Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Garpal Gumnut said:
My contacts in the Jakarta Post tell me all is well with the Australia-Indonesia relationship again.

Consistency and safe hands has won out again for Mr.Abbott.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/27/sby-seems-satisfied-with-abbott-s-response.html



It is not difficult to negotiate when you have sure hands at the tiller such as Tony Abbott and his Cabinet.

Such a change from the instability of the Rudd/Gillard experiment.

gg
Click to expand...

Indeed,

There is an obscenity about the Labor "pants down 'diplomacy'" where minor economies like Indonesia are invited to figuratively sodomize Australia, while collecting 9 figure cheques.

What?

#### that!!!

We've got the cookie, the aid, the beef, the expertise.

While allowing Bang Bang to retain some dignity, he should have been told to man up and get the #### over it.... hmmm, which is exactly what Abbott has done.

The Indo faux rage is laughable. If I were Abbott I'd be making a big noise about insisting on bilaterality(?) of any code of ethics.... their spies can #### right off as well.
 
This whole charade is just to make SBY look good for their elections, it's a non issue a waste of time and money.
 
banco said:
I think he's just one of those Grandpa Simpson types who gets their news from Alan Jones and doesn't actually know or understand anything about Government processes. He still doesn't seem to understand the difference between the the Economic Statement and the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (which is-hint, hint-published before the election).
Click to expand...
If you wish to continue the discussion we were having, perhaps you could respond directly to the post I made rather than endulging in a personal snipe from behind someone else's post.
 
drsmith said:
If you wish to continue the discussion we were having, perhaps you could respond directly to the post I made rather than endulging in a personal snipe from behind someone else's post.
Click to expand...

I'll try and explain it one more time just for you Doc. You can tell me which facts you disagree with. At Post #1282 you said:

"Did Labor advise they had stripped Gonski funding from those states prior to the election ?

That's the real question."

I pointed you to page 36 of the Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook where it advises that as WA etc. hadn't signed up to the Gonski plan $1.2 billion would not be spent. This is leaving aside the contemporaneous newspaper articles that said the same thing. Now the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook was released on 5 August and the election was in September. So unless the Coalition are so sloppy that they don't read the newspapers and they didn't read the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook then they would have known about the $1.2 billion weeks before the election.

Now which parts of the above do you disagree with?
 
drsmith said:
Page 36 doesn't advise it wouldn't be spent. It describes it as funding not for publication (nfp).

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=27364&page=66&p=804244&viewfull=1#post804244
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It says it was NFP in the Economic Statement (which is a completely separate document that was published prior to the Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook document):

The Better Schools ”” treatment of payments for non-participating States and Territories
measure was published in the Economic Statement with the funding not for
publication (nfp) as negotiations were continuing at the time of publication. The
funding profile for this measure is $118.2 million in 2013-14, $222.9 million in 2014-15,
$352.0 in 2015-16 and $510.2 million in 2016-17.

Here the the NFP bit on page 57 of the Economic Statement: http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/economic_statement/download/2013_EconomicStatement.pdf

Besides how can it be NFP on page 36 when they've published the figures?
 
Banco,

Page 36 of the Pre-election economic and fiscal outlook document doesn't advise it wouldn't be spent as you claim and on that note I see little point in us continuing this discussion, agreement or otherwise.
 
Give up Banco you cannot argue with the right........eous best to just stick to the facts like the ABC :)



Is it surprising that Christopher Pyne - the ink on whose Gonski "unity ticket" promised before the last election is still faintly sticky to the touch - has now declared that he is junking the thing and starting again?

Not especially. Not when you consider how notoriously susceptible this crucial area of public policy is to extreme political convenience.

Mr Pyne has abandoned his promise to match Labor’s Gonski package in light, he says, of the post-election discovery that the whole thing is a "Shorten shambles" and to all intents and purposes impossible to implement.

