DOCSLIB.ORG

Inquiry Into an Independent Integrity Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inquiry Into an Independent Integrity Commission INQUIRY INTO AN INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION S ELECT C OMMITTEE ON AN I NDEPENDENT I NTEGRITY C OMMISSION OCTOBER 2017 INQUIRY INTO AN INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (Chair) Mrs Giulia Jones MLA (Deputy Chair) Ms Bec Cody MLA Ms Elizabeth Lee MLA Mr Chris Steel MLA SECRETARIAT Dr Andréa Cullen AGIA ACIS Committee Secretary Dr Brian Lloyd [Assistance with summarising views put forward at hearings] Ms Lydia Chung Administrative assistance CONTACT INFORMATION Telephone 02 6205 0142 Post GPO Box 1020, CANBERRA ACT 2601 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.act.gov.au i SELECT COMMITTEE ON AN INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT At its meeting on Thursday, 15 December 2016, the Assembly passed the following resolution: "That: (1) a select committee be established to inquire into the most effective and efficient model of an independent integrity commission for the ACT and that the committee make recommendations on the appropriateness of adapting models operating in other similarly-sized jurisdictions, as well as: (a) the personnel structure of the commission to ensure the appropriate carriage of workload; (b) governance and funding that delivers independence; (c) the powers available to a commission; (d) the educative functions of a commission; (e) issues regarding retrospectivity, including human rights, and the timeframes around which former actions can be assessed; (f) the relationship between any commission and existing accountability and transparency mechanisms and bodies in the ACT; and (g) any other relevant matter; (2) the select committee shall consist of the following number of members, composed of: (a) two Members to be nominated by the Government; (b) two Members to be nominated by the Opposition; (c) one Member to be nominated by the Crossbench; and (d) the Chair shall be a Crossbench member; (3) the select committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources; (4) the select committee to report by the end of August 2017 1; (5) if the Assembly is not sitting when the committee has completed its inquiry, the committee may send its report to the Speaker or, in the absence of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker, who is authorised to give directions for its printing, publishing and circulation; (6) the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and (7) nominations for membership of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker within two hours following conclusion of the debate on the matter." 2 1 On 6 June 2017, at its meeting, the Assembly agreed to amend the reporting date to by the end of October 2017. 2 Legislative Assembly for the ACT, Debates, 15 December 2016, pp. 253–254. ii INQUIRY INTO AN INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS Committee membership ............................................................................................. i Secretariat ................................................................................................................... i Contact information ..................................................................................................... i Resolution of appointment .......................................................................................... ii E XECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................IX R ECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... XIII P ART 1 — C ONTEXT TO THE I NQUIRY ...................................... 1 1 I NTRODUCTION AND CONDUCT OF INQUIRY ........................... 1 Inquiry referral and terms of reference ........................................................................ 1 Conduct of the Inquiry ................................................................................................. 2 Structure of the Committee’s report ............................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 6 2 I NQUIRY CONTEXT ...................................................... 7 Purpose of anti-corruption/integrity bodies ................................................................. 7 An anti-corruption/integrity body for the ACT? .......................................................... 10 P ART 2 — V IEWS FROM SUBMITTERS ..................................... 21 3 V IEWS OF SUBMITTERS ................................................ 21 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 21 Common themes ....................................................................................................... 22 Whether the establishment of an independent integrity body is needed in the ACT .... 22 Considerations regarding design, form and functions of an independent integrity body in the ACT ........................................................................................................ 25 Ensuring the effectiveness of an independent integrity body in the ACT ..................... 29 Appointment of commissioner(s) ............................................................................... 31 Funding arrangements ............................................................................................... 33 Jurisdiction of an independent integrity body in the ACT ............................................ 33 Should jurisdiction be extended to include ACT Policing? ........................................... 35 Scope of conduct and definition of corruption and misconduct ................................... 