by WikiLeaks Party National Council member Kellie Tranter
A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus~
Many people recognise that there is an ever increasing vacuum of accountability, that ethical standards and principles have long been abandoned and that politicians have become mesmerised by power. In circumstances like that information and access to it, is the only thing that can check the exercise of that power. Information gives the ordinary person on the street a chance to be their own watchdog and a sense of empowerment.
In democratic societies a free and diverse media enables public debate and provides essential checks on power. Not only is there a right to know, there is a right to tell.
Information is essential for mutual understanding, to right wrongs and in fact to prevent them from occurring, and to improve the health of our political systems and corporate structures. But in the name of freedom and democracy, governments the world over would like to convince us otherwise.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This universal right has never been fully respected in practice because the powerful do not like to be constrained.
The Australian Constitution doesn’t provide any guarantee of free speech. There is only an implied freedom of political communication which is limited to what is necessary for effective operation of the system of representative and responsible government. That’s why Constitutional enshrinement of freedom of the press and freedom of speech is an ultimate aim of the Wikileaks Party.
Australia is presently ranked 26th on the Reporters Without Borders’ 2013 Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without Borders’ warned that democracies stall and go into reverse where there is bad legislation, a poor professional environment for journalists and tension over media regulation.
Australia seems to have shifted into reverse when one considers the concerns raised in the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance’s 2013 Australian Press Freedom report that:
‘the increasing number of ethical journalists being subpoenaed in order for them to reveal their confidential sources; new anticorruption legislation that empowers “star chambers” to use excessive powers of secrecy and coercion to go on fishing expeditions to discover what journalists know; the diluting of shield laws, whistleblower protection and freedom of information legislation; and the increased use of suppression orders to mask matters that should be made public in the judicial system…. we are concerned that governments, for all their noble statements about press freedom, are failing in their duty to protect and enshrine press freedom in law by undermining shield laws, creating obstructions to freedom of expression, threatening whistleblowers and by imposing restrictions on media access. It is time for government to recognise that the tenets of press freedom are not variables but absolutes..’
It is no coincidence that the Wikileaks Party’s first official policy calls for uniform shield laws because all rights that citizens have flow from freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The Wikileaks Party also recognises that uniform shield laws go hand in hand with uniform whistleblower laws, particularly covering media disclosures. It should be unsatisfactory to all Australians that proposed Federal whistleblower laws fail to protect whistleblowers if they reveal corruption or misdoing on the part of a federal parliamentarian or if their disclosures involve Australia’s intelligence services.
Irrespective of the motivations or ulterior motives of the whistleblowers or sources, if the information is of public importance the public is better off to having access to it than not. Journalists are conduits. If the information is accurate and truthful, it should be made available, unless it relates to legitimate national security interests or endangers people’s lives.
The Wikileaks Party is driven by the values of openness, accountability and the decentralisation of power. Our supporters understand and appreciate that a democratic society means that the public can and should participate in some meaningful way in the political decisions that affect them, and that to do that, people need information to be open and free and readily accessible to all.
@ Phil Patterson , I am not a layer..(my father was )and I agree with your concept .
The constitution needs to be rewritten with more engagement in the human rights definition and the introduction of a ( as you mentioned ) National ( federal ) commission to watch over and sanction institutional and corporate corruptions with particular attention to MP’s and banking.
A special close may specify that ABC not reporting the truth at peak hours would be a bridge of it’s DUTY to inform according to its public owned statute.
Of course the composition of that “watchdog “would have to be secured and should contain a number of people maybe picked at random from the public like the “duty of jury ” system ?
The patriot act has effectively null and voided freedom.
Our constitution is a fair document in the main.
Unfortunately, the liberties implied to provide flexibility and contemporary relevance falls foul of human nature or more saliently the struggle for power and then the preservation of it for those who bought it.
The forming of Star Chambers is just another reinvention of the inquisition, McCarthy trials and Salem witch-hunts. These modern day trials by ordeal, substitutes, divine purity for patriotism to determine innocence.
Either way the dominant hegemony dictates the rules, agenda and the outcome.
Surely, the public is capable when given the opportunity, can disseminate between vexatious claims from disenfranchised employees to whistle blowers who see an injustice and the intricate web of deceit to cover it up.
A “free press” is essential for any society to be appropriately informed so we can again or the first time; trust our elected officials to act in the interest of all not the corporate oligarchs or plutocrats.
The days of the benevolent dictator still haunts us.
Kevin
Interesting they chose those 3 countries to lead off the artlice with, not any Arab countries or Israel. They just don’t like the competition coming from those 3 upstarts. Yes, there’s plenty of money, domestic and foreign, buying up property and assets everywhere, including the US Congress. Sorry, but this is what countries do under capitalism. The US, Britain, heck, the Vatican, own huge swaths of foreign land and other countries’ governments. Will this disclosure act force the likes of the Koch Bros. and their ilk to disclose in a timely manner? I doubt it. The rulers of the planet (see George Carlin’s famous riff on this) always get around these laws. Their handmaidens in Congress put on a good dog and pony show of hand wringing and outrage, for public consumption. Fills up tv, print and online blogs, and makes the public, including those of us who pay attention, think that we’re getting to the bottom of the corruption, when we’re not. That whole republicreport website serves to whip up public hysteria against foreigners, giving light treatment to our homegrown thieves, who have always colluded with overseas businesses to rob our assets for their mutual enrichment. US contractors built ships for the Japanese at the turn of the 19th c., even while the Hearst press was whipping up anti-Japanese hate here. Cheney’s Halliburton violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The examples are legion. Don’t buy the hype, follow the money and influence, and ask Cui Bono? , who *really* benefits?
