Federal Liberal MP for Bowman Andrew Laming is in the news again for all the wrong reasons

 

The Guardian, 21 December 2021:

The Australian Electoral Commission has launched legal action against Liberal MP Andrew Laming for allegedly failing to disclose his political links on a Facebook page which appeared to be operating under the guise of a grassroots community group.

The federal court proceedings come after Guardian Australia revealed in April that the Queensland MP was operating 35 Facebook groups – with at least one for each suburb in his electorate.

The AEC is launching action based on just one of the 35 sites, which was called “Redland Hospital: Let’s fight for fair funding,” set up by Laming ahead of the last federal election to campaign against Labor.

It is the first time the AEC’s authorisation requirements for social media will be tested in court after disclosure laws were updated following the 2016 election to explicitly include social media posts.

According to the AEC website the penalty for a breach by an individual can be a fine of up to $26,640.

In a statement, the AEC said it had instituted federal court proceedings against Laming “alleging he failed to authorise Facebook posts leading up to the 2019 Federal Election”.

“The AEC alleges that Dr Laming published unauthorised electoral matter in the form of a Facebook page, ‘Redland Hospital: Lets fight for fair funding’ and that this contravened the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 requirement that material promoting one candidate or political party over another comply with the authorisation requirements of the Act.”

“The AEC will not be making any further comment as this matter is now before the Court.”…..

Is NSW Berejiklian Government walking back its 2019 election pledge to fix traffic congestion on the Bruxner Highway - at the Dawson St intersection - in favour of a short-term fix elsewhere?

 

In the lead up to the 2019 state election, the NSW Berejiklian Government committed $6 million to upgrade Ballina Road (Bruxner Highway) at Dawson Street in Lismore.

Echo NetDaily, 19 February 2019, excerpt from article:

L to R: RMS regional manager John Alexander, Nationals Lismore candidate Austin Curtin, roads minister Melinda Pavey and Nationals Lismore MP Thomas George at the roundabout.

Ms Pavey then moved on to Lismore where, together with retiring member Thomas George and Nationals candidate Austin Curtin she announced $6 million for the Dawson Street, Bruxner Highway intersection, replacing the existing roundabout with traffic lights.

Mrs Pavey said a concept plan for the new traffic signals had already been completed, which meant design work on the new traffic lights would start immediately.

‘Traffic lights will be coordinated with other signal sites in Lismore, providing the greatest level of efficiency and safety for all road users,’ Mrs Pavey said.

She added that, if returned, the government would start work on concept designs for the intersection immediately and community consultation would occur in the second half of 2019…..

Now, having lost the seat of Lismore to Labor at that 2019 state election, the Berejiklian Government appears to be walking away from its specific election promise:

Based on these investigations and the level of funding currently available, installing traffic signals at Molesworth Street intersection is considered the best short term solution to ease congestion and improve local access, connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. [my yellow highlighting]

This "solution" reduces parking availability for residents in the area, along with the removal of some mature trees within the road reserve. It does add traffic lights and new footpaths at this Molesworth Street intersection.

However, it is unclear just how enthusiastic the Lismore community is about this site change.

From the Office of  NSW Labor MLA for Lismore Janelle Saffin, media release, 9 July 2021:

Government changes tack on congestion-busting pledge

STATE MP Janelle Saffin is urging locals to give feedback to the NSW Government on significant changes it is making to its February 2019 election pledge to fix traffic congestion and improve safety on the Bruxner Highway in downtown Lismore.

Ms Saffin, who has been pressing the Government to release its plans for public comment, said people remember the election commitment to spend $6 million on traffic lights and improvements to the Bruxner Highway-Dawson Street intersection.

“Transport for NSW and Lismore City Council have carried out investigations and traffic modelling, and now the Transport recommendation is that this upgrade should occur at the Bruxner Highway-Molesworth Street intersection,” Ms Saffin said.

“I have been in a continued conversation with NSW Minister for Regional Transport and Roads Paul Toole’s office and Transport for NSW on this issue, and while it’s good that there is finally some movement, we, as a community of stakeholders, still need to be persuaded.

“All those residents living on the southern side of the highway, in the Girards Hill area, were very keen on the Dawson Street project, so they have to be convinced that Molesworth Street will provide the best long-term solution.”

