A look into Corporate fraud in Australia, Stranglehold of Monopolies, Telecom's Oppression, Biased Law System, Corporate influence in politics, Industrial Relations disadvantaging workers, Outsourcing Australian Jobs, Offshore Banking, Petrochemical company domination, Invisibly Visible.
It's not what you see, it's what goes on behind the scenes. Australia, the warrantless colony.
Note: Site has more info in desktop mode or 'web version' as seen at bottom of page, when on smartphone.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (ABN: 122 104 616)
Australia's Prime Minister (CEO) Tony Abbott : "Australia is Open for Business"
It's not enough that the good subjects of Her Majesty in the Commonwealth of Australia a being lied to by their so called representatives, the Mutts in Parliament (MPs).
It's not enough that the good people are being defrauded and lied to by the (Daniel) Andrews government, where even when caught the fraudsters still retain their jobs, salaries and superannuation (try that trick with the social security business called Centrelink).
Now the 'local' fraudsters in your friendly city council are delivering false information to drivers.
In the below photograph, a road contains a sign that says NO ENTRY (no need for concern with what's written underneath that).
Another sign underneath states that it's a NO THROUGH ROAD.
So with reference to the "NO THROUGH ROAD" a driver would comprehend that the road does not continue for automobiles.
This could be because the road is actually a court, or either through a natural obstruction, like a mountain, or something a bit more subtle - a rockery with trees planted in the middle of a previously drive-able road that a hipster engineer decided to plan as a result of the global warming officer's advice.
The driver in this case knows that the city councils with their alleged third tier of law making ability can go screw themselves, and proceeded down this "NO THROUGH ROAD".
To the absolute astonishment of the driver and no doubt through a Moses like miracle, the road less traveled had no dead end, even though it was far from the dead sea, it was very passable, as seen in photo of biblical proportions.
All that matters is that you get fined for going through the (false info) sign.
But what are the penalties for your members of your 'local government' lying to you?
A matter all too reminiscent of Corinna Horvath where she was brutally bashed by Victoria Police to an inch of her not remembering her name.
From the article by abc.net.au from 18 Mar 2018 of the headline:
Queensland Police in leaked bashing video were subject to dozens of brutality complaints
A Queensland police unit on the Gold Coast generated
dozens of brutality complaints and a longstanding reputation among
colleagues for excessive force before several of its members were
publicly exposed in a leaked video.
The failed prosecution of former police officer Rick Flori
over the leak opened up former members of so-called Surfers Paradise
"Team Two" to interrogation over their disciplinary records, which
revealed internal investigations of 21 allegations of serious
misconduct.
Team Two was one of a number of patrol units operating
out of Surfers Paradise police, each with a membership of 12 to 15
officers at any one time.
The ABC can reveal there were at least
21 other complaints of excessive force against another two officers
within Team Two in the years leading up to the unjustified assault of
Noa Begic in the police station car park in January 2012
A Police Ethical Standards Command (ESC)
report from 2010, obtained by the ABC, noted the "inordinately large
number of excessive force allegations", with ESC issuing a "medium-level
warning" to senior Gold Coast police about one officer.
However,
it said "no adverse inference can or should be drawn" against the
officers because the complaints were not substantiated, and Surfers
Paradise was a "volatile" environment.
Corruption watchdog began 'profile' of police unit
But
Team Two's overall complaints record prompted the then-Crime and
Misconduct Commission (CMC) to "profile" the unit, Mr Flori said.
"Because
of the significantly larger number of complaints that team had, not as
an individual as such, but a team as a whole … they actually profiled
that team prior to the Begic arrest," he told the ABC.
"They had been under scrutiny well before this and relatively little or no action was taken to curb their behaviour."
Two
other former Gold Coast officers said team two had a reputation for
using unjustified force in arrests and their complaint rate dwarfed
other teams.
A spokesman for the CMC's successor, the Crime and
Corruption Commission (CCC), said they would "neither confirm nor deny"
the agency profiled Team Two.
Internal investigators found the assault against Mr Begic was unjustified and initially covered up.
But
in a six-year saga that proved to be a public relations disaster for
police, the only officer charged was Mr Flori, for leaking video
evidence to the media.
