Hundreds of top-secret and highly classified cabinet documents have been obtained by the ABC following an extraordinary breach of national security.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-31/cabinet-files-reveal-inner-government-decisions/9168442

Nearly 200 top-secret code word protected and sensitive documents were left in the office of senior minister Penny Wong when Labor lost the 2013 election.

The 195 documents included Middle East defence plans, national security briefs, Afghan war updates, intelligence on Australia's neighbours and details of counter-terrorism operations.

These are not the same documents the ABC has obtained as part of The Cabinet Files, nor are they the same documents lost by the Australian Federal Police.

The sensitive documents found in Senator Wong's office should have been destroyed, according to a document in The Cabinet Files.

All the documents were security classified, with several marked "top secret" and code word protected, which is the highest level of classification in Australia.

The release of top-secret documents would cause "exceptionally grave damage to the national interest", according to the government's classification guide.

Senator Wong was the leader of the government in the Senate and a member of the powerful National Security Committee (NSC), which means she had access to the country's most secret and sensitive information.

The breach is revealed in a series of emails between the Department of Finance and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from late 2013.

The emails reveal security staff found the documents left in the office after the election and oversaw their destruction.

Westminster convention stipulates cabinet ministers bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions of their staff, which means Senator Wong is ultimately responsible for the breach even if she did not personally leave the documents in the office.

The documents found in Senator Wong's office include:

    Defence plans to protect the United Arab Emirates from Iranian hostilities
    National security intelligence priorities
    Counter-terrorism intelligence planning documents
    Details of missile upgrades
    Profiles of terror suspects
    Issues with Australian Defence Force operations in Afghanistan
    Deficiencies in Defence security vetting

Explore the full list of documents left in Penny Wong's office.

The office of the new prime minister, Tony Abbott, was notified of the security breach in October 2013.

The Department of Finance investigated the security breach but took no further action because they had "no proof of who left them there".

The ABC has contacted Senator Wong's office for comment.

I see you are being selective again.

Why aren't you discussing the documents lost by the AFP? Why not tell us about the ones that turned up for sale inside a locked filing cabinet? These breaches seem to occur with governments from both sides of politics, the AFP and other parts of the public service bureaucracy. All need to be discussed, not just the incident you're highlighting.

It's obvious that the AFP and the Parliament are both in need of a review of security procedures. Singling out one example for partisan reasons doesn't change that.

Bam wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 12:41pm:

I see you are being selective again. Why aren't you discussing the documents lost by the AFP? Why not tell us about the ones that turned up for sale inside a locked filing cabinet? These breaches seem to occur with governments from both sides of politics, the AFP and other parts of the public service bureaucracy. All need to be discussed, not just the incident you're highlighting. It's obvious that the AFP and the Parliament are both in need of a review of security procedures. Singling out one example for partisan reasons doesn't change that.

Well spotted but I was citing an example that directly links to a politician.

The Department of Finance investigated the security breach but took no further action because they had "no proof of who left them there"

Its time wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:02pm:

The Department of Finance investigated the security breach but took no further action because they had "no proof of who left them there"

Why is there no thought going into a ban on the schmedia reporting publicly the full detailed harvest of breaches of security?

It's bad enough that the systems are so lax that this could occur but that is seriously aggravated by an eager schedia itching to release top secret information.  Traitors?

@Reply #1

Wow,    that is appalling.



Someone really, really,       needs to be charged, over all this.

And if found guilty on the charges, do some serious gaol time, imo.

Yadda wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:23pm:

@Reply #1 Wow,    that is appalling. Someone really, really,       needs to be charged, over all this. And if found guilty on the charges, do some serious gaol time, imo.

Who should be charged?

The ABC should have reported the way the documents were found and returned them without disclosing the content.

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:35pm:

Yadda wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 2:23pm: @Reply #1 Wow,    that is appalling. Someone really, really,       needs to be charged, over all this. And if found guilty on the charges, do some serious gaol time, imo. Who should be charged?

Easy.




The very last person whose hands, these classified and secret documents were legally put into.

Him or her.

If he/she can't account for the further       lawful       'hand-on' [to another person] of those classified and secret documents, then the last person who lawfully held them should be charged.

Make an example of this CRIMINALLY negligent/careless person!!!


The careless negligence like the above report exposes/tells,       could cause innocent people to be killed.

What about the person who last unlawfully held them?

Gordon wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:13pm:

The ABC should have reported the way the documents were found and returned them without disclosing the content.

That is correct -

the 66 million dollar question:

can they be charged for reading and publishing them?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:46pm:

Gordon wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:13pm: The ABC should have reported the way the documents were found and returned them without disclosing the content. That is correct - the 66 million dollar question: can they be charged for reading and publishing them?

Read for yourself:

Link.

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:46pm: Gordon wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:13pm: The ABC should have reported the way the documents were found and returned them without disclosing the content. That is correct - the 66 million dollar question: can they be charged for reading and publishing them? Read for yourself: Link.

It doesn't really deal with finding top secret documents.

It absolutely does.  Read it.

Aussie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:58pm:

It absolutely does.  Read it.

I give up - please quote me the text about top secret documents.

Anyway Aussie - you're the lawyer -

can the ABC journalists be charged with treason?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm:

Anyway Aussie - you're the lawyer - can the ABC journalists be charged with treason?

Nope.   Treason only applies in certain circumstances, Bobby.   The ABC case would not fulfil the requirements under the legislation.   ::)

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 3:58pm: It absolutely does.  Read it. I give up - please quote me the text about top secret documents.

There is no section about top secret documents, Bobby.  Those papers (whatever is written on them) are things capable of being stolen and they have been, and the ABC has received stolen property.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 4:08pm: Anyway Aussie - you're the lawyer - can the ABC journalists be charged with treason? Nope.   Treason only applies in certain circumstances, Bobby.   The ABC case would not fulfil the requirements under the legislation.   ::)

Treason.

I can't get this link to work
http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_pjcis_securityleg_report_chapter4.pdf


Quote:

Assisting the enemy 4.8 The offences under paragraph 80.1(e)-(f) apply where a person intentionally ‘assists’ an enemy at war with Australia, or a country or organisation in armed hostilities with the ADF.

The guy who found them in the cabinet will be investigated and probably charged.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s department has launched an “urgent investigation” into how two filing cabinets containing classified and sensitive government documents were mistakenly sold at a second hand furniture shop in Canberra.
In an extraordinary lapse of security, the documents, which include federal cabinet papers that should not be made public for 20 years, were apparently bought by a member of the public and eventually passed on to the ABC.


