Shades of China type censorship in Australia: Australia's proposed adult cyber abuse laws can be used by politicians to avoid scrutiny : The example of NSW AG Mark Speakman & his officers demonstrates how scrutiny of political, public service misconduct can be evaded by crying harassment, intimidation

by Ganesh Sahathevan
\

Minister warns on dangers of abuse
Federal cyber safety minister Paul Fletcher said the
government was moving to a new regime on adult cyber abuse

Australia's proposed "adult cyber  abuse" laws will allow the Commonwealth ESafety Commissioner to order platforms such as Facebook to remove postings that are deemed to be "unsafe". The Federal cyber safety minister Paul Fletcher says he must do to ensure that the Internet is "safe" for adults.

However, given the example of say Section 18C of the Anti-Discrimination Act and other laws that are intended to keep citizens "safe" these proposed laws are more likely than not to be used to censor and avoid scrutiny.

As this writer has reported  the Attorney General Of NSW Mark Speakman and his officers at the NSW Department Of Justice continue to evade scrutiny with regards their  issuance of licenses to award law degrees and diplomas, by claiming that they were harassed, threatened and intimidated by this writer's queries. The queries have since included Mr Speakman's refusal to correct documents he has tabled in the NSW Parliament which are known to be incomplete ,and false.

TO BE READ WITH

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Malaysia will investigate NSW AG and LPAB oversight of the College Of Law: College's Malaysian business removes protective mantle; likely to further expose LPAB Annual report exclusions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The story below was published by the well connected Malaysian investigative new site New Malaysia Times. An investigation by all the relevant Malaysian authorities can be expected, and that will involve a forensic examination of the College Of Law Sydney.

Questions about the College's activities in Malaysia have been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities , the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.

The queries have been met with accusations, by the LPAB and the AG of harassment , threat and intimidation by this writer of the College's management.They have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the  College's activities in Malaysia
They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament complaints against the College and its management; and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College.

All the above is  now likely to be investigated in Malaysia.
END

Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified

By Editor , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width: College of Law , Fareed Gafoor , Malaysian Bar

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.

The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.

The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.

NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:

Dear Rajen,

We can’t remain silent on this.

Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

Sent from my iPad

It is understood that “Rajen” refers to  Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.

The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.

Key person suddenly retired during extensive query

The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.

It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.

Questionable advertising claims?

In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.

Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.

He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of  “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.

As CEO of the College Carter  has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.

Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.

-NMT

See also

AG NSW justifies exclusion of foreign regulatory risks from Dept of Justice annual reports on the basis that he was threatened, intimidated by the information:The matter of Top Group has implications for all regulators (including the NSW Law Soc)

What are journalists to do when judges embarrass themselves: Proposed contempt laws have no place in a world where judges insist on involving themselves in public debate

by Ganesh Sahathevan



The Australian's Nicola Berkovic has reported that "journalists could be jailed for ­articles found to undermine public confidence in the courts or ­interfere with a person’s right to a fair trial, under new contempt of court laws proposed in ­Victoria."

Contempt of court laws were formulated at a time when judges understood that they must remain aloof of the people they judge, and their debates. This is no longer the case, and as Tim Blair described not too long ago, even chief justices are not able to restrain themselves (see story below). The problem is endemic. 

Given the circumstances journalists can never be sure when something said or written might be considered to have undermined  public confidence in some judicial officer and his or her court. Todays judges seem not likely to want to confine themselves to their courts and judgements. Hence  in keeping with these progressive times contempt laws are best diluted, not affirmed, and eventually forgotten.

TO BE READ WITH

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst will save us from ourselves

Tim Blair Blog Posts

WHY BOTHER WITH ELECTIONS?

Tim Blair, The Daily Telegraph

February 2, 2017 5:22am

Judges know best. They are more knowledgeable and caring than politicians. They are also more knowledgeable and caring than the voters who elect those politicians.

We know this because the state’s leading judge, Tom Bathurst, says so.

In a speech to the Opening of Law Term dinner, Chief Justice Bathurst declared it was the judiciary and not the government who can be relied upon to promote fairness and equality. Left to our own devices, and without the soothing touch of all-wise judges, Australians would apparently descend into rampant racism.

“It should give us pause that one of the most serious threats to the rule of law in Australia was grounded in xenophobia,” Chief Justice Bathurst said, much in the manner of his predecessor Jim Spigelman.

The chief justice’s speech will no doubt please that sector of our community which is essentially suspicious of and distrusting towards the majority of Australians. Bathurst reinforced this notion with a line about promoting equality, fairness and the rule of law “in spite of popular sentiment”.

Poor old popular sentiment always cops a bashing from the we-know-better brigade. This is frequently ill-considered. After all, popular sentiment led to stopping the people smuggling trade in our region – and therefore ending a murderous practice that cost around 1200 lives at sea during Labor’s six years of power.

Interestingly, the legal fraternity – those promoters of fairness and equality – even now forms a large part of the movement dedicated to ending Australia’s life-saving border security operations.

Chief Justice Bathurst reached all the way back to 1888 for one example of the judiciary’s wisdom over popular opinion. During that year the NSW Government ordered police to stop Chinese passengers getting off a ship which had docked in Sydney Harbour, only for the government to be eventually overruled.

The chief justice sees parallels between the events of 1888 and Australia’s current mood, at least in terms of then-NSW premier Sir Henry Parkes’s comments at the time.

Sir Henry is presently unable to respond, having been dead for more than 100 years, but we would submit that Australia has changed a great deal during the intervening period. We are now a multicultural, tolerant, educated and thoughtful people who are quite capable of seeking fair outcomes without being bossed into them.

If Chief Justice Bathurst would like to have more of a say in the state’s affairs, he is welcome to run for elected office.