On 19 February 2014 the National Archives of Australia and Dept. of Immigration and Border Protection decided to limit information about Anthony John Abbott

While Anthony John Abbott was Federal Leader of the Opposition the National Archives of Australia displayed on its website a digital record of Richard and Fay Abbott’s application for assisted passage to Australia with their first two children, Anthony and Jane.

Sometime after Anthony John ‘Tony’ Abbott became prime minister this digital copy disappeared from view in the original record which still retains its "open" listing.

Now a restricted listing for “Anthony John Abbott” have been posted online by archive staff and, one has to pay $29.90 for a paper copy of an unspecified record pertaining to this person if access is granted.

Snapshot taken on 22 March 2014

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/NameSearch/Interface/ItemDetail.aspx?Barcode=13147273

The reason given for this apparent desire not to have information on the Prime Minister and his family as freely available to the general public as is the information on other living persons or their parents and grandparents is that: Information or matter the disclosure of which under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person (including a deceased person).

So it is perfectly acceptable to release the digital records of others and, therefore for the general public to know how many times former Prime Minister John Howard's father was absent without leave when on active duty in France during World War One or how many times many other ordinary servicemen caught a venereal disease or went before courts-martial during both world wars.

It is also acceptable for what sometimes amounts to idle gossip or vindictive accusation about ordinary Australians from as late as the 1950s, 60s and 70s (concerning treason/sedition or membership of the Communist Party) to be digitally available on the National Archives website, as well as copies of ASIO surveillance photographs of May Day marchers and Moratorium protesters, yet Prime Minister Abbott's history is to be hidden from general view. 

One can be forgiven for thinking that there is now one rule for the Prime Minister and another for the rest of Australia.

The real reason Anthony John 'Tony' Abbott waited until he was almost 24 years old to become an Australian citizen?

When Anthony John Abbott was born to an English father and a first-generation Australian mother at a general lying-in hospital in York Road, Lambeth, London, on 4 November 1957, his parents did not register him as an Australian infant born overseas or immediately apply for Australian citizenship on his behalf.

Presumably because at that time Richard and Fay Abbott thought they would be permanently living in England and raising a family there.

He therefore had only one official nationality status – as a British subject and citizen.

In fact it was not until over twenty years after the family had arrived in Australia as subsidised assisted migrants that Tony Abbott’s parents applied to register his birth with the Dept. of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and apply for his citizenship, in a document/s dated 19 June 1981.

This application appears to have been treated as urgent by departmental staff.

His parents were subsequently informed in a letter dated 1 July 1981 that Anthony John Abbott was now deemed to be an Australian citizen under Section 11 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 which allowed citizenship by descent.

At this time Tony Abbott was 23 years and 7 months of age and, had either applied for a Rhodes Scholarship or was intending to apply for this scholarship to study at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.

Currently such applications must be applied for after 1 June in the year a Rhodes Scholarship is on offer.

To gain a Rhodes Scholarship an applicant has to be an Australian citizen and have been resident in Australia for at least five of the last ten years.

Tony Abbott was apparently intending to depart Australia on or about 10 July 1981 and, started his scholarship course at Queens College, Oxford, in October 1981.

One cannot escape the suspicion that the future Prime Minister of Australia only applied for Australian citizenship at that time in order to gain a monetary advantage which would allow him to further his studies overseas.

Which, if true, would make him a somewhat reluctant Aussie and perhaps go some way to explaining his strong admiration of the British monarchy and those anachronistic English titles he has re-introduced (without consultation with Cabinet or party room) into the Australian honours system.

Note: Immigration and citizenship information found at the National Archives of Australia.

UPDATE

There is no National Archives record listed of Fay Abbott applying to register the overseas birth of Tony Abbott’s sister, Jane Elizabeth Abbott (born on 25 January 1959 at Hammersmith, London U.K.) either in 1981 or any other year.

In June 1981 Jane Abbott would have been 22 years of age.

Abbott Government's get-out-of-gaol-free card for closet and open racists

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis’ announcement of his intention to weaken the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975:

Racial Discrimination Act

25 March 2014

The Government Party Room this morning approved reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act), which will strengthen the Act’s protections against racism, while at the same time removing provisions which unreasonably limit freedom of speech.

The legislation will repeal section 18C of the Act, as well as sections 18B, 18D, and 18E.