38 Relationships with other integrity stakeholders ......................................................... 40 iii SELECT COMMITTEE ON AN INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION Powers of an independent integrity body in the ACT .................................................. 41 Power to hold hearings .............................................................................................. 45 Civil liberty concerns around the use of investigative and coercive powers ................. 49 Corruption prevention and public education functions ............................................... 50 Citizen participation in the work of an independent integrity body in the ACT ............ 51 Retrospectivity .......................................................................................................... 53 Oversight and governance of an independent integrity body in the ACT ..................... 53 Complaints, complainants (including vexatious complainants) and protections ........... 56 Application of other legislation to an independent integrity body in the ACT .............. 58 Distributed integrity measures .................................................................................. 59 Committee comment ................................................................................................ 61 P ART 3 — V IEWS PUT FORWARD IN HEARINGS ........................... 63 4 V IEWS PUT FORWARD IN HEARINGS— PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................ 63 Role of the Audit Office in the current public sector integrity framework .................... 63 Role of the Ombudsman in the current public sector integrity framework .................. 66 Role of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner ..................................................... 68 Views on gaps and vulnerabilities in the current public sector integrity framework ..... 68 Inter-institutional cooperation and information-sharing ............................................. 68 Complaints-handling ................................................................................................. 70 Definitions of fraud and corruption ............................................................................ 74 The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions ........................................................... 77 Findings of misconduct and corruption versus prosecutions ....................................... 78 Public or private hearings .......................................................................................... 79 Inadmissible knowledge and subsequent proceedings ................................................ 81 5 V IEWS PUT FORWARD IN HEARINGS— PARLIAMENTARY INTEGRITY STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................ 83 Gaps and vulnerabilities in the current parliamentary integrity framework ................. 83 Parliamentary privilege ............................................................................................. 86 Refusal to cooperate ................................................................................................. 89 Persons under contract to government ...................................................................... 90 Ethics and Integrity Advisor’s model for an anti-corruption commission ..................... 91 Whether an anti-corruption commission should conduct public investigations ........... 93 Whether an ACT anti-corruption commissioner should be an Officer of Parliament ..... 97 iv INQUIRY INTO AN INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY COMMISSION 6 V IEWS PUT FORWARD IN HEARINGS— KEY INTEREST GROUPS AND ORGANISATIONS ....................................................... 99 Inner South Canberra Community Council
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recorder 298.Pages
    RECORDER RecorderOfficial newsletter of the Melbourne Labour History Society (ISSN 0155-8722) Issue No. 298—July 2020 • From Sicily to St Lucia (Review), Ken Mansell, pp. 9-10 IN THIS EDITION: • Oil under Troubled Water (Review), by Michael Leach, pp. 10-11 • Extreme and Dangerous (Review), by Phillip Deery, p. 1 • The Yalta Conference (Review), by Laurence W Maher, pp. 11-12 • The Fatal Lure of Politics (Review), Verity Burgmann, p. 2 • The Boys Who Said NO!, p. 12 • Becoming John Curtin and James Scullin (Review), by Nick Dyrenfurth, pp. 3-4 • NIBS Online, p. 12 • Dorothy Day in Australia, p. 4 • Union Education History Project, by Max Ogden, p. 12 • Tribute to Jack Mundey, by Verity Burgmann, pp. 5-6 • Graham Berry, Democratic Adventurer, p. 12 • Vale Jack Mundey, by Brian Smiddy, p. 7 • Tribune Photographs Online, p. 12 • Batman By-Election, 1962, by Carolyn Allan Smart & Lyle Allan, pp. 7-8 • Melbourne Branch Contacts, p. 12 • Without Bosses (Review), by Brendan McGloin, p. 8 Extreme and Dangerous: The Curious Case of Dr Ian Macdonald Phillip Deery His case parallels that of another medical doctor, Paul Reuben James, who was dismissed by the Department of Although there are numerous memoirs of British and Repatriation in 1950 for opposing the Communist Party American communists written by their children, Dissolution Bill. James was attached to the Reserve Australian communists have attracted far fewer Officers of Command and, to the consternation of ASIO, accounts. We have Ric Throssell’s Wild Weeds and would most certainly have been mobilised for active Wildflowers: The Life and Letters of Katherine Susannah military service were World War III to eventuate, as Pritchard, Roger Milliss’ Serpent’s Tooth, Mark Aarons’ many believed.
