AUSTRALIAN MEDIA SEEK GREATER TRANSPARENCY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 000323 SIPDIS STATE ALSO FOR ECA, EAP AND DRL E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KPAO PGOV PHUM PINS AS SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN MEDIA SEEK GREATER TRANSPARENCY SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Saying that Australia lags well behind most major democracies in press freedom, 12 major media outlets have joined together to push for reforms in Australian laws on freedom of information, privacy and whistleblower/shield protections. The group, which has organized its effort as Australia's Right to Know Coalition, is pushing its concerns through media commentary, on its website and most recently at a high profile conference in Sydney on March 24, 2009, that drew the media elite, government officials and various non-governmental agencies. The pressure is beginning to be felt within the Rudd government, which took the opportunity at the Sydney conference to propose the first substantial overhaul of the 27-year-old federal Freedom of Information (FOI) act. FOI reform is also firmly on the agenda in Queensland and New South Wales. The federal parliament has recently released a report recommending some protection for whistleblowers in public service, and the federal Attorney General laid out a proposal last week to improve shield protections for journalists. End Summary. MAKING THE CASE FOR REFORM -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Australia, which does not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, has seen an erosion in traditiona1 right-to-know protections in recent years, according to the media group. In fact, the latest worldwide press freedom index, compiled by the independent organization Reporters Without Borders, currently ranks Australia 35th - equal with Bulgaria and behind nations such as Bolivia (16th) and South Korea (31st) in press freedom. According to the coalition's founding statement, Australia has created "a culture that has increasingly and surreptitiously prevented ordinary Austra1ians from getting access to information they need to make informed decisions about the country they live in." Citing more than 350 different secrecy provisions in various pieces of federal and state legislation, the coalition says secrecy and censorship of what citizens are allowed to know have reached troubling levels. ¶3. (SBU) The reform agenda is being led by John Hartigan, chairman and CEO of News Limited (Murdoch),Australia's largest media company and the nation's biggest publisher of newspapers, including the national daily The Australian. News Limited has been joined in the coalition by all the major media companies including Fairfax, which operates a range of regional and rural newspapers in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, as well as broadcast outlets; ABC, the national television and radio broadcasting network; the Australian Associated Press; and the independent West Australian in Perth. ¶4. (U) In opening remarks to the Right to Know Conference, Hartigan called the lack of transparency and accountability by elected government "pretty frightening" and cited the Australian Wheat Board scandal and the long-term detention without charge of Indian physician Mohammed Haneef as recent examples of government secrecy. He argued that it is nearly impossible for the media to find out such things as which schools are the most violent, which hospitals have the longest waiting lists, which child care centers don't meet requirements, or details about contracts between governments and third party contractors. FOI Application fees can range up to $1,000 and applicants then pay hourly fees for the cost of searches, which are determined by the agency doing the search. Searches can take years to complete and requests can Qsearch. Searches can take years to complete and requests can be rejected if they "could result in embarrassment" or loss of confidence in the government. ¶5. (SBU) When journalists do push the limit and resort to sources, they confront harsh realities, conference speakers asserted. In 2007, two Sydney Morning Herald journalists were fined $7,000 each and now have criminal records for refusing to disclose the source of a story about a government plan to reduce veterans benefits. Police raided the newsroom of the Sunday Times in Perth last year looking for material to identify the source of a report that the state government planned to spend $16 million advertising its achievements before the last state election. In Western Australia, it is a criminal act for journalists to divulge to anyone, including their spouse or employer, that they have been interviewed by the state's Corruption and Crime Commission about their sources. The penalties for whistleblowers can be even higher, with heavy fines and prison sentences following lengthy and expensive legal action. Of recent note is the case of former customs officer who leaked confidential reports on airport security failings and then lost his job and pension and now faces heavy fines and a jail term. CANBERRA 00000323 002 OF 002 ARE REFORMS ON THE WAY? -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The reform efforts have begun to yield some fruit. John Faulkner, Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary, took the opportunity before an attentive audience at the Sydney conference to announce plans for sweeping changes to the Commonwealth FOI laws. According to the two draft bills, the government would scrap some of the current exemptions to FOI requests in favor of a single public interest test weighted in favor of disclosure. Senator Faulkner said the intent of the legislation, is to change a culture of government secrecy. ¶7. (SBU) The legislation would establish an Information Commissioner Office focusing on information, privacy issues and FOI that would serve as an independent umpire to resolve disputes and require departments to publish far more relevant information on the functioning of their offices as a matter of course. The legislation would permit email requests, limit the costs of request by eliminating the application fee and the charge for the first five hours of an information search, and narrow the documents that could be excluded from disclosure through the Cabinet exemption. Currently, any document, regardless of its subject, can be automatically excluded from disclosure if it is made part of the Cabinet discussion by a legislator. The bill also calls for a change to the Archives Act to allow release of cabinet records after 20 years, rather than 30 at present, with cabinet diaries to be available after 30 years, not 50. ¶8. (SBU) In making the proposal, Senator Faulkner acknowledged that for the changes to be effective a change in culture is needed. "The government does not share the view that responsible government can only be carried out if the public's right to know is stringently curtailed," he said. "But given the deep-seated roots of this view in Australia's tradition of government, it was not a great surprise that in our consultations with many of you we heard time and time again that your biggest problem with FOI is not the ACT but the need for cultural change. This legislation sends a message about cultural change." ¶9. (SBU) The proposed change in the FOI laws was greeted with enthusiasm in the media and received widespread coverage. The Sydney Morning Herald called the plan "a new era of disclosure" and The Australian opined, "Today we see significant progress. FOI reform is now firmly on the agenda federally and in Queensland and NSW." ¶10. (SBU) The government has also proposed changes in the whistleblower law that would give federal employees some job protection only if they first pursued their concerns with a supervisor, then appealed to a government ombudsman and finally went to the media as a last resort for concerns related to public health and safety. Currently, it is illegal for any government employee to talk to the media on any topic without clearance. At the Sydney conference, MP Mark Dreyfus, chair of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, defended the proposal against sharp criticism from media panelists as a step in the right direction. Instead of protecting those who approach the media in the public interest, the scheme provides increased protection only for whistleblowers who confine their concerns to the public sector hierarchy, panelists said. Those speaking to journalists would still be liable for criminal prosecution, unless they were exposing an Qimmediate and serious threat to public health or safety. The Australian comments, "This does nothing to help those blowing the whistle on serious corruption and maladministration. This is not good enough." RICHE