Peter A Clarke

It is always a bit of fun reading the quarterly, or so, scribbling of our erstwhile Prime Ministers Fraser and Keating. They have always been of the “woe is us” variety and in their dotage blame the woes those who fall outside of the establishment diplomatic set. Fraser focuses on one or other of the, usually English speaking, Western Democracies, in causing what he thinks is the great instability out there. At the moment his bile direct is directed at the Great Satan America.  He has fashioned quite the distinctive silly old duffer trendy outrage that was worn with aplomb by Manning Clarke and Patrick White in an earlier era.  All he needs to do is find a strange hat to wear and the ensemble will be complete.  He is our version of Michael Foot in his CND days.

Fraser’s latest go at the United States in the Age is the usual rant about the the US missing all these wonderful opportunities to engage with hideous regimes and its disastrous war on terror. Read the rest of this entry »

The Australian acted true to form this week in doing the Henny Penny thing withe the Law Reform’s report on Privacy.  The report was released on Monday (11 August) so come Tuesday the Australian leads off with a piece on how business is going to be lumbered with compliance costs . But that was just the start.

If VCAT wanted to get a nice splash of coverage as one of the “good guys” on climate change it got it care of Gippsland Coastal Board v South Gippsland SC. One of the reasons for overturning the council’s permit is the possibility of rising sea levels.  So now the law courts buy into the scientific debates.  The evidence is a CSIRO report.  Intellectual rigor is not the by word for this decision. Read the rest of this entry »

The Fairfax paperrs today has a front page article about Google’s Street View map for Australia, Smile Australia you’re on Google’s candid camera.  Not a bad article not so much for covering the launch and highlighting the critisism.  What it highlights is who lame our legal protections are.  The Privacy Commissioner is quoted at saying should would continue to monitor street view.  And do what?  It is hard to see how the Privacy Act applies.  If the photographs are of a building and the photograph was taken from the street what exactly is the record that would give the Privacy Commissioner the power under the Privacy Act??

Dan Svantesson supposedly applauded the Google for developing blurring technology and then said it might not be enough.  Talk about a lame approach to a real invasion of privacy. 

This grotesque breach of privacy is why there needs to be a tort of privacy.