    [Show full text]
  • RCOA Annual Report 2010-2011 Size
    refugee council of australia annual report 2010/11 www.refugeecouncil.org.au Front cover: Ayan, 16, is one of more than 60,000 people who have fled war- Acknowledgements torn south-central Somalia for Galkayo, in Somalia's Puntland region. Her goal is The Refugee Council of Australia would like to acknowledge the generous to teach the sewing skills that she has support of the following organisations and individuals for the work of the learned to other displaced girls from Council during 2010-11: poor families so they can provide for Funding support: In-kind support: their families. © UNHCR / R.Gangale • AMES Victoria • Majak Daw • Amnesty International Australia • Friends of STARTTS • Australian Cultural Orientation • Yalda Hakim Program, IOM • Carina Hoang • Australian Refugee Foundation • Host 1 Pty Ltd • City of Sydney • Gracia Ngoy • Department of Immigration and • Pitt Street Uniting Church Citizenship • Nicholas Poynder • Leichhardt Council • Timothy Seeto • McKinnon Family Foundation • Shaun Tan • Navitas • UNHCR Regional Office, Canberra • NSW AMES • University of NSW • NSW Community Relations Commission • Najeeba Wazefadost Sections • SBS • Webcity • Victorian Multicultural Commission President’s report 1 RCOA’s objectives 2 and priorities RCOA’s people 4 Refugee settlement policy 5 Asylum policy 8 International links 11 Information and 14 community education Our organisation 15 RCOA members 16 Financial report 20 President’s Report he 2010-11 financial year proved to be one of the most In the public discussion of refugee policy, in our submissions challenging and difficult for national refugee policy, in the and statements and in our private discussions with the T30-year history of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Mr Bernard Collaery
    Appendix Mr Bernard Collaery Pursuant to Resolution 5(7)(b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988 Reply to statement by Senator the Hon George Brandis (4 December 2013) 1. Pursuant to Senate Privilege Resolution 5 of 25 February 1988, I request that you refer this statement to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, and that it be published in the Parliamentary record as a response to a statement of Senator Brandis of 4 December 2013. 2. Senator Brandis’ statement of 4 December 2013 was as follows (Hansard, pp 819–820): Yesterday, search warrants were executed at premises in Canberra by officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and, in the course of the execution of those warrants, documents and electronic data were taken into possession . The premises were those of Mr Bernard Collaery and a former ASIS officer. The names of ASIS officers–whether serving or past– may not be disclosed. The warrants were issued by me, at the request of ASIO, on the grounds that the documents and electronic data in question contained intelligence relating to security matters. By section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, it is a criminal offence for a current or former officer of ASIS to communicate ‘any information or matter that was prepared by or on behalf of ASIS in connection with its functions or relates to the performance by ASIS of its functions’, where the information has come into his possession by reason of his being or having been an officer of ASIS. … Last night, rather wild and injudicious claims were made by Mr Collaery and, disappointingly, by Father Frank Brennan, that the 4 purpose for which the search warrants were issued was to somehow impede or subvert the arbitration.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 CLA 180303
    Chapter 3 – Civil Liberties Australia Expanding freedom from the centre outwards As faster transport and near-instant communications began to overcome the “tyranny of distance” of Australia in the late-20th century, civil liberties in general was not moving far, or fast. In the Australian Capital Territory, a civil liberties group operated for 30 years from 4 June 1969. But as power centralised in the federal parliament, civil liberties in Canberra was down to its last person standing. The Council of Civil Liberties of the ACT formally died at the end of 2001, when the Registrar of Incorporated Associations cancelled its incorporation because the group had not lodged annual returns for three years. When the authors became aware in mid-2001 of the probable de- registration, they sought advice from then- ACT Chief Justice Terry Higgins (photo, with CLA President Dr Kristine Klugman), and were directed to Laurie O’Sullivan, a retired barrister who had run the organisation for all but the last five years of its existence. He bitterly related the tale of the ACT CCL’s death (see ACT Chapter). A nation’s capital obviously should have an active civil liberties watchdog, so the authors decided to incorporate a new body. To ensure it began life free of past political baggage (see ACT chapter), the name chosen was Civil Liberties Australia (ACT) Inc. As CLA was being born in the latter half of 2001, western life and liberty was collapsing. No-one knew when two aircraft crashed into New York’s Twin Towers (on ‘9/ll', or 11 September 2001) by how much or for how long.
