Tag Archives: MEAA

Australian Government’s latest national security bill to stifle debate

By MARK PEARSON

The Australian Government has opted for censorship and secrecy over scrutiny and natural justice with its latest national security bill introduced in the Senate last week.

haneefcover

Haneef – A Question of Character, by Jacqui Ewart

The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 extends security agencies’ powers to search and use surveillance devices in the new communication environment, introduces a new ‘multiple warrants’ regime, offers immunity to intelligence personnel who break all but the most serious laws, while increasing penalties for whistleblowing and criminalising the reporting of leaked intelligence-related information.

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis introduced the legislation on Thursday (July 17).

The crucial section affecting journalists and bloggers is straightforward:

35P Unauthorised disclosure of information

(1)  A person commits an offence if:

(a)  the person discloses information; and

(b)  the information relates to a special intelligence operation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

It continues to set a 10 year jail term if the disclosure is deemed to “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.” A selective list of exemptions makes no mention of material being published in the public interest.

The provision is clearly aimed at preventing Wikileaks or Snowden-style leaks of recent years and their broad publication in the world’s media and across social media, to the embarrassment of governments including Australia’s.

As I detailed in my recent Walkley Magazine article, ‘Terror on the books’ (May 29, 2014), Australian governments from both Labor and the conservative parties have contributed to the enactment of more than 50 pieces of legislation at national level (and many more at state level) since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, many of which have impacted free expression and reportage. Colleagues Dr Jacqui Ewart, Joshua Lessing and I detailed this trend in a recent article in the Journal of Media Law.

The Haneef case in 2007 showed how national security laws could be used to restrict media access to information in an anti-terrorism matter. In that case, the accused was ultimately acquitted after a leak to the media showed how little evidence there really was against him. If this new law was in place, journalists might face jail for reporting such an injustice.

The proposed law is so draconian that it has prompted a release from Paris-Based Reporters Without Borders.

Without a bill of rights or constitutional amendment to protect free expression or media freedom in this country, it is left to those who care about free speech to make their objections clear. Please write to the Federal Attorney-General at senator.brandis@aph.gov.au opposing this legislation. Please also make submissions stating any concerns to parliamentary committees reviewing the legislation when it reaches the committee stage. Sadly, in Australia there will be no formal review of the free expression implications of the bill.

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

1 Comment

Filed under national security, terrorism, Uncategorized

Maintain the rage: support for Greste heartening, but needs to be escalated. Sign up. #FreeAJStaff

By MARK PEARSON

Additional research by journalism student MELANIE WHITING

AS Australian journalist Peter Greste languishes in an Egyptian jail just three weeks into his seven year sentence for simply doing his job reporting for Al Jazeera, it was heartening to see friends and colleagues rally in his support in Melbourne yesterday (July 14).

Clearly, the problem faced by all such political prisoners is that pressure for their release can diminish after their initial sentence disappears from the news agenda.

Almost 11,000 people have now signed the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) petition for the release of Greste and his colleagues, which will be sent tomorrow (July 16). Please go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/583/945/591/fr/ and sign it.

In the days following the verdict political leaders including US Secretary of State John Kerry and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed shock and condemnation over the Egyptian court’s decision on June 23.

Labor foreign affairs spokesperson Tanya Plibersek has been supportive and Greens leader Christine Milne has called upon the Abbott Government to escalate its diplomatic efforts on Greste’s behalf.

Media companies, unions and free expression groups have been united in their push for the release of Greste and his Al Jazeera colleagues.

Representatives of News Corp Australia and Fairfax Media told AdNews they saw the  sentence as a threat to press freedom.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) issued a statement on their website condemning the verdict and maintained that Greste had acted as an ethical and responsible journalist.

A group of top international journalists united to send a letter to the Egyptian President asking for Greste and his colleagues to be released.

Petitions are important, so please sign any or all of these:

Go ahead – please sign them all NOW!

[The MEAA petition at http://www.alliance.org.au/peter-greste-petition has now closed.]

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under free expression, journalism, Media freedom, Media regulation, national security, Press freedom, suppression, terrorism, Uncategorized

Australian Press Council Chair Julian Disney with @journlaw

By MARK PEARSON

I recently had the chance to interview Australian Press Council chair Professor Julian Disney on the role and direction of the Council.

In this interview he discusses the recent reforms to the Council, the move to improve its editorial standards, and the future for media ‘self-regulation’ as broadcast, print, online and social media formats continue to converge.

(12 mins, recorded 17 March 2014). Apologies for some audio sync issues!

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under free expression, journalism, media ethics, Media freedom, Media regulation, Press freedom, Uncategorized

National security and anti-terror laws continue to threaten journalism

By MARK PEARSON

* This article was first published as ‘Terror on the books’ in the Walkley Magazine on May 29, 2014.

