What America is told about Abbott's Australia

Australia left to cringe once again at a leader's awkward moment: The adolescent country. The bit player. The shrimp of the schoolyard. blares the headline and opening lines in the Los Angeles Times on 16 November 2014.

The article went on to observe:

For Australians it's not so bad — most of the time — to be so far away, so overlooked, so seemingly insignificant as to almost never factor in major international news. The lifestyle makes up for it.

But occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most important leaders visit for a global summit and Prime Minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.

And then he throws in a boast that his government repealed the country's carbon tax, standing out among Western nations as the one willing to reverse progress on global warming — just days after the United States and China reached a landmark climate change deal.

The Group of 20 summit could have been Australia's moment, signaling its arrival as a global player, some here argued. But in all, the summit had Australians cringing more than cheering.

It was a classic example of what Australian author and journalist Peter Hartcher calls the "pathology of parochialism" in a recent book, "The Adolescent Country." Hartcher argues that the nation's politicians rarely miss a chance to trump important foreign policy matters of long-term national interest to score cheap domestic political points.

"The big matters are commonly crowded out by the small," he argues. "International policy is used for domestic point-scoring."

Opposition leader Bill Shorten called Abbott's opening G-20 address "weird and graceless."

"This was Tony Abbott's moment in front of the most important and influential leaders in the world, and he's whinging that Australians don't want his GP tax," said Shorten, referring to the $7 fee.

It's a tendency some observers argue not only damages the country's credibility but Australians' ability to take themselves seriously….

Australian government agencies and a registered charity trawled letters and parcels 10,002 times in 2013-14

The Age 13 November 2014:

Australia Post disclosed confidential information to law enforcement, security and other government agencies more than 10,000 times  in 2013-14, an increase of 25 per cent over the past four years. 

According to statistics released by the postal corporation, "specially protected" information, which includes information about letters and parcels and other private client information was provided to government agencies by Australia Post on 5635 occasions – more than twice the number four years ago.

Federal government investigators accessing specially protected information include the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency. 

Victorian and Queensland police as well as the NSW Crime Commission and the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission also received such private information. 

Postal information that is not "specially protected", including names and addresses on the outside of letters and parcels, was disclosed by Australia Post on another 4367 occasions. 

Government agencies accessing this postal "metadata" include the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and the federal departments of agriculture, environment, defence, foreign affairs and trade, health and ageing.

State police and anti-corruption agencies, state revenue offices, consumer affairs, workplace and environmental regulators as well as the RSPCA also accessed the information…..

The total of 10,002 disclosures in 2013-14 was 5 per cent higher than in the previous year, despite a 4.8 per cent decline in the volume of letters delivered by Australia Post. 

Only 19 disclosures of postal information were made to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.  This figure for 2013-14 is down from 31 disclosures in the previous year and is the lowest in a decade…… 

Australian Information Commission finds Department of Immigration and Border Protection unlawfully disclosed personal information of asylum seekers

Office of the Australian Information Commission, media release on Wednesday, 12 November 2014:

Department of Immigration and Border Protection unlawfully disclosed personal information of asylum seekers

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) has been found in breach of the Privacy Act 1988, by failing to adequately protect the personal information of approximately 9,250 asylum seekers. They have also been found to have unlawfully disclosed personal information.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) was notified by the Guardian Australia on 19 February that a ‘database’ containing the personal information of 'almost 10,000' asylum seekers was available in a report on DIBP’s website. DIBP removed the report from its website within an hour of being notified. The report was available on DIBP’s website for approximately eight and a half days.

The categories of personal information compromised in the data breach consisted of full names, gender, citizenship, date of birth, period of immigration detention, location, boat arrival details, and the reasons why the individual was deemed to be ‘unlawful’.

‘This incident was particularly concerning due to the vulnerability of the people involved,’ said Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim.

The breach occurred when statistical data was mistakenly embedded in a Word document that was published on DIBP’s website. The report was accessed a number of times, and was republished by an automated archiving service.

Mr Pilgrim said that OAIC’s investigation found that DIBP was aware of the privacy risks of embedding personal information in publications, but that DIBP’s systems and processes failed to adequately address those risks. This meant that DIBP staff did not detect the embedded information when the document was created or before it was published.  

‘This breach may have been avoided if DIBP had implemented processes to de-identify data in situations where the full data set was not needed,’ he said.

This data breach also demonstrates the difficulties of effectively containing a breach where information has been published online, and highlights the importance of taking steps to prevent data breaches from occurring, rather than relying on steps to contain them after they have occurred.

‘I have made a number of recommendations about how DIBP could improve their processes, including requesting that they engage an independent auditor to certify that they have implemented the planned remediation. I have asked DIBP to provide me with a copy of the certification and the report by 13 February 2015’, Mr Pilgrim said.

The OAIC is still receiving privacy complaints from individuals affected by the breach. The OAIC has received over 1600 privacy complaints to date, and these complaints are on-going.

Media contact: Ms Leila Daniels 0407 663 968 media@oaic.gov.au

Background

As this breach occurred prior to 12 March 2014, the Privacy Commissioner’s powers under the Privacy Act 1988 were limited to making recommendations.

