Auspol January 2018: Same Shit, Different Year

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol January 2018: Same Shit, Different Year

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

And lets be honest, I think a lot of people would probably think protesting doesn't work, because I've fallen foul of some of my friends who don't understand why I'd join a protest for gay rights or abortion rights or something like that because jeez can't we just vote them in politely.

# ? Jan 30, 2018 23:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 02:46

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

The other thing us why a steakhouse, wht not... literally every other restaurant where meat is assumed and is so baseline. Either way this is not good..

# ? Jan 30, 2018 23:32

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Yeah valid point but I assume it was high profile, plus (at least in Brisbane) the steakhouses usually have some "worth vegetarian restaurant" in the advertising so that probably factors into it as well.

Like I don't want to condone or say this protest was a good thing, I think it's interesting because I feel a lot of the criticisms being thrown around could also be quite valid for protesting in general

# ? Jan 30, 2018 23:37

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Recoome posted:

No like I'm serious, protesting is literally disrupting people's lives and making an impact. I think it's on the shittier end of the spectrum, but the Beef industry at this moment in time is not environmentally sustainable.

If protesting didn't make people feel uncomfortable about their choices or something, or didn't make an impact, then there'd be no point to protesting ever.

I agree but I've done direct action on this kind of scale and it never gets much done outside of making everyone at Ascot Vale Coles scared and then angry at you. They dig their heels in an go I WON'T BE TOLD WHAT TO DO in that loving galling, outraged substitute teacher voice. The other thing is this is not targeting the decision makers. Action needs to critically damage (or be demonstrably capable of damaging) the reputations or pockets of decision makers or leaders. This is just a really weird protest that speaks to (what is to my mind) a super insular community of animal rights activists that don't have much popular cut through.

Industrial action is more often than not a success because of allies. Human rights activity is successful because of allies. Animal rights activists I reckon have the Greens, which is handy, but they don't have many community connections they can call on. Whenever I had the opportunity to try and organise action, 95% of it was calling people, building connections, having as many in person 1:1s as possible and then after months of planning, doing the action. At the very least these guys need to find some sympathetic journalists (which wouldn't be that hard) and word them up before they hit it.

Recoome posted:

And lets be honest, I think a lot of people would probably think protesting doesn't work, because I've fallen foul of some of my friends who don't understand why I'd join a protest for gay rights or abortion rights or something like that because jeez can't we just vote them in politely.

A lot of the time is doesn't work, but who cares have a go.

# ? Jan 30, 2018 23:51

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Actually the most damning thing is I've looked at all the poo poo around this and I don't even recall what the name of their awesome flash mob group or how a punter would join it.

I could go back and find out, but that ship has sailed out of the JBP mind and into the shadows of history.

e: akshually you know what, if they attract 10 new lunatics to their core activist group, that is probably a big win. You need lunatics in the middle of an organisation like this.

JBP fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jan 30, 2018

# ? Jan 30, 2018 23:54

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

Lid posted:

The other thing us why a steakhouse, wht not... literally every other restaurant where meat is assumed and is so baseline. Either way this is not good..

I'm guessing the steakhouse doesn't have vegetarian options, or if it does it's 'chips and salad', so there's less likelihood of conscientious eaters being there.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 00:07

Snowman_McK: Jan 31, 2010

Hobo Erotica posted:

When someone literally says "gently caress Australia, burn it to the ground", unironically, in public, with a megaphone, to a crowd of people, their gender and race don't come into it.

Remember all those white guys who openly advocate for genocide and the massive hate campaigns news corp launched against them?

# ? Jan 31, 2018 00:20

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Snowman_McK posted:

Remember all those white guys who openly advocate for genocide and the massive hate campaigns news corp launched against them?

I suspect this is your point, but who were they and what were they saying?

# ? Jan 31, 2018 00:38

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

bandaid.friend posted:

At least Gibbs was on the original shortlist. I wonder what Constance has against Ian Kiernan?