He still says he'll spend the same as Labor planned to, but Mr Pyne has reserved to himself the privilege of determining, retrospectively, exactly how much Labor was really planning to spend.

He will maintain the same "funding envelope". And it turns out it's a shrinking envelope; $1.6 billion over four years, rather than $2.8 billion.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...ng-porkies-snow-jobs-and-lame-excuses/5117448
 
Labor should now have lots of egg on their faces after this reprot from Greg Sheridan and they justly deserve it. I am sure this is not the outcome Labor would have wanted.

There are 42 comments and 95% were adverse to the Labor Party and the ABC.

Shorten has lost control of his team....they are are a pathetic lot....now they are trying to stir up trouible with Easr Timor.


Greg Sheridan
Abbott rights the ship of state but choppy waters lie ahead by: Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor |From: The Australian |November 28, 2013 12:00AM 42
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
PrintEmail
Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?
42TONY Abbott's letter to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been successful. That judgment is inescapable and incontestable.
The President, in his formal statement responding to the Prime Minister's letter, has spoken warmly of the relationship with Australia. He has also spoken warmly of Abbott, whom he describes as "my good friend". The President has committed to a process of consultation and negotiation with Australia to come up with a set of agreed protocols to cover intelligence sharing, among other things.

There are complications and troubles aplenty ahead. But so far, Abbott has handled one of the most complex international relations crises you could imagine extremely well. He has been calm throughout. He has stressed the key national interest that Australia has in its relationship with Indonesia. He has been warm and gracious towards the President.

He has also safeguarded Australia's key interests in maintaining its intelligence capabilities. He has stayed away from the obvious political points he could have made against Labor. He has responded to the President quickly, but with serious, indeed intense, deliberation at every stage.

There may still be very challenging days in this relationship to come, but whatever happens, this has been a solid performance by the Abbott government. It should give our allies, and the Australian people, a good deal of reassurance that this is a competent, sensible government fully conscious of the grave responsibilities it must shoulder in national security.

Overall, this was surely the most positive response the Indonesian President, universally known as SBY, could possibly have come up with. There was a great deal of nationalist outrage in Indonesia at the revelations that Australia's Defence Signals Directorate had been tapping the President's phone, and that of his wife and close associates, in 2009.

A lot of players in Indonesian politics were stirring the waters on this. Most big players in Indonesian politics are less internationalist, and more inclined to nationalist paranoia, than is the President himself. Indonesian friends tell me that behind the scenes one of the presidential candidates, former general Prabowo Subianto, was stirring up a great deal of anti-Australian trouble, even though in public Prabowo was fairly quiet.

But this story has a long, long way to run and we could still well be in for choppy waters ahead.

Although the President was extremely gracious and positive in his statement, he wants an agreement with Australia that is pretty specific. He said Abbott had told him Australia would do nothing "that may jeopardise and interfere with Indonesia in the future".

Labor frontbenchers such as Jason Clare and Richard Marles were saying yesterday that this meant Abbott had given SBY an equivalent undertaking to that given by US President Barack Obama to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the US would never listen to her phone again.

This is either a dishonest or stupid statement from the Labor frontbenchers. It is clearly inaccurate. It also weakens and undermines Australia's negotiating position in the forthcoming discussions with Indonesia.

Labor's performance throughout this controversy has been ragged and inconsistent. Abbott has passed his first national security test as prime minister pretty well. Bill Shorten has displayed either cynicism or lack of control of his own team throughout. From the second day of the controversy all of Shorten's statements have been to say that Labor completely supports the Abbott government in this matter.

This is sensible in terms of the national interest and also because the alleged spying occurred when Labor was in government and almost certainly involved personal authorisation by senior Labor ministers.

