A hint of what the Australian Federal Police know concerning the Ashby-Brough affair

What Senate Estimates tells us this month: 

* Liberal MP for Fisher Mal Brough has been formally interviewed by federal police at least once; 

* hundreds of thousands of emails, documents and images have been seized from the homes of Mal Brough, James Ashby, Karen Doane and elsewhere; 

* the official charge being considered is unauthorised disclosure¹; 

* federal police have read “Ashbygate” by Ross Jones; 

* the Kingston Hotel in Canberra is well-known in Senate circles; and

* LNP Senator Ian Macdonald has no understanding of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates (Public) Tuesday, 9 February 2016:

[Labor, Victoria] Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I would like to ask some questions about the status of the AFP investigation into the theft of the official diary of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. I appreciate the sensitivity of the matter, as the investigation obviously remains on foot, so I will be attempting to ask some fairly factual questions, but please let me know if you think it is inappropriate, given that the investigation is on foot. It has been reported publicly that the AFP raided the homes of Mr Brough, Mr Ashby and Karen Doane, looking for evidence in relation to the theft of the former Speaker's diary. Are those reports accurate?

[Australian Federal Police Commissioner] Mr Colvin: The way that you have characterised them, Senator, I guess is relevant to the investigation. We are making an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of and access to the diary. I would draw a distinction between that and theft. I just want to be very careful about what we say.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. So you do not think it is appropriate to discuss at this stage whether you have raided the homes of those people?

[Federal Attorney-General] Senator Brandis: Senator Collins, I think the point Mr Colvin was making to you is that there is no investigation into theft.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay. What language would you like to use, Mr Colvin?

Mr Colvin: We refer to it as unauthorised disclosure.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: All right, we will use that language and I will ask the same question.

Mr Colvin: Yes. I am not trying to be picky on that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is fine.

Mr Colvin: In relation to matters that we have or have not done, some aspects of this investigation are already in the public arena, and I am happy to confirm matters that are in the public arena. But, to the extent that matters are not, it is not our normal course, as you would appreciate, to talk about what we may be doing. Deputy Commissioner Close has the details.

[Deputy Commissioner, Operations] Ms L Close: Senator, I can confirm that the search warrants were executed on premises for the three people that you have just mentioned.

Senator COLLINS: Are there any other search warrants that are fitting in with Mr Colvin's point and that are a matter of the public record?

Ms L Close: No, there are none on the public record.

Senator COLLINS: Am I correct in concluding that you do not want to discuss any that may have occurred but are not on the public record?

Ms L Close: That is correct.

Senator COLLINS: Okay. What is the current status of the investigation into Mr Brough's conduct?

Ms L Close: The investigation continues. As you can understand, we are relying heavily on electronic records, which we have obtained from various entities. Because of the complex nature of this matter we have also had to obtain legal opinion in respect of search warrants and other avenues of inquiry. Just to demonstrate, some of the investigation time frames are quite lengthy, because we have recovered, to date, in excess of 7,600 emails, 141,000 documents, 116,000-plus images and thousands of email attachments. That just highlights for you the extent of the investigation we are undertaking. 

Senator COLLINS: Are you able to tell me when you expect to be able to finalise the investigation?

Ms L Close: No.

Senator COLLINS: Does all that material you just referred to cover the book Ashbygate?

Ms L Close: No.

Mr Colvin: No.

Senator COLLINS: What are the possible outcomes of the investigation? What will happen when you conclude all of that work?

Ms L Close: We then make an assessment as to whether we believe there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to have a prima facie case to put to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The Commonwealth DPP will then make a determination of whether there are any charges to be laid in respect of any people.

Senator COLLINS: And at this point in time you are not able to advise me of the time frame on which you think you will conclude your review of the material?

Ms L Close: Not at this point, no. 
Mr Colvin: Further to that, there are aspects of all investigations, and this one is no different, that are out of the control of the organisation. We are in the hands of processes, and sometimes individuals, that mean that we cannot give you a time frame with any degree of certainty.

