Kudos to 'the Australian' newspaper 
For and on behalf of Sandy who brought my attention to the following Ean Higgins article in the Oz today:
New spy laws to hinder ‘legitimate work of media’
![[Image: 46beb36006872dab541c0b92fc1b17cd?width=650]](https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/46beb36006872dab541c0b92fc1b17cd?width=650)
Ashurst partner Robert Todd. Picture: Hollie Adams
The Australian 12:00AM February 6, 2018
EAN HIGGINS
ReporterSydney
@EanHiggins
The federal government’s proposed foreign interference laws create “the real risk you are going to chill the legitimate work of the media”, one of the country’s most eminent media lawyers says.
Robert Todd, a partner at Ashurst, told The Australian that if enacted, the law would result in a cascade of unintended consequences, making criminals of innocents, from social media tweeters, to media lawyers, to the removalists who unknowingly moved the locked filing cabinets with secret government documents exposed by the ABC.
“Whatever the good intentions in the legislation, they count for little when you are facing 15 years’ imprisonment,” he said. “The structure of the legislation is chilling in its nature, in the sense that making out a defence will be extremely difficult and fraught.”
Attorney-General Christian Porter last week played down concerns of journalists, expressed in submissions from, among others, their professional association, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and media companies including News Corp Australia, publisher of The Australia n.
Mr Porter last week saidit was “not the intent” of the government to criminalise normal journalism, and he did not think it was a “likely outcome”.
Yesterday, Mr Porter appeared to shift his position, saying he now had “concerns” as a result of the submissions. “I might say a few of those submissions have hit on some areas where my personal view is that improvements could be made,” he told Sky News.
“These are largely to do with the tightening of the drafting to provide certainty, particularly for journalists.”
Mr Porter said the government would “seek advice with respect to each of the legal issues raised”.
Mr Todd said “while the government might say it did not have the intention to prosecute in such cases, by making it law, it’s still a crime”.
The defences in the legislation were grossly deficient, he said. “I think the so-called protections for journalists provide pretty anaemic protections for journalists, and essentially none for others.”
Journalists would have to “leap over” three bars in defending their actions, he said, proving public interest, being a journalist, and that the report was fair and accurate. The problem could be more acute for social media entities, he said. Some “would not assert they were engaging in fair and accurate reporting, but something else.” Tweeting and retweeting could be captured by the law.
“These people might be kept anonymous in some way, but then a burden would fall on Twitter.”
Mr Todd said media lawyers often gave advice to journalists on publishing stories based on leaked government documents, including ones that were classified and involved potentially sensitive security issues. Under proposed new laws, “the mere giving of that advice is going to be difficult”.
“I won’t want the document, because I may end up dealing with it,” Mr Todd said. “It’s an offence if you deal with the information.”
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said the proposed laws “criminalise ordinary journalism”.
“They have chosen to completely amend all of the secrecy provisions that have been in the Crimes Act since 1914, amended in 1960, not touched since,” he said.
“(Look at) the care that the Howard government took over the introduction of the criminal code, compared with this hasty, rushed legislation brought into the parliament at five minutes to midnight on the last day of sittings last year.”
Mr Todd said legislation was usually brought in to solve a known problem. But with the foreign interference laws, he said, “This is kind of, ‘We don’t know when something might happen that we don’t like, so we will make it as broad as possible’.”
It was this article (amongst others) that inspired Sandy to tap out the following letter to the editor...
Enuff said -
MTF...P2
For and on behalf of Sandy who brought my attention to the following Ean Higgins article in the Oz today:
New spy laws to hinder ‘legitimate work of media’
Ashurst partner Robert Todd. Picture: Hollie Adams
The Australian 12:00AM February 6, 2018
EAN HIGGINS
ReporterSydney
@EanHiggins
The federal government’s proposed foreign interference laws create “the real risk you are going to chill the legitimate work of the media”, one of the country’s most eminent media lawyers says.
Robert Todd, a partner at Ashurst, told The Australian that if enacted, the law would result in a cascade of unintended consequences, making criminals of innocents, from social media tweeters, to media lawyers, to the removalists who unknowingly moved the locked filing cabinets with secret government documents exposed by the ABC.
