Daily Bulletin

  • Written by Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, The University of Queensland

It is easy to assume Australia has a free press. Our squawky newspapers are filled with stories about the failings of government, acid-tongued columnists routinely lash our politicians, and until May last year the police hardly ever raided newsrooms or journalists.

On Wednesday, the High Court appeared to uphold the principle of press freedom when it ruled that the warrant the Australian Federal Police used to search News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst’s home in 2019 was invalid.

You might recall that the police raided her home (and searched through her underwear drawer) looking for the source of a story Smethurst had published in The Daily Telegraph more than a year earlier. Her story revealed the government was considering expanding the powers of our international electronic eavesdropping agency, the Australian Signals Directorate, so it could turn its sophisticated bugs on Australian citizens.

(The very next day, the AFP searched the ABC’s Sydney headquarters looking for the sources of another story – the Afghan Files – about Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan.)

Read more: Why the raids on Australian media present a clear threat to democracy

Smethurst’s story was important because it revealed details of a shift in policy that affected all Australians. Regardless of what you think about the rights or wrongs of such a change, it is hard to argue it shouldn’t have been part of an open public debate.

At the same time, nobody has ever suggested national security suffered as a result of the story. It was a fine example of a free press doing its job by uncovering government actions that we all ought to know about.

News Corp went to the High Court to argue that the police had written the warrant so badly that it failed to explain why they were conducting the search and what they were looking for. In a unanimous slap-down for the police, all seven judges on the bench agreed the warrant “lacked clarity” and ruled it invalid.

A victory for journalism? Not quite.

News Corp also asked the court to order the police to either return or destroy any evidence collected during the raid. In a decision split 4:3, the judges rejected the request. This effectively allowed the police to still use the evidence for any investigation and prosecution.

The reasoning is complex and highly technical, but its overall effect is to undermine the already paper-thin protections for press freedom in Australia.

This is not the fault of the court. It was doing its job adjudicating on narrow points of law and police procedure, but it does underscore the urgent need for robust reform of our legal code.

Read more: To protect press freedom, we need more public outrage – and an overhaul of our laws

Australian journalists operate freely in spite of the law, rather than because of it. While the United States Constitution has its First Amendment and the UK has Article 10 of its Human Rights Act (to name just a few), the most we have is a hopelessly weak “implied freedom of political communication” that’s merely inferred in our constitution.

Without more explicit protections, we have seen a slew of national security laws undermining the ability of journalists to investigate government and keep their sources safe.

This matters because the ability of the press to act as a noisy (and nosy) watchdog is vital to the way our democracy works. Nobody is arguing for complete and unfettered protection for journalists. Much of the work of our security agencies, individuals’ private details and commercially sensitive information must be off-limits, but there are ways of striking a balance between those imperatives.

A host of organisations have already proposed a set of reforms. The Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom (which I represent) published a White Paper on Press Freedom in Australia three weeks before the raids. The AJF proposes:

  • protections for journalists’ sources

  • the chance for news organisations to contest warrants even before the police carry out their searches

  • an “exemption from prosecution”, so that when journalists are engaged in legitimate work, press freedom is assumed.

It would then be up to the police to show a judge why there is enough of a risk to national security to justify setting aside that principle and issuing a warrant.

It is impossible to reform every corner of our statute books, though, so we also need a Media Freedom Act that enshrines the principle of press freedom in our legal code. That way, every court up to and including the High Court has to take it into account in every case that threatens to undermine media freedom.

Together, those kinds of protections would give comfort to journalists and their sources: as long as they are not violating clear and strictly set-out rules on national security and privacy, and are otherwise acting in accordance with the law, they should not be subject to prosecution. It would also help the police avoid being accused of launching politically motivated inquiries.

Our press might look free and fearless, but without significant reforms that remains a dangerously fragile illusion.

Authors: Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, The University of Queensland

Read more https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-rules-in-favour-of-news-corp-but-against-press-freedom-136177

AAP/Dan Peled

Sabra Lane's interview with Scott Morrision

SABRA LANE: Prime Minister, welcome to AM.   PRIME MINISTER: G’day, Sabra.   LANE: You've acknowledged many Australians are frustrated with the Government, and that perhaps you raised hopes for a...

Sabra Lane - avatar Sabra Lane

Scott Morrison's interview with David Speers, Insiders

DAVID SPEERS: Prime Minister Scott Morrison, welcome to the program. PRIME MINISTER: Morning, David. SPEERS: So, what's the advice now for Australians who are stuck in Kabul, as well as those ot...

David Speers and Scott Morrison - avatar David Speers and Scott Morrison

Put the nuclear option on the table

Nationals Senators have announced they will move amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act to remove Australia’s prohibition on nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy has been prohibi...

Senator Canavan - avatar Senator Canavan

Prime Minister Scott Morrison's interview with Ray Hadley, 2GB

RAY HADLEY: Prime Minister, good morning to you.   PRIME MINISTER: G’day, Ray.   HADLEY: Gee, you’ve had a week.   PRIME MINISTER: Well, there's been a lot of weeks like this. This time last...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Ray Hadley's interview with Scott Morrison

RAY HADLEY: I'm going to go straight to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison is on the line right now. Prime Minister, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ray.   HADLEY: Just d...

Ray Hadley - avatar Ray Hadley

Defence and Veterans suicide Royal Commission

Today the Government has formally established a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide following approval by the Governor-General.   Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the Royal Commi...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

The Conversation

Business News

Everything You Need to Know About Outsourcing to Third-Party Vendors

You may have a growing business and not intend to slow down. However, your business’s needs must also be growing, and it will get increasingly challenging to stay on top of everything, especially ...

NewsServices.com - avatar NewsServices.com

How to Spruce Up Your Beauty Salon

If your beauty salon is starting to look a little dated, don't worry - there are many things you can do to spruce it up! A few simple changes can make a big difference in the overall look and feel...

NewsServices.com - avatar NewsServices.com

Philip Bart Discusses the Importance of Textiles

The economy is changing all over the world - and Australia is no different. In Australia, textiles have played an integral part of the Australian economy over the last 100 years and will remain im...

Daily Bulletin - avatar Daily Bulletin

WebBusters - Break into local search