What all of us should have against Ian. You see in the seventies and eighties there was a thing called bottom of the harbour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_of_the_harbour_tax_avoidance Ian was the Skase of his generation and was last seen evading creditors on his yacht as it sailed for international waters through Sydney heads sometime in about 1983. Once all of the enforcement action and legal wrangling had died down (And it was clear he had gotten away with it) he returned to Australia and started Clean Up Australia as a way to restore his public profile. He has gone to extensive lengths since to keep all the dirt about his earlier career off the front pages and must have a team of media managers continuously washing his web history so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kiernan makes no mention of it.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 00:39

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

I hope the super blood moon kills us all.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 00:59

EoinCannon: Aug 29, 2008; Grimey Drawer

Synthbuttrange posted:

I hope the super blood moon kills us all.

It's a super blue blood moon, it only kills the poor

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:04

Don Dongington: Sep 27, 2005; #ideasboom; College Slice

As much as this is (IMO) a lovely derail, there's one thing everybody seems to forget about the animal welfare/food issue is that it's almost exclusively run from an incredibly loving privileged position. Disadvantaged people typically can't afford to eat ethically AND healthily. Many can't afford to do either. If you're struggling to figure out how to make sure your kids are getting 3 meals a day until payday, you're not going to be thinking about the welfare of the cows.

Fresh fruit and vegetables aren't all that cheap anymore, and unless you're willing to eat nothing but frozen veg and Fry's schnitzels like I did when I was both poor and avoiding meat/dairy/eggs, you're poo poo out of luck. Add in the fact that kids are predominantly fussy and typically want to live on a diet high in fat and sodium and you're hosed for choices on a low income. Non-dairy milk alternatives also cost more.

Yeah, if you're a couple of DINK professionals then vegetarian/veganism is a great way to feel better about yourself, but don't expect single income families to jump at the opportunity to make it 10 times harder to feed their kids. Do your bit, but consider carefully what you may be asking of somebody trying to keep their head above water on the other side of the poverty line.

For this reason alone, it's unethical to go after consumers, rather than the producers, politicians, lobbyists and regulators who keep the status quo going. Also, full communism now.

That said, there is no reason to eat red meat if you don't want to, and buying cage eggs is unforgivable.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:05

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

You know you're a middle class shitball when you save a lot of money by moving to a lower carbon, more healthy and less cruel diet

BECAUSE :capitalism:

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:08

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Cartoon posted:

What all of us should have against Ian. You see in the seventies and eighties there was a thing called bottom of the harbour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_of_the_harbour_tax_avoidance Ian was the Skase of his generation and was last seen evading creditors on his yacht as it sailed for international waters through Sydney heads sometime in about 1983. Once all of the enforcement action and legal wrangling had died down (And it was clear he had gotten away with it) he returned to Australia and started Clean Up Australia as a way to restore his public profile. He has gone to extensive lengths since to keep all the dirt about his earlier career off the front pages and must have a team of media managers continuously washing his web history so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kiernan makes no mention of it.

The latter out weighs the former. Especially since it sounds like they were working within the law until the gov cottoned on and changed the law.

Don't know about him ripping anyone other than the ATO off though, you haven't provided any evidence

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:11

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

I too think tax evasion schemes which have the destruction of records as a defining feature are within the law.

Hobo who�s your accountant, they sound like a good operator.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:23

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Former Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer's defence team has abandoned his case after he was accused of assaulting and robbing a taxi driver.

The controversial Sydney businessman denies stealing the cabbie's iPhone, throwing it out of the taxi and hitting the driver with an Eftpos machine outside Sydney's Star Casino last April.

High-profile solicitor Brett Galloway withdrew from the case when a tired- looking Mr Mehajer appeared at the Downing Centre Local Court on Wednesday after a week in custody.

"I've been asked to take a position which is untenable," Mr Galloway told magistrate Vivien Swain.

Must've been asked to lie

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:26

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

How the gently caress is hobo erotica so consistently so dumb about loving every god damned thing

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:32

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Solemn Sloth posted:

How the gently caress is hobo erotica so consistently so dumb about loving every god damned thing

He still believes western democracy and capitalism have a use.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:37

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not as bad as clean up Australia is good.

Birdstrike posted:

I too think tax evasion schemes which have the destruction of records as a defining feature are within the law.

According to the link posted, 40 years ago they literally were?

Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jan 31, 2018

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:38

Robodog: Oct 22, 2004; ...how does that work?

Starshark posted:

I'm guessing the steakhouse doesn't have vegetarian options, or if it does it's 'chips and salad', so there's less likelihood of conscientious eaters being there.

I've been to a Rare before and they had food enough if you didn't fancy the steaks and poo poo. Salad and gnocchi and poo poo.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:51

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Hobo Erotica posted:

The latter out weighs the former. Especially since it sounds like they were working within the law until the gov cottoned on and changed the law.

Don't know about him ripping anyone other than the ATO off though, you haven't provided any evidence

If you think I'm going to go and get copies of the front pages of newspapers from forty years ago just for you then you are even more loving deluded and hosed up than on one of your 'classic' flavour melt down days. Fortunately THE loving ARTICLE I LINKED INCLUDES IT IN THE VERY FIRST TOPIC FOR FUCKS SAKE:

The very article linked oh ubermuppet posted:

The ATO, being in the same position as other unsecured creditors in the case of an insolvent company, ended up with nothing.

And yes they were mum and dad investors.

You really are the gift that keeps on loving up, making GBS threads on itself and then falling down in the accumulated mess.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 01:58

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Also lol at the idea that tax evasion is fine because you�re just stealing from joe tax collectors pockets and this doesn�t affect services in any way

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:12

Don Dongington: Sep 27, 2005; #ideasboom; College Slice

There really isn't enough :nallears:

for this thread atm.

:nallears:

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:12

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Tax evasion is not a victimless crime, but rather a moral obligation - mayor of garbage town

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:12

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

More like Dumb and Mad investors. :smug:

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:14

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

The article you linked didn't even mention Kiernan? And there are no details about who got ripped off? I mean even for your addled mind this is shaky sir.

Cartoon posted:

You really are the gift that keeps on loving up, making GBS threads on itself and then falling down in the accumulated mess.

But enough about your toilet habits

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:15

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442

Holy loving poo poo

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:16

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

quote:

The Cabinet Files
Hundreds of top-secret and highly classified cabinet documents have been obtained by the ABC following an extraordinary breach of national security.

quote:

AFP lost hundreds of national security files
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) lost nearly 400 national security files in five years, according to a secret government stocktake contained in The Cabinet Files.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet regularly audits all government departments and agencies that have access to the classified documents to ensure they are securely stored.

The missing documents are not the same files the ABC has obtained.

The classified documents lost by the AFP are from the powerful National Security Committee (NSC) of the cabinet, which controls the country's security, intelligence and defence agenda.

The secretive committee also deploys Australia's military and approves kill, capture or destroy missions.

Most of its documents are marked "top secret" and "AUSTEO", which means they are to be seen by Australian eyes only.

An illustrated graphic shows the email conversation between AFP and PMC about how many documents are missing.
A conversation between the Australian Federal Police and and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet about National Security Committee documents. (ABC News: Georgina Piper)
An email exchange between the cabinet secretariat and the AFP reveals the documents were lost between 2008 and 2013, while Labor was in government.

The exchange does not reveal any investigation by either the secretariat or the AFP into how the documents were lost, who lost them, or where they might be now.

It also does not reveal the nature, nor the content of the missing NSC documents.

Troop deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, counter-terrorism operations, foreign relations and Australia's border protection were among the top-secret and sensitive issues decided in the five-year period.

The cabinet secretariat's general practice was to give up searching and write off lost documents if they could not be found after consecutive audits, according to another document in The Cabinet Files.

The ABC has contacted the AFP for comment.

A close-up on pieces of paper shows black text at the bottom that reads "TOP SECRET AUSTEO CODEWORD".
PHOTO: Stocktake reports do not clarify exactly which documents went missing. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)
Classified files left behind in Wong's office
Penny Wong holds a stern expression on her face. She is pictured against a stark, black background
PHOTO: Penny Wong was the leader of the government in the Senate and a member of the NSC at the time. (ABC News: Jed Cooper)
Nearly 200 top-secret code word protected and sensitive documents were left in the office of senior minister Penny Wong when Labor lost the 2013 election.