Senator COLLINS: Mr Brough has remarked that he is willing to be interviewed by the AFP in relation to the criminal accusations that have been made against him. Has that interview occurred?

Ms L Close: We have spoken to Mr Brough, and that is on public record.

Senator COLLINS: When was that, and where did the interview occur?

Mr Colvin: I think in fairness to Mr Brough, if he wishes to make some of that material public then he may do that. We have not said that publicly and I do not think it is appropriate. We would not normally make that public. That is a matter for Mr Brough, if he wishes to.

Senator COLLINS: When you say, though, that you have spoken to Mr Brough, is that what would be regarded as an interview? Or have you a need for further interview?

Ms L Close: It really will depend on the analysis of all the material that I outlined to you earlier as to whether we need another interview or not.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay, but in terms of you looking at all the material before you, it was not just simply a preliminary discussion.

Ms L Close: We have had preliminary discussions—

[Nationals, Queensland] Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, could I just raise a point of order? I am struggling to see the relevance of this in the context of estimates. I would understand if the senator were pursuing details about the cost of these investigations, the volume of resources and the like. But we have quite literally hundreds of investigations underway at the moment that would have a political interest, and the trade movement and the like. We could spend the next week here examining the AFP's involvement. I just do not understand the relevance, and I would like you just to consider it and perhaps rule on it.

[LNP Queensland, Senator Ian Macdonald] CHAIR: It is relevant to the expenditure on wages and equipment.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, if the questions were that, I would understand that, but that is not—

CHAIR: Well, that is not how they are being used, I guess, but I would allow it at this time.

Senator Brandis: I think the point is that Mr Colvin and Deputy Commissioner Close have made it clear that they cannot go beyond that which is on the public record, and that which is on the public record is already on the public record. So, I just wonder what it profits us to ask questions to which we already know the answer, since only matters to which we do already know the answers are appropriate objects of inquiry.

CHAIR: It is really up to the senator to use her time in whatever way she seems fit. As you say, even if the information is already there, if the senator wants to keep asking the same questions and gets the same answer, that is really up to her.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr Colvin: In answer to your question: I do not wish to discuss investigational strategies. Whether we decide to re-speak to Mr Brough in a formal or informal capacity, they are all matters that my investigators will make a judgement on depending on where the investigation takes them, and it is not something I wish to discuss openly.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, and that was not really the point of my question. I was simply seeking to establish whether we were both talking about an interview, which is what Mr Brough had referred to, as opposed to some preliminary conversation to establishment.

Mr Colvin: I will leave that for Mr Brough to talk about, not us.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It has been reported that Mr Ashby has offered to provide the AFP with a copy of the document which he says proves that Wyatt Roy instructed him to steal the former Speaker's official diary. For example on 1 December—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is an emotively embedded question when the commissioner has made it very clear to you that there is no investigation on foot regarding theft. At least keep your language in accordance with the fact that have been presented to you in the evidence.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I suggest you go back to the buffet.

CHAIR: You have made your point of order on that one.

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, on the same point, if I may—and I know Senator Collins is a serial offender here—but if words are to be attributed to someone then the precise words they use, not a paraphrase of them, has to be put to the witness. On numerous occasions, in this forum and in the chamber, it has been discovered after Senator Collins has put a paraphrase of words to a senator or a witness that what she has put to the senator or the witness was not an accurate rendering of what they said.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is simply untrue.

Senator Brandis: On numerous occasions I have caught you out doing this.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, that is untrue. On numerous occasions you have practised malapropism, because you do not know how to apply words that you think are big and attractive. Senator Brandis: If you are going to attribute words which bear a very, very important insinuation against somebody's reputation then in fairness both to the witness and to the person whom you are trying to smear—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: 'Smear' now? Stop imputing improper motives.

Senator Brandis: please put the direct speech to the witness or not at all.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Your behaviour is outrageous. I really do not know how Mr Turnbull puts up with you.

CHAIR: A point of order was raised and I am ruling on it. There is no point of order—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, there is not. That is right.

