that other filtering options were available, their enthusiasm for the government's approach dropped,” said the report conducted by GA Research. Christian groups have been vociferous supporters of the filter because they believe it will protect children from illegal content, such as child pornography, on the internet. However, others argue that the measure could prove ineffective and open the door to censorship of other important non-illegal material. The Safer Internet Group, which is made up of companies and organisations that include Google, Internet Industry Association, iiNet, Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Library and Information Association, said it commissioned the research to better understand the awareness, knowledge and perceptions of Australian parents in marginal seats on the proposed filtering legislation. Sue Vercoe, chief executive of GA Research said that, although the scope of the research was limited (with a total of 39 people taking part in four focus group interviews), the findings helped to explain the results of the McNair Ingenuity Research, which indicated 80 per cent of people supported a mandatory internet filter on Refused Classification content. She said the GA study revealed that, while there were fairly high levels of awareness of the internet filtering legislation, most of those interviewed had only a low level of knowledge about it.

“It was clear that those supporting it were taking a relatively simplistic view that it would help children stay safe online and deter paedophiles, while those opposed it asked a lot more questions,” Vercoe said. “More research needs to be done,” she added. In line with the McNair study, the focus groups indicated initial broad support for the government's proposed legislation, “however, when details of the proposal were explained in the focus groups and people became aware that other approaches to filtering are available, enthusiasm dropped. The more information parents received, the less they supported the government's proposed solution,” the GA report said. Researchers said that, when given options on different ways of approaching internet filtering, the overwhelming majority of participants in the focus groups did not choose the government's proposal. Instead their preferred option was for more education of parents and children in how to use the internet more safely and access and install free filters, while their second preference was for an optional filtering system with different filter levels for adults and children in one household. Their third preference was for mandatory filtering of a narrow range of content focused on child pornography. The government's proposed mandatory filtering was lowest on the list.

On Monday night's Four Corners program on ABC TV, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy gave a pre-election undertaking not to broaden the government's proposed level of internet censorship. "We're making it very clear, this is our policy: refused classification only," Mr Conroy told Four Corners. "If a majority of the Parliament in the future want to broaden the classification, well then, Australians should stand up and say 'just a minute', and I'll be one of them," he said. "Individual pages will be determined by - at arm's length from government - by the Classification Board, as it should be," he said. Loading

Conroy also told Four Corners that he and the US government were "going to agree to disagree" on mandatory filtering. He was yesterday appointed to a new United Nations commission on broadband.