[LINK] Attorney General redefine's reality

[Frank O'Connor]

Yo Rog,

On 14/08/2013, at 9:53 AM, Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:

> At 9:35 +1000 14/8/13, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>> Mark Dreyfus is now maintaining that Snowden and Manning aren't 
>> whistleblowers. See: 
>> http://www.zdnet.com/au/snowden-manning-not-whistleblowers-australian-attorney-general-7000019310/?s_cid=e551&ttag=e551
>> 
>> One wonders what universe our politicians live in ...
> 
> The one 'plea in mitigation' that Dreyfus can reasonably make is 
> that, when he accepted the promotion to AG, he came under the direct 
> control of the national security extremists who run the Department, 
> fronted by Geoff Macdonald:
> http://www.ag.gov.au/About/Documents/Attorney-Generals%20Department%20Organisational%20Chart.PDF
> 
> The worms who prepare the spin for Ministers to sprout (sorry about 
> the mixed metaphors) are highly skilled at leveraging off miniature 
> factoids.
> 
> In this case, they can create a chimera of justification for the 
> statement that they're not whistleblowers on the basis that 
> intelligence information is exempt from Australia's excuse for a 
> whisteblower law ...
> 
> ____________________

That invites two conclusions with respect to Mark Dreyfus.

If we adopt your explanation ..then Dreyfus has no integrity ... he's just a parrot for the worms (now I'm sorry about the mixed metaphors!). Before he became all ministerial and Attorney General he used to impress as a columnist in the local Melbourne rags, but now ... he's just the mouthpiece of an anonymous security bureaucrat.

That said, I've seen no indication in the last 20 years that the Doctrine of Ministerial responsibility applies any more ... so this is a concern from a democratic perspective. That the highest legal officer in the land is a tool of bureaucratic toadies, I mean. (The recent stances of the Australian judiciary regarding the rights of individuals to political expression, freedom of expression and the like make this even more ominous from the perspective of individual rights in this country ... we REALLY NEED a Bill of Rights - but we can't look to our politicians to achieve it.)

The alternative of course is that he knows very well what he is saying in these statements ... and is an enemy of democracy and privacy.

Either way ... Mark Dreyfus is not a very admirable person and evidences little in the way of personal integrity.

Just my 2 cents worth ...