This week’s big Parliamentary issue is the re-introduction of Data Retention laws, that the Coalition Government is hell bent on pushing through, that will see law enforcement authorities charged with the power to access people’s metadata without warrant, and without people knowing. This, being done in the name of so-called “counter terrorism.”
The big point of contention from the proposed laws has been the lack of protection for journalists who engage in investigative reporting and may, from time to time, rely on sources who’d prefer to remain anonymous. The laws in their original form would’ve seen that protection thrown completely in the bin, even to the point of potentially exposing journalists to prosecution and jail time.
Until Monday, it appeared that Labor would oppose the bill, effectively ensuring it would die on the floor of the senate like many bills before it. But a deal brokered by Malcolm Turnbull to compromise slightly on the laws, which now include *some* source protection for journalists – all it means is if authorities want to investigate a media source, they need an easily obtainable warrant before they can go full boonta on it – means that Labor are, at the very least, back on board with working with the Government to pass the legislation.
Journalists, and the media industry at large, are bloody furious about this, and terrified of the powers the new laws potentially entail. The Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance issued a very strongly worded statement outlining their objections, labelling it an “outrageous attack on press freedom.” With MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy stating further,
“It would have a chilling effect on journalism in Australia leading to whistleblowers being fearful that they risk exposure if they seek to reveal instances of wrongdoing, corruption, waste, illegal activity and dishonesty. What needs to be understood is that no journalist, anywhere, can ever allow the identity of a confidential source to become known – that is a guiding principle of journalism the world over.”
But despite this, Prime Minister Tony Abbott moved to assuage fears from the media industry, by asserting that metadata retention is nothing to worry about if you are a journalist.
And why exactly is this?
“Well, in the days when I was a journalist there were no metadata protections for journalists. I was perfectly comfortable as a journalist, I believe that Australian police and security agencies operate in a fair and reasonable and responsible manner.“
When he was a journalist.
In 1986.
He wasn’t worried about metadata in 1986.
When the internet and wireless data tracking weren’t things.
In 1986, when investigating a journalists’ correspondence meant seizing the ink ribbon on their IBM Selectric.
Tony Abbott (pictured above showing modern reporters the cabinet in which he kept all his metadatas) is more or less telling an entire industry, who have very real fears about a very contentious piece of legislation, to have a Coke and a smile and just maybe relax a bit, ayy.
Meanwhile in Parliament, the bill was put to the floor of the House of Representatives, where politicians could freely debate its merits. For a brief taste of the frightening ease with which these laws will likely end up passing, here’s a look at the Labor side of the floor as Greens MP Adam Bandt addresses the floor.
Greens MP Adam Bandt and Independent MP Andrew Wilkie during the debate on the Data Retention bill pic.twitter.com/F8Dzn71JpE
At this point it’s probably worth rewinding the clock of time a little bit back to the point where a senior Government official, and chief proponent of the new laws, explained what metadata is in as concise a manner as he could.
At the risk of sounding glib, at some point this whole debacle starts to feel like them trying to legislate against bubblegum because they heard it contains spiders eggs.
