UTS’s Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ) two hour seminar on the new terrorism laws in Sydney yesterday was introduced by Peter Manning who told the 50 odd participants the panel of three would concentrate on what the laws mean to reporting and quality of journalism.
Chris Nash spoke first saying none of the 80 pieces of relevant legislation in all Australian jurisdictions recognised the media’s role, or journalists. He contrasted this with the UK where Lord Carlisle’s annual reports on the Terrorism Act recognise the media’s important role in democracy. Nash said draconian didn’t quite capture the spirit of the Australian legislation which struck right at the heart of journalists and their sources. It targeted journalists and communities in Australian society - such as the anti-war movement - whose only voice was through the media. The newly amended ASIO act meant journalists could be monitored, eavesdropped, and brought in for questioning without being able to tell anyone about it. He said any well-informed journalists would become the object of ASIO forced questioning and as informants, no-one would trust journalists. Most journalists would run a mile to avoid becoming an ASIO informant. This would leave the communities they normally report isolated from the media. He said the new legislation was a fatal shot at the role of the media in democracy. It reduced journalists effectively to agents of the police.
Liz Jackson spoke eloquently of the difficulties of working under the existing legislation in her Four Corners days. She cited questioning warrants where people questioned on security matters must not tell anyone they have been questioned, under threat of jail. She spoke of the difficulty reporters have interviewing such people, and spoke of how similar restrictions under the new preventative detention and control order measures would be equally limiting.
Ian Baker QC spoke in legal and historical detail of the new rules on sedition, and how it was no longer necessary to prove intent, that words alone sufficed provided someone interpreted them as sedition. This could include criticism of government and the constitution. He said the law was now so degraded that people, including journalists, could be interrogated in secret by secret agents. He ended saying “We are on the edge of our own 21st century form of fascism.”
Discussion started with queries about where the use of Police Media Unit footage left reporters and subs? Peter Manning urged Alina Bain of Free TV Australia - an organisational name he had to explain - to lobby the government on the effects of the legislation. She said FreeTV had already prepared submissions - like the ABC and SBS and News, Fairfax etc. Wendy Bacon suggested the chilling effect of the new legislation would really take root, with reporters self-censoring, and matters not getting reported. She suggested networks and media houses prepare guidelines for reporters. Chris Nash said it was the smaller media - such as community, environment and religious reporters - who would be targeted by the security services, not the mainstream media.
The first draft of the bill is still available as a PDF from the ACT Chief Minister’s site.
Links to existing legislation
Parliamentary Library Digest of the Anti-terrorism Bill 2005 dated 3 November here.
My apology for the 18 hour delay in posting this report - Telstra was 'upgrading' my ADSL exchange.
