The onward march to fascism in Australasia

Australian bill sees whistleblowing on intel ops punishable by up to 10 years in jail

Australia’s attorney general has proposed a new bill which would see potential whistleblowers facing up to 10 years in prison for leaks on special intelligence operations.

RT,

16 July, 2014

Publishing Snowden-like revelations could cost dear in Australia after attorney general George Brandis presented to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security a new bill expanding powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO).

Australia’s attorney general George Brandis is known for labeling former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a “traitor” after a secret document reported by the Guardian Australia and obtained from Snowden last year revealed the Australian spy agency had been ready to share data on its citizens with its partners from the so-called 5-Eyes alliance (Australia, Britain, Canada New Zealand and the US).

The bill supposes the creation of a new offence for “any person” found guilty of disclosing “special intelligence operations” information, which would be five years behind bars.

“The five-year offence would seem to be able to apply even if the person had no idea about the special intelligence operation and they happened to release information which coincidentally was part of or related to the special intelligence operation,” leading Australian criminal law barrister Shane Prince commented to the Telegraph.

So a person could be put on trial for disclosing information on a “special intelligence operation” he never knew about – and would never get to know what the special intelligence operation was about during the trial, because it is an intelligence operation, that is – a secret one.

“I can’t see anything that would protect journalists,” said Green senator Scott Ludlam.

If the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation,” this person would be liable for a ‘liberal’ 10-year prison term, reported the Guardian.

On the contrary, the officers conducting those “special intelligence operations,” would become immune from liability or prosecution – because they need to be engaged in activities that would otherwise be considered unlawful.

Acting and retired intelligence officers and contractors would be put under a constant threat of newly created offences to prevent any unauthorized document disclosures. The amendments equal private contractors to intelligence operatives to make them subject to prosecution with a penalty of up to three years.

AFP Photo / Axel Heimken

Evidence of copying, transcribing, retaining or recording intelligence material is not required for these new penalties.

Instead of the previous two years in prison penalty for disclosing confidential information to a third party, the new penalty would be increased to 10 years.

The new clause covering security personnel “appears to be a clear attempt to stamp down on whistleblowers to avoid an Australian Ed Snowden,” commented Electronic Frontiers Australia chief executive Jon Lawrence.

“The fact that they’re making that illegal doesn’t necessarily stop a whistleblower though I think in the general context of what is a pretty extreme crackdown on whistleblowers generally,” Lawrence said.

The proposed legislation has been dubbed “troubling” by Australia’s leading criminal barrister and spokesman for Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns, who said that this “unprecedented clause” that would capture any media organization that reports on intelligence activities, be it WikiLeaks, the Guardian or the NYT.

“I thought the Snowden clause [in the bill] was bad enough but this takes the Snowden clause and makes it a Snowden/Assange/Guardian/New York Times clause,” Barns told The Guardian.

All the ASIO would need to do to prosecute journalists would be secretly declaring any case a “secret intelligence operation”, with an approval of the security director-general or deputy director-general required, said Barns who used to advise WikiLeaks and work on terrorism cases.

“Their own boss says, ‘I think we better call this a special intelligence operation, don’t you?’ ‘Yes, sir,’ close it down. The more you talk about it the more outrageous it becomes,” Barns said.

As for making intelligence officers immune from prosecution, Barns is positive that society would regard officers participating in operations that imply violation of law as abuses of power.

“In Australia we lack that fundamental human rights protection and therefore Brandis can get away with inserting a clause into a bill which you wouldn’t be able to do in the UK or in the US,” Barns said, stressing “It’s the sort of clause you’d expect to see in Russia or in China and in other authoritarian states but you don’t expect to see it in a democracy”.

Australia’s whistleblower legislation is already very tight, leaving only a narrow window for disclosure of intelligence information in public interest, argued the Guardian. The penalties proposed for such activities by the new legislation would ‘fill’ the existing gap and close the window altogether.

“When things go awry total secrecy is not desirable. When something is seriously awry whistleblowers play a vital role in the provision of good governance,” said the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks.