WTF!!! The original article didn't say that. Wong is a retard!

These documents will certainly start a few debates....What I don't understand is how documents from the Abbott Government got into Penny Wong's filing cabinet???


Quote:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott ignored the advice of his own department and the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) when he ordered confidential cabinet documents be handed to the home insulation royal commission. Mr Abbott promised the controversial inquiry into Labor's home insulation scheme during the 2013 election campaign. Once in office, his decision to break the century-old doctrine of cabinet confidentiality and hand over Labor's cabinet documents sparked the alarm of the opposition and past prime ministers of both persuasions. At the time, the attorney-general said the decision was based on the advice of the AGS. But documents show both the AGS and the secretary of the prime minister's own department warned Mr Abbott against it. "We think it would be highly undesirable (and legally confounding) if the Commonwealth were to simply produce cabinet-related documents to the royal commission on the basis of a purported waiver of public interest immunity," reads the undated advice from Tom Howe QC, chief counsel at the AGS. "We consider that producing cabinet-related documents to any court or tribunal … would not accord with legal practice and principle. "We are not aware of the Commonwealth ever having taken such an approach in relation to cabinet-related documents."

And now we know Abbott was a deceitful political opportunist....As if we needed proof???

::) ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 4:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 4:08pm: Anyway Aussie - you're the lawyer - can the ABC journalists be charged with treason? Nope.   Treason only applies in certain circumstances, Bobby.   The ABC case would not fulfil the requirements under the legislation.   ::) Treason. I can't get this link to work http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_pjcis_securityleg_report_chapter4.pdf Quote: Assisting the enemy 4.8 The offences under paragraph 80.1(e)-(f) apply where a person intentionally ‘assists’ an enemy at war with Australia, or a country or organisation in armed hostilities with the ADF.

Try here, Bobby.

The key is that we need to be either under attack or at war with a foreign power for Treason to apply.  ::)

Gordon wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 5:01pm:

The guy who found them in the cabinet will be investigated and probably charged.

Sounds like a movie plot....

That last Labor government was an absolute fiasco from start to finish. Actually even after it's finish. What a joke of a party. They were once a great party who looked after the working man. Now it's all silly lezzos, soy boys and do-gooders. How bloody sad.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 7:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 4:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 4:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 31st, 2018 at 4:08pm: Anyway Aussie - you're the lawyer - can the ABC journalists be charged with treason? Nope.   Treason only applies in certain circumstances, Bobby.   The ABC case would not fulfil the requirements under the legislation.   ::) Treason. I can't get this link to work http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_pjcis_securityleg_report_chapter4.pdf Quote: Assisting the enemy 4.8 The offences under paragraph 80.1(e)-(f) apply where a person intentionally ‘assists’ an enemy at war with Australia, or a country or organisation in armed hostilities with the ADF. Try here, Bobby. The key is that we need to be either under attack or at war with a foreign power for Treason to apply.  ::)

Thanks for the link.

It sounds like the information would be of interest to our enemies in a time of war.
Therefore it would assist our enemies.

Just in from the ABC 24 -
releasing that information could result in up to 20 years imprisonment.
No mention of treason.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 7:16pm:

That last Labor government was an absolute fiasco from start to finish. Actually even after it's finish. What a joke of a party. They were once a great party who looked after the working man. Now it's all silly lezzos, soy boys and do-gooders. How bloody sad.

I agree Labor were crap until you compare them the current mob of dickheads called the Coalition....You do realise it was the Turnbull Government that sold the secret files to a second hand store don't you???

:-? :-? :-?

Anything that was found in Wenny Pong's office would be just useless union controlled Labor crap like pink batts, and school halls, and downgrading education in school, and plans for their NeverBuiltNetwork, and other useless guff.

ABC defends its release of confidential information as being in the 'national interest.'  Bollocks.  I'll bet they cannot name even one such interest served.

The Ghost of Godwin Gretch Returns


"On Wednesday the ABC reported that it had access to the contents of Filing Cabinets that were full of Cabinet documents .

There followed sensational leaks concerning Kevin Rudd , Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison .

With all this happening Malcom Turnbull just looked to calm and relaxed , to smug by half.

After talking to several colleagues who like myself were involved in senior levels of the Public Service we conclude the ABC story is bogus, in other words a sensationalised beat up - yes Lies .

If one has worked in the Senior Service of the Australian Public Service, there are a number of strictly enforced protocols and procedures for classifying , handling and the secure storage of government documents especially Cabinet Documents.

All this is detailed the relevant Ministerial Handbook's and Cabinet Handbooks - there is also a Protective Security Manual which also details the correct process for recording , cataloguing securing of these documents.

In light of these strictly enforced processes.

I must conclude this story is an ABC beat up .

Cabinet documents are classified Cabinet-In-Confidence, not Top Secret and any documents carrying a Top Secret or higher security level would never be placed in a ordinary filing cabinets.

Its more likely these so called documents are briefing notes , background notes, submission papers .

But Kevin Rudd has commenced Legal Action against the ABC and Tony Abbott has demanded a full Investigation saying someone is responsible and needs to be held to account.

The ALP has also accepted the veracity of these documents meaning they will also be calling on the Federal Police and ASIO to act against those who let this happen.

Its also worthwhile the ABC is now referring to these documents as Top Secret and Classified and not Cabinet Papers - interesting ?

Meanwhile Turnbull has ducked for cover but it appears he and his office is in breach of the relevant Federal Laws. Its happened on his watch.

The Ghost of Godwin Gretch is alive and well with Malcom Turnbull as another ham-fisted attempt to smear his opponents fails again"

wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 12:40pm:

The Ghost of Godwin Gretch Returns "On Wednesday the ABC reported that it had access to the contents of Filing Cabinets that were full of Cabinet documents . There followed sensational leaks concerning Kevin Rudd , Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison . With all this happening Malcom Turnbull just looked to calm and relaxed , to smug by half. After talking to several colleagues who like myself were involved in senior levels of the Public Service we conclude the ABC story is bogus, in other words a sensationalised beat up - yes Lies . If one has worked in the Senior Service of the Australian Public Service, there are a number of strictly enforced protocols and procedures for classifying , handling and the secure storage of government documents especially Cabinet Documents. All this is detailed the relevant Ministerial Handbook's and Cabinet Handbooks - there is also a Protective Security Manual which also details the correct process for recording , cataloguing securing of these documents. In light of these strictly enforced processes. I must conclude this story is an ABC beat up . Cabinet documents are classified Cabinet-In-Confidence, not Top Secret and any documents carrying a Top Secret or higher security level would never be placed in a ordinary filing cabinets. Its more likely these so called documents are briefing notes , background notes, submission papers . But Kevin Rudd has commenced Legal Action against the ABC and Tony Abbott has demanded a full Investigation saying someone is responsible and needs to be held to account. The ALP has also accepted the veracity of these documents meaning they will also be calling on the Federal Police and ASIO to act against those who let this happen. Its also worthwhile the ABC is now referring to these documents as Top Secret and Classified and not Cabinet Papers - interesting ? Meanwhile Turnbull has ducked for cover but it appears he and his office is in breach of the relevant Federal Laws. Its happened on his watch. The Ghost of Godwin Gretch is alive and well with Malcom Turnbull as another ham-fisted attempt to smear his opponents fails again"