A new section will be inserted into the Act which will preserve the existing protection against intimidation and create a new protection from racial vilification.  This will be the first time that racial vilification is proscribed in Commonwealth legislation sending a clear message that it is unacceptable in the Australian community.

I have always said that freedom of speech and the need to protect people from racial vilification are not inconsistent objectives. Laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.

This is an important reform and a key part of the Government’s freedom agenda. It sends a strong message about the kind of society that we want to live in where freedom of speech is able to flourish and racial vilification and intimidation are not tolerated.

The draft amendments are released for community consultation.  The Government is interested in hearing from all stakeholders on the proposed reforms.  Submissions can be made until 30 April 2014 at s18cconsultation@ag.gov.au.

A copy of the draft amendments is attached.

Section of the existing Racial Discrimination Act 1975 the Abbott Government is replacing:

Part IIA—Prohibition of offensive behaviour based on racial hatred  

18B  Reason for doing an act

                   If:

                     (a)  an act is done for 2 or more reasons; and

                     (b)  one of the reasons is the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person (whether or not it is the dominant reason or a substantial reason for doing the act);

then, for the purposes of this Part, the act is taken to be done because of the person’s race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

18C  Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     (b)  is done in a public place; or

                     (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

             (3)  In this section:

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

18D  Exemptions

                   Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                     (c)  in making or publishing:

                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

18E  Vicarious liability

             (1)  Subject to subsection (2), if:

                     (a)  an employee or agent of a person does an act in connection with his or her duties as an employee or agent; and

                     (b)  the act would be unlawful under this Part if it were done by the person;

this Act applies in relation to the person as if the person had also done the act.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply to an act done by an employee or agent of a person if it is established that the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee or agent from doing the act.

In case your wondering how sexual assault breaks down by gender in Australia

Australian Bureau of Statistics definition of Sexual Assault:
 is an act of a sexual nature carried out against a person's will through the use of physical force, intimidation or coercion, and includes any attempts to do this. This includes rape, attempted rape, aggravated sexual assault (assault with a weapon), indecent assault, penetration by objects, forced sexual activity that did not end in penetration and attempts to force a person into sexual activity. Incidents so defined would be an offence under State and Territory criminal law. Sexual assault excludes unwanted sexual touching - for the purposes of this survey, this is defined as Sexual Harassment. Sexual assault also excludes incidents of violence that occurred before the age of 15 - for the purposes of this survey, these are defined as Sexual Abuse. If a person experienced sexual assault and sexual threat in the same incident, this was counted once only as a sexual assault. If an incident of sexual assault also involved physical assault or threats, this was counted once only as a sexual assault.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012 Personal Safety Survey revealed that 1,494,000 females and 336,000 males had experienced sexual assault since the age of fifteen.

The following infographics highlight some findings from this recently released survey.  See the full report for more information.

Pie charts found at http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

Morgan Poll of Australian federal voting intentions released on 24 March 2014 shows ALP leading

Scroll down in media release for polling breakdown, tables and graphs.

Roy Morgan Research, Morgan Poll, Media Release 24 March 2014

Word of the unrest spreads......

Letter to the editor, The Daily Examiner, 19 March 2014:

Question bullying

Councillor Margaret McKenna's motion in council regarding violence against people on the basis of their sexuality is commendable (DEX, 15/3).

The violation of anyone's human rights is unacceptable in a civilised society.

Bullying and intimidation in the workplace is equally abhorrent and, I would suggest, a far more widespread form of human rights abuse.

If the good councillor were to ask just how many complaints of this kind of abuse have occurred within Clarence Valley Council over the past 12 months, she may be very unpleasantly surprised.

Bullying in the workplace can become endemic if it is not addressed forcefully and publicly. Bullying and intimidation are trademarks of an absence of quality leadership.

The impact on its victims, their families, their work colleagues, and the productivity and morale of the entire organisation is as profound as it is irreparable.

It cannot be contained or hidden.

We live in an age when social media and personal networks can negate any attempted commercial blackmail of mainstream media.

I would suggest Cr McKenna and all Clarence Valley councillors need to address an issue that threatens not only the reputation and integrity of this council but its continuance in office, and they need to do it immediately.

Ian Saunders

Maclean

More dodgy figures to be released by the Abbott Government?

The Australian 24 March 2014: