Secrecy, privacy, security, intrusion

Unless you are the Leppington Pastoral Company - The $$$$$ land was bought for the new [Western] Sydney Airport 32 years before it was needed as part of the development.

2 Likes

There is a dedicated topic.

3 Likes

An argument could be made - in respect of an ICAC hearing or any other judicial or quasi-judicial hearing - that a person’s reputation is unreasonably damaged by being investigated / tried and then found not to have a case to answer / not guilty as the case may be.

Taken to the extreme that would mean that “ICAC” hearings would be video-recorded but not open to the media or the public (in camera in both senses of the word if you can stomach the pun) and only if “ICAC” finds a case to answer would all the recordings then be released.

A more moderate alternative would be a default presumption of secrecy but that some kind of Public Interest Advocate (PIA) could make the case at the commencement of the hearings that it is in the public interest that the hearings be made public on an ongoing basis, regardless of the (as yet unknown) final outcome.

Is secrecy sustainable at all in the internet-world? Maybe not.

:+1:
I presume your point would be: What happens if it is the minister him or herself whose integrity is in question? Or someone closely associated with the minister?

3 Likes

Which could be any other member of government or the same political organisation or …

There is always a risk and there have been a number of instances of unproven allegations, or inconvenient accusations/ opportune timing where there are commissions in place. It may be within the ability of any investigation to offer an open or alternately a no case to answer outcome. The proposal that the operation of the proposed ICAC protect those being investigated through secrecy from allegation through to hearing is a contradiction, compared with established practice.

Irrespective of other crimes or legal claims of misconduct, (sexual, IP theft, defamation etc) high profile and not so high profile individuals are also in the public eye. Why should there be any difference in treatment? Especially when the responsibilities of those in politics have broad reach. In a particular past example the lack of transparency and individuals deferring to secrecy has not served those who suffered institutional sexual abuse well. A lack of transparency despite legally responsibility allowed wicked abuse to go on when it should never have continued.

Any suggestion that a Federal ICAC should operate largely unseen with the accusations and hearings behind closed doors might risk the same. Irrespective of which brand of politics has control on the day. Judicial process should always be capable independently and removed from political process.

If there is to be any discretion, it would be best left to the commission to decide how it first responds to any request. Is there any reason or legal requirement on those making an allegation to keep that secret, perhaps forever? Hopefully not as it would be one way to silence whistleblowers and could leave them exposed to invisible retribution.

1 Like

Exactly. That’s why I specifically wrote “or any other judicial or quasi-judicial hearing”.

Although I wouldn’t include defamation since that is a civil matter and my intention (not achieved) was only to include criminal matters.

I did not mean that hearings would remain secret forever, only that hearings would be secret until such time as Federal ICAC had made a finding that there is a case to answer.

If you have concerns that Federal ICAC will become “part of the system” and lead to institutional coverup then really there is no point in having a Federal ICAC.

From the link posted in the other topic in this forum about Federal ICAC:

It’s a worry for the government because in Australia, and overseas, the problem of strong anti-corruption powers being used as a weapon against political opponents is real. There is little value in integrity bodies that become costly political weapons, damaging more than restoring public trust.

(and the following paragraph, not requoted here, for brevity)

Hearings in secret until an adverse finding avoid the use of a Federal ICAC for all the obvious mispurposes that anyone could reasonably anticipate e.g. trial by media, show trial, publicity stunt, gotcha moments, media circus, political weapon, …

I do. However it’s not assured.

The proposed referral process limited scope suggests

As observed,

P.S.
Perhaps the more recent discussion needs to me moved or merged with the other topic?

This should be interesting.

Apparently one of the concerns is a lack of bipartisanship. :rofl:

1 Like

I think a fair question has been raised: Is this a genuine public interest story? Or is this tabloid sleaze being sold as #metoo?

It is generally common knowledge around the parliamentary system (i.e. MPs, staffers, journos) who is bonking whom - but journos usually refrain from publishing. Only occasionally, as in the Barnaby Joyce story, is this convention broken. Perhaps that convention is now dead in the water.

Clearly if an MP is engaging in “intimate relations” with someone who is not the MP’s de jure or de facto spouse then the MP assumes the risk that the fact of that will become public knowledge - and the MP will have to deal with the personal and political fallout. Journos aren’t breaking any laws by publishing the fact.

2 Likes

I would argue that it becomes a public interest story when a person in a position of authority who rails against certain behaviours in others is discovered in flagrante delicto. This was the case for Barnaby Joyce, and my understanding is that the two named politicians were also very public preachers of their ‘preferred’ social norms.