CHAIR: but I am sure Commissioner Colvin will take the warning and will, himself, be cautious in how he answers the questions, as he always is, of course.

[Labor, Tasmania] Senator BILYK: It is all very draining now.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I mentioned that it had been reported and I was about, if I had been given one extra moment of oxygen, to quote that report. If Senator Brandis wants to take issue with the quotation he is encouraged to take issue with the ABC.

Senator Brandis: Then you will be kind enough to provide us with the source from which you are quoting.

CHAIR: The ABC.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Certainly, which I just did.

CHAIR: That is a reliable source. We can all rest assured now that this will be accurate.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: On 1 December last year the ABC reported that: Mr Ashby has also claimed today that Assistant Minister for Innovation Wyatt Roy advised him to copy Mr Slipper's diary. CHAIR: And the question is?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, I am going to go through the full quote, because I do not want to— Senator Brandis: Are you reading from the report or are you reading from words attributed in direct speech to Mr Ashby?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I am about to go to words directly attributed to Mr Ashby now, in The Australian newspaper.

Senator Brandis: In direct speech?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, can we have a copy of this while this is happening so we can keep it in context and so we can follow the senator's efforts here?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. In quotation of Mr Ashby: "Wyatt said he didn't really know how to advise me and said he wanted to speak with Christopher Pyne," Mr Ashby told The Australian newspaper. Again in quotation of Mr Ashby: "He then called me back and I went and saw him in his office and he presented me a sheet of paper with instructions of what I should do, and one of the first steps was to get a copy of the office diary." Still in quotation: 'That is how I came to be printing off a copy of the digital diary. It was evidence in my case.' That is the end of the quote. This is still from the ABC, though: Mr Ashby confirmed the quotes on Macquarie Radio this morning and said the sheet of paper would have Mr Roy's fingerprints on it. Finally, referring to Mr Ashby: 'And Wyatt's never denied giving me any assistance in the beginning,' he said. Following that public reporting, has Mr Ashby provided a copy of this set of written instructions to the AFP?

Mr Colvin: I am not aware of that particular report. I know it is not necessarily relevant to your question, I just think it would be very unwise for me to give an indication to the committee while this matter is still ongoing. That is directly relevant to the ongoing nature of the investigation, and it is just not something I am prepared to talk about publicly.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Hear, hear.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I appreciate that. Senator O'Sullivan, maybe you were still down at the King O when I started these questions—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You do not know where I was, and your comments are offensive and you should keep them to yourself.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: We do know where you were.

CHAIR: Senator Collins, that is an offensive comment on a Senate colleague. I will not ask you to withdraw—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: For the record, I was not at the Kingston Hotel.

CHAIR: You do not have to say where you were.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, but I am just sick of this.

CHAIR: You should desist from that, though, because otherwise people will say you are always permanently drunk, Senator Collins, and that does not get us anywhere.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: They are welcome to say that. It would not have much credibility.

CHAIR: Well what you are saying about Senate colleagues does not have much credibility either.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The issue is that I said at the outset of this discussion, and Mr Colvin remembers that because of the response he just made—

CHAIR: You made a snide comment to another senator, which should not happen. Go on with your question.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: If you defended me as adequately as you are now him, obviously people would not feel encouraged to respond to poor behaviour. I understand that Mr Colvin does not want to respond to that question, and I accept his explanation of that. My next question—

Senator Brandis: I think Mr Colvin said it would not be appropriate to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes, and I said that I accept that.

Senator Brandis: You said that he said he did not want to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Will you stop being such a pedant? Seriously.

Senator Brandis: I think there is a difference.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It is very late at night, and your behaviour is very draining.

Senator Brandis: There is no reluctance on the part of these witnesses to respond to questions to which they feel they can respond appropriately. When the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police says that it is not a question to which he can appropriately respond, then that is the ground on which the question has not been answered—not because he does not want to provide the committee with all the information he appropriately can.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Brandis, no one implying any differently. You are just making this tedious.

