
Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case - abritishguy
https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/?gag
======
eng_monkey
I have no doubt that Australia has significant higher levels of fraud and
corruption than what is usually perceived by society. The problem is that the
press here reports virtually nothing, probably as a consequence of the strange
defamation and libel laws that we have.

As an example, I have witness of two significant cases of fraud in the last 5
years. In the first, a lawyer stole more than $2 million from trust accounts.
The second was a professor from a major university who misused close to $100K
from grants. In both cases, the matters were dealt with internally (returning
money, compensating victims, etc.) and no single piece of information about
this went to the press.

~~~
RoryH
Might the lack of reporting also be Rupert Murdoch related?

~~~
Tloewald
Murdoch is perhaps less powerful in Australia than in the US. In the early
days, Murdoch went for the world, while Kerry Packer (now dead) went for the
Australian market. AFAIK major Australian papers and news outlets are largely
independent of Murdoch.

~~~
satori99
This is not true at all. News Corp owns 7 of the 12 major daily papers and
sells close to 70% of all the newspapers sold in Australia. Murdoch is known
to keep a close editorial eye on the Australian market, paticularly The
Australian, his pet loss-making broadsheet.

~~~
Tloewald
Thanks for the info (I've been out of Australia for ten years). The fact
remains that Australia still has quite a few solid independent papers (the SMH
and Age) and two real public broadcasters (ABC and SBS).

Even though Murdoch doesn't own as large a proportion of the US market, I
think his effect on the media here is actually worse than I ever found it to
be in Australia (mainly owing to Fox News and the awfulness of its
alternatives).

~~~
satori99
Fairfax isn't too bad here, but it's getting worse. They are shedding
journalists and photographers at an alarming rate. Their online offereings are
becoming more click-baity every week.

The ABC and SBS have both had their funding slashed and are in the middle of a
poltical ideology shitstorm, with many serious people (MP's & senators from
the coalition) calling for a complete governace overhaul or even selling off
both of them.

Recently the ABC won a coveted license to be able to provide an english
langauge news service inside China. The incoming goverment scrapped it
completely because they don't like it's perceived anti-conservative bias.

------
fblp
From the article: - The court made this order to:

"\- prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused
by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified
individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. These
orders are made on the grounds that they are:

\- necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper
administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably
available means; and

\- necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in
relation to national security. "

The court would be very careful about making such orders and Australia has one
of the strongest separations between the courts and the government. This means
that the decision is likely to be made for fair administration of justice
rather than for political reasons.

~~~
NamTaf
Cute that you say that we have one of the strongest separations between courts
and the government, given what Queensland's government has been doing to the
court system here. There's been a fair bit of press [1],[2] about the friction
between the current government and the court system, due to the state
government trying to bend the courts to suit their political desires (examples
include the election of an allegedly biased chief justice, the VLAD laws).

I'd agree with you normally, but it seems that the federal government is
following the Queensland state government's lead in trying to manipulate the
courts to their favour. I dearly hope we see some stronger push-back against
that though because the separation of courts and government is one of the best
things about this country.

[1]: [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-
cam...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/queensland-premier-campbell-
newman-makes-major-policy-changes/5611970)

[2]: [http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-
quits-o...](http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/barrister-quits-over-
carmody-appointment-process-20140613-zs7ds.html)

~~~
jacques_chester
There's more than one court system in Australia; the order above was
apparently made under Victorian jurisdiction.

------
hadoukenio
And with that, I just made my first WikiLeaks donation.

------
femto
The Australian media is dutifully reporting on an organisation that I will
leave nameless.

[http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-
unprecede...](http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-
unprecedented-secret-australian-court-suppression-order-20140730-zyc6m.html)

------
jpatokal
This appears to be about the Reserve Bank of Australia/Securency corruption
scandal, which has already been all over the Australia media since 2009? Given
the recent dates, though, apparently there's some juicy info in the affadavit
(which was _not_ released) that hasn't been leaked to the press yet.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rba-officials-face-
par...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rba-officials-face-
parliament/4400664)

------
zmmmmm
It's interesting how transparently self contradictory the document is. Clause
5 simply says:

    
    
        > The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to
        > Australia's international relation...
    

In other words, the entire purpose is political. However this was obviously
insufficient grounds, so the next clause says:

    
    
        > These orders are made on the grounds that they are:
        >
        > necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to
        > the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by
        > other reasonably available means; and necessary to prevent
        > prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to
        > national security.
    

So suddenly it is about "justice" and "national security". So the suppression
order to suppress corruption is corrupt itself, and doesn't really even try to
hide it, safe in the knowledge that it, itself, is supressed.

~~~
jacques_chester
The law is a mechanism, not a policy.

Her Honour made the order according to law in her best judgement. You might
not agree with the Commonwealth seeking the order, you might not agree with
her reasoning.