Ms Saffin said she had lodged Questions on Notices to hold the Government to account on delivering its election commitment, and to highlight the congestion of this ‘gateway’ roundabout which copes with 25,000 motorists every day.

Minister Toole’s latest response from March 25 this year read: “Transport for NSW is developing a number of traffic, walking and cycling improvements within Lismore to improve safety and traffic efficiency, and walkability on the Bruxner Highway within the town centre.

“Transport for NSW will invite the community to comment on the proposed improvements shortly. The improvements include new traffic signals in the town centre, which are currently underway and due to be completed by the end of 2021,” Mr Toole answered.

Further information about the proposal, including a design layout, go to

https://nswroads.work/molesworthstreet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Former Australian Attorney-General and current Minister for Industry, Science and Technology & Liberal MP for Pearce Christian Porter's campaign to rehabilitate his reputation

Crikey 7 June 2021:

After months mired in historical rape allegations, Christian Porter is trying to focus on the fight for his political survival. To do so, the senior Coalition minister is spending more money on social media advertising than any other Australian politician.

Since Porter outed himself as the subject of a letter sent to the prime minister and other MPs accusing him of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl in 1988 — allegations he strenuously denies — attention on him has been through the lens of the accusations.

The sudden end to Porter’s defamation action against the ABC, and NSW Police ruling out reopening the case, means this could be the end of formal proceedings — unless an inquiry into the allegations is called.

But Porter’s not out of the woods yet. His hold on the seat of Pearce is looking less than certain. The once blue-ribbon Liberal seat is set to be redistricted in August, removing many of the traditionally conservative rural voting areas. The ABC’s Antony Green expects this cuts about 2.5% off Porter’s 7.5% margin.

Faced with a reduced margin and months of negative media attention, Porter’s use of social media reveals how he is using digital tools to try win his seat.

Porter has regularly used Facebook advertising to promote Facebook and Instagram posts about his ministerial portfolios and electorate matters. This advertising suddenly stopped on February 28, two days after the letter’s existence was reported.

After a three-month break, just before he entered into mediation with the ABC over the defamation case, the minister’s Facebook began running more than a dozen advertisements.

Last week he was Australia’s eighth largest spender on Facebook ads about social issues, elections or politics. He spent $8627 between March 26 and June 1, more than any other Australian politician or political party. This weekly spend is a third of his total spend on Facebook advertising since it began being recorded in August 2020. Unlike other government ministers advertising on Facebook, each one of Porter’s advertisements were targeted to Western Australian Facebook users — many specifically mention Pearce or policies specific to it.

All but one of the promoted posts don’t feature Porter all. (The sole post depicting him was by far his most promoted, with half the money spent on a video on May 28 featuring him talking about Australian Made Week and his electorate. It cost somewhere between $3500 and $4000 to show the video to more than 90,000 people in WA……

What this shows is that after going to ground, Porter is back with a near singular focus: convincing West Australian voters to vote him back in. And he’s willing to spend like he’s never spent before to change the topic away from allegations that — despite the end of formal proceedings — still haunt him.

It’s looking more and more like 2021 is going to be a federal election year.

 

It’s looking more and more like 2021 is going to be a federal election year if the actions of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are anything to go by.

Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison has been parading himself before the cameras at Williamtown, NSW.

The PM arrives at RAAF Base Williamtown in the Hunter to make a defence announcement on the Joint Strike Fighter program, with 'Highway to the Danger Zone' blaring in the background. @SBSNews #AusPol #TopGun pic.twitter.com/gSFLg7C8ev

— Naveen Razik (@naveenjrazik) February 8, 2021

Giving thumbs up and knocking elbows at every opportunity.

Leader of the Opposition & Labor MP for Grayndler Anthony Albanese has been busy tweeting assurances.

The Federal Opposition Leader @AlboMP has used a visit to the Fraser Coast to pledge a boost for manufacturing jobs, if Labor wins the next election. https://t.co/kDhhmxDYB0 @TheRosieOBrien #auspol #7NEWS pic.twitter.com/gNM7ia8ttU

— 7NEWS Wide Bay (@7NewsWideBay) February 9, 2021

Child care for when we grow up.

Medicare for when we get sick.

Aged care for when we grow old.

Governments should be there for people.

