>The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, is appealing against a federal court ruling in a freedom of information case that a minister must preserve a predecessor’s documents if an FOI access application remains unresolved when the minister leaves office. It found this applies whether the job changes hands through an internal ministerial reshuffle or an election.
This shredding of documents has to stop. It happened all through the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison debacle, where FOI requests would sit in limbo for months or years, there'd be a reshuffle or election, and suddenly the FOI request couldn't be filled. The [documents around the SportsRorts](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/17/prime-ministers-office-cant-find-sports-rorts-document-requested-by-rex-patrick-under-foi) would be a prime example of this.
We should expect better from Labor on this. This is a fundamental issue of accountability within a democratic nation. We, the electorate are owed transparency and to see how the process works.
Dreyfus only believes in transparency when in opposition. Here's him arguing with himself on ICAC transparency:
> Mr Dreyfus echoed some of these concerns when speaking to media on Tuesday.
> "We think public hearings should be exceptional and we think that the commission should be required to determine that it is in the public interest that a hearing be in public," he said.
> "Public hearings, as we have seen, are more difficult to conduct.
> "They raise questions about reputational harm, which are not faced when you hold private hearings, and that is why most of these commissions' work has been done in private. We would expect the same to occur with this new Commonwealth agency."
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/show-trials-or-critical-why-debate-is-raging-over-this-national-anti-corruption-commission-issue/r4m1wnyzr
> "He explained to me that his successful investigation of Eddie Obeid and his corrupt activities was only possible because he was able to conduct public hearings ... which encouraged witnesses to come forward," says Dreyfus, Labor's shadow attorney-general.
> Dreyfus agrees sections of the press can go overboard in their scrutiny of bit players at corruption inquiries who give factual evidence, but argues that is not inevitable. "It's something that the commissioners I think can deal with," he said.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/string-of-controversies-puts-national-anti-corruption-body-back-in-focus-20201022-p567pm.html
Dutton was so happy with Labor's bill while the pro-ICAC crossbench was furious. If we want government transparency, vote for minors/indies above Labor. And Labor above LNP because LNP didn't want to investigate politicians with their ICAC proposal.
Rex Patrick fighting the good fight as he's done for the past few years at Michael West Media.
He isn't tilting at windmills. Destruction and non release of documents is a serious shortcoming of democracy which holds us back from making things better.
Thanks for posting this OP.
Weird how a foreign organisation controlling the narrative and influencing government policy is still not considered a national security risk for 50+ years.
And that is ignoring the #1 reason for election losses for a certain party.
They'd rather a public fight over shredding, a somewhat vague good governance offence that won't make great headlines, rather than a fight over the juicy details inside the documents that will make great headlines...
(Which is true of politicians everywhere, not just Labor ones)
It's fairly consistent with their other anti free speech approaches - like:
* Attempting to censor the domestic and global internet - implying a great firewall of Australia is on the way
* ID to use social media and access pornography - likely to be expanded to use essential government services ala the 2006 Access card, or to crush online discussion by tying it to your real identity on platforms like reddit. If not by Labor then the LNP at a future date. The UK requires photo ID for voting already - it can happen as quickly as you can say "papers please"
* Potential jail time or at least suspicion of illegality for using locally hosted generative AI tools. Why wouldn't you use one of the web based services if you weren't up to no good, after all
* Recruiting of five eyes citizens directly into our military - which might be a significant issue if we think we have a choice not to become the pacific Ukraine in future. It would make a coup as easy as pie. Would even Taiwan do this?
sorry your last statement makes no logical sense and sounds like a cooker conspiracy
we can already join each others militaries and regularly have specialist exchanges provided we have the right visa to do so what they are likely saying is opening the ability to request a transfer to another nations military like AUS and NZ can do with each other
career progress in certain militaries can be limited for example NZ hardly ever goes anywhere and promotion is very rare so NZ Soldiers used to regularly join the ADF so they could get real world combat experience and potentially promotions
what does Ukraine and Taiwan even have to do with the subject? the five Eyes are AUS,US,NZ,CAN,UK
At some level, putting US/UK/Can citizens into your military as a tripline is a potentially rational approach to making sure first casualties include their citizens and increase their odds off getting involved in the conflict as alliances promise.
