AUSTRALIAN MEDIA SEEK GREATER TRANSPARENCY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 000324

SENSITIVE
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
Qof searches, which are determined by the agency doing the
search. 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

CANBERRA 00000324 002 OF 002


and pension and now faces heavy fines and a jail term.

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
Qsaid. Those speaking to journalists would still be liable
for criminal prosecution, unless they were exposing an
immediate 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