Australia May Be the World’s Most Secretive Democracy

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/world/australia/journalist-raids.html

by rfreytag • 7 years ago

207 143 7 years ago

“You’ve got a mature liberal democracy that pursues and hunts down whistle-blowers and tries to kill the messenger.”

Have we considered the possibility that this is what a mature liberal democracy looks like? Peak democracy was WWII, we seem to have been sliding towards authoritarianism since then.

paulryanrogers• 7 years ago

Peak for whom? WASPs?

vermilingua4• 7 years ago

For the liberal democracies of the time. I wasn’t there, so I can’t comment as to which specific demographic benefited the most from that.

seszett• 7 years ago

Maybe in the US, but most citizens of the other democracies at the time were neither anglo-saxon nor protestant.

You might say that they were at their peak for the majority of their population maybe, but I think that's the normal, intended outcome of democracy.

macspoofing5• 7 years ago

Peak democracy was WWII

uh... Do you mean the time just before WWII, when most European nations were either Fascist or Communist? Or do you mean the time just after WWII when all of Europe was destroyed?

vermilingua4• 7 years ago

The latter. It was a resounding victory for democracy, and it flourished all over the world for decades.

That being said, history is written by the victors.

linuxftw• 7 years ago

People always demand unchecked democracy because they always believe they're interests align with the majority. Why should everyone get a say? Why should anyone get a say?

I don't believe a legitimate democracy can have any power greater than the individual. To extrapolate, "The government may do x." If you replace 'government' with an individual, that is the guideline. For example 'Jose may tax your income.' Obviously, Jose may not do that.

Angostura• 7 years ago

Really sliding to authoritarianism since then?

Until 1968, every new play in Britain required a licence from the Lord Chamberlain's Office before it could be publicly performed. There was no legislation attached to this, so the Lord Chamberlain could censor as he chose.

Can you imagine introducing such a rule today? How about applying for a license before launching a website?

Theodores• 7 years ago

That law came in 1737 when there was a new theatre in town and satirists who dared to call the government silly things.

It was the moral panic of the time.

In 1959 we got the Obscene Publications Act and that got used quite a bit during the Thatcher years with a new moral panic - video nasties. Video nasties weren't just Chainsaw Massacre stuff they also had a thing to say about society.

Police raided quaint little video shops and did their best to enforce the law, sometimes getting it wrong, well, often getting it wrong.

This only encouraged the market in 'Video Nasties' so in 1984 they brought in a new law to get this moral panic under control.

You could say that the law had been updated for the medium of the era - VHS cassettes - and that they could not be bothered with the stage any more.

However, the stage is a public place, you have people congregate in an audience and they could be a dangerous rabble. In 2000 we got the Terrorism Act and that followed on from the Criminal Justice Act that had came along earlier in the 1990's to make it illegal for more than four people to get together to listen to 'repetitive beats'.

There are plenty of laws regarding what you can and cannot say online and people have been prosecuted for saying not so nice things on Facebook. You might not have to apply for a licence to run a website but that is not so enforceable when you could put your website online in a country far, far away.

Actual censorship has got a lot more refined over the decades. As has propaganda. A lot has gone on over the last twenty years of widescale internet usage, however it will be a while before we find out what this is.

SomeOldThrow2• 7 years ago

Aside from the absurdity of having a lord make any decisions, I think much of the population—maybe not a majority, but a significant part of the population—would be fine with that if presented as opposing or “preventing” terrorism (as if that’s even possible).

nroah2• 7 years ago

How about applying for a license before launching a website?

You don't have that, but in Germany and Austria you must include your full name and address in any website you publish, which creates sort of the same effect.

zzzcpan• 7 years ago

Have we considered the possibility that this is what a mature liberal democracy looks like?