Walkley

More than 50 anti-terror laws have been introduced by the Australian government since the September 11 attacks in the US in 2001, and they continue to impact on our coverage of national security issues and place journalists and their sources at risk.

No Australian journalist would want to see lives lost in a terrorist attack, but there is evidence that existing laws give police, security agencies and the courts too much power in monitoring media activities and suppressing reports that are in the public interest. Two major reports now confirm some of these existing laws are over-reaching.

The long overdue Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation was released in 2013.

As well as recommending changes to basic definitions of terrorist threats and harm, it proposes there be more opportunity for judicial reviews of the agencies’ search and seizure powers, and introducing some safeguards to the control order system (a control order restricts where a person goes and who they can meet).

The committee suggested that the communications restrictions be eased to allow a person subject to a control order access to a mobile phone, a landline phone and a computer with internet access.

Most importantly for journalists, the review recommended the repeal of Section 102.8 of the Criminal Code dealing with “associating with terrorist organisations”. This reform would put beyond any doubt the likelihood of a journalist being convicted of this serious offence by just undertaking normal reporting duties.

Another major report came in November 2013 from Bret Walker SC, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM). It was his third report since being appointed to the review role in 2011.Walker repeated his earlier recommendation that ASIO’s questioning and detention warrants should be abolished and suggested improvements to the definition of a “terrorist act”.

He called for a simpler system of listing terrorist organisations and inserting an exception to the “associating with terrorist organisations” provisions for humanitarian groups such as the Red Cross.

While both reports focused on issues of natural justice and human rights, neither the COAG review nor the INSLM addressed the stifling of journalism in the anti-terror laws.

Sadly, there was little in the way of media lobbying to do so either. The COAG counterterror review received 30 submissions which it posted to its website, none of which were from media-related companies or journalism or free expression organisations.

The ripples of international security operations were also felt in Australia. In 2013 the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance wrote to Prime Minister Tony Abbott asking for a review of the extent of metadata surveillance conducted by governments in the wake of former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations.

There was good reason to be concerned. At least three cases in recent years have shown how the confidentiality of journalists’ sources can be compromised by surveillance by security agencies or anti-terror operations.

The retrial of “Jihad” Jack Thomas on terrorism charges in 2008 was based partly on interview materials gathered by Sally Neighbour from Four Corners and The Age’s Ian Munro and subpoenaed by the prosecution.

It emerged in the trial that up to 20 telephone calls between Neighbour and Thomas had been monitored by an ASIO agent.

The issue of confidentiality of whistleblowers’ identities also arose in the aftermath of the convictions of the Holsworthy Barracks bomb plot conspirators in 2011. The Australian had published an exclusive account on the raids in the hours before they occurred. (The three convicted plotters lost their appeals against their 18-year jail sentences last year.)

The Australian’s Victoria Police source, Simon Artz, paid for his leaks to the newspaper in the Victorian County Court with a four-month suspended sentence for unauthorised disclosure of information.

It was not a good year for whistleblowers internationally. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is holed up indefinitely in Ecuador’s embassy in London as he avoids extradition to Sweden on sex charges (and feared extradition to the US over security leaks). His US Army source – Private Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning – was sentenced by a military court to 35 years in jail for leaking classified documents. Meanwhile, Edward Snowden had fled to Russia to avoid prosecution over his leaks.

The whistleblower’s revelations about the extent of government surveillance continue to cause embarrassment, including in Australia where Prime Minister Tony Abbott reacted by attacking the ABC over its reportage. In an interview in early 2014, Abbott voiced his disapproval that the ABC had run stories about security services eavesdropping on Indonesian leaders’ phone conversations, a fact revealed by Snowden’s leaks.

The ABC then faced an “efficiency study”. It seems the Abbott government’s approach is to put the budgetary microscope on the ABC’s operations rather than wind back national security laws in the interests of media freedom.

The suppression of reporting on terrorism-related trials or evidence tendered in national security cases is an ongoing issue. The use of a closed court – combined with government media management – was central to the misplaced prosecution of Gold Coast Hospital registrar Dr Mohamed Haneef in 2007.

More than 30 suppression orders under anti-terror powers were imposed during the Benbrika trials in 2008 and 2009. In that case, Abdul Benbrika and 11 other Muslim men from Melbourne were charged with intentionally being members of a terrorist organisation. Their arrests in 2005 followed Operation Pendennis, a 16-month surveillance operation by Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO.

While by 2014 legislation covering suppression and non-publication orders had been introduced into only the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian jurisdictions, it appears that other states and territories are following suit to harmonise the laws.

