Labor exposed for allegedly appointing senior public service roles to mates

Key Concepts

• Patronage and Nepotism in Government Appointments: Allegations of the Labour government appointing "mates" to senior public service roles and board positions, allegedly for over two years, without proper oversight.
• Government Commissioned Report: A report by former public service commissioner Lynel Briggs, commissioned by the government, which identified issues of patronage and nepotism in government appointments.
• Report Secrecy and Release: The government allegedly sat on the Briggs report for over two years, releasing it only after a Senate vote compelled its release, and initially providing it to the media without allowing adverse comment.
• Government's Response to Recommendations: The government's stated intention not to accept all recommendations from the Briggs report, which the Liberal Senator Dave Sharma views as an evasion of transparency.
• Definition of Counterterrorism: A push from some Islamic groups and the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, to remove religion as a motivation for terror acts.
• Criminal Code Section 100.1: The current legal definition of an act of terrorism, which includes a political, religious, or ideological motive.
• "Doesn't Pass the Pub Test": A colloquial phrase used to describe a proposal or idea that is considered unreasonable or unacceptable by the general public.
• Jillian Seagull's Report on Anti-semitism: A report with recommendations for the federal government on addressing anti-semitism, which has reportedly not yet been substantively responded to by the government.
• Ministerial Gaslighting: The accusation that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke is misrepresenting or deflecting questions from journalists regarding the implementation of Jillian Seagull's report recommendations.

Allegations of Patronage and Nepotism in Government Appointments

Liberal Senator Dave Sharma discusses allegations that the Labour government has been appointing "mates" to senior public service roles and board positions, allegedly for over two years. This practice was reportedly exposed in a government-commissioned report by former public service commissioner Lynel Briggs. The report, released after more than two years of being withheld by the government, stated that "too often government appointments looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have that should have no place in the modern Australian society."

Key Points:

• The government allegedly sat on the Briggs report for "well over two years," possibly "almost two and a half years."
• Senator Sharma suggests the delay was to "rush through a large number of appointments to government agencies, diplomatic posts, government boards" without the report's findings impacting these decisions.
• The report was eventually released after the Senate voted to compel its release from Finance Minister Katie Gallagher.
• The initial release to the media was reportedly done "with no adverse or third party comment allowed," allowing the government a "clear run of the story."
• The government has indicated it will "not even accept all the recommendations in the report."
• Senator Sharma describes this as an "extraordinary evasion and a denial of transparency."

Government's Justification for Delay:

Finance Minister Katie Gallagher, when questioned about the delay, stated: "Because we were finalizing the appointments framework which has now been done and this review was informing that. Why did it take so long? Because the work wasn't completed."

Senator Sharma's Rebuttal:

Senator Sharma dismisses this explanation, stating: "I think the truth is that the report was inconvenient to the government. And the fact that they hadn't released it and they kept claiming it was cabinet in confidence meant that they could continue to appoint a number of their mates to you know board positions, overseas post, government agencies, departmental heads without this report sort of calling into question their judgment or their ethics in doing so." He argues that it is "manifestly not true" and "simply not plausible" that it would take 2.5 years to formulate a response.

Debate on the Definition of Counterterrorism

The discussion shifts to a national security issue concerning the definition of counterterrorism, specifically a push from some Islamic groups to remove religion as a motivation for terror acts.

Key Points:

• This push has been building for a long time but has only recently hit the media.
• The issue was reportedly raised in the Islamophobia Envoy's report to the government.
• The Australian Muslim Advocacy Network has requested to remove religion as a motivation for terror acts.
• Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, is quoted as saying: "But why does society sees and hears Muslims recite you know God's name or Allahbar and assume that to be religion? So from the Muslim community's perspective it is not religious. These are actually fringe ideological movements and from the wider society they only interpret that to be religious."

Senator Sharma's Perspective:

Senator Sharma expresses strong disagreement with this reasoning: "I just I don't understand and I don't accept the reasoning of that special envoy at all."

Legal Definition of Terrorism:

• Under Section 100.1 of the Criminal Code, an act of terrorism is defined as one that "does or threatens serious harm designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public or coers a government and done for a political, religious, or ideological motive."

Senator Sharma's Argument:

• He questions whether the Special Envoy is suggesting that if an act meets all other criteria for terrorism but is done for a "religious motive," it is no longer an act of terrorism.
• He believes this "defies belief" and that "we all know what an act of terrorism is when we see it."
• He argues that if an act is driven by a "political, religious, or ideological motive, not a criminal motive, not a personal motive, then it meets the definition of a terrorist test."
• He fears this could lead to individuals committing acts considered terrorist by the public but being able to claim it was for religious purposes, thus classifying it as a mere criminal offense. He states, "I don't think any of the anyone in the public or anyone in their right mind would accept that."

Government Consideration:

Senator Sharma is unsure if the Albanese government and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke will consider these recommendations, noting they have not yet responded to the Special Envoy's report. He expresses alarm if the government were to adopt "far-reaching, overreaching" recommendations.

Jillian Seagull's Report on Anti-semitism

The conversation also touches upon the delayed response to Jillian Seagull's report into anti-semitism.

Key Points:

• Jillian Seagull handed down her report into anti-semitism four to five months prior.
• The report contained "many recommendations" on which the federal government could act.
• As of the end of the year and approaching Christmas, "still nothing has happened."
• Senator Sharma believes the government "owes her the duty to respond substantively to those."
• He criticizes Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke for allegedly "gaslighting any journalists who dare to ask him about it and suggest that they're somehow imputing Julian Julian Seagull's integrity." He clarifies that journalists are asking about the government's inaction or proposed responses to the recommendations.

Conclusion

The discussion highlights significant concerns regarding transparency and ethical conduct in government appointments, as well as a contentious debate surrounding the definition of terrorism and the government's perceived inaction on reports addressing important social issues like anti-semitism. Senator Dave Sharma expresses strong criticism of the Labour government's handling of these matters, labeling their actions as evasive and lacking transparency.