Former
senior sergeant David 'Joacho' Joachim, who was in charge at the scene
of Mr Begic's assault, was a previous Team Two leader.
He was investigated eight times by the ESC, including for six alleged assaults on prisoners in custody.
Two
of these came in the weeks after Mr Begic's arrest, when he allegedly
punched a handcuffed prisoner in the face three times and hit another
with handcuffs while threatening to beat him "to a pulp".
He was
also investigated in 2009 for alleged corrupt conduct in helping
security guards cover up an incident, and in 2007 for responding to an
excessive force complaint by charging the person with obstructing
police.
In Mr Flori's trial in the Southport District Court last
month, Mr Joachim said he could not recall any details of the incidents
that prompted complaints or the investigations.
But he agreed none of them were substantiated and he was never charged for anything.
Joachim also under alleged corruption probe in NSW
The
Flori trial also revealed that when he was a detective in New South
Wales, Mr Joachim was investigated for alleged corruption over a
shooting investigation, shortly before he resigned in 1988.
A 2001
Police Integrity Commission report criticised Mr Joachim for being too
friendly with a person of interest, and giving a misleading statement in
a follow-up investigation in 1996 after he became a Queensland police
officer.
The inquiry cleared Mr Joachim of any criminal conduct
but noted he eluded disciplinary action because he was no longer a New
South Wales officer.
Mr Joachim washed away a pool of Mr Begic's
blood and was involved in the struggle on camera but denied seeing an
assault, even when confronted with video evidence during Mr Flori's
trial.
The court heard that Mr Joachim had reported the violent
incident to two inspectors at Surfers Paradise station, but had not told
them he was physically involved.
He told the inspectors he had investigated
the matter by viewing the CCTV footage — together with Mr Begic's
assailant Ben Lamb and fellow officer Robert Johnston — and found the
force was "proportionate".
Mr Joachim also had not disclosed his
role to Mr Begic when he visited him in the watch house to see if he
wanted to file an assault complaint.
His superiors had not watched the video until Mr Begic filed a complaint a week later.
Inspector
Matt Rosevear agreed in court with Mr Flori's lawyer that on watching
the footage, he saw a "blindingly obvious potential issue around
excessive use of force".
Mr Joachim had told Mr Flori's trial he
had a family link to Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart, who was
"my brother-in-law's brother".
Commissioner Stewart told media
after the trial he had declared his "conflict of interest" and played no
role in the investigation.
Mr Joachim and other officers in court
maintained the assault was justified because Mr Begic, who was
handcuffed and lying prone on the ground, had been "violently resisting
arrest".
Police alleged he made offensive comments to passing
officers but Mr Begic maintained he was singing a Rage Against the
Machine song.
Officer admits force during arrest was 'totally excessive'
In footage of his arrest shown to the District Court, Mr Begic appeared compliant.
This
included his approach to the police station carpark, which one officer,
then-constable Johnston, admitted was at odds with his account that an
agitated Mr Begic had been "jumping around like a freaking Zulu person".
While
colleagues maintained the force was appropriate, then-senior constable
Lamb, who kneed Mr Begic and punched him six times in the head — in part
because he thought he was a Maori and thus likely to be strong —
admitted to the court his force was "totally excessive".
"This was a clanger of a day for me," he said.
Mr
Lamb said most of the six previous complaints lodged against him in
less than two years were "nonsense", although he could not recall
details of any of the incidents.
They included allegations that he
punched two other handcuffed prisoners in the face, causing major teeth
damage to one and allegedly telling him: "You boys aren't planning on
making any complaints, are you?"
Mr Lamb was also investigated by the CCC for alleged corruption in 2011 for failing to take action against a person for assault.
No
allegations were substantiated, but he was given managerial guidance
for striking and pushing a prisoner in custody, causing him to fall
against a wall.
Mr Johnston, whom Mr Begic accused of punching him in the head, was cleared of wrongdoing.
But the court heard Mr Johnston was again
investigated in 2015 for violently choking a teenager and seizing a
phone he used to film the arrest of his cousin, Kristian Puru.
A
magistrate at the time criticised what she found was an unjustified
assault by police in the arrest, which resulted in legal costs being
awarded to Mr Puru, but no disciplinary action.
