However, I suspect that the
Thursday 30 March 2017
No Australia Card? Yes, Assistant Minister. Of course you are 100% believable
Hoping against hope I don’t have to eventually file this one under “How can you tell when Government is lying".
However, I suspect that the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation is actually lying like the proverbial trooper, given the bare bones of the federated identity service and its attendent privacy & safety risks are on display at the Digital Transformation Agency.
However, I suspect that the
The Register, 19 March 2017:
Australia's federal government is sticking with its plans for a federated identity service, but disruption minister Angus Taylor has moved to quell fears of a revived “Australia Card”*.
What first emerged last year looking like a “single identity” for all citizens across all Australian governments – before being dumped – isn't coming back.
Speaking at the Teach Leaders conference in the Blue Mountains on Sunday, Taylor – full title Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation – said the Digital Transformation Agency's (DTA's) identity project is now about setting standards rather than creating a single whole-of-government identity provider.
He also said the government considers it a citizen's right to have multiple digital identities for their interactions with government, if that's what they want.
Considering that last year, the then-DTA was trying to recruit state governments to its “federated identity” alpha (only getting the NSW government's support), the new direction looks like a considerable departure from the project's original ambitions.
Taylor said: “We don't see ourselves as creating a centralised solution that we'll roll out and everybody else has to come and play – that's not the answer. But we do need to agree on standards, and we do need to agree on principles as to how this will work.”
He also emphasised that the system had to be user-driven rather than top-down, and that citizens' consent is crucial to the model.
“I must be user-driven. If I want to have 45 identities across the Internet and across my applications, it should be my choice. If I want to have one, that's my choice too.”
He added that the “user-driven approach” has to extend to the citizen having a “genuine consent” about how they interact with a digital identity.
“That, to me, is essential to any solution, and the federal government won't endorse or be part of any solution that doesn't do exactly that.”
A formal announcement about the future of the federated identity project is coming “in the very, very near future.”......
*Comment: For
readers unfamiliar with 1980s Australian politics – the “Australia Card” was
proposed as a single ID for citizens in 1985.
Offered as an efficiency
measure, it landed when “ID cards” in Nazi Germany and the Eastern Bloc were
still fresh in many citizens' minds, especially for those who had arrived in
Australia's first inrush of non-British immigration.
The uproar killed off the
Australia Card after a two-year political battle, but not the concept: public
service managers have never lost their love of tracking and identifying
citizens.
From that point of view,
Paul Shetler's DTO nearly achieved a huge social change by disguising it as
“technological disruption”.
Labels:
big data,
data retention,
information technology,
privacy,
safety
Wednesday 29 March 2017
The Turnbull Government may strike a pose each and every day - that won't change the mood in the electorate
Right now the political colour of Australian government is Liberal-Nationals 3 (Federal, NSW, Tas) to Labor 6 (ACT, NT, Qld, SA, Vic, WA).
The Turnbull Government next goes to the polls at a federal general election sometime between 4 August 2018 and 18 May 2019.
Before then Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania face the voters again at state elections.
Between August 2018 and May 2019 News South Wales and Victoria also have elections.
While the Northern Territory doesn’t have to think about a state election again until 2020. [Australian Parliament website, States and territories: next election dates]
The Liberal and Nationals political fight for voters hearts and minds is going to be fierce and is likely to be nasty given they have so few allies at state government level.
This is what they have to overcome to regain the electorates confidence in both tiers of government - their own entitlement culture, a predilection for budgetary cost cutting at the expense of the poor and vulnerable which smacks of class warfare, an ideological straightjacket hampering vital national policies and open hostility to ordinary wage earners.
Social media is beginning to draw all these strands together………….
The AIM Network, 18 March 2017:
Sally McManus is the hero of workers. Turnbull is welcome to try to villainise her, but in doing so, he’s only making himself the enemy.