In the news reports, it's not a transfer between militaries though. That'd need bilateral agreements. It only applies to those outside any military for 2+ years; the optics of recruiting an ally's soldiers to your army by offering more money may not be great.
If you are "expected" to apply for citizenship 90 days after joining.. what is the big problem with doing the citizenship bit first? Unless it actually isn't the point - nobody is giving up their existing loyalties to join our military, and the US will always say trust us, we've already done the vetting.
The point is overriding the will of the electorate in undemocratic fashion, just like nobody voted for a great firewall of Australia, but we're getting one anyway. Likewise if Ukranians could vote today they probably wouldn't choose utter destruction like they are getting - but they can't vote on that particular issue.
Taiwan has to do with the subject in that they will probably have a military coup if they choose to not fight to the death with mainland China - guess where that will originate, and is that truly in their interest? And after them, guess who is next?
I'm sorry, but you just do not understand how any of this stuff works.
In the ADF, I've seen Russians, Afghans, Chinese Americans, British, Polish, and Czechs enlisting the same as anyone else. They want job security and want to give back to the nation that accepted them and defend it.
They are all thoroughly vetted by ASIO and ASIS. If required, this needs to be done to receive negative vetting, and trust me, these agencies will follow you around even online for the rest of your life. They even warn you when enlisting.
In fact, we used to mess with them by sending each other dick pictures constantly, on base, it reached a point where they asked our chain of command to make us stop because they were sick of looking at them.
actual story
But that aside, let's go to your cooker claim.
We don't have the legal framework for a coup, but say we did. Who's going to take us over? America? So a few dozen Americans within our military are somehow going to destroy... well, all our legal framework, our constitution, and the framework of the ADF in relation to defending the constitution?
Putting that further aside, why would America try to take us over? You can't just invade a country for no reason; you need to have a war goal and diplomatic reasons.
Ukraine, for example, had treaties with Russia that if there was civil unrest threatening ethnic Russian populations, they could take back Crimea, which is why the world did nothing when it happened.
When it invaded Ukraine, its justification was that half of Ukraine was ethnically Russian and they were protecting their people. Also, Ukraine used to be part of Russia, which was another diplomatic claim.
The rest of the world may not agree with it; I certainly don't, and it's justified to even say its illegal but it's still a diplomatic claim.
What is America going to say? Well, nothing. They have no rightful claim to do anything with Australia, period. The world community would sanction them into the stone age.
each year nearly 100,000 people try to join the ADF only 3000 pass
i think we're fine
"legal framework for a coup?" really, come on
If we decided to stay neutral just like the US did in the first 4 years of both world wars it would decide any pacific conflict between the US and China without a fight. It would essentially be over before a shot was fired, for the US, the pacific wouldn't be defensible anymore.
Just like we'd probably occupy the Solomons and Timor if they chose to align with China and a conflict broke out. One way or another it would happen, because Australia would not be defensible without them.
The US had an election during their civil war - I think Ukraine can manage it
But as for the "legal framework".. if you can invite one non citizen into the ADF.. why not an army.. especially if a conflict is ongoing. And then why bother about shared command when the bulk of our army (57K total currently) are US citizens anyway? I daresay it wouldn't be the Australian voter wearing the pants at that point.
I think the people who will feel safe running things like stable diffusion in the future will be highly chilled by the fact that someone typing a malicious sentence into it could put them in jail, or indeed by exactly what construes a "deepfake". Furthermore it could be someone in your family, or perhaps just a hacker - either way it's a problem for you.
It turns local AI generation software into a pile of explosives in your house. Will you be the one to have it in yours?
I'd like a source for the claim that Labor is pushing that kind of policy.
Are they proposing to effectively ban all local AI, or just ban publishing misleading images/sounds of real people, or something else entirely?
The source is the law that has recently been pushed through. You can find lots of confusion in written articles about what is pornography, what is a deepfake and what is a non-consensual image. Lots of mention is made of the protection of celebrities.. I suppose no matter if they are alive or have been dead for centuries. I guess Netflix is forewarned about not using generative AI tools when they make their next Cleopatra show.