Mr Flori's trial
heard Mr Johnston was twice chastised for racial abuse, including of one
person he allegedly punched in the face and called a "n*****".
The
trial also revealed Mr Johnston had quit the force in February 2017
while under investigation for stealing drugs from a raid, assisting
prostitution, illegally accessing the police database 900 times,
including to gain contact information to stalk his former partner, and
lying to ESC investigators.
Mr Johnston twice refused to answer questions in court about several of these allegations to avoid incriminating himself.
ESC
investigators maintained in court that no police could be charged over
Mr Begic's assault because he withdrew his criminal complaint,
separately receiving a confidential payout.
Police disciplinary system is 'broken'
(Corporate Australia says: no it's not, it's deliberately designed to appear 'broken')
However
legal experts, including former NSW director of public prosecutions
Nick Cowdery, said a case could proceed on video evidence and Mr Begic's
original statement.
"There might be enough evidence [from video
alone] to create a reasonable prospect of conviction — it's quite
possible," Mr Cowdery said.
Former Queensland police prosecutor and inspector Dominic McHugh said the police disciplinary system was "broken".
"It would appear to me that the
only reason they avoided criminal charges was because of a culture or an
attitude on the part of people within the service to protect their own,
or to keep things closeted, or to deal with things quietly, without
embarrassing," Mr McHugh said.
Fitzgerald inquiry
whistleblower and former ICAC staffer Nigel Powell said the decision to
prosecute Mr Flori but not others was a failure of police leadership.
"Do
I want to send a message that if you beat a chained, defenceless
prisoner for no reason, you are going to be prosecuted … or do I want to
send the message: 'Do not embarrass us?'," Mr Powell said.
Flori 'absolutely' vindicated over leaking video
ESC
finished its investigation by December 2012, finding a case for
disciplinary action against Mr Lamb for excessive force and Mr Joachim
for failing to report.
But the report sat with senior police for a
year until Mr Joachim retired, just in time to qualify for higher
superannuation as a senior sergeant, and also to avoid disciplinary
action.
The CMC, which had been publicly calling for police to
promptly resolve the matter, was not told about this for another eight
months.
Mr Lamb was given "suspended dismissal", which the CMC unsuccessfully challenged in court as a false sanction.
He remains an officer on the Gold Coast.
Mr Flori said the outcome "absolutely" vindicated his decision to leak while an internal investigation was underway.
He
said the final straw was a sergeant's meeting the day the investigation
began, in which "the discussion revolved around the officers involved
being 'looked after', it would be fine, that it was 'covered'".
"The result is really as was predicted — the officers suffered no consequences essentially for their actions," Mr Flori said.
"It's a disgrace and it's the way it's gone on for a long time."
Both Mr Lamb and Mr Joachim have declined to comment, while Mr Johnston could not be reached by the ABC.
Commissioner
Stewart declined an interview request, but a spokesman said the public
could have "confidence in internal police investigations".
From the article by news.com.au on 19 Mar 2018 of the headline:
Facebook is in the centre of yet another data-breach scandal
EVER felt paranoid you’re being “watched” on social media? The latest scandal around Facebook won’t make you feel any better.
Gavin Fernando
Facebook is once again facing criticism over data hacking and privacy breaches.Source:News Limited
EVER
paranoid that you’re being “watched” on social media? The latest drama
surrounding Facebook probably won’t help lessen those feelings.
The
social media giant is currently embroiled in the largest data scandal
of its history, following allegations that Cambridge Analytica tapped
the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million people without their
permission.
The story was broken by The Guardian over the weekend, who reported the data may have been used to influence the outcome of the United States election in 2016.
WHAT IS CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA?
Cambridge
Analytica is a British data analysis firm that offers services to
businesses and groups wanting to “change audience behaviour”.
The
firm, which is owned by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, says it
can analyse consumer data — including social media and its own polling —
in order to target people with marketing material.
It worked for both President Donald Trump’s election campaign, and the campaign of Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
OK, SO WHAT’S THE SCANDAL?
Over the weekend, The Guardian revealed that the personal data of 50 million Facebook profiles was illegally harvested by Cambridge Analytica.