In her first television interview as head representative of people who work, McManus was involved in what media-insiders call a ‘gotcha moment’. Courtesy of the get-me-a-gotcha-moment-in-place-of-any-useful-political-analysis-queen, Leigh Sales. In their version of events, McManus was in hot water for backing the safety of workers at any cost, even if that cost is breaking laws designed to help employers shirk any responsibility for protecting people who work for them.
Right wingers squealed in delight when Sales drew supposably controversial comments out of McManus so early in the piece. The attacks came thick and fast from all the obvious places, including many journalists, who tut-tutted about law-breaking as if the law-breaking in question was home invasion or carjacking. Even those from Fairfax, who were more than happy to illegally strike in protest at their own colleagues being sacked, apparently can’t see the irony of criticising workers who do the same thing when a colleague is killed. Christopher Pyne, jumping on McManus like a seagull on a chip, called on her to resign. Turnbull, grasping for something to divert from his own failures, said he couldn’t work with her.
A year ago, this whole episode would have been yet another predictable, not worth mentioning, union bashing media-beat-up. But things have changed in the past few months. People have woken up to wealth inequality. Australia saw this wake up contribute to Brexit and the election of Trump. Closer to home, we’ve had One Nation pop up in Turnbull’s double dissolution, only to be over-egged and come crashing back down in the WA election, where, lo and behold, Labor achieved an 8% swing in their primary vote without any help from minors.
Throughout this time, Turnbull’s government continues to be a mixture of insipid do-nothing indecision, scandal and destruction, infighting and chaos, ideological bastardy and economic incompetence while they sidestep from one policy disaster to the next. Amongst the attacks to Medicare, the undermining of welfare through the Centrelink debacle, the failure on energy policy, the distractions from fringe fundamentalists such as anti-marriage-equality and repealing hate-speech laws, there is one policy which stands shiny and red as the most detestable, a pimple on a bum of failure: an attack to wages through a cut to penalty rates. This decision was the nail in Turnbull’s coffin. Commentators and Federal Liberals can claim all they like that the electoral result in WA was a result of local issues. But there is absolutely no doubting that a cut to wages saw voters melting off Liberals like sweat from Turnbull’s, and Hanson’s brow.
Let’s get something clear. Wages are the central concern of the electorate. Yes, most of us have other concerns, including climate change, education, healthcare, infrastructure, housing affordability, energy policy, immigration, just to name a few. But first on Maslow’s Hierarchy of political needs for left-wing and right-wing voters alike is an economic indicator which is being felt personally in homes from Broome to Launceston, from Townsville to Bankstown: record low wage growth. To put it bluntly, workers aren’t paid enough for the productive labour they contribute to the economy. There is plenty of money being made. It’s just not reaching those who create it….
Read the full article here.
And polls are showing a level of unhappiness that is hard to miss........
Essential Report, 21 March 2017:
The Liberal Party’s main attributes were – too close to the big corporate and financial interest (71%), will promise anything to win votes (71%), out of touch with ordinary people (68%) and divided (68%).
Main changes since June last year were – divided (up 16%) and has a good team of leaders (down 9%).
The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March 2017:
The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March 2017:
Labels:
elections,
government policy,
poll,
statistics,
Turnbull Government
New campaign warns industry super members and consumers of bank attempts to dismantle successful superannuation model
Medianet Release
MEDIA RELEASE
20 March 2017
Keep bank ‘foxes’ out of the super henhouse, new campaign warns
A powerful new campaign warns industry super members and consumers of bank attempts to dismantle the model used by the most successful part of the superannuation system, and put at risk the retirement savings of millions of Australians.
At the centre of the Industry Super Australia campaign is a 30-second television segment which depicts the hand of a federal politician opening a hen house to waiting foxes. The tagline is “Banks aren’t super”.
The commercial responds to bank attempts to secure unfettered access to Australia’s default superannuation system for those who don’t choose their own super fund.
To achieve this, government would be required to dismantle the Fair Work Commission’s merit-based process of shortlisting workplace default funds for employees who are otherwise disengaged from the super system.
These mostly not-for-profit default funds consistently outperform the retail super products sold by banks and others, ultimately leaving their members in a stronger financial position at retirement.