CHAIR: Let us move on. Your time has finished, but we can come back to you, Senator Collins. I will go to Senator O'Sullivan, but, before I do, as part of Senator O'Sullivan's time, could I just ask if the offence being considered or investigated is unauthorised disclosure? Is that right?

Mr Colvin: The circumstances that we are investigating is the unauthorised disclosure of the former speaker's diary. The offence that we may end up considering as the most appropriate—if we even get to that point—is still to be determined.

CHAIR: It is what?

Mr Colvin: It is still to be determined. We have a range of—

CHAIR: There is no technical offence of unauthorised disclosure, is there? That is not a criminal offence.

Mr Colvin: There are offences of unauthorised disclosure.

CHAIR: Where do they rate in the scale of offences? Are they like murder? Terrorism? Rape? Robbery?

Mr Colvin: Chair, that is very difficult for me to answer, because it depends upon the circumstances—for example, are there aggravated circumstances. All offences have penalties that the court can impose, and, clearly, unauthorised disclosure has a very different penalty to what a terrorism offence would.

CHAIR: There was a lot of discussion earlier about the cost and your resources and all this, and I was absolutely gobsmacked to hear Ms Close say that you have investigated thousands and thousands of emails and documents. I can well appreciate the questions on the use of your resources, when you are clearly involved in a huge amount of effort. Is someone, or are several people, going through every one of those emails, every one of those documents, with a magnifying glass, considering each aspect?

Ms L Close: Yes, we have investigators looking at every document that we have seized in relation to this matter.

CHAIR: That would be a very time-consuming exercise, I take it.

Ms L Close: Yes.

CHAIR: For something that I would have thought—and you can tell me I am wrong—in the course of criminal activities that the AFP look at would rank pretty low: unauthorised disclosure.

Mr Colvin: There are a few things there to consider. One is: the court will make determinations in terms of penalty of what gravity of offence the court may consider if somebody is convicted. But there are broader considerations for the AFP than just the penalty of the offence. It is the circumstances and the public interest in the matter. I am probably better off just leaving it at that.

Senator Brandis: I think, if I do not misunderstand what is being said, that it is actually not the offence of unauthorised disclosure; it is the offence of procuring another person to have unauthorised access. I do not think it is being suggested that Mr Brough himself had unauthorised access. I think it is being suggested by some that Mr Brough encouraged somebody else to have unauthorised access.

CHAIR: That would take it to being an even lesser matter, but I take Commissioner Colvin's point and will not pursue that. I hesitate to ask for this on notice, but can someone tell me the penalties that have been imposed on the last successful convictions for procuring someone to have unauthorised disclosure?

[Australian Greens, Tasmania] Senator McKim interjecting—

CHAIR: It is wasting resources, is my point, when we are dealing with criminals, thugs, rapists, murderers, and we have the AFP looking through hundreds of thousands of documents and emails for an offence which, even on conviction, I guess would get a good behaviour bond or something. That would be my experience of how lenient the courts are these days. How difficult would it be to get me some examples of the last time someone was convicted for procuring someone else to make an unauthorised disclosure? Would that be difficult to find?

Ms L Close: I am not aware of the last matter where a person was convicted, so we will have to take that on notice and do some research.

CHAIR: I do not want you to do too much research, because I for one appreciate that you have far more important things to do. But if it is easy to get the last couple of times there were convictions—if there have ever been any in the history of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth—I would be interested to see when they were, what the penalty was and how many there were. With that, I will pass to Senator O'Sullivan.

1. Section 70—disclosure ofinformation by Commonwealth officers

3.91       Section 70 of the Crimes Act is the only provision remaining in pt VI of the Crimes Act.[125] A version of s 70 was included in the original Crimes Act in 1914, and was based on a provision of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).[126] This original version of s 70 was repealed and replaced in 1960 to extend the prohibition on the unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers to include former Commonwealth officers.[127] While minor amendments have been made to s 70 on three occasions since 1960,[128] the substance of the provision has not changed since that time.

