Comments on: Grech affair a setback for government 2.0

By: TheMissus

TheMissus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:20:48 +0000

Trevor, Trevor, Trevor.

There is a setback to government because they are being prevented from governing at the moment by childish outbursts by Turnbull and Hockey.

Let us hear good solid evidence but this witchhunt is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues that require debate.

If they have solid evidence then they should backtrack, build a case and present a short sharp case but instead we hear one silly theory after another in some vain hope mud will stick just from repetition. Everyone has stopped listening.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:33:33 +0000

Trevor
you sound as if you know nothing about governing. The slightest passing acquaitance with it would answer your question for you.

Firstly, some examples of why activities are conducted in ’secrecy’:

1. protection of personal information, for example, tax records, medical histories, employment records. (All info available to bureaucrats, all kept secret, all to protect ordinary individuals).

2. protection of individuals against adverse impacts arising from their interaction with government: so, if I ask the council if my neighbour’s shed is legal, and it is, I still don’t want him knowing that I asked.

3. protection of information which can harm my business/organisation: if my company puts in for a tender, revealing in the process information which it has gained through many years of self funded research, it does not want that information to be available to its competitors.

4. in government: options which have been presented to you which are so out of kilter with public opinion that you’re not even considering them can still do incredible damage if they are put out into the public domain.

Citizens can get access to government information through FOI inquiries – and I would point out that the ALP has recently put through legislation to make the process easier.

When you have someone – a public servant – who is prepared to trash their conditions of employment and knowingly mislead his superiors – I’m not sure how a more open and accountable process would yield the truth.

If he lies to the Senate and his bosses, why wouldn’t he just keep lying?

The AFP enquiry very quickly found out his whole evidence was based on a lie.

By: Trevor Cook

Trevor Cook — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Leaks wouldn’t be the stock and trade of politics if we had a more open system. Why are the activities of bureaucrats conducted in such secrecy? Governments prefer secrecy and the only way citizens get access to information other than what governments want to give is through leaks. Given that Rudd and Swan have done absolutely nothing wrong, the leak hardly matters does it? An alternate strategy for the government to pursue would have been openness (ie government 2.0). I expect a full and open examination of Grech would have identified real problems with his evidence. I think the attempts to shut him up only exacerbated the problem. The ALP senators and the Treasury official inadvertently added weight to his evidence.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:36:02 +0000

What? You are defending public servants (i) breaking their terms of employment and (ii) allegedly lying on oath/misleading parliament (at best) and (at worst) being involved in a conspiracy to damage the government?

Exactly what was Rudd supposed to do here? Decide he was guilty because Grech said so? Let a slur on his character go to the keeper?

Yes, we all know public servants leak to politicians. Sometimes it’s justifiable, but I’d like to know how you can justify this one.