It all started in 2015, when a Cambridge psychology professor named
Aleksandr Kogan created an app called “thisisyourdigitallife”.
The app was a personality quiz, described by Dr Kogan as “a research app used by psychologists”.
His company Global Science Research had a deal to share this information with Cambridge Analytica.
Around 270,000 Facebook users signed up, and were paid to take personality tests which would be stored by the company.
Over 50 million people reportedly had their Facebook data stored without their consent.Source:istock
But
here’s where things get dicey: the app also collected the information
of the users’ Facebook friends, who — unless they had already signed up
to the app — did not consent to having their personal information
stored.
This was revealed by Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower and analytics expert who worked with Cambridge Analytica.
“We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles,” he told The Guardian.
“And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their
inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on.”
The
app relied on its users consenting on behalf of all their friends — or
at least, those whose privacy settings were to set to allow sharing with
a friend’s app — to receive “more limited information”.
The
information was reportedly used to map out the behaviour of voters in
the lead-up to the 2016 election, as well as the Brexit campaign earlier
that year.
The reports suggest over 50 million people had their data harvested without their permission.
HOW DID THE FIRM RESPOND?
Cambridge Analytica denied any wrongdoing, claiming it fully complied with Facebook’s term of service.
The
firm claimed allegations that it obtained and used Facebook data were
false, and said none of it was used in the 2016 presidential election.
The
Trump campaign has also denied any wrongdoing, saying it never used
Cambridge Analytica’s data. “The campaign used the RNC for its voter
data and not Cambridge Analytica,” it said in a statement.
The app
was removed by Facebook in 2015, and the firm reportedly assured the
social media network that it had deleted all the data.
But according to the New York Times, copies of the data are still available online.
The Trump campaign has denied any wrongdoing.Source:AP
WHY IS FACEBOOK COPPING CRITICISM?
Facebook
has come under pressure to be more transparent about how its users’
data is or potentially can be used by third-party companies.
Critics say the scandal highlights its ongoing problem to grasp how its platform is handled by others.
The
social media giant had known since 2015 that the information had been
harvested but did nothing to protect its users, according to reports.
The network attempted to suggest it was deceived, and that those involved shouldn’t have lied about deleting the data.
In
a series of now-deleted tweets, Facebook’s chief security officer Alex
Stamos said Dr Kogan “lied to those users and he lied to Facebook about
what he was using the data for”.
In
a blog post, Facebook said: “Several days ago, we received reports
that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was
deleted. We are moving aggressively to determine the accuracy of these
claims. If true, this is another unacceptable violation of trust and the
commitments they made.”
Facebook is under fire after it emerged the network has known about the scandal since 2015.Source:Supplied
Politicians and critics from both the US and Britain slammed the network following the reports.
British
legislator Damian Collins accused Facebook of misleading officials by
downplaying the risk of users’ data being shared without their consent.
He said Facebook has “consistently understated” the risk of data leaks and gave misleading answers to the committee.
“Someone
has to take responsibility for this,” he told the Associated Press.
“It’s time for Mark Zuckerberg to stop hiding behind his Facebook page.”
US
Senator Jeff Flake told CNN: “This is a big deal, when you have that
amount of data. And the privacy violations there are significant. So,
the question is, who knew it? When did they know it? How long did this
go on? And what happens to that data now?”
At the same time, the
social media network faces ongoing criticism over the spread of Russian
propaganda, with an investigation still underway to determine whether
“fake news” and Russian hacking influenced the 2016 election outcome.
The
NDB scheme mandates that Australian Government agencies and the various
organisations with obligations to secure personal information under the
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) notify individuals affected by data breaches that are likely to result in serious harm.
One of the new resources published by the OAIC, titled Receiving data breach notifications,
provides useful guidance on what to expect when you receive a data
breach notification, including how organisations might deliver
notifications and when a privacy complaint can be made to the OAIC.
The other new resource, What to do after a data breach notification, provides a wide range of actions you can take to reduce the risk of experiencing harm after a data breach.
Among the information provided are tips on combatting the harm that
may result from a breach involving financial information or contact
information and steps to take when you believe you may be a victim of
identity fraud.
The OAIC has worked with consumer groups, not-for-profits, and
Australian Government agencies in the development of these resources.