3.92       The effect of s 70 is to apply criminal sanctions to the breach of secrecy obligations by public officials.[129] Section 70 provides that:

(1)  A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)  A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence....

What kind of information is protected?

3.100   Section 70 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer to disclose ‘any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer’. On its face, s 70 could apply to the disclosure of any information regardless of its nature or sensitivity.

An example of conviction for unauthorised disclosure: R v Scerba (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 359 (5 November 2015)

Decision:

1.                   Michael Scerba be convicted of unauthorised disclosure of information by a Commonwealth officer. 2.                   Michael Scerba be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence today, 5 November 2015. 3.                   On 4 February 2016, after serving three months imprisonment, and upon giving security in the sum of $500, Michael Scerba be released on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 4.                   Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and upon application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the following items, seized by members of the AFP during the execution of a search warrant at [redacted], Richardson in the ACT on 21 October 2012, be forfeited to the Commonwealth: a.                   All hard drives contained in the black ‘ANTEC’ computer tower (item no 001 recorded on property seizure record A228052); and b.                  5 x shards/pieces of compact disc (item no MS/ET/45 recorded on property seizure record A228055)

Release of the ALRC Freedoms Report is something to look forward to in March 2016

By early March 2016 the Turnbull Government is required to table and release the Australian Law Reform Commission report of the Freedoms Inquiry findings.

The Interim Report published in August 2015, Traditional Rights and Freedoms— Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws, can be found here.

This interim report states:

1.87 Throughout this paper, the ALRC highlights certain laws that may merit closer review. These are laws that have been criticised for unjustifiably limiting common law rights or principles. This report highlights some of these criticisms and some of the arguments that may be relevant to justification. However, for most of these laws, the ALRC would need more extensive consultation and evidence to justify making detailed recommendations for reform.108 1.88 Therefore, rather than make detailed recommendations for reform based on insufficient evidence, the ALRC has highlighted laws that seem to merit further review. These laws are identified in the conclusion to each chapter. The highlighted laws have been selected following consideration of a number of factors, including whether the law has been criticised in submissions or other literature for unjustifiably limiting one or more of the relevant rights and whether the law has recently been thoroughly reviewed. Laws that may be criticised for reasons other than interference with rights, for example because they do not achieve their objective, are not highlighted for that reason alone. The fact that a law limits multiple rights has also sometimes suggested the need for further review.109 1.89 The ALRC calls for submissions on which laws that limit traditional rights deserve further review.

And makes a welcome suggestion which, if implemented, would assist both parliamentarians and voters:

2.58 Additional procedures could be put in place to improve the rigour of statements of compatibility and explanatory memoranda to assist Parliament in understanding the impact of proposed legislation on fundamental rights, freedoms and privileges. The object of such procedures would be to ensure that statements of compatibility and explanatory memoranda provide sufficiently detailed and evidence-based rationales for encroachments on fundamental rights, freedoms and privileges to allow the parliamentary scrutiny committees to complete their review.

Australian Health Minister and Liberal MP Sussan Ley has some explaining to do

It is bad enough that women in rural and regional areas comprise one third of all female cancer suffers and have on average poorer cancer survival rates than their metropolitan counterparts, now they face this as well...........

Perth Now, 27 December 2015:

WOMEN with breast cancer are being denied a Medicare rebate for expensive MRI scans which others with football injuries, headaches and back pain receive.

The rebate — rejected recently by the government’s Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) — contributes to the bills of up to $30,000 many women face for their breast cancer.

“MSAC did not support public funding for these indications due to of uncertain clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and financial impact” the committee ruled.

It reckoned approving a rebate for the test — worth up to $2000 — would cost the health system around $9 million.

It’s the latest example of Medicare failing cancer patients when they need it most….

Breast surgeon Professor Christobel Saunders one of the surgeons trying to obtain a Medicare rebate for MRIs says around one in 10 women have tumours that can’t be properly seen on mammograms or ultrasound….

“About 10 per cent of women require it and it helps us plan surgery and determine whether we need to do a lumpectomy or a mastectomy.”