The 195 documents included Middle East defence plans, national security briefs, Afghan war updates, intelligence on Australia's neighbours and details of counter-terrorism operations.

These are not the same documents the ABC has obtained as part of The Cabinet Files, nor are they the same documents lost by the Australian Federal Police.

The sensitive documents found in Senator Wong's office should have been destroyed, according to a document in The Cabinet Files.

All the documents were security classified, with several marked "top secret" and code word protected, which is the highest level of classification in Australia.

The release of top-secret documents would cause "exceptionally grave damage to the national interest", according to the government's classification guide.

Senator Wong was the leader of the government in the Senate and a member of the powerful National Security Committee (NSC), which means she had access to the country's most secret and sensitive information.

The breach is revealed in a series of emails between the Department of Finance and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from late 2013.

The emails reveal security staff found the documents left in the office after the election and oversaw their destruction.

Westminster convention stipulates cabinet ministers bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions of their staff, which means Senator Wong is ultimately responsible for the breach even if she did not personally leave the documents in the office.

The documents found in Senator Wong's office include:

Defence plans to protect the United Arab Emirates from Iranian hostilities
National security intelligence priorities
Counter-terrorism intelligence planning documents
Details of missile upgrades
Profiles of terror suspects
Issues with Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan
Deficiencies in Defence security vetting
Explore the full list of documents left in Penny Wong's office.
The office of the new prime minister, Tony Abbott, was notified of the security breach in October 2013.

The Department of Finance investigated the security breach but took no further action because they had "no proof of who left them there".

The ABC has contacted Senator Wong's office for comment.

Morrison asked ASIO to slow down asylum seekers' visas
Scott Morrison frowns during a speech at Parliament House. The background is dark
PHOTO: Scott Morrison was immigration minister at the time, and was working on changes to policies around asylum seekers. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)
Scott Morrison agreed his department should intervene in ASIO security checks to try to prevent asylum seekers from being granted permanent protection visas.

In late 2013, the then-immigration minister was rushing through changes that would prevent any asylum seekers who arrived by boat from ever being granted permanent protection in Australia.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection advised Mr Morrison that up to 700 asylum seekers "must" be granted permanent protection under the existing legislation.

The minister was clearly concerned, requesting the exact number and advice on whether he could confer an alternative visa.

The department wrote back with a range of "mitigation strategies" and the minister signed up.

In an unorthodox move, Mr Morrison agreed his secretary should write to the director-general of security to request ASIO delay security checks so that people close to being granted permanent protection would miss the deadline.

The document states that if ASIO did not comply with Mr Morrison's request, 30 extra asylum seekers would likely be granted permanent protection each week.

It meant refugees about to start a new, permanent life in Australia would only be allowed to stay for three years.

He also agreed to reissue an order to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal to hear cases in a particular order to further slow down processing.

The initial order was sent to the two tribunals by former Labor immigration minister Brendan O'Connor months earlier.

The advice prepared for Mr Morrison notes that ASIO is not formally bound by the request, but the two tribunals are.

The secretary of the Immigration Department wrote to ASIO, but it is unclear whether ASIO complied with Mr Morrison's request.

The ABC contacted Mr Morrison and ASIO for comment.

Read the correspondence from Scott Morrison's office about permanent protection visas.
Razor gang considered welfare cut for under-30s
Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann stick out against a dark background.
PHOTO: The expenditure review committee, or razor gang, was made up of Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann. (AAP: Alan Porritt)
Tony Abbott's "razor gang" considered banning anyone under 30 from accessing income support in a radical proposal ahead of the 2014 budget.

The expenditure review committee, or razor gang, was made up of then-prime minister Mr Abbott, then-treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

It requested then-social services minister Kevin Andrews look at how to ban "job snobs" from receiving the welfare payments.

In a document marked "protected", "sensitive" and "cabinet in confidence", Mr Andrews proposed three options to permanently or temporarily halt income support for job seekers under 30.

They included cutting off under-30s entirely, cutting off under-30s in areas with employment opportunities, and limiting income support to young people with a work history.

There was also an option to roll out an income-managed basics card to "lessen the harshness of the measure".

The most extreme proposal would have saved the government nearly $9 billion over four years.