Yet while Shorten was saying that, his deputy and foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek was making partisan attacks on the government over the issue, numerous Labor figures were promoting the false US/Germany parallel, and frontbenchers such as Brendan O'Connor were damning the Abbott government for not taking the issue seriously enough and not responding quickly enough. Either Shorten cannot control his senior colleagues, which would be very bad, or he was intentionally playing a cynical and duplicitous game, of personally pledging total bipartisan support for the government, while instructing senior frontbenchers to go on the attack.

Either way, this has been a poor show from Shorten on national security.

There are three main reasons this story may yet produce drama and trouble ahead. First, the negotiation of the protocols SBY has in mind will be an extremely delicate process, and this is where Labor can damage the national interest from opposition.

Second, there will be huge, further Snowden leaks, almost certainly involving more revelations about Australian activities in Indonesia.

The Guardian itself says that less than 1 per cent of the Snowden material has been used so far. It is an open question whether the ABC will continue to play its devastatingly irresponsible role as the dedicated Australian broadcast network of the Snowden leaks and Guardian campaigns.

But the fact of more trouble from Snowden leaks is inescapable. No doubt they too will be timed to do maximum damage to Australia's interests. It's an open question how deeply the ABC wants to participate in damaging Australia.

And third, the very fact of this controversy having occurred now makes it much more likely that anti-Australian nationalist sentiment will be a feature of the forthcoming series of presidential and parliamentary elections beginning early next year in Indonesia.

There is an underlying reality behind all this as well. Australia has had a lot of these kinds of controversies with Indonesia, and with other Southeast Asian nations, over the decades. But the basic power equation between Southeast Asia and Australia is changing, and it is not changing in Australia's favour.

The controversy also shows that the mere fact that Indonesia is now a working democracy does not immunise the relationship from these very old-fashioned sorts of disputes. Meanwhile, our interests in the rest of Southeast Asia are not travelling all that well either. As a nation, Australia pays very little attention to the region. I suppose these spying controversies may at least change all that.


facebooktwitterlinkedingoogleredditemail42
Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?Back to top of page

42 commentsGet LivefyreFAQ NoelEdit profileSign out177 people listening
+ FollowPost comment LinkLoading
Newest | Oldest | Top CommentsThis comment has been deleted

Bruce 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoThank you Greg, but you are far too generous with the "bipartisan" left. Their historical treachery and treason is well covered in Hal G P Colebatch's book, Australia's Secret War, put out by Quadrant.

FlagShare5LikeReplyTerrance 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoThat the Power equation is changing is the most important part of this article. However, it is changing because Australian governments, with its myriads of inept advisors and self proclaimed experts, cant grasp the simple fact that as the last outpost of European Heritage/culture we will never be anything other than a geographical part of the region. This is clearly demonstrated by he fact that we are not included as a member of ASEAN...the Association of Souh East Asian Nations. Australia needs to re-appraise the whole question of relationships with our neighbours with a more inward focus.

FlagShare1LikeReplyJohn 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoWhat else would one expect from Labor? Shorten may be learning/growing in the job, but the others including Plibersek especially seem to be slow learners. TA gets my tick of approval. One can only hope that Indonesian politicians collectively mature and learn to place their national interests over petty internal politicking and move on from corruption.

FlagShare2LikeReplyDavid 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoAbbott has done very well in the total handling of this matter. It is high that Abbott had more respect by the people of this country Abbott a lot smarter than given credit for. As for members of the Labor team on the matter they just do not have the nut and bolts in it leadership of their team for good answer to to spy issue. After all this all happen in the Labor era of Govt.
 
noco said:
Labor should now have lots of egg on their faces after this reprot from Greg Sheridan and they justly deserve it. I am sure this is not the outcome Labor would have wanted.

There are 42 comments and 95% were adverse to the Labor Party and the ABC.

Shorten has lost control of his team....they are are a pathetic lot....now they are trying to stir up trouible with Easr Timor.
Click to expand...
It could also be the case that he ordered his senior members to snipe from behind the shadows while pretending himself to hold Tony Abbott's hand on Indonesian relations.