Australian MPs are set to debate the amendments presented by George Brandis in September.

The police give themselves different standards and it seems the pundits agree.

Fuck you, Chris Trotter!

Pursuit ends over alleged illegal spying

The Green Party says it has reached the end of the line with its pursuit of the Government's spy agency over illegal spying following a report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

Radio NZ,

17 July, 2014

The IPCA has found police were justified in not prosecuting any officers from the Government Communications Security Bureau for an illegal spying operation.

In September 2012, the Greens asked police to investigate whether any GCSB agents had committed a criminal offence, after it was revealed the agency's surveillance operation against internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, had been carried out illegally.

The report by the then Secretary of the Cabinet Rebecca Kitteridge, which was released in March 2013, found 56 possible operations in total, involving 88 individuals, where the GCSB may have spied on New Zealanders illegally.

Greens co-leader, Russel Norman, subsequently wrote to the Commissioner of Police asking that his complaint be widened to cover all cases of possible illegal spying in the past decade.

Last September, he laid a complaint with the IPCA, claiming police had been negligent in not pursuing charges against GCSB agents, in relation to the Kim Dotcom operation.

That operation was illegal because under the law, the agency was not allowed to spy on permanent residents, which Mr Dotcom was.

When police announced they wouldn't be laying any charges, they said it was because, while the spy agency staff did technically break the law, they didn't have criminal intent.

That has now been backed by the IPCA, which found police were justified in relying upon an absence of criminal intent in their decision not to prosecute.

No avenues left

Green Party co-leader, Russel Norman, said he is disappointed with the IPCA's findings. He said in practice there is now a double standard in New Zealand's legal system.

"Individual citizens who breach the Crimes Act can and will be prosecuted but when John Key's spies breach the Crimes Act, even the same section of the Crimes Act, they won't be prosecuted."

Mr Norman said there were now no avenues left to pursue the matter.

"We've kind of been through the system now you know. We originally put the letter to the police saying you should prosecute those who broke the law - the police said no we're not going to and the IPCA backed up the police so basically the system is impenetrable to justice."

In relation to the other cases identified by Rebecca Kitteridge, the IPCA found that because those cases involved metadata, and the law at the time around the interception of metadata was unclear, the police decision not to investigate was justified.

No accountability - Labour

The Labour Party says the lPCA's decision means no-one will be held responsible for the illegal spying operation, carried out on Kim Dotcom by the GCSB.

Labour's Grant Robertson says the decision will do nothing to restore public trust in the agency.

"Once again we don't have the level of accountability for the actions of the GCSB that New Zealanders want and that's been the problem throughout this process. The GCSB was involved in illegal spying. I'm not convinced the changes to the law have helped that - in facto the powers have expanded."

Police say matter closed

Police say they now consider the matter of whether or not they should have laid criminal charges against GCSB agents to be closed following the IPCA report.

They say they intend to make no further comment.

Postscript

Dotcom considering suing GCSB

Internet businessman Kim Dotcom is considering suing the Government's spy agency over illegal surveillance

Shame on Australia for allowing this to happen. Repealing the carbon tax (symbolicly ) will give Aussies $500 a year in the pocket but will cost the Earth

Judging by the number of Australians visiting this site it seems seems they could give a fuck!

Australia’s carbon tax has been axed as repeal bills clear the Senate

TONY Abbott’s great big election promise to dump what he called the great big carbon tax was finally delivered this morning after a Government ordeal of frustration and embarrassment.

News.com,

17 July, 2014

Mr Abbott did not wait long to share the news, releasing a statement titled “The Carbon Tax is gone!”.

“This is great news for Australian families and for our nation’s small businesses,” he said.

“At the election, the Coalition made a pledge: to scrap the carbon tax, stop the boats, get the Budget under control and build the roads of the 21st century. All these commitments were designed to help families.

“We are honouring our commitments to you and building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.”

He said it would save the average family $550 a year and the first benefits would be seen in coming power bills.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Mr Abbott had “embarrassed Australians” and that “history will judge Tony Abbott harshly for refusing to believe that action is needed on climate change.”