But Mr Andrews, who is a strong factional ally of Mr Abbott, also anticipated a backlash.

The documents reveal he may have been responsible for killing off the plan.

In a draft letter to Mr Abbott and copied to then-employment minister Eric Abetz and then-human services minister Marise Payne, he expressed "significant concerns" about the razor gang's request.

"This is a fundamental change to Australia's universal social security system � it is not clear that there is a strong evidence base for this approach," he wrote in the attached proposal.

"Young people in financial hardship could experience homelessness, be driven to crime and other antisocial behaviour, family breakdown and possible criminal flow-on resulting from removing the social security safety net."

He noted that there was already a crackdown on youth welfare factored into the 2014 budget and suggested any further changes be part of a broader review of welfare.

The ABC contacted Mr Abbott, Mr Hockey, Senator Cormann, Mr Andrews, Senator Abetz and Senator Payne for comment.

Read the full list of proposals to halt income support for under-30s.
Right to remain silent nearly removed under Howard
John Howard, eyebrows knitted together, sticks his right hand out while speaking at a microphone. The background is black.
PHOTO: Then-prime minister John Howard and his National Security Committee gave serious consideration to the proposal. (AAP: David Moir)
John Howard's National Security Committee (NSC) gave serious consideration to removing an individual's unfettered right to remain silent when questioned by police.

The powerful committee's debate on counter-terrorism laws came just after the arrest of Mohammed Haneef and is documented in files marked "secret" and "AUSTEO", which stands for Australian eyes only.

Dr Haneef was accused of providing assistance in the 2007 Glasgow terror attack, but amid huge public controversy, the allegations were later disproven and Dr Haneef was awarded compensation by the Australian government.

The cabinet documents reveal then-attorney-general Philip Ruddock pushed for a range of new offences while Dr Haneef was still under investigation.

Critically, one of the proposals was to modify the right to remain silent during a terrorism investigation.

"I would also like NSC to consider whether amendments should be made to a suspect's right to remain silent to allow a court to draw adverse inferences in a terrorism trial where an accused relies on evidence which he or she failed to mention when questioned by police," Mr Ruddock wrote in his NSC submission.

The proposal was supported by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, but rejected by the majority of the senior ministers in the NSC.

Liberal MP Kevin Andrews is the only current politician who was a member of the NSC at that time.

Current ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis was then an adviser in the prime minister's National Security Division and along with a colleague, he argued strongly against Mr Ruddock's proposal.

"Implementing a new provision to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from a failure to mention something when questioned is likely to involve more risks than benefits and will engage lawyers much earlier on in any investigation," Mr Lewis wrote.

He also warned the raft of proposed changes would be controversial.

"Any strengthening of the counter-terrorism powers will attract significant media and public debate," Mr Lewis said.

A spokeswoman for Mr Howard told the ABC he did not comment on discussions in the NSC, but pointed out that no such change to the law was made.

The ABC has also contacted Mr Ruddock and Mr Andrews for comment.

Andrew Bolt consulted on changes to 18C
Andrew Bolt, wearing a suit and red tie, glances sideways. The background is dark black.
PHOTO: Andrew Bolt was found to have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)
The divisive political commentator who breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was consulted when the federal government moved to change it, according to the draft legislation contained in The Cabinet Files.

The cabinet documents reveal Andrew Bolt was asked how to stop the act's "unreasonably restrictive" reach that led to the successful claim against him in 2011.

Bolt denies he was consulted on changes to the act.

"I was not consulted but was once told what had been decided," he told the ABC.

"I had absolutely no role at all in drafting legislation. Concerns I expressed about the ambit of the proposed changes had no effect."

The Federal Court ruled Bolt breached the act when he published an opinion piece about "white-skinned Aborigines" and their entitlement to welfare.

Justice Mordecai Bromberg found the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.

Section 18C makes it illegal to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone on the basis of their ethnicity, race or colour.

Bolt led the charge of conservative politicians and commentators campaigning to change it, arguing it inhibited free speech because the threshold was too low.

He was the only person specifically named as having been consulted.

The draft legislation states:

"All points of view were canvassed including those of ethnic community groups, Indigenous leaders, leaders of the Jewish community, Mr Andrew Bolt himself and backbench members of the government."

