Peter A Clarke

The AFL has managed to throw a blanket over the press in AFL v The Age Company Ltd over the reporting of names of three players who had tested positive to drugs.  The AFL got an interim injunction before Hollingworth J and Kellam made it permanent today.  The judgment is tightly argued and, at first blush, seems reasonably well prepared.  But banning the Age from reporting such a story, details of which are in the public domain, is totally unfair with the cyberworld being open to this sort of information. 

Another point.  Why should the AFL rely on confidentiality clauses in an agreement betwen it and players to repress free speech by a third party. It is an artificial construct. 

It highlights the need to have a right to privacy.

It seems some centrelink staffers have copper instincts when it comes to databases – have a sneak peak and see whose doing what.  Seven hundred and ninety breaches involving, in one way or another, 585 employees over a 2 year period smacks of a cultural problem.  It is an outrageous breach of privacy and Centrelink seems to have done something about it according to today’s Age.  Sacking, demoting, fining and reprimanding workers who access a persons record without authorisation is a good start. But why isn’t it a criminal offence. Surely it is criminal behaviour.  The real problem with privacy protection in Australia is that those in breach, especially at the commonwealth level, rarely find themselves in the legal gun.  The Privacy Commissioner is a toothless tiger and government departments would rather keep any punishment at an administrative level. Information is power and sooner or later someone is going to again be tempted to trip over to a keyboard and tap away.  No smart operator wants to leave open the option for him/her or one of their colleagues doing a stretch for a moment of weakness or opportunism.  It is a terrible weakness in our privacy protections. 

John “Panda” Pandazopolous was a contemporary of mine at Monash University.  So was Dennis Glover.  I was of the right and they were of the left.  Bill Shorten was also amonst that lot as well.  None of them were front and centre in any of the fights between right and left on the various committees that the hacks occupied.  I always viewed Panda as a left groupie and one of the Greek chorus when the factional heavies needed a turn out for a vote or a rally.  He is the last person I would have expected to turn up with a State seat let alone a ministerial cap.  I guess you can look at it in two ways.  The first is that persistence pays off.  Panda has been a loyal factional warrior and put in time for the left faction from uni days.  He parlayed a minimal CV into real achievement.  The other view is that while a nice enough fellow he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Factional pushing and shoving got him shoehorned into a ministerial position.   Both positions are valid. 

He is far from a safe pair of hands if reporting is to be believed but so what.  And the latest gaffe, in hiring Dennis Glover to write a speech when he already has 2 speech writers is typical.    Dennis has credentials to write speeches. He is bright and knows how to turn a phrase.  He is steeped in academe and involved with the Fabians.  A smart true believer.  But taking shekels for this little earner is just plain dumb.  In fact tying in with Panda on just about anything is likely to end up the way it did, page 3 of the Herald Sun.