    [Show full text]
  • Act Law Society Annual Report 2019-20 Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory
    ACT LAW SOCIETY ANNUAL REPORT 2019-20 LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ABN 60 181 327 029 Level 4, 1 Farrell Place, Canberra City ACT 2601 PO Box 1562, Canberra ACT 2601 | DX 5623 Canberra Phone (02) 6274 0300 | [email protected] www.actlawsociety.asn.au Executive President Chris Donohue Vice Presidents Elizabeth Carroll Peter Cain Secretary George Marques Treasurer Sama Kahn Council-appointed Member Mark Tigwell Immediate Past President Sarah Avery Councillors Radmila Andric Rahul Bedi Farzana Choudhury Timothy Dingwall Alan Hill Gavin Lee Sage Leslie Susan Platis Mark Tigwell Angus Tye Staff Chief Executive Officer Simone Carton Professional Standards Manager Rob Reis Finance & Business Services Manager Lea McLean Executive Secretary Nicole Crossley Professional Standards Committee Secretary Linda Mackay Research Officer Tien Pham Professional Development Officer Carissa Webster Communications Officer Nicole Karman Committee Administrator Tanya Holt Bookkeeper Kathleen Lui Receptionist & LAB Administrator Robyn Guilfoyle Administration Support Janette Graham Leonnie Borzecki © This publication is copyright and no part of it may be reproduced without the consent of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory. The Law Society acknowledges the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the land on which our building is located. ii ACT LAW SOCIETY ANNUAL REPORT 2019-20 PRESIDENT’S REPORT CEO’S REPORT CORPORATE OVERVIEW Role of the Law Society ......................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Witness K, Bernard Collaery Could Have Hearings Split, Court Hears
    Witness K, Bernard Collaery could have hearings split, court hears https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6300134/former-spy-witness-k-and-his-lawyer-could-face- split-hearings-court-hears/?cs=14264 Alexandra Back – The Canberra Times – 30 July 2019 The case of a former spy and his lawyer who exposed an Australian bugging operation against the tiny nation of East Timor could be split and heard in two separate jurisdictions, a court has heard. The spy known only as Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery are accused of conspiring to breach intelligence laws by revealing information about Australia's secret intelligence service. They plan to defend the allegations. Ken Archer, the barrister for Mr Collaery, told the ACT Magistrates Court on Tuesday that his client had a firm view about how he wanted the case to proceed, and that was by indictment and committal to the ACT Supreme Court. The prosecution has consented to that course. That would mean the preliminary hearing to determine national security orders listed for next week would be unnecessary, Mr Archer said, and it could instead be relisted in the higher court at a later date. However, in a parting that could see the two cases heard separately, Robert Richter QC, the barrister appearing for Witness K, said it was "desired" that his client's matter remain in the summary jurisdiction of the ACT Magistrates Court and that the question may soon be resolved with prosecutors by consent. Mr Richter also said they were hopeful of coming to an agreement with the Commonwealth on a set of agreed national security orders.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 MAY 2019 Friday, 10 May 2019
    NINTH ASSEMBLY 10 MAY 2019 www.hansard.act.gov.au Friday, 10 May 2019 Distinguished visitors ............................................................................................... 1507 Visitors ..................................................................................................................... 1508 Self-government in the territory—30th anniversary ................................................ 1508 Mark of reconciliation—gift of possum skin cloak (Statement by Speaker) ........... 1522 Adjournment ............................................................................................................ 1522 Legislative Assembly for the ACT Friday, 10 May 2019 MADAM SPEAKER (Ms J Burch) took the chair at 10 am, made a formal recognition that the Assembly was meeting on the lands of the traditional custodians, and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Distinguished visitors MADAM SPEAKER: Members, before I call the Chief Minister I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a number of former members. I would like to acknowledge: Chris Bourke Bernard Collaery Helen Watchirs, representing the late Terry Connolly Greg Cornwell AO Rosemary Follett AO Ellnor Grassby Harold Hird OAM Lucy Horodny Gary Humphries AO Dorothy and son Kevin Jeffery, representing the late Val Jeffery Norm Jensen Sandy Kaine, representing the late Trevor Kaine Louise Littlewood Karin MacDonald Roberta McRae OAM Michael Moore AM Richard Mulcahy Paul Osborne Mary Porter AM David Prowse Marion Reilly Dave Rugendyke Brendan Smyth 1507 10 May 2019 Legislative Assembly for the ACT Bill Stefaniak AM Helen Szuty Andrew Whitecross Bill Wood On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to you. I welcome all former members joining us in this quite significant celebration. Visitors MADAM SPEAKER: I would also like to acknowledge the two former clerks, Don Piper and Mark McRae.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Tweaks That Would Change NSW and the Nation
