National Security Versus Public Information

Thursday 14 August 2014 @ 10.25 a.m. | Crime | IP & Media

Various media organistations including SMH and website Vice have reported that "whistle blower" organisation WikiLeaks has revealed the details of a nationwide "gag order" issued by the Victorian Supreme Court, which prevents the press from reporting on alleged bribery said to involve "several political leaders and key economic institutions of Australia". The suppression order, is reported as being so "wide in nature" that it stops the Australian media from reporting on allegations of bribery said to involve several regional national leaders and their relatives.

The co-founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange is reported to have accused the Federal Government of “blindfolding the Australian public” over what Mr Assange is said to have called an “unprecedented” case of censorship. News.com quotes Mr Assange as saying:

“With this order, the worst in living memory, the Australian government is not just gagging the Australian press, it is blindfolding the Australian public, . . .”

Background

The case that has led to the suppression order is said to concern allegations that Asian officials and their families were bribed to secure contracts to print their currencies by scandal-plagued banknote manufacturer Securency, which is connected to Australia’s central bank. Among those linked are two prominent former Indonesian leaders who are reported to have "reacted angrily to the smear and demanded that the [Australian] government 'shed light' on the allegations, details of which Australian media organisations cannot legally publish. The reactions have also led to the Australia Government releasing a statement, explicitly denying involvement by the two former Indonesian leaders in the scandal.

The "gag order" it is reported has been issued to "prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings". Effectively, the justification for the gag order is largely on the basis of National Security and the reputation of important individuals with whom Australia deals.

The Line Between Corruption and National Security

From the revelation of this "gag order", a more interesting larger consideration arises as to the distinction between matters which are genuinely National Security and matters which are more correctly described as "serious corruption". As Mr Assange is quoted as saying in speaking about his organisations release of the "gag order" details:

“The concept of 'national security' is not meant to serve as a blanket phrase to cover up serious corruption allegations involving government officials, in Australia or elsewhere. It is in the public interest for the press to be able to report on this case.”

As we recently posted, the introduction of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 (Cth)(the Bill) into the Parliament by Federal Attorney-General George Brandis, sees proposed amendments to several key pieces of national security and intelligence gathering legislation which will make it tougher and more difficult to carry out "whistle blower" activity in areas which could be deemed to fall under the concept of "National Security".

Most prominently affecting this in the Bill are changes proposed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (the ASIO Act) and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Cth) which introduce new criminal offences, attracting substantial penalties (including prison terms), offences such as the disclosure of information relating to a “special intelligence operation”, “[endangering] the health or safety of any person or [prejudicing] the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation” and new offences for “unauthorised communication” or “unauthorised dealing” of records or information or matters that only apply to current and former security employees, affiliates or contractors. (see Proposed National Security Amendments Criminalise Reporting On Special Intelligence Operations).

There is concern among lawyers and civil libertarians that the proposed laws may well hinder the efforts of legitimate investigators and whistle blowers. Further, there is the fact that “special intelligence operations” are created simply by an executive declaration from ASIO’s security director-general or deputy director-general - no further scrutiny required.

The need for clear distinction is important as there are valid reasons to require a matter to be of "National Security" but it is not a process allowed to be overused. With equally strict defamation and related laws already in existence, it does seem that the rights of individuals are protected. Further, it is not unreasonable for the media and journalists to be allowed to investigate political corruption and for the public to know about it.

A Federal Corruption Body

Perhaps one way to prevent the line between matters of National Security and corruption from being blurred is as suggested by blogger Claire Porter; namely, by revisiting the "need for a Federal corruption body to examine dodgy dealings within the government". As evidence of this, Ms Porter points to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and its recent work where it has through whistle blowers obtained "leaks so damning that it toppled two senior ministers, including Premier Barry O’Farrell, and eight back benchers". She goes on to say:

"If ever there were a precedent for an independent Federal oversight body, this would be it. The Australian government cannot and should not be able to hide potential disgrace from the public."

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

Related Articles: