After almost three years of legal mud-wrestling, Mark Dreyfus finally gets his hands on part of George Brandis’ ministerial diary — but what is all the fuss about?
Category: George Brandis
Attorney general’s diary finally released after three-year fight with Labor which used freedom of information laws
If you want a textbook example of how out of touch our nation’s leaders are with everyday Australians, look no further than Attorney-General George Brandis on ABC’s Q&A last night. He told a woman on a disability pension that if an incorrect debt-recovery notice had been sent out, it could be easily fixed by calling or visiting her local Centrelink branch.
Source: Please hold | The Monthly
Notes of disputed events at a meeting between George Brandis and Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson don’t support Senator Brandis’ argument.
Source: Staffers’ notes do not back George Brandis’ position on Justin Gleeson | afr.com
Four days before the federal election was called, George Brandis issued the Legal Services Amendments (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016.
Source: Election 2016: George Brandis restricts access to independent Solicitor-General
Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has had a court victory over the current minister, George Brandis, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturning Senator Brandis’ refusal to release his ministerial diary.
Source: Mark Dreyfus wins case over George Brandis’ refusal to release ministerial diary
HE HAS been in the job less than a week and already our new Prime Minister is being called upon to sack a member of his cabinet.
Source: Nick Cave wants Malcolm Turnbull to sack George Brandis
Written by: Letitia McQuade
After proposing then abandoning a raft of manifestly unpopular changes to section 18c of Australia’s racial vilification laws last year, certain members of the LNP have recently relaunched their attack on 18C, under the rather disingenuous pretext of championing free speech.
In the wake of the Charlie Hedbo attacks Cory Bernardi has been out there again, calling for the LNP’s precious 18c amendments to be put back on the table.
Like pit bulls with lock jaw, a gang radical right wing MP’s including Cory Bernardi, George Brandis, Dean Smith, liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, and Family First’s Bob Day have been lobbying hard to ensure we Aussies have the right to engage in hate speech.
Just for clarity, lets take a closer look at what it is they want to change. Specifically they want to have the words “offend, insult and humiliate” removed from the act.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 – SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
So in effect what they are proposing is that it would just fine to PUBLICLY “offend, insult and humiliate” someone based on their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, so long as you don’t “intimidate” them.
I think it’s fairly safe to say that most people would find public insult and humiliation somewhat intimidating; so we can assume that the interpretation to be given to the word “intimidate” under the proposed amendments would be “to directly physically threaten”, rather than “to emotionally threaten”.
If these changes were ushered in, then it theoretically it would be OK if I were to call Tony Abbott filthy, unwashed, lazy, whinging, snaggle toothed, imperialist, stuck up, limey British scum? And that would be totally OK, because I am all I am doing is using racial stereotypes to abuse him, but I am not actually threatening to do him any harm. Of course the truth is that most British people work hard, wash regularly, visit dentists, aren’t seeking to expand their empire, and complain in relatively appropriate measure..:-), but hey why let the truth get in the way of good story.
Unfortunately what these right wing warriors are failing to understand is that the Racial Discrimination Act is not really about protecting the feelings of “white people”. It was drafted in the knowledge that there are ethnic groups in this country that really suffer as a result of constant racial abuse and the negative stereo types that such abuse fosters.
To our shame there are many Australians, (most notedly our indigenous brothers and sisters, followed closely by those of African or “middle eastern appearance”) that regularly suffer systemic discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of their race. They are the same Australians that regularly suffer physical abuse in public spaces, and higher rates of detention and incarceration on account of their race. So please let’s not minimise this, these are real consequences, for real people!
Free speech is a noble ideal, but in order for something to be truly free it must come without a cost. Just because hate mongers like Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and the oh so white fleet of right wing MP’s don’t personally pay the price for their racist tirades doesn’t mean someone isn’t picking up the tab. And too frequently those picking up the tab are the among the poorest and most marginalised members of our Australian family.