    Legal Tweaks that would change NSW and the nation. 2018 Edited By Janai Tabbernor, Elise Delpiano and Blake Osmond Published By New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers Artistic Design By Lewis Hamilton Cover Design By Laura Mowat Our Mission The New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers aims, through scholarship and advoca- cy, to effect positive and equitable change in substantive and procedural law, the adminis- tration of justice, the legal profession, the provision of legal services and legal aid, and legal education. Copyright 2018 New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers INC9896948. The 2018 Committee is Lewis Hamilton, Janai Tabbernor, Jade Tyrrell, Claire Pullen, Kirk McKenzie, Tom Kelly, Eliot Olivier, Rose Khalilizadeh, Philip Boncardo, Stephen Lawrence, Tina Zhou and Clara Edwards. Disclaimer Any views or opinions expressed are those of the individual authors and do not necessari- ly reflect the views and opinions of the New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers or of the Australian Labor Party. Moreover, any organisations represented in this publication are not expressing association with the New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers or the Australian Labor Party. Acknowledgements Our thanks goes to all those who contributed to this publication, and to the lawyers before them who built the modern Australian Labor Party and embedded social justice in our national identity. We especially thank our sponsors, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, who carry on the inspiring legacy of Maurice McRae Blackburn, a champion lawyer and a federal Labor MP. 2 INTRODUCTIONLegal TweaksFAMILY LAW 1. Foreword - Mark Dreyfus QC MP 37. Janai Tabbernor 2. Foreword - Paul Lynch MP 38.
    [Show full text]
  • 01 January 2021 Clarion
    CLArion Issue No 2101–01, January 2021 CLA on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CivilLibertiesAus/ Email newsletter of Civil Liberties Australia (A04043) Email: Secretary(at)cla.asn.au Web: http://www.cla.asn.au/ ____________________________________________ Is Australia a nation of justice? As we put 2020 vision behind us, it’s an opportunity to evaluate the ramifications of a health pandemic on rights and liberties. For example, why was emergency behaviour by governments, authorities and police more draconian in some places than others? Victoria locking down nine tower blocks without any forewarning is a case in point. The Ombudsman found it breached the state’s human rights law. https://tinyurl.com/y8kllkak How can we create better emergency laws for the future, so that people have a real right to contest decisions – in a timely fashion – that are anti-freedoms…and sometimes just plain stupid. For example, no- one has yet explained why preventing people leaving Australia to go overseas was sensible? With virtually no demand for flights out of Australia, there was no demand for flights into Australia, so making it harder for Australians to get home. The pandemic has thrown up fundamental questions about how we’re governed, and how we could improve both the governing mechanisms and governance-with-propriety in future. Certainly, 2021 will likely be a year to tackle core issues of citizenship, an Indigenous treaty, rights and responsibilities (and the issue of a human rights act), as well as the mix-and-match interactions between the authoritarian silos and ivory towers that can apparently take over society at a moment’s notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontiers in International Environmental Law: Oceans