“We know breast MRIs work. We have been using them for 20 years they are the most efficient way of telling the full size of the tumour,” she says.

Professor Saunders was part of a group of surgeons who made an application to the governments Medicare services advisory committee which determines which medical procedures attract a Medicare rebate.

She believes MSAC may have over-estimated the number of women who would get an MRI when deciding to reject the rebate.

MSAC granted a Medicare rebate for breast MRIs for just two of the eight indications requested.

It is recommended for women whose cancer had spread to the lymph nodes where conventional scans failed to show the source of the tumour.

And MRI guided biopsy is also recommended in patients with suspected breast cancer where the tumour only identifiable by MRI.

But it rejected breast cancer MRIs for six other indications.

Besides breast MRIs the Turnbull Government has slated another 22 Medicare items for removal from the rebate list in this round of cuts: another 6 diagnostic imaging items, 9 items in ear, nose, and throat surgery; 5 items in gastroenterology services, 1 obstetrics item and 1 thoracic medicine item.

Health Minister Sussan Ley is telling all and sundry that doctors themselves recommended these items, however the medical profession does not appear to be so uniform in opinion as Ley implies.

Given that December 2015's MYEFO contained more health funding cuts, the Liberal-Nationals ideological attacks on Medicare and free access to public health services appears set to continue until they have dismantled enough of the safety net system as will enable their MPs to commence creating an inequitable U.S. style health care system.

This is the type of medical treatment just such a system delivers:

Barbara Dawson via Twitter

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's cost cutting is causing problems in Iraq?

On 31 December 2015 The Australian reported on Unity Resources Group, originally registered in Australia by co-founders former special forces commander Gordon Conroy and former army reservists Martin Simich but now apparently incorporated in Dubai, and what appears to be the flow-on effect of cost-cutting by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs:

The Australian has confirmed that up to 40 Australian protection specialists will be flown out of Iraq tomorrow after accusing their employer, Dubai-based Unity Resources Group, of risking lives by scrimping on arms and protective equipment, bypassing detailed security checks and providing inferior medical support and insurance cover.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has recently awarded URG a new five-year contract, worth nearly $51 million, to provide personal protection for embassy staff from Friday until the end of 2020. Tender documents show the new contract is barely half the $101m URG was paid to provide security for the five years from January 1, 2011 to today.

It is understood the majority of personnel who will leave refused to sign the new work contracts in protest, while at least three others who signalled they would be prepared to sign on again, but were known by management to have complained about conditions, have been told their positions will be filled.

Staffers who remain on the ground in Baghdad are becoming increasingly anxious and do not believe that URG will be able to follow the security protocols required by the DFAT contract in the short time remaining.

Sources claim the limited time to recruit the new protection specialists does not leave enough time to conduct proper background checks, including medical and psychological screening.

They also fear the new recruits will lack sufficient training in the protection of a diplomatic post in areas such as weapons handling and close personal protection.

"January 1st will bring in a swath of inexperience and risk at a time when Baghdad is going through chaotic and unpredictable change," one senior protection officer said. "URG HQ and local project managers' rushed intent of getting bums on seats at any cost to have the numbers for January 1 will result in deadly consequences. They will not have the right people to deliver the high-quality protection the Australian embassy staff in Baghdad rely on." URG, which was founded by former Australian special forces commander Gordon Conroy, declined to respond to detailed questions from The Australian.

DFAT responded to detailed questions by saying its longstanding practice was not to comment on security arrangements at its overseas missions. Sources in the department disputed the claim that URG was short 40 workers but would not comment on the concerns raised by URG staff.

"The Australian government places the highest priority on the safety of all its personnel, especially those in high-threat locations such as Kabul and Baghdad," a DFAT official said.

