That’s an interesting theory, but if it remains in this alleged bubble then the threat of wider publication would be very much alive.
The thing about conflicts of interest and/or values is that it does not matter whether they are actual - any perception of a conflict has to be addressed.
Precisely. I would never want to be a public figure, because of the sacrifices one would have to make. Not that I have any particular skeletons in my closet, but because - again - I don’t need them for there to be a perception of issues.
When a candidate says one thing and does another, you bet! I understand that politicians are generally difficult to trust, but there is an obvious area where you can identify whether they are at all trustworthy.
I don’t recall you putting any constraints, time or otherwise, on your statement. And what do you mean by ‘stone age’? Insult to those who still remember the 20th century?
There has been ongoing discussion of the issues on the ABC TV ‘The Drum’ last night and tonight (11th Nov). There are several other concerns and issues including differences between the authority of the powerful males ministers and the dependence on junior staff. In this instance female staff and on being treated equally and fairly the same as any junior male staffer. No one has raised whether the possibilities of one of the Ministers having a same sex affair would or would not be of public concern. Ministers and MP’s in general have significant ability to make or break the careers of more junior employees. There are accusations of bullying raised in the revelations .
I’ll not pass judgement on what is morally right here as we all have different standards. How Ministers behave towards and treat their staff however is of public interest. On that I’ll reserve my views, but do wonder as opposed to wander why we should not know. We all have a choice to follow the reveals or ignore it as suits. There are further complaints subject to formal investigation.
I also think that until Australia has more control on media there is always going to be the risk of biased, fake news, media beat up and savaging of reputations. If court cases like witness K and David McBride are the new norm how will politicians find out about corruption. I think what has happened to Julian Assange was the tip of the iceberg for the public to ever be appraised of the criminality happening behind closed political doors.
The data set appears to support the claim relating to the Prime Minister’s Office. 7.46% or requests ‘determined’ were responded to within the ‘statutory time period’. Overall the Commonwealth has responded to over 78% of requests ‘determined’ within that time.
What the data are silent on is the number of requests that have not been responded to and that are outside the time frame. This could conceivably be changing all the time as someone finally responds to a request, but it is possible that a large number of FOI requests are sitting at the bottom of drawers gathering dust.
I take your point. I think there are a few differences though:
ICAC does not convict anyone of anything.
If ICAC finds a case to answer then all the recordings would then be released to the public, and then the matter would normally progress to a trial. So the whole thing would be made public in advance of a trial. (The recordings would be released to the public even if someone like the DPP ultimately decided not to pursue the matter in court. Hence the matter is also reviewed in the court of public opinion.)
If ICAC finds no case to answer then none of the recordings would be released. However it could still be legally acceptable for the person in question to ‘out’ him or herself. In other words, the person has the right to privacy but not an obligation to secrecy.
It is doubtful that people like Witness K would be subject to an ICAC in respect of their official activities. Even so, ICAC is not a court to convict. So the real injustice would be in the ensuing trial.
Getting the balance right in this area is difficult to impossible, and I have a high level of confidence that the government won’t.
Of course if you don’t trust ICAC and you think that ICAC is just part of the ‘system’, designed to protect the rich and powerful, then … I get what you are saying but in that case why would we even bother to have an ICAC?
In other words, if you trust ICAC then you have to accept that if ICAC says there’s no case to answer then that’s where it ends.
The meaning of the text was that the examples were stone age, not the author.
Does the age of the examples matter? If a person believes that political culture (or social culture) doesn’t change then the age of the examples doesn’t matter.
I believe that culture does change.
For example, defamation is often a jury trial - and I suggest that people are less respectful of politicians today than 30 years ago, so a jury is less likely to give a politician a sympathetic hearing.
(It is worth noting that in one of the examples that I gave, it is one politician suing another, which sort of cancels out the general contempt in which we hold our politicians.)
Likewise, with the rise of social media, the Streisand Effect is likely to be more severe today than it was 30 years ago.
Politics recently also seems to be more polarised, to the extent that any politician would be concerned about getting a fair hearing from the jurors.
The NSW ICAC was set up in almost unique circumstances, and it reflects the willingness of politicians at the time to do what was needed to regain some sort of public trust in government. Unfortunately (?) we have no similar crisis in 2020 federal politics and government - although there are crises aplenty nothing seems to be rocking the boat.
That in itself might be the greatest motivation to avoid doubtful practices and be wary of casting the first stone? Tit for tat.
Alternately if both teams are so inclined, mutually assured self destruction might be welcomed by the others. Are we now debating the integrity of the commission charged with ensuring the integrity of those who govern? Who is going to keep ICAC from excess or corruption?
Should we be more concerned about not knowing than how we know?
That should be no more difficult than appointments to the high court, even if another layer of confirmation or approval is necessary.
I would prefer knowing, even if the evidence was delivered by a whistleblower (who had protections under law), a leak, or overzealous investigation. There seems to be sufficient doubt in the integrity of so many that it should not take much to bring wrong doing to light , at least for many years to come.
Mozilla have rated some products based on Privacy and security concerns:
They ask visitors if they have any they think should be added…from top to bottom of the list the concerns increase.
At the top is a box to click that lists what they think are some of the worst privacy concerns.
If you click on any item you are taken to a page about why it rates as it does and you can vote as to how creepy you think it is from not to super creepy.
I do recommend a visit, maybe something similar could be done by CHOICE or they could work with Mozilla on adding and rating more products. A win for consumers I think.
One part on the XBoxes that really might raise concerns about Sony’ PS5 and what Sony collect:
“Sony will be recording Voice Chat users’ chats with no way to opt out on the new PS5”
As are so many things in politics and political life.
Is the issue with how revelations are presented compared to what is revealed?
There is a range of differing standards across the whole community. Should the values of one portion determine what the rest get to know or see? In an open and accountable society, there is a choice to ignore, accept or challenge what comes to pass.
The history of the Great British Empire or early Australian Colonialism seen through the eyes of the day, not our eyes today demonstrate the folly of political and empowered leadership deciding what should or should not be shared and how. Victorian England’s standards were heavily influenced by the church and social reformers all competing for the higher ground. The empire of Victoria of and her subjects though was built on exploitation, domination, trade in opium, and at one time slavery. As in the clearances of the highlands of Scotland the ends always justified the means, at least to the benefit of some? Truth was always a victim in reporting of the time.
Concerns about the ability of some of our more notable public figures to manage their personal relationships. They seem relatively inconsequential compared to all the other daily concerns around secrecy, privacy, security, and intrusion.
This is FTA TV. It is an unavoidable consequence that the values of the ABC (in this case) determine what we get to know and see. Editorial decisions are made all the time.
I’m quite clear that there is no absolutely right or wrong answer for whether this story should have run, only shades of opinion. I was just noting that Paul Barry was prepared to criticise his own bosses in order to agree with me.
Perhaps so. (I didn’t post the story. I just responded to the posting.) This is not the worst violation of privacy, the worst intrusion, ever committed by a media organisation, ever committed by a government, ever committed by a corporation (e.g. social media) - it is just there, one of many, adding to the death by a thousand cuts.
While I disagree with his judgement, I like that we have a media entity that allows for a difference of opinion.
There is a great scene in the movie Topsy Turvy (set in late 19th century London) in which some of the cast discuss the latest newspaper headlines about some African rebellion or another. One of them has a rather biting, 20th century-style comment about the British Empire’s treatment of ‘natives’.