Industry Super chief executive, David Whiteley, said: “The banks are quietly pressuring federal politicians to remove the laws that protect Australians who save through workplace default funds”.
“Not-for-profit industry super funds have consistently outperformed bank-owned retail funds by almost 2 per cent per year over the past twenty years[1][1]”.
“If the banks succeed in bringing the default system down, the super savings of millions of Australians could be at risk,” he said.
Research conducted ahead of the campaign shows strong public distrust for banks when it comes to super.
“The 5 million Australians who entrust their savings to an Industry Super fund expect us to call out exactly what the banks are up to - and our politicians to stare them down,” said Whiteley.
The advertisement broadcasts from Monday 20 March, 2017. View it here
In 2016, the federal government tasked the Productivity Commission with exploring alternative ways of allocating default super fund products. The Commission’s
baseline is for a system with no defaults. A draft report is expected in the coming fortnight.
The government has also vowed to reintroduce a bill,
defeated by the senate in 2015, that will change the way not-for-profit super funds are governed so they are more like the banks.
Industry Super Australia Pty Ltd ABN 72 158 563 270, Corporate Authorised Representative No. 426006 of Industry Fund Services Ltd ABN 54 007 016 195 AFSL 232514. Consider a fund’s Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and your personal financial situation, needs or objectives, which are not accounted for in this information, before making an investment decision.) Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
Distributed by AAP Medianet
[1][1] Source: ISA analysis of APRA Superannuation Statistics
|
Tuesday 28 March 2017
Their skin colour is not fair, they have a 'foreign' name - what could possibly go wrong for these travellers during the Trump Regime?
FACEBOOK:
Details of my CBP Detention at JFK Int. Airport:
After spending a lovely weekend in Paris celebrating my mom’s 80th birthday, I happily boarded my flight to return to the United States-something I have done countless times for 42 years after becoming a U.S. citizen. I had an enjoyable flight to New York’s JFK International Airport. On all of my prior trips, I was greeted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers with a warm smile and the usual, “Welcome home sir”. Not this time. I approached CBP Officer Chow who didn’t say anything when I handed him my passport and looked at me with a gruff expression and simply stated, “are you traveling alone?”, I knew this was a sign of trouble, I answered “yes”, he then said, “Let’s take a walk”.
I was taken to a back office which looked to be a re-purposed storage facility with three desks and signs stating, “Remain seated at all times” and “Use of telephones strictly prohibited” - my first sign that this was not a voluntary situation and, in fact, a detention. By this point I had informed CBP Officer Chow, the one that initially detained me, that I was a retired police chief and a career police officer AND a US citizen-he stated that he had no control over the circumstance and that it didn’t matter what my occupation was. He handed my passport off to another CBP officer who was working at one of the desks. The second CBP officer was indeed kind and appreciated the fact that I was a career police officer and tried to be helpful. He explained that my name was used as an alias by someone on some watch list. He stated that he sent my information to another agency to de-conflict and clear me, so that I could gain passage into the United States….my own country!!!
As I sat in the CBP detention center, numerous, at least 25, foreign nationals were also brought in and quickly released, their detentions were reasonable and appropriate, maybe 5 or so minutes while their passports were checked. I pointed out the irony of this fact to the CBP officer that was attempting to “clear me for entry”. I told him, as he avoided eye contact, how wrong this scenario was that the only US citizen, career US police officer and chief of police, out of the group of detainees, was the one with the longest unreasonable detention- I was held for an hour and a half. I asked several times, “how long of a detention do you consider to be reasonable?”, the answer I was given by CBP Officer Chow was that I was not being detained-he said that with a straight face. I then replied, “But I’m not free to leave-how is that not a detention?” I was in a room with no access to my mobile phone to communicate with my wife and family about what was happening, my movements were restricted to a chair and they had my passport………and he had the audacity to tell me I was not being detained. His ignorance of the law and the Fourth Amendment should disqualify him from being able to wear a CBP badge - but maybe fear and detention is the new mission of the CBP and the Constitution is a mere suggestion. I certainly was not free to leave. As former law enforcement, believe me, I agree that if certain criteria is met, a reasonable investigative detention is not inappropriate-the key here being “reasonable”.
