Freedom…well for some of us anyway.
“Freedom of speech is not just an academic nicety but the
essential pre-condition for any kind of progress. A child learns by
trial and error. A society advances when people can discuss what works
and what doesn’t. To the extent that alternatives can’t be discussed,
people are tethered to the status quo, regardless of its effectiveness.
Thanks to free speech, error can be exposed,
corruption revealed, arrogance deflated, mistakes corrected, the right
upheld and truth flaunted in the face of power. On issues of value,
purpose and meaning, there is no committee, however expert, and no
appointee, however eminent, with judgment superior to that of the whole
community which is why the best decisions are made with free debate
rather than without it.” – Tony Abbott 2012
George Brandis repeatedly justified his plans to remove the
protections of the Racial Discrimination Act by insisting that “our
freedom and our democracy fundamentally depend upon the right to free
speech”.
How does he reconcile that sentiment with the substantial
restrictions the government has placed on efforts by the media and
public to access information about asylum seeker arrivals and conditions
on Manus Island?
When ten aid workers from Save the Children staff at the Nauru detention centre raised concerns of sexual abuse and self harm of children in detention they were suspended.
“If people want to be political activists, that’s their choice. But
they don’t get to do it on the taxpayer’s dollar,” the minister said.
I wonder if getting children on Christmas Island to ring Senator
Ricky Muir begging him to release them so he will vote for legislation
count as activism? I can think of a few more appropriate terms.
Yesterday it was reported that thousands of Immigration Department public servants face the sack if they fail to comply with tough new security tests imposed by their new bosses.
Immigration’s 8500 officials have been told they must complete an
“organisational suitability assessment” if they want to work at Border
Force Australia, the new merged agency combining Immigration and
Customs.
There will also be a crackdown on second jobs, social media use and
sloppy appearances among the department’s public servants, as the
Customs agency hierarchy tightens its grip on Immigration.
Holders of a baseline security clearance must declare any criminal or
other legal matters in their past, changes to their personal
circumstances and even any shift in political or religious belief or
affiliation.
But under the organisational suitability rules, the public servants
must disclose “criminal or high risk associations, conflicts of
interest, criminal history and/or involvement in criminal or illegal
activities, compliance with border-related laws, use of illicit
substances [and] compliance with the Australian Public Service values”.
Officers were told that a failure to take part in the process or
getting an adverse ruling would result in employees losing their jobs,
or at least being transferred to another public service department.
Could you imagine our politicians submitting to similar rules?
In 2012, when addressing the IPA, Tony Abbott said
“There is no case, none, to limit debate about the performance of
national leaders. The more powerful people are, the more important the
presumption must be that less powerful people should be able to say
exactly what they think of them.”
Unless it is critical of him apparently.
In April last year an edict came from the office of PM&C
“PUBLIC servants will be urged to dob in colleagues
posting political criticism of the Abbott government on social media,
even if the comments are anonymous, under new Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet guidelines.“
Gag clauses
preventing organisations who receive government funding from speaking
out about legislation are still in force in Queensland and NSW.
“Where the Organisation receives 50 per cent or more of its total
funding from Queensland Health and other Queensland Government agencies,
the Organisation must not advocate for State or Federal legislative
change. The Organisation must also not include links on their website to
other organisations’ websites that advocate for State or Federal
legislative change.”
There are so many examples of this government withholding information from the public.
The oft-promised cost-benefit-analyses are suddenly “commercial in
confidence” as are the secret negotiations for the much touted Free
Trade Agreements.
Freedom of Information requests are being denied. The blue books
giving advice to the incoming Coalition Government were unavailable.
Tony Abbott said in that same address in 2012
“Essentially, we are the freedom party. We stand for the freedoms
which Australians have a right to expect and which governments have a
duty to uphold. We stand for freedom and will be freedom’s bulwark
against the encroachments of an unworthy and dishonourable government.”
“From Menzies to Fraser to Howard and to the current government, the
Liberal Party has been the party that gives more freedom,” he wrote in
October last year on the occasion of the Liberal Party’s 70th
anniversary.
Not, however, when it comes to draconian provisions in national security legislation, including jailing journalists for up to 10 years
for disclosing information about anything deemed to be a special
intelligence operation. Nor when it comes to freedom of information,
where the Government is legislating for less freedom.
Appropriately, if coincidentally, it was Scott Morrison – he of the
“on water” matters not to be disclosed to the Australian public – who
introduced the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill
in the House of Representatives, representing Attorney-General Senator
George Brandis. That was two weeks before Abbott’s October comments.
The new bill abolishes the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner, created as an independent position to foster a culture of
open government and to review requests for government information denied
by departments and agencies. The Attorney-General’s department, which
certainly is not independent, takes over some of its functions. Reviews
are sent back to the same government body that rejected the initial
request, with the last resort an appeal to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal.
Abolishing the Information Commissioner runs contrary to the trend in
most of the Australian states and other countries, which have created
similar independent offices.
A Senate inquiry laid bare the government’s other intention: to
reduce access to information. Reviews by the Information Commissioner
cost nothing, whereas an appeal to the AAT incurs a fee of $861, plus
the costs of legal advice and representation, given that government
bodies almost always bring their lawyers to tribunal hearings.
Once again the Australian people will have unnecessarily restricted
access to government information and a complicated, legalistic,
expensive system which defeats many people from even applying for access
to information.
In May, Fairfax Media examined the activities of the North Sydney Forum,
a campaign fund-raising body run by Mr Hockey’s North Sydney Federal
Electoral Conference. They reported that members were granted meetings
with Mr Hockey, including in private boardrooms, in return for annual
fees of up to $22,000.
At the time Mr Hockey said he found the stories “offensive and repugnant” and promptly filed defamation proceedings.
And whilst pondering these obvious examples of hypocrisy and different rules for some, remember how whistleblowers are treated.
Stealing Peter Slipper’s diary and then engaging in a concerted
attempt to destroy a man in the hope of bringing down a government is
fine. Kathy Jackson is “courageous” in her persecution of Craig
Thomson, though any mention of the alleged millions she misappropriated
are a ‘witch hunt’.
When a former ASIO operative reveals that our government engaged in
commercial espionage under the guise of Foreign Aid his passport is
confiscated and his lawyer’s offices are raided and documents seized.
And when Freya Newman reveals that Frances Abbott has been given a
$60,000 scholarship that was not available to anyone else she is
prosecuted. The fact that the White House School of Design is a pollie
pedal sponsor who benefitted greatly from the Abbott government’s
decision to provide funding to private colleges shortly after is no
doubt coincidental.
Freedom of speech, transparency and accountability are rights and responsibilities, but apparently only for some.
No comments:
Post a Comment