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) February 1, 2021

In an effort to differentiate the two Coalition brands, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party & MP for Riverina Michael McCormack managed to wreck his senior partner's latest crafted 'announcement' on climate change policy.

IMAGE: @QuentinDempster

While Labor MP for Bruce Julian Hill decided to fire an early shot across LNP bows….

Australia’s Global Performance: Falling Behind, February 2021:

When Scott Morrison won the 2019 election, he opened his

victory speech by rhetorically asking:

How good is Australia!?”

Since then, the Prime Minister has developed a truly inane habit of asking that same question over and over and over again.

Expecting that no one will ever bother to answer.

But, it is a question that can be answered.

And, unfortunately for the PM, the answer is:

“not as good anymore – going backwards, and being left behind”

Australia is less productive, more unequal, more corrupt, less happy, more indebted, less affluent, and less trusting of public institutions than when the Liberal National Party government was elected in 2013.

Australia was once a world leader in so many areas – economic growth, reform, democratic innovation, industrial relations, fairness, healthcare and education.

While like any country we have had our faults and historic failures, successive governments and communities were committed to working together to make things better for all Australians.

But now, after seven years of this Liberal government, Australia is no longer a world leader but increasingly a world laggard…..

Australia is going backwards under the Liberals, and falling behind much of the rest of the world. Australians are being left behind in areas critical to daily life and wellbeing.

• Real wages in Australia were 0.7% lower in 2019 compared to 2013, and Australia sat in third last place out of 35 OECD countries for wage growth.

• Australia ranked 5th last in the OECD in terms of its productivity rates. In fact, Australian productivity was negative at -0.3%. Household debt as a share of GDP is 119.4% — now the 2nd highest rate of 43 countries.

• Australia ranks behind Uganda at 87th out of 133 countries globally for economic complexity.

• Australia has the third most unaffordable housing market and is the 11th most unequal OECD nation.

• Australia’s rate of greenhouse gas emissions per capita has been the highest in the world.

• Australian children’s educational outcomes have slipped in both national and international terms.

• Broadband speeds are now so slow that Australia ranks 61st in the world.

• International corruption rankings show Australia is becoming more corrupt, and Australians are increasingly distrustful of government.

• Australia now ranks 8th out of 11 high-income countries for healthcare affordability.

Yes, it is going to be an interesting year.

Were you wondering why so many federal political parties & their candidates never seem to be held accountable for how they fund election campaigns? Well, wonder no more

”The AEC does not appropriately act upon identified non-compliance. It is not making effective use of its enforcement powers and as such has not implemented a graduated approach to managing and acting on identified non-compliance.” [ANAO, “Administration of Financial Disclosure Requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act”, 17 September 2020]

After quite a few Australians on social media bragged on Monday of last week about our independent agency conducting federal elections, it seems we all found out three days later that in fact it has rather mucky feet of clay......

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Auditor-General Report No. 8 Of 2020–21, Administration of Financial Disclosure Requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, excerpt:

Conclusion

6. The AEC‘s management of the financial disclosures required under Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is partially effective.

7. The arrangements that the AEC has in place to administer the financial disclosure scheme are limited in their effectiveness as:

a. across the four year period examined, while the AEC has obtained 5882 annual and election returns, as at 30 June 2020, 75 returns have not been obtained. There have also been delays with the submission of returns to the AEC with 22 per cent of annual returns and 17 per cent of election returns lodged after the legislated due date;

b. the AEC does not make effective use of available data sources to identify entities that may have a disclosure obligation that have not submitted a return;

c. there is insufficient evidence that the returns that have been provided are accurate and complete;

d. there is limited analysis undertaken of returns that are obtained; and

e. risks to the financial disclosure scheme are not managed in accordance with the risk management framework.

8. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities are partially effective with the result that the AEC is not well placed to provide assurance that disclosure returns are accurate and complete.

Supporting findings

9. Across the four year period examined by the ANAO the AEC has obtained 5882 annual and election returns, and as at 30 June 2020, has not obtained 75 returns. Compliance with legislated timeframes has also been an issue, with 22 per cent of annual returns and 17 per cent of election returns lodged after the legislated due date. Forty four entities have submitted annual returns on average over 30 days late on two or more occasions, with 12 (27 per cent) having lodged, on two or more occasions, on average over 120 days late. Additionally, the AEC does not make effective use of available data sources to identify entities that may have a disclosure obligation and have not submitted a return.