As I continued to sit in the CBP makeshift Detention Center, watching numerous foreign nationals enter my country while I couldn’t, I began thinking about my numerous trips abroad -including five in the past year (all prior to inauguration) - with no problems upon my return and complete with the warm greeting of “Welcome home”.
Fortunately, a CBP officer that had just started her shift took interest in my situation and began to inquire with the “other agency” that was reviewing my information-she aggressively asked them for status updates and eventually called me over to tell me that I was cleared to enter the United States of America. I promptly thanked her and filled her in on how impactful this situation was-she apologized and I was on my way after an hour and a half detention.
I spent nearly 30 years serving the public in law enforcement. Since I retired as the Chief of Police in Greenville, NC, I founded a successful consulting firm that is involved in virtually every aspect of police and criminal justice reform. I interface with high level U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Court officials almost daily. Prior to this administration, I frequently attended meetings at the White House and advised on national police policy reforms-all that to say that If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone with attributes that can be “profiled”. No one is safe from this type of unlawful government intrusion.
As I left the CBP makeshift detention center, I had to go back through security to catch my next flight back to DC, ironically, due to my weekly air travel, I have TSA Pre-check and was whisked through security without a hitch and made my flight by minutes.
This experience has left me feeling vulnerable and unsure of the future of a country that was once great and that I proudly called my own. This experience makes me question if this is indeed home. My freedoms were restricted, and I cannot be sure it won’t happen again, and that it won’t happen to my family, my children, the next time we travel abroad. This country now feels cold, unwelcoming, and in the beginning stages of a country that is isolating itself from the rest of the world - and its own people - in an unprecedented fashion. High levels of hate and injustice have been felt in vulnerable communities for decades-it is now hitting the rest of America.
I have contacted my US senators, and my contacts at the NYT and other media sources to continue to tell the story of what is happening in the United States of America.
Jamaica Observer, 20 March 2017:
HOUSTON, Texas — A Jamaican woman was whisked back to the island and her visa revoked after she arrived at the William P Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas, on Wednesday night.
The woman’s family sought answers from United States media outlet KHOU 11 News, which aired their story.
Veronica Gaubault, who was sent back to Jamaica, told the Houston media that US Customs and Border Protection revoked her visa after agents inspected (CBP) her iPhone, iPad and other belongings.
Her cousin, paediatrician Kareen Smith, said she waited for approximately four hours before customs agents told her that Gaubault would not be allowed to enter the country.
“[They] just decided they were not going to let her in,” she told KHOU 11 News.
“It is important to note that issuance of a visa or a visa waiver does not guarantee entry,” a statement from the US Customs and Border Protection said, adding that “a CBP officer at the port of entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission into the US”.
When asked why the woman’s belongings were searched, they said it was for “administrative causes”, KHOU 11 News reported.
Smith said text conversations between her and Gaubault were also scrutinised.
“She visits me, she visits other family we have in New York or Florida, and she goes home,” Smith said. “She never overstays her time. She always honours her visa and, for some reason, this is the first time she’s been denied.”
The Huffington Post, 7 March 2017:
A Muslim Canadian woman says she was turned away at the United States border after a lengthy interrogation on her religion and thoughts on President Donald Trump.
"I felt humiliated, treated as if I was less than nothing,” Fadwa Alaoui told CBC News on Wednesday.
Alaoui was travelling to Burlington, Vt. to do some shopping with her cousin and two children. The Canadian citizen was born in Morocco and has been in Quebec for 20 years, according to La Presse…..
Border agents took Alaoui and her cousin’s cellphones and asked for the passwords. She was asked questions almost exclusively about her Islamic practice, as well as whether she knew any victims killed in the deadly shooting spree at a Quebec City mosque…..
When border agents asked what she thought of Trump, Alaoui said she responded that he can do what he wants in his own country.
