National security and press freedom in Australia

Australian society loves secrecy and surveillance. Forget the casual and relaxed behavior that remains the great fiction of an entrusted identity; like all these creations, the trace should not be confused with the trend. Australia's political culture remains marked by criminal paranoia and indifference to transparency. We must not trust the citizen. the subject must rather be controlled and regulated in apathetic submission.

The laws of the federal Parliament are tainted with secrecy provisions making it virtually impossible for credible journalism to exercise in the country. Journalists are left to their own devices, as inventive as they are, helped by a sometimes precious escape.

The Australian federal police raids carried out last month on the home of a News Corp reporter and the ABC headquarters in Sydney had, for the underground community operating in Australian capitals, a surprise. A generally divided fraternity has come together with one voice, attempting to challenge arrest warrants and seek a reform of issues related to freedom of the press.

The media would like Parliament to fulfill its duties, particularly with regard to the adoption of legislation that would strengthen the freedom of information provisions, provide media with the means to challenge warrants directed against journalists would provide whistle-blowers with credible protection and tip the balance of the grand inquisitor away from the national security that seems to reign in Canberra.

Understanding Canberra and the Public Service, however, involves understanding a form of stasis studied, an effort to curb change. Ideas tend to go out there to find a cold store if they do not completely expire. The way to keep them in cold storage and throw the key is to set up an investigation, with all the trinkets and trinkets of cheap accountability.

This is the preferred approach of the Morrison government, knowing that such an inquiry will be guaranteed to put an end to any reform. (In four months, the investigation is expected to report on October 17.) In his letter to opposition leader Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister Scott Morrison told his counterpart that "the government is committed to this. that our democracy achieves the right balance between a free press and the security of Australians – two fundamental principles of our democracy. "

Conscious of the hostility that this government and its predecessors have had to the only freedom of the press that counts – expose the abuses of the state and the power of the companies – the limits are already inked.

One way to ensure a little reform, if at all, is to use the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee (PJCIS), an approved political body, that can be trusted to do what is right in secret and safe. The self-employed are excluded; opponents are forbidden. Morrison states that the SJICP is "well placed to conduct this investigation, given its responsibility and experience handling national security legislation and information". Regardless of the qualifications that members of the session will have, their most valuable prerequisite is their ability to solve the problem prematurely, adjusted to satisfy security advocates.

Andrew Wilkie, the most qualified independent member to serve on the committee, clearly shows the problem. "The Labor and Liberal dominated PJCIS is part of the problem because it has endorsed all the unnecessary security reforms of recent history."

Giving the committee the means and the latitude to decide this balance between freedom of the press and security would be tantamount to conferring all the powers of determination on a taxidermist in relation to your favorite pet. Denis Muller sees this as foxes keeping henhouses or poachers watching the hunt.

The PJCIS has been one of the most important entities behind the approval of Australia's shabby national security state, a clumsy creation that does nothing to improve security and even less to preserve freedoms. Its members are terrified by technology and the Internet and consider that any effort to limit their reach is necessary to protect Australians.

Wilkie reminds us of the questionable summary of the PJCIS. "Who could forget the controversial data retention bill in 2015 and, last year, on encryption? In both cases, the PJCIS recommended some adjustments, but … recommended that the bills be adopted, despite the serious concerns that unite them. While the European Union is taking steps to combat policies as ineffective and dangerous as data retention, Australian governments are adopting them for an anachronism.

In particular, the investigation hopes to determine whether and under what circumstances hearings may be challenged on warrants for investigative actions against journalists and media organizations; (and) the appropriateness of the law enforcement thresholds for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access electronic data on devices used by … the media. "A comprehensive reform program is guaranteed.

Trade unions, in turn, have recently attempted to consolidate their poor parliamentary performance by attempting to set up a separate, separate investigation free of PJCIS claws. This survey makes explicit reference to "the public's right to know and the freedom of the press". Senator Kristina Keneally, shadow minister of the Interior, notes the "culture of secrecy that weighs on the public's right to know who has reigned for too long in this government." By unintentionally ignoring such stones in the glbad house, she ignores the record of previous Labor governments with similar patterns vis-à-vis the state of national security.

The parliamentary commission has its supporters throughout Canberra, relieved that the issue is contained. Jacinta Carroll, as Director of National Security Policy at the National Security College of UNA, can be counted on to interpret the appropriate and respectful tune. "PJCIS is the appropriate body to undertake this review because it is composed of elected representatives of the Australian people. It is also a well-established and competent body in this field. " and his willingness to accept the supposedly useful function that he fills suggests a capitulation rather than a commitment.

The tone at their best, says Carroll, is a state-of-the-art school and characterizes the confusion of security hackers. It admits, in a symbolic way, that "an active and dynamic democracy is characterized by a committed civil society and enlightened debate". Australian democracy is not dynamic and lacks oxygen for a civil society battling regulators and ghosts. observation has little impact on reality.

In view of all this, she continues to insist, as the investigation progresses, that all "maintain their objective of being informed about the complexities, nuances and opposing interests at stake, and not be dragged into an overly simplified debate. by national security officials and their promoters dictate the balance. Parents know better.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College in Cambridge. He teaches at RMIT University in Melbourne. E-mail: [email protected]