His history (especially in relation to his support of leaders before him) has demonstrated he's of poor enough character to do that in my view.
 
This Mark Scott has caused untold damage to Australia and has not been in the National interest.

He should resign or be sacked.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...tt-should-resign/story-e6frg7bo-1226768174546

Janet Albrechtsen
'Why Mark Scott should resign' by: Janet Albrechtsen |From: The Australian |November 26, 2013 12:00AM 235
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
PrintEmail
Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?
235 As the ABC's 'editor-in-chief', managing director Mark Scott should take responsibility for the issuing information obtained by Edward Snowden. Picture: James Croucher Source: TheAustralian
MARK Scott should resign. When the managing director of the ABC chose to publish information criminally obtained by Edward Snowden about Australia's signals intelligence operations in Indonesia, he also chose to undermine Australia's relationship with our most important neighbour.
He chose to fuel tensions and nationalist sentiments in a fledgling democracy. He also chose to undermine an immigration policy aimed at preventing deaths at sea.

These consequences were entirely foreseeable. Despite Scott's flimsy arguments to the contrary, in the end, the ABC - and Scott - were willing to risk Australia's national interest for no discernible public interest.

The call for Scott to resign is not made lightly. Moreover, I am not the only former ABC board member who believes the managing director of the ABC ought to go or be relieved of his duties for failing to lead the ABC as a responsible editor-in-chief.

When Scott applied for, and was given, the job as MD, he was touted as an effective editor-in-chief, something the national broadcaster had lacked under earlier managing directors.

There are now serious questions about Scott's prudence as an editor-in-chief - whether or not it was his decision to publish.

If the decision were his, he got it badly wrong. By deciding to team up with the left-leaning Guardian Australia, the ABC effectively aided and abetted an online newspaper with minimal reach so the spying allegations would receive maximum reach using the resources of the taxpayer-funded giant.

If the decision to team up with the Guardian to get out in front and air the spying allegations did not come to Scott, it should have. A failure to bring such a serious matter to its managing director would suggest the ABC is run by the staff, not by management.

To be sure, the story about Australia's intelligence operations would have broken and caused damage without the ABC joining up with the Guardian. But that's not the point. The ABC willingly chose to go out in front - and to draw the ABC into a debate the national broadcaster didn't need to be drawn into.

Importantly, the ABC did not even have a genuine scoop or exclusive access to this story. If it had, Scott might have had to agonise over whether to be first to go public. But by acting as a free public megaphone for a commercial outfit, the ABC plainly made a political rather than an editorial decision.

The timing of the leak was also a highly political matter. The Guardian has had this information since May. Its decision not to publish the information before the election when it would have harmed Kevin Rudd, but to sit on it until after the election, when it was designed to damage Tony Abbott, is something the ABC must have considered. Its decision to go ahead showed a blatant political preference.

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.

Did Scott raise the issue with the board, to whom he is responsible? If not, why not? What about ABC chairman Jim Spigelman? Was he included in the decision? If not, why not? If yes, did he consider the ramifications for the public interest?

What is Spigelman's view about Scott's response to questions in senate estimates last week that it was in the public interest to reveal information about Australian intelligence gathering in Indonesia even though he knew that it would "cause some difficulties with the Australian-Indonesian relationship in the short term". Or did Spigelman do what former ABC chairmen lacking spine have too often done - let the MD and therefore the staff - run the show without prudent board oversight?

So far, the only public comment Spigelman has made has been a letter to The Australian about the "considerable personal distress" this newspaper caused to his executive assistant by publishing an incorrect salary figure. Compared with the breach of national security perpetrated by the ABC, his focus on a matter of staff welfare is a disappointing demonstration of where the chairman's priorities lie. A responsible board must surely have concerns about Scott's stewardship of the ABC on this matter. Scott is appointed by and subject to removal by the board.

