Reader OzPolTragic noted this response from Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing Peter Dutton to a comment on his Daily Telegraph blog post:
Thanks Paul. You come from the ACT so we know it is likely you are not a conservative voter! Have a good day.
Cheers
Peterps…if you work in a Federal Govt dept and have any info we might find interesting, don’t hesitate to give me a ring!
Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act makes it a criminal offence for Commonweallth officers to communicate information to unauthorised persons, where the officer has a duty not to disclose the information. The Australian Public Service Code of Conduct imposes a duty on public servants to maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings with a Minister and the Minister’s staff. In fact, the Howard Government that Dutton was a part of used these provisions to charge a public servant with leaking information, with the journalists who received the information being held in contempt of court for failing to disclose their source.
On the face of it, Dutton’s comment seems to encourage public servants to commit a criminal offence by revealing departmental information. I assume he is not silly enough to do such a thing, so it was more likely an attempt at humour. But how smart is it for Dutton to make light of criminal conduct in the public service, especially in the wake of a fake e-mail scandal that has heavily damaged his leader’s credibility and political standing?
7 Comments
didn’t Dutton used to be a police officer before coming into parliament?
I’m sure the comment was meant in jest, but in the current climate – perhaps not quite appropriate.
Yes.
Assuming it was him, and not a staff member, of course.
turnbull and abetz should already be in deep s**t for encouraging at least one public official to hand over confidential material, and possibly for being parties to the equally serious criminal offence of impersonating a commonwealth official. so should newscrap, but undoubtedly they will lie and bluster their way out of that, and invoke the usual newscrap excuse of protecting sources or journalistic ethics (there’s a contradiction in terms for you!).
The Mad Monk had the gall to wail ” the government is using the full machinery of the State to go after whistleblowers..”. Not at all what his hero did to Kelly or Kessing.
An interesting point, TD. This might become a bigger issue as political communication extends into new technologies like blogging, Twitter, etc. – while politicians have always had communications staff who “speak” with the politician’s voice (e.g., media releases), we’re now seeing them produce briefer, more direct communications with the public. To what extent is the politician ultimately responsible for anything that goes out under his or her name? And what sort of oversight are politicians exercising over what their staff do with these modes of communication?