;D

Can anyone find a link to that?

http://i.imgur.com/E2HSfRT.gif

Not sure I am embracing the headline yet.  Too early.

Link.


Quote:

The Cabinet Files: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet admits it lost documents

As far as I am concerned, the ABC knew it was in receipt of stolen property, and among those who must be charged, are those involved in the ABC who knowingly received that stolen property.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 5:22pm:

Not sure I am embracing the headline yet.  Too early. Link. Quote: The Cabinet Files: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet admits it lost documents As far as I am concerned, the ABC knew it was in receipt of stolen property, and among those who must be charged, are those involved in the ABC who knowingly received that stolen property.

The cabinets where sold to a second hand store by the current dim wits in Government....The second hand store then contacted the ABC (Not the seller) once they had realised what they had....The ABC then published certain papers they believed where embarrassing to those they exposed before telling the Government....The argument could be made the Government was careless and needed to be exposed or that the ABC should have kept quiet and not revealed its contents....The ABC are not beholding to keep Government incompetence secret or ignoring information that exposes the corruption, incompetence and lies of Government....That said the ABC will pay a price for doing it's job!!!

>:( >:( >:(

Its job does not include criminal activity.

And yes, it seems the PM's Department accepts it is at fault.  Gee, I wonder what the Red Baron 'the bucks stops with the PM' has to say?

Link.


Quote:

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has confessed it is the one that lost the documents at the centre of the ABC's reporting on The Cabinet Files.

In WA, it is apparently, the Public Servants fault when something is or isn't done on the Government watch. No Ministerial responsibility.

Federally, although the Public Servants, who are the members of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet , say they are at fault. it is the Minister's responsibility.

The difference? WA is a Labor Government and Federally it is the Coalition.

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 6:07pm:

In WA, it is apparently, the Public Servants fault when something is or isn't done on the Government watch. No Ministerial responsibility. Federally, although the Public Servants, who are the members of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet , say they are at fault. it is the Minister's responsibility. The difference? WA is a Labor Government and Federally it is the Coalition.

Do you have any reference so we can judge that statement in context Lee???

:-? :-? :-?

"Lead debacle: Premier says school lead issue not State Government’s fault"

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/lead-debacle-premier-says-school-lead-issue-not-state-governments-fault-ng-b88730930z

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 6:16pm:

lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:07pm: In WA, it is apparently, the Public Servants fault when something is or isn't done on the Government watch. No Ministerial responsibility. Federally, although the Public Servants, who are the members of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet , say they are at fault. it is the Minister's responsibility. The difference? WA is a Labor Government and Federally it is the Coalition. Do you have any reference so we can judge that statement in context Lee??? :-? :-? :-?

WA state politics is irrelevant to Federal matters.

What is relevant is that the DPMC has stated that it is responsible for the loss of the documents. Regardless of who ends up taking the blame, this is a major embarrassment to the Turnbull government. If they can't even be trusted to keep confidential documents safe, how can they be trusted to run a country?

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 6:36pm:

"Lead debacle: Premier says school lead issue not State Government’s fault" https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/lead-debacle-premier-says-school-lead-issue-not-state-governments-fault-ng-b88730930z

Thanks Lee....Completely unacceptable for Labor to blame contractors who failed to carry out the work!!!

What do you think about this Lee....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-11/perth-childrens-hospital-how-did-saga-unfold/8797932

:-? :-? :-?

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 6:50pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:16pm: lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:07pm: In WA, it is apparently, the Public Servants fault when something is or isn't done on the Government watch. No Ministerial responsibility. Federally, although the Public Servants, who are the members of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet , say they are at fault. it is the Minister's responsibility. The difference? WA is a Labor Government and Federally it is the Coalition. Do you have any reference so we can judge that statement in context Lee??? :-? :-? :-? WA state politics is irrelevant to Federal matters. What is relevant is that the DPMC has stated that it is responsible for the loss of the documents. Regardless of who ends up taking the blame, this is a major embarrassment to the Turnbull government. If they can't even be trusted to keep confidential documents safe, how can they be trusted to run a country?

I know it can be blown up into that sort of issue, but that is not the only very relevant and important matter here.

Someone stole those documents the instant they found them in those Cabinets and did not hand them, without fanfare, to the Police.  Instead, they passed them on to, and were happily received by the ABC who also knew they were stolen, and they then used them for their own chest beating.  That is criminal activity, make no bones about it, and there is no viable defence about supposed 'public interest' in criminal trials.  'Oh mate, Judge old pal, I killed him because it was in the public interest.'  Yeah, that'll work!

Nah, crimes have been committed, and that must be addressed.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:01pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:50pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:16pm: lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:07pm: In WA, it is apparently, the Public Servants fault when something is or isn't done on the Government watch. No Ministerial responsibility. Federally, although the Public Servants, who are the members of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet , say they are at fault. it is the Minister's responsibility. The difference? WA is a Labor Government and Federally it is the Coalition. Do you have any reference so we can judge that statement in context Lee??? :-? :-? :-? WA state politics is irrelevant to Federal matters. What is relevant is that the DPMC has stated that it is responsible for the loss of the documents. Regardless of who ends up taking the blame, this is a major embarrassment to the Turnbull government. If they can't even be trusted to keep confidential documents safe, how can they be trusted to run a country? I know it can be blown up into that sort of issue, but that is not the only very relevant and important matter here. Someone stole those documents the instant they found them in those Cabinets and did not hand them, without fanfare, to the Police.  Instead, they passed them on to, and were happily received by the ABC who also knew they were stolen, and they then used them for their own chest beating.  That is criminal activity, make no bones about it, and there is no viable defence about supposed 'public interest' in criminal trials.  'Oh mate, Judge old pal, I killed him because it was in the public interest.'  Yeah, that'll work! Nah, crimes have been committed, and that must be addressed.