    chapter 2 Water and Soil, Blood and Oil Demarcating the Frontiers of Australia, Indonesia and Timor- Leste David Dixon 1 Frontiers, Borders and Boundaries This chapter explores frontiers as political and economic constructs, focusing on the contested borders and boundaries of Timor-Leste.* At its centre is a dispute about the maritime boundary between Timor-Leste and Australia in which access to hydrocarbon resources in the Timor Sea has been at stake. In 2018, Timor- Leste and Australia signed a Treaty ‘to settle finally their mari- time boundaries in the Timor Sea’ (2018 Treaty).1 Despite considerable mutual self- congratulation,2 this treaty does not finalise the boundary (instead cre- ating an anomalous and temporary enclave to accommodate Australia’s eco- nomic interests). Nor does it deal conclusively with the crucial question of who should extract oil and gas or where processing should be carried out: it could not do so, for these decisions are ultimately not for nation states but for international corporations. To them, frontiers are less about pride and security than about opportunities and obstacles. This indicates a broader theme: bor- ders and boundaries may be products not of the rational application of legal principles, but rather of political (often symbolic) concerns about sovereignty and of pragmatic, economic interests in resources allocated to states by fron- tier delineations. * Acknowledgements: This paper is written in tribute to David Freestone, a friend and for- mer colleague who has taught me much, not least the importance of academic integrity and commitment. As well as thanking David, I acknowledge Richard Barnes, Clinton Fernandes, Patrick Earle, José Ramos-Horta and the extraordinary people at Laˊo Hamutuk and Timor- Leste’s Marine Boundary Office.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Witness K' Lawyer Bernard Collaery Got Jail Warning from Government
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-28/australian-spys-lawyer-threatened-with-jail-over-book/10155892 By Steve Cannane, ABC Investigations Updated Mon 27 Aug 2018, 11:42pm PHOTO: An activist paints the Australian Embassy wall during a protest in 2013 in Dili. (AAP/EPA: Antonio Dasiparu) The lawyer who helped expose an Australian spying operation on its ally Timor-Leste was given a chilling warning by the Federal Government, just months before charges were filed against him for breaches of the Intelligence Services Act. Lawyer Bernard Collaery has written a book the publisher says raises In a legal letter obtained by the ABC, Bernard Collaery was warned that if important questions about the he disclosed secret information about the Australian Secret Intelligence "integrity of systems of government" in Service (ASIS) in his book, due to be published next year, he could face "a Australia The Canberra lawyer and his client, maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment". former ASIS spy Witness K, have been summoned to appear in court The letter from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) warns he does next month not have approval to make "broader disclosures about ASIS staff members Experts are questioning why Mr and ASIS activities, much less to the world at large". Collaery and Witness K are being prosecuted years after evidence was It points out Mr Collaery agreed to particular rules — including a "secrecy gathered in raids undertaking" — so that he could legally represent an Australian spy. 'Witness K' lawyer Bernard Collaery got jail warning from Governme... 8/28/2018, 12:54 AM http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-28/australian-spys-lawyer-threatened-with-jail-over-book/10155892 PHOTO: Canberra lawyer Bernard Collaery has authored a book about Australia's relations with Timor-Leste.
    [Show full text]
  • Debunking Dreyfus on Free Speech and Freedom
    Disclaimer : Nothing in this letter should be construed as threatening nor advocating unlawful acts. Suspects are innocent until the facts against them are proven and convicted in a court of justice. This does not discuss the contents of the current super-injunction. Debunking Dreyfus on Free Speech and Freedom Author: Brendan Jones Brisbane, QLD, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Being an Open Letter to ALP Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus MP QC regarding his speech to the HRC Free Speech 2014 Symposium Cc: Director-General of Security – ASIO, David Irvine (pp. 62-65) Online at: http://victimsofdsto.com/debunking-drefyus/ Page 1 of 66(218) September 10(11), 2014 NoFibs Journalist: “I’m a strong free speech advocate ... So I’m thrilled that shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus QC has taken a stand and wish him success in the long hard climb ahead.” 98 Brendan Jones: “Mr. Dreyfus is no advocate for free speech, but the fact that he has convinced you he is – and in just one short speech – has persuaded me he’s a first class barrister.” 98 Journalist Martin Hirst: “I loved that he rubbed their pretty little noses in it. He made the point strongly that the so-called “marketplace of ideas” is a conservative myth that bears little relation to reality.” 98 133 Brendan Jones: “All Dreyfus did was say he rejected it. He never explained why. Google "Sophistry"” 98 131 US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo: ‘Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.’ US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary.
    [Show full text]