ABC is Political

[IFocus]

I suppose it's futile to expect you to actually treat the question seriously.
The material was stolen. The ABC should have considered all the obvious fall out before succumbing to sensationalism and making it public.

Simply being in possession of someone's private information does not confer the right to make it public.
Say I came into possession of some damaging information about you, (and obviously I'm not suggesting that that would happen) does that give me the right to post it here for all your co-members to see and to hugely embarrass you? No, of course not.

Understand your sentiment and I was surprised at how the ABC went about the story but in the end its still news.

The end effect would have been the same whether it was the ABC or some other news organisation once the Guardian published it would have been in the public domain why they broke the story together was a bit different.

 

[noco]

One of the lead stories on the ABC web site...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-24/abbott-mishandling-indonesia-crisis-plibersek/5113312

Insiders...... the Labor parties personal promotion programme sponsored by taxpayers dollars.

Cassidy has interviewd three Labor shadow ministers in the last three weeks.

What a grubby show the ABC Insiders are!!!!!!!

Abbott has got to start sacking from the top...I am not sure whether it is his perogative or some independant body..The ABC are the cause of so many problems for the Abbott government and it is certainly not in the National interest. The ABC have breached the National Security of Australia and they should be brought into line.

 

[IFocus]

Cassidy has interviewd three Labor shadow ministers in the last three weeks.

What a grubby show the ABC Insiders are!!!!!!!

Abbott has got to start sacking from the top...I am not sure whether it is his perogative or some independant body..The ABC are the cause of so many problems for the Abbott government and it is certainly not in the National interest. The ABC have breached the National Security of Australia and they should be brought into line.

Coalition wont do hard interviews particularly since its running secret agendas.

Shadow ministers are the only ones who will turn up Cassidy has been frustrated around this very subject before fact is the front bench on the Coalition side is pretty thin on talent a fact that will be reinforced for as long as Kelly O'Dwyer sits on the back bench thanks to the Liberal faceless men.

Thought Cassidy gave Tanya a hard time not that it was a problem for her.

 

[drsmith]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=23929&page=47&p=803809&viewfull=1#post803809

In Commonwealth v Fairfax [(1980) 147 CLR], the Court considered that the degree of embarrassment to Australia’s foreign relations that would flow from disclosure was not enough to justify protection of the information


The public interest test set out in Commonwealth v Fairfax places the burden on governments to justify the maintenance of the confidentiality of the information. The reason for this is the importance of freedom of communication and public discussion. As McHugh J explained in Attorney‑General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/...fidelity?print.

Is the final paragraph of Christopher Joye's article in the AFR a reference to the above ?

The Financial Review has previously published details of classified intelligence, although only once a public interest test has been satisfied and it has been determined that these revelations do not compromise the security of the country. The ABC failed to meet these conditions.

http://www.afr.com/p/blogs/christop...omised_public_interest_mTS4P4NusdEYYHrWX9GN8H

Above link to AFR article posted again for reference.

 

[Whiskers]

Any government would be very remiss in not giving national security a high priority. However in your case, along with the Greens, The ABC, and The Guardian and fuelled by Edward Snowden and Vladimir Putin, anything that can damage our security is fair game as long as it is directed at wrecking Tony Abbott's boats policies.

Firstly, I'm sure the "government" is giving national security a high priority. BUT, the "government" (also termed Commonwealth or Federal Government) is the whole of parliament, the House of Representatives and Senate.

Secondly, There is a clear distinction between what is 'National Security' or 'National Interest' and the interests or policies of a political party.

Thirdly, before any policy or executive government decision can claim to be a 'National Security' issue it must pass the 'Public Interest' test as well established under Law..

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...heet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government

I refer you back to earlier post (with correct position of the McHugh J reference) for distinction between government and political party and High Court rulings on what is in the 'public Interest', given that Government has to act in the PUBLIC INTEREST.

The general collection of information and intelligence gathering is quite legal... BUT with caveats.

We have the right to collect information and intelligence... BUT we don't have the right to break other countries laws, or break our own laws such as to invade the privacy of our own citizens, to get it.

Say for example the Indo presidents, wife etc were taped from within Indonesia. That would be a crime by some Aus or US official working within our agency against Indonesian Law. That is why the collection of spying intelligence is quite often illegal.

Further, in Law the 'intent' of the person (or government agency) is determinative of what if any crime has been committed.

A Crime for the disclosure of 'Official Secrets' under the Crimes Act Sec 79 is dependent on proving the intention of prejudicing the security or defence of the Commonwealth.

