The Guardian Article
Tony Abbott: media should not publish stories that 'endanger national security'
Prime minister warns journalists to show 'sense of responsibility' as Coalition tries to push through tougher security laws
Daniel Hurst and Paul Farrell
theguardian.com, Thursday 17 July 2014 16.50 AEST
... lawyers warned that planned legislation means journalists could face jail for reporting disclosures about certain spy operations.
...National security legislation presented to the Senate on Thursday would expand the powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) and create a new offence punishable by five years in jail for “any person” who disclosed information relating to “special intelligence operations”.
The person would be liable for a 10-year term if the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation”.
Special intelligence operations are a new type of covert operation in which intelligence officers receive immunity from liability or prosecution where they may need to engage in conduct that would be otherwise unlawful. Such operations would be approved by the Asio director general or deputy director general. [So these are infiltration operations?]
...Barns, who is also spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance and has worked for WikiLeaks, said it was “an unprecedented clause which would capture the likes of Wikileaks, the Guardian, the New York Times, and any other media organisation that reports on such material”. [Or any other individual.]
The attorney general, George Brandis, rejected suggestions the government was targeting journalists and told Sky News it was not the purpose of the bill to place constraints on freedom of discussion. [SURE]
Abbott, when asked about the possibility of journalists facing prosecution, said: “I think it's important that we get the balance right.
“News that endangers the security of our country frankly shouldn't be fit to print and I'd ask for a sense of responsibility, a sense of national interest as well as simply of commercial interest, a sense of the long-term best interests of the country as well as the short-term best interests of creating sensation to be present right across our country including in the media.” [WTF is a 'sensation'?]
The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, reacted cautiously to the reports about the potential reach of the laws.
“There are suggestions that the attorney general’s amendments to national security legislation could criminalise some reporting by journalists,” Dreyfus said in a statement.
“Senator Brandis has indicated that criminalising reporting of leaked national security information is not his intention. If Senator Brandis's amendments would criminalise reporting by journalists who receive intelligence information, the government will need to make changes to remove that consequence.” [Doesn't sound like Abbott will.]
The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi told the National Press Club the security reforms were a “work in progress” and he believed Brandis was “very receptive to concerns of those who are libertarians, or conservative libertarians, and that don't want to see an all-pervasive government”. [SURE]
“Let's go back to first principles. One, I think the Australian public and right around the world are right to be suspicious of government and their snooping ability, if I can put it like that,” Bernardi said. “Look at what's happened in Germany, with the NSA in America, across Europe there's been a lot of discussion in this area. [What, Germany got spied on by the US? And embarrassed getting caught out? Oh, wait a minute: Germany had a double-agent answering to the US and NSA had the Snowden leak. But why put that on the press. It's their internal problems and the press should have every right to disclose if the government and its agencies get caught with their pants down.]
“Secondly, I think we're right to advocate for freedom of the press. We need to make sure the press are free to report within the constraints of what is in, I'd say, the national interest. [With constraints is not free to report. One could argue it is not within the scope of national interests of a democracy to have a gagged press.]
“We all know that there are things the press don't report because of security concerns. We have to be reliant on that. People have gone to jail to protect their sources before in the press.” [Oh, really? Then why not maintain the status quo?]
Bernardi said national security was a critical issue and people had the right to go about their business feeling safe from clear threats, but we “just have to make sure we don't overstep the mark”. [What business is this - covert unlawful business in aid of 'national security' and commerce, by the look of the above? What is this, a criminal totalitarian regime?]
...
... set to face parliamentary debate after the winter recess.
... offences applied to “disclosures by any person, including participants in an SIO [special intelligence operation], other persons to whom information about an SIO has been communicated in an official capacity, and persons who are the recipients of an unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure”.
...offences would not prevent a person from disclosing information to the inspector general of intelligence and security, an oversight agency. [LOL]
...The Greens senator Scott Ludlam, who raised concerns about the potential prosecution of journalists, criticised Labor for not supporting his motions to send the bill to the legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee and seek advice from the independent national security legislation monitor. [Labor are the Liberal's 'yes' men these days.]
Ludlam said the government's referral to the joint committee on intelligence and security was inadequate scrutiny because the bill would be “assessed by the very same joint committee that wrote the report in the first place”.
The Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm said he would oppose most of the proposals outlined in the security bill because the case for additional powers had not been made.
“We do not support increasing intrusion by security agencies and other government bodies,” Leyonhjelm said. “Asio already has enough powers to do its job properly. If it feels it needs additional powers, we believe it reflects poorly on it.”
Brandis told parliament the government's priority was to keep Australia safe but it was proceeding in a “measured and considered way”. [No, it's proceeding in a sneaky & autocratic way.]
In a broader commentary about his philosophical approach, he told the ABC he had a “very strong predisposition against big government” and would ensure adequate safeguards as the government pursued national security laws. [SAY 'NO' to totalitarian Liberal government.]
The Guardian - here.
|
------------------------------------------
COMMENT
So the Abbott government is planning on violating the freedom of the press (which underpins the democratic system) -- in the guise of 'national security' -- but will not submit the Liberals proposed legislation to be assessed by the legal and constitutional affairs committee? Why? What are they hiding?
Get this, Abbott states:
as well as simply of commercial interest
So is he saying his laws -- his breach of civil liberties and press freedoms -- are about COMMERCIAL INTERESTS?
It appears that the Liberal government wants to legislate to allow government to do whatever it wants to do without being held accountable in any way. And the Labor party is standing by allowing this to happen, because they are Liberal party 'yes' men.
