MR GYLES: It was on the news this morning, yes. MR ROWLINGS: About ANZAC, and he had a viewpoint which not many Australians would share, I suggest. been sacked on the basis He’s of his views, which entitled to express, in keeping with the he’s aren’t mainstream. a very dangerous - - - That’s MR GYLES: Breach of the code of conduct, it was said. MR ROWLINGS: Well, no code of conduct. What code of there’s conduct? MR GYLES: SBS. DR LYNCH: Mind you, that is a growing issue which the New South Wales Council of Civil - - - MR ROWLINGS: Why does a person expressing a personal view, which is clearly a soccer reporter. not commenting on soccer. – he’s He’s DR KLUGMAN: Yes, we are a bit off. MR GYLES: Now, look, if telling me I got enough you’re haven’t resources to deal with this legislation, I solve all those other can’t problems. But I am anxious to make sure that are there any detailed – aspects that we covered? haven’t MS THOMAS: Could I just say a couple of things in relation to a few of the things that have been said? First of all, in relation to what you were just saying about information that might disclose the identity of an officer, only just appreciated this potential scenario where the it might not I’ve – be apparent on the face of the story to me but to somebody who could perhaps put the officer in danger, it might disclose to them. MR GYLES: It joins the dots. MS THOMAS: You can, if you think about it, obvious once that there’s suggested to you. I think that one of the problems that arises in the it’s dialogue, if I can describe it that way, between government agencies and NGOs and the media in this field is that those examples are not made explicit enough because there is an obvious interest, national security interest, engaged there. So I would not necessarily see a law that was directly directed to preventing that from occurring as being problematic.
MR GYLES: It was on the news this morning, yes. MR ROWLINGS: About ANZAC, and he had a viewpoint which not many Australians would share, I suggest. He’s been sacked on the basis of his views, which he’s entitled to express, aren’t in keeping with the mainstream. That’s a very dangerous - - - MR GYLES: Breach of the code of conduct, it was said. MR ROWLINGS: Well, there’s no code of conduct. What code of conduct? MR GYLES: SBS. DR LYNCH: Mind you, that is a growing issue which the New South Wales Council of Civil - - - MR ROWLINGS: Why does a person expressing a personal view, which is clearly – he’s a soccer reporter. He’s not commenting on soccer. DR KLUGMAN: Yes, we are a bit off. MR GYLES: Now, look, if you’re telling me I haven’t got enough resources to deal with this legislation, I can’t solve all those other problems. But I am anxious to make sure that – are there any detailed aspects that we haven’t covered? MS THOMAS: Could I just say a couple of things in relation to a few of the things that have been said? First of all, in relation to what you were just saying about information that might disclose the identity of an officer, I’ve only just appreciated this potential scenario where the – it might not be apparent on the face of the story to me but to somebody who could perhaps put the officer in danger, it might disclose to them. MR GYLES: It joins the dots. MS THOMAS: You can, if you think about it, there’s obvious once that it’s suggested to you. I think that one of the problems that arises in the dialogue, if I can describe it that way, between government agencies and NGOs and the media in this field is that those examples are not made explicit enough because there is an obvious interest, national security interest, engaged there. So I would not necessarily see a law that was directly directed to preventing that from occurring as being problematic.
270415%20-%20final%20transcript%20%20-%20word.docx