There are also exceptions and defences to 'leaking' government secrets under The Crimes Act, Officials Secrets, subsections 79(2) and (3), such as where there is a duty in the greater public interest to communicate the information to someone else such as the media. The government is constitutionally required to act in the public interest, not some private or political interest, as explained in Attorney‑General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd.

In Commonwealth v Fairfax [(1980) 147 CLR], the Court considered that the degree of embarrassment to Australia’s foreign relations that would flow from disclosure was not enough to justify protection of the information ​

The public interest test set out in Commonwealth v Fairfax places the burden on governments to justify the maintenance of the confidentiality of the information. The reason for this is the importance of freedom of communication and public discussion. http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...onfidentiality-and-loyalty-and-fidelity?print​

So, why have the government not got an injunction to silence the ABC et all ... because they know they can not get one under the law... the same laws they are bound by in terms of what they can collect in the name of national security.​

Insiders...... the Labor parties personal promotion programme sponsored by taxpayers dollars.

Cassidy has interviewd three Labor shadow ministers in the last three weeks.

While the proof of the pudding has yet to be fully revealed one can be excused for believing or having a healthy suspicion that the "Coalition wont do hard interviews particularly since its running secret agendas."

They only have themselves to blame for not fronting up to the media.

The ABC are the cause of so many problems for the Abbott government and it is certainly not in the National interest.

See distinction between political and 'Public Interest' above.

If Abbott's (or any political leader) policies are not in the Public Interest first and foremost, it follows that it's pretty difficult to argue it's in the National interest.

The ABC have breached the National Security of Australia and they should be brought into line

If they had, in fact and in Law breached National Security... why has no action been taken or even mooted to silence them?

 

[drsmith]

The current absence of sound from axe against grindstone being heard far and wide doesn't necessarily mean it's not being sharpened.

 

[noco]

The current absence of sound from axe against grindstone being heard far and wide doesn't necessarily mean it's not being sharpened.

+1 Doc.....I believe it is only a matter of time when Scott will be disciplined over his actions.

I just cannot see him escaping the consequences which may lead to his resignation.

 

[Whiskers]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=23929&page=47&p=803809&viewfull=1#post803809



Is the final paragraph of Christopher Joye's article in the AFR a reference to the above ?



http://www.afr.com/p/blogs/christop...omised_public_interest_mTS4P4NusdEYYHrWX9GN8H

Above link to AFR article posted again for reference.

Quite possibly... BUT the intent of Chris Joye is in the story.

He was clearly trying to beat up a story, hopefully trying to score a point against the ABC. He has that right in law, but in the court of public opinion, he should be careful not to pin his hopes on a 'lemon', an argument that will break down and leave a sour taste.

Note he has no evidence just suggesting, with a good dose of lemon fudge... that the ABC has broken the law.

Chris Joye

Mark Scott is smoking dope if he thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was acting in the “public interest” when it published the top secret details of Australian foreign intelligence operations, possibly in breach of section 79 of the Crimes Act, which covers “official secrets”.

And Mr Scott should be taken to task by the ABC’s board for making the scandalous claim, in defence of his own irresponsible decisions, that lawful communications intercepts programs, which we’ve been undertaking for 70 years, are comparable to corruption at the Australian Wheat Board and $290 million of kick-backs paid to Saddam Hussein’s regime in contravention of United Nations’ sanctions.

Mr Scott must explain how it is in the Australian public’s interest for the ABC’s disclosure of the details of sensitive yet conventional intelligence exercises to trigger a major crisis in our relations with our most important near neighbour, Indonesia.http://www.afr.com/p/blogs/christop...omised_public_interest_mTS4P4NusdEYYHrWX9GN8H​

Finally, neither Mr Scott nor the ABC has to explain how it's in the public interest... The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is NOT in the public interest to publish the information.

In our democracy we don't have to prove we didn't commit a crime whenever someone accuses us of something. On the contrary, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.

Also note the AWB scandal which occurred under Howard, who was one of a few PM's to front a Royal Commission, involved kick backs. That was a case of where the AFP considered it was not in the public interest to prosecute... or in other words risk exposing more dirty linen than they intended to prosecute.

 

[drsmith]

Janet Albrechtsen,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...nted-mark-scott-calls-for-his-resignatio.html

 

[Whiskers]

Janet Albrechtsen,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...nted-mark-scott-calls-for-his-resignatio.html

Hey doc, you will really have to do better than relying on shock jocks and their equivalent in the press.

Janet Albrechtsen has quite a history of misquoting other peoples work without checking the facts first... and not to mention her extreme right wing leanings.