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under national security, terrorism, Uncategorized

Journalists revert to age-old methods to protect sources, says @camstewarttheoz

By MARK PEARSON

National security reporter and associate editor at The Australian Cameron Stewart (@camstewarttheoz) says investigative journalists have to leave their smartphones back at their office when they are meeting confidential sources.

Stewart said the surveillance powers of national security agencies under anti-terror laws, combined with the geo-navigational features of Web 2.0 technologies, meant investigative reporters were reverting to 1970s techniques like those of Watergate reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward used when they met their famous source ‘Deep Throat’ in an underground car park.

“That is actually still the best way to get your information,” Stewart told me in the interview below.

“The thing I’ve got to my ear now [a smartphone] is your biggest enemy in every single sense as the Snowden revelations have shown.

“The ability of authorities to track movements of journalists is really of great concern as far as protecting sources goes.

“What they’re doing is quietly authorising metadata searches and things like that. What that does is give them every phone call you’ve made and I think they can piece together through your iPhone for example what your movements are over time.

“It’s not rocket science to work out what your movements are over a certain period of time and who you’ve been speaking to and who sources might be.”

Here Cameron Stewart talks with Professor Mark Pearson of Griffith University (@journlaw) about the impact of anti-terror laws on the reporting of national security issues. Stewart shares some of the methods he uses as a reporter when dealing with off the record information provided by whistleblowers  [15 minutes, recorded 1-5-14]

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Meet Miles Heffernan (@Mileshef) – shield law campaigner and @journlaw guest

By MARK PEARSON

Miles Heffernan (@mileshef) is a journalist and features/opinion editor with the Star Observer.

When he was a freelancer he ran a campaign on change.org calling on mining magnate Gina Rinehart to withdraw her demands for two journalists to reveal their sources. See ‘http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/gina-rinehart-withdraw-your-subpoenas-against-adele-ferguson-and-steve-pennells-pressfreedom‘. See also my blog from 2013 on this.

It achieved close to 40,000 signatures.

Here Miles talks with Professor Mark Pearson of Griffith University (@journlaw) about that campaign and the battle for shield laws to protect journalists from having to reveal their sources in court. See more at journlaw.com. [12 minutes, recorded 16-4-14]

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Updated: Privacy in Australia – a timeline from colonial capers to racecourse snooping, possum perving and delving drones

By MARK PEARSON

The interplay between the Australian media and privacy laws has always been a struggle between free expression and the ordinary citizen’s desire for privacy. I have developed this timeline to illustrate that tension.

1827: NSW Chief Justice Francis Forbes rejects Governor Ralph Darling’s proposal for legislation licensing the press, stating: “That the press of this Colony is licentious may be readily admitted; but that does not prove the necessity of altering the laws.” (Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, Vol. 13, pp. 290-297)

PrivacySydneyGazetteExtract1830

The extract from the Sydney Gazette in 1830

1830: The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser publishes an extract from London’s New Monthly Magazine on the prying nature of the British press compared with its European counterparts, stating: “The foreign journals never break in upon the privacy of domestic life”. But the London newspapers would hound a ‘lady of fashion’ relentlessly: “They trace her from the breakfast table to the Park, from the Park to the dinner-table, from thence to the Opera or the ball, and from her boudoir to her bed. They trace her every where. She may make as many doubles as a hare, but they are all in vain; it is impossible to escape pursuit.”

1847: NSW becomes the first Australian state to add a ‘public benefit’ element to the defence of truth for libel – essentially adding a privacy requirement to defamation law (ALRC Report 11, p. 117)

1882: First identified use of the phrase ‘right to privacy’ in an Australian newspaper. Commenting on a major libel case, the South Australian Weekly Chronicle (22.4.1882, p.5) states: “A contractor having dealings with the Government or with any public body has no right to privacy as far as those dealings go.”

1890: In a landmark Harvard Law Review article, the great US jurist Samuel D. Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis announce a new ‘right to privacy’ in an article by that very name. There is a ripple effect in Australia with several mentions of the term in articles between 1890-1900.

1937: A radio station used a property owner’s land overlooking a racecourse to build a platform from which it broadcast its call of the horse races. The High Court rules the mere overlooking of the land did not consti­tute an unlawful interference with the racing club’s use of its property. The decision viewed as a rejection of a common law right to privacy: Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479.

1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights is proclaimed in Paris. Article 12 provides: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks” (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA. Res 217A(III), UN Doc A/Res/810 (1948).)

1966: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is proclaimed, protecting privacy at Article 17. (16 December 1966, [1980] ATS 23, entered into force generally on 23 March 1976)

1972: Australia signs the ICCPR.