If you happen to belong to one of those oft targeted minorities the Racial Discrimination Act may not offer a lot of protection, but it is the thin end of a very important wedge. It is a line in the sand that says NO, we as Australians do NOT want a society where racial vilification and negative racial stereotypes are permitted to fester and stew in the public sphere. We want an Australia that says racists need to be ashamed, knowing that they are on the wrong side of what is morally decent, and on the wrong side of the law. We want an Australia where vile hate speech does land Andrew Bolt in court and up on charges. Mostly we want an Australia that is for the fair go for everyone regardless of race, colour or creed.
So Mr Bernadi, I say this to you on behalf of all decent, fair minded Australian’s….. GET BACK IN YOUR BOX!!!, we don’t want the hate you are peddling!!!
Greens Senator Scott Ludlum has called the Government’s mandatory data retention legislation an outrageous attack on Australian’ right to privacy’, which will be fought.
THE GOVERNMENT’S MANDATORY DATA RETENTION LEGISLATION is an outrageous attack on Australians’ fundamental right to privacy and does not represent a proportionate response to the needs of law enforcement authorities.
The bill contains no description of the metadata it is seeking to access and no details about the cost of this unwelcome new surveillance tax.
Since the idea was first floated in 2009, mandatory data retention has been dissected and rejected by almost every major stakeholder group affected by the idea, including the telecommunications industry, civil liberties groups, media organisations, journalists, political parties and thinktanks across the political spectrum.
Data retention will impose a surveillance tax on the entire Australian population, and turn the telecommunications industry into unwilling appendages to enforcement agencies, tracking and storing material on every device held by every man, woman and child in Australia.
Data retention was rolled back by the European Court of Justice because it was found to violate human rights and because it did not affect authorities’ ability to do their job.
Data retention will also make a mockery of the ability of journalists to protect their sources. When the Government has access to a log of every phone call made in Australia and every email sent, the practice of whistleblowing will cease to exist.
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull got it right in 2012 when he said he had “very grave misgivings” about data retention, because it was “heading in precisely the wrong direction” and would create a “chilling effect on free speech” as well as invade privacy.
Turnbull said at the time:
“The German Federal Constitutional Court has recently struck down a similar data retention law noting that “metadata” may be used to draw conclusions about not simply the content of the messages, but the social and political affiliations, personal preferences, inclinations and weaknesses of the individual concerned.”
Turnbull also noted in 2012 that the criminals of greatest concern to Australia would be able to use numerous means to anonymise their communications to evade their data being retained, meaning the scheme would be easy to evade.
The Greens and a wide range of other groups across the political spectrum will step up the fight against data retention to ensure it is blocked in the Senate.
Today, the Greens call on the Labor Party to declare they will vote against Mandatory Data Retention, and not wait until after it has passed to express their regrets and concerns.
THE WAR ON TERROR AND SPYING ON EVERYONE are both very serious matters. Indeed, the war on terror is killing people all over the world — including, sadly, here in Australia this week.
The tragic death of Abdul Numan Haidar is not a laughing matter. The confusion, misinformation and outright lies being spread about this young man are appalling. That the news media is buying into it with awful headlines and front page stories vilifying him, his friends and even random, totally unconnected young men should shame some journalists into silence.
At the same time, the rush to cut into our liberties in the name of ‘protecting’ us from a shadowy threat that kills less people than bee stings is also not something to joke about, or is it?
In the last 24 hours, a new Twitter hashtag, #HeyASIO, has burst into prominence to take the piss out of Raging Bedsore’s new surveillance powers.
Now that our security services have the right to monitor the whole of the inter-webs with just one warrant allowing them to tap into any computer ‘network’, it seems that nothing we do online is going to be private anymore.
The rightwing trolls don’t like it and curmudgeonly columnists like Andrew Bolt complain (without even having a Twitter account) that social media is dominated by “the left”, but for those of us who:
- don’t like the Abbott Government;
- think the terror threat is overblown;
- don’t like the idea of ASIO snooping on us around the clock and, more importantly;
- have a sense of humour…
… then It’s a great way to get your message across while having a bit of fun.
