The fondness of the Labor Party and the Greens for freedom of speech in Australia would be touching — if it wasn't so hypocritical. The debate over the Abbott government's anti-terrorism laws and in particular whether journalists should be jailed for writing about security operations has revealed Labor and the Greens' so-called commitment to one of our most basic freedoms is based on political calculation, not principle.
Last month when the government revealed proposals to jail for 10 years anyone "recklessly" revealing information about intelligence activities, Labor's shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus described the law as "an unprecedented overreach of government power which poses a real threat to freedom of the press".
That's the same Mark Dreyfus who said it was "exciting" the Coalition had abandoned its promise to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which among other things makes it unlawful to insult or offend someone on the basis of their race. On Wednesday, in Parliament the Greens' legal affairs spokesperson Penny Wright spoke passionately about how security laws shouldn't threaten freedom of speech. That's the same Penny Wright who the very next day said she'd fight any plan to amend section 18C.
Labor and the Greens' concerns about anti-terrorism laws could be taken more seriously if they cared as much about the right of Andrew Bolt to question the merits of race-based government programs as they care about the right of a hypothetical Guardian journalist to write about a botched ASIO investigation. Labor and the Greens care (as they should) that an inadvertent mistake could put the journalist in jail. But they don't care that Andrew Bolt was taken to court.
Both Bolt and that hypothetical Guardian journalist are performing a necessary and vital service in a democracy — holding the government to account for its actions. But for Labor and the Greens one is a case of freedom of the press, the other isn't.
Labor and the Greens say they want to ensure any new national security legislation doesn't prevent Australians from having the ability to engage in a full and robust debate on matters such as whether this country should participate in military activity in the Middle East and what should be the powers of those government agencies charged with keeping citizen safe. Matters such as these are, and should be, in the centre of political debate in this country. But there's another matter that's also at the middle of the political debate in this country at the moment: namely, whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should be recognised in the constitution. And from this flows the question of who precisely is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.
Yet section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the law that both Labor and the Greens supports, prevents that sort of question being asked. The New South Wales equivalent of the federal Racial Discrimination Act was used against this newspaper in 2000 after the publication of an opinion article discussing the Middle East peace process. The case went to the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal. A finding against the John Fairfax company was only overturned on appeal. Again, given Australia's continuing involvement in the region, both then and now, that is a topic appropriate for political debate. Yet Labor and the Greens support measures such the New South Wales legislation
The speech Labor and the Greens want to be free is speech about things they agree with.
In 2012 in his inquiry into the media Ray Finkelstein famously gave as one of the reasons for him recommending the government impose editorial control over the press, the fact some newspapers were "unfavourable to action on climate change". The Greens and many Labor MPs were enthusiastic barrackers for Finkelstein's recommendation.
The prime minister said in parliament this week, "Regrettably, for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift". That balance has already shifted.
If Labor and the Greens are indeed determined to protect our freedoms, they could start by attempting to get back some of the freedoms we've already lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment