Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
theguardian.com, Sunday 12 October 2014
Labor frontbencher breaks ranks to argue that some elements of new laws, such as criminalising reporting of intelligence operations, may need to be wound back
Anthony Albanese: ‘The media laws are draconian when we talk about potential penalties of five or 10 years jail.’ Photograph: Stefan Postles/AAP
Anthony Albanese has signalled Labor has gone too far in supporting the Abbott government’s national security agenda, particularly the new “draconian” restrictions on press freedom which would see journalists jailed for between five and 10 years.
Albanese, a senior Labor left figure, used a breakfast television interview on Sunday morning to break ranks with the opposition’s studied conflict aversion on national security, arguing the policy reform agenda, given its seriousness, needed less haste and more close scrutiny.
He said he did not want national security to become a partisan issue, but he argued Australians, residents of a liberal democracy, did not protect their freedom by giving it up. He said recent provisions criminalising the reporting of special intelligence operations might need to be wound back.
Albanese declared on Sky News that unlike many left wingers, he was “not a pacifist” – he said he deplored the activities of Islamic State, and strongly supported Australia’s military engagement in northern Iraq.
But he said he would have favoured more debate in the chamber prior to the deployment. A move by the Greens and by independent Andrew Wilkie to have parliamentary debate and approval prior to the deployment was largely rebuffed by the government.
“I’m of the view the government hasn’t been at its best when it comes to proper debate. I believe there should be more debate on the floor of the house of representatives, not up in the federation chamber, about our engagement [in Iraq],” he said. “When we put Australians at risk, that should be properly debated.”
Albanese also argued the government needed to slow down the legislative debate on national security reform.
He indicated that he had significant problems with a newly legislated provision that would jail journalists for reporting on special intelligence operations.
Albanese said that law would needed to be scrutinised very closely and it may, in fact, need to be wound back. “When it comes to the so-called anti-terrorist laws, there has to be proper scrutiny of them. We can be fully supportive of our engagement in the Middle East and still say we don’t protect freedom by giving it up.”
“I don’t believe there has been enough scrutiny. I believe the media laws are draconian when we talk about potential penalties of five or 10 years jail for exposing what might be an error made by the security agencies.
“We are all concerned as Australians about the jailing of Peter Greste in Egypt. I believe we should be arguing for more scrutiny of these issues, not just from Labor but from the government as well.”
He said at a time of heightened domestic security risks, agencies would bring forward substantial proposals to increase their power. This did not mean the Australian legislature needed to rubber stamp a security wish-list.
“At a time like this the security agencies will take the opportunity to impose things that have been in their bottom drawer for a long period of time. I believe our agencies, including ASIO, do a great job for this nation … but it’s also the case in a democratic country like ours – we’re talking about fighting for freedom, it’s important to ensure freedom is protected and not given up.”
Labor assisted the government in passing the new security-related restrictions on press freedom which have been condemned by the legal profession and by all the major Australian media companies.
Albanese did not speak out against them during the recent legislative debate – only one Labor figure did, the West Australian backbench MP Melissa Parke. The Greens are campaigning vigorously against these laws, and local campaigning will hurt progressive Labor MPs like Parke and like Albanese who hold inner urban seats.
On Sunday, Albanese argued the impact of the law should be closely examined by everyone. “There are legitimate criticisms and they need to be responded to by the government.”
He signalled the laws might need to be wound back. “I’m concerned about the rights of journalists. I’m someone who has consistently supported the rights of media to report.”
Asked whether his critique was supported by other senior figures, Albanese said: “I’m speaking for myself.”
Albanese was also not supportive of a proposal brought forward by the Gillard government to strengthen the media regulator to enforce better professional standards, but he said that proposal was nowhere near as sweeping and consequential as the changes just passed into law.
Ahead of the legislation being tabled, on July 17, the shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus told Guardian Australia the Labor opposition would not support criminalising journalism.
Dreyfus: “If Senator Brandis’s amendments would criminalise reporting by journalists who receive intelligence information, the government will need to make changes to remove that consequence.”
Despite that categorical assurance, Labor went on to achieve only minor adjustments to a provision which went on to criminalise the reporting of special intelligence operations.