WTF Team Australia Looks like an LNP Pink Bat with Hendra Virus
George Brandis they keep telling us “you get what you pay for’. Tony & George were at Oxford together, the PM a a jock, and the Attorney-General as an egg-head. 30 years on from those Oxford days they still don’t seem to be able to get on the same page. At our cost. Georges proposed changes to section 18C of the RAD dumped. Rewriting of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act spurred on by the RDA-scorched columnist Andrew Bolt and backed by Georges declaration to the Senate that people have “a right to be bigots”
Brandis then set a foreign-policy stampede by disowning the term “occupied East Jerusalem” for ‘disputed’ and retreated yet again.
Senator Brandis bore the announcement impassively, with pallid but composed face and comment “In this business you can’t win them all”.
However Abbott and Brandis may have arrived at their pink bats moment when in interviews they both where overwhelmed. Brandis fronted Sky News’ David Speers to explain those aspects of the government’s proposed new anti-terrorism laws which aim to survey online communication. He couldn’t, because the government obviously hasn’t settled on what “metadata” it wants internet service providers (ISPs) to retain, or even what it means by “metadata”. Abbott himself had set the tone on ABC radio. Espousing their unhelpful “front of the envelope” analogy, Brandis and Abbott come across as technological unsophisticates, which can be amusing to watch until one thinks about the privacy and cost implications. ISPs and telecommunications companies remain entirely confused about what they might be asked to do.
The the one minister who could reasonably be expected to explain something of the technical side of the government’s proposals – Communications Minister and former internet entrepreneur Malcolm Turnbull – had been sidelined by Abbott, and not for the first time. Turnbull’s concerns about the metadata proposals were reportedly ignored by Brandis.
The metadata announcement adds to a reputation the government has developed for bungled and half-baked policy announcements – others include paid parental leave, the 18C repeal, Gonski school funding, the FOFA windbacks and the budget itself – which create immediate confusion and which need to be revised by backtracking minister
George not knowing what the f**k metadata is just wants out of here fast
“Sinking the slipper”
He misused $954 of taxpayer’s funds claiming expenses that were private, not parliamentary.
Other politicians, including the prime minister, were allowed to repay expenses under the Minchin Protocol, which allows for the repayment of wrongly claimed entitlements, while others get off scott free
Mr Slipper has on a number of occasions said that he tried to repay the money under the Minchin Protocol, but the avenue has been denied him;
It can only be put down to LNP payback for his taking the Speakers job.
George Brandis has never adequately explained why the Commonwealth pursued him over such a paltry amount and who it was who took the complaint to the AFP.
That’s over $84,000 in work-related travel entitlements Abbott claimed while “volunteering”, running, swimming, cycling and attending major sporting events. There are of course many others from both sides who have repaid wrongly paid expenses:
• Attorney-General George Brandis repaid nearly $1,700 he had claimed from the taxpayer to attend the wedding of radio announcer Michael Smith in 2011.
• Former Attorney General Mark Dreyfus was forced to repay $466 claimed while he was away from Canberra on a skiing trip in August 2011, which his spokeswoman said was “an administrative error.”
• Former Trade Minister Richard Marles claimed flights to Labor MP Michael Danby’s 2008 Parliament House wedding but said he had meetings in Canberra the next day.
• Wayne Swan, when acting PM in 2010, took his two children to both the AFL grand final replay and NRL grand final by VIP aircraft, costing taxpayers more than $17,000 in one weekend.
• In August 2012 Mr Abbott went to Coffs Harbour for its cycle challenge, claiming $1,002.
• Julia Gillard repaid $4243 in 2007 when she was deputy opposition leader, in relation to her partner Tim Mathieson’s private use of a taxpayer-funded car.
• As a minister Mr Reith racked up a $50,000 phone bill at taxpayers’ expense, which he repaid.
If Peter Slipper gets a gaol sentence it will be a gross miscarriage of justice. Not of the court’s making, but that of a government more intent on punishing people than exercising leadership. Thus far it has been punishment of pensioners, the sick, the young, the unemployed, the opposition, and anyone who disagrees.
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.