Feds again reject sporting bodies access to phone taps

[Kwality]

In todays Fairfax press a report of the Vic premier seeking access to phone taps this time for racing - AFL request was rejected by the Fed Labor Government Attorney General and now the Abbott Governments George Brandis has confirmed that policy remains.

Fairfax Media has obtained a copy of Dr Napthine's October 15 letter to federal Attorney-General George Brandis. It requests the relaxing of phone-tap laws, claiming Victoria Police held information that would result in ''some Victorian horse trainers and jockeys [being] suspended by racing stewards''.
Dr Napthine, who is also Victoria's Racing Minister, wrote: ''I remained concerned that the current Commonwealth legislation acts as an impenetrable barrier to the reasonable exchange of integrity-related information between state and territory-based law enforcement agencies and racing regulators.''
Senator Brandis told Fairfax Media he would not agree to the changes, despite recent similar pleas over phone tap sharing from Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton, AFL chief Andrew Demetriou and Victorian Racing Integrity Commissioner Sal Perna.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/evidence-ban-frees-jockey-to-ride-20131101-2ws5y.html#ixzz2jS7jR8Fg

Shame so many bodies can not be trusted to clean up their own back yards.

 

[FuManchu]

I don't have a problem with these agencies denying non statutory organisations access. No-one employed in these sporting organisations have government clearance and aren't sworn to any legal requirement for privacy. Civil liberties are a priority and government agencies have to act with these liberties as their number one priority.

If illegal activity has been detected, the govt agency will act accordingly. If legal activity has occurred, but contravenes a sporting code's regulations, then it's up to that sport to so their groundwork.

 

[the harry]

Civil liberties are a priority and government agencies have to act with these liberties as their number one priority.

 

[FrancisX]

One word... Good... AFL stick to sport, not crime and law enforcement.

 

[forwardflanker]

I don't have a problem with these agencies denying non statutory organisations access. No-one employed in these sporting organisations have government clearance and aren't sworn to any legal requirement for privacy. Civil liberties are a priority and government agencies have to act with these liberties as their number one priority.

If illegal activity has been detected, the govt agency will act accordingly. If legal activity has occurred, but contravenes a sporting code's regulations, then it's up to that sport to so their groundwork.

what a load of rubbish. I think they should give AD access to the NSA hacking program, screw individual liberties I want to have a bet

 

[The Speaker]

Whenever I hear the word 'feds' I can only presume it refers to some American federal organisation, because it sure isn't used to refer to anything in Australia.

 

[GeelongFTW]

Whenever I hear the word 'feds' I can only presume it refers to some American federal organisation, because it sure isn't used to refer to anything in Australia.

whenever i hear the word ''feds'' i think federal police but that's probably just me....

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Whenever I hear the word 'feds' I can only presume it refers to some American federal organisation, because it sure isn't used to refer to anything in Australia.

Da federalis homes.

 

[FuManchu]

what a load of rubbish. I think they should give AD access to the NSA hacking program, screw individual liberties I want to have a bet

So did Shaw. But it wasn't any govt agency that lagged him. The AFL have enough irons in the fire to get good intelligence on questionable behaviours rather than to have to source govt agent intelligence.

No govt agency is going divulge confidential information if it breaches the privacy act or jeopardises any investigation or prosecution. It ain't going to happen. They may however occasionally consult if there is a chance to enhance their investigations. But these things are scrutinised to the nth degree by legals within govt agencies.

 

[master bate]

Any results from any investigations are more than likely to protect bookies much more than punters.

The obvious answer is to make some of these breaches criminal and therefore the relevant police can do the investigating not sporting bodies.

 

[D-N-R]

I don't have a problem with these agencies denying non statutory organisations access. No-one employed in these sporting organisations have government clearance and aren't sworn to any legal requirement for privacy. Civil liberties are a priority and government agencies have to act with these liberties as their number one priority.

If illegal activity has been detected, the govt agency will act accordingly. If legal activity has occurred, but contravenes a sporting code's regulations, then it's up to that sport to so their groundwork.

I agree, privacy and control of the information must be paramount. However, doping in horse-racing must sail pretty close to outright race fixing? Or any kind of activity that would affect the result of a race? I can't think of what could be 'illegal' in horse-racing that didn't involve affecting the outcome of a race.

Also, the new legislation that was brought in to 'compel' the likes of Dank to give evidence to ASADA - why is he still refusing to talk, as has been reported recently? Is this just the process going slowly or doesn't the legislation have any teeth?

