{"id":82848,"date":"2014-09-26T18:05:15","date_gmt":"2014-09-26T08:05:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=82848"},"modified":"2020-08-25T16:03:15","modified_gmt":"2020-08-25T06:03:15","slug":"new-law-an-attack-on-press-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2014\/09\/26\/new-law-an-attack-on-press-freedom\/","title":{"rendered":"New Law An Attack On Press Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>September 26, 2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Anne Miller<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union and industry advocate for Australia\u2019s journalists, has described the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill No 1 which been passed by the Federal Parliament an outrageous attack on press freedom in Australia.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis Bill has been rushed through in undue haste without proper discussion or debate of the implications it has in denying long-held freedoms in Australia,” MEAA federal secretary Christopher Warren said.<\/p>\n

“In a healthy functioning democracy this assault on the public\u2019s right to know and the penalties applied to the media for scrutinising power must be condemned. The Bill muzzles the media from doing its job.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Bill criminalises legitimate journalist reporting of matters in the public interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“It overturns the public\u2019s right to know. It persecutes and prosecutes whistleblowers and journalists who are dealing with whistleblowers. It imposes ludicrous penalties of up to 10 years jail on journalists.<\/p>\n

“It imposes outrageous surveillance on journalists and the computer networks of their media employers. It treats every Australian as a threat and denies their rights of access to information and freedom of expression.\u201d<\/p>\n

The MEAA believes the government has rushed the legislation, ignoring the warnings of media organisations and the MEAA.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe parliament has now passed legislation that hands extraordinary powers to the government and its spy agencies while conveniently preventing legitimate scrutiny of those powers. <\/p>\n

“At a time when the parliament should be defending and promoting freedoms in our society it has instead chosen to strip them away,\u201d Mr Warren said.<\/p>\n

The MEAA has repeatedly raised its concerns over section 35P of the Bill which imposes a jail term of up to 10 years on journalists for \u201cunauthorised disclosure of information\u201d \u2013 criminalising the work of journalists if they receive information about a special intelligence operation, particularly from whistleblowers or \u201ctrusted insiders\u201d as the Bill notes in its Explanatory Memorandum.<\/p>\n

The penalty in the Bill is a jail term of between five and 10 years.<\/p>\n

The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the offences outlined in section 35P would apply to \u201cdisclosures by any person\u201d and \u201cpersons who are recipients of unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure\u201d.<\/p>\n

This would capture legitimate reporting by journalists and media organisations of activities in the public interest.<\/p>\n

For example, this legislation would have made illegal the legitimate reporting of Edward Snowden\u2019s revelation about the phone\u2010tapping of the wife of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.<\/p>\n

Late amendments to the Bill would also apply a \u201crecklessness\u201d test to prosecuting media organisations for publishing or broadcasting information. <\/p>\n

This is countered by a requirement on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions \u201cto consider the public interest in the commencement or continuation of a prosecution\u201d but the definition of the public interest from the DPP\u2019s perspective may differ greatly from that of journalists, the media and, indeed, the public.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is clear that rather than seeing Edward Snowden as a legitimate whistleblower who exposed massive illegal misuse of metadata, this legislation ensures that anyone seeking to also expose wrongdoing by Australia\u2019s spy agencies will be muzzled, unable to get their story out to the wider community despite the obvious public interest, and will be punished with a jail term of up to 10 years,\u201d Mr Warren said.<\/p>\n

The Bill can also deem journalists and their employers to be a \u201cthird party\u201d if they interview persons of interest to the Australia Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consider the example of Australian barrister Bernard Collaery and his allegations that ASIO agents raided his Canberra office and seized electronic and paper files relating to the alleged bugging of the Timor Leste\u2019s government\u2019s Cabinet offices during negotiations for a treaty relating to the Timor Gap.<\/p>\n

Journalists who interview persons of interest to ASIO like Collaery can be subjected to powers of surveillance, investigation and punishment which may undermine a journalist\u2019s ethical obligations to never disclose the identity of a confidential source. <\/p>\n

It also sits at odds with shield laws that protect journalists from having to disclose the identity of confidential sources.<\/p>\n

The Bill\u2019s new definition of \u201ccomputer\u201d (to include a computer system or network) has grave implications for people and organisations designated \u201cthird parties\u201d.<\/p>\n

As a third party, the journalist\u2019s computer and their media organisation\u2019s computer network could be monitored, have information taken, and be \u201cdisrupted\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Bill\u2019s overview regarding intelligence collection powers states the Bill enables ASIO to: \u201cobtain intelligence from a number of computers (including a computer network) under a single computer access warrant, including computers at a specified location or those which are associated with a specified person\u201d and the Bill\u2019s amendments also alter \u201cthe current limitation on disruption of a target computer\u201d. Under the Bill\u2019s proposed amendments \u201cdisruption\u201d can include the addition, copying, altering or deletion of data if ASIO deems it necessary.<\/p>\n

This can happen to a third party\u2019s computer and\/or communications in transit. This again threatens the relationship journalists have with their confidential sources and the preparation of news stories.<\/p>\n

The MEAA believes the Parliament needs to rethink the government\u2019s rushed counter-terrorism measures and allow them to be fully and properly debated with a careful consultation process to ensure that, in the rush to provide government with new powers, cherished and long-defended liberties are not undermined.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the very least there must be a sunset clause on these extraordinary powers; an improved and rigorous process of independent oversight and review; an understanding that denying the public the right to know what governments do in our name is an appalling assault on democracy; and protections in place to ensure journalists and the media are not treated as criminals for doing their job,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

In a late amendment, journalists now face 10-years\u2019 jail if they identify an ASIO officer. MEAA notes that ASIO has been able to inoculate itself from scrutiny so successfully that any wrongdoing by an ASIO officer could result in two years\u2019 jail but if a journalist reported the officer\u2019s abuse of power, the journalist faces five times that penalty.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe outcome of this legislation for journalists is two-fold: a muzzle has been applied to the media that will have a chilling effect on legitimate journalism while at the same time journalists will be compelled to resort to the tools and techniques of espionage to protect their news sources and stories from being interfered with by the government and its agencies,\u201d Warren said. <\/p>\n

\u201cThose two outcomes are not healthy in any democracy. But they are even more galling when the government responsible claims to be implementing these in order to protect our freedoms and our way of life,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a former journalist, has said in relation to the arrest, detention and jailing of Australian journalist Peter Greste in Cairo: \u2018Peter Greste would have been reporting the Muslim Brotherhood, not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Because that\u2019s what Australian journalists do.\u2019 That distinction about the work that journalists do needs to be considered by the Australian Parliament and should have been recognised in this Bill,\u201d Mr Warren said.<\/p>\n

South Burnett Online supports the campaign by the journalists union, the MEAA, to raise awareness about the implications of recent National Security Legislation passed by the Federal Government:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n