The group was fingerprinted and sent on their way after four hours.
The Star, 6 March 2017:
MONTREAL— A Montrealer who is a Canadian citizen by birth says she was barred from entering the United States and told to get a valid visa if she ever wants to cross the border.
Manpreet Kooner said she was turned away at a crossing along the Quebec-Vermont border on Sunday after a six-hour wait where she was fingerprinted, photographed and questioned before being refused.
She said she was told she was an immigrant without a valid U.S. visa.
Kooner, 30, is of Indian descent and was born in Montreal to parents who came to Canada from India in the 1960s and have lived in the same LaSalle district duplex for decades.
There have been several reports of Canadians encountering issues at the U.S. border, including a Canadian Muslim woman from Quebec who believes she was denied entry because of her religion.
Kooner said she’s perplexed given she was travelling on a Canadian passport and has no criminal record.
The only issue she had was a computer glitch that prevented her from crossing into New York state for 24 hours in December.
Kooner didn’t think much of that snafu until Sunday when she was stopped at Highgate Springs as she was travelling with two white girlfriends.
Her friends were not questioned but she was asked about the December incident.
“At the end of it, they told me I was not allowed going in and that I would need a visa if I ever went in the States again,” Kooner said.
Kooner claims the border agent told her, “I know you might feel like you’re being Trumped,” in reference to U.S. President Donald Trump — a statement she found odd.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman said Monday the department can’t comment on individual admissibility inspections, but noted that possession of a valid travel document does not guarantee entry to the United States.
Asked how she feels, Kooner said, “Just so bad, I feel like I’ve done something wrong, like I’m a criminal or something, but I’m not.”
Kooner went to the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, as suggested at the border, and was told the situation was “odd” and that a visa isn’t necessary for Canadians.
“Maybe there is no valid reason, maybe this is something that I can’t shake because I’m born like this,” Kooner said of her skin colour.
Her travel plans are up in the air: Kooner is supposed to go to a U.S. music festival at the end of March and her bachelorette in Miami in May.
“I’ve never had issues before, that’s the part that kills me,” Kooner said. “Now I’m just debating whether I should cancel.”
Artnet, 1 March 2017:
Juan Garcia Mosqueda, owner of the Chelsea design gallery Chamber NYC, was inexplicably denied entry to the US on Friday after a trip to his native Argentina, according to an open letter he titled “The Visible Wall” and shared with friends and colleagues yesterday.
Mosqueda, who was sent back to Argentina, explains the “dehumanizing and degrading” experience he was subjected to at the border, including being questioned under oath, denied legal counsel, held without food for 14 hours, prohibited from using any means of communication, and denied privacy when using the bathroom.
His belongings—which he could not access while kept in holding—were searched, and his legal documents were kept from him until he arrived back in Buenos Aires. He was escorted onto the plane by armed officers.
“This thirty-six hour nightmare is nothing but clear evidence of a deeply flawed immigration system in the United States, carried out by an administration that is more interested in expelling people than admitting them,“ he writes.
The curator and gallerist explains he has been a legal resident of the US for ten years, as a student, employee, and proprietor.
“Although I am not an American citizen, Chamber is an American product that I hope adds to the cultural landscape of the country,” he writes….
This is just one of many cases of non-US citizens, even with proper visas or green cards, being turned away at the US border under Trump’s travel restrictions, which came in the form of an executive order in January, and were subsequently blocked by a federal judge in Washington state.