The cabinet also considered extending discrimination protection on the basis of "sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status", but ultimately decided against it.

Last year the Federal Government tried to strengthen the test in the act, so that it would only be illegal to "harass" someone on the basis of their ethnicity, but it failed in a late-night Senate sitting.

NBN Co's secret negotiation documents revealed
NBN Co's secret strategy for negotiating with potential investors reveals the initial lofty ambitions for the project Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has since labelled a "calamitous train wreck".

The 2009 strategy, a budget implications document and a plan for dealing with political attacks are among the trove of cabinet documents obtained by the ABC.

A pile of papers are scattered on a desk. A beam of light cuts across, with the top right and bottom left corners in shadow.
PHOTO: The 2009 NBN strategy and a budget implications document are among the files the ABC has seen. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)
The documents reveal how desperate the then-Labor government was to have Telstra buy into the project on the government's terms.

"Telstra will initially approach the government with a number of proposals which the government will need to politely but firmly resist," one document reads.

"The strategy is � [for Telstra to] ultimately approach government to invest or use NBN Co's network on the government's terms."

The Government is still the sole owner of NBN Co, which is classed as an asset for budget purposes.

But with cost blow-outs and delays the Government is now facing the prospect of having to write it into the budget, rather than persisting with privatisation.

The negotiating strategy shows the initial plans for NBN Co were very different.

"The government does not need to rush into negotiations with investors making early offers," another document reads.

"The government should keep interested parties engaged through consultation, rather than negotiation."

Read the strategy for negotiating with potential investors in NBN Co and NBN financing options and borrowing and budget impacts.
Among the documents are the financing options presented to the cabinet in 2009.

It costs the project at $43 billion and outlines the plan to finance it to completion in 2017, a deadline long since abandoned.

It canvases options to pay for the project, including "Aussie infrastructure bonds" marketed to mum and dad investors on generous terms.

NBN Co declined to comment.

Rudd was warned of home insulation 'critical risks'
Kevin Rudd grimaces, while glancing off camera. There is a spotlight illuminating his face against a dark background.
PHOTO: Kevin Rudd gave evidence to the royal commission into the home insulation scheme. (ABC News/Four Corners)
Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and two senior Labor ministers were warned about "critical risks" of the home insulation scheme before the deaths of four young installers, according to a report in The Cabinet Files.

The infamous Energy Efficient Homes Package rolled out subsidised insulation as part of an economic stimulus package, but was scrapped after the installers' deaths.

Mr Rudd told a royal commission into the program the rollout would have been delayed had cabinet been warned of the safety risks.

"Right through until February 2010 � each of the monthly reports said that the Energy Efficiency program of the government was on track," he said.

He said he did not know why public servants had not raised safety concerns.

But a report to cabinet from April 6, 2009 does warn of "critical risks" associated with the program. It does not specify whether any of these were safety concerns.

"[The Department of Environment] has undertaken a risk assessment which reveals a large number of critical risks for the Energy Efficient Homes Package," the report reads.

Many of these risks cannot be adequately managed in the lead-up to the July 1 start date. The timeline is extremely tight.

In a written submission to the royal commission into the insulation program, Mr Rudd stated that he had only received two implementation reports, written in February 2009, and that he had "no record of receipt of others subsequent to that".

The implementation report from April, contained in The Cabinet Files, was prepared weekly by the Office of the Coordinator-General for the Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee (SPBC).

Mr Rudd, his deputy Ms Gillard, then-treasurer Wayne Swan and then-finance minister Lindsay Tanner made up the SPBC, or so-called 'Gang of Four'.

At the royal commission, when Mr Rudd was asked specifically about the risk assessment undertaken by the Department of Environment, he said:

"I have no familiarity with that other than that I would assume that's the normal thing a department would do."

In response to The Cabinet Files, Mr Rudd told the ABC any assertion he was warned about safety risks was untrue.

"The Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program had unprecedented access to cabinet material and made no adverse finding against Mr Rudd," he said in a statement.

"Any assertion Mr Rudd was warned about safety risks to installers, or failed to act on such warnings, is completely baseless and untrue, as determined by the commission."