The Australian Information Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, said, “the
Notifiable Data Breaches scheme formalises a long-standing community
expectation to be told when a data breach that is likely to cause
serious harm occurs.
“The practical benefit of the scheme is that it gives individuals the
chance to reduce their risk of harm, such as by re-securing compromised
online accounts. The scheme also has a broader beneficial impact — it
reinforces organisations’ accountability for personal information
protection and encourages a higher standard of personal information
security across the public and private sectors.
“By reinforcing accountability for personal information protection,
the NDB scheme supports greater consumer and community trust in data
management. This trust is key to realising the potential of data to
benefit the community, for example, by informing better policy-making
and the development of products and services.”
The 2017 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey found
that 94 per cent of Australians believe they should be told if a
business loses their personal information. Ninety-five per cent said
they should be told if a government agency loses their personal
information.
Organisations are required to notify the Australian Information
Commissioner in addition to notifying individuals affected by an
‘eligible data breach’ (a data breach that is likely to result in
serious harm). Failures to comply with the NDB scheme can attract fines
up to $2.1 million.
The OAIC has published a suite of guidance for organisations to
assist them in implementing the requirements of the NDB scheme. This
guidance can be found at: www.oaic.gov.au/ndb.
Background information
Previous statements from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Enforcement powers of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
The Privacy Act confers a range of enforcement powers on the Commissioner, including:
accept an enforceable undertaking (s 33E)
bring proceedings to enforce an enforceable undertaking (s 33F)
make a determination (s 52)
bring proceedings to enforce a determination (ss 55A and 62)
report to the Minister in certain circumstances following a CII, monitoring activity or assessment (ss 30 and 32)
seek an injunction including before, during or after an investigation or the exercise of another regulatory power (s 98)
apply to the court for a civil penalty order for a breach of a civil penalty provision (s 80W).
The ‘civil penalty provisions’ in the Privacy Act include:
A serious or repeated interference with privacy (s 13G) – 2000 penalty units (current total is $420,000)
The maximum penalty that the court can order for a body corporate is
five times the amount listed in the civil penalty provision (current
maximum $2.1 million).
Migrants pointing to a painted kangaroo on a train, Ludwigsburg. An
inscription on the reverse reads: ‘painted picture of / kangaroo on our /
train in Ludwigsburg / November 1948 / Alex Nypl / (Newman)’. Alex Nypl
was a Czechoslovakian migrant who arrived in Melbourne on PROTEA, 23
December 1948. (Source: Australian National Maritime Museum Flickr
photostream.)
This relentlessly dodgy machine called the Australian Government enacts many 'dodgy' laws.
As if that's not dodgy enough what the people in government do is enact some more dodgy laws while the peasants are distracted.
A recent example of the above is, while the plebs were celebrating Valentine's Day the MPs were celebrating the bank "bail in law" (called the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution) Bill 2017) put into action on the 14th of February to help their brethren in the banking business.
Another well advertised example of late last year was the "gay marriage" law being put into circulation before the year's end, while no one in government advertised anything about the dodgy "National Security" laws which encompass a wide range changes across Acts.
As a result of federation, Australia as a country was able to create laws from the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which took effect from the 1st of January 1901.
One of the first laws that was created was the "White Australia" policy which obtained the more politically correct legal name as the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (see illustration below).
As a result of this Act the people in government screwed over an immigrant, Egon Kisch, where they arrested and incarcerated him to six months hard labour for allegedly failing a dictation test in Scottish Gaelic. Kisch an intelligent man spoke multiple European languages.
In his mater the High Court of Australia ruled that Scottish Gaelic was not a "European language", where his conviction was overturned.
In the end the authorities got their way where Kisch left 'voluntarily'.
So, why could the "White Australia" policy enacted during Christmas time (technically on the 23rd of December 1901), while the plebs are distracted be a 'dodgy' law?
It's not being very 'equal opportunity' to the people of many other colours in allowing them to show the people in government that they too are quiet, subservient, docile slaves.
Probably even better slaves than the white ones born here?
Maybe intelligent imports could be a danger to the people in government as they could see through all the smoke and mirrors and deception by the people in government and do something about it or even open the eyes of the herd population?