It's not a mature liberal democracy, maybe it was one time. It's just that power always tries to acquire more power and obviously any not __perfectly__ designed political system will always end up authoritarian and undemocratic.

lordleft• 7 years ago

Plato explored this idea (that democracies are precursors to tyrannies - see Andrew Sullivan's article about this here: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donal...

maxxxxx4• 7 years ago

I think that’s a pretty natural progression. A well run dictatorship is probably superior to a democracy in the short term so it’s always tempting to give up freedom in exchange for efficiency. The question is how long the dictatorship can keep it up before going downhill.

gonzo41• 7 years ago

I'm going to hold myself back from writing a long post about Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp in Australia. Generally Australia is pretty free, even without explicit freedom of speech. The military is very competent and retrained in its actions, however in my life I've only seen an increase in nationalism related to the military. The right wing love to drape themselves in the flag and related militaria. I think the afghan war crimes by special forces should be of genuine public interest to Australians. And I think the application of Top Secret to government documents about these matters is the real problem. Its a problem for the public and democracy when you can use something like a Classification as way to cover up misdeeds.

I feel sorry for the guy going down for the leaks.

jacques_chester2• 7 years ago

I'm going to hold myself back from writing a long post about Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp in Australia

A NewsCorp journalist was the first to be raided.

dillonmckay• 7 years ago

Compulsory voting?

jakeogh2• 7 years ago

Outlawed silent protest, a base of any free society.

mikorym• 7 years ago

sliding towards authoritarianism

I think that we are at a time where there is more public input, whistle-blowing, outcry over corruption, democratic processes, and so forth than ever before in history.

I daresay that we are also at an information age; a time in which we can identify authoritarianism, and argue and critise it from the comfort of our couches and for the larger part without fear of death.

We should not confuse the matter: to think that the sum of our current challenges imply the lesser to be the sum of historic challenges.

germanlee• 7 years ago

How could peak democracy be ww2? The only significant democracy in ww2 was the US. British Empire, Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, China, etc were not democracies.

There was the US and everyone else was a non-democratic empire or a colony of the empire.

NedIsakoff3• 7 years ago

I've always said that freedom (liberalism) and democracy is actually unnatural. People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda. The problem is that we have different points of view or agendas.

Example: Look at New Zealand after the mass mosque shooting. People support the actions taking which include banning owning or reading the guy's manifesto. Owning it means up to 10 years in jail and/or up to $50,000 in fines.

i386• 7 years ago

The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other.

They are not morally equivalent positions. Stop treating them that way.

gdhbcc• 7 years ago

Expect they are morally equivalent because morality is relative and individual.

umvi• 7 years ago

"Safety" comes at the expense of freedoms, such as the freedom to read the shooter's manifesto. Whether or not you think the freedom/safety it is worth the trade off is you opinion, but you can't deny it's one step closer to total authoritarianism.

I've personally read a few shooter manifestos, including "My Twisted World", and don't see why it's a big deal to do so. I found it to be a fascinating insight into a world of mental illness I would never have imagined.

balfirevic• 7 years ago

Can you please explain what positions do you think are being treated as equivalent in the parent comment?

kryogen1c• 7 years ago

The big difference between those point of views is that one is about letting people live safely within secular society and the other is the violent murder of the other.

You want to believe this is black and white, but its not. There is no more blurry line in existence.

Actively promoting murder? Eliminate free speech for that, threw em in jail. But what about promoting violence? Violent protests? What about rape, is that worthy of eliminating free speech? What if a high schooler is bullied and then commits suicide? What about microaggressions that make people feel uncomfortable and like they may be in danger? What about people born without advantages that change their chances of "success" from 60% to 10%? Are you actively promoting death and suffering by purposefully ignoring the homeless people you walk by?

homonculus1• 7 years ago

I don't think your parent was making any such moral equivocation. Authoritarianism aligned with $my_ideology is a terrible thing, but it does seem like a fair number people would actually be most comfortable with that and liberal democracy is just a token, socially acceptable icon. They may not even realize that if they had their way on every issue it would amount to an authoritarian regime.