The full report can be accessed on the OAIC website: http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/applying-privacy-law/commissioner-initiated-investigation-reports/dibp-omi

A vulnerable Richie Williamson seeks to shore up support for his mayoral position and future political ambitions?

Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson decided to spring a last minute surprise on his fellow councillors, residents and ratepayers with a mayoral minute not included in the ordinary monthly meeting business paper for 18 November 2014.

However, on the same day he informed councillors of his intention The Daily Examiner also appears to have become aware and published this on its front page the next day:

                                                                

CLARENCE Valley Council Mayor Richie Williamson wants to give ratepayers the chance to say if they want a popularly elected mayor.

Cr Williamson will table a Mayoral Minute at tonight's council meeting calling for the council to take the question to a referendum early next year.

The referendum could be held in conjunction with a by-election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Councillor Jeremy Challacombe in a car accident late last month.

The council will ask the NSW Electoral Commission to set the date for the by-election as February 21.

Cr Williamson's Mayoral Minute recommends taking the following question to the voters:

"The Mayor of Clarence Valley Council is currently elected each year by the Councillors.

"Do you favour the election of the Mayor by the electors for a four-year term and without changing the number of councillors from nine, including the Mayor?"

According to Cr Williamson, the option of having a popularly elected mayor is regularly raised with him by ratepayers.

"I haven't gone into the points for and against in the Mayoral Minute because this really is a decision of the people," he said.

"Now is an opportunity for the question to be asked.

"The council should never be afraid of asking residents and ratepayers their views on important issues."

Cr Williamson would not be drawn on his preference.

The Mayoral Minute estimates the cost of the referendum in conjunction with the by-election at $16,000.

The estimated cost of the by-election itself is $160,000.

Mayor Williamson tells us that he is merely responding to the wishes of ratepayers.

One would think if that were really the case these wishes would be reflected in numerous letters to the editor since September 2004. A search of local newspaper records show few mentions of a desire to directly elect a mayor for a four-year term.

Indeed the only prominent proponents of changing how a Clarence Valley mayor is currently elected have been the present NSW Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis and former Nationals pre-selection candidate Mayor Richie Williamson himself.

Then Cr. Chris Gulaptis was quoted in the media as he faced losing his bid to become Clarence Valley mayor in 2006:

Councillor Chris Gulaptis said he thought he would lose the challenge because councillors, not ratepayers, vote for the mayor.

He says he would have a better chance if the election were done by popular vote.

"I haven't been lobbying," he said.

"I think there has been some lobbying done and I think it's successful, more successful from the other candidate, and I think that I will probably come second again.

"However, I'm putting my hand up and saying I'm not happy with the way things are going.

While Richie Williamson has been unsuccessfully attempting to convince his fellow councillors to change mayoral election rules since at least 2011:

ORDINARY MEETING of 15 NOVEMBER 2011….

Item: 13.236/11

MOTION

(Crs Williamson/Comben)

That

In accordance with S16 (b) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council conduct a

constitutional referendum at the 2012 NSW quadrennial local government election so as to allow the electors of Clarence Valley to determine the basis on which the Mayor attains office that is, by election by the Councillors or by election by the electors.

Voting recorded as follows:

For: Councillors Williamson, Comben, Howe and Hughes

Against: Councillors Tiley, Toms, Simmons, McKenna and Dinham

The motion was LOST…..

If Council resolves to hold a constitutional referendum the General Manager must advise the Electoral Commissioner with 21 days.

The required explanatory material, which must be prepared and publicised at the cost of Council, must be based on a balanced case for and against the proposition.

The Local Government Act provides that the decision made at a constitutional referendum binds the council until changed by a subsequent constitutional referendum. If a referendum resulted in a change to direct election of the mayor, that change would not take effect until the 2016 Council election.

Lower Clarence opinion seems to be mainly split between those who believe that Williamson is pushing for mayoral election by popular vote because winning the office in that manner would convince potential backers to support him when he next takes aim at a state or federal seat and, those who believe that having come close to losing the mayoral election last September he needs the guarantee of a four-year term by 2016 if he is to hold off future contenders.

The timing of this mayoral minute hasn’t escaped the eagle eyes of valley residents either – the fact that there are only eight councillors at present means that it is more likely that Mayor Williamson will be able to use his casting vote in favour of his own self-interest should there be a voting tie when the motion comes before council this afternoon.

UPDATE

A valley resident asked me if I knew when Clarence Valley councillors became aware of Mayor Williamson's intention to put forward the motion seeking a referendum.

I cannot say exactly. However I believe it may have been shortly after the document was created on 17 November 2014 at 1:12:49pm (see snapshot below) and sent to councillors later that afternoon.

As for when the document became available online at council's website - all I can say is that I was not aware of it being published on the Internet until just before 9pm on 17 November 2014.

UPDATE

On the afternoon of 18 November 2014 Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson took advantage of the fact that there were only eight councillors at the ordinary monthly meeting (due to the recent death of the ninth councillor) and, forced through ITEM 10.010/14 PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM - CHANGING THE BASIS ON WHICH THE MAYOR ATTAINS OFFICE TO ELECTION BY THE ELECTORS by using his casting vote to endorse his personal preference for a referendum vote on establishing a popularly elected mayor serving a four-year term.