Johan Lidberg: Democracy has picked up a bad case of security flu
Australia is at a crossroads between more security laws and a healthy democracy but we must make a choice and our wellbeing is at stake, writes Johan Lidberg.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The seesaw balancing civil liberties and government power has tipped dangerously towards government in Australia. We’ve arrived at a crossroad. One road sign says “more security laws” the other says “a healthy democracy”.
We must make a choice and much more is at stake than media freedom and free speech.
Australian democracy is running a temperature, and the illness has been incubating for a while (since September 11, 2001). Our lawmakers have passed or amended more (64 and counting) national security/anti-terror laws than any other mature liberal democracy.
The Australian Federal Police raids on award-winning, Monash graduate and News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC increased the fever. In both cases, journalists were reporting on issues that were in the highest public interest, and the AFP and government’s arguments that the reporting jeopardised national security is without grounds.
Let’s be clear — this is about how we want our democracy to function. Consider the following symptoms of the democratic flu:
AUSTRALIAN governments (state and federal) hunt whistleblowers, threatening them with long jail terms instead of protecting and rewarding them for speaking out;
OUR Freedom of Information laws exempt the Australian intelligence and security agencies. That shows a powerful signal that secrecy is the norm. All states need to keep secrets, but the blanket exemptions of security agencies from FOI makes Australia an outlier in the mature liberal democratic world. The CIA in the US is not exempt from FOI laws; and
OUR elected representatives are cynically using real or perceived fear of terrorism and national security to score political points. My colleagues and I pointed this out in our 2018 book, In the Name of Security — Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism.
It is with a heavy heart that I see our predictions in the book of a possible future now played out in Australia. We have reached a tipping point. The legal framework both major parties have put in place since September 11, 2001, is handing victory to those who want to harm us, because all the new and amended national security and anti-terrorism laws are undermining our civil liberties and impeding our capability of keeping power to account. This is exactly what terrorists want — to make our democracy ill.
We need to review and amend the sections in our criminal codes that make it a crime for public servants to blow the whistle on maladministration and corruption. One example is Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. These sections are outdated, draconian and, frankly, not worthy of a mature liberal democracy.
We need to have an ongoing review of our national security and anti-terror laws. Once a year, we need to assess the threat level and ask the question: “Do we really need this level of power for the intelligence and security agencies?” If the answer is no, we need to roll back their powers. Amend the federal FOI law to include our spy and security agencies. That sends a signal of accountability and transparency.
We need a bill or charter of rights explicitly protecting our civil liberties such as freedom of speech and media freedom. If we can’t get a constitutional bill of rights through parliament, the second-best option is a media freedom Act. Either would be a way to get the national security and democratic freedom seesaw back in balance.
National security and anti-terror laws predominantly treats the symptoms of terrorism, but they do little to address the causes of terror. The causes are complex: rapidly growing economic divides, social alienation, a sense of being left behind and missing out on the benefits of globalisation. The Australian government needs to work on the causes of terrorism, rather than creating a web of laws.
With the ever-increasing power of mass surveillance, a future emerges where our governments (and corporations) know everything about us. A privacy continuum is emerging. One end is represented by China and other totalitarian states that are on the cusp of rolling out nationwide mass surveillance dragnets that renders privacy void. The other end is represented by states and regions that uphold privacy as a human and democratic right.
Australia seemingly is unable to make up its mind. The time has come to choose. Where do we want Australia to sit? This is a crucial call if we want Australia’s temperature to recover from the democratic flu.
Johan Lidberg is Associate Professor of Journalism at Monash University
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Premier must outline his plan so Melbourne can recover
As the community overwhelmingly complies with the Premier’s stage four restrictions, he must clearly outline his virus strategy so we can make plans to rebuild confidence and employment in our city, which right now is a ghost town, writes Jeff Kennett.