10. There is insufficient evidence that annual and election returns are accurate and complete. While the AEC checks that all fields have been completed and looks for some obvious errors it does not compare the figures disclosed with other data available from internal or external sources, instead relying on its annual compliance review program to provide sufficient evidence that the annual and election returns are accurate and complete.

11. The effectiveness of the analysis undertaken by the AEC is limited. Annual returns submitted by third parties and donors are not analysed. Election returns submitted by candidates, senate groups or election donors are not analysed. The analysis that is undertaken of annual returns submitted by political parties and associated entities is limited as there is no detailed analysis of the financial information, and effective data analytics and data matching techniques are not employed by the AEC.

12. Risks to the financial disclosure scheme have not been managed in accordance with the AEC’s risk management framework. While the risk appetite and tolerance statement of this framework states that the AEC has a low/moderate risk tolerance for risks associated with the disclosure function there is no evidence that risks relating to all entities that have a disclosure obligation have been assessed and are being managed appropriately. Additionally, there is no treatment plan in place for the risk that has been identified by the AEC, being the risk of non-compliance by political parties.

13. While the AEC has identified some lessons that it could learn from other electoral bodies that regulate financial disclosure schemes, there is little evidence of any resulting changes having been made to how the Commonwealth scheme is administered. The AEC has also not taken adequate steps to implement agreed recommendations from a review it commissioned in 2012 of the disclosure compliance function (which concluded that the AEC needed to become more proactive in its approach).

14. The AEC does not apply an appropriate risk based approach to planning and conducting compliance activities.

• While most reviews are planned on the basis of a risk assessment, there are a number of limitations in the risk assessment methodology employed.

• Over the period assessed the AEC did not undertake a compliance review of any election donor returns or of any annual returns that included no financial disclosures (that is, a nil return).

• The number of reviews, and the resources allocated to them, have declined considerably across the five year period analysed. These reductions do not reflect an assessment that the risk of non-disclosure or non-compliance has reduced and this situation is also at odds with the significant growth that has occurred in the total value of receipts and other figures included in the financial disclosure returns provided to the AEC.

15. Planned compliance activities are not implemented in a timely and effective manner. Of the 168 reviews that were planned to have been conducted over the five year period examined by the ANAO, 58 (35 per cent) have not been completed. While completion rates have improved in the last two years this is due to the AEC significantly reducing the number of planned reviews, narrowing the scope of planned reviews, and reducing the value of the transactions being tested. There has also been a marked decline in the number of full reviews that are being conducted on large entities with disclosure obligations.

16. The AEC does not appropriately act upon identified non-compliance. It is not making effective use of its enforcement powers and as such has not implemented a graduated approach to managing and acting on identified non-compliance.

The full report at:

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-financial-disclosure-requirements-under-the-commonwealth-electoral-act

Facebook Inc. removes Nazi hate symbol from Trump election campaign ads

The President of the United States is campaigning for reelection using a Nazi concentration camp symbol.

Nazis used the red triangle to mark political prisoners and people who rescued Jews.

Trump & the RNC are using it to smear millions of protestors.

Their masks are off. pic.twitter.com/UzmzDaRBup

— Bend the Arc: Jewish Action (@jewishaction) June 18, 2020

After Twitter began to discuss certain election campaign ads being run on behalf of Donald Trump's re-election bid Facebook quickly removed the symbol.

National Public Radio NPR reported on the same day that:

The Trump campaign responded by drawing a lighthearted comparison to the red triangle symbol: "This is an emoji." 

The campaign also falsely claimed that the symbol is used by antifa groups and noted that it is not in the Anti-Defamation League Hate Symbols Database. 

In an interview with NPR, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, pointed out that the database is not a collection of historical Nazi imagery.

It should be noted that the triangle emoji approved in 2015 is an up pointing triangle. There is no down pointing approved emoji.

Trump himself was not tweeting an immediate response to Facebook's action, nor did he do so in the following days. 

He appeared to be much more exercised by future US Supreme Court appointments (in light of the same court upholding the legality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program) and former national security advisor John Bolton's tell-all book "The Room Where It Happened" due for release soon.

