The federal Opposition Leader was asked in a press conference this week whether he supports proposed laws that could send journalists to prison for publishing information about intelligence operations.
Bill Shorten's response was intriguing: "We fundamentally believe in the liberty of the press and the freedom of the press. Labor's very mindful of making sure we maintain the freedom of the press."
Stirring stuff. But where was this commitment to liberty when the Gillard government proposed its massive media regulation regime in March 2013?
Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus also raised concerns this week that the Abbott government may require Australians returning from Iraq and Syria to prove they are not involved in terrorism. Dreyfus said the opposition was "not going to give a blank cheque [to the government], in particular to something which has been suggested to be a reverse onus of proof."
Again, this is commendable. But this sentiment was nowhere to be found when the previous Labor government legislated to force timber importers to have knowledge of foreign laws and to prove legality of materials manufactured by third parties under the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012. Or when it tried to pass laws that would have made employers in discrimination cases guilty until they could prove their own innocence.
PLAYING FAIR WITH BUSINESS
If only Labor were as committed to the presumption of innocence for business owners as it is for those accused of committing acts of terror.
There are more than 40 Commonwealth provisions that reverse the onus of proof. Governments of every political stripe are guilty of abandoning the presumption of innocence for political expediency. The Rudd-Gillard governments were no different in this regard. For instance, they included provisions which reversed the onus of proof in the Fair Work Act 2009, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Clean Energy Act 2012, and the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012.
Labor's apparent change of heart on fundamental legal principles is welcome. So, too, fresh commitment to a free media.
But just over twelve months ago, the then-Gillard government launched an unprecedented attack on the media. The proposed introduction of a de facto press licensing regime would have handed a government-appointed bureaucrat massive censorship powers, and stifled press freedom in Australia. The Orwellian title given to the media regulator was the "Public Interest Media Advocate" (PIMA).
This individual would have been tasked with deciding whether news media outlets were being fair or accurate, or whether coverage was in line with community standards. And it would have been up to the PIMA to decide what those vague terms were to mean.
The package of bills put up by the government was a brazen attempt to control the media, particularly news outlets hostile to the government's policy agenda. It was eventually abandoned — not because it acknowledged the essential role of the free press but because it didn't have the numbers to pass the bills.
Labor also looks to be having a crisis of conscience over the controversial mandatory data retention policy.
Nicola Roxon championed the idea as Labor's attorney-general in 2012 but now the opposition seems lukewarm on the idea. Dreyfus has expressed concerns about the regime.
It's good to see Labor's conversion on matters of principle in opposition.
If only they were as committed to these ideas while in government. Australia inherited the British common law tradition. It is a legal system characterised by the rule of law and a number of fundamental legal rights. The presumption of innocence is arguably most important.
The idea is simple — an individual is innocent until the person accusing them of wrongdoing has made out their case in court. The presumption of innocence and the onus of proof resting with the party bringing a claim to the court are two sides of the same coin. If the onus of proof is reversed, the defendant is effectively deemed guilty until he can prove his own innocence. Some of the most important civil liberties and fundamental legal rights are finally getting the respect they deserve from a party that ignored them during six years in government. What a difference opposition makes.
No comments:
Post a Comment