As section 13 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act sets out, the managing director holds office subject to terms and conditions determined by the board. The reckless publication of criminally obtained information with the predictable and escalating consequences now unfolding make his position untenable. In short, the ABC board needs to look at its responsibilities here - and its culpability in this matter.

As a member of the ABC board for five years between 2005 and 2010, I can attest to the fact that it has a disappointing history of being ineffective. I can attest to the fact that information that ought to have been provided to the board was not.

And I can attest to the fact that, unlike commercial boards that work together, the ABC board is too often a numbers game. If you don't have the board numbers then the status quo at the ABC becomes untouchable. Moreover, if the chairman's main aim is to be loved by staff, then the MD is untouchable.

Instead of providing genuine oversight and counsel to management, the board gets bogged down drafting policies, codes of conduct and other fine-sounding documents. It's a management driven make-work gig for board members to make them feel important. It justifies them jumping on planes, travelling business class, checking into nice hotels and turning up for a fine lunch at Ultimo - all at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile the focus is taken off what really matters - the output of the ABC. The output this past week by the ABC has let taxpayers down. Badly. While questions have been raised about the curious timing of this dump of information, consider what we do know about the ABC. The orthodoxy at the ABC has long been to oppose strong border policy and offshore processing as lacking compassion and human decency. You only need to sit on the Q&A panel - as I have done on many occasions - to witness the strength and persistence of that orthodoxy. Never mind that these policies will stop deaths at sea as they did from the time of the Tampa standoff in 2001 until Rudd started to dismantle the immigration policy in 2008.

Just as Abbott's boat policy appeared to deliver results with a 75 per cent decline in arrivals in the past eight weeks, the ABC's handiwork as an activist media organisation has seen Indonesia suspend co-operation.

Just as 300 terrorists are about to be released from Indonesian prisons in the next 12 months - including some involved in bomb attacks against Australians in Jakarta and Bali between 2002 and 2009 - intelligence co-operation between the two countries has been derailed by the spying revelations. Is that in the public interest? Remember, it was joint co-operation between Indonesia and Australia that led to the arrests of the Bali bombers and the dismantling of the Jemaah Islamiah terror network.

In senate estimates last week, Scott likened the ABC's disclosure of Snowden's revelations about Australian intelligence operations in Indonesia to the Australian Wheat Board scandal.

Scott could not be more wrong.

The AWB scandal involved criminal kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime. By contrast, as Michael Bohm, the opinion page editor of The Moscow Times, wrote back in August when Russians were hyperventilating about news that the US gathers intelligence in Russia, spying is a sovereign right. All responsible countries spy on friends and foes alike.

Snowden is not a whistleblower. "The type of spying on foreigners that Snowden revealed is not in violation of any international law, treaty or convention," wrote Bohm. The only criminal activity here was Snowden stealing information from the National Security Agency.

Scott also said there would be short-term consequences for Australia; the revelations would "cause some difficulties". Not only was this a reckless understatement, the truth is that Scott cannot know where this will end.

Will the latest reports about spying further inflame hatred of Australia and Westerners? Will terrorists retaliate? Will Australia's ability to use intelligence gathered in Indonesia to identify terrorists and likely terrorist attacks be hampered? Will a critical immigration policy collapse? That is the wish of left-wing Abbott-haters.

Moreover, the ABC's decision has brought into question the propriety of the ABC receiving $223 million to provide Australia with what Scott himself calls "soft diplomacy" in the Asia-Pacific through the government-funded Australia Network.

As another former board member, Keith Windschuttle, tells The Australian, "by publicising illegally obtained information that patently works against Australian interests in the region, the ABC appears to have abrogated its claim to be acting in the spirit of its original submission".

Scott appears to consider it appropriate to take these risks, using taxpayer dollars to indulge his staff in the publication of criminally obtained information.