You keep saying the documents where stolen when the Government handed them over to a second hand store....The second hand store should have told the Government due to the extraordinary nature of the contents the price to get them back is $1 million dollars or the documents would be sold at auction....The second hand store received the cabinets in good faith and stole nothing!!!

::) ::) ::)

No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:00pm:

lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:36pm: "Lead debacle: Premier says school lead issue not State Government’s fault" https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/lead-debacle-premier-says-school-lead-issue-not-state-governments-fault-ng-b88730930z Thanks Lee....Completely unacceptable for Labor to blame contractors who failed to carry out the work!!! What do you think about this Lee.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-11/perth-childrens-hospital-how-did-saga-unfold/8797932 :-? :-? :-?

There was fault by both parties.

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 6:50pm:

WA state politics is irrelevant to Federal matters.

That may be. Does Ministerial responsibility hold true irrespective of jurisdiction?

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:00pm: lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 6:36pm: "Lead debacle: Premier says school lead issue not State Government’s fault" https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/lead-debacle-premier-says-school-lead-issue-not-state-governments-fault-ng-b88730930z Thanks Lee....Completely unacceptable for Labor to blame contractors who failed to carry out the work!!! What do you think about this Lee.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-11/perth-childrens-hospital-how-did-saga-unfold/8797932 :-? :-? :-? There was fault by both parties.

But the Barnett Governments faults where monumental in comparison....Lies and cover ups make it even worse....In just one month what was revealed....


Quote:

August 2016 John Holland fails to meet the scheduled building handover date of August 4. The government now says it doesn't know when the hospital will open. Meanwhile, doctors say the ongoing delays are compromising patient care at the ageing Princess Margaret Hospital. It is revealed that the government is paying $500,000 a month to a parking contractor to manage hundreds of unused parking bays at the delayed Perth Children's Hospital.

::) ::) ::)

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:09pm:

No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents.

But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-?

No, the 2nd hand store sold the cabinet unaware of the contents and the bloke who bought it passed them on.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-?

They did steal the contents and they all (other than the second hand dealer) ought be charged.  I posted this on the first page of this Thread.

Link.

Gordon wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:51pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-? No, the 2nd hand store sold the cabinet unaware of the contents and the bloke who bought it passed them on.

Thank's Gordon I did not know that....So is someone stealing when they purchase something the seller did not want to sell without knowing the item was not intended to be sold???

:-? :-? :-?

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:57pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:51pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-? They did steal the contents and they all (other than the second hand dealer) ought be charged.  I posted this on the first page of this Thread. Link.

Na....You are making a lot of assumptions there Aussie which is not a good thing for a lawyer to do....You are assuming the person who contacted the ABC knew the documents were not intended for sale....You are assuming he acted with malice knowing he could be committing a criminal act....He did not sell the contents he passed them on to the public broadcaster in what could be construed as a public service....If the Government prosecutes anyone over this breach they should prosecute themselves IMO!!!

::) ::) ::)

Read the link and stay within what the Law says.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:57pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:51pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-? No, the 2nd hand store sold the cabinet unaware of the contents and the bloke who bought it passed them on. Thank's Gordon I did not know that....So is someone stealing when they purchase something the seller did not want to sell without knowing the item was not intended to be sold??? :-? :-? :-?

If I sell you my car leave my wallet in the glove box with ID and $1000 in it, if you find it and give it to a 3rd party you're a thief.

The guy who bought the cabinet won't be charged as it's obvious he didn't try to profit from it and it would be seen as petty and vindictive.

I'd have been tempted to sell them to the Chinese for a few mill ;)

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:08pm:

Read the link and stay within what the Law says.

While interesting, this discussion doesn't address the core problem.

How did the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet take a locked filing cabinet and ship it off to be sold without apparently considering what could be inside? This is appalling incompetence at best, criminal negligence at worst. Someone must lose their job over this.

I won't speculate on the causes, but one thing is clear - this must not be investigated internally. That always leads to a cover-up. This must be investigated externally by the AFP.

Gordon wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:51pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-? No, the 2nd hand store sold the cabinet unaware of the contents and the bloke who bought it passed them on. Thank's Gordon I did not know that....So is someone stealing when they purchase something the seller did not want to sell without knowing the item was not intended to be sold??? :-? :-? :-? If I sell you my car leave my wallet in the glove box with ID and $1000 in it, if you find it and give it to a 3rd party you're a thief. The guy who bought the cabinet won't be charged as it's obvious he didn't try to profit from it and it would be seen as petty and vindictive. I'd have been tempted to sell them to the Chinese for a few mill ;)

You are correct Gordon....


Quote:

THE ABC has returned over 1500 sensitive cabinet documents to ASIO after assurances were made to protect the ABC’s source.

:) :) :)

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:08pm: Read the link and stay within what the Law says. While interesting, this discussion doesn't address the core problem. How did the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet take a locked filing cabinet and ship it off to be sold without apparently considering what could be inside? This is appalling incompetence at best, criminal negligence at worst. Someone must lose their job over this. I won't speculate on the causes, but one thing is clear - this must not be investigated internally. That always leads to a cover-up. This must be investigated externally by the AFP.

Barnaby Joyce believes the person responsible has questions to answer and Tony Abbott believes they should pay a price....The Government is not to blame as crap happens???


Quote:

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said the person responsible for losing the documents will have serious questions to answer. “Obviously someone’s had a shocker and the investigation will find out exactly how this happened,” he told ABC radio on Wednesday. Cabinet papers are legally supposed to remain secret for 20 years after their production. “In the process of running a country, there are things which go awry. This is one of them,” Mr Joyce said. Former prime minister Tony Abbott said he believed a junior or mid-ranking departmental officer was to blame and insisted they “pay a price”. “Not so much a cabinet leak as a leaked cabinet — that seems to be the problem,” Mr Abbott told 2GB radio.

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/abc-hands-back-1500-sensitive-cabinet-documents/news-story/65ee1c3c42a381c2265b6182230eac8b?from=rss-basic

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:23pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:51pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-? No, the 2nd hand store sold the cabinet unaware of the contents and the bloke who bought it passed them on. Thank's Gordon I did not know that....So is someone stealing when they purchase something the seller did not want to sell without knowing the item was not intended to be sold??? :-? :-? :-? If I sell you my car leave my wallet in the glove box with ID and $1000 in it, if you find it and give it to a 3rd party you're a thief. The guy who bought the cabinet won't be charged as it's obvious he didn't try to profit from it and it would be seen as petty and vindictive. I'd have been tempted to sell them to the Chinese for a few mill ;) You are correct Gordon.... Quote: THE ABC has returned over 1500 sensitive cabinet documents to ASIO after assurances were made to protect the ABC’s source. :) :) :)

I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents.