Maybe trailer park trash imports will be more accepting in voting in the Labor Party to push through the republic agenda?
After all the 'good' government let them in, so they cannot be against the people in government, irrespective of how much they oppress 'Australians'.
Ken Lay (photo above) was the first Chief Commissioner of Police to become a CEO of the business commonly referred to as Victoria Police, as per the new law enacted in 2013.
He was in office from 11th of November 2011 to 31 January 2015.
Here is the job description from 2011 for Commissioner of Police:
Not enough attention is drawn to how much sugar is consumed by consumers in their daily lives.
A documentary was made in Ireland where Doctor Eva Orsmond studied the consumption of sugar within the local demographic, with startling results.
This documentary was broadcast on Irish TV in 2016, where it followed on to a small viewing audience within the Australian TV sector that being SBS, one and a half years later.
Cigarettes and alcohol may be the obvious killer drugs, where sugar has escaped under the radar.
From the documentary, more people on this planet are dying from sugar related illness than from malnutrition.
Currently two years after its release, Sugar Crash is not listed the the world's (premier?) film database imdb.com as seen from the above screen capture.
Why is such an important documentary kept from being on the 'public' record?
Abuse of power in Australia (the totalitarian state); "None of Australia’s so-called Five Eyes security partners – the United
States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand – have such extensive powers."
It seems that Australia's MPs (Mutts in Parliament) are Masters of Deception. People should recall the massive advertising campaign launched by the media, where Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull was focusing that the change to the Marriage Act of 1960 by allowing homosexuals to marry was an important law, totally omitting attention to more important legislation involving national security, involving work within the legislation that is (deliberately) 'sloppy'.
The national security laws were in parliament the very same day the "same-sex marriage" changes were occurring, and not a single word from Australia's PM about it to the good people of Australia.
Just
another set of dodgy laws being passed by the people in government in
order to oppress the masses and incarcerate them under ANY pretext they
choose...
See article from thesaturdaypaper.com.au from 10 Mar 2018 of the headline:
ASIO changes hidden in ‘sloppy’ amendments process
To complete setting up the new mega security Department of Home
Affairs, the federal government is amending a lot of legislation. But
not all of the changes are being presented willingly for public
scrutiny.
This week, the government produced the raft
of amendments parliament must pass to finalise the amalgamation of
Immigration and Border Protection with security and intelligence
agencies including the Australian Federal Police, the Australian
Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Transactions Reports
and Analysis Centre, known as AUSTRAC, and the Australian Security
Intelligence Organisation, or ASIO.
There are 284 changes, amending 33 separate
acts, to complete the transfer of ministerial authority over these
agencies from the attorney-general to the minister for Home Affairs,
while preserving the attorney-general’s role in approving ASIO
investigation warrants and special operations.
But 47 of them relating to ASIO were being kept from public view.
The high-powered parliamentary watchdog on
security matters, the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and
security (PJCIS), recently reviewed the first part of the Home Affairs
and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill and published its
report, recommending some changes.
On March 1, the committee received the rest
of the amendments and this week, following usual practice, published the
list of them on its website to indicate the start of this next review.
The amendments were all numbered according to
the alphabetic order of the acts they affected.
Without explanation –
and in a significant departure from usual practice – three sets of the
numbered amendments were missing.
They relate to the ASIO Act and the
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and are the most
controversial of the amendments being proposed – a point the committee
effectively acknowledged when it recommended in its earlier report that
parliament not vote on the Home Affairs bill until the amendments to
these acts had been introduced and, by inference, scrutinised.
The government-dominated committee is one of
the most important in the parliament and is made up of MPs and senators
from the two major parties.
It forms a key part of the oversight of
Australia’s intelligence community and plays a significant role in
scrutinising governments’ legislative plans on security.
It examines ASIO-related amendments, even the most basic, as a matter of course.
Some of its work is conducted in secret and its members face criminal penalties for disclosure.
But much of it is necessarily public, part of
the oversight that exists to reassure Australians someone is checking
what governments and their security agencies are doing.