All week, the ABC has pursued the line that Abbott ought to apologise for actions of the former PM, Rudd. Where is the apology from the ABC for its reckless, irresponsible actions? How can the managing director of the ABC claim with a straight face that the leak of ABC salaries was a serious matter that should not have happened and yet in the same week, publish illegally obtained leaks about Australia's intelligence operations overseas when the known consequences were far more serious to an entire nation?

These are grave questions not only for the ABC board but also for all Australians whose taxes fund the national broadcaster. This dark stain on the professionalism and ethics of the ABC, the managing director and the board will only serve to raise questions about the appropriateness of taxpayers continuing to fund - to the tune of $1.2 billion annually - an organisation that is reckless in its duties as a responsible media organisation.

As former foreign minister Alexander Downer said on Sky News's Australian Agenda on Sunday, you may be free to publish, but you also have an obligation to act responsibly. The ABC, under Scott, has failed to do that. He should go.

Janet Albrechtsen was on the ABC board from 2005 to 2010. Mark Scott was appointed during her tenure in July 2006.
facebooktwitterlinkedingoogleredditemail235
Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?Back to top of page

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage MoreCriticism reeks of sour grapes End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
235 commentsGet LivefyreFAQ NoelEdit profileSign out223 people listeningThis conversation is currently closed to new comments.Loading
Newest | Oldest | Top CommentsThis comment has been deleted

Reg 5ptsFeatured
2 days agoLove your gutsy work Janet. You seem to be the only person other than Chris Kenny who have the guts to take on this monster. Turnbull Abbott and the whole Government have a responsibility to ensure this giant costly over staffed over paid public utility is bought into line. Frankly I am sick to death of the way they speak about the Prime Minister. Always referring to him as Abbott. Very poor form when they suck up to the lefties and it's Mister or title always in use.

Sack the board and then give SKY what is rightfully theirs that is the Australia Network. Then amalgamate the ABC with SBS and then put it up for tender. If we do not need Qantas, Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank why do we need the ABC when it is so negligent and putting our security at risk. Irresponsible is how I describe the organisation and the sooner we the taxpayer s are rid of it the better we will be.


FlagShare75LikeChris P Bacon 5ptsFeatured
2 days ago@Reg Well said Reg. More and more Australians are coming to realise that the ABC is way, way past its use-by date and needs to be privatised. Tony Abbott has to take the lead on this and sell that propaganda outfit as soon as possible.
 
trainspotter said:
Good God man you are slow on the uptake when it comes to politics. Bang Bang wants the cattle industry for himself and for it to flourish in Indonesia !!!
Click to expand...

Of course they do... but what does the current high prices over there indicate? They cannot meed demand even with imported livestock. They have got no hope of being completely self sufficient. They just don't have enough available land to breed and fatten the numbers they require.

If they did why do you think they are still importing and looking for long term contracts. They are increasing their breeder herd, but they will need to import store cattle for fattening for a long time yet.

Meanwhile across the Java and East China Sea the sabre rattling is coming thick and fast.

*sniff sniff*smell familiar? .... is that an election in the air? :rolleyes:

Screwing another trading partner for a better deal perhaps? ;)
Click to expand...

And what makes you think our politicians weren't/aren't doing the same?
 
Whiskers said:
Of course they do... but what does the current high prices over there indicate? They cannot meed demand even with imported livestock. They have got no hope of being completely self sufficient. They just don't have enough available land to breed and fatten the numbers they require.

If they did why do you think they are still importing and looking for long term contracts. They are increasing their breeder herd, but they will need to import store cattle for fattening for a long time yet.

And what makes you think our politicians weren't/aren't doing the same?
Click to expand...

Steak is cheaper in Indo than here ! Relative to their incomes it is expensive for THEM !

There is plenty of land fit for grazing .... Pssssssstttt Indonesia is not Bali and Java ... have a look at West Kalimantan and Jambi in Sumatra. Ideal grazing country and can be intensified UNLIKE the unproductive wasteland of the Northwest of WA and parts of the NT reliant on precipitation.

