The ABC posted:

The Australian Federal Police has decided not to investigate Human Services Minister Alan Tudge over the controversial disclosure of a welfare recipient's personal information to a journalist.

Mr Tudge and the Department of Human Services (DHS) have faced widespread criticism over its decision to release the welfare details of a blogger who wrote an opinion piece in Fairfax newspapers criticising Centrelink's much maligned automated debt recovery system.

In a statement, the AFP confirmed Labor's human services spokeswoman Linda Burney had referred the incident, doubting Mr Tudge's claim that the DHS had clear legislative power to release the information to correct the public record.

"The AFP has conducted an evaluation into this matter and concluded that there was no breach of Commonwealth legislation," an AFP spokesperson said.

Andie Fox had argued she was being "terrorised" over a debt she did not owe.

Ms Fox's welfare history was given to a journalist, who wrote a comment piece from the perspective of the Government a few weeks after the original column.

Mr Tudge has labelled Ms Burney's actions as "a political stunt and part of its Centrelink scare campaign".

"The decision to end the consideration of this referral is no surprise," Mr Tudge said in a statement.

"Social security law and family assistance law allow for the release of limited information to respond to incorrect or misleading information in the media about specific cases, in order to maintain public confidence in the integrity of government programmes.

"The Government takes privacy very seriously and complies with all the requirements of the relevant legislation."

Ms Burney said she was disappointed by the AFP's decision and said she would refer Mr Tudge to the Information Commissioner.

"Whether this was a criminal offence or not, there is one thing for certain, Alan Tudge has acted unethically and without regard to an individual's privacy," she said.

The release had been criticised by lawyers who believed it was designed to stop criticism of the Government, and said it could be a test case for privacy law.

Bogan King posted:

Bogan King posted:

The Australian Federal Police has decided not to investigate Human Services Minister Alan Tudge over the controversial disclosure of a welfare recipient's personal information to a journalist.

Solemn Sloth posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-08/federal-budget-2017-afp-extra-funding-for-expansion/8504974

Solemn Sloth posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-08/federal-budget-2017-afp-extra-funding-for-expansion/8504974

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

And you thought Mark had already hit rock bottom...

bandaid.friend posted:

Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam
https://icmi.info/conference-information/about-the-speakers/
He'll give one of ten talks, eight of which are 'subject TBD' at location TBD. Price of entry is not TBD (it's 300 bucks). Hope he liked the red pill doco, the cast and director will be there too!

You Am I posted:

Seriously, does the AFP ever do any work? Nearly every time there's a request for them to investigate a pollie they quickly look the other way and do a Officer Barbrady "Nothing to see here"

bandaid.friend posted:

Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam
https://icmi.info/conference-information/about-the-speakers/
He'll give one of ten talks, eight of which are 'subject TBD' at location TBD. Price of entry is not TBD (it's 300 bucks). Hope he liked the red pill doco, the cast and director will be there too!

bandaid.friend posted:

Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam
https://icmi.info/conference-information/about-the-speakers/
He'll give one of ten talks, eight of which are 'subject TBD' at location TBD. Price of entry is not TBD (it's 300 bucks). Hope he liked the red pill doco, the cast and director will be there too!

Solemn Sloth posted:

was that the skull guy and the fake whiskey drinker movie that they had a massive tiff over?

bandaid.friend posted:

Latham'll apparently be at a men's rights conference next month hosted by Paul Elam
https://icmi.info/conference-information/about-the-speakers/
He'll give one of ten talks, eight of which are 'subject TBD' at location TBD. Price of entry is not TBD (it's 300 bucks). Hope he liked the red pill doco, the cast and director will be there too!

V for Vegas posted:

Because these are criminal offences there needs to be proof the person intended to commit the offence. If the politician says they didn't, then that's about it. That's why Slipper's case was eventually overturned - because he might not have intended to unlawfully use his cabcharges.

Periphery posted:

Doesn't that just excuse being ignorant of the law? You can't intend to commit an offence if you don't know it's an offence.

Brown Paper Bag posted:

Sam told Latham to gently caress off (literally)when Latham came back to Twitter and Latham has been melting down about it since

Bogan King posted:

Problem is he makes a couple of hundred grand a year with his pension and he has nothing else in his life but screaming for attention. He's probably the most blatant example of why you shouldn't be allowed to work and draw the MP pension.

starkebn posted:

I also thought ignorance of the law was no excuse

thatbastardken posted:

mens rea or the guilty mind only applies to your intention to commit the offense, not knowledge that it is an offense. also it doesn't apply to strict liability offenses, where it doesn't matter what your state of mind was.

thatbastardken posted:

in old common law stuff and some of the time in criminal codes a criminal act has two distinct parts, the act and the intention. you have to both do the thing and intend to do it for it to be criminal. you don't have to know you're committing a crime, you just have to know what you're doing. ignorance of the law remains (mostly) no excuse.

some offenses - often but not always serious crimes - fall into a category of 'strict liability'. it doesn't matter what your intention was, so long as you carried out the act.

starkebn posted:

thank you for explaining, but how did Tudge not know he was releasing a persons details which is clearly not right

thatbastardken posted:

this comic explains it in the american context, but it's probably close enough: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Written by a libertarian?

thatbastardken posted:

no.

thatbastardken posted:

while the comic may not be written with a sense of class consciousness, the author is clearly in favor of states and laws. not a libertarian.

Amanda Vanstone posted:

Ridiculously, some tried to say that people who wanted reform of S18c to allow greater freedom of speech should not criticise Ms Abdel-Magied, because she was simply exercising her right to free speech. Since when did freedom of speech mean freedom from criticism? She of course, has the right to free speech, to say what she likes. So do those who disagree with her. That's what free speech is about. It certainly doesn't mean that if you jump in with the first comment, everyone else has to zip their lips and let your remarks go without comment or response.

thatbastardken posted:

no.

Solemn Sloth posted:

he sure uses a lot of dumb libertarian talking points as examples in that case

Aesculus posted:

Greens update: Parliamentary right in NSW is now openly defying the membership's decision making and boycotting the party, instead crying to RDN and the federal right to impose top-down MP leadership control. You heard it here first. Now don't go leaking it to the arsetrayan