I agree with the author:

Nothing gives me a right to know what other people are doing, including that evil gang who happen to call themselves "state", "government", "commonwealth" or "Australia", who then use those titles to capture people at sea and detain and torture them: that's indeed their private business!

In turn, they don't have a right to know what I am doing, which is my own private business.

Interesting article, Don. Yes, and yet, the discussion flounders from the outset on the definition of "right".

The contest has historically been between the positivists and so-called natural rights.

"Real rights that mean something come from legislation, and they are always hedged about with qualifications and restrictions."

The problem with this theory - legal positivism - can be seen from the Nuremberg trials. It is well-known that "the Nuremberg defence" involved the claim that the defendants were not guilty because they were only following orders.

Less well-known is that there were actually two Nuremberg defences. The other one, fully legal positivist, is that the defendants had done no wrong by definition, since rights are whatever the state by legislation says they are.

According to legal positivism, if the State legally permits slavery, then the escaped slave is the "criminal", and the master who takes him into his custody and punishing him is exercising his "rights".

See Ben O’Neill’s interesting talk on all the schools of legal positivism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9S7JHo0NoE

Since the State is by definition the biggest and most powerful party in society, legal positivism boils down to saying that rights are whatever the most powerful party says they are.

But this is the exact opposite of a rule of just conduct, and therefore must be rejected as a theory of what a right is. The whole purpose of a rule of just conduct – an ethic – is to establish some other rule than “might is right”.

Therefore if the public have a “right to know”, they obviously don’t have it as a matter of positive law. (And if it’s true, why don't the public have the same right to know all other information held by government?)

On the other hand, the problem with natural rights is that they have to be discovered by human reason. Bentham famously said that natural rights are no more than "bawling upon paper".

However that doesn't dispose of the theory of natural rights. It’s a question of finding the content of rights that cannot be denied without self-contradiction.

(cont.)

We can confidently assert that they are natural rights if one either
a) agrees with them, in which case there’s no issue, or
b) in denying them performs a self-contradiction.
Thus they are axiomatic.

This is called the “argumentation ethic”. By entering into argumentation, one implicitly asserts that argumentation is capable of solving what is in issue. One cannot argue that one cannot argue. Anyone who denies this – “Yes you can!” – performs a self-contradiction. Therefore by his action he affirms that argumentation, rather than brute force, is capable of resolving the truth or otherwise of the claims in issue.

Hans Hermann-Hoppe has shown the natural rights thus discovered extent to, and only to:
1. The right of the use of the physical stuff of one’s own body subject to the equal right of others to the use of theirs – personal liberty
2. The right to appropriate *unowned* goods from nature, since without this, no-one could participate in the discussion, and the first right would be nugatory
3. The right to transform such goods with one’s labour, or other goods *voluntarily* acquired, without which the first two rights are nugatory, along with human society
4. The right to the resulting property subject to the equal rights of others to acquire property by such peaceable means.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Economics%20and%20Ethics%20of%20Private%20Property%20Studies%20in%20Political%20Economy%20and%20Philosophy_3.pdf

Anyone who denies these propositions performs a self-contradiction. Therefore whatever they put forward cannot count as a theory of rights. The argument is, that such cannot be an ethic since it does not apply to all people equally but instead involves a double standard – “I’m allowed to hit you, but you’re not allowed to him me”. This cannot be a right, because it asserts the original moral problem – might is right – that it is the purpose of ethics to solve by rules of just conduct.

Applying this to Amnesty’s assertion, it follows that:
1. the public does not have a right to know information held by the government, and
2. the governments actions are criminal.

All statist “argument” is only ever arbitrary assertions that might is right.

Some ethic

I agree with the author too.

Don said in one place "I have a somewhat simple-minded view that the government is there to govern. "

I totally agree with that statement regarding defence and border security. The government has two primary responsibilities as far as I am concerned:

1. Defence and security of the nation and its interests

2. Managing the economy for the maximum benefit of its people over the short, medium and long term [it should also be noted that also to maintaining and growing strong trade relationships with other countries improves our security over the long term.]

We elect the government to look after these two major responsibilities. The government is accountable to the voters who will pass judgement at each election. It would compromise the government's ability to do what we elect it to do, if every citizen (in his/her ignorance) thinks they have a role to play in the day to day operational decisions. It is ridiculous for citizens to think they they can possibly understand all the information needed to make an informed decision about strategy and tactics, let alone operational matters,

I really like and admire this about Don Aitkin - he uses facts. He is not an opiniated windbag who approaches things based on his own opinions and biases, unlike many of the politically inspired contributors (and posters) we have to sufffer.

Good on you, Don.

I strongly disagree.

"On the one hand, I doubt that most of the people on their boats are genuine political refugees; most seem to be economic refugees seeking a better life. Why wouldn't they want Australia rather than Papua New Guinea or Cambodia?"
The most important reason is that we speak english.
Also the rule of law is rather weak in those countries.
I think economic factors come third after those considerations.
And when Australia announced they'd be sent to PNG or Cambodia, it didn't stop the boats. So I don't think your doubts are justified.

"Equally, I do not think I have a right to know what the Government is doing here or why it is doing it. As with the Canberra light rail example, sorting this out is the government's job, not mine. If I don't like what they do, I will turn to the ballot box when it is my turn to do so."
But how can you make a good decision whether you like what they do when you're denied access to information about it?

Governments make better decisions when everything is made public, as this limits their ability to waste money on low value pet projects. It stops them pretending there's no alternative, and it prevents them from shifting blame. And it curtails the opportunities for corrupt deals.

Do we have a right to know? Not enough of the time, as governments like to dodge accountability. But we SHOULD have a right to know.

A good article, Don. "rights" are derived from fulfillment of obligations, they don't have a magical separate existence.

However, we can certainly aspire to enhancing life experiences in general and improving the minimum basic standards of treatment of people as a part of the obligation of the state to its citizens. Unfortunately, some of our lesser thinkers on these topics have the view that whatever they perceive as good for them should be a right and everyone else can go to buggery.

Never mind, this too shall pass and the best we can hope to do is to give our children and grandchildren a world that isn't too badly buggered by the greed and magic pudding economic delusions of their grandparents' generation.

I don't often agree with the musings of academics, but in this case Mr AITKIN is right. Every three years or so, we elect a government to do the things they say they'll do. I do not wish for a running commentary on each and every action or omission that government undertakes unless that specific policy or undertaking, is going seriously awry ? This LNP govt. said they'd stop the boats, that they've done, thank you.

Disagree

In our democracy most Federal politicians we elect support Acts of Federal Parliament that rightly exclude some activities and bodies from FOI. There is something called the Archives Act.

Most Federal politicians also support laws that back up the system of security classifications/cavaets which rightly restrict any so-called "right to know".

People overseas, for example the SAS, do very personally dangerous things on behalf of Australia.

Should these SAS be endangered by the author's safely philosophical "right to know"?

Politicians and others in government have wider responsibilities than retired academics.

I agree some things need to be kept secret, problem is where that line is drawn.

As to economic invaders to give out information could help the smugglers so don't say anything unless you have to.

There is one secret negotiation going on at the moment that absolutely should not be secret that is the TPP trade aggreement, this document if signed will override our laws and those of other countries with some of the provisions in it.

plantagenet, there are a few things that should be exempt from FOI. Matters subject to ongoing negotiation are one. National security is another.

We should not let peoples right to know things put our soldiers and spies at risk. But this does not mean all military and espionage related matters should remain secret. If a soldier commits a crime, the army should not cover it up, tempting as this may be to many. And abuse of process, such as use of bugging to obtain a commercial advantage in negotiations with East Timor, should always be exposed.

There are some border security related matters where secrecy is justified. But what occurs in detention centres is not one of them. And any actions that put refugees in more danger must be exposed, as they run counter to what many regard as the main reason for taking action in the first place.

Righton Aidan. I too proudly, nay heroically, resist some oversteppings of the establishment.

And the right of IS to have more rights, legal aid, Court and ABC time than Australian employees who quietly serve.

The right to know is what killed princess Diana? If we promulgated just how we are stopping the boat the heartless people smugglers are almost certain to find s way to circumvent our efforts.

All need to know is that those we detain are being lawfully and humanely detained!
Rhrosty.

Some of us no longer care what the government does in our name - especially when it comes to our treatment of refugees, including children. Refugees arriving by boat have been called Illegals these past few decades. The fact is they have a legal right to seek asylum. By calling them illegals many decent Australians falsely believe these refugees have broken our laws and deserve to be locked up indefinitely. This is not true, but if you say a lie often enough it becomes accepted as fact.

The government and the opposition don't want us to know what is being done in our name. Otherwise they wouldn't have rushed through The Border Force Act 2015 which means that from from July 2015, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals face up to two years imprisonment for blowing the whistle on substandard medical care given to asylum seekers in detention centres.

Is it really none of our business what the government does to these people?

I thought democracy was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Politicians are supposed to serve us. They are in parliament as our representatives are they not?

When told of allegations of child sexual abuse in offshore detention camps, in the Moss report, Tony Abbott's response was “Occasionally, I daresay, things happen, because in any institution you get things that occasionally aren’t perfect,” That still shocks me. Doesn't it shock you?

The AFP was not asked to investigate the claims of child sexual abuse, but instead, was asked to investigate Save the Children staff who anonymously wrote a submission to the Australian Human Right's Commission’s inquiry, revealing cases of sexual and physical abuse of children, and acts of self-harm.

I know what "crime" I would rather be investigated, but maybe that's just me.

But why do we need to know what they do over there in the detention centres?
We can safely assume that torture is the norm - but whether or not we know the gory details, is there anything we can change about it?

Hi Yuyustu,

I may be wrong but I think the government and opposition's insistence on secrecy tells us a lot. Would they go to all the effort to criminalise doctors and nurses who act as whistleblowers if they could defend their actions?

That shows that if enough people speak up they think that they would have to change their policies. The majority of people might not have sympathy with refugees, but surely no one accepts that it is ok to ignore evidence that kids are being sexually abused in our offshore detention camps? I think that may be the game-changer.

Dear BJelly,

I think you are too optimistic:

Suppose we do all know that children are abused systematically there.
Suppose we are all angry and upset about it.

Then what?

What you call "our offshore detention camps" are not 'our', never been - it's the government's and governments by their nature do whatever they like: we could quack as much as we like, they care none about us. The most they allow (and even expect) us to do is to attend "elections" and there ceremoniously replace Tweedledum by Tweedledee - but as they are one and the same, they couldn't care less.

Had they really believed that we can ever unseat them, then we too would vanish into these camps, but as they don't even need to bother about us gnats, they rather allow us to stay in our homes and contribute to their economy=taxes.

Hi Yuyustu,

I think they think they would lose votes if enough people saw how we are turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children in these camps.

The thing they are afraid of is losing power, that is why the Coalition and ALP hiss and howl about the rise of minor parties and Independents. If word got out it would be a vote loser, and they are both stuffed.

So both are rushing to ensure any evidence of child abuse is kept well and truly under wraps.

I make no mistake about their motives, if they cared about what is happening to these kids they would have got them out of these camps by now.