Mosqueda’s case, however, is, on the surface, particularly baffling. Under the initial order, travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen—were banned from entering the US. A revised version, set to be introduced this week, bans travelers from all the aforementioned except Iraq, as well as the temporary suspension of all foreign refugees. Legal residents of the US should not be barred under the order.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
racism,
right wing politics,
Trump Regime
Australian Attorney-General Senator George Henry 'Soapy' Brandis finally obeys the court
For these reasons I consider that the decision communicated to the applicant by letter dated 13 June 2014 that a practical refusal reason exists because the work involved in processing the request(s) would substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions should be set aside and, in lieu thereof, I decide that no practical refusal reason under s 24 of the FOI Act exists in relation to the request(s), with the consequence that the request(s) are required to be processed in accordance with the FOI Act. [Dreyfus and Attorney-General (Commonwealth of Australia) (Freedom of information) [2015] AATA 995 , 22 December 2015]
With Australia’s British High Commissioner Alexander Downer not due to step down his post until around April 2018 and no other acceptable option to mothball the Attorney-General in sight, I fear that Australian voters will have to put up with the undistinguished legal mind Senator George Henry ‘Soapy’ Brandis until at least the next federal general election due sometime between August 2018 and May 2019.
Right now he is probably acting like a bear with a sore head in the corridors of power as, once he was forced to obey legal judgment, his diary entries appear to confirm that he never bothered to consult with any legal assistance services before he took a razor to government funding to that sector.
The Guardian, 20 March 2017:
George Brandis has finally released his ministerial diary and it shows no evidence he met with anyone working in the community legal sector before their funding was cut in the 2014 budget.
He handed his electronic diary to Mark Dreyfus, the shadow attorney general, late on Friday.
It took three years for him to release his diary after Dreyfus made his original freedom of information request.
The move came a week after Dreyfus threatened Brandis that he would push for contempt of court proceedings if Brandis did not release the diary immediately.
“Three years since the original freedom of information (FoI) request was made, and thousands of taxpayer dollars later – George Brandis has finally handed over his diary,” Dreyfus said on Monday.
“While the capitulation represents a victory for common sense, transparency and the principles of FoI, it is also ridiculous that it took such lengths to force the attorney general to comply with an act that sits within his own portfolio.
“In order for the attorney general to fulfil a simple request, it has taken an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a hearing in the full court of the federal court, and the threat of contempt.
“It is absurd, and it shows once more Senator Brandis’s unsuitability for the role of attorney general and his contempt for the rule of law.
Labor has been seeking Brandis’s diary since February 2014 to discover what consultation he held before cuts to his portfolio in the 2014 budget.
Dreyfus lodged an FoI request to inspect Brandis’ electronic diary from September 2013 to May 2014.
The Labor frontbencher has had a string of legal wins, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejecting Brandis’s refusal of the request in December 2015 and finding it had to be processed. In September 2016 a full federal court decision upheld the tribunal’s ruling.
But less than two weeks ago, Dreyfus’s lawyers wrote to the Australian government solicitor accusing Brandis of “continued avoidance of his obligation to process” the FoI request because he still hadn’t released his diary.
The letter said that Brandis had had six months since the full federal court decision to process the request but “has continued to behave in a manner that is contemptuous” of the decision and the FoI Act.
It threatened if Brandis did not process the request by 20 March, Labor would seek a court order to set a deadline for the attorney general, after which it could begin contempt of court proceedings.
“No explanation for this delay has ever been proffered nor have we been given any reasons why the application has not been processed,” the letter said.
On Monday, Dreyfus said the saga – which cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars – had been a “monumental waste of everyone’s time”.
“What a waste of of taxpayers’ money, of public servants’ time, of the court’s time just because of – apparently – the attorney general’s vanity,” he told ABC radio.
He said it was notable there was no evidence in the diary that Brandis had met with legal assistance services, including Environmental Defenders Offices and Community Legal Centres, before cutting their funding in 2014.
In September 2014 the Productivity Commission found that the federal and governments needed to inject an extra $200 million a year into legal assistance centres to better align the means test, maintain existing frontline services and broaden the scope of legal assistance services; with the majority of funding being the responsibility of the federal government.
Instead the Attorney-General has insisted on cutting funding wherever he could and the fight continues with deans of law schools joining in the push back against Brandis:
On his part Brandis denies the funding cuts and attempts to blame the former Labor federal government (which has not been in power for the last three annual budgets) as well as the states, in his speech to the Bar Association of Queensland Annual Conference on 25 March 2017:
BACKGROUND
"I've been asked this
morning to say a few words about federal matters so I thought I'd take the
opportunity to address a matter which I know has been of much interest to the
Bar, and which was averted to briefly by the state Attorney and that is the
question of the Federal Government's contribution to legal assistance funding.