Our PM has shown leadership in an international crisis whilst the leader of the opposition imitated a teapot.
 
noco said:
This Mark Scott has caused untold damage to Australia and has not been in the National interest.

He should resign or be sacked.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...tt-should-resign/story-e6frg7bo-1226768174546

Janet Albrechtsen
'Why Mark Scott should resign' by: Janet Albrechtsen |From: The Australian |November 26, 2013
Click to expand...

Struth noco... that would have to set a record for one of the most verbose posts, using or expressed in more words than are needed, for a long time. Also your team have already run this fallacious argument based on shock jock presentation over on the ABC is political thread, so I'll paraphrase the rebuttal in a bit more professional and comprehendible format than yours.

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. ​

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.

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/...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.

But wait, there's more. Look what News Ltd has also revealed. Shouldn't they also be sacked for doing the same thing!

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/nati....eTxESzo1.dpuf​

So News has exposed the more damaging expose, 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.
 
Whiskers said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... the lunatics are on the grass.
 
IFocus said:
What do I think................don't say how good a friend someone is (SBY is one of the closest friends in Asia we have and has spoken on our behalf more than once) and treat them with contempt simple.

Bugging his and his wife's phone is personal...............and in an election cycle.
Click to expand...

In that case you should write to your local ALP branch to express your disappointment at their grubby behavior in bugging the phone of SBY – a man who both Rudd and Gillard proclaimed is a good friend of Australia.
Better still, write to ALP head office.
 
Macquack said:
You were prolific on ASF, preaching for the failure of both the Rudd and Gillard governments.


What does that make you then, Noco?
Click to expand...

That makes Noco a responsible person in my opinion, for wanting to get rid of a disunified and pathetically incompetent government who had a well documented record of repeated stuff ups.

Just to refresh a few memories, here’s the legacy that Rudd left us with –

Left us with a $300+Billion debt after inheriting no debt when he came to office.

Left us with 50,000 illegals, 85% are on the dole after 5 years and that means forever.

Left us with an NBN that at this stage has $900m expenses per year and only $17m income.



$16.1 billion Building the Education Revolution program, failure.

$3.45 billion pink bat Home Insulation debacle

Mining Tax miss-design, miss-management & lies on tax rates

$38.5 million for a pro-mining tax ad campaign

Climate Change “greatest moral challenge” abandonment

Copenhagen 114 person strong extravaganza & failure

$275 million 31, later 450 GP Super Clinics promised, only three delivered

$90 billion National Broadband white elephant, without a business plan

$2.1 Billion Laptop for every child – without infrastructure

Build 222 childcare centers – abandoned

Industrial relations rollback to pre-Keating era

Grocery Watch

Fuel Watch

Mandatory Internet Filter – dangerous, ineffective, missmanaged

Litigation of Japan whaling – empty PC rhetoric

Commonwealth Health takeover replaced with pretend ‘reform’

Murray Darling River State non-deal

Foreign policy damage– China, Japan, Indonesia, India

Asylum Boat people arrivals explosion & its denial for year

Wild Rivers legislation support harms aborigines

2020 Summit – staged celebrity talk-fest

Promise to retain universal Private Health rebate broken

Promise to clean up election funding broken

$275 Million Green Loans debacle

Raise the standard of Ministerial responsibility abandoned

Political advertising ombudsman promised then dismantled

$534 Million Solar Panel Rebate sudden withdrawal

Halve homeless by 2020 / by 20% by 2013 – instead rising

Pacific Workers Scheme failure

1 Billion Cash for Clunkers green wash stupidity

Bullying East Timor for our detention center

150 Citizen’s council for Climate stupidity

Pork barreling infra-structure grants to Labor seats – auditor

Opposition to pension increase for non-Labor voting pensioners

National Security Committee run by ex-bodyguard

No wonder responsible Australians wanted to get rid of Rudd/Gillard and Labor.
 
Top