This quasi-military company has a somewhat chequered past, with the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries in 2008 corresponding with the Australian Government over some of the company's actions and whose private military personnel allegedly shot and killed 72 year-old Australian resident Professor Kays Juma and Armenian civilians Mary Awanis and Genevia Antranick, as well as seriously wounding an unidentified man , in Iraq in 2006-2007. Additionally, this company was accused of ignoring risk factors which led to the 2008 killing of U.S. aid worker Stephen Vance in Peshawar, Pakistan.

The Abbott Government's first Intergenerational Report examined through jaundiced eyes

Peter Martin, Economics Editor of The Age newspaper observed on 3 March 2015:

The Intergenerational Report is required by law every 5 years. It assesses the long-term sustainability of the government's policies 40 years into the future. This one will take us through to 2055. It's 2 month's late, although that's not the fault of the treasury. Finance minister Mathias Cormann was keen to tell the Senate that it's a report of the government, not the treasury. It's inherently political. Sensitivities over its immigration projections (and possibly what it will say about climate change) have delayed it as government ministers have tossed drafts back and forth.

So what does the Abbott Government tell us in its first and Australia’s fourth Intergenerational Report?

Well, it tells us in those 145 pages that Australia has an economy that has had an unprecedented 23 year stretch of unbroken economic growth that is continuing today as I write.

It seems the nation also has a well-functioning health system.

Both of these admissions will come as a surprise to many because since the Coalition won government in September 2013 we have been repeatedly told that the country was facing a ‘debt and deficit disaster’ and, the health system was on the financial sick list so we needed to put our hands in our pockets to pay GPs a bit extra because government couldn’t afford to continue paying the Medicare rebate bill.

For some strange reason the federal government appears to believe that all males and females born since November 2013 have an average life expectancy at birth of 91.5 and 93.6 years today when what the Australian Bureau of Statistics actually said on 7 November 2013 was; "A boy born today could expect to live 79.9 years, while a girl could expect to live 84.3 years. For those approaching retirement age, say 65 years, males could expect to live a further 19 years and females a further 22 years". It defies belief that Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann believe that in just on sixteen months life expectancy at birth has risen 11.6 years for males and 9.3 years for females.

The federal government also informs us that the elderly are living an inconveniently long time and, in its opinion more of them should remain at work or go back to work after retirement age because they are costing the government too much to keep alive - even at the minimum levels of income support and physical care it is willing to fund.

It tells us that workers’ average weekly wage will increase over the next forty years, but not at the rate wages have over the last forty years and government expects all workers to put shoulders to the wheel in order to be more productive – and swallow the reforms allegedly required to make them all that bit more competitive and flexible.

To that end its review of Australia’s workplace relations framework is apparently an important building block in facilitating the development of new markets, and allow businesses and the public sector to harness innovation.

The young had a national unemployment rate of 14.2% in January 2015 and will probably face a high unemployment rate into the future as it appears the only solution the Abbott Government has to date is to make applicants under 25 years of age wait six months before unemployment benefits and make them also ‘work for the dole’.  Presumably because, along with people with disabilities, young unemployed people are expected to generate gains in GDP and income growth over the next 40 years.

By 2055 the Abbott Government thinks that government will only need to spend an extra $400 of its own money per student to keep primary, high school and tertiary education in tip top shape.

It expects that federal government won’t be spending more money in forty years’ time on defence materiel than it does today.

Infrastructure is good to have and the nation needs MOAR & MOAR, but the Abbott Government is not quite sure how we are going to get all those roads, tunnels, by-passes, bridges, railway lines and ports it is lusting after - except perhaps by 'efficiently' selling off some which exist already to its rich mates and the foreign power best new friends of Tony Abbott.

The Abbott Government has included a handy little graph at Page 35 which shows that by 30 June 2014 its own spending spree had increased the underlying cash balance and output gap deficit to around 3% and 1.75% of GDP respectively.

Apparently the nation needs strong economic growth and a sustainable budget before it can tackle climate change. Part of any effort to mitigate those pesky adverse impacts caused by global warming is to take a proverbial broom to the countryside – because we need “Clean land” and “Clean air”– and one of the best ways to achieve that is to continue hacking away at ‘green tape’ thereby weakening the community’s ability to protect the environment.