They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 7:30pm:

But the Barnett Governments faults where monumental in comparison....Lies and cover ups make it even worse....In just one month what was revealed....

Like trying to decide who should have the bigger slice of a schist sandwich. ;)

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:08pm: Read the link and stay within what the Law says. While interesting, this discussion doesn't address the core problem. How did the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet take a locked filing cabinet and ship it off to be sold without apparently considering what could be inside? This is appalling incompetence at best, criminal negligence at worst. Someone must lose their job over this. I won't speculate on the causes, but one thing is clear - this must not be investigated internally. That always leads to a cover-up. This must be investigated externally by the AFP.

Yes, all of that....but let's always make it simple.  No need to complicate it with political overtones which are obviously there.

Thieves are thieves, criminals are criminals, and that includes in this case, the ABC.  Not on.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:13pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:20pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:08pm: Read the link and stay within what the Law says. While interesting, this discussion doesn't address the core problem. How did the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet take a locked filing cabinet and ship it off to be sold without apparently considering what could be inside? This is appalling incompetence at best, criminal negligence at worst. Someone must lose their job over this. I won't speculate on the causes, but one thing is clear - this must not be investigated internally. That always leads to a cover-up. This must be investigated externally by the AFP. Yes, all of that....but let's always make it simple.  No need to complicate it with political overtones which are obviously there. Thieves are thieves, criminals are criminals, and that includes in this case, the ABC.  Not on.

So in your opinion when a journalist receives a treasure trove of information that would expose and embarrass the Government of all persuasions they should remain silent and tell the Government instead of exposing them....Bullshit to that I say....Well done ABC!!!

::) ::) ::)

Gordon wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:40pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:23pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:51pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 7:09pm: No.  The Government sold Cabinets....not the contents.  Quite obviously, they did not intend to part with their lawful possession of those documents. But the second hand store did not steal the cabinets or the contents....They contacted the ABC to expose the incompetence of the Government to the public, not to make a profit....IMO the second hand store did the public a service and should be rewarded not penalised!!! :-? :-? :-? No, the 2nd hand store sold the cabinet unaware of the contents and the bloke who bought it passed them on. Thank's Gordon I did not know that....So is someone stealing when they purchase something the seller did not want to sell without knowing the item was not intended to be sold??? :-? :-? :-? If I sell you my car leave my wallet in the glove box with ID and $1000 in it, if you find it and give it to a 3rd party you're a thief. The guy who bought the cabinet won't be charged as it's obvious he didn't try to profit from it and it would be seen as petty and vindictive. I'd have been tempted to sell them to the Chinese for a few mill ;) You are correct Gordon.... Quote: THE ABC has returned over 1500 sensitive cabinet documents to ASIO after assurances were made to protect the ABC’s source. :) :) :) I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents.

So in your opinion when a journalist receives information that could expose and embarrass any Government they should remain silent....You would prefer if journalists did not report on leaks because they are not authorised....I disagree???

::) ::) ::)

If the documents upon which this information is contained, yes.....theft is theft.  I matters not that someone might argue that revelation was in the public interest.  That is completely irrelevant to criminal law.

How about I confess that I drowned Harold Holt, was charged and I tried a defence of 'public interest.'  Do you reckon that would work?

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:37pm:

If the documents upon which this information is contained, yes.....theft is theft.  I matters not that someone might argue that revelation was in the public interest.  That is completely irrelevant to criminal law. How about I confess that I drowned Harold Holt, was charged and I tried a defence of 'public interest.'  Do you reckon that would work?

Bullshit analogy Aussie....Lets say someone (we will call him deep throat) reveals classified information to a journalist because they believe that the information exposes the lies and corruption of a Government or a particular politician....Do you believe the journalist should stay silent???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 9:37pm: If the documents upon which this information is contained, yes.....theft is theft.  I matters not that someone might argue that revelation was in the public interest.  That is completely irrelevant to criminal law. How about I confess that I drowned Harold Holt, was charged and I tried a defence of 'public interest.'  Do you reckon that would work? Bullshit analogy Aussie....Lets say someone (we will call him deep throat) reveals classified information to a journalist because they believe that the information exposes the lies and corruption of a Government of particular politician....Do you believe the journalist should stay silent??? :-? :-? :-?

You miss the point!  They received stolen property.....the pages, the pieces of paper.  It is technically irrelevant what was printed in those pages.  Simple stuff.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:50pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 9:46pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 9:37pm: If the documents upon which this information is contained, yes.....theft is theft.  I matters not that someone might argue that revelation was in the public interest.  That is completely irrelevant to criminal law. How about I confess that I drowned Harold Holt, was charged and I tried a defence of 'public interest.'  Do you reckon that would work? Bullshit analogy Aussie....Lets say someone (we will call him deep throat) reveals classified information to a journalist because they believe that the information exposes the lies and corruption of a Government of particular politician....Do you believe the journalist should stay silent??? :-? :-? :-? You miss the point!  They received stolen property.....the pages, the pieces of paper.  It is technically irrelevant what was printed in those pages.  Simple stuff.

Who stole the papers Aussie....So you believe if a journalist receives classified information from a whistle blower he knows the person is not supposed to reveal the journalist should remain silent and turn in the whistle blower to authorities without exposing the information despite the fact it could expose lies and corruption....Or is it just the amount of information and the way it was received that makes a difference???

:-? :-? :-?

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:08pm: Read the link and stay within what the Law says. While interesting, this discussion doesn't address the core problem. How did the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet take a locked filing cabinet and ship it off to be sold without apparently considering what could be inside? This is appalling incompetence at best, criminal negligence at worst. Someone must lose their job over this. I won't speculate on the causes, but one thing is clear - this must not be investigated internally. That always leads to a cover-up. This must be investigated externally by the AFP.

Heads must roll.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 9:50pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 9:46pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 9:37pm: If the documents upon which this information is contained, yes.....theft is theft.  I matters not that someone might argue that revelation was in the public interest.  That is completely irrelevant to criminal law. How about I confess that I drowned Harold Holt, was charged and I tried a defence of 'public interest.'  Do you reckon that would work? Bullshit analogy Aussie....Lets say someone (we will call him deep throat) reveals classified information to a journalist because they believe that the information exposes the lies and corruption of a Government of particular politician....Do you believe the journalist should stay silent??? :-? :-? :-? You miss the point!  They received stolen property.....the pages, the pieces of paper.  It is technically irrelevant what was printed in those pages.  Simple stuff.