The ABC has also contacted Ms Gillard, Mr Swan and Mr Tanner for comment.

Abbott ignored advice, breached confidentiality

quote:

What's the big deal?
Cabinet documents like these are supposed to remain secret by law for at least 20 years. That's so senior ministers feel they can speak openly and frankly in the sanctity of the cabinet room.

Then why are you publishing them?
National security and the inner workings of our government affect the lives of all Australians. These documents reveal how key decisions have been made.

Crucially, they expose repeated security breaches of Australia's most sensitive and classified documents and a seemingly casual attitude of some of those charged with keeping the documents safe.

Can I see the documents?
We have published some of the documents, but not all. We've withheld documents if there are national security reasons, if the information is already public, or to protect the privacy of public servants.

How did you get them?
Journalism like this relies on brave confidential sources, and we'll protect their privacy at all costs. Suffice to say no-one broke any laws.

The documents were in two locked filing cabinets sold at an ex-government sale in Canberra. They were sold off cheaply because they were heavy and no-one could find the keys. A nifty person drilled the locks and uncovered the trove of documents inside.

Where can I send my own news tips?
Send them to us securely via Signal or WhatsApp on 0477 380 028. These services are free, and content of messages sent is encrypted end-to-end, meaning no-one but us can read them. While the messages are private, WhatsApp stores some data like phone numbers and timestamps.

No system is 100 per cent secure, but these services can be used to protect your identity. Please read the terms and conditions of these services to work out the best method of communication for you.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:17

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Cartoon posted:

If you think I'm going to go and get copies of the front pages of newspapers from forty years ago just for you then you are even more loving deluded and hosed up than on one of your 'classic' flavour melt down days. Fortunately THE loving ARTICLE I LINKED INCLUDES IT IN THE VERY FIRST TOPIC FOR FUCKS SAKE:
And yes they were mum and dad investors.

You really are the gift that keeps on loving up, making GBS threads on itself and then falling down in the accumulated mess.

I also love that this posts describes mine as a 'meltdown'. Priceless.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:22

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

Hobo Erotica posted:

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not as bad as clean up Australia is good.

According to the link posted, 40 years ago they literally were?

If it was legal they wouldn�t have taken steps to hide their conduct.
If the success of a scheme is predicated on the authorities never finding out, that is the literal definition of tax evasion, which is and was illegal.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:23

The Neal!: Sep 3, 2004; HAY GUYZ! I want to be a director

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442

Holy loving poo poo

Holy loving poo poo indeed.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:25

Coq au Nandos: Nov 7, 2006; I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question... A shitpost is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that's what I would say.

lol

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:33

Whitlam: Aug 2, 2014; Some goons overreact. Go figure.

Dumbest timeline.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:36

Dude McAwesome: Sep 30, 2004; Still better than a Ponytar

Hahahahaha. loving hell.

�We lost the keys and the cabinet was heavy�

What a bunch of fuckin clowns.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:44

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

quote:

Andrew Bolt consulted on changes to 18C
Andrew Bolt, wearing a suit and red tie, glances sideways. The background is dark black.
PHOTO: Andrew Bolt was found to have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)
The divisive political commentator who breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was consulted when the federal government moved to change it, according to the draft legislation contained in The Cabinet Files.

The cabinet documents reveal Andrew Bolt was asked how to stop the act's "unreasonably restrictive" reach that led to the successful claim against him in 2011.

fuuuu

quote:

Right to remain silent nearly removed under Howard
John Howard, eyebrows knitted together, sticks his right hand out while speaking at a microphone. The background is black.
PHOTO: Then-prime minister John Howard and his National Security Committee gave serious consideration to the proposal. (AAP: David Moir)
John Howard's National Security Committee (NSC) gave serious consideration to removing an individual's unfettered right to remain silent when questioned by police.

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:45

JBP: Feb 16, 2017; You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

what is wrong with this country lmao

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:46

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

In case you were wondering yes this is the source of pretty much all the cabinet news for the last few days

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:47

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Hobo Erotica isn't the only one melting down today:

quote:

The new year has started with leaks to the ABC of Cabinet documents damaging to Tony Abbott, which sure helps embattled Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

How suspiciously convenient.