On blaming the wrong people for an election result.....

https://youtu.be/6I_ZhGHxnHQ

Facebook Inc flouts US state political campaign finance laws yet again

The arrogance of Facebook Inc. apparently includes breaking the law repeatedly. 

Washington State, Office of the Attorney-General, media release, 14 April 2020:

AG FERGUSON SUES FACEBOOK FOR REPEATEDLY VIOLATING WASHINGTON CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

Facebook violated its own policy and sold more than half a million dollars to Washington political committees — and failed to follow the law 

OLYMPIA — Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a campaign finance lawsuit today against Facebook for selling Washington state political ads without maintaining information for the public as required by Washington state campaign finance law. The complaint asserts that Facebook intentionally violated the state’s campaign finance disclosure law, which was first adopted by initiative in 1972 and reenacted and amended multiple times since 1976 by the Legislature. 

Ferguson has now twice taken legal action against Facebook for similar violations of Washington’s law on political advertising. Ferguson’s June 2018 lawsuit resolved in December 2018 with Facebook paying $238,000 – a $200,000 penalty and an additional $38,000 to reimburse the state’s legal costs and fees. 

Facebook subsequently announced a new policy that it would no longer sell Washington state political ads. Ferguson did not request Facebook to stop selling ads to Washington state political candidates. Facebook’s voluntary policy was not required by the consent decree signed by the court. Facebook adopted the policy unilaterally rather than comply with state campaign finance law. 

As has been well reported, Facebook continues to sell advertisements to Washington state political committees – contrary to its voluntary policy. When it sells political ads in Washington state, Facebook fails to maintain legally required information about the ads, and make that information available to the public – a violation of state law. 

Since November 2018, Facebook sold hundreds of ads to at least 171 Washington state political committees. The 171 committees paid Facebook at least $525,000 for these ads. Facebook ran these ads without maintaining the legally required information, as our transparency laws require. 

Prior to 2018, the Attorney General had independent authority to enforce campaign finance laws in Washington state. In 2018, the State Legislature amendment that law to remove that independent jurisdiction and require a referral from the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). In February, the PDC referred the case to Ferguson after finding the tech company “repeatedly violated” campaign finance law. 

“Whether you’re a tech giant or a small newspaper, those who sell political ads must follow our campaign finance law,” Ferguson said. “Washingtonians have a right to know who’s behind the ads seeking to influence their vote.” 

Today’s lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, asserts that Facebook hosted hundreds of ads in violation of state law since the time it announced it would stop accepting Washington state political ads. 

Facebook sells Washington state political ads in violation of its own policy

Two Washingtonians, Eli Sanders and Tallman Trask, reported to the PDC that Facebook had sold a total of 269 political ads to 12 Washington state political committees for approximately $20,000, yet failed to make legally required information about these ads available for inspection to the public. Facebook confirmed these figures. 

State investigators subsequently identified at least an additional 159 Washington state political committees that ran ads on Facebook since November 2018. Facebook collected more than half a million dollars from these committees, which include both candidate and initiative campaigns. Due to Facebook’s widespread failure to comply with the law, it is currently unknown how many total political advertisements or electioneering communications these 159 campaigns or committees sponsored on Facebook with their collective ad buy of more than half a million dollars. 

Facebook’s failure to comply with Washington law 

The PDC adopted specific rules for digital political advertisers in November 2019. These rules carry the force of law. 

Washington campaign finance law requires commercial advertisers like Facebook to collect information on the sources and payments of political advertising and make it available for public inspection within 24 hours of the ad’s publication. 

The law requires Facebook and other commercial advertisers to maintain the following information regarding ads they sell so that the information is available for public inspection: 

• The name of the candidate or measure supported or opposed; 
• The dates the advertiser provided the service; 
• The name and address of the person who sponsored the advertising; and The total cost of the advertising, who paid for it (which may be different than the sponsor) and what method of payment they used. 

Facebook places Washington political ads and information about them in an online, publicly available Ad Library. However, the Ad Library does not include all the information that Washington law requires advertisers to maintain and make available to the public about political ads in the state. 

Specifically, the PDC identified the following required information that Facebook failed to maintain in its Ad Library for Washington political ads: 

• The address of the person who sponsored the advertising; 
• The precise cost and and dates of payment; 
• The name of the person making payment for the advertising; and 
• The method of payment. 