Thanks for your expertise Aussie. I now know what I'll do if I buy a filing cabinet full of govt docs. I'll scan them all and return their property and give the scans to wikileaks.

Gordon wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 8:40pm:

I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents.

Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation?

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 2:57pm:

Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation?

That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals?

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:16pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals?

It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-?

How is it the current governments fault when they were Labor party files.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-? How is it the current governments fault when they were Labor party files.

So Howard was a Labor PM now?

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:35pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:32pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-? How is it the current governments fault when they were Labor party files. So Howard was a Labor PM now?

first sentence from the article-

Nearly 200 top-secret code word protected and sensitive documents were left in the office of senior minister Penny Wong when Labor lost the 2013 election.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-?

As he is not a public servant, he does not come under that umbrella of protection, as I understand it (might be wrong.)  It is clear as a bell to me that he stole those documents, and that the ABC has received that stolen property, also an offence.

Nah, this bullshit has to stop.  The schmedia will attack  anything which might remotely look like an impediment on what they reckon is their right to be arseholes for their commercial interests.  Forget national interests, that's just their excuse to protect their revenue.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-? As he is not a public servant, he does not come under that umbrella of protection, as I understand it (might be wrong.)  It is clear as a bell to me that he stole those documents, and that the ABC has received that stolen property, also an offence. Nah, this bullshit has to stop.  The schmedia will attack  anything which might remotely look like an impediment on what they reckon is their right to be arseholes for their commercial interests.  Forget national interests, that's just their excuse to protect their revenue.

He didn't steal them. He bought a second hand file cabinet from a shop and when he got it home the files were inside. Look it up.

Look it up yourself.  Google 'stealing by finding.'

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-? As he is not a public servant, he does not come under that umbrella of protection, as I understand it (might be wrong.)  It is clear as a bell to me that he stole those documents, and that the ABC has received that stolen property, also an offence. Nah, this bullshit has to stop.  The schmedia will attack  anything which might remotely look like an impediment on what they reckon is their right to be arseholes for their commercial interests.  Forget national interests, that's just their excuse to protect their revenue.

Who did he steal them from Aussie....The Government or the second hand store???

:-? :-? :-?

The Government.  It is the property of the Government.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:53pm:

Look it up yourself.  Google 'stealing by finding.'

Yet he handed the documents over to the ABC and the Government is not pursuing him...It appears as though the only one who considers this a crime is you???

:-? :-? :-?

Top-secret Australian govt files ‘sold at second-hand shop’
Published time: 31 Jan, 2018 12:16
Edited time: 31 Jan, 2018 12:35

Canberra has launched an investigation into how hundreds of top-secret documents spanning five governments and dubbed The Cabinet Files ended up being sold at a second-hand furniture shop in the Australian capital.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) obtained the treasure trove of files and published a series of exclusive reports earlier this week.
Most of the documents were classified, some “top secret” and others marked “AUSTEO” (to be seen by Australian eyes only), and were meant by law to remain secret for at least two decades.
Read more
Australian Army chief talks up threats to ‘ethical’ warfare – but track record suggests hypocrisy
Among other things, the ABC's revelations reportedly feature allegations that the “Australian Federal Police (AFP) lost nearly 400 national security files in five years” and that former Prime Minister John Howard's National Security Committee (NSC) gave “serious consideration to removing an individual's unfettered right to remain silent when questioned by police.”
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has initiated “an urgent investigation.”
The ABC said that the files were in locked cabinets purchased at a shop selling ex-government furniture. The filing cabinets were bought for “small change” and sat unopened for several months until the locks were forced with a drill.
“The documents were in two locked filing cabinets sold at an ex-government sale in Canberra. They were sold off cheaply because they were heavy and no-one could find the keys. A nifty person drilled the locks and uncovered the trove of documents inside,” the ABC reported.
“The ex-government furniture sale was not limited to Australians — anyone could make a purchase. And had they been inclined, there was nothing stopping them handing the contents to a foreign agent or government,” it added.
The cabinet files dump came under fire from security experts, but was made light of on social media.

Rory Medcalf, the head of the National Security College at the Australian National University, meanwhile said it was an embarrassing incident “highlighting the constant vigilance that needs to go into protecting sensitive national security information.”
“This extraordinary breach underscores the need for government agencies and ministerial offices alike to review whether their protocols for handling secret information are good enough or are being observed,” he told news.com.au.

Before Christmas my kids brought a push bike home (mountain bike in great condition) they had found in an alley on the way home from school....I called the police who came and collected the bike from my home....The police asked me if I wanted the bike back if no one claimed it and I replied sure why not....They took my details and said they would send me a receipt for the bike....Never heard from the cops again....Did the Cops steal the bike from me???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:03pm:

Before Christmas my kids brought a push bike home (mountain bike in great condition) they had found in an alley on the way home from school....I called the police who came and collected the bike from my home....The police asked me if I wanted the bike back if no one claimed it and I replied sure why not....They took my details and said they would send me a receipt for the bike....Never heard from the cops again....Did the Cops steal the bike from me??? :-? :-? :-?

No.  All you had to do (well, in Queensland in my day) is make an application to the Magistrates Court (probably QCAT here now) that it become yours after three months.

I suspect you ought also have made sure you got that receipt.  Suggest you go and get it.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:57pm:

The Government.  It is the property of the Government.

So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods???

:-? :-? :-?

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:06pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:03pm: Before Christmas my kids brought a push bike home (mountain bike in great condition) they had found in an alley on the way home from school....I called the police who came and collected the bike from my home....The police asked me if I wanted the bike back if no one claimed it and I replied sure why not....They took my details and said they would send me a receipt for the bike....Never heard from the cops again....Did the Cops steal the bike from me??? :-? :-? :-? No.  All you had to do (well, in Queensland in my day) is make an application to the Magistrates Court (probably QCAT here now) that it become yours after three months. I suspect you ought also have made sure you got that receipt.  Suggest you go and get it.

Na....The cops can sell it at auction for all I care....My old man was a cop Aussie just so you know!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-?

It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-? It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets.

It matters not....The only one who might get prosecuted is the poor sod that allowed the cabinets to be sent to the second hand store!!!