1979: Australian Law Reform Commission releases its first major report on privacy – Unfair Publication: Defamation and Privacy, ALRC 11. It recommends a person be allowed to sue for damages or an injunction if ‘sensitive private facts’, relating to health, private behaviour, home life, and personal or family relationships, were published about him or her which were likely in all the circumstances to cause distress, annoyance or embarrassment to a person in the position of the individual. Wide defences were proposed allowing publication of personal information if the publication was relevant to the topic of public interest. (pp. 124-125).

1980: Australia ratifies the ICCPR and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expert group led by Australian Justice Michael Kirby issues its Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data.

1983: Australian Law Reform Commission releases its Privacy (ALRC Report 22), recommending the establishment of a Privacy Act to establish information privacy principles and the appointment of a Privacy Commissioner.

1984: Australian Journalists’ Association (AJA) revises its 1944 Code of Ethics to include a new clause (9) requiring journalists to “respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude on them”.

1988: The Privacy Act 1988 is enacted, applying initially only to the protection of personal information in the possession of Australian Government departments and agencies.

1999: Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) issues another revised Code of Ethics preserving the grief and privacy elements in clause 11.

2000: Privacy Act 1988 provisions are extended to larger private sector organisations, and 10 National Privacy Principles (NPPs) are introduced, determining how companies must collect, use and disclose, keep secure, provide access to and correct personal information. Media organisations are exempted from the provisions as long as they ascribe to privacy standards published by their representative bodies.

2001: High Court rejects an argument for a company’s right to privacy after animal liberationists trespass to film the slaughter of possums in a Tasmanian abattoir and someone gives the footage to the ABC, but the court leaves the door open for a possible personal privacy tort: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199.

2003: A Queensland District Court judge rules the privacy of the former Sunshine Coast mayor Alison Grosse had been invaded by an ex-lover who continued to harass her after their affair had ended. She is awarded $108,000 in damages: Grosse v. Purvis [2003] QDC 151.

2007: Victorian County Court Judge Felicity Hampel SC holds that a rape victim’s privacy was invaded when ABC Radio broadcast her identity in a news report despite state laws banning the identification of sexual assault complainants. She is awarded $110,000 damages: Jane Doe v ABC & Ors [2007] VCC 281.

2008: Australian Law Reform Commission releases its For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108) recommending a cause of action for breach of privacy where an individual has a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’, with a cap for non-economic loss of $150,000.

2011: Federal Government releases an Issues Paper floating a proposal for a Commonwealth cause of action for a serious invasion of privacy.

2012

  • The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012 (Privacy Amendment Act) passed, to take effect in 2014, featuring new Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), more powers for the Australian Information Commissioner, tougher credit reporting rules and new dispute resolution processes. Media exemption remains unchanged.
  • Independent Media Inquiry (Finkelstein Review) releases its report recommending a News Media Council take over from the existing Australian Press Council and Australian Communications and Media Authority with a streamlined news media ethics complaints system with teeth. Refusal to obey an order to correct or apologise could see a media outlet dealt with for contempt of court. Privacy breaches cited as a reason for the move.
  • Commonwealth Government’s Convergence Review releases its final report rejecting the Finkelstein model but instead proposing a ‘news standards body’ operating across all media platforms, flagging the withdrawal of the privacy and consumer law exemptions from media outlets who refuse to sign up to the new system.

2013

  • The federal attorney-general directs the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct an inquiry into the protection of privacy in the digital era. The inquiry will address both prevention and remedies for serious invasions of privacy with a deadline of June 2014.
  • At the same time the government introduces legislation to establish a Public Interest Media Advocate with the power to strip media outlets of their Privacy Act exemptions. That part of the legislation is later withdrawn.
  • The federal attorney-general seeks state and territory input on the regulation of drones following the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns that their operation by individuals was not covered by the Privacy Act.

2014

  • The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) releases a Discussion Paper, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era (DP 80, 2014)The proposed elements of the action include that the invasion of privacy must occur by: a. Intrusion into the plaintiff’s seclusion or private affairs (including by unlawfulsurveillance); or b. Misuse or disclosure of private information about the plaintiff. The invasion of privacy must be either intentional or reckless. A person in the position of the plaintiff would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all of the circumstance. The court must consider that the invasion of privacy was ‘serious’, in all the circumstances, having regard to, among other things, whether the invasion was likely to be highly offensive, distressing or harmful to a person of ordinary sensibilities in the position of the plaintiff. The court must be satisfied that the plaintiff’s interest in privacy outweighs the defendant’s interest in freedom of expression and any broader public interest in the defendant’s conduct.

———–

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

© Mark Pearson 2013/2014

2 Comments

Filed under Privacy, Uncategorized