To put it differently, how many people are actually championing individual rights for every issue?

ceejayoz3• 7 years ago

A tolerant society requires a certain level of intolerance towards actors who'd abuse that tolerance to implement intolerance. (Phew!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

jddj• 7 years ago

Interesting. But how do you reconcile the many counter-examples?

Pointing to an incident in time is fine, but someone could just as easily point to the US bill of rights, the general trend over time towards personal liberties in the West (women voting, marriage equality, voluntary assisted death was just passed in one Australian state), et cetera.

Whether one or the other is natural seems hard to establish. A more reasonable claim might be that people with power generally seek to attain more (and are in a position to attain more), and the end result of that is authoritarianism.

Of course, it's more nuanced than that too. For instance the current Australian government get a lot for free since keeping people afraid enough that they tolerate the powergrabs also happens to pay for Rupert Murdoch's empire, and keeping him happy is as straightforward as maintaining a standard neoliberal trickle-down economic agenda.

It could be that we oscillate between authoritarianism and democracy/libertarianism on a multi-generational x-axis simply because nothing is perfect and our cultural memories are so short.

Aromasin2• 7 years ago

Your comment made me chuckle.

People want authoritarian governments we have different points of view or agendas

You say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency.

To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]. Humans are adaptable, and we adapt our governance depending on the times. In times of war we might pick a dictator. In times of peace we might pick a democracy. In times of fear we often find ourselves in an autocracy. In times of religious ferverence we chose theocracy. Just as a human seems to be able to thrive on a number of diets, we thrive on a number of ways of group governance. I highly recommend to everyone to read "Pathways to Freedom: Political and Economic Lessons From Democratic Transitions." It's a bit text-booky, but there are some great case studies as to why various new governments have gone various different paths, and why democracy has blossomed in some places but failed in others, as has authoritarianism.

In the words of Alexandre Dumas Pere - "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one."

I my opinion the main reason we're seeing authoritarianism seemingly increase in popularity is because fear in the media has become so profitable. It distorts our perception of reality. We can be in a wealthy, 1st world society with all our basic needs met, however if we're told constantly in a barrage of information everyday that everything is going wrong - regardless of the fact that as the individual or group there could easily be almost nothing objectively going wrong in their life - they'll believe that they're on the brink of destruction and that the only way out is to adapt to an authoritarian government that will "sort everything out". The old phrase "what they don't know won't hurt them" comes to mind.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...

NedIsakoff3• 7 years ago

"To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]." - It is natural, people want authoritarianism naturally. They just want the authoritarian rules or person to follow their point of view or agenda. Look at the list and see how many replaced one authoritarian with another authoritarian. Or the resolution was authoritarian.

"You say both say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency." -- I never said everyone wanted one thing. My comment was that most people would prefer a more authoritarian government that agreed with their point of view or agenda.

close04• 7 years ago

While I don’t fully agree with the OP there is a grain of truth there. And I don’t see the contradiction you do: the point is people want a regime that supports their own views, that’s clear. But that’s not enough, the regime must also quash every other competing view so theirs stays unthreatened. Meaning an authoritarian regime.

But of course as a supporter one would not see it as such. Many people honestly don’t realize the authoritarian part until their interests no longer align and the regime targets them too.

Nasrudith• 7 years ago

What people want? The whole bloody point of authoritarianism is that it doesn't care about what people want! It being "wanted" is deeply artificial from repressing the opposition and manufacturing support.

It brings to mind jokes that people should nobody should ever listen to monarchists because that is what they want - their opinion on government to not matter.

flukus• 7 years ago

People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda

People want a stable life to raise their family, they want stable work, stable housing and enough cash left over to enjoy life with family and friends. They will vote for whoever appeals to that and lately it seems to be only the authoritarian leaders that give a fuck.

sammorrowdrums• 7 years ago

I really feel the loss of moral authority is much bigger risk than it seems.

It creates the perfect propaganda for enemies when you criticize what they do and it's hard to see it perpetuating anything but a race to the bottom.

rchaud2• 7 years ago

The usual targets of the Australian government's finger-wagging are far past the point of caring. Maybe that's a sign that Australia can implement more of a "show, not tell" model when they talk up their implementation of democracy.

