One of the great eighties films was the Lost Boys. The cool guys were in it – Jason Patric and Keiffer Sutherland and the coolest young sprats – Corey Haim and Corey Feldman. It was a seriously clever mix of humour, high jinx and a bit of darkness. And a ripper sound track. It made Vampires way cooler than the Twilight nonsense.
Corey Haim ate up the scenery like it was fairy floss. Most of his other works passed me by. Unfortunately post adolescence was not a Ron Howard experience but the more typical drift into obscurity and drugs. Corey Feldman hasn’t prospered either. It is tragic that Haims dies at 38. It is almost as bad that his death will be a revisiting of the usual morality tale.
Robyn Chambers is a class act. He has built a firm of one principal, him,into a international player. Tonight I had the privilege of celebrating his 25th anniversary at the hallowed grounds of the Atheneum Club. No shortage of old money and new money. Hell, just money! It was quite the experience. The speakers were distinguished and famous,including the well tanned silver bodgie himself, Bob Hawke. For a octogenarian he is doing well .
An intereting piece in Times Online about a pending settlement in favour of Kate Middleton, bride presumptive of Prince William, for breach of her privacy. The settlement sum, presumably not a confidental agreement, is 10,000 pounds plus costs as well as withdrawal of the photographs and a public apology. Interestingly the photographs in question were not even published in England. That shouldn’t go to liability but I think would be relevant on the question of Read the rest of this entry »
The Guardian has run a two part article on the Ten Rules for Writing Fiction. I am not usually a sucker for numbered lists, you know the ones, 7 habits of highly effective psycopaths, 6 ways of getting to the same point but sounding pretentious about it etc.. Basically the article is well known authors giving their rules. Some take it seriously some less so, eg the first fourt rules Margaret Atwood comes up with are:
1 Take a pencil to write with on aeroplanes. Pens leak. But if the pencil breaks, you can’t sharpen it on the plane, because you can’t take knives with you. Therefore: take two pencils.
2 If both pencils break, you can do a rough sharpening job with a nail file of the metal or glass type.
In yesterday’s Australian there is a report that software writers are yet to see full technical specifications for the planned healthcare identifier regime due to start on July 1 provided enabling legislation introduced by Health Minister Nicola Roxon last week . According to the report the Medical Software Industry Association have yet to see the system developed by the National E -Health Transition Authority. That is a worry. The benefits of putting medical records on an electronic system are obvious. The privacy concerns are equally obvious. Whether it achieves the former and deals with the latter depends on its practical implementation. Just taking about it is not enough. A classic example was a recent episode on the ABC radio program Australia Talks. Lots of talking by the main proponents, includng Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, but it was all just that.
The Age reports Paul Keating calling for reforms to Privacy Laws in Angry Keating demands changes to privacy laws. The offending incident is covered in the usual breathless style of the Daily Telegraph in Katherine Keating threat to kill photographer. Obviously the facts are buried under the high dudgeon of Keating patre and the indignant reportage of the scribblers of the society section of the Tele. Both are far from recorders of truth and shedders of light. What appears to be in common agreement is that some one took a photograph of Katherine Keating at a private indoor event. She didn’t appreciate it. If the organisers of the event invited the reporters in in today’s legal environment I am not sure Katherine would have much legal redress. Hence Heating the elders demand for a change to the Privacy Laws. But here is the rub, what changes does he seek? An absolute protection against photographs of the rich and silly. Even the English legal development isn’t pushing in that direction (though the Murray case will give some guide on that front).
All of this Keating outrage would be more easily believed if he had thought to look at reforming the law while he was in government, hell while he WAS the government. It is not like Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday the Federal Government released its “first stage reponse” to the ALRC report on Privacy. Senator Ludwig, Special Minister of State, in his speech Privacy – the way ahead, said the Government would essentially rewrite the Privacy Act. Three cheers for that. In particular the reforms will go to:
having a Single Set of Privacy Principles.
Enhance the Privacy Commissioners Powers and functions. And about time. The role and actiivity Privacy Commissioner has been a disappointment. But only part of that is due to the lack of powers. Culturally there needs to be a more assertive role taken. Unfortunately even in the revised form the lack of sanctioning power or ability to bring a civil claim (ala ACCC) will limit its effectiveness.
implementation of a three tiered scheme for privacy codes.
expanding the credit reporting. This will be very signficant. In the Senators words:
In order to allow credit providers to undertake a more robust assessment of an individual’s credit risk, the Government will make changes which allow five positive datasets to be included on an individual’s credit report.One of these will be repayment history, but the Government recognises that this information must be used responsibly, so it won’t be made available until the Government’s new responsible lending obligations are in place under the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009
Changes to health records privacy to allow for transfer of health records or access if the premises where they are located closes.
Protections for cross border data flows with enforceable rights by the individual;
What the Government has shied away from is whether it will agree to a statutory right of privacy. We will have to wait until next year.
Father Frank Brennan’s National Human Rights Consultation Report has been released. Let the “debate” begin. It will be a boon for conservative commentators. Janet Albrechtson will be running a piece every 3 weeks or so on the evils of a bill of rights (which this report is not even close to advocating. Miranda Devine, Paul Sheehan, Glen Milne and a few other conservative commentators will get all rather excited. A few non conservatives will all get a guernsey, Bob Carr the nominal Labor man (and someone who has long loathed the legal processes and the practitioners) and a few judges, Heerey being the most prominent. The Australian is fast out of the block. The usual arguments will get dusted off being:
The judges will subrogate Parliament. Judges will rule the land.
With the elites making the law democracy is thwarted.
The elites will impose their form of morality and political viewpoints on the polity of the nation via the judge made law.
The proponent run the gamut of the centre to the left. George Williams is a pretty active operator along with any number of other social commentators. Their arguments are equally predictable and simple (when boiled down to their essence):
the rights are universal;
it is fundamental to recognise them;
The rights to be recognised are necessary to inform legislation;
it is consistent with the universal convention on civil and political rights;
..and a few other issues .
The problem is that both sides adopt simplistic and usually inaccurate arguments. With the exception of Canada a Charter of Rights has not led to any social engineering. In the US the legislature has long lived with strictures of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has waxed and waned in its enthusiasm for the Bill of Rights and its willingness to expand its scope. The proponents are not entirely up front in explaining how weak a Charter or Rights/Human Rights Act will be. It is a very anaemic form of legislation. I have had people from the Victorian Government tell me how influential the bill is within the departments. But so what! That is a secondary and incidental benefit. The Act/Charter should clarify, specify and protect the rights of citizens not the internal processes of the administrative units of the body politic. It is an artificial debate.