Confident that it will get its data retention legislation through parliament the Abbott Government intends to deliver government services digitally, thereby making the forthcoming  mass surveillance of the populace as detailed as possible. Australia is about to become a hackers Nirvana sometime before 2055 and, people living in remote and rural regions will probably still face a level of difficulty in reliably accessing the Internet and therefore have intermittent problems accessing these same government services.

As for net migration, it is expected to be an est. 215,000 people per annum from 2018 onwards and, Australia’s population is predicted to be 39.7 million in 40 years’ time. Which must leave local governments across the country wondering where they are collectively going to put around 427,027 extra residents each year.

The bottom line appears to be that if Australia wants a bright and prosperous future, then every one of the Abbott Government’s punitive policies and budget cuts, rejected by voters and the Senate to date, need to be implemented.

Now who didn’t see that coming?

David Hicks' conviction vacated: Every member of the former Howard Government, including the current Australian Prime Minister, now have egg on their faces

Every Australian Senator and Member of Parliament should take note of this monumental error by the former Howard Government, its prime minister, ministers and backbenchers – which included Prime Minister Tony Abbott - and the failure of domestic national security agencies to offer advice based on law and fact.

What this clearly demonstrates is that an Australian Parliament when passing anti-terrorism/national security legislation and, a Federal Government when creating policy in relation to terrorism/national security or responding to citizens held by foreign powers, need to eschew any tendency to hysteria and block their ears to dog whistling in the media when considering legislation before the House of Representatives and/or the Senate or the circumstances of individual citizens.

Governments make mistakes and giving them the additional powers will not eliminate the potential for error. Instead it may perversely increase this risk.

ABC News 19 February 2015:

Australia's David Hicks, a former prisoner at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, has won a legal challenge to his terrorism conviction before a military court in Cuba….

Last year, an appeals court ruled material support was not a legally viable war crime but prosecutors argued the conviction should stand because Mr Hicks agreed not to appeal as part of the plea deal, an argument that has now been rejected by the US Court of Military Commission Review….

Stephen Kenny, Mr Hick's lawyer in Australia, said the decision confirmed his client's innocence.

"Well it means David Hicks' conviction has been set aside and he's been declared an innocent man so it confirms what we knew all along," he said.

"David Hicks was innocent and that has formally been recorded by the military commission itself."….

BACKGROUND

Law Council of Australia:

David Hicks, an Australian citizen, was ‘captured' in Afghanistan in December 2001. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was detained by the US Military on the basis that he was an enemy combatant.

                         

After almost three years in isolated detention, Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy and was committed to face trial before a Military Commission established pursuant to Presidential Order. However, before the trial could proceed, the US Supreme Court found that the military commission system was unlawful.

David Hicks was once more left in detention without charge and with no prospect of release in the short or long term.

In late 2006, the military commission system was re-established by an Act of the United States Congress and in early 2007 David Hicks was again charged and committed to face trial before a newly constituted Commission.

In March 2007, over five years after his initial capture, David Hicks pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, to a single charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

In April 2007, Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine months of his suspended seven-year sentence.

Hicks was released on 29 December 2007, but was placed under a 12 month control order.

The Law Council took a close interest in David Hicks' case and played a prominent role in bringing his plight to the attention of Australian public. Throughout his period of detention, the Law Council was highly critical of:

* The inability of Hicks to effectively challenge the legality of his detention;

*  Hicks' treatment in detention;

* The flawed and inherently unjust rules of procedure and evidence of the military commissions;

* The lack of any legal foundation for the charges initially pursued against Hicks;

* The retrospective nature of the charge eventually pursued against Hicks;

* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' detention without charge;

* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' trial before a military commission;

* The terms of Hicks' plea agreement; and 

* The unnecessary imposition of a control order on Hicks upon his release.

Over this period the Law Council issued more than twenty press releases, public letters to Parliament and reports, including three reports from the Law Council's Independent Observer at Hicks' trial. These materials are available below.