The country's mining and minerals sector is heavily dependent on exports to China, while its real estate sector would wouldn't be nearly as rich as it is without foreign capital from Asia's 1%, many of whom are involved in political parties the Australian government routinely excoriates.

This has been the case for a long time; it's only now that it's all out in the open.

degenerate• 7 years ago

Australia is a member of the "Five Eyes": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

From what I understand, Australia, Canada, NZ, UK, and USA intelligence agencies can all spy on each others' citizens legally and share the information with each other. That's not the intent of the agreement, but allows a loophole where the countries can spy on their own citizens by proxy. Correct?

vermilingua4• 7 years ago

Correct, compounded by the passing of the AABill last year. Australian agencies can now intercept any communications in Australia, including foreign entities that operate in Australia. We are yet to see whether any foreign corp will deny such a request (but they come with inbuilt gag order so we may never know).

JoeSmithson2• 7 years ago

Five Eyes nations basically agree to not spy on each other's citizens and instead (potentially) agree to accept targets suggested by each other, and then feed back the resulting intelligence.

The text of the original agreement was released to the public recently but annoyingly you have to pay for it. This article[0] has an overview though;

The two nations – linked by common bonds of history, culture and language – agreed not to collect intelligence against each other

Consider also the quote at the end of this article[1]:

France wouldn't be welcome in the "Five Eyes" alliance in any case, a former top US official told SPIEGEL ONLINE: "Germany joining would be a possibility, but not France -- France itself spies on the US far too aggressively for that."

i.e. it is a prerequisite of joining the agreement that you stop any spying on other members' citizens.

Basically, if you are American, then only the FBI (or DEA or whatever) can intercept your phone calls, and they can only do this with a warrant from an American court, they may however, get this warrant based on intelligence supplied by ASIS, (in a way) at Australia's "request".

The main point is, Five Eyes is not a mechanism for those countries to side step their own internal legal requirements for surveillance - it is essentially the opposite.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/25/intelligence-d...

[1] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-impedes-...

opportune• 7 years ago

But the US does spy on Germany so not sure how that would work

frickinLasers• 7 years ago

This is an interpretation I haven't seen before, so thanks for broadening my understanding. But the intent of the agreement doesn't appear to agree with some of the ways we know it's been used, especially since 2007 and between the UK and US.

US offers the UK information on its own citizens: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...

Pre-2007: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/10/nsa-offers-...

UK taps undersea cable to listen to US-UK communications (not sure whose laws/sovereignty are not being violated here): http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/uk-usa-security-bri...

Edit: On topic with the OP, though, Australia happily spies and divulges information on its own innocent citizens: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/revealed-austr...

hirundo• 7 years ago

Democracies from the United States to the Philippines are increasingly targeting journalists to ferret out leaks, silence critics and punish information sharing — with President Trump leading the verbal charge by calling journalists “the enemy of the people.”

It's interesting that they felt the need to qualify this as Trump leading the _verbal_ charge. But there's quite a distance between insulting and prosecuting journalists.

Trump's worse sin in this area isn't throwing around charges of fake news, but advocating for lower standards of proof in slander and libel cases. Hopefully Congress will never send him such a bill to sign. In my opinion another such demerit comes from this administration's continuing of the last's pursuit of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

What other suppression of journalism by this administration am I missing?

The Obama administration had some worse black marks in this area with his use of the Espionage Act to prosecute Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden.

I think Rand Paul would have been more pro free-speech on this issue, but who in the current crop of candidates could be relied upon to keep their mitts off the press?

robkop• 7 years ago

I hate what is happening here but I'm not sure what can be done about it. It seems that security/ whistleblowers etc will always have a lower importance than the major campaign issues of the day.

And because of this it seems like no party should ever be bothered to push for what's in the voters best interests on these topics. Instead it only makes sense for politicians to push for what is personally best for them in these cases.