Ironically though in the book The Liberals and Power, she is also quoted as saying the Liberals have become preoccupied with dominating the rational low ground, abandoning the high moral ground to the left.

which brings us to her argument:

The seriousness of the ABC's decision to publish criminally obtained information that involved such profoundly damaging and entirely foreseeable risks also raises questions about the ABC board.​

Refer to above post to easily dismiss any notion of criminality by the ABC.

But wait, there's more. Look what News Ltd has also revealed.

Spying row centres on intelligence 'shared' with Jakarta
by: Paul Maley and Joe Kelly From: The Australian November 26, 2013 12:00AM

INTELLIGENCE gathered by Australian spies operating from the embassy in Jakarta , which is at the heart of the most serious diplomatic rift between the two countries in more than a decade, would have been shared with Indonesia once it had been "sanitised". Earlier this month, it emerged Australia had used its network of overseas embassies to conceal eavesdropping equipment capable of intercepting cellphone and radio traffic in host countries, including Indonesia. The country's top expert on signals intelligence, Des Ball, said it was his understanding that some of the intelligence gathered as part of this US-led project, known as Stateroom, would have been passed on to Indonesia, in what he said was a "major exception" to the protocol of never sharing information with a target country. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59nm2j-1226768262771#sthash.eTxESzo1.dpuf​

So News has exposed, as I suspected and mentioned from the start, that the spying was conducted out of the Aus embasy. That makes it ILLEGALY obtained by our spies, and this report also confirms my earlier estimation that it was likely US led from the Howard, Bush coalition of the willing war on terrorism era.

Quite likely that Rudd and Gillard were not aware it was going on... but Abbott did. This was his little secret weapon to get the inside info about smuggler activity and Indo politicians... but it backfired in his face.

 

[wayneL]

Interesting, if not fallacious intellectual contortionism there whiskers. Laughing Out Loud!

 

[Whiskers]

Interesting, if not fallacious intellectual contortionism there whiskers. Laughing Out Loud!

Well, we'll see who has the last laugh, eh!

 

[drsmith]

Well, we'll see who has the last laugh, eh!

It won't be Kevin Rudd.

 

[wayneL]

Whiskers, in your world, you are always right, no matter what happens.

 

[trainspotter]

I think they call it "gaslighting" WayneL.

 

[IFocus]

Janet Albrechtsen,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...nted-mark-scott-calls-for-his-resignatio.html

Unfortunately I read that shallow article, seems she has forgotten she is a self proclaimed proponent of Libertarianism.

Also on the board that hired Scott seems no sense of responsibility also.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

What makes the ABC Political in this case is, that the Guardian and the ABC have had this information on spying on SBY and his family for 5 months.

They chose to only release it when the Coalition were in power.

The sooner funding to this inner-city self-indulgent "progressive" broadcaster is closely audited, the better.

Sky News need to take up the Radio Australia Network, to properly support DFAT.

gg

 

[noco]

Coalition wont do hard interviews particularly since its running secret agendas.

Shadow ministers are the only ones who will turn up Cassidy has been frustrated around this very subject before fact is the front bench on the Coalition side is pretty thin on talent a fact that will be reinforced for as long as Kelly O'Dwyer sits on the back bench thanks to the Liberal faceless men.

Thought Cassidy gave Tanya a hard time not that it was a problem for her.

What would you expect when Cassidy is so socialist left wing Labor and biased?

You don't see those left wing shadow ministers fronting up to Andrew Bolt but they will always rush to accept Cassidys invitation.

 

[drsmith]

What makes the ABC Political in this case is, that the Guardian and the ABC have had this information on spying on SBY and his family for 5 months.

I'm not sure that the ABC knew that much in advance, but then the ABC as the government funded national broadcaster should have never involved itself in its release in any case.

I wonder whether the Guardian approached Fairfax first. As a non-government media organisation with a left leaning bias, that strikes me as the most logical choice. Did Fairfax baulk and the Guardian then go to the ABC as a second choice ?

 

[Julia]

What would you expect when Cassidy is so socialist left wing Labor and biased?

You don't see those left wing shadow ministers fronting up to Andrew Bolt but they will always rush to accept Cassidys invitation.

Just wondering whom Andrew Bolt might have actually invited to appear on his show from the shadow ministry who refused?

There's certainly Left bias across various parts of the ABC but I think Leigh Sales can be largely excepted from that, viz her questioning this evening of Bill Shorten on Labor's response to the spy debacle. She did not spare him at all.