Seemorerocks: Extreme surveillance of journalist reporting on government corruption

Tuesday, 11 June 2019

Extreme surveillance of journalist reporting on government corruption

I don't see ANYTHING like this sort of discussion anywhere in the New Zealand media. They can talk about Australia but not about the internal situation here.

Australian Federal Police admits extreme surveillance on reporter, setting off media freedom row

ABC,

14 April, 2019

MARK COLVIN: Last year the Government asked Australians to trust its new metadata laws and promised extra protections for journalists to protect their sources.

Now the Australian Federal Police have admitted scouring the metadata of a journalist's phone and emails, meaning the details of who he spoke to or wrote to without a warrant.

Their aim was to identify and prosecute the journalist's sources.

The police were acting at the behest of the Immigration Department boss, Mike Pezzullo.

He wanted to know who leaked a story to the Guardian that revealed a Customs vessel had entered far deeper into Indonesian waters than previously disclosed.

The Media Union says Australians should be angry and worried.

Peter Lloyd.

PETER LLOYD: The Guardian's National Security writer Paul Farrell follows the Federal Police on twitter.

Until a few days ago, he could only guess at the lengths the AFP goes to monitor anyone he was talking to and emailing.

PAUL FARRELL: The police were going through potentially my phone records and potentially my email records, it's just a really chilling thought. I have no idea whether they've used this data in subsequent investigations or whether they've secured this data in a safe way.

I mean they literally know a huge amount about my personal life now.

PETER LLOYD: Paul Farrell had upset powerful people before. But two years ago, the Head of the Immigration Department Mike Pezzullo had the authority to get the police to take steps that seem sinister and disturbing.

PAUL FARRELL: It actually first emerged about six months after we broke the story in October 2014, and it came up through senate estimates curiously, when there was a question on notice response that had it.

I was actually really shocked. I remember looking at those documents and thinking, this is extraordinary. There's a police investigation into this story I've done.

And over the next year and half I decided to do a lot more reporting on that and I got a lot more documents about a whole bunch of other leaked investigations into asylum seeker investigations.

And then eventually I requested under the Privacy Act details of police files they held on me.

PETER LLOYD: It's not clear if the federal police even intended to reveal the examination of Paul Farrell's metadata.

They included the phrase for it, subscriber check, in a mandatory submission to the Privacy Commissioner after the Guardian's complaint.

PAUL FARRELL: A subscriber check is a very well know phrase in law enforcement circles and any sort of crime commission documents and federal police documents that are online will very clearly disclose that that's exactly what it means. It's a metadata request.

PETER LLOYD: Do you reckon they meant to put that in there or was that a mistake?

PAUL FARRELL: I really do wonder whether it was deliberate or whether perhaps someone did make a little bit of a mistake, because I was quite surprised that they would make that admission, because that's essentially the kind of information that they were refusing to release to me.

PETER LLOYD: Either way, the media union says it's a low water mark in the presumed freedoms of Australia's media workers.

Paul Murphy is CEO of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

PAUL MURPHY: It's just an absolute disgrace. It comes on top of the revelation earlier this year that the AFP had a 200 page file on Paul Farrell in relation to his legitimate public interest reporting. It's yet another example of how press freedom is in decline in this country.

Look I don't hold the AFP entirely to blame here. Unfortunately this is part of a growing situation in Australia where the first reaction to a legitimate public interest news story is not to examine the content of it, to examine the public policy implications of it.

The first reaction is how did this come to light, how can we prevent this sort of information coming to light in the future.

PETER LLOYD: When the AFP ran its checks on Paul Farrell, it didn't need a warrant. Since last year, it does. But so what, says Paul Farrell.

PAUL FARRELL: And I hope it's actually a game changer in Australia because I think that journalists and news organisations collectively need to do so much more to push back against some of these threats.

PETER LLOYD: Even with their snooping, it seems the police failed to find the source.

Neither the Attorney-Generals department nor Mike Pezzullo's media office responded to PMs questions on whether they stand by the decision to mount a witch hunt.

The media union's Paul Murphy is writing to the Prime Minister to demand the Government revisit legal protection for reporters abandoned a year ago.

As for the public servant, Mike Pezzullo.

PAUL MURPHY: They are public servants, they should be answerable to the Government. The Government has to be held to account in this situation.

MARK COLVIN: Paul Murphy form the media union ending Peter Lloyd's story. The AFP has said in a statement that it failed to find the Guardian’s source.