I'm not sure what the solution to this is or even if I fully understand the problem but this appears fundamentally wrong to me.

marcus_holmes2• 7 years ago

Because the last election was won "miraculously" by the party deliberately having a policy of not having a policy on anything, I think the next couple of decades will see more of the same. All the parties will stop publishing any kind of policy details, and it'll be fought on personalities and "how good is security?".

We're basically waiting for the boomers to die off at this point, before being able to fix the shit they left behind.

twanvl• 7 years ago

We're basically waiting for the boomers to die off at this point, before being able to fix the shit they left behind.

Where does idea that all problems in modern society are the fault of the baby boomers come from? We are talking about a very diverse group of people, with very diverse sets of ideas, as are the generations after them.

rchaud2• 7 years ago

Boomers dying off won't automatically create large-scale changes you're expecting. I've been hearing that social conservatism will decrease once the boomers are gone, but that doesn't explain why thousands of young men get turned on to highly conservative views on the Internet by somebody looking into a webcam.

As long as humanity exists, there will be other humans who can and will exploit their fears and insecurities to gain power and influence for themselves.

maxxxxx4• 7 years ago

“We're basically waiting for the boomers to die off at this point, before being able to fix the shit they left behind.”

Don’t rely on the next generation to be any better. The brightest and best of the new generation are busy selling ads and creating total surveillance systems. I don’t see much improvement.

zmmmmm2• 7 years ago

There's an alternative possibility that the Labor party reflects on its strategy and realises that shadowing every single thing the government did on national security didn't actually win them any credit with voters in the end.

chris_wot• 7 years ago

Now hold on a moment. They are saying that The Daily Telegraph lost a defamation suit because they can be easily sued... that is not exactly true. The issue here is that a News Limited publication - one with a reputation for smearing people, inaccuracy, bias and essentially a political mouthpiece of the conservative LNP - was not able to substantiate the claims made in their story.

Everything else is pretty spot on, unfortunately.

sjy3• 7 years ago

Regardless of whether you agree with the outcome in that case, Australia's defamation laws are more plaintiff-friendly than those of countries like the US and UK, and have been subject to criticism for years [1], independent of the more recent debate over national security laws.

[1] https://theconversation.com/social-media-and-defamation-law-...

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-defamation-laws-...

NamTaf3• 7 years ago

These raids have been highly condemned amongst the public here, and (at least my echo-chamber of) people seem to be pretty wholly against it.

Of course, we're also an apathetic people because we've had it so good for so long that no one will force any change, and it'll just keep getting worse.

It's also seen in our elections. There's no big visions. No bold statements from politicians about producing changes to make a better society. It's all attack ads and pandering to key demographics just to win votes and stay in government.

It's depressing and dire, because I don't see it changing in much of my lifetime and it's the exact reason why our leaders are completely dismissive of action even when we stare down the barrel towards issues like climate change. Hell, our current PM literally brought a lump of coal into parliament as a prop to taunt the opposition by saying "this is coal, don't be afraid".

edit: Another great example of the apathy I'm talking about is the collective shrug that most Aussies gave as incredibly intrusive anti-encryption and data-logging laws were introduced last year. Simply, no one cares unless it immediately and directly interrupts their middle-class suburban lifestyle.

dantheman• 7 years ago

I think in general 'big visions' are pretty bad and dangerous -- they're what get you the anit-encryption data logging laws. In general things are pretty good and so anyone making radical changes would most likely move in a worse direction.

NamTaf3• 7 years ago

I really don't classify the anti-encryption data logging laws as a big vision. To me, they're the continuation of the erosion of Australia's (somewhat implied) privacy rights. They were one of the bigger single moves in that space recently, but I by no means see it as a 'big vision' change.

iliketosleep3• 7 years ago

I am curious about why you think climate change is an important issue in Australia. It's a relatively small country, without much of a manufacturing industry.

aplummer2• 7 years ago

40% of the worlds coal and new mining in a place called the Galilee basin and shipping it to India. I think if they mine the whole thing it can create 1deg of warming just by itself.

sjy3• 7 years ago

Australia is a globally influential country with high per capita wealth and emissions. Australia has the capacity to show leadership to other similarly-sized countries, by incrementally addressing (potentially at economic cost to itself, a wealthy country) a global challenge for which everyone is responsible, regardless of the size of the country they live in.

