Australia, one of Asia-Pacific’s rare defenders of press freedom, may soon have a law that silences journalists.

Communicating or handling of sensitive government information could soon be punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

By John Power
Splice Australia

Proposed reforms of Australia’s national security laws aimed at clamping down on government leaks have raised fears for press freedom in one of the Asia-Pacific’s most open democracies.

The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which comes amid a broader crackdown on foreign interference and espionage, would make the communication or handling of sensitive government information a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Under the changes quietly unveiled by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s centre-right coalition in December, the law would cover any material obtained through a government official without authorisation and considered “inherently harmful” or likely to harm “Australia’s interests.”

Extending beyond traditional national security considerations, the law would apply to information that could in any way harm international relations or relations between the federal government and any of Australia’s states and territories.

Harsher penalties for whistleblowers

Although public servants are already prohibited from disclosing sensitive information, the reforms introduce far harsher penalties and bring anyone, including journalists, within their remit.

While the legislation contains some protection for journalists, a defence is only available for reporting that is subjectively judged to be “fair and accurate.”

“You really have an expansion of this traditional category of offences against the state—treason, espionage, things like actually urging the overthrow of a country—and now you’re getting into this realm of sharing information to undermine Australia’s interests,” says Kieran Hardy, a national security and whistleblowing expert at Queensland’s Griffith University.

Civil liberties groups have roundly condemned the push for greater secrecy, warning of the chilling effect the law would have on potential whistleblowers.

“In a post-Snowden and Wikileaks world, it is evident that simply cloaking something as ‘classified’ doesn’t mean it should automatically be free from public scrutiny,” Human Rights Watch wrote in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is examining the legislation. “Under this Bill, government officials may be tempted to reclassify information with a higher security rating so that it cannot be shared.”

The Australian media have also come out strongly against the proposal. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the country’s main union for journalists, called it a “dangerous threat to press freedom”. Australia is currently considered to have one of the freest media environments in the Asia-Pacific, with Freedom House last year ranking the country fifth for press freedom after New Zealand and a number of tiny Pacific Island nations.

In a submission to parliament last month, though, more than a dozen Australian rival media organizations made a rare show of unity to warn that the proposed legal changes soon meant that “journalists could go to jail for doing their jobs.”

Since then, international press advocacy groups including the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists have joined the chorus of opposition to the changes.

Changes likely to pass

The legislation follows almost five dozen national security related laws introduced in Australia since the September 11 terror attacks which, critics say, have made it increasingly difficult to expose potential wrongdoing.

In 2015, parliament passed sweeping metadata retention laws despite warnings from press freedom advocates that the measures would expose whistleblowers and other confidential sources.

While a public interest disclosure scheme was introduced for public officials in 2013, bringing Australia into line with countries such as Singapore, Japan and South Korea, whistleblower advocates say the current environment is still far from accommodating of those who come forward to expose wrongdoing. Public-servants-turned-whistleblowers, such as former Australian Taxation Office official Ron Shamir, have detailed how going public with their concerns cost them their livelihoods and any prospect of future career advancement.

“The status quo is definitely not conducive to it,” says Hardy. “It’d take a lot of courage in this environment to be putting your name to a leak.”

After the committee stage finishes up in March, this latest piece of contentious legislation will still have to pass both the House of Representative and Senate. Opposition leader Bill Shorten this week announced that his party would not support the bill without better protections for journalists, joining a growing number of skeptical voices in parliament.

Despite the controversy, though, it’s unlikely that the proposals will see anything other than relatively minor changes. Turnbull’s government, which would have to negotiate with a chaotic cross-bench in the Senate without the rival Labor Party’s support, has history is on its side.

In the last two decades, the vast majority of national security legislation introduced by Australian governments has made it into law with little or no revision.

“No political party wants to be called soft on terrorism, so they’ve traditionally been bipartisan,” says Hardy. “There are very few examples of counterterrorism laws that have gone through the Australian parliament that have been amended as a result of opposition in the Senate.”

John Power

John Power is a journalist whose work has appeared in The Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, Quartz, The Age, The South China Morning Post, The Irish Times, The Nikkei Asian Review, and Al Jazeera. Previously based in Seoul, he currently reports from Melbourne. Follow John Power on Twitter.

From this week


Columbia Journalism Review takes a hard look at the journalism funding done by Facebook and Google.

