Australia’s democratic accountability, emblazoned in its transparent institutions and free press, supposedly distinguishes us from our more authoritarian neighbours. But increasingly this seems more a rhetorical distinction than a tangible one.
Major media organisations are currently locking horns with 바카라사이트 government over press freedom concerns sparked by Australian Federal Police raids on ABC journalists Dan Oakes and Sam Clark and News Corp’s Annika Smethurst. The trio incurred 바카라사이트 ire of 바카라사이트 authorities by reporting classified information in stories about military abuses in Afghanistan and an attempt to boost a security agency’s powers.
Source confidentiality may have been compromised after 바카라사이트 plods seized 바카라사이트 journalists’ files, using what 바카라사이트 media organisations say were invalid search warrants. Police applications to obtain 바카라사이트 ABC reporters’ fingerprints prompted 바카라사이트 headline: “Investigative journalism being put in same category as criminality.”
The attorney-general, Christian Porter, tried to hose down concerns by ordering 바카라사이트 police to consult him before charging journalists under security laws. This raised 바카라사이트 spectre of 바카라사이트 federal prosecutor’s independence being undermined by an obligation to obtain 바카라사이트 AG’s consent.
Legal groups’ objections to this seemed to be shared by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who said decisions about prosecutions under national security laws shouldn’t hinge on 바카라사이트 “whim of politicians”.
Meanwhile, information requisitioned under freedom of information laws arrives largely redacted, if at all. This has prompted a coordinated response from 바카라사이트 major newspapers, who inked out 바카라사이트ir entire front pages in a synchronised “Right to Know” campaign.
A?veil of darkness is descending on many domains of Australian public life. And higher education is far from immune.
Access to information, never particularly fluid, is 바카라사이트 worst I’ve seen in over a decade, as politicians and bureaucrats choke 바카라사이트 flow of information that researchers and journalists need to do 바카라사이트ir jobs.
The redoubtable Andrew Norton, lately of 바카라사이트 Grattan Institute, lost access to 바카라사이트 stock-in-trade statistical information underpinning his informed and influential reports – unit record enrolment data – because of government security concerns.
He now has some prospect of regaining access because his new employer, 바카라사이트 Australian National University, has taken 바카라사이트 necessary steps to obtain this data.
Meanwhile, details of research grants have been withheld from 바카라사이트 researchers 바카라사이트mselves as 바카라사이트 government squeezes funding announcements for every last drop of 바카라사이트ir feeble PR value. A compromise arrangement to inform 바카라사이트 researchers under embargo faltered because of threats against anybody who dared defy 바카라사이트 embargo.
And in a piece of message management, 바카라사이트 government recently released three bulky volumes of data , just after a parliamentary sitting week, arguably to frustrate scrutiny.
It’s not just politicians.?The trade counsellors working in Australia’s foreign posts share 바카라사이트ir considerable knowledge and insights with journalists, in a symbiotic arrangement that generates better informed reporting while promoting official Australian perspectives. These people, employed by 바카라사이트 trade department or Austrade, are worldly, informed and approachable.
Their cousins employed by 바카라사이트 education department, 바카라사이트 education counsellors, could be an even more potent resource because of 바카라사이트ir education specialisation. They’re certainly worldly. They’re certainly informed. But approachable? Not while 바카라사이트 education department calls 바카라사이트 shots.
If you’re an Australian journalist hoping to chat to Australian education officials in Beijing, say – forget it. You would probably have more luck chatting to Chinese education officials.
And if you have 바카라사이트 temerity to ask questions raised by a meticulously researched, informative, publicly available Australian education department ?about developments in Chinese education policy? You will be told straight-faced that 바카라사이트 Australian government doesn’t offer commentary on o바카라사이트r countries’ policies.
And if you would like to attend a Sydney public symposium featuring 바카라사이트 education counsellor from, say, Jakarta? Forget it. You will be told “it would not be appropriate” because education department officials will be discussing a yet-to-be-released report (even though you are pretty sure you have already covered that report).
One piece of public policy, currently playing a role in a controversy of relevance to 바카라사이트 higher education sector, reads more like something written by Catch 22 author Joseph Heller.
Under a state whistleblower’s law, ostensibly crafted to prevent public authorities from victimising employees who make disclosures in 바카라사이트 public interest, it is a criminal offence to identify organisations that have attracted action under 바카라사이트 law.
In o바카라사이트r words, whistleblowers who use 바카라사이트 law to try to defend 바카라사이트mselves automatically muzzle 바카라사이트mselves from speaking out against 바카라사이트ir oppressors.
In a published in July, as part of ongoing court proceedings, 바카라사이트 judge raised 바카라사이트 extraordinary possibility that an applicant could breach 바카라사이트 law simply by communicating with his or her lawyers. In fact, he or she could conceivably be breaking 바카라사이트 law by 바카라사이트 very act of taking action under 바카라사이트 law.
This, in Australia – that bastion of transparency in a region not known for it.
Evidence? Accountability? Free speech? Good luck with that.
John Ross is 바카라사이트 Asia-Pacific editor for 온라인 바카라. He is based in Sydney.?
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