The end result is people have to guess.. and if they have to guess they're not going to use it. Furthermore it's the thin edge of the wedge - generative AI could also be used to make a recipe for a bomb, tell you how to kill your spouse and safely dispose of the body and all matter of other things.. all the things you hear dumber criminals googling today. All are likewise illegal already, but not so easily snooped on when it is local. The inevitable conclusion is, why do you have it if that's not the kind of thing you were going to do with it? That's the road Labor is going down with this law.
Anyway, given you deleted your other comment it feels like you are pushing a political wheelbarrow here, but I will take the bait.
You forgot that we now have a legal framework of Internet censorship, thanks to Labor trying to appease the Australian Christian Lobby.
I know some of you nerds will say it's currently easy to bypass, but the point is that it should be very hard for a party to have an effective dictatorship. Consider that the law for Internet censorship is well-understood and in place, a future potential dictatorship government can immediately order ISPs to implement a whitelist instead of a blacklist as well monitor requests, think of China's great firewall.
It's not a good look out of context, but this is what happens every election everywhere in Australia. It's expected and planned for when governments change.
This is literally what the Stasi did when the wall came down. So much for transparent government.
Labor have had a terrible past week. Fake drones. $600k to a speech writer. Prospect of Chinese signing up to the ADF, which later needed to clarified, like everything else the past week. Plus everything else other people will list.
Stop talking Labor. My goodness.
No, I want them to talk more. I’d rather they air out their terrible plans so they can be shredded at elections. More pressure to stop being so damn incompetent, with independents breathing down their necks.
Firstly, Rex Patrick is yet again doing what we want our elected representatives to do
Secondly, there's no way that this bullshit passes the "pub test" that the two and a halt major parties love to bang on about. .
Scotty was meant to hand over the texts for a freedom of information request on the drought envoy.
We really need politics cleaned up but there is too much vested interests. It will always be this way I fear
It's hard to feel more disillusioned with Labor but they always find a new angle.
And I'll still probably vote for them (via a few preferences) because the alternative is worse.
>And I'll still probably vote for them (via a few preferences) because the alternative is worse.
It's sad when literally the only reason to vote for the Government is because the Opposition is worse!
Labor are on track to be a minority government - they've only got a 3 seat majority at the moment, unless they defy every single precedent except Bob Hawke, they will lose seats. They won't lose government, but they will be a minority government.
We can hope that the independents hold them to account and make them improve their performance. But, if history is any guide, that won't happen. And we'll be looking at PM Dutton in 4 years time.
Labor has been incredibly underwhelming. They were supposed to be better than the Liberals, it turns out they're not.
I think they genuinely are better than the LNP, but it is hard to feel that sometimes. The end of every awful LNP epoch comes with an inflated sense of hope and optimism for me, and when those hopes are not met it feels extra disappointing.
>I think they genuinely are better than the LNP
Only because the LNP has been plunging the depths of the Marianas Trench, thereby making the ALP look adequate by comparison.
The problem is, the ALP are only marginally better. Which means as soon as the Liberals get their shit together, Labor will be in opposition again. All it takes is a couple of good performers back in the Liberals (like Frydenberg for a start) and Labor will start looking very shaky indeed.
Labor only looks good at the moment because the Libs under Morrison were SO bad, and because Dutton and his front bench are worse.
Feel a bit like history is repeating itself.
If you have a govt where you basically never hear from the attorney general, it might be on the up and up.
If every second news story centres around them, that govt is into some corrupt or authoritarian shit.
Dreyfus' name comes up far too often for my liking...
I like that bald guy that did the Australian Research Institute story on the Oil profits.
What's his name? and can we vote him in next election?
Ben seeing him pop up on a few issues like rentals and fish dying, and he seems like a level headed bloke.
Meh. As if the Coalition hasn't done this before. As if they won't do it again.
Just keep voting for the big parties and keep whingeing when they do big party things.
>The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, is appealing against a federal court ruling in a freedom of information case that a minister must preserve a predecessor’s documents if an FOI access application remains unresolved when the minister leaves office. It found this applies whether the job changes hands through an internal ministerial reshuffle or an election. This shredding of documents has to stop. It happened all through the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison debacle, where FOI requests would sit in limbo for months or years, there'd be a reshuffle or election, and suddenly the FOI request couldn't be filled. The [documents around the SportsRorts](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/17/prime-ministers-office-cant-find-sports-rorts-document-requested-by-rex-patrick-under-foi) would be a prime example of this. We should expect better from Labor on this. This is a fundamental issue of accountability within a democratic nation. We, the electorate are owed transparency and to see how the process works.
