The only possible relevant part is Division 121 (g).No you didn't.
From roughly 1300 onwards of the Explanatory memorandum deals with documents and taking those documents. Its applicable to this case and is why the afp are doing raids searching for documents.
The only possible relevant part is Division 121 (g).
If the AFP are barking under that tree, it will fall on them. Provisions at (g) are called "catch all" and the evidence to mount a reasonable case are not apparent from the recent conduct of the AFP.
New Division 122 includes defences to ensure the offences do not apply too broadly, including a defence specifically applying to journalists (as well as editorial and support staff) who reasonably believe that their conduct was in the public interest. The offences ensure harmful information cannot be released, while appropriate defences protect freedom of speech.
Division 122 requires that the information is "inherently harmful."This was part of what I read before.
1638. The extension of the defence to a person who deals with or holds information is intended to allow journalists to undertake a range of activities that are necessary in the course of fair and accurate public interest journalism. For example, journalists must obtain or collect information from a source, hold and deal with that information the course of researching and preparing a story, and deal with that information in course of consulting with editors, experts and relevant Australian Government officials to satisfy the journalist as to the appropriate balance between competing public interests. Additionally, the extension for the defence to a person who holds information is intended to enable journalists to perform the important function of ‘filtering’ stories that are contrary to the public interest. From time-to-time, journalists may obtain or collect information from sources, and determine that it would be contrary to the public interest to publish some or all of that information. For example, in some cases, the public interest may be fully served by publishing a certain amount of information, whereas the publication of further information or particular details may, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. It is intended that journalists should be permitted to deal with information, and then determine to either publish the information, or to hold the information rather than to publish the information.
1639. The term ‘journalist’ should take its ordinary and natural meaning. For example, the Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘journalist’ as being a person engaged in ‘journalism’, being ‘the business or occupation of writing, editing, and producing photographic images for print media and the production or news and news analysis for broadcast media’. Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary defines ‘journalist’ as ‘a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast’. A journalist need not be regularly employed in a professional capacity, and may include a person who self-publishes news or news analysis.
1640. However, a person will only have the benefit of the defence in their capacity as a journalist ‘engaged in fair and accurate reporting’. The concept of being engaged in fair and accurate reporting is used within section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 . In this context, it is intended that the requirement for the journalist to be engaged in fair and accurate reporting will limit the scope of the defence to journalists who are, in fact, engaged in such reporting, excluding persons who:
· merely publish documents or information without engaging in fair and accurate reporting
· use information or documents to produce false or distorted reporting, or
· are not, in fact, journalists engaged in fair and accurate reporting—for example, where the person is an officer or agent of a foreign intelligence service engaged in a foreign interference effort.
1641. The defence will also only be available where the person’s conduct is in the public interest. It will ordinarily be a matter for the person to adduce or point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that their conduct was in the public interest, by reason of section 13.3 of the Criminal Code. It will ordinarily then be a matter for the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. However, subsection 122.5(7) provides that, without limiting paragraph (6)(a), dealing with or holding certain information will not be in the public interest, being:
· information protected by section 92 of the ASIO Act—which protects the identity of ASIO employees and ASIO affiliates
· information protected by section 41 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 —which protects the identity of the staff and agents of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service
· dealing with or holding information that would be an offence under section 22, 22A or 22B of theWitness Protection Act 1994 - which protects the identity of Commonwealth, Territory, State participants or information about the National Witness Protection Program, and
It comes down to the documents and not so much about the story in regards to journalists. If its in the publics interest then they have the freedom to report it. Classified documents not been held in their place of purpose is where they will get charged.Division 122 requires that the information is "inherently harmful."
It is difficult to see how informing the public that war crimes may have been committed meets that test. Nor does informing us that we could be spied on without reasonable cause.
As I said, I read at the legislation and find it sadly lacking relevance.
WRT to Division 121, the catch all provisions can potentially allow you, as an ordinary person, to be charged for telling a foreign visitor that we do not have sailors to crew our war ships. In fact, such a report was published in the media the other day, and is a far more serious breach of "national security" than could be alleged by the AFP with regard to the 2 journalists.
"Asked what the harm of revealing alleged wrongdoing by Australian troops or plans to extend spying laws was, Gaughan said the substance of the reports was “irrelevant” and that the mere fact of disclosure of protected information was a crime."It comes down to the documents and not so much about the story in regards to journalists. If its in the publics interest then they have the freedom to report it. Classified documents not been held in their place of purpose is where they will get charged.
We also don't know the full extent of whats in the documents. Or how secure the documents are. Some idiot might have it on a non-secure laptop. Chinese have already hacked Australia to death.
If names are mentioned people can be threatened or compromised.
Journalists should not be above the law in such cases. Them crying foul doesn’t hold weight.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"Isn't the ABC the only media organisation that has checks on their perceived bias?I've noticed now that the top story on the ABC (https://www.abc.net.au/news/) is almost always bashing the opposition or Trump.
I've noticed now that the top story on the ABC (https://www.abc.net.au/news/) is almost always bashing the opposition or Trump.
It's a non story bazzzzIs it possible that right now the story of how Donald Trump leaned on the Ukrainian PM to investigate Bidens son and then hid the conversations because it looked as if he was using his office for partisan political ends which is totally uncool
is the biggest story of the day ?
Probably not the right thread but the ABC have really screwed this one up
https://www.news.com.au/national/un...y/news-story/584bcc2fc1bb28c534ff8d7a79e660f1
A big shout out to regional ABC radio - they've been outstanding during the 2019-20 bushfire crisis in NSW (and other states). Providing regular bushfire situation updates, and info about community services and road access.
You can tell that the announcers are often unwilling to leave their posts, they just want to stay on and contribute.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?