::) ::) ::)

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 3:37pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:32pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-? How is it the current governments fault when they were Labor party files. So Howard was a Labor PM now? first sentence from the article- Nearly 200 top-secret code word protected and sensitive documents were left in the office of senior minister Penny Wong when Labor lost the 2013 election.

So what? Those are not the documents under discussion because they were all destroyed. The ones that have gotten all the attention are the ones from the PM's own department that ended up in a second-hand shop. Do try to keep up!

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:35pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:37pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:32pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 2:57pm: Gordon wrote on Feb 2nd, 2018 at 8:40pm: I'm actually not happy with the ABC revealing the contents of the documents. They should have reported what happened and even filmed the AFP collecting them, but they had no right to disclose the contents. Do you apply this principle to any leak of Cabinet documents to any media organisation? That is in different territory, and there are many variables.  My answer would be....depends.  Care to throw up some hypotheticals? It would appear as though the Government has accepted whistle blower protection laws to protect the person who inadvertently received the cabinets and provided them to the ABC....The focus will now turn to the public service and who the Government can blame for the blunder whilst taking no responsibility themselves??? :-? :-? :-? How is it the current governments fault when they were Labor party files. So Howard was a Labor PM now? first sentence from the article- Nearly 200 top-secret code word protected and sensitive documents were left in the office of senior minister Penny Wong when Labor lost the 2013 election. So what? Those are not the documents under discussion because they were all destroyed. The ones that have gotten all the attention are the ones from the PM's own department that ended up in a second-hand shop. Do try to keep up!

You've lost me.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-? It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets. It matters not....The only one who might get prosecuted is the poor sod that allowed the cabinets to be sent to the second hand store!!! ::) ::) ::)

Sorry, Phil....it matters everything.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:06pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:03pm: Before Christmas my kids brought a push bike home (mountain bike in great condition) they had found in an alley on the way home from school....I called the police who came and collected the bike from my home....The police asked me if I wanted the bike back if no one claimed it and I replied sure why not....They took my details and said they would send me a receipt for the bike....Never heard from the cops again....Did the Cops steal the bike from me??? :-? :-? :-? No.  All you had to do (well, in Queensland in my day) is make an application to the Magistrates Court (probably QCAT here now) that it become yours after three months. I suspect you ought also have made sure you got that receipt.  Suggest you go and get it. Na....The cops can sell it at auction for all I care....My old man was a cop Aussie just so you know!!! :) :) :)

Wasn't everyone's?

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:46pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:10pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:06pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:03pm: Before Christmas my kids brought a push bike home (mountain bike in great condition) they had found in an alley on the way home from school....I called the police who came and collected the bike from my home....The police asked me if I wanted the bike back if no one claimed it and I replied sure why not....They took my details and said they would send me a receipt for the bike....Never heard from the cops again....Did the Cops steal the bike from me??? :-? :-? :-? No.  All you had to do (well, in Queensland in my day) is make an application to the Magistrates Court (probably QCAT here now) that it become yours after three months. I suspect you ought also have made sure you got that receipt.  Suggest you go and get it. Na....The cops can sell it at auction for all I care....My old man was a cop Aussie just so you know!!! :) :) :) Wasn't everyone's?

:-? :-? :-?

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:17pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-? It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets. It matters not....The only one who might get prosecuted is the poor sod that allowed the cabinets to be sent to the second hand store!!! ::) ::) ::) Sorry, Phil....it matters everything.

Not to the Government or the police....The ABC kept their source secret???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:45pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:17pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-? It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets. It matters not....The only one who might get prosecuted is the poor sod that allowed the cabinets to be sent to the second hand store!!! ::) ::) ::) Sorry, Phil....it matters everything. Not to the Government or the police....The ABC kept their source secret??? :-? :-? :-?

It ought not be beyond Plod to track down who bought those cabinets from that store.

Phil, when we were kids, we all said that our Father was a Copper.  It was a lying boast.  I am not suggesting you are lying about it.  It's an old expression...well, it was in my home town.

Poor Bammy believes the Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet is solely the function of the incumbent government. Not that it continues after each election.

So the senior staff have been there for x amount of years, because it is a Public Service job; meaning they have likely worked under Labor and the Coalition.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:45pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:17pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-? It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets. It matters not....The only one who might get prosecuted is the poor sod that allowed the cabinets to be sent to the second hand store!!! ::) ::) ::) Sorry, Phil....it matters everything. Not to the Government or the police....The ABC kept their source secret??? :-? :-? :-?

Link.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 5:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:48pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:45pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:17pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 4:08pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2018 at 3:57pm: The Government.  It is the property of the Government. So why is the second hand store not guilty of stealing or fencing stolen goods??? :-? :-? :-? It was unaware the documents were in the locked (no key) filing cabinets. It matters not....The only one who might get prosecuted is the poor sod that allowed the cabinets to be sent to the second hand store!!! ::) ::) ::) Sorry, Phil....it matters everything. Not to the Government or the police....The ABC kept their source secret??? :-? :-? :-? Link.

Thanks Aussie that was enlightening....As I said the ABC kept their source secret to the point we know he is a bushy and he likes steak and beer???

:) :) :)

And his wife was away. ;)

Canberra.....purchased from a Canberra store who purchased them from a Government sale (how many of them are in Canberra).......money paid.......over to Plod to do his job.

And the ABC kept the source secret. No matter if he is eventually identified through other means, they kept his identity secret.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 5:21pm:

Canberra.....purchased from a Canberra store who purchased them from a Government sale (how many of them are in Canberra).......money paid.......over to Plod to do his job.

When they find him they should present him with Australian of the year IMO!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 4:52pm:

Poor Bammy believes the Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet is solely the function of the incumbent government. Not that it continues after each election. So the senior staff have been there for x amount of years, because it is a Public Service job; meaning they have likely worked under Labor and the Coalition.

Whenever there's a change of government there's always a "clean out" of the public service as the new government replaces the previous government's people with its own. Not many survive the political purge. You haven't actually proven that the person who make this error wasn't one of the Liberals' appointees. Your argument is therefore unfounded conjecture.

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 6:33pm:

Whenever there's a change of government there's always a "clean out" of the public service as the new government replaces the previous government's people with its own.

There may be a change of Secretaries but generally below the Secretary level there is no change.  They do replace the Ministerial staff, which are not Public Servants. There is a difference.


Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2018 at 6:33pm:

You haven't actually proven that the person who make this error wasn't one of the Liberals' appointees. Your argument is therefore unfounded conjecture.