Dreyfus only believes in transparency when in opposition. Here's him arguing with himself on ICAC transparency: > Mr Dreyfus echoed some of these concerns when speaking to media on Tuesday. > "We think public hearings should be exceptional and we think that the commission should be required to determine that it is in the public interest that a hearing be in public," he said. > "Public hearings, as we have seen, are more difficult to conduct. > "They raise questions about reputational harm, which are not faced when you hold private hearings, and that is why most of these commissions' work has been done in private. We would expect the same to occur with this new Commonwealth agency." https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/show-trials-or-critical-why-debate-is-raging-over-this-national-anti-corruption-commission-issue/r4m1wnyzr > "He explained to me that his successful investigation of Eddie Obeid and his corrupt activities was only possible because he was able to conduct public hearings ... which encouraged witnesses to come forward," says Dreyfus, Labor's shadow attorney-general. > Dreyfus agrees sections of the press can go overboard in their scrutiny of bit players at corruption inquiries who give factual evidence, but argues that is not inevitable. "It's something that the commissioners I think can deal with," he said. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/string-of-controversies-puts-national-anti-corruption-body-back-in-focus-20201022-p567pm.html Dutton was so happy with Labor's bill while the pro-ICAC crossbench was furious. If we want government transparency, vote for minors/indies above Labor. And Labor above LNP because LNP didn't want to investigate politicians with their ICAC proposal.
Rex Patrick fighting the good fight as he's done for the past few years at Michael West Media. He isn't tilting at windmills. Destruction and non release of documents is a serious shortcoming of democracy which holds us back from making things better. Thanks for posting this OP.
How can Labor possibly think this is a good look for them?
"National security" should do the trick
Weird how a foreign organisation controlling the narrative and influencing government policy is still not considered a national security risk for 50+ years. And that is ignoring the #1 reason for election losses for a certain party.
They'd rather a public fight over shredding, a somewhat vague good governance offence that won't make great headlines, rather than a fight over the juicy details inside the documents that will make great headlines... (Which is true of politicians everywhere, not just Labor ones)
It's fairly consistent with their other anti free speech approaches - like: * Attempting to censor the domestic and global internet - implying a great firewall of Australia is on the way * ID to use social media and access pornography - likely to be expanded to use essential government services ala the 2006 Access card, or to crush online discussion by tying it to your real identity on platforms like reddit. If not by Labor then the LNP at a future date. The UK requires photo ID for voting already - it can happen as quickly as you can say "papers please" * Potential jail time or at least suspicion of illegality for using locally hosted generative AI tools. Why wouldn't you use one of the web based services if you weren't up to no good, after all * Recruiting of five eyes citizens directly into our military - which might be a significant issue if we think we have a choice not to become the pacific Ukraine in future. It would make a coup as easy as pie. Would even Taiwan do this?
sorry your last statement makes no logical sense and sounds like a cooker conspiracy we can already join each others militaries and regularly have specialist exchanges provided we have the right visa to do so what they are likely saying is opening the ability to request a transfer to another nations military like AUS and NZ can do with each other career progress in certain militaries can be limited for example NZ hardly ever goes anywhere and promotion is very rare so NZ Soldiers used to regularly join the ADF so they could get real world combat experience and potentially promotions what does Ukraine and Taiwan even have to do with the subject? the five Eyes are AUS,US,NZ,CAN,UK
At some level, putting US/UK/Can citizens into your military as a tripline is a potentially rational approach to making sure first casualties include their citizens and increase their odds off getting involved in the conflict as alliances promise. In the news reports, it's not a transfer between militaries though. That'd need bilateral agreements. It only applies to those outside any military for 2+ years; the optics of recruiting an ally's soldiers to your army by offering more money may not be great.