We should never forget that most court proceedings in Australia are conducted
in state and territory courts under state and territory law. Appropriately,
therefore, it is the governments of the states and territories which are the
principal funders of legal assistance in Australia. That is as it should be,
even acknowledging, of course, that a very large component of the budgets of
state and territory governments is money provided to them by the Commonwealth
Government under various Commonwealth grants.
Nevertheless, federal
governments of both political persuasions have always acknowledged that there
is an important role for the Commonwealth to play in supporting the states in
the provision of legal assistance through direct payments to Legal Aid
Commissions, to Community Legal Centres, and to Indigenous legal assistance
bodies.
With that in mind, I
note that in the recent past there have been a number of statements made about
the size of the Commonwealth's contribution to the legal assistance sector.
So let me take the
opportunity with these remarks this morning to put some facts on the table.
First, to date, there
have been no cuts to payments to Community Legal Centres by the Commonwealth
Government. It has been claimed by some that the Government is withdrawing $6.8
million annually. That claim is misleading.
That money, to which the
state Attorney also referred, was money provided for under a four year program,
announced by the previous federal government in the 2013 budget, which was deliberately
designed to terminate on 30 June 2017. When that program terminates that money
will no longer be available. This is what is being called by some - the
"Dreyfus funding cliff".
In spite of those, and
other claims, the reality of competing funding priorities and the necessity for
budget repair across Government should not obscure the significant support that
the Commonwealth provides and to which we are committed to continue to provide."
BACKGROUND
The
Guardian, 27
March 2017:
The fight for adequate
funding for community legal centres stretches back to 2013. When the Abbott
government was elected in September 2013, it used its first mid-year budget
update to cut $43.1m for legal assistance services over four years, including $19.6m
from community legal centres.
Six months later, in its
2014-15 budget, it cut another $6m from CLCs.
A month later it made
one-off grants worth $1.55m to just 14 CLCs. Then in March 2015, following
intense community pressure, it
reversed some of its 2013-14 budget update cuts, reinstating $12m in
funding over two years for the sector.
A few months later, in
mid-2015, it signed a new five-year national partnership agreement on legal
assistance services. The agreement provided Australia’s 189 community legal
centres with $42.2m funding in 2016-17, but
that funding drops to $30.1m in 2017-18, $30.6m in 2018-19, and $31m
in 2019-20.
The reduction in funding
levels from 2016-17 amounts to $34.83m over three years, 30%
of CLC funding.
Monday 27 March 2017
Australia Card Mark 3: Surprise! Without justification we will be collecting biometric data to create one centralised identity for each and every one of you and we will be retaining your metadata for an indefinite period at our discretion
The Turnbull Government received the Commonwealth Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) preliminary report, Initial Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Trusted Digital Identity Framework (TDIF) Alpha, in December 2016.
The origin of this particular digital identity proposal was a recommendation by the Financial System Inquiry set up by then Treasurer Joe Hockey in December 2015, with an inquiry committee dominated by representatives of banks and the financial services sector.
This preliminary Privacy Impact Assessment is the latest step in establishing a single digital identity for each and every Australian citizen, with all the same privacy and security risks as the formerly proposed Australia Card and Access Card.
It is proposed that an individual’s digital identity information will initially be made available to federal government departments/agencies and later to state government departments/agencies that apply to join the TDIF.
As yet there is no underlying legal authority for the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, much of the security arrangements for this framework are apparently not yet developed and a full independent risk assessment has either not been completed to date or is not publicly available.
Cross-border data transfers of personal information held on Australian citizens may occur under this framework.
It is expected that complaints and correction requests may cause some difficulties in the TDIF because multiple participants may each hold part of the relevant data and responsibility for dealing with complaints and corrections may be difficult to determine.