The press need to have some guts to tell the stories of corruption affecting innocent Australians. They have not got the guts to tell Australians our courts are doctoring court recordings and I have plenty of evidence of cover ups and corruption. My nine year old has been through hell due to this corruption and he has more guts than all the media put together. What is needed to get the truth out is for the media to grow a back bone and stop their quivering cowardly acceptance. I got a bit blunt there but I’m sick to death of cowards quivering while my fellow Australians suffer at the hands of our doctoring courts.
Ozelite.. “We”. Meaning WikiLeaks Party.. One of the politicians years ago .. Said … “Let’s keep the bastards honest”. WikiLeaks will keep the bastards honest.. We need them so badly at this stage and as far as I am concerned forever more… WikiLeaks here we come in September… X
We have a better Constitution than the US. The problem is so few Australians know it and have been kept from it. We aren’t told of our Founding fathers like the Americans are. Our Constitution has a foundation stone, Sec 92. “Intercourse among the States whether by internal carriage or ocean navigation shall be absolutely free.” We allow our servants to fine us and charge us to use our roads. We are supposed to have a President, the Prime Minister is to be just that, the leader of the Ministry and is to be chosen by the Ministers and must be the person who relates best with the people. Sure, it has its problems, but the biggest problem is people aren’t interested so the Parliament does as it pleases
Comments are moderated, what happened to free speech?
Will the Wikileaks Party target Polite Society’s obsession with ‘nice’ lies and contempt for ‘rude’ truths? If we cannot reverse the matriarchal value of ‘pleasant’ deceit, there will be no real point in doing anything.
Let’s hope we win.. Wouldn’t it be wonderful…
It is a shame the proposed whistleblower legislation does not go far enough. If the information released reveals abuses of power, fraud, corruption, gross mismanagement then the public does have a right to know. Your article also stresses the importance of strong shield laws to protect sources. It is the information that is revealed that is important not the personality or motives of the whistleblower. Reading case studies of whistleblowing shows the motives of whistleblowers are almost always sound, it is the attempts to demonise the whistleblower which often overshadow the relevance and importance of the information revealed. The extreme response to Wikileaks by some politicians and commentators is a good example, particularly in the early days.
Totally agree , also didn t realise we have a worse” rights” constitution than america , and that has been side lined so many times ….. what can we do!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????? cannot believe that with all relevent latest technology, we don t All have a direct say in the destruction/ guardianship of our earth.. eg “Fracking”, insectide use… see “Silence of the Bees”, Gm plant and human patenting.. Water in plastic bottles is soooo good for us… Crikey!!!! what am I missing… and thank you for the article……
@ Sylvie:
“Let’s hope we win.. Wouldn’t it be wonderful…”
Question is, who is “we”? The likelihood is that Wikileaks will not get anywhere near a quota in any state, so the only chance is to do a very tight preference swap with other like minded parties … and others too, including the ALP who will be looking around for any swaps they can do.
For what it’s worth, I encourage those involved in the development of the Wikileaks Party policies in relation to whistleblower protection laws to turn their minds to mechanisms that will be required to support those laws and make them functional and successful. As regards commonwealth public service whistleblowers, whistleblower protection laws will be of little effect if they are not supported by the establishment of an independent national integrity commission with own-motion powers of investigation and the authority to compel public servants, politicians and their staff to appear before inquiries constituted by it and to answer questions.
Despite that the track record of state-based integrity commissions could be a lot better, I’ve spent enough years as a lawyer in public service environments to know that nothing short of an independent investigator along the lines I’ve described can hope to penetrate the culture of the APS, and ministers’ offices, etc. In particular, my years as a national security lawyer in the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department under the Howard government have well-and-truly left me persuaded of that.
As a member of the party, I am very concerned to ensure that this issue is taken seriously and addressed by the party in some way.
the first step to freedom of speech would be to stop moderating the comments. Let the readers decide what is good speech and what is bad.
‘Power tends to corrupt: absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Lord Acton.
Lovely to see this first announcement, on message, on target. Well put. More, please.
Roll on September
What a Beautifull Smile Kellie
Thats worth a Million Votes
COMPLETELY AGREE. Equally however, we must have proper processes put in place to keep journalists and media organisations accountable to the TRUTH. Free speech is an imperative but it carries with it, a solemn responsibility: To champion the truth, to undertake full and balanced measures in order to ensure only supportable facts are presented to the public – who today seem to take newspaper articles as sacrosanct. I say this because Trial By Media has become endemic in Australian media (thanks to beacons of dishonesty such as Rupert). And I personally know of an innocent man who took his own life after crooked cops with media pull, drove him to a tragic end. This was devastating in a supposedly democratic country. So please – free speech for sure. But FREE must never be able to be interpreted as FICTION.
Full disclosure beats secrecy any day.
Secrecy leads to failure.