 

[FuManchu]

I agree, privacy and control of the information must be paramount. However, doping in horse-racing must sail pretty close to outright race fixing? Or any kind of activity that would affect the result of a race? I can't think of what could be 'illegal' in horse-racing that didn't involve affecting the outcome of a race.

Also, the new legislation that was brought in to 'compel' the likes of Dank to give evidence to ASADA - why is he still refusing to talk, as has been reported recently? Is this just the process going slowly or doesn't the legislation have any teeth?

Doping would be some sort of fraud. A criminal offence. So too would any match fixing. Any contact with the relevant sporting body would be contingent on privacy concerns being met as with the ACC and AFL earlier this year. And that would have been to very few people within the AFL and only to assist with the criminal investigation. There's got to be something in it for the agency to disclose any information.

As for compelling witnesses to appear.... they still aren't as I understand it, compelled to give information.

 

[ManWithNoName]

FFS you're a sporting organisation AFL, get over yourselves.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Ideologically I agree with FuManchu but at presents Aussies don't have a right to privacy or free speech or a whole host of other things. Kinda sucks actually.

 

[master bate]

Ideologically I agree with FuManchu but at presents Aussies don't have a right to privacy or free speech or a whole host of other things. Kinda sucks actually.

Oh yeah? I presume you've had your family or you personally detained or murdered for your free speech or you've had a blatant privacy breach?

There's a difference between the nanny state we are in some regards and not having free speech and privacy.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Oh yeah? I presume you've had your family or you personally detained or murdered for your free speech or you've had a blatant privacy breach?

There's a difference between the nanny state we are in some regards and not having free speech and privacy.

That is a wonderfully extreme extrapolation of what I said, and yet I'm still unsure of what point you're making.

Ticking all the boxes young master bate. Well done.

 

[FuManchu]

Ideologically I agree with FuManchu but at presents Aussies don't have a right to privacy or free speech or a whole host of other things. Kinda sucks actually.

We so have certain rights regarding information held by govt agencies. The process of law requires that information pertaining to investigations also remain confidential. Businesses are now restricted from disseminating certain infimation pertaining to individuals. So there are laws and indeed rights individuals have regarding privacy.

 

[Hot Pocket]

We so have certain rights regarding information held by govt agencies. The process of law requires that information pertaining to investigations also remain confidential. Businesses are now restricted from disseminating certain infimation pertaining to individuals. So there are laws and indeed rights individuals have regarding privacy.

Yes that's all accurate. We just don't have an enshrined to it.

Information laws can be bent or manipulated too. Look at what the Abbott government has done with freedom of information.

 

[FuManchu]

Yes that's all accurate. We just don't have an enshrined to it.

Information laws can be bent or manipulated too. Look at what the Abbott government has done with freedom of information.

No, there is no constitutional mention, but there are laws and laws tend to try and ensure the intent is upheld

 

[Hot Pocket]

Its been argued that constitutionally we have an implied right to free speech and privacy, but I believe in court the free speech one was knocked back. I'm unsure on the privacy one. It might actually be the other way around.

So yeah there's a precedent that basically says we're not protected by our constitution.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

Whenever I hear the word 'feds' I can only presume it refers to some American federal organisation, because it sure isn't used to refer to anything in Australia.

Female Body Inspectors dawg.

 

[jhong]

Apart from the fact(my opinion) that we have a constitution that only laywers can understand , (and i am not one) , i think i will stick to drinking .

 

[Hot Pocket]

Apart from the fact(my opinion) that we have a constitution that only laywers can understand , (and i am not one) , i think i will stick to drinking .

Our constitution isn't that hard to understand, it just didn't go far enough as it needs to.

A bill of rights would be a great way to actually make it clear what our rights are. How many Aussies know that they don't have to talk to the cops for example? Very few.

 

[jhong]

Our constitution isn't that hard to understand, it just didn't go far enough as it needs to.

A bill of rights would be a great way to actually make it clear what our rights are. How many Aussies know that they don't have to talk to the cops for example? Very few.

How many aussies think our constitution is like the yanks , "the right to remain silent" etc. We don't even recognise our native people FFS . Not argueing , just frustrated that it is the 21st century and we still cling to a peice of paper that was written two centuries ago .

 

[Hot Pocket]

How many aussies think our constitution is like the yanks , "the right to remain silent" etc. We don't even recognise our native people FFS . Not argueing , just frustrated that it is the 21st century and we still cling to a peice of paper that was written two centuries ago .

Exactly, there's a host of things we need to correct. Step one is to piss those inbred leeches of the house of windsor off though.