Right now, it has a huge workload because of a
bundle of security-related bills the government wants passed –
including the one creating Home Affairs.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rushed a
package of four pieces of legislation – the Home Affairs bill, plus
others covering espionage and foreign interference and foreign influence
– into parliament on the evening of December 7, immediately after the
House of Representatives voted on same-sex marriage and while advocates
of the change were still celebrating in the chamber and the galleries
above.
Turnbull declared all amendments essential for national security.
In evidence to the joint committee inquiry
into the foreign influence, interference and espionage bills, the acting
Inspector General of Intelligence and Security revealed that the IGIS
had not been consulted in advance of any of the legislation – changes to
the law that affected his role.
Asked when the IGIS office first saw the
legislation, acting IGIS Jake Blight said: “On 7 December, 2017. That’s
the day it was tabled in parliament. That’s the day we saw it.”
Amendments to several of the bills are now
being sent back to the government for redrafting because they don’t do
what they are designed to do or in some cases appear to do the opposite.
Those in the security community frustrated by
the haste with which all of this is being done repeatedly mention one
word: “sloppy”.
The ASIO-related amendments are sensitive
because there is some concern within ASIO and sections of the wider
security community that shifting ASIO to the Home Affairs portfolio
might diminish its independence and leave it vulnerable to political
interference.
The new department’s secretary, Michael
Pezzullo, has said the concerns are unfounded and condemned what he says
is scaremongering about his powers.
But the retiring attorney-general, George
Brandis, echoed those concerns in a private farewell speech he gave to
ASIO last month, in which he also queried Pezzullo’s ambitions.
Of the agencies being transferred from the
Attorney-General’s Department to Home Affairs, ASIO is the only one that
has not yet moved. Its shift is contingent on the passage of the
legislation.
Those are the amendments now before the committee – and, only as a result of inquiries by The Saturday Paper, before the public, too.
Following questions from the paper, the amendments were added to the list late on Thursday.
Attorney-General Christian Porter had
originally provided the redacted version of the amendments, arguing that
the committee’s own previous report suggested it did not need to
examine them.
They are mostly administrative, but two in
the ASIO Act relate to the power to make or remake guidelines governing
ASIO’s activities. That power will now rest with Home Affairs Minister
Peter Dutton – but he will have to consult Attorney-General Christian
Porter first.
Asked why the amendments were not included in the first place, Porter told The Saturday Paper:
“Nothing about these amendments is secret. Labor has had all of the
amendments since 28 February and subsequently agreed on 2 March that
only those administrative amendments not relating to the committee
report would be referred for consideration by the PJCIS. This agreement
excluded the amendments to the ASIO Act and TIA Act.”
Porter said they were excluded because of a
recommendation in the previous report that said the amendments should be
put to parliament for examination before the whole Home Affairs bill
was voted on.
Shadow attorney-general and member of the committee Mark Dreyfus dismissed Porter’s explanation.
“It seems the new attorney-general doesn’t
understand the important bipartisan role that the intelligence committee
fulfils. Mr Porter’s attempt to prevent that committee from considering
a raft of changes to two of our most critical national security acts,
including his own colleagues, as well as hiding those changes from
public scrutiny, does not augur well for the approach he brings to his
role.
“The committee recommended that the
government bring forward amendments to the ASIO and TIA Acts. Mr
Porter’s claim that the committee therefore has no further role in
reviewing the extensive amendments now that they have been drafted is
plainly nonsense.”
In the 40 years of ASIO’s existence,
legislation related to its operations has always been made public to
enable scrutiny before it is passed.
When Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton
takes over management of these guidelines, his department will be
responsible for any future reviews and the redrafting of them –
effectively a direct role in the oversight of ASIO.
This is despite the new Home Affairs
Department secretary telling a Senate committee recently that his
department “will not engage in the oversight of statutorily independent
agencies”.
ASIO’s most recent annual report revealed the
Attorney-General’s Department was reviewing the guidelines, which are
publicly available, at the committee’s recommendation. These guidelines
currently limit ASIO’s reach and effectively entrench the right to
peaceful protest and other lawful political activity in Australia.
With responsibility for the guidelines now to
be transferred to Home Affairs, the status of the attorney-general’s
review is unclear.
The amendments that had already been available for public scrutiny also raised some questions.