NamTaf3• 7 years ago

Because we are a regional leader. The pacific islands most affected by climate change look to us and go 'you are rich and have the means to lead by example. Why aren't you?' and that's a valid criticism.

Or, in other better words than my own, exactly what sjy's sibling comment said.

edit: Climate change is a quintessential tragedy of the commons. It really should be our obligation to lead by example since we have the capacity to, even if our actions in isolation do not make a sufficient enough change. In fact, I'd argue that taking a lead on it is in our best interest. It helps to cement our position as a regional leader and exapnds our soft power, which is the best way we can hold regional influence outsized to our comparitively small population.

eli_gottlieb• 7 years ago

Because they catch fire every summer.

SomeOldThrow2• 7 years ago

Because it’s everyone’s problem. Nobody gets a pass.

erentz• 7 years ago

Another great example of the apathy I'm talking about is the collective shrug

Talking about collective shrugs and apathy, I am still absolutely stunned by the complete apathy to half of the Great Barrier Reef dying. Here is this absurdly massive natural icon of Australia featured in all of its tourism ads while growing up. Half of it dies. And majority Australia basically doesn’t give a fuck. There’s no outrage. Nothing.

ianhowson2• 7 years ago

It gets regular media coverage in the US but practically nothing in Australia. I don't understand why this is.

dwd2• 7 years ago

There's no collective shrug - unfortunately the inner city outrage becomes self-serving ignorance the further north you go.

Mining jobs have always paid better, and no one want's to change careers to work in tourism or reskill for supporting sustainable energy.

Places like Gladstone have seen a 50% collapse in property prices after a lot of mines shifted from construction to operational and demand dropped.

That same self-serving ignorance has now kept people like Peter "he who would be king" Dutton in Government.

It's not all bad though as there's currently money to be made in mine regeneration projects as mines are closed which is a good thing for jobs with hopefully environmental benefits.

Balgair2• 7 years ago

For non-Australian readers, there is one very important thing to note about Australian elections and democracy: voting is mandatory under penalty of an $80 AUS fine and occurs on Saturdays.

In US federal elections, turnout is about 55%. Whereas in Australian federal elections turnout is about 90% [0].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/world/australia/compulsor...

lugg• 7 years ago

Does that not just make it harder for informed opinions sway outcomes?

Or on the flip side does it actually make it harder to use a small subset of the population to steal an election from an apathetic population at large.

I.e. you'd still be able to take advantage of the apathy but it'd be a much slower moving change towards extremes and polarisation which is pretty good for democracy in general.

aussieguy1234• 7 years ago

This means there will be no Trump for Australia

clarkmoody• 7 years ago

Politics has always been attacks and pandering. The only time you get really grand vision is before & during war, and that usually has the worst outcomes for the most people, including permanent loss of liberty when the whole thing is said and done.

bigger_cheese• 7 years ago

It's really interesting I remember in the 90's when I was a kid during the height of the Australian republican movement there were ads on tv celebrating our democratic traditions "Our Country was founded by a vote, not a war" and all that.

Seems to me like the Coalition has done a really solid job of wedging Labor on National security to the point now they can introduce increasingly draconian laws and the second Labor speaks out against them suddenly Labor are "weak on national security" so they don't dare go against them.

Does anyone remember the Ads about terrorism they used to show on tv advising Australian's to "Be Alert not Alarmed" (I'm not kidding these actually aired) the government has done a really good job of conjuring up this atmosphere of fear whether it be terrorism, cybercrime or refugees and most recently "China" the electorate has responded to it ever time.