“Whatever the good intentions in the legislation, they count for little when you are facing 15 years’ imprisonment,” he said. “The structure of the legislation is chilling in its nature, in the sense that making out a defence will be extremely difficult and fraught.”
Attorney-General Christian Porter last week played down concerns of journalists, expressed in submissions from, among others, their professional association, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and media companies including News Corp Australia, publisher of The Australia n.
Mr Porter last week saidit was “not the intent” of the government to criminalise normal journalism, and he did not think it was a “likely outcome”.
Yesterday, Mr Porter appeared to shift his position, saying he now had “concerns” as a result of the submissions. “I might say a few of those submissions have hit on some areas where my personal view is that improvements could be made,” he told Sky News.
“These are largely to do with the tightening of the drafting to provide certainty, particularly for journalists.”
Mr Porter said the government would “seek advice with respect to each of the legal issues raised”.
Mr Todd said “while the government might say it did not have the intention to prosecute in such cases, by making it law, it’s still a crime”.
The defences in the legislation were grossly deficient, he said. “I think the so-called protections for journalists provide pretty anaemic protections for journalists, and essentially none for others.”
Journalists would have to “leap over” three bars in defending their actions, he said, proving public interest, being a journalist, and that the report was fair and accurate. The problem could be more acute for social media entities, he said. Some “would not assert they were engaging in fair and accurate reporting, but something else.” Tweeting and retweeting could be captured by the law.
“These people might be kept anonymous in some way, but then a burden would fall on Twitter.”
Mr Todd said media lawyers often gave advice to journalists on publishing stories based on leaked government documents, including ones that were classified and involved potentially sensitive security issues. Under proposed new laws, “the mere giving of that advice is going to be difficult”.
“I won’t want the document, because I may end up dealing with it,” Mr Todd said. “It’s an offence if you deal with the information.”
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said the proposed laws “criminalise ordinary journalism”.
“They have chosen to completely amend all of the secrecy provisions that have been in the Crimes Act since 1914, amended in 1960, not touched since,” he said.
“(Look at) the care that the Howard government took over the introduction of the criminal code, compared with this hasty, rushed legislation brought into the parliament at five minutes to midnight on the last day of sittings last year.”
Mr Todd said legislation was usually brought in to solve a known problem. But with the foreign interference laws, he said, “This is kind of, ‘We don’t know when something might happen that we don’t like, so we will make it as broad as possible’.”
It was this article (amongst others) that inspired Sandy to tap out the following letter to the editor...
Quote:Dear Editor,
You and your newspaper are to be congratulated for keeping Simon Birmingham’s proposed new spy laws to our attention. It looks like the great power hungry centre of Canberra is never satisfied.
The octopus tentacles are reaching for dominance and control. By continually eroding our precious freedoms we go backwards. Freedoms not only should be protected as rights for the individual but go to the heart and reason for our success as a Nation.
Your reporters, Ean Higgins, Primrose Riordan and Nicola Berkovic are doing a great service by bringing to us the likely fallout, not just by their opinions but by canvassing the issues with knowledgeable leaders in legal matters.
Ean Higgins in particular has been ‘outing’ the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in a similar fashion.
The Crown Control and Command system of governance nowhere more fully fledged than this ‘independent’ fee gouging Commonwealth corporate which has managed to get thousands of new rules, practically the whole suit of (unworkable) aviation regulations, into the criminal code with strict liability guilt built in, despite being completely against the Commonwealth’s own law drafting guidelines. Unintended consequences sound familiar? The wrecking of General Aviation in Australia.
But back to new spy laws, quoting our Attorney General in an unconvincing back peddle:-
“These are largely to do with the tightening of the drafting to provide certainty, particularly for journalists.”
Well maybe we have to define who is a journalist? Just about anyone who opens their mouth or has a comment published in the Australian might be. Or not; will this depend on a bureaucratic interpretation of a bureaucratically designed law that undoubtedly will create many more Can’tberra jobs?
Sandy Reith
Enuff said -
MTF...P2