Some provide for shared authority between the
attorney-general and the Home Affairs minister – for example, in
authorising the laying of undersea communications cables through
protected areas – and it is not clear who is actually in charge.
It’s also not clear if this is deliberate or a drafting error.
The government has already agreed to redraft
other elements of important security legislation – relating to foreign
influence and espionage – because of concerns raised in evidence to the
joint committee about their impact.
The new amendments to a bill covering
espionage and foreign interference will narrow the previously proposed
definition of what causes harm to Australia and the scope of offences
involving private citizens as opposed to Commonwealth officials. They
also strengthen the original defences available to professional
journalists receiving information.
The initial omission of the sensitive ASIO
and telecommunications intercepts amendments from the public list of
changes is not the only unorthodox move the joint committee has made in
relation to ASIO this week.
It was due to complete its review of ASIO’s questioning and detention powers by Wednesday.
These powers allow ASIO to question people –
and in some cases detain them – if it believes they have information
relating to a terrorist act, past or future, even if they have no
personal involvement.
Although the joint committee says it has
completed the review – which usually also means the report is ready for
publication – it has not yet presented its findings.
Committees routinely seek extensions of time
for reporting on complex inquiries. The joint committee is in a special
category because of its legislated status and role in overseeing
intelligence agencies and this inquiry is itself specially entrenched in
legislation, with its deadline laid out in the Intelligence Services
Act.
Two minutes before the House of
Representatives began its adjournment debate on March 1, ahead of rising
for three weeks, the committee’s chairman, West Australian Liberal MP
Andrew Hastie, tabled two other reviews of counterterrorism legislation
and then mentioned the ASIO powers review that was due six days later.
“The committee has completed its review and
is currently in the process of finalising the report,”
Hastie said. “I
expect to be able to present the committee’s report to the House in the
near future.”
Generally, committee deadlines are not just
for completing the review, they are for reporting to the parliament. If
extensions of time are required, they are usually obtained before the
deadline.
The joint committee is likely to seek an
extension to resolve what are believed to be contradictions in some of
the evidence, including from ASIO, about whether the
questioning-and-detention powers are still required.
There is a growing list of significant
figures involved in overseeing the intelligence agencies arguing that
while ASIO’s questioning powers should stay, the powers combined with
detention are excessive.
ASIO’s questioning-and-detention powers were
legislated after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States
and the Bali bombings in 2002.
But in recognition of their potentially serious implications for human rights, there has always been a sunset clause.
Under the current clause, they are due to expire in September this year unless extended.
Under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act,
the agency can obtain a warrant from an “issuing authority” for a
person to appear before a “prescribed authority” for questioning to
obtain intelligence about a terrorism offence, past or future.
If the agency believes that person may not
appear, may destroy or damage evidence, or may alert someone involved in
a terrorism offence, it can also apply for a detention warrant.
The person does not have to be suspected of
involvement in the offence to be questioned and detained under these
powers, simply to be reasonably suspected of having important
information.
He or she can then be detained and held
incommunicado – without contacting a lawyer before being questioned –
for seven days. They can be questioned for up to 48 hours within that
time.
Refusing to appear before the “prescribed
authority”, refusing to answer questions or hand over relevant items,
and giving false information, are all punishable by five years’ jail.
None of Australia’s so-called Five Eyes
security partners – the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand –
have such extensive powers.
In its submission to the committee, ASIO
argues for its questioning powers to be extended, saying the threat
environment has changed and the powers need to change, too.
This is despite a series of reports – from
three consecutive Independent National Security Legislation Monitors,
including the current one, and from the Inspector General of
Intelligence and Security – saying the questioning-and-detention power
is excessive and should be abolished.
The current IGIS argued that the existing
questioning powers available to the Australian Criminal Intelligence
Commission are an adequate model for similar powers for ASIO, both
agencies being intelligence-gathering and not law-enforcement bodies.
ASIO has executed just 16 questioning warrants since 2003 and none since 2010.
The separate question-and-detain power that has also existed since 2003 has never been used.
It is not clear what the joint committee will decide to recommend, or when it will report.
It remains another puzzling and opaque
dimension to the handling of national security, which no longer just
leaves the spies in the shadows, but the legislative process as well.