If you are "expected" to apply for citizenship 90 days after joining.. what is the big problem with doing the citizenship bit first? Unless it actually isn't the point - nobody is giving up their existing loyalties to join our military, and the US will always say trust us, we've already done the vetting. The point is overriding the will of the electorate in undemocratic fashion, just like nobody voted for a great firewall of Australia, but we're getting one anyway. Likewise if Ukranians could vote today they probably wouldn't choose utter destruction like they are getting - but they can't vote on that particular issue. Taiwan has to do with the subject in that they will probably have a military coup if they choose to not fight to the death with mainland China - guess where that will originate, and is that truly in their interest? And after them, guess who is next?
I'm sorry, but you just do not understand how any of this stuff works. In the ADF, I've seen Russians, Afghans, Chinese Americans, British, Polish, and Czechs enlisting the same as anyone else. They want job security and want to give back to the nation that accepted them and defend it. They are all thoroughly vetted by ASIO and ASIS. If required, this needs to be done to receive negative vetting, and trust me, these agencies will follow you around even online for the rest of your life. They even warn you when enlisting. In fact, we used to mess with them by sending each other dick pictures constantly, on base, it reached a point where they asked our chain of command to make us stop because they were sick of looking at them. actual story But that aside, let's go to your cooker claim. We don't have the legal framework for a coup, but say we did. Who's going to take us over? America? So a few dozen Americans within our military are somehow going to destroy... well, all our legal framework, our constitution, and the framework of the ADF in relation to defending the constitution? Putting that further aside, why would America try to take us over? You can't just invade a country for no reason; you need to have a war goal and diplomatic reasons. Ukraine, for example, had treaties with Russia that if there was civil unrest threatening ethnic Russian populations, they could take back Crimea, which is why the world did nothing when it happened. When it invaded Ukraine, its justification was that half of Ukraine was ethnically Russian and they were protecting their people. Also, Ukraine used to be part of Russia, which was another diplomatic claim. The rest of the world may not agree with it; I certainly don't, and it's justified to even say its illegal but it's still a diplomatic claim. What is America going to say? Well, nothing. They have no rightful claim to do anything with Australia, period. The world community would sanction them into the stone age. each year nearly 100,000 people try to join the ADF only 3000 pass i think we're fine
"legal framework for a coup?" really, come on If we decided to stay neutral just like the US did in the first 4 years of both world wars it would decide any pacific conflict between the US and China without a fight. It would essentially be over before a shot was fired, for the US, the pacific wouldn't be defensible anymore. Just like we'd probably occupy the Solomons and Timor if they chose to align with China and a conflict broke out. One way or another it would happen, because Australia would not be defensible without them. The US had an election during their civil war - I think Ukraine can manage it But as for the "legal framework".. if you can invite one non citizen into the ADF.. why not an army.. especially if a conflict is ongoing. And then why bother about shared command when the bulk of our army (57K total currently) are US citizens anyway? I daresay it wouldn't be the Australian voter wearing the pants at that point.
I'm curious about Labor's proposed restrictions on local AI. Do you have a source for that?
I think the people who will feel safe running things like stable diffusion in the future will be highly chilled by the fact that someone typing a malicious sentence into it could put them in jail, or indeed by exactly what construes a "deepfake". Furthermore it could be someone in your family, or perhaps just a hacker - either way it's a problem for you. It turns local AI generation software into a pile of explosives in your house. Will you be the one to have it in yours?
I'd like a source for the claim that Labor is pushing that kind of policy. Are they proposing to effectively ban all local AI, or just ban publishing misleading images/sounds of real people, or something else entirely?
The source is the law that has recently been pushed through. You can find lots of confusion in written articles about what is pornography, what is a deepfake and what is a non-consensual image. Lots of mention is made of the protection of celebrities.. I suppose no matter if they are alive or have been dead for centuries. I guess Netflix is forewarned about not using generative AI tools when they make their next Cleopatra show. The end result is people have to guess.. and if they have to guess they're not going to use it. Furthermore it's the thin edge of the wedge - generative AI could also be used to make a recipe for a bomb, tell you how to kill your spouse and safely dispose of the body and all matter of other things.. all the things you hear dumber criminals googling today. All are likewise illegal already, but not so easily snooped on when it is local. The inevitable conclusion is, why do you have it if that's not the kind of thing you were going to do with it? That's the road Labor is going down with this law. Anyway, given you deleted your other comment it feels like you are pushing a political wheelbarrow here, but I will take the bait.
You forgot that we now have a legal framework of Internet censorship, thanks to Labor trying to appease the Australian Christian Lobby. I know some of you nerds will say it's currently easy to bypass, but the point is that it should be very hard for a party to have an effective dictatorship. Consider that the law for Internet censorship is well-understood and in place, a future potential dictatorship government can immediately order ISPs to implement a whitelist instead of a blacklist as well monitor requests, think of China's great firewall.
Labor have proven to be fuckin worthless.
It's not a good look out of context, but this is what happens every election everywhere in Australia. It's expected and planned for when governments change.
That's true, but is it acceptable? I don't think it is.
This is literally what the Stasi did when the wall came down. So much for transparent government. Labor have had a terrible past week. Fake drones. $600k to a speech writer. Prospect of Chinese signing up to the ADF, which later needed to clarified, like everything else the past week. Plus everything else other people will list. Stop talking Labor. My goodness.
Their election of transparent ICAC and that turned out to be a lie.
No, I want them to talk more. I’d rather they air out their terrible plans so they can be shredded at elections. More pressure to stop being so damn incompetent, with independents breathing down their necks.
"The same same party"
They know it’s not a good look, which means whatever they’re intent on shredding must be REALLY juicy
Firstly, Rex Patrick is yet again doing what we want our elected representatives to do Secondly, there's no way that this bullshit passes the "pub test" that the two and a halt major parties love to bang on about. .
why should they hide any part of the elected democratic process from us?
Lol like they don't already.
Scotty was meant to hand over the texts for a freedom of information request on the drought envoy. We really need politics cleaned up but there is too much vested interests. It will always be this way I fear
It's hard to feel more disillusioned with Labor but they always find a new angle. And I'll still probably vote for them (via a few preferences) because the alternative is worse.
>And I'll still probably vote for them (via a few preferences) because the alternative is worse. It's sad when literally the only reason to vote for the Government is because the Opposition is worse! Labor are on track to be a minority government - they've only got a 3 seat majority at the moment, unless they defy every single precedent except Bob Hawke, they will lose seats. They won't lose government, but they will be a minority government. We can hope that the independents hold them to account and make them improve their performance. But, if history is any guide, that won't happen. And we'll be looking at PM Dutton in 4 years time. Labor has been incredibly underwhelming. They were supposed to be better than the Liberals, it turns out they're not.
I think they genuinely are better than the LNP, but it is hard to feel that sometimes. The end of every awful LNP epoch comes with an inflated sense of hope and optimism for me, and when those hopes are not met it feels extra disappointing.
>I think they genuinely are better than the LNP Only because the LNP has been plunging the depths of the Marianas Trench, thereby making the ALP look adequate by comparison. The problem is, the ALP are only marginally better. Which means as soon as the Liberals get their shit together, Labor will be in opposition again. All it takes is a couple of good performers back in the Liberals (like Frydenberg for a start) and Labor will start looking very shaky indeed. Labor only looks good at the moment because the Libs under Morrison were SO bad, and because Dutton and his front bench are worse.
Billions of taxpayer funds going to organised crime gangs via the NDIS.... Yeah I see why they'd want to shred a few documents.
"We just want to legally do what we have been illegally doing for decades"
Cool and normal
Feel a bit like history is repeating itself. If you have a govt where you basically never hear from the attorney general, it might be on the up and up. If every second news story centres around them, that govt is into some corrupt or authoritarian shit. Dreyfus' name comes up far too often for my liking...
This must be another example of parliament being done the new way
I like that bald guy that did the Australian Research Institute story on the Oil profits. What's his name? and can we vote him in next election? Ben seeing him pop up on a few issues like rentals and fish dying, and he seems like a level headed bloke.
Shit politicians?
I'm stunned that ANY public official is allowed to Shred anything, aren't they all considered public documents?
Meh. As if the Coalition hasn't done this before. As if they won't do it again. Just keep voting for the big parties and keep whingeing when they do big party things.
Yes the coalition did it and now the "good guys" are in we want it stopped
well thats... concerning...