Ferguson’s lawsuit seeks the imposition of a civil penalty, an injunction requiring Facebook to maintain and make available for public inspection all legally mandated information for Washington political ads on its platform; and reimbursement of the state’s legal cost and fees.  

Intentional violation 

Ferguson’s complaint asserts that Facebook intentionally violated Washington campaign finance law. Washington law allows a judge to triple campaign finance penalties if he or she finds the defendant intentionally violated the law. By law, campaign finance penalties go to the State Public Disclosure Transparency Account. 

Assistant Attorneys General Todd Sipe and Zach Pekelis Jones are handling the case against Facebook. 

ENDS

Australia finally gathers its courage and takes Facebook Inc to court over Cambridge Analytica privacy breaches

Office of the Australian Privacy Commissioner, media release, 9 March 2020:

The Australian Information Commissioner has lodged proceedings against Facebook in the Federal Court, alleging the social media platform has committed serious and/or repeated interferences with privacy in contravention of Australian privacy law. 

The Commissioner alleges that the personal information of Australian Facebook users was disclosed to the This is Your Digital Life app for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was collected, in breach of the Privacy Act 1988. The information was exposed to the risk of being disclosed to Cambridge Analytica and used for political profiling purposes, and to other third parties. 

“All entities operating in Australia must be transparent and accountable in the way they handle personal information, in accordance with their obligations under Australian privacy law,” Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk said. 

“We consider the design of the Facebook platform meant that users were unable to exercise reasonable choice and control about how their personal information was disclosed. 

“Facebook’s default settings facilitated the disclosure of personal information, including sensitive information, at the expense of privacy. 

“We claim these actions left the personal data of around 311,127 Australian Facebook users exposed to be sold and used for purposes including political profiling, well outside users’ expectations.” 

The statement of claim lodged in the Federal Court today alleges that, from March 2014 to May 2015, Facebook disclosed the personal information of Australian Facebook users to This Is Your Digital Life, in breach of Australian Privacy Principle 6. Most of those users did not install the app themselves, and their personal information was disclosed via their friends’ use of the app. 

The statement of claim also alleges that Facebook did not take reasonable steps during this period to protect its users’ personal information from unauthorised disclosure, in breach of Australian Privacy Principle 11. 

Commissioner Falk considers that these were systemic failures to comply with Australian privacy laws by one of the world’s largest technology companies. 

Background 

The documents filed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) in the Federal Court are: 

• Concise statement 

• Statement of claim (excluding material asserted to be confidential by Facebook) 

• Originating application 

The OAIC is an independent statutory agency established to promote and uphold privacy and information access rights. It has a range of regulatory responsibilities and powers under the Privacy Act 1988, Freedom of Information Act 1982 and Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010. 

The Privacy Act includes 13 legally binding Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) which apply to agencies and organisations covered by the Privacy Act (APP entities). 

APP 6 provides that ‘if an APP entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a particular purpose, the entity must not use or disclose the information for another purpose (the secondary purpose), unless the individual has consented to the use or disclosure’ (or another exception applies). 

APP 11 provides that ‘if an APP entity holds personal information, the entity must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances, to protect the information from misuse, interference and loss, and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.’ 

The Commissioner may apply to the Federal Court for a civil penalty order alleging that an APP entity has engaged in serious and/or repeated interferences with privacy in contravention of s 13G of the Privacy Act. 

The Federal Court can impose a civil penalty of up to $1,700,000 for each serious and/or repeated interference with privacy (as per the penalty rate applicable in 2014–15).

Quotes of the Week

"As the press gallery ate up Shearer Scotty, down the road taxpayers were being fleeced." [Social media commentator Ronni Salt writing in Crikey on 17 February 2020 about the rorting of  government funding during the 2019 federal election campaign]

“If there was a case of a young white boy with blond hair who later dabbled in class A drugs, and conspired with a friend to beat up a journalist, would he deport that boy? Or is it one rule for black boys from the Caribbean and another for white boys from the United States?” [UK Labour Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn asking a question in Parliament on 12 February 2020 which contained a thinly disguised description of Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson]

‘Grant from Auditing’ dropped ‘Scotty from Marketing’ right in it and the net result is a strong stench of corruption emanating from the Morrison government

New Matilda, 14 February 2020:

Summer rains finally fell on large parts of New South Wales this week. They didn’t fall everywhere, and much of inland Australia is still in drought, but enough rain fell where it was needed to allow weary fire authorities to announce that the New South Wales bushfires were finally contained.