At a press conference Mr Shorten also said Labor would take an emissions trading scheme to the next election but would not back the Coalition’s Direct Action Scheme.

Mr Abbott hit back at this stance, saying: “Surely it’s time to accept Australian people don’t want a carbon tax”.

When asked whether he would rule out ever bringing in a carbon tax, Mr Abbott said that he not do anything that would harm Australia’s economy.

Negotiations with the Palmer United Party and other crossbench senators finally paid off for the Prime Minister with Labor’s price on carbon emissions dismantled.

The Senate voted 39-32 to scrap Labor’s carbon pricing scheme after securing the support of PUP senators and other crossbenchers.

Subdued applause from government senators greeted the result as the Abbott government finally delivered on its key election promise.

The vote followed days of protracted negotiations with Clive Palmer, who embarrassed the government last week by pulling his crucial support for the repeal at the last minute.

The three PUP senators and the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Ricky Muir gave the government four of the six crossbench votes it needed to abolish the tax.

Family First’s Bob Day and Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm - who also joined the cross bench on July 1 - rounded out the majority needed.

Another crossbencher, the DLP’s John Madigan, voted for the repeal.

Independent Nick Xenophon was not in the chamber for the vote. Labor and the Australian Greens opposed the repeal but didn’t have the numbers to save the scheme introduced by the Gillard government in 2012.

Mr Abbott says the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been given the funding and powers to ensure savings are passed on to consumers.

The Liberal Party has produced an advertisement promising “cheaper electricity, lower costs for small business and more jobs”.

Political editor Malcolm Farr tells us what to expect now the carbon tax has been repealed.

The repeal comes seven years to the day that another Liberal prime minister, John Howard, revealed a plan for an emissions trading scheme.

Greens leader Christine Milne made a last-minute plea to the crossbench telling them it was a “critical moment” for the nation. A vote to repeal was a vote for failure to address global warming, she warned.

“Australia will be relegated to a pariah and a backwater.”

Despite the threat of after-hours detention, senators did not rush to pass the amendment with debate going for hours yesterday.

“After about 40 hours of debate in relation to these measures in this place we still don’t have a resolution,” government Senate Leader Eric Abetz railed in question time yesterday.

The cabinet minister left to handle the filibuster was Mathias Cormann, who eventually stopped answering the onslaught of questions from irate opposition senators.

Labor dragged out the final debate stages with questions about the Palmer United Party’s amendment to ensure price cuts from the carbon tax repeal are passed fully onto consumers and businesses. The Greens took a similar line of questioning and quizzed the finance minister about the government’s promised $550 saving for households from the repeal of the carbon tax.

“We can go round and round in circles,” Senator Cormann said, invoking ire from his opponents.

The bills and amendments were also held up by backroom talks on a list of other bills to be brought on for debate before the Senate rises for a five-week break.

But the carbon pricing demolition — the third attempt to introduce the bill to the Senate since November — was the most satisfying outcome for the Government.

Soon big companies will stop paying a penalty on carbon emissions, currently just over $25 a tonne, ending Australia’s most controversial policy implementation since the 2003 decision to join the Iraq invasion.

The carbon price element will be removed from household electricity expenses, and power company bills will itemise the savings. New laws demand savings be passed on to customers or a utility would have to pay a fine equal to 250 per cent of the reduction.

Politically, the repeal allows Prime Minister Abbott to boast he has completed two of his three major election pledges — to “axe the tax” and to “stop the boats”. The third was to repair the Budget.

However, Mr Abbott could have problems fulfilling his full election vow, which was to axe the carbon price and lower electricity bills.

There are other factors pushing up power prices such as infrastructure investment and falling demand.

The Government might be duly embarrassed as electricity costs still go up despite the absence of the carbon price. Its promise that average households will be better off by $550 a year from a variety of savings could be wrecked.

The Government also has found to its distress over the past week that it cannot take the Palmer United Party and Clive Palmer for granted.