Vic Daniel Andrews and the Statue of Limitations

[eddiesmith]

Triple Zero Victoria has Ministerial authorisation enabling it to release information under the FOI Act that would otherwise be confidential under the Triple Zero Act I quoted previously.

But those authorisations are within strict limitations and purposes, namely:

• educating the community or any section of the community about the role of and the services offered by the Authority
• promoting public health and safety
• responding to complaints, enquiries or compliments about or relating to the Authority, a Member of or acting Member of the Authority or an employee of the Authority
• support for the staff of the Authority, which may include commendations or other recognition
• responding to requests for access to records under the FOI Act so far as the exemptions contained in that Act (other than that contained in s 38 of that Act) do not apply to the information.

I don't see how releasing the Andrews accident 000 call meets those authorisations (maybe point 3 but that would require a public statement from the authority outlining the justification) but I freely admit I don't know the detail of its release.

I've also not seen a statement confirming how Libertarian MP David Limbrick came to hear the recording made by Andrews that he read into Hansard yesterday. His parliamentary statement yesterday calling for the recording to be publicly released suggests to me that it was not an FOI release but was accessed from other sources.

Can you confirm that this particular recording was released under FOI? And if so who made the FOI request and what were the reasons that deemed that release justified?

Because, outside of the obvious political interest, imho this information (how the recording was released for political gain and why) is more important to the public interest than the recording of call itself.

No I can’t confirm under what reasons this one was released, but it’s not that difficult if you have the right authority.

The family of the victim should be able to obtain it, especially in recent court proceedings. Plus once it’s out, it is often used in very public uses.

But this is the usual m.o when bad information is uncovered about your dear leader, go after the source and pretend that’s far worse than the actual information.

 

[Festerz]

But this is the usual m.o when bad information is uncovered about your dear leader, go after the source and pretend that’s far worse than the actual information.

LOL - I wasn't the one who raised the issue of the source of the 000 call. And it was you who made the assertion about the source being from FOI.

All I did was point out the facts around FOI access to 000 calls and why state actors breaching those legislated privacy provisions might be the bigger issue here - especially for those who make a claim to be libertarians demanding greater privacy and personal freedoms.

But rather than discussing the issue like an adult or admitting to your lack of knowledge - you pivot to parroting the empty and baseless personal political attack for someone daring to call you to account.

Why am I not surprised at your lack of self awareness here?