The statement that then-Prime Minister Turnbull apparently made to one of them was extremely important (and I am paraphrasing here because I am not going back to the article): do not put yourself in a position that might lead to your compromise. Whether that compromise is by foreign intelligence services, some seedy blackmailer or the media these are Ministers of the Crown who have an obligation to be - and to be seen to be - beyond personal compromise. As public figures, these men knew better but went ahead anyway.

4 Likes

We all have a need for privacy.

Should it matter if affairs when in public office become public? It does when the complainants in this instance include one of the young women who was involved.

There are some other very good points already made concerning apparent double standards for the elected representatives, and whether the Ministerial code of conduct has been complied with.

It’s worth listening to some of the recent views from women familiar with the “Canberra Bubble” to see past a screen of privacy and consent arguments.

What is apparently in the public interest here is another example of work place culture that does not fit the 21st century. It would be an abuse of government if it was to be kept from view (secret, private and free of public intrusion) for political convenience.

We may have differing views on the rights and wrongs. But not knowing would deny all the opportunity to decide.

2 Likes

This argument is a common one - but in reality social norms are not a matter of public policy. Yes, they are hypocrites for “preaching” ‘family values’ while cheating on their wives but neither family values nor cheating on spouses are matters of public policy (and nor should we want them to be!).

I get why the Barnaby Joyce story was always going to be a click-winner for the media (in other words, the public is interested v. in the public interest) - but there’s nothing of substance for public policy in the story (unlike, say, the fact that he was not a fair dinkum Aussie! :slight_smile: ).

This is at least a valid argument. However I’ve seen no evidence that it is anything but a theoretical one.

If everyone in the Canberra bubble knows who is bonking whom, that limits the scope for blackmail.

It is alleged even that Porter was cuddling his non-spouse in public. Hardly seems like he should be worried about blackmail.

Now if you had said

a) an activity that is actually a secret, and
b) an activity that is actually illegal

the blackmail argument would carry more weight - but it would still be a theoretical argument unless you can point to an instance of a member of parliament being blackmailed in this way.

If you really accept the argument about blackmail then it should extend downwards far below the level of Minister, to all members of parliament in all parliaments, far outside the parliament to the judiciary, local councils, senior police officers, senior bureaucrats, our intelligence officers, …

Would society accept such an adultery ban?

At the end of the day it seems like the ABC is politically tone deaf. I am surprised that they would burn political capital on something that is basically intrusive sleaze.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in meetings where they discussed whether the story should run. :wink:

A public figure’s (eg politician’s) activity is a window into their character. A public figure’s character is relevant. Hypocrisy is also rampant as part of some public figures character. Their right to privacy is at odds with my expectation they have character according to their public proclamations and ‘standards’.

If they want privacy they should not run for public office or aspire to celebrity status. Being a public figure costs in many ways.

3 Likes

So as long as they don’t go on about ‘family values’ it’s OK? :slight_smile:

I guess what you are saying is that a candidate’s morality would influence your voting decision? whereas for me policy is about a thousand times more important. Porter has and will promulgate terrible, abusive, intrusive legislation - and I don’t care what he does in his private life (despite the fact that he wants to know what I do in my private life :slight_smile: ).

no, their hypocrisy would.

Do as I say, not as I do policy?

We can disagree that character is important. A certain large and wealthy country installed a person with no character as its head because people loved what they thought were his policies and cared nothing about his [total lack of] character. Look how well it has gone for them.

I do not especially care who they do or do not bonk, so long as they don’t stand on their pulpits and preach damnation of others who partake.

As this is wondering away from privacy to character, if you wish to pursue the thought a topic in [perhaps] Policy Forge may be more appropriate.

3 Likes

I watched the ABC program, and noted that several times they said that the two members mentioned were asked for comment and invited to give their side of the story and both declined. After the program went to air, one is apologizing for past behavior and the other is denying most of the story and “considering their legal options”. Good luck with that champ.

What is the old adage: what happens behind closed doors stays behind closed doors. What is said in private stays private.

If you want to take it public, and you are a “public servant”, then take the consequences if it becomes public knowledge. It can backfire on you.

1 Like

It’s certainly a two-edged sword. By taking legal action he would ensure that more people became aware of the story and he would ensure that it stays in the media for much longer.

Porter separated from his wife in January of this year.

I would say: issue your denial and then move on. So will the media circus.

Generally politicians don’t sue for defamation.

Oh really?..Bob Hawke was a master at it. Joh Bjelke-Peterson was pretty good at it too.

1 Like

Less ‘stone age’ examples would be Joe Hockey or Sarah Hanson-Young. Both won their cases.

But think of the thousands of insults and slurs that are hurled at politicians (from outside the parliament) that don’t lead to a defamation case.