The Last politician I was excited about was Kevin Rudd when he stood up and declared climate change "was the moral challenge of a generation" mind you this was in 2007. He then promptly walked away from doing anything after he realized it would cost him votes, I've been completely cynical about politics in this country ever since.

exAus• 7 years ago

As an ex Australian, left well before the current situation/ malaise. Still informed well. >These raids have been highly condemned amongst the public here, and (at least my echo-chamber of) people seem to be pretty wholly against it.

Yes there seems to be some distaste among the public, its been a significant story. But people that really care about it are in your and our echo-chamber. This has happen before and will happen again, it is clear they are emboldened, there was just a big election, the good guy were going to win and then they didn't...

Of course, we're also an apathetic people because we've had it so good for so long that no one will force any change, and it'll just keep getting worse.

Yes Australia implemented some pretty bad economic policies, yet very little of it has come due, some of it is because of our/your big seemingly kindly neighbour to the north, but well all pay eventually it will just be later.

It's also seen in our elections. There's no big visions. No bold statements from politicians about producing changes to make a better society. It's all attack ads and pandering to key demographics just to win votes and stay in government.

Or stay out of government. Labour screamed harder about non existing terrorism. Promised to crap even harder on immigrants. They then went on to lose a completely unlosable election. You won't win in 2019 even if your Tony Blair. Sure as hell not with Ed Milliband... The economic policies was OK, if you read an economic professors blog. Quite incoherent. Raising taxes without raising anyone's taxes, huh? Not dumbed down, just dumb. To little to late. I can go on forever. They thought they were going to win anyway, so who really cares? And then they didn't.

Hell, our current PM literally brought a lump of coal into parliament as a prop to taunt the opposition by saying "this is coal, don't be afraid". They are quite gleefully mocking you, they are enjoying themselves and this very much, they are "owning the libs" like never before.

marsRoverDev• 7 years ago

I have seen rusted on voters from both sides of the aisle condemning this. The government's mistake was raiding a News Corp journo - they have absolutely no-one on side on this issue now.

ptah• 7 years ago

quite interesting: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/...

dontbenebby3• 7 years ago

The article says it's illegal for a government official to share info without a supervisor's permission... but is there a law saying publishing classified info is illegal?

In the states, we make that distinction.

yitchelle• 7 years ago

What would be difference between sharing and publishing, from a legal perspective?

dontbenebby3• 7 years ago

I think usually the idea is you prosecute the person who steals the information, but if they pass it to another person who publishes, that person can't be prosecuted.

If the same person stole and published I'd expect they could still be prosecuted.

But others resharing it, (eg if someone posted a pastebin and others shared) would not.

throwaway846657• 7 years ago

In the US the distinction is made so that journalists exposing misdeeds from people in power cannot be prosecuted since the value of the information is too high for the public.

shakna• 7 years ago

The police raids, which are still too newly performed to be definitive about, appear to be hunting for the original sources. No charges have been leveled against the journalists involved, yet.

It took them years to suddenly care to hunt for these sources, so the whole situation is... Odd.

sjy3• 7 years ago

Julian Assange hasn't been charged with 'publishing classified information' either. In both Australia and the US you can be prosecuted for participating in another's crime of leaking classified information. The question is, what qualifies as participation (aiding, conspiracy, etc), and is there an express or implied exception for the activities of the publisher in question?

dontbenebby3• 7 years ago

Sadly it's not surprising to me that a culture that prides itself on cutting down "tall poppies" pushes back against whistleblowers.

I am more and more convinced each day that the true stuggle of our order is that of freedom versus order, not any particular ideology.

Those who favor order inevitably feel it's reasonable to cut back on freedoms to increase order, and don't seem to be able to acknowledge that a truly free society cannot be risk free.

surge• 7 years ago

I didn't realize Secret City was mostly social/political commentary.

ianhowson2• 7 years ago

Like House of Cards, it was intended as fiction but rapidly became difficult to differentiate from reality.

Australia May Be the World’s Most Secretive Democracy

Related Stories