[LINK] Broadband for a Broad Land

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Wed Feb 16 12:36:35 AEDT 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Tom Worthington
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 11:32 AM
> To: Link list
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Broadband for a Broad Land
> I wrote:
> > I started writing a submission for the NBN Inquiry ...
> I sent my submission to the NBN inquiry on Monday, along the 
> lines of my 
> Blog posting: 
> <http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/02/broadband-for-broad-land-envr
> ionment.html>.
> However, the Inquiry Secretary for the House of 
> Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and 
> Communications has replied asking to remove the draft from 
> the web, saying that "... a submission has been sent to a 
> committee it is not supposed to be published or disclosed 
> until it has been considered by the committee. ...".
> This issue came up more than ten years ago when I was preparing 
> submissions to Senate committees on behalf of the Australian Computer 
> Society. For those inquiries I developed the technique of placing the 
> drat submission online so as to have maximum consultation 
> with members 
> and other bodies. So as not to breech committee rules, I marked these 
> documents "Draft", to distinguish them from the actual final 
> submission 
> made. I had no concerns expressed by the committee secretariats with 
> this practice. Like the process of making submissions in electronic 
> format (the precedent for which was set by an ACS submission), I had 
> assumed this was now accepted practice for parliamentary inquiries.
> If I am required to obtain permission from a parliamentary committee 
> before discussing a topic with anyone, it will make 
> preparation of any 
> submission very difficult.
> I an not a lawyer, but my understating is that my right to 
> discuss any 
> issues I wish, with whom ever I wish, is a fundamental one, as 
> recognised by the High Court of Australia. Therefore a rule by a 
> parliamentary committee requiring me to seek their prior 
> permission is 
> invalid.
> Any suggestions on how to respond to the committee's request would be 
> welcome.
Err, um, what Roger said, but possibly you could add that in your brief
fifty years of academic life, you have become used to a peer review
process to clarify, correct and finalise papers to be submitted.

If the Parliamentary committee now wishes to alter the aeons approved
methodology of refined document production, could they then make a
comment in regards to the practice of the honourable members.
Are we the public to assume that Parliamentary documents are drafted and
submitted without a peer review process and if not, then why should we
not be afforded the same rights?

And; If so, well, that would explain a lot...

More information about the Link mailing list