It's at least polite, and she did write a letter to Conroy on my behalf.
I write on behalf of a constituent, Mr Daniel O'Connor, regarding ISP filtration.
Mr O'Connor is concerned that ISP filtration system will inhibit his job. Mr O'Connor is currently employed as a software engineer, and he points out that his work could not continue without a free and open responsive internet. Mr O'Connor also enquires as to whether the option of giving funder and encouragement to ISP's such as http://www.webshield.net.au has been considered.
I would appreciate it if you could please investigate this matter and advise me of your findings so I can respond to Mr O'Connor's enquiry.
She also included a number of pages detailing the other bits of the proposed plan - I'm aware of these, and largely unconcerned by them - they are in fact reasonably on target.
She mentions her support for the other parts of the package, minimizing the importance of the filter, and so on and so forth.
When I'm next to a scanner again, I'll post a PDF of it all.
My take: from the tone and wording of the letter, it seems like she's taking the party line but politely ignoring the filter aspects. She's certainly not a foaming at the mouth filter fan; but won't speak out against it.
It's at least better than the fridge magnet I got sent.