For different reasons, Scott Morrison has also had a difficult summer, so the Prime Minister would no doubt have been pleased the bushfire emergency he so badly mishandled is now receding. With Parliament back and the serious matter of COVID-19 Coronavirus to attend to, Morrison could be forgiven for thinking that February would be the month where the government could regain the political initiative.

But that’s not happening, because the government finds itself mired in a series of corruption scandals.

The key issue, as it has been for weeks now, is the sports rorts affair. As we now know, roughly $100 million in sports grants were distributed in a completely corrupt manner by former Sports Minister Bridget McKenzie before the 2019 federal election.

The scandal blew up after the National Audit Office released a devastating report into the orgy of pork barrelling.

The government’s initial response to the Audit was to try and downplay it: a variation of the classic “nothing to see here, folks” line. Morrison himself argued many times that no rules had been broken and that all the projects funded in McKenzie’s dodgy process were eligible.

That approach proved unsustainable, as the media turned its attention to the grants program and uncovered multiple instances of highly dubious decision-making. Huge grants to fancy rowing clubs in Mosman, grants for female change rooms to clubs with no female players, grants to a shooting club that McKenzie herself was a member of, grants that sporting clubs boasted about before even receiving them – the more journalists dug, the worse things seemed.

The Audit report was always going to be difficult to wriggle away from. The report set down, in black and white, a devastating series of findings about the sports grants program.

An established funding program was subverted by a “parallel process” of political decision making inside McKenzie’s office, quite transparently driven by political interest. Questions were raised about the program’s probity by senior bureaucrats, only to be batted away by McKenzie and her staff. A colour-coded spreadsheet was even drawn up, one that had nothing to do with the merits of the funding applications, and everything to do with the Coalition’s re-election strategy.

As former senior New South Wales judge Stephen Charles QC argued, this was not just ministerial misconduct; it was corruption.

So, after weeks of defending her, Morrison bowed to the inevitable and sacked McKenzie. After a hastily convened investigation by Morrison’s hand-picked Secretary of the Department of Prime Minster and Cabinet, Phil Gaetjens, McKenzie was sent on her way.

On the day he sacked McKenzie, Morrison announced that Gaetjens’ report found that McKenzie had erred, but that the program itself was sound. Exactly how Gaetjens managed to come to that conclusion is something that has puzzled journalists and onlookers. If the program was sound, why was McKenzie sacked for rorting it? And if McKenzie rorted it, how could the program be sound?

Just to make matters more opaque, Gaetjens’ report was never released, with Morrison claiming that it was a cabinet document. He therefore kept it secret. It’s marvellous stuff, this open government business…..

In scathing testimony, Auditor-General Grant Hehir and senior auditor Brian Boyd demolished the government’s position with a few well-chosen lines.

Were all the grants eligible, Senator Eric Abetz asked Boyd? No, answered Boyd.

In fact, as many as 43 per cent were not eligible. Boyd went on to explain why. Some applications were late. Some projects had started their work before they signed the funding agreement. Some had actually finished the work.

As Boyd told the Committee, “If you’ve completed your work, or in some cases — as in this one — you’ve even started your work before a funding agreement is signed, you’re not eligible to receive funding.” Oops.

It got worse. We also found out that the Prime Minister’s office was intimately involved with McKenzie’s office in drawing up the dodgy list of grant recipients. Auditor-General Hehir told Senators there were “direct” communications between Morrison’s office and McKenzie’s, including at least 28 versions of the now-notorious colour-coded spreadsheet that laid out the various sports grants by marginal seat.

The Auditor-General described a process where key advisors from Morrison and McKenzie’s offices haggled over which projects to fund, using the spreadsheet as the basis for their decisions.

To say this looks bad for the Prime Minister is an understatement. He has been caught out in a particularly ham-fisted cover up, one that looks all the more ill-judged now the facts have come to light. Given the level and detail of communication between his office and Bridget McKenzie’s, it’s hard to see how he can plausibly argue he wasn’t privy to the rorts…..

Read the full article here.