There are millions of dollars going into this space. While many are happy to take the money on the table, others question the ethics behind it. “The British Empire wanted trains in Kenya and India to run well, too. So their concerns are sincere, but the effect is more often than not a deeper immersion in and dependence on these platforms.” Of course this isn’t an issue unique to the tech giants — grant-giving NGOs have also faced similar critics.
Columbia Journalism Review

Governments & policy



New Naratif put together a solid story on how the Muslim Cyber Army works in Indonesia.

If you haven’t heard of the MCA (no, not that MCA in Malaysia!), they have been spreading fake news and driving hate speech along religious and ethnic lines. Worrying trend, especially in a country that’s been fighting fake news factories like Saracen. What makes this one different? “MCA looks more ideological, has thousands of networks in different parts of Indonesia and therefore the destructive power of this group is greater than that of Saracen.”
New Naratif


The New York Times is partnering with FX and Hulu on a weekly documentary series called…The Weekly.

It centres around stories from the Times and the journalists that work them. This comes hot on the heels of The Daily, their incredible podcast about one daily story from the Times newsroom. This is part of the Times’ ongoing foray into entertainment: A New York Times Magazine feature is going to be a Netflix documentary series, and Brad Pitt bought the movie rights to the story of how the Times broke the Harvey Weinstein story. Also coming: a four-part series for Showtime about the Times newsroom during the first year of the Trump administration.
New York Times

Media startups



SilverKris, Singapore Airlines’ in-flight magazine, nailed it with their recent redesign by Ink.

I usually have the same attitude to in-flight magazines as I do to, say, a swift slap across the face: I’d really just rather not, thanks. But this reworked version was good enough for me to forget my Economy Class kneelessness, even though the cover is easily the most forgettable part of the whole redesign: a crowded image with no focal point. But here’s why I love this redesign: 1. The layout and typography have integrity in that they are led by the content. 2. The section fronts have bold, opinionated design. 3. The reading experience is immaculate — even though they crowd little surprise nuggets in the gutter. 4. The illustrations by Stuart Patience are delicious. 5. The writing isn’t all travel-fluff and doesn’t suck. 6. Those are some mad infographics skillz. Here's an interview with the Ink creative director.
The Design Air

The Malay Mail did a website redesign.

Load times were a priority, and the new site scores well on that front. The digital team also prioritised monetizing content and enhancing their “programmatic setup”. For me, this is translating into lots of badly-placed ads for pointless leather accessories in duplicate and Outbrain-forward sewage. They are testing a new section with Mandarin content for Malaysians working in Singapore, which says good things about their user research. Structurally, the website is fine, although better hierarchy on the home and story pages would be a good idea. (Also, those Open Sans headlines need some kerning; they’re w a y t o o l o o s e.) I’m impressed with how their head of digital responded to a question about the cost of the revamp: he said the company saw it as an investment rather than an expense. Respect.
Marketing Interactive

The article page is arguably the most vital page for a news website.

Getting it right across platforms is the Holy Grail. Last week, The New York Times took a giant step towards getting it right. This involved streamlining internal efficiencies on their CMS as well as a better user experience across mobile and desktop on web and native apps. Advertising also got a major overhaul: they killed their cluttered right rail of smaller banner ads for larger, full-width, midstream ads for a much cleaner read—and it’s working: “Ads on the new page are achieving twice the click-through rate of our old design, and initial studies show higher brand recall and four-times the reader attention to ads.” Read about the process here.
New York Times

“Hi, so did you hear that crazy phone call that, umm, the Google Duplex robot assistant made to the hair salon?”

She had the whole uptalk (ending verbal statements with that millennialesque question mark subconsciously designed to maximise responsiveness) thing going on? as well as an “mmm-hmmm?” and even an “er”? It wasn’t just how real it was that blew my mind; it was that the person on the other end of the phone was able to have a complete conversation without suspecting anything. I think the tech is amazing; I think the the whole construct is creepy. Would Turing give the bot full marks? Hear it for yourself.
The Guardian

Google’s Duplex bot will now identify itself as a robot on the phone.

There were some serious concerns that Google was putting the ‘dupe’ in Duplex: “Silicon Valley is ethically lost, rudderless and has not learned a thing”. The company has clarified: “It’s important to us that users and businesses have a good experience with this service, and transparency is a key part of that.” What is it going to say, though: “Hey there, I’m Rishad’s bot assistant, so don’t be freaked out.”?