But it is very silly to seriously propose that you've found a Hollywood-
villain judge who is being deliberately evil.

If you don't like the decisions judges make, you need to talk to your MP about
getting the law changed. Then the judges will make different decisions in
accordance with the updated laws. That is how our system works.

~~~
coldtea
> _But it is very silly to seriously propose that you 've found a Hollywood-
> villain judge who is being deliberately evil._

"Hollywood-villain judge who is being deliberately evil"?

There are tons of corrupt judges in most countries, including a huge
percentage of judgdes that function in favor of this or that political party.
It's utterly naive to think that a judge that rules in favor of a
multinational / government etc because of interests (from being appointed by
said government to direct bribery), is so uncommon as to be a "Hollywood-
villain judge".

For tons of openly blatant cases (some proven in court, and some bringing down
whole governments), study the history of places like Southern Europe, Latin
America, Africa, etc. (It's not that it's uncommon in the west -- they just do
it with more finesse and hide it better. Or, sometimes not, eg:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)
).

~~~
sjy
It's also naive to think that the terms of the order are "contradictory" and
indicate a failed attempt by the judge to clothe political action in legal
terms. The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's
democratically-elected parliament. It specifically requires the judge to
identify the "purpose"[1] and "grounds"[2] for issuing a suppression order.

[1]
[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o2013203/s13.html)

[2]
[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o2013203/s18.html)

~~~
coldtea
> _The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria 's
> democratically-elected parliament._

It's also naive to think "democratically-elected parliament" means much.
Democratic control in modern democracies is a joke, a one in 4 or 5 years
opportunity to vote a mere yes/no for tons of issues a party stands for.

------
jamhan
Typical "smear by association" (without any link whatsoever) from the left:
"It is ironic that it took Tony Abbott to bring the worst of 'Asian Values' to
Australia."

~~~
imaginenore
A smear? Tony Abbott is the idiot who

A) dissolved the Climate Commission, because he thinks climate change is a
hoax

B) is destroying the Great Barrier Reef by removing the carbon tax

C) appointed a climate change denier Dick Warburton to review the alternative
energy funding

D) directly cutting $435m from renewable energy agency, while removing the
mining taxes

E) asked UNESCO to remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from its World
Heritage List

The guy is the classic right wing moron who only cares about a short term
profit ala drill-drill-drill and doesn't give a shit if the environment or the
whole plant goes to shit because of it.

~~~
nness
Uh, B. isn't correct. The risk to the Great Barrier Reef is to do with a new
nearby port for coal exports. The dredging of the area is expected to unsettle
seabed which could impact the nearby reef.

Despite all that, these are all unrelated to the original post.

~~~
ScottBurson
I think what (B) is referring to is ocean acidification caused by atmospheric
carbon dioxide dissolving. This also threatens coral reefs.

------
danieltillett
I wish wikileaks would leak Gillian Bird's affidavit - this must be pretty
juicy.

~~~
malbs
I hope they don't, the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury.
The details will be released once the case has been heard.

~~~
danieltillett
Nobody reading wikileaks is ever going to serve on a jury.

~~~
sitkack
I have been a registered voter for 20 years and only called to jury duty once,
and that one I missed because I didn't open the envelope.

My only hope is that I could keep my goddamn mouth shut long enough to
actually get on one.

~~~
danieltillett
You are lucky. The whole process is incredible inefficient and wasteful of the
potential jurors time - call in 100 people and make them sit around all day in
the court house just so you can dismiss them all because the defence lawyer
wants to play games. Shakespeare was on to something I think.

~~~
thret
That was my experience the one time I got called in for jury duty. I was very
curious about the process and disappointed when I missed the final cut. I did
got into the court room, and had a look at the defendant, heard the charges...

I was hoping for an experience like '12 Angry Men'. Maybe next time.

------
yen223
Yet another reason for my home country of Malaysia to be in the news, and not
in a positive way.

Malaysia, what happened to you?

~~~
chaostheory
Nothing happened since nothing has really changed. It is South East Asia after
all.

------
sjy
Arguably, the Wikileaks summary goes too far in claiming that the order
"forbids any discloures (sic), by publication or otherwise, of any information
relating to the court case by anyone." The order is limited to disclosure that
"reveals, implies, suggests or alleges" that various specified politicians
received, attempted to receive, or were intended to receive a bribe.

It is not really clear that the orders themselves (sans the Bird affidavit)
"suggest" that bribes were attempted or intended. It's also unclear whether
the explicit inclusion of "the terms of these orders" is supposed to resolve
this question or merely state that disclosure of the orders themselves _could_
be an offence.