On 24 March 2017 The Canberra Times reported:
The federal government is experimenting with a system that would allow Australians to use selfies to log onto Centrelink, Medicare and other Commonwealth services.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's digital re-invention agency is designing a system that would use "bio-metric" facial recognition technology to allow easy log-ins while protecting accounts from identity thieves.
The Digital Transformation Agency insists that no collection or data base of images would be built, the system would be voluntary and the strictest privacy safeguards would be in place.
But privacy activists are worried the idea is simply a high-tech version of the unpopular "Australia card" plan, resurrected more than 20 years after the national ID scheme was dumped.
The government is determined to improve to access to its services online, to save time and money, and to step-up the automation of many of its core activities, particularly in the expensive health and welfare sectors.
But security and privacy has been a huge issues, with many of the problems associated with the much-maligned myGov portal put down to the complex and glitch-prone log-in protocols……
A user of the proposed new system, after establishing their account, would log-in by scanning their traditional forms of ID and as a fail-safe against hacker and identity thieves, take a selfie and upload it from their mobile, tablet or computer.
Central [to] the architecture of the scheme would be an online "identity exchange", a portal that would confirm to a government agency, Centrelink for example, that a user's identity had been verified and cleared to use their account but would not supply the photo or any other data used to make the confirmation.
But talks with "stakeholders" including state and federal privacy authorities as well as online privacy campaigners, have begun to reveal the full complexity of the privacy problems facing the TDIF.
Many of those consulted were surprised they had not already heard of such a game-changing project and questioned the motivation for the decision.
"Stakeholders queried whether due consideration had been given to the failure of previous centralised models in the Commonwealth identity field, such as the Australia Card and the Access Card," Galexia reported.
There were worries that various parts of the system "would obtain, over time, a large and rich source of personal data that will be attractive to third parties for surveillance...or subject to external attack (e.g. hackers), and or subject to accidental breach."
"The consequences of surveillance or a breach were likely to be significant," Galexia noted.
""Some stakeholders predicted that, over time, each [agency] would collect biometric information (photographs) and contribute to the development of a national data set of photographs.
"Although there is no intention to retain photographs in the TDIF, and they are destroyed as soon as a verified match has been made, stakeholders believed that 'it was only a matter of time' before the system was changed and photographs were retained and shared."
A prototype of the TDIF system is expected to be ready for testing in mid-2017….
Key stakeholders consulted sometime in October-November by Galexia Pty Ltd for its 5 December 2016 report:
Australia Post
Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN)
Australian Privacy Foundation (APF)
Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection Victoria (CPDP)
Department of Finance, Services and Innovation NSW (DFSI)
Digital Rights Watch
Information and Privacy Commission NSW (IPC)
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
Office of the Information Commissioner QLD (OIC)
Queensland Government Chief Information Office (QGCIO)
Queensland SmartService (Digital Productivity and Services Division)
Service NSW
According to Galexia on Page 27 of its report:
In the consultation conducted for this PIA, the following views were expressed on this issue:
* Stakeholders questioned where the decision had ‘come from’ as it appeared to take nearly all stakeholders by surprise;
* Stakeholders queried the link between the decision to establish a single Commonwealth IdP and the recommendations of the Murray Report (which in part endorses the development of multiple IdPs in order to foster competition, choice and innovation);
* Stakeholders queried whether due consideration had been given to the failure of previous centralised models in the Commonwealth identity field, such as the Australia Card and the Access Card. Although stakeholders recognised some differences between those proposals and the TDIF in relation to the overall framework and the Identity Exchange, they viewed the decision to establish a single Commonwealth IdP as a ‘throwback’ to those earlier proposals. Even after detailed discussions and explanation on the details of the TDIF most stakeholders still viewed the single Commonwealth IdP as an updated version of the Australia Card / Access Card;
* Stakeholders were strongly of the view that such an important and far-reaching decision should have been the subject of extensive community consultation and debate, with many stakeholders calling for a public discussion paper and / or legislation; and
* Almost all stakeholders struggled to see any justification for the establishment of a single IdP – a common question was “what is the problem that needs to be solved?”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)