You haven't shown it was any political appointment either Labor or Coalition. ;)

I guess no buck stops at the desk of the PM.  Whats say ye, Mr Red Baron?

Link.


Quote:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says public servants should be sacked in the wake of The Cabinet Files security breach, which he has described as "a shocking failure".

And what is this if it is not obstruction/perversion of or interference with Justice?  Separation of powers?  What!  Farq these deals to sweep criminal offences under the carpet!


Quote:

The documents were returned to the Government after a deal was struck that protected the ABC's source.

I find it strange , even suspicious that the ABC were buying 2nd hand cabinets and it just happens that those documents were in those very cabinets.

Grendel wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

I find it strange , even suspicious that the ABC were buying 2nd hand cabinets and it just happens that those documents were in those very cabinets.

How can Your Lowness get that so wrong?

https://im-01.gifer.com/5IYy.gif

Grendel wrote on Feb 4^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

I find it strange , even suspicious that the ABC were buying 2nd hand cabinets and it just happens that those documents were in those very cabinets.

The cabinets were purchased by a member of the public who alerted the ABC to their contents???

::) ::) ::)

I still find it odd...

BTW this is the information I have been listening to for the last few days...  not once does it or has the ABC stated differently phil...


Quote:

ABC hands back 1500 sensitive cabinet documents, PM office admits fault THE Prime Minister’s Department has admitted responsibility for the loss of sensitive documents that were sold in a cabinet at a second-hand store before falling into the hands of the ABC. In a statement this evening, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said: “It is now reasonably evident that the cabinets and documents which are the subject of the AFP investigation, came from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. “While it remains unclear, it is likely this occurred some time ago. “This casts the Department in a poor light and this failure has implications for the rest of the Australian Public Service.” RELATED: AFP attacks ABC over ‘leaks’ ASIO secures cabinet files at ABC offices in Canberra and Brisbane. Picture: ABC News Earlier, ASIO officers retrieved the cabinet documents obtained by the ABC. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the ABC reached an agreement on the return of the documents, according to ABC News. The papers were retrieved from Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane late Thursday evening, where they had been temporarily stored in safes on ABC premises. ASIO officers secured the documents earlier on Thursday at the ABC offices after they were found in a locked filing cabinet bought from a second-hand shop. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet launched an urgent investigation on Wednesday after the ABC revealed it had obtained papers covering details of five federal government cabinet meetings over a decade. The filing cabinets were unlocked with a drill months later. The trove, some classified “top secret”, was sold cheaply at a second-hand shop in Canberra, which stocked ex-government furniture. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said the person responsible for losing the documents will have serious questions to answer. “Obviously someone’s had a shocker and the investigation will find out exactly how this happened,” he told ABC radio on Wednesday. Cabinet papers are legally supposed to remain secret for 20 years after their production. “In the process of running a country, there are things which go awry. This is one of them,” Mr Joyce said. The ABC said it had chosen not to publish many of the documents because of their classified nature. Former prime minister Tony Abbott said he believed a junior or mid-ranking departmental officer was to blame and insisted they “pay a price”. “Not so much a cabinet leak as a leaked cabinet — that seems to be the problem,” Mr Abbott told 2GB radio.

SO as you can see several days and not one mention of them being bought by anyone else...

Aussie told me the ABC bought 2nd hand cabinets...  which one of you should I believe?

Aussie
Quote:

Grendel Your Lowness, after your very clear demonstration of ignorance yesterday....the ABC were buying 2nd hand cabinets and it just happens that those documents were in those very cabinets.......I doubt you are quite the person to be delivering lectures on anything at all.

I'll let you both battle it out shall I? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

Aussie told me the ABC bought 2nd hand cabinets...

I certainly did not, you Lying Lowness.

If you read the Thread (probably for the first time) you will see many links explaining what happened including this one.

Link.

Any arrested yet? What about the strawberry picker who gave the filing cabinets to ABC?

Grendel wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 3:01pm:

I still find it odd... BTW this is the information I have been listening to for the last few days...  not once does it or has the ABC stated differently phil... Quote: ABC hands back 1500 sensitive cabinet documents, PM office admits fault THE Prime Minister’s Department has admitted responsibility for the loss of sensitive documents that were sold in a cabinet at a second-hand store before falling into the hands of the ABC. In a statement this evening, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said: “It is now reasonably evident that the cabinets and documents which are the subject of the AFP investigation, came from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. “While it remains unclear, it is likely this occurred some time ago. “This casts the Department in a poor light and this failure has implications for the rest of the Australian Public Service.” RELATED: AFP attacks ABC over ‘leaks’ ASIO secures cabinet files at ABC offices in Canberra and Brisbane. Picture: ABC News Earlier, ASIO officers retrieved the cabinet documents obtained by the ABC. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the ABC reached an agreement on the return of the documents, according to ABC News. The papers were retrieved from Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane late Thursday evening, where they had been temporarily stored in safes on ABC premises. ASIO officers secured the documents earlier on Thursday at the ABC offices after they were found in a locked filing cabinet bought from a second-hand shop. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet launched an urgent investigation on Wednesday after the ABC revealed it had obtained papers covering details of five federal government cabinet meetings over a decade. The filing cabinets were unlocked with a drill months later. The trove, some classified “top secret”, was sold cheaply at a second-hand shop in Canberra, which stocked ex-government furniture. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said the person responsible for losing the documents will have serious questions to answer. “Obviously someone’s had a shocker and the investigation will find out exactly how this happened,” he told ABC radio on Wednesday. Cabinet papers are legally supposed to remain secret for 20 years after their production. “In the process of running a country, there are things which go awry. This is one of them,” Mr Joyce said. The ABC said it had chosen not to publish many of the documents because of their classified nature. Former prime minister Tony Abbott said he believed a junior or mid-ranking departmental officer was to blame and insisted they “pay a price”. “Not so much a cabinet leak as a leaked cabinet — that seems to be the problem,” Mr Abbott told 2GB radio. SO as you can see several days and not one mention of them being bought by anyone else... Aussie told me the ABC bought 2nd hand cabinets...  which one of you should I believe? Aussie[quote]Grendel Your Lowness, after your very clear demonstration of ignorance yesterday....the ABC were buying 2nd hand cabinets and it just happens that those documents were in those very cabinets.......I doubt you are quite the person to be delivering lectures on anything at all.

I'll let you both battle it out shall I? :D :D :D :D :D :D[/quote]

You could have read the links and found out the truth before posting a comment....Anyway the ABC received the cabinets from a member of the public who purchased them from a second hand store!!!

::) ::) ::)