Perhaps this explains why the affidavit itself wasn't leaked.

~~~
hadoukenio
The ABC has a writeup today about WikiLeaks publishing the suppression order,
but gives _zero_ information about what was in. I think that gives a good
indication as to what the ABC's legal team thought about publishing the
contents of the suppression order:

    
    
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-30/wikileaks-publish-details-of-suppression/5634800
    

It's going to be interesting to see what the papers say tomorrow. But even
more importantly, it's going to be _really_ interesting to see what MediaWatch
has to say about this.

------
locusm
Is this around the RBA bank note printing scandal? Check out the Four Corners
doco on it.
[http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.htm)

~~~
nness
Good link, cheers for sharing!

~~~
locusm
np, I find the Four Corners stuff to be of super high quality.

------
pithcheroo
Interesting tidbit on the drama in vietnam.
[http://m.canberratimes.com.au/national/envoys-link-with-
viet...](http://m.canberratimes.com.au/national/envoys-link-with-viet-spy-
revealed-20120812-2433b.html)

------
femto
Followup: With the leaked court order, the Australian government has been
forced to make a media release to the effect that people (such as the
President of Indonesia) mentioned in the order are not accused of any crime
[1]. We have the amazing situation where Australian's are expected to swallow
a media release, without being allowed to know what it is about. The mind
boggles.

Mind you, this is the same system that is directing doctors not to report
hundreds of cases of self harm among child refugees [2], so the culture of
censorship is endemic.

[1] [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-
news/indone...](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-
news/indonesia-demands-explanation-from-australia-over-wikileakspublished-
court-order-20140731-zz75y.html)

[2] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-31/detention-centre-
inqui...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-31/detention-centre-inquiry-
hears-claims-of-immigration-cover-up/5637654)

------
majika
Can I publish a link to this page on my website? Or is this link now illegal
in Australia? What about a link to this HN submission?

This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, authoritarianism is the norm in Australia;
we are the quintessential nanny state.

~~~
vacri
This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. Despite
things like this, RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia
when it comes to the press, and the US doesn't have much of a socialist,
'nanny' slant. Neither does authoritarianism have anything to do with
'nanny'-ism. Is China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What
about the continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by
mustachioed gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states?

As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have a
look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states.

~~~
majika
> This kind of censorship has nothing to do with being a nanny state. ... Is
> China a nanny state? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Eritrea? What about the
> continent-spreading empires of the last century that were run by mustachioed
> gentlemen, were they 'nanny' states?

It is related, because censorship is authoritarian, and nanny-statism is
authoritarian. If the government of a democratic society thinks it should tell
its people what they can and can't say, then it's likely that that government
(i.e. society) also thinks it should intrude into people's lives and protect
them from themselves, because personal responsibility is dangerous. This
correlation certainly holds for Australia, which is why I mentioned it.

Those countries you mentioned - China, Saudi Arabia, etc - aren't democratic,
so I don't think their authoritarianism reflects the societal will. Thus, the
authoritarianism doesn't transfer to, e.g., the government telling people they
can't ride a bicycle without a helmet. Authoritarian and democratic countries
_are_ nanny-states, almost by definition: e.g., the UK, Australia, Singapore.

> RSF still rates the US as being less free than Australia when it comes to
> the press

I love the Reporters Without Borders, but I don't think their Press Freedom
Index has much merit. Not only is its methodology flawed and subjective, but
the calculation of the index is highly opaque, and so I suspect it's somewhat
politicized.

We don't know (1) the number of respondents from each country, (2) the kinds
of respondents from each country, or (3) the distribution of answers to the
questionnaire for each country. Without those things, we can't talk
empirically about press freedom. As it stands, we can only speculate on what
the simplified "index" means.

You mentioned the US as a comparison for press freedom: I'd like to point out
that the US is home to a number of organizations that publish very
controversial opinions, like Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, Cryptome, The Intercept,
etc. I find it very, very difficult to imagine these organizations existing in
Australia (or many of the countries at the top of the RSF's index) -- don't
you? I mean, it's illegal to publish "racist" opinion here, and the majority
of Australian society seems fine with that - any American I mention that to
laughs in my face, and rightly so.

Furthermore, the US also has a number of excellent (at times) news
organizations, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, and PBS.
Sure, these organizations are influenced by the US government, but influence
isn't quantitative. To say that the ABC, or the Sydney Morning Herald, or Nine
are influenced by the Australian government _less_ is mere speculation.

All news organizations are influenced by the society to which they serve, and
the government to which they report on. You should always try to vary who and
where you get your news from, and always be aware of bias.

> As for whether it's a good thing or not to be a 'nanny' state, perhaps have
> a look at the quality of life in the 'nanny' versus non-'nanny' states.

As an Australian, I don't think banning psychoactive drugs, nor banning
"racist" speech, nor mandatory bike helmets, nor bar lockouts at 12pm, nor
homeschooling restrictions do anything to improve the quality of life here. In
fact, I think those policies harm the quality of life significantly.

Australia's economic success (and thus "quality of life") is thanks to its
(small-l) liberal economic policies of the 80s and 90s, and the resources boom
of the 00s -- not because I can't buy a joint at a cafe here.

FWIW, if you're basing your judgment of "quality of life" on the UN Human
Development Index, know that that is another highly simplified and flawed
index. I'll let you look into that on your own. The HDI certainly isn't a
ranking of quality of life - but a well-traveled person like yourself would
know that, right?