Here's one example:

Mr Abbott, then treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann considered three means of limiting income support to under-30s, but the plan was ultimately quashed by then social services minister and Abbott factional ally Kevin Andrews, according to cabinet documents reportedly obtained by the ABC.

Here's another:

..leaks emerged suggesting Mr Morrison [as Abbott's Immigration Minister] asked ASIO to delay security checks on asylum seekers to prevent those who arrived by boat from gaining permanent protection in 2013.

Now the ABC tells me it has another leak, this one claiming the Abbott Government consulted me about changing the 18c restrictions on free speech. It asks if I helped Abbott draft that doomed legislation. The answer is no.

But the state-funded ABC should in turn explain if it is itself helping the Turnbull Government to use these leaks against his perceived enemies. That would be a far more sinister collusion.

Here is the email I got from the ABC:

Hi Andrew,

We�ll be publishing a story today showing the former government consulted you personally while drafting the changes to 18C.

My questions are:

What kind of consultation did you take part in?
How much involvement did you have in the drafting of the legislation?
Kind regards,

Ashlynne

My response:

I was not consulted but was once told what had been decided. I had absolutely no role at all in drafting legislation. Concerns I expressed about the ambit of the proposed changes had no effect. More interesting is that someone in the Turnbull Government is now working with the state-funded ABC to attack the Prime Minister�s perceived enemies. This collusion is of far more political significance and deserves investigation.

Can you now in turn answer my question with equal frankness: has the ABC conspired with any current or former minister in the Government or their agents in this release of a series of leaks plainly designed to hurt Tony Abbott in particular? Will the ABC give taxpayers the political context to explain why it is the recipient and promoter of these leaks?

I assume the ABC has a document saying then Attorney General George Brandis told me over a lunch that the Abbott Government intended a wholesale purge of 18C, which I had publicly attacked as a dangerous restriction on our freedom to debate the new race politics. It isn't surprising that he would have talked to me about this law, given I had been not just a critic of it but had had two of my columns banned under it.

I recall warning Brandis that his changes - while correct in principle - were so broad that they would be a struggle to sell. But he and the Government went ahead - and, sadly, failed.

Nothing in this strikes me as wrong or underhand. I've loudly declared my position on this law all along.

But what is the ABC's game? That is potentially more sinister.

True, these leaks could actually just be the result of an accident. I may have assumed the worst too fast. It is possible Brandis did not clean out his office properly before leaving for his new London job, leaving some old Cabinet papers in a forgotten drawer for some passerby to find and pass on. Or did some other minister or staffer leave some file where they should not?

But the question must be asked: is the vast and state-funded ABC willingly working with a Turnbull ally in a last-ditch bid to save the Prime Minister from his critics, using leaks of Cabinet documents? That would be a matter of some public importance.

Will the ABC be as frank with you as I am here?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/hypocritical-abc-claims-leak-proves-i-plotted/news-story/0a34769528ad5afd3b17178a50a4846e

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:52

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

got to "How suspiciously convenient." and knew immediately who this was

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 02:46

Metis of the Chat Thread: Aug 1, 2014

The best part of those documents is this:

quote:

An email exchange between the cabinet secretariat and the AFP reveals the documents were lost between 2008 and 2013, while Labor was in government.

The exchange does not reveal any investigation by either the secretariat or the AFP into how the documents were lost, who lost them, or where they might be now.

It also does not reveal the nature, nor the content of the missing NSC documents.

The missing documents are not the same files the ABC has obtained.

quote:

Nearly 200 top-secret code word protected and sensitive documents were left in the office of senior minister Penny Wong when Labor lost the 2013 election.

The 195 documents included Middle East defence plans, national security briefs, Afghan war updates, intelligence on Australia�s neighbours and details of counter-terrorism operations.

These are not the same documents the ABC has obtained as part of The Cabinet Files, nor are they the same documents lost by the Australian Federal Police.

how many filing cabinets full of top secret documents do you think they've accidentally sold

# ? Jan 31, 2018 02:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol January 2018: Same Shit, Different Year

«‹›59 »