~~~
Tloewald
Generally, "nanny-state" refers to the presence or absence of a social safety
net, and not so much to censorship. The US provides less of a safety net.

As for authoritarian-ness, the press freedoms in the US are greater
(Australia's libel laws are terrible, for example) but the US also
incarcerates its citizens at a frightening rate, executes people, seizes
property, and runs a prison camp on an island specifically to deny inmates
normal rights. You decide which is worse.

------
igonvalue
Don't forget to click the "Read the full press release here" link for more
context from WikiLeaks. For some reason, I thought that would just take me to
the original document located further down the same page (so I didn't find the
page until I got to it indirectly via search engine). I wonder if anyone else
made the same mistake?

[https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-
order/press.html](https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/press.html)

------
robzyb
> Subject to further order, order 1 does not prevent provision of material by
> the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to Note Printing Australia
> Pty Ltd and its legal representatives, provided any such material is
> provided together with a copy of these orders.

Unsurprising given:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Printing_Australia#2007_co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_Printing_Australia#2007_corruption_allegations)

~~~
hadoukenio
As an Australian, the suppression order forbids me from amending the above
Wikipedia article to include a note to the suppression order (how meta):

"4.The prohibition on publication in order 1 applies throughout Australia."

If someone outside of Australia were to do this however...

Edit: 1 hour after I made this comment, nobody from outside of Australia seems
to have updated the page :(

~~~
jacques_chester
It appears to have been made under Victorian jurisdiction, which happens a lot
because of their suppression laws. Strictly speaking, they can't prevent
publication in other states, but they _can_ punish anyone or anything in
Victoria. That's why an order made in Victoria will stop the major media.

~~~
hadoukenio
Even though it's a state issue, I still wouldn't advise an Australian resident
to post anything, even if you're not in Victoria.

Still, 2 hours after my comment and a non-Australian has yet to take the hint
to edit the Wikipedia page :(

~~~
hadoukenio
Thank you, anonymous non-Australian for updating the Wikipedia page!

------
camino020
Australia's head of state is the queen of England ruling them through her
Governor General. What other things don't they don't know? Oh, and by the way
same goes for Canada.

~~~
nly
Not the Queen of England per se, since technically the Australian sovereign is
the 'Queen of Australia' and the Canadian head-of-state the 'Queen of Canada'.
They happen to both be Queen Elizabeth II, but legally they're distinct and
these roles have little to do with the UK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Australia)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada)

------
tomjen3
Since HN is not in Australia, what exactly is it that we are not allowed to
know?

------
Estragon

      ...unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in 
      Melbourne, Victoria...
    

Minor nit: It sounds like strictly speaking, this order is from the Victorian
Supreme Court (state level), not the Australian Supreme Court, which is the
High Court in Canberra.

[http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/](http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia)

~~~
fblp
Court hierarchy in Australia is: 1\. High Court of Australia 2\. Federal Court
of Australia 3\. State Supreme Courts 4\. Magistrates / Local Courts

This means there are two courts of appeal above the Victorian Supreme Court
where this order was made. This is not about prejudicing the jury as these
sorts of cases are usually decided by a judge with no jury in Australia.

~~~
sjy
The hierarchy has branches; the Federal Court isn't above the State Supreme
Courts in any meaningful sense. Appeals from a State Supreme Court go to a
State Court of Appeal and don't touch the federal system unless they are
ultimately appealed to the High Court.

------
tootie
Isn't this pretty normal? In the US a judge can bar the press from covering a
trial in progress if they believe it could prejudice the jury or create a
circus. They will still be allowed to report everything once there's a
verdict.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In the US a judge can bar the press from covering a trial in progress if
> they believe it could prejudice the jury or create a circus.

No, they can't. In the US, a judge can bar media from proceedings and order
people involved in a case (parties, witnesses, etc.) not to comment on it, and
can thereby prohibit most ways in which the media would get information about
it, but cannot generally order the media not to report on it (rules allowing
that have in the past been adopted, and generally been struck down as
unconstitutional.) The media are generally free to report material leaked in
violation of such gag orders, although the leaker may be subject to sanctions.

~~~
tootie
You're right and that's an important distinction, but it looks that's actually
what's in this order as well. They are not